Global Research

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

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.

***

New paper: Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation by Lennart Hardell, Mona Nilsson

Abstract

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

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.

***

Last year marked six decades since the publication of Rachel Carson’s seminal work Silent Spring, the book often credited with inspiring the modern environmental movement (at least in North America).

One impactful line from the book stands out as being even more true today than it was in 1962: “Every human being is now subjected to contact with dangerous chemicals, from the moment of conception until death.”

Chemical pollutants have been found in rainwater, at Earth’s highest and lowest points, and in human placentas and fetuses. A study published earlier this year found glyphosate residues in 80 percent of a representative sample. There are discoveries about new frontiers that man-made chemicals have surpassed virtually every month.

Many of the chemicals Carson described by name are still in wide circulation today and thousands more have been synthesized and marketed since then. As John Bellamy Foster and Brett Clark put it, “Despite a number of victories, Carson and those who followed in her footsteps lost the war against synthetic pesticides.”

We lost because the environmental movement took the wrong lessons from Silent Spring, focusing on Carson’s expository work—the compelling description of the human and ecological damage being caused—and ignoring her explanations of how and why we got here. The movement seized on the idea that public awareness was all that was missing, but it failed to understand the more radical part of her analysis: that the devastation was being wrought primarily to create markets for an over productive chemical industry, not because of some kind of innate, consumer-driven demand for poison.

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), the chemical that inspired Carson’s book, provides an illustrative example. The US government coordinated large amounts of DDT production during the Second World War in order to use it to treat lice and eliminate typhus among soldiers. As the war came to an end, massive amounts of DDT (and DDT manufacturing capacity) needed a new market. The US government and the nascent chemical industry worked in coordination to create that market by selling DDT, both literally and figuratively, to the general public. Carson went so far as saying it wasn’t just chemicals that needed a market after the war: large numbers of surplus planes and pilots did, too, driving the push for widespread aerial spraying campaigns.

In another example of state-sponsored market creation, Carson discussed the fire ant. It had been endemic in the southern US since the First World War but was generally considered nothing more than a nuisance and not a major threat to agricultural production until 1957, when the US government embarked on an anti-fire ant marketing campaign. They ran ad campaigns and even produced films aimed at rebranding the fire ant as the biggest threat to agriculture in the South. Having painted a picture of the ant as an enemy, the state then initiated a multi-million dollar spraying program in the region, giving chemical companies a massive new source of revenue. Carson managed to dig up a quote from an industry trade journal that said the quiet part out loud: ”United States pesticide makers appear to have tapped a sales bonanza in the increasing numbers of broad-scale pest elimination programs conducted by the US Department of Agriculture.”

The proliferation of pesticide use in the postwar era wasn’t a natural response to a new, useful technology. It was proactively driven by capitalists—often leveraging the state itself as a tool—seeking to solve their postwar overproduction crisis and ensure continual growth.

Production patterns inaugurated by the Second World War shaped our futures in other areas, too: plastics followed an almost identical pattern to organic pesticides. Plastic was a relatively new material before the war but it proved to be extremely useful for the military; productive capacity grew dramatically to meet that need. At the end of the war, the plastic industry needed to find new markets, which it did by creating the culture of disposability we see today. As one researcher put it, “We were trained to buy this stuff.”

The context of the war was somewhat unique (although US warmongering throughout the latter half of the 20th century continued to prove a cash cow for the chemical industry), but the phenomenon at play—the need for capitalists to find or create new markets to support constant growth and excess productive capacity—is not. Virtually every environmental woe we have today is at least in part a result of the same mechanism.

Glyphosate, an organophosphate that hadn’t yet been identified as a potent herbicide when Carson was writing, has, in just thirty years, become the most widely used herbicide in history. Its story demonstrates the many avenues by which industry creates and entrenches demand for destructive (and often unneeded) products, all while manipulating the public sphere to protect itself.

Glyphosate was first released as an herbicide in 1974 under the trade name “Roundup,” but its use didn’t explode until the mid-1990s when Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) released the first “Roundup Ready” crops, genetically modified plants that could tolerate direct application of glyphosate during the growing season. This development facilitated a whole new approach to industrial agriculture—one that used much higher amounts of herbicide. Within just two decades of the release of the GMO crops, 19 billion pounds of the chemical had been used.

Roundup Ready crops were a technological development, but they also represented a new frontier for the monopolization of agriculture and the creation and perpetuation of demand for Monsanto’s products: by selling them, Monsanto was able to lock farmers that chose to use their crops into their herbicide (and vice versa). The new crops encouraged farmers to use more Roundup than ever before, quickly making glyphosate into a cash crop of its own.

Widespread use of herbicides, as Carson pointed out 60 years ago, inevitably leads to one thing: resistant weeds and the need for new, more toxic alternatives. Glyphosate has been no exception to this rule. But resistance, it turns out, isn’t a problem for chemical manufacturers—it’s a business plan. They’re all developing GMO crops resistant to other herbicides and patenting and selling new herbicide formulations to sell to farmers desperate to control the superweeds these products have created. As Carson put it, “Chemical control is self-perpetuating, needing frequent and costly repetition.” It is part of the “modern trend to built-in obsolescence.”

Roundup Ready crops didn’t just accelerate the already-present treadmill of herbicide application and resistance: they enabled Monsanto to use legal tools and the nature of both seed and aerosol spraying to force farmers to use their products against their wishes.

Monsanto patented the genes defining their Roundup Ready trait and went to work rooting out farmers—complete with a snitch line—who accidentally ended up with Roundup-resistant strains growing on their property. In Canada in 1998, just a few years after the crops first became available, Monsanto sued a farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and won: the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that even though Schmeiser didn’t knowingly plant Monsanto’s seeds, he was still in violation of their patent.

The Union of Concerned Scientists published a study in 2004—just a handful of years into the GMO crop revolution—finding that (patented) GMO DNA had already contaminated large portions of the ostensibly non-engineered seed supply.

A report published by the Center for Food Safety in 2013 found that both Monsanto and DuPont, another major agrochemical company, had large numbers of staff (and in some cases, third-party private investigators) focused solely on identifying farmers with herbicide-resistant GMO crops growing on their property, whether intentionally or not. At the time the report was published, US courts had awarded Monsanto nearly $24 million dollars in these cases, but that doesn’t include those settled out of court and, more significantly, it doesn’t include the profits Monsanto made by using these legal tools to scare farmers into paying for their products.

Herbicides are generally sprayed, which means that spray can drift beyond where it’s intended. Farmers that choose not to use these herbicide-resistant strains (and, as such, don’t apply herbicides during the growing season) can be impacted by neighbouring farms that are using them. With the growing ubiquity of herbicide-resistant GMO crops (and the heavy spraying practices that come with them), that pressure can drive farmers to use Monsanto’s products. In one particularly egregious example, Monsanto released a dicamba-and-glyphosate-resistant strain before the US government had approved the version of dicamba they intended to sell with the crop. Farmers that bought the new dicamba-resistant seeds went ahead and used other, pre-existing forms of dicamba that were more prone to drift and devastated their neighbours’ crops.

The agrochemical companies aren’t held responsible when herbicide drift happens, but they gain another lifetime customer every time a farmer is forced to start using their herbicide-resistant crops after having their harvest damaged by drift too many times.

These companies also use international trade law, international institutions, and the soft power of host countries (predominantly the US) to create and protect their markets around the world. The most straightforward way they do this is by campaigning against bans on their products in other jurisdictions. A Reuters investigation reported that the US government and Bayer (which bought Monsanto in 2018) worked together to force Thailand to back out of a plan to ban glyphosate. Just last year, the Guardian reported that Bayer, CropLife America (a trade association), and the US government were exerting similar pressure on Mexico in advance of a proposed ban on glyphosate.

Glyphosate was first released as an herbicide in 1974 under the trade name “Roundup,” but its use didn’t explode until the mid-1990s when Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) released the first “Roundup Ready” crops.

But they use more proactive tactics, too, leveraging philanthropic organizations backed by the billionaire class that owns these corporations, state power, and international institutions to force their way into new markets, particularly in the Global South. The Rockefeller Foundation, with the backing of the US government, was instrumental in bringing industrial agriculture to (or forcing it upon) the Global South during the postwar era, along with the dependence on proprietary seeds, inputs, and machinery that it brings. They opened up vast new markets in Asia and Latin America for northern agrochemical companies.

The process has been repeating itself over the last two decades with genetically modified crops and potential markets that were “left behind” by the previous Green Revolution, spearheaded by groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), founded by those two foundations and supported by international institutions and Global North countries, including Canada, is working to bring genetically modified, commodified seeds, and industrial farming to Africa. According to their own “Results to Date” infographic, one of their main achievements so far has been commercializing 562 seed varieties.

There is a reasonable discussion to be had about the impacts of industrial farming on total yield and the costs and benefits for human and ecological health in a region. But there’s one thing that’s very clear: bringing large-scale commercialized agriculture that is heavily dependent on proprietary seeds and proprietary chemical inputs to a region that is dominated by smallhold peasant farming represents a massive new market for agrochemical companies. And it’s not necessarily a willing market: as Ashok Kumbamu, a sociologist at Mayo Clinic, wrote, a “philanthropic-corporate-state complex” is driving what he calls today’s “Gene Revolution” and leading to “the dispossession of millions of primary agricultural producers from their means of production, nature, and indigenous knowledge systems.”

This agricultural revolution is a mechanism by which capitalism manufactures the proletariat, transforming subsistence farmers existing largely outside the global capitalist system into wage-earners that have to pay rent to the owning class in order to survive.

The industry’s push into Africa isn’t just about new markets: it’s also about creating new products (with captive markets) by patenting and commodifying genetic material of plant strains produced over thousands of years by local farmers. It’s a modern, biotechnology-based form of a process known as “enclosure of the commons.” AGRA funds research focused on identifying, breeding, or engineering high-yield varieties that produce well at large scales in various regions in Africa. When they find those varieties, they encourage the patenting and commercialization of them—indeed (it’s one of their highlighted accomplishments). This forces farmers who have themselves carefully produced climate-adapted crops over hundreds of generations to start purchasing seeds annually from corporate owners.

As Carol Thompson, a professor of political science who studies the interactions between global capital and smallholder farmers, put it, “Removing seed from the public sector and privatising it are the coercive innovations that AGRA finances.”

Companies selling glyphosate have also used some of the traditional tactics that Carson wrote about to create self-perpetuating markets by shaping government regulation and government-funded programs. In Canada, for example, glyphosate is used regularly by the logging industry, sprayed on clear-cuts to kill non-coniferous plants in an alleged effort to make their monoculture plantations more productive. The catch, aside from the obvious ecocidal side effects, is that thanks to the research of scientists like Dr. Suzanne Simard, we’ve known that this strategy doesn’t really work for decades. But it’s so entrenched—thanks to the agrochemical industry’s massaging of our legal systems to guarantee a long term market—that both government and private companies are still doing it, poisoning our ecosystems along the way (don’t pick berries in a clear-cut).

Power line rights-of-way, railroad tracks, road margins, and more are also sprayed with glyphosate (and other herbicides) in Canada. But as Carson pointed out in 1962, these annual spraying programs are environmentally destructive and unnecessary. Selective treatment of tall shrubs and trees would, at least in many cases, accomplish the same goal with less work, less expenditure, and less ecological devastation, but, predictably enough, these are programs supported (if not created) by chemical companies because it establishes a permanent growing market for them.

Carson gave us a vivid and compelling description of the barren world that the agrochemical industry was creating. But hidden within that was a clear analysis of why it was happening: the inherent drive to accumulation within capitalism and the willingness of corporations and capitalists to use every tool available to them, including the state itself, to create markets and grow profit. The climate crisis has shown itself to be a symptom of the same fundamental problem over and over again, from the auto industry shaping suburbia and manipulating the public into wanting ever larger vehicles to the fossil fuel industry funding academia, spreading disinformation, and using the power of the state to block divestment campaigns.

It’s not just environmental problems: the opioid crisis emerged as a result of the same drive and through many of the same mechanisms, and of course, the infamous tobacco industry did too.

Capitalists saw the depth of Carson’s critique even while the environmental movement didn’t. That’s why there’s still a website called “RachelWasWrong.com” today espousing the “life-enhancing value of chemicals.” It’s funded by right-wing think tanks like The Heartland Institute and it’s just another entry in the 60-year campaign to discredit her work and distract attention from the real issues.

The answer to the ongoing chemical apocalypse is not to vigorously fight each chemical. Nor is the answer to the climate crisis to vigorously fight each individual source of emission. And neither answer is to convince the users of these products—the farmers and the foresters, drivers and airplane travelers—to stop. Instead, we have to address the way that corporations create, shape, and control demand, leveraging the state as a tool. Demand-focused policy that pins the blame on so-called consumers can never do that.

An effective environmental movement has to be one that pursues policies aimed at disempowering the capitalist class and loosening its grip on state power. Anything less just leaves us on the same kind of chemical treadmill as industrial agriculture: every time our resistance to one disaster grows, capitalists will simply seize it as an opportunity to sell us a new one.

*

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.

Nick Gottlieb is a climate writer based in northern BC and the author of the newsletter Sacred Headwaters. His work focuses on understanding the power dynamics driving today’s interrelated crises and exploring how they can be overcome. Follow him on Twitter @ngottliebphoto.

Featured image: Fertilizing, May 1972. Photo by Charles O’Rear from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Documerica project/US National Archives/Flickr.

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

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.

***

Since January 1, the UK has banned Russian LNG imports and is looking to other producers such as the US to meet demand. On January 9 the UK government announced it is extending the support it provides to companies regarding their energy bills for another year – which will cost around £ 5. bn. However, this is not enough and business representatives have warned that they cannot help but pass on extra costs to customers, thus contributing to an increase in inflation, according to Irish macroeconomist Philip Pilkington. These two pieces of news are not unrelated.

The British economy has been collapsing, largely due to high energy costs, as I’ve written, and those, in turn, have everything to do with the Western economic warfare against Russia which has backfired. For the same reason, a new depression also haunts Europe. Moreover, the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 project (now gone) , against which Washington campaigned so heavily, could have avoided the current energy crisis in Europe. This is a geoeconomic and geopolitical crisis which serves American interests quite well. In today’s plight, energy, economy, geopolitics and industry issues are all intertwined.

The economics and energy crises and the European deindustrialization they may bring about cannot be understood without taking into consideration the crisis in Ukraine and the geoeconomics of European reliance on Russian gas.

Russia is the world’s second-largest natural gas producer, and, in 2021, Germany, Turkey, and Italy were the world’s main importers of Russian gas. In 2021, Europe imported 2.4 million barrels per day (bpd) from the Eurasian power. Russia natural gas in fact accounted for almost 40% of EU gas imports in 2021 (160 bcm). In 2021, as a response to Moscow’s military campaign in Ukraine, EU state members committed to reducing gas imports from Russia and in fact overachieved their own goals: imports have fallen from 40% to about 4%, thus apparently ending what could be described as a half-century long mutually beneficial relationship.

As a result, gas prices have risen, which makes European industry uncompetitive and, in the post-Nord Stream world, this reality has come to stay for a very long time.

As a response, EU regulators will start publishing a daily liquified natural gas (LNG) price assessment on January 13, as part of the bloc’s plans to make pricing more transparent and to form a continental benchmark price – to avoid European countries bidding against each other for supplies (thus risking driving up prices even more).

Even though European gas prices have now fallen, their future remains uncertain due to weather shifts and storage issues. According to Ashley Kelty, a Panmure Gordon’s oil and gas director, the forecast is for Europe to exit the winter season with less than 15% in storage, which is much lower than the historic average of 30-35% – and this will result in prices remaining high, with the higher demand to refill. Kelty believes that, due to the absence of Russian supplies, among other factors, prices should remain high for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, as the global competition for fuel is heating up, once China emerges out of COVID, for instance, it will once again be a huge demand player, thereby potentially leaving Europe to compete for what remains available with one of the biggest buyers in the market, warns Toby Copson, Trident LNG’s global head.

Pilkington in turn argues that European gas imports are at their lowest in recent history because LNG imports have simply reached their upper limit. The 2400mcm per week or so seems to be a hard limit that won’t be crossed anytime soon. Thus, according to Pilkington, we can expect a huge energy crisis in Europe in 2023, which will collapse European economies and the UK.

Although warmer than usual temperatures this winter have held the demand for heating back, thus prompting a fall in natural gas prices and an increase in gas storage, this good performance, the economist warns, is “not game-changing”. Some experts estimate the EU could face a 30 Bcm deficit for 2023-24.

European economies might endure this winter, the prospect is not good. At this point one can only speculate, but one can expect an European economic collapse and the resulting deindustrialization and social unrest to strengthen the so-called populist camp in Europe, with a possible impact on elections, and on foreign policy. Even an European leader such as French President Emmanuel Macron himself has been talking about the possibility of the political West becoming divided over US policies and industry and subsidies wars.

Since the aftermath of WWII, Europe has relied on the US for security, while relying up until 2022 on Russia for gas. This has been the latent geoeconomic-geostrategic contradiction within the bloc which seems to be short-circuting now. With regards to oil and gas, trading links are largely dictated by geography, regardless of the political will. This being so, Russian-EU cooperation on energy has always been a strategic matter for both concerned parties, while the US agenda has been one of trying to disrupt any such Eurasian cooperation.

To sum it up, the current US-backed conflict in Ukraine and its economic and energy outcomes has proved itself disastrous not only to Kiev and to Ukrainians, but also to the EU and the UK, as well as the West itself. Europe cannot afford to decouple from Russia energetically and cannot easily separate from the US-led NATO’s structure, even when American geopolitical goals collide with the continent’s interests. This is Europe’s main sovereignty contradiction and its great drama today.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

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

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 is already a de facto member of NATO.” — Oleksii Reznikov, Defense Minister of Ukraine

If reports are correct that modern Western weapon systems are slated to pour into Ukraine–the latest US and German tanks, Patriot missile systems, and other current weaponry–Minister Reznikov is correct.  

These weapons imply that Ukraine has enough soldiers left to use them.  It will require months to prepare Ukraine for these weapons.  A logistical system is necessary for the delivery, maintenance, and protection of the weaponry from Russian air and missile attack.  This will require US/NATO personnel on the ground in Ukraine if the weapons are to be effectively used.  

In other words, the “limited military operation” has widened into a war between the US/NATO/Ukraine and Russia.  

Apparently, it is going to be a war without a NATO declaration of war. 

The reason is that if all the weaponry promised is delivered, NATO and the US will be without fighting ability except in Ukraine where the weapons will be located.  Russia could, if she had the leadership, simply sweep through weapons-depleted Baltics and Finland around Germany into France and circle back to Serbia, leaving East and West Europe cut off and surrounded.  But this would make the war officially one with NATO, and the US would have to use its only means–nuclear weapons.

So it looks as if Russia will continue to pretend that there is only a limited military operation,  and US/NATO will continue to pretend that the weapons are just aid to Ukraine.

A Russian military operation that the Kremlin should have completed in a few days eight years ago has now, once belatedly begun, extended another year.  The consequence of the Kremlin’s unpreparedness and endless delay is a full-fledged involvement of US/NATO in the war with the aim of retaking Donbass and Crimea from Russia.  The increased Ukrainian firepower means far more Russian casualties, and Washington’s involvement has passed the threshold at which Washington can accept a Russian victory.

It short, the Kremlin has blown its opportunity, and we are headed toward Armageddon.

*

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 where this article  was originally published. 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 InfoBrics

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

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 decision by Budapest to block the so-called European integration of Kosovo, despite already recognising Serbia’s southern province as an independent state, is motivated by the sovereign foreign policy enforced by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who not only seeks to defend international law, but also preserve friendly relations with Serbia.

Hungary is not among the five EU members (Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia, and Spain) that refuse to recognise Kosovo’s independence. Hungary’s recognition of Kosovo was carried out by Orbán’s predecessors in 2008. None-the-less, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said on January 10 that his country will vote against Kosovo’s membership in European bodies.

Despite recognising Kosovo, Hungary is perhaps the only country in the EU today that truly pursues a sovereigntist policy. Serbia, a non-EU member, is one of the few countries in all of Europe to also pursue a sovereign policy. With both countries being neighbours and having deep historic links, it is only natural that they are friendly today.

With Kosovo applying for EU membership in December and announcing its intentions to do the same with the Council of Europe, moves that have overwhelming support in Brussels, Hungary has not shied away from defending Serbia.

Responding to these actions in a joint press conference with his Serbian counterpart Ivica Dačić, Szijjarto said that:

“The premature admission of Kosovo by various European entities may jeopardise the search for reconciliation. Therefore, if there is a vote on whether to accept Kosovo as a member of the Council of Europe, the government will vote no.”

For his part, Dačić said that the Kosovo issue can only be resolved through concessions.

“We believe that the issue of Kosovo can only be resolved by compromise and we are very sensitive that it is approached in accordance with the policy of double standards when it comes to territorial integrity,” said Dačić. “Either territorial integrity is a principle, or it is not. You can’t be in favour of preserving territorial integrity in one case, and say it the other way around.”

Belgrade and Pristina have been in an EU-led dialogue on the normalisation of relations since 2011, and naturally little progress has been made since Brussels is unrelenting in its recognition and support for Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. This is despite the fact that it violated international law, specifically UNSC Resolution 1244, which established a temporary international administration in the province and guaranteed the territorial integrity of Serbia.

The Serbian foreign minister then stressed that the security of ethnic Serbs in Kosovo must be ensured.

“If KFOR does not want to do this and if the Kosovo police do not want to do it, then do not take us to the point that the Serbian police and army must guarantee security and peace in Kosovo. This is something we would not want,” he stressed.

The Orbán administration is aware that it is nearly impossible for Kosovo to become an EU member as there are five states which will VETO such a move. None-the-less, given that Kosovo is nothing more than a NATO military occupation and a hub for Albanian narcotics and human trafficking, Orbán fears the repercussions that such a country could have on his own if it were to become an EU member.

Just as importantly, there is a personal friendly relationship between Orbán and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, which is reflective of the strong relations that modern Hungary and Serbia have developed. Despite this development though, even Orbán has limitations and it unlikely that Budapest will reverse its recognition of Kosovo as an independent state in the foreseeable future. It must be taken into account that Hungary is an EU and NATO member and has certain obligations towards its partners.

As the majority of EU and NATO members recognise Kosovo’s independence, we cannot expect Hungary to reverse its recognition overnight, especially since the country is already under intense pressure for its position on the war in Ukraine.

Despite the West’s unwavering position, it has not stopped pressure from mounting on the ruling Albanian authorities in Kosovo. Serbia demands for the establishment of the Association of Serb Municipalities, a structure that would have executive powers, but something that Kosovo’s so-called Prime Minister Albin Kurti and the Constitutional Court have ruled out.

This has not, surprisingly, stopped the West from pressuring Kosovo, with a senior US Department of State advisor, Derek Chollet saying on January 11 that

“Kosovo must fulfill all commitments within the dialogue, including the formation of the Association of municipalities with a Serbian majority”.

None-the-less, with more and more countries withdrawing their recognition of Kosovo, albeit all non-European countries, the West are desperately trying to conclude an agreement between Belgrade and Pristina. For this reason, Chollet uses language like

“We believe that the government of Kosovo should celebrate that diversity and should establish policies that bring success to all Kosovars, regardless of their ethnicity.”

But Pristina is not interested in building an inclusive state, but rather an Albanian supremacist state, a prospect that Hungary absolutely refuses to support, and for this reason is standing by its Serbian partner in a strong way.

*

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: Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (Source: New Eastern Outlook)

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

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.

***

First published on October 14, 2022

Changes in the medical screening practices of the Red Cross for blood donor eligibility have been observed. The questionnaires now include the record of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. The medication deferral list includes the experimental vaccines as they may affect a person’s eligibility to donate blood. When the pandemic began in 2020, the Red Cross began testing blood donors for COVID-19 antibodies but they have completely stopped the procedure and now focus on vaccines. 

A person who would like to donate blood to the Red Cross needs to read and answer a list of questions to find out if they are eligible. The Red Cross assures the public that donors who received COVID-19 shots can still give blood as long as they are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of donation. However, under the eligibility guidelines applied to vaccine recipients, a donor needs to provide the name of the manufacturer of the vaccine received to determine the deferral time to be implemented.

A Need for a Greater Blood Supply

Challenges in the blood supply were already present even before the emergence of COVID-19. The pandemic brought about a crisis for blood services as the spread of infection caused cancellations of blood drives. In 2022, the number of weekly cases has continued to decrease, and local governments have started to loosen public health restrictions. The worst part of the pandemic appears to have passed, but crises in the blood supply have not ended.

The concern about blood availability is not due to increased demand for transfusion, but because of the decline in supply due to reduced donations. As a result of the unprecedented blood supply shortage, hospitals are forced to delay or reschedule surgeries. To prevent these problems, the Red Cross continues to encourage the public to donate blood.

COVID-19 Vaccine and Blood Donation

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) to Pfizer-BioNTech on December 11, 2020. Since then, different varieties of vaccines have been developed against COVID-19 such as messenger RNA (mRNA), vector vaccine, and protein subunit vaccine. As of October 1, 2022, about 68% of the world’s population has received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

With the majority of the population receiving jabs, the screening process for blood now includes the donors’ vaccination status. As part of the Red Cross screening process, the blood donor is asked a series of personal questions to ensure that it is safe for patients to receive their blood and that it is safe for the donor to give blood on the appointed day.

On March 17, 2020, Gail McGovern, president and chief executive officer of the American Red Cross reassured the public that “blood donation is a safe process, and that we have put additional precautions in place at our drive drives.”

Eligibility Guidelines Concerning COVID Shots

Ten organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), FDA, and Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), released various recommendations on the deferral periods for blood donors who had received COVID-19 vaccine. The deferral periods range from zero to 28 days, depending on whether the donor received a live or inactivated vaccine.

Among these organizations, the Red Cross follows the eligibility guidelines set by the FDA. Updated information for blood establishments regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and blood donation was released by the FDA on January 11, 2022. It suggests that individuals who received a nonreplicating, inactivated, or mRNA-based vaccine can give blood without a waiting period, and there’s a short waiting period (e.g., 14 days) for donors who received a live-attenuated shot. As a response to these requirements, the Red Cross released the COVID-19 Vaccine & Booster Blood Donation Guide for Donors where the donor is expected to report the name of the vaccine manufacturer during the screening process.

Concerns for the Blood Recipients

There are significant differences in the public’s acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines, and this has also affected the acceptance of blood transfusions from COVID-19 vaccinated donors. Some patients refuse blood transfusions and demand physicians to disclose details of the donor, including whether the donor received a COVID-19 vaccine.

As reported in TrialSite, there are concerns about why vaccinated individuals are allowed to donate blood within two weeks after receiving the shot if the spike proteins circulate in the body for up to a month after mRNA vaccination. A study by the Stanford University Department of Pathology revealed that the blood of Pfizer vaccine recipients contains at least as much spike protein as unvaccinated individuals who were infected by the virus.

The Australian Red Cross advises donors to wait three days after receiving each jab before donating blood, plasma, or platelets regardless of the type of vaccine received because of the possible side effects such as mild fever.

Antibody Testing for Blood Donors

In the early period of the pandemic, the Red Cross tested all blood, platelet, and plasma donations for COVID-19 antibodies. The result helped inform the donors whether they have been exposed to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS Cov-2), the virus that carries COVID-19.

The antibody test was authorized by the FDA and helped indicate if the donor’s immune system had produced antibodies to the coronavirus, regardless of the development of symptoms. It was implemented for a limited time from June 15 – 30, 2020. They discontinued the program when infection rates decreased and new treatment options became available.

A positive result from the antibody test does not confirm infection or immunity, as it only indicates potential exposure to the virus.

Are We Repeating History?

Blood transfusion is one of the most frequently performed medical procedures, yet this practice has historically been mired in controversy such as when African-Americans were banned from donating blood during World War II. This was followed by a lifetime ban on blood donations on men who had sex with men (MSM) during the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. During the mid-twentieth century, the U.S. National Blood Program encouraged blood donation and ensured that gender, race, and sexuality would not influence the transfusion process.

Practices in blood donation have improved, but the societal views of it remain controversial. The issues surrounding COVID-19 vaccines have led some patients to get worried about becoming infected with COVID-19 or developing long-term effects from the vaccine itself.

According to the AABB, there is no evidence that donated blood from COVID-19-vaccinated donors may pose a risk to recipients. It recognizes the importance of protecting blood donors and the blood supply by maintaining donor anonymity. Data privacy is also acknowledged by numerous organizations, as they consider it to be crucial in maintaining the relationship between volunteer blood donors and blood transfusion services.

*

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 licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

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

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.

***

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

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 US is facing major moves by the global community to de-dollarize their economies.  The reserve status of the US dollar will eventually come to an end, maybe not anytime soon, but sometime in the future as it is facing numerous challenges not only from major powers such as Russia and China who are actively trying to rid themselves of the toxic currency, but also countries with smaller economies who are based in the Southeast Asian region which includes Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos.  The globalist think tank, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) published an article on August 22^nd, 2022, on the US dollar’s waning influence in Southeast Asia titled ‘Southeast Asia’s Growing Interest in Non-dollar Financial Channels—and the Renminbi’s Potential Role’ stated what was taking place between China and several Southeast Asian countries:

China’s central bank—announced the launch of a new emergency liquidity arrangement that can be funded using renminbi and tapped by participating central banks during times of market stress. Three of the five participating central banks are Singapore’s, Malaysia’s, and Indonesia’s, which each recently renewed agreements with the PBOC implicitly aimed at reducing dollar usage in cross-border payments. This follows policymakers in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar all announcing efforts to reduce dollar usage, as well as comments by Indonesia’s central bank head that consumers across five of Southeast Asia’s largest economies will soon be able to make intra-regional cross-border payments via linkages that avoid using the dollar as an intermediary, as is currently often the case

Interestingly, The CEIP listed several reasons why Southeast Asian countries want to dramatically reduce the use of US dollars are as follows:

Several factors are behind the various efforts aimed at reducing dollar usage in Southeast Asia. To begin with, many officials are concerned about the potential economic impacts of U.S. monetary policy tightening on the region given its high usage of the dollar; accordingly, some are seeking to reduce usage of the dollar in intra-regional trade payments as a means of curbing dollar reliance more broadly. Recent sanctions may also be spurring demand for alternative financial channels—for example, Myanmar’s military government is actively exploring how to circumvent EU and U.S. sanctions to transact with Russia

According to an article published by almayadeen.net ‘Bank Indonesia calls against payments in US Dollars’ who translated the report by an Indonesian news portal called Tempo.net on what Nugroho Joko Prastowo of the Solo Bank Indonesia Representative Office said regarding Indonesian businesses using national currencies to reduce its reliance on the US dollar:

Bank Indonesia has urged importers and exporters to use national currencies in international payments in order to reduce Indonesian financial markets’ reliance on the US dollar, according to Tempo.co, an Indonesian news portal.  “About 90% of export-import payments are conducted in US dollars, while the share of Indonesian direct exports to the US is estimated at only 10%, and US imports account for 5%”

The report also mentioned that “China, Japan, Thailand, and Malaysia have already agreed to use the two-way payment mechanism, with Singapore and the Philippines planning to join the system, according to the economist.”  

Another article published by the globaltimes.cn on December 15^th, 2021, ‘GT Exclusive: Myanmar accepts yuan as official settlement currency for border trade with China’ said that Myanmar’s usage of Chinese yuan will help break the US dollar dominance in the long term:

The yuan was included in the list of Myanmar’s official settlement currencies in January 2019. The move at that time was more symbolic, as all contracts and trade were still not settled in the Chinese currency.  Zhou said that the move, in the long term, will help break the monopoly of the US dollar in Myanmar’s foreign currency reserves.  The US has been abusing the dollar’s dominant status to impose arbitrary sanctions on other countries, and the yuan’s further expansion in Myanmar’s trade settlements may provide a shield against such a potential weapon, analysts said

Cambodia is on Board Dumping US Dollars

Why Cambodia with a population of close to 17 million people and a much smaller economic impact on the world’s economy is willing to drop US dollars is an important development.  The Diplomat, a current-affairs magazine based on analysis and commentaries from various authors on developments throughout Asia and the rest of the world published an article by Luke Hunt on the case of Cambodia’s attempt to stop using US dollars titled ‘Cambodia Reduces its Dependency on the US Dollar’ lays out the mood of the Cambodian government.

“Ever since United Nations peacekeepers arrived in war-torn Cambodia to oversee elections held in 1993, the U.S. dollar has been a mainstay of the local economy with a dual currency system providing steady exchange rates in a volatile place” but there is a monumental shift taking place when the National Bank of Cambodia (NBC) announced that it “would phase-out small-denominated U.S. dollar bills – $1, $2, and $5 notes – following negotiations with banks and micro-finance institutions (MFIs).”  Naturally it’s a step to reduce the dependency of the US dollar according to the NBC “Cambodia has to encourage the use of its riel, more. So, allowing the circulation of small U.S. bills is an obstacle in urging the use of the riel.”

There are several reasons for Cambodia’s move, one of them is to allow the use of digital currencies to “give the central bank more control over the Cambodian economy and bolster the local riel currency, which for decades suffered from a lack of confidence due to negative sentiment stemming from a 30-year war” in addition it will allow the central bank “control over monetary policy and interest rate settings and reduced costs in handling the sheer volume of $1 dollar notes circulating through the economy.” 

Hunt mentions the dark period of Cambodian history with the US-backed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge who destroyed Cambodia and it’s traditions and started a new revolution with a new culture that would begin on Year Zero, therefore everything before would be deemed irrelevant,

“It’s a far cry from the late 1970s, when Khmer Rouge rule abandoned money, banks were abolished, and the NBC blown-up as Pol Pot tried to create a utopian, agrarian society that led to the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians.” 

One of the darkest times in world history indeed.  It is a positive development that the NBC is encouraging the use of the Cambodian Riel for its economy, so the future seems promising.  NBC Governor Chea Chanto spoke at the 40^th Anniversary of the re-establishment of the Riel

“he said demand for the currency had increased by an average of 16 percent a year for the last 20 years amid annual average growth rates of 7.8 percent and inflation at around 2.5 percent.” 

Chanto said that “I firmly believe all ministries, institutions, companies, enterprises, and those who actively participate in the process of developing the banking system promote the use of the riel, which is our national currency.”

According to an unidentified analyst “It’s also a matter of sovereignty and pride. It’s their country and they are entitled to have their own currency like anywhere else.”

Transitioning from the US dollar to the Cambodian Riel won’t be an easy task according to Michael Finn of the Khmer Times who authored ‘De-dollarisation: Views from Asia, US and Europe’ claims that

“Any reduction in the use of the dollar needs to be handled carefully, according to foreign chambers of commerce in Cambodia. They say the central bank is unlikely to fully phase-out the US currency and any sudden moves to end reliance on the dollar would be bad for business.”  European Chamber of Commerce Advocacy Manager Noe Schellinck said that “

To a certain extent, the dollarisation now can be ascribed to the success of the Cambodian economy, with a great influx of Foreign Direct Investment, compared to the historic context of when the dollarization came about.” But the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce President Dalton Wong disagrees with Schellinck’s assessment:

De-dollarisation is not a bad thing as it is a re-balancing of the fiscal and monetary policy tools. It is certainly not a complete displacement and substitution of the US dollar in favour of the Khmer Riel in trade and investment, which some observers and analysts seem to mischievously suggest, which is not so helpful. In fact, promoting a greater use of the Khmer riel will give greater monetary policy tools to the Cambodian author

The collapse of the US dollar is becoming a reality as China and Russia continue to buy gold and trade with their own currencies at an accelerated pace with many more countries around the world who are also racing to de-dollarize their economies.  As we already know, several countries in Southeast Asia will soon make its move to rid itself of the toxic currency, but there are also other countries who are also making moves including India, Iran, South Africa, Syria, and Venezuela who are all motivated to drop the US dollar.  One of the main reasons for these countries to move forward by eliminating the use of US dollar is because Washington uses its currency status as a weapon to impose harsh sanctions on countries they deem as enemies.

African countries are also starting to look for alternatives to the US dollar including Ghana according to a report published by Reuters on November 24^th, 2022, ‘Ghana plans to buy oil with gold instead of U.S. dollars’ said that “Ghana’s government is working on a new policy to buy oil products with gold rather than U.S. dollar reserves” Ghana’s reason slightly differs from other countries since “The move is meant to tackle dwindling foreign currency reserves coupled with demand for dollars by oil importers, which is weakening the local cedi and increasing living costs.”  This means that the US dollar is causing inflation.  The move is expected to take place in the first quarter of 2023 as Ghana’s Vice-President Mahamudu Bawumia said that the new policy “will fundamentally change our balance of payments and significantly reduce the persistent depreciation of our currency” as he explained that “using gold would prevent the exchange rate from directly impacting fuel or utility prices as domestic sellers would no longer need foreign exchange to import oil products.”  Libya was one of the first countries in Africa to propose the idea of creating an alternative currency to bypass the US dollar called the African Dinar which would have been gold-backed but the Obama regime supported a violent coup to overthrow its president who suggested the idea, Muammar Ghaddafi who was tortured and then killed in the process making Libya a hotbed for terrorism and at the same time, re-creating the centuries-old industry of slavery.

The bottom line is that US dollar’s dominance in the global market will come to an end sometime in the foreseeable future.  No one has a crystal ball of when it will happen, but it is certain.  The world will experience an alternative economic reality that will change the dynamics of the US and its Western powers dominating the World’s economy with an outdated and flawed currency that will eventually have the same value as toilet paper.

*

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.

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.

***

I mentioned on Tucker Carlson last week in commentary on Buffalo Bills player Damar Hamlin that genetic conditions will be considered. There is an array of known sodium, potassium, and other ion channel mutations in the heart that pose a genetic proclivity to sudden death. In severe mutational cases, the channelopathy is the sole determinant. Many other circumstances, the baseline abnormality and then a superimposed insult to the heart. Two papers (Lim from Korea, Ittiwut from Thailand) now have found that SCN5A variants for cardiomyocyte channels by genetic assessment or by clinical determination on ECG (Brugada pattern) explain cases of sudden death after vaccination.

Lim KH, Park JS. COVID-19 Vaccination-Induced Ventricular Fibrillation in an Afebrile Patient With Brugada Syndrome. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Oct 31;37(42):e306. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e306. PMID: 36325610; PMCID: PMC9623033.

The Brugada pattern and sudden death is known to be triggered by fever, thus the reactogenic phase of vaccination with fever itself may explain the initiation of VT/VF and cardiac arrest.

Ittiwut C, Mahasirimongkol S, Srisont S, Ittiwut R, Chockjamsai M, Durongkadech P, Sawaengdee W, Khunphon A, Larpadisorn K, Wattanapokayakit S, Wetchaphanphesat S, Arunotong S, Srimahachota S, Pittayawonganon C, Thammawijaya P, Sutdan D, Doungngern P, Khongphatthanayothin A, Kerr SJ, Shotelersuk V. Genetic basis of sudden death after COVID-19 vaccination in Thailand. Heart Rhythm. 2022 Aug 5;19(11):1874–9. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.07.019. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35934244; PMCID: PMC9352648.

I am disappointed that world class electrophysiology research departments at US medical schools are being outclassed by investigators in Asia. COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis and sudden death should be a top research priority for every cardiology division in the country at this time.

These papers raise the concept that not all patients after the injection or those with manifest COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis are at risk for sudden death. In my clinical practice I incorporate genetic testing for channelopathies to fine tune the prognosis for patients. Let’s hope Damar Hamlin gets high quality of care and critical thinking by electrophysiologists who understand the COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis can be fatal in the setting of a channelopathy such as SCN5A and probably many others.

If you find “Courageous Discourse” enjoyable and useful to your endeavors, please subscribe as a paying or founder member to support our efforts in helping you engage in these discussions with family, friends, and your extended circles.

*

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

Dr. McCullough on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Jan 3, 2023

Lim KH, Park JS. COVID-19 Vaccination-Induced Ventricular Fibrillation in an Afebrile Patient With Brugada Syndrome. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Oct 31;37(42):e306. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e306. PMID: 36325610; PMCID: PMC9623033.

Ittiwut C, Mahasirimongkol S, Srisont S, Ittiwut R, Chockjamsai M, Durongkadech P, Sawaengdee W, Khunphon A, Larpadisorn K, Wattanapokayakit S, Wetchaphanphesat S, Arunotong S, Srimahachota S, Pittayawonganon C, Thammawijaya P, Sutdan D, Doungngern P, Khongphatthanayothin A, Kerr SJ, Shotelersuk V. Genetic basis of sudden death after COVID-19 vaccination in Thailand. Heart Rhythm. 2022 Aug 5;19(11):1874–9. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.07.019. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35934244; PMCID: PMC9352648.

Featured image is from Pandemic.news

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.

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.

***

Our thanks to The Daily Mail for having brought this important article to our attention

Andrew Bridgen shared an article on the Pfizer and Moderna jabs on Twitter

MP compared use of jabs to ‘biggest crime against humanity’ since Holocaust

Chief whip Simon Hart said his comment ‘crossed the line’ and removed whip

*

Rishi Sunak has slammed the ‘utterly unacceptable’ actions of a Tory MP who compared the Covid vaccine rollout to the Holocaust.

Andrew Bridgen was stripped of the party whip after an astonishing outburst on Twitter that led to widespread condemnation from politicians, Jewish groups and medical experts.

The MP for North West Leicestershire has made a series of anti-vaxxer claims on social media and in the Commons chamber in recent weeks.

But action was finally taken against him this morning after he shared an article on the Pfizer and Moderna jabs online, based on safety data reportedly from US health agencies, and added: ‘As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust.’

Mr Sunak voiced his own anger after the comment, made in a now-deleted Tweet, was raised by former health secretary Matt Hancock at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Tory chief whip Simon Hart took action because the remarks ‘crossed a line’, and other senior Tory MPs lined up to criticise his remarks.

One said they were ‘disgraceful’ and another warned that if he prevented people from being vaccinated he would have ‘blood on his hands’.

It caps a turbulent period for the now independent MP, who is currently serving a five-day Commons ban for breaking rules on paid lobbying.

The tweet gained 150,000 views in just two hours, with dozens of users of the social media platform hitting out at the ‘disgusting analogy’ and labelling him ‘dangerous’.

Olivia Marks-Woldman, chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, told MailOnline: ‘We find it disturbing particularly as we approach Holocaust Memorial Day that some people think it’s appropriate to invoke the imagery of the Holocaust to score political points.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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 licensed under CC BY 3.0

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.

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 the original English version:

“Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, December 27, 2022

Gore pomenuti citat američkog pesnika i istoričara  Karla Avgusta Sendberga ne odgovara  stvarnosti: čovek, bilo da je mlad ili star,  ne može da kaže: “Ne, neću da idem u rat!”, on mora da se povinuje.  Do dan danas ova ljudska reakcija ne može da se objasni,  jer čovek još uvek nije spoznao  samog sebe – ni sebe, ni  svoju prirodu, ni  svoje mentalno stanje kao ni svoje načine reagovanja.  Na  osnovu dubinskih psiholoških saznanja znamo u današnje vreme da je vaspitanje u ranom detinjstvu imalo takav uticaj na njihov emotivni život da moraju da idu.  Nema tu slobodne volje.  Ali uz stručnu  pomoć  čovek može da spozna samog sebe malo po malo, da postane svestan svojih nesvesnih emocionalnih delova i da promeni svoje ponašanje za dobrobit čovečanstva.  Ako možemo da se pomirimo sa ovim psihološkim razmišljanjima, dobićemo na hrabrosti i neće se pojavljivati novi strahovi. 

Rat nije neizbežna sudbina; on jeste dobar biznis, ali je i poraz za čovečanstvo.

Bilo da je Prvi ili Drugi svetski rat,  bilo da je Vijetnamski  rat ili trenutni proksi rat Zapada protiv  Rusije: majke iznova šalju svoje sinove na “polje časti”, a “ponosno ožalošćene”zatim nose crni flor oko ruke.  Mladi umiru pre nego što mogu da otpočnu da žive (1).

Rat je velika nesreća za sve nas. Papa Jovan Pavle II rekao  je 13. januara 2003. godine: „Rat nikada nije neizbežna sudbina. Rat uvek znači poraz za čovečanstvo.”  Osvajanje drugih naroda i dominacija nad njima  je dobar biznis.  Nikada ranije države u svetu nisu potrošile toliko novca na naoružanje, kovali toliko smrtonosnog oružja kao danas. Profit globalne industrije naoružanja  je astronomski.

U životima naroda je militarizam uvek igrao katastrofalnu ulogu. Čovekova borba protiv čoveka je više puta dovodila u pitanje tekovine kulture. Ratoborni način života ima brutalni efekat i  rezultat je obično ponovno vraćanje u varvarizam, što je primetno u svim oblastima društvenog života.

Nažalost, čovečanstvo nije u stanju da iskoreni ovo prastaro zlo iz sveta.  Politički, ekonomski i socijalni razlozi konstantno podstiču duh nasilja i dovode do razarajućih ratova. Imajući u vidu ogromne ljudske i materijalne žrtve o kojima izveštava ratna istorija, s vremena na vreme se pojavljivao apel plemenitih ljudi koji su proklamovali ideal mirnodopskog sveta. Ideja o večnom miru je zasigurno stara koliko i samo čovečanstvo.

Danas vidimo da rat donosi samo uništenje; od njega nikada ne možemo da očekujemo svoje spasenje. Istorijske analize čak pokazuju da je propast kulture uvek bila povezana sa ratovima.  I pored toga što je ova činjenica dobro poznata, nema tog univerzitetskog profesora, ni filozofa niti psihologa koji će dobaciti mladima: “Ne idite!”

Nažalost, muškarci bilo kog uzrasta ne mogu drugačije. Vaspitanje je toliko uticalo na njihov emotivni život da moraju da odu. Kao što su morali da se povinuju ocu i majci u jaslicama, tako se povinuju političkim autoritetima kao odrasle osobe.  Oni nose taj osećaj apsolutne poslušnosti od detinjstva  do duboke starosti, ali toga nisu svesni.  Zato ne možemo i ne smemo da ih osuđujemo.  A roditelji, nažalost, nisu znali da je vaspitavanje u apsolutnoj poslušnosti bila greška.  Obično su imali dobru nameru, ali u svom neznanju i na osnovu sopstvenih iskustava iz  detinjstva svoju decu dovode  u nevolje diskutabilnim metodama vaspitanja.

Dobra  vest je da uz pomoć  psihoterapeuta ljudi  mogu da spoznaju sami sebe malo po malo, da  postanu  svesni svojih nesvesnih  emotivnih delova i promene svoje ponašanje.

Dubinska psihologija i dinamika podsvesnog kao suštinski i veoma efikasan deo života

U predpsihološkim vremenima  koje je oblikovao religiozni srednji vek  niko nije imao znanje o sebi, o svojim osećanjima i o svom životu. Tek sa Ludvigom Fojerbahom  (od 1804. do 1872. godine) i Karlom Marksom  (od 1818. do 1883. godine)  ljudi su počeli da gledaju na sebe kao bića prirode i da posmatraju sami sebe (2).  Nedugo zatim  izvesni doktor Zigmund Frojd (od 1856. do 1939. godine) otkrio je u  Beču  da čovek ima podsvest. To je bilo pre više od 100 godina.

Nažalost, kao tipičan predstavnik svog vremena  Frojd nije razumeo svet i ljude.  Bio je konzervativac i dobar patriota.  Primera radi, bio je mišljenja da Austrougarska treba da pobedi u Prvom svetskom ratu. Da ostali treba da propadnu. Njegova psihoanaliza je na neki način iščezla; ona je postala stvar medicine.

Ali na osnovu  naučnih saznanja dubinske psihologije znamo danas da možemo da pomognemo ljudima  da se preorijentišu  i promene svoja osećanja.  Učenje individualnog psihologa  Alfreda Adlera (od 1870. do 1937. godine) postalo je kamen temeljac dubinske psihologije i neizostavni deo psiholoških istraživanja. Dalji razvoj dubinske psihologije dao je Adleru  za pravo po pitanju mnogih aspekata.  Za Adlera je karakter kreativan proizvod deteta koji proizilazi iz suočavanja sa životnim okolnostima ranog detinjstva, posebno sa vaspitnim uticajima koji su najpresudniji za formiranje karaktera.

Fundamentalna spoznaja dubinske psihologije je pretpostavka dinamičnog nesvesnog kao suštinskog i veoma efikasnog dela psihičkog života čoveka.  Iz tog razloga čovek ne može da kaže: “Ne, neću da idem u rat!”  Vaspitanje u ranom  detinjstvu je oblikovalo njegov emotivni život na takav način da mora da se povinuje autoritetu koji ga poziva na oružje. Pošto se ovde radi o nesvesnim emocionalnim delovima iz detinjstva, njegovo ponašanje nije rezultat slobodne volje.  Stoga ne može biti osuđivan.

Nažalost, i danas je malo psihologa koji se bave ovo problematikom ljudi.

Ali ovo nije željeno ovako. Znanje mladog čoveka koji se posvećuje proučavanju psihologije padana staro tlo. On je religiozan, nacionalista, patriotski nastrojen i veran državi. Po pravilu, zauzima stanovište o očuvanju ovog sistema.

Poštovani čitaoci, nadam se da se razumemo  i da  ćete moći da se pomirite sa psihološkim tokom misli. Samo kada ljudi dobiju unutrašnji emocionalni osećaj da uvek mogu  da kažu NE i da ne moraju nikome da se povinuju, tek tada dolazi do akcije.

Dinamika podsvesnog u ljubavnom odnosu muškarca i žene

U tom kontekstu autor se priseća psihoterapeutskih razgovora tokom školovanja i u sopstvenoj ordinaciji.  Ti razgovori bavili su se i dinamikom podsvesnog.

Muškarci su se u potrazi za pomoći okrenuli psihoterapeutima, jer je njihov stav o ogorčenosti i odbijanju uništavao ljubav sa njihovim devojkama  i ženama. Zbog njihovih iskustava iz detinjstva sa roditeljima i braćama i sestrama, nisu mogli da afirmišu ženu, nisu mogli da se postave ravnopravni sa njom. Želeli su da budu važniji od žene i  da uvek imaju poslednju reč;  žene, s druge strane, očekivalo se  da budu dobre i poslušne. Ovi muškarci su samokritično izjavljivali da su oni itekako nerazumni, jer sami sebi nanose zlo.

Ali nisu bili nerazumni. Ponašali su se itekako razumno,  jer su njihovi  postupci  odgovarali njihovoj emotivnoj situaciji. Zbog iskustava iz detinjstva kao što su razmaženost, senzibilizacija i  favorizovanje njih kao muškog potomstva, nisu mogli da afirmišu ženu i želeli su da budu  smatrani važnijim od nje.

I ovde, roditelji u svom neznanju su napravili grešku favorizujući svoje sinove u odnosu na njihove sestre, tako što su ih razmazili.  Doveli su ih u ovu situaciju kao odrasle osobe. Međutim, umesto da se ljutite na roditelje i da se srdite, veoma je važno da ih razumete i da se pomirite sa njima.

Zato se mladićima savetovalo da uz pomoć psihoterapeuta smognu snage  i  hrabrosti da postanu svesni podsvesnih osećanja iz detinjstva uz pomoć psihoterapeuta, kako bi ljubavni odnosi bili spaseni. Pošto nisu mogli ništa da preduzmu povodom svog iritantnog ponašanja – to nije bila slobodna volja –  ne bi trebalo ni da krive sebe.  Međutim, trebalo bi da budu svesni da ovde postoji nešto što oni ne mogu da iskontrolišu.

I kod ovih muškaraca je  prvo morala  da se razvije  zdrava emocionalna osnova, pre nego  što su mogli da postanu ravnopravni sa ženom i svim drugim ljudima.

Postulati za vaspitanje

Pošto smo mi ljudi proizvod iskustava iz detinjstva, mi  kao odrasli  ljudi imamo samo na raspolaganju ono što smo doživeli i iskusili sa našim osobama od poverenja u smislu poverenja, hrabrosti i znanja. Roditelji i braća i sestre su naš svet. Ovde deca dobijaju, da tako kažem, svoj red vožnje, kompas za ceo život. Kada posle krenu u vrtić, već znaju, već imaju  stav  i mišljenje o sebi i drugim ljudima.

Vaspitne metode iz prošlosti iznedrile su tip osobe koja može da izazove istorijsku tragediju. Autoritarni princip koji je vekovima smatran neupitno validnom osnovom vaspitavanja već u detinjstvu je gušio osećaj zajedništva ljudi i ispunio ih spremnošću na agresiju koja je omogućila nasilnom svetu da ostane u stanju nasilja.

Zahvaljujući saznanjima naučne psihologije danas znamo da je čovek u tolikoj meri proizvod svog vaspitanja da može da neguje nadu da će moći da oblikuje ljude boljim, to jest, psihološkim vaspitnim metodama koji će biti imuni na uplitanja težnje ka dominaciji. Pedagogija će proizvesti tip osobe koja nema “mentalitet potčinjenog” i zbog toga više neće biti poslušno oruđe moćnicima u našem svetu, tako što će da odustane od isključivog autoriteta i primene nasilja kod kuće i u školi i da se prilagodi psihičkom životu deteta sa istinskim razumevanjem.

Škola takođe ima veliki zadatak i odgovornost. Prvo i najvažnije, mora da prenese uverenje da znanje zasnovano na iskustvu, intelekt i razum uvek i svuda imaju prioritet. Od samog početka bi trebalo da usadi mladima vrednosti koje odgovaraju našoj sadašnjosti i koje još uvek važe i u odraslom dobu.  Pored toga, trebalo bi  da  pruži mladima psihološko obrazovanje, znanje o sebi samima  i svom značaju.

Dalje, škola mora da ojača sopstvenu snagu i samopouzdanje mladih ljudi i da skrene pažnju sa sopstvenog voljenog  spasenja na spasenje  šire javnosti, na potrebu da se pomogne.

Demokratizacija vaspitanja, koju shvatamo kao poštovanje ličnosti deteta i kao prijateljsku pažnju vaspitača prema svom učeniku na osnovi doslednog disciplinovanja bez prinude i nasilja, je pozvana  da da jedan od najvrednijih doprinosa izgradnji humanog društvenog poretka.

Nesvesne emocije iz detinjstva koje je zaboravio i koje ga često ne čine srećnim odrastao čovek može da razjasni sa kompetentnim dubinskim psihologom na psihoterapiji  i da tako samog sebe bolje razume. Uvek je moguće da prevaziđemo stare negativne misli i osećanja i da konačno odlučimo da li želimo da idemo u rat – ili rađe ne.

*

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. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel je doktor pedagogije (dr ped.) i diplomirani psiholog (dipl. psih.). Dugi niz decenija bio je nastavnik (rektor) i obučavao je specijaliste pedagogije. Kao penzioner radio je kao psihoterapeut u sopstvenoj ordinaciji. 

Fusnote

1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/youth-died-before-they-could-begin-live/5776057

2. http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=28358&css

3. https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-with-whom-can-we-reorganise-society/5800536

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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

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.

***

Another needless, fatuous endeavour; another irresponsible drain on the public purse; another expression that the military-industrial complex Down Under is thriving in all its insidious stupidity.  But Australia’s purchase of HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) batteries from the United States can be put down to loneliness – or the feeling of being left out.  And history shows that loneliness in the context of weapons and harm involves a need to acquire more means to do further harm.

The timing of the announcement this month seemed curious enough.  Could it have been coincidental that it came soon after the Ukrainian strike using the HIMARS system that destroyed a makeshift Russian garrison with lethal consequences?  It was certainly wonderfully grotesque timing, even if Australian defence officials had already yearned for the HIMARS system in 2022.

The HIMARS system is certainly getting its sales, proving to be a bountiful treasure for Lockheed Martin.  Its lethal strength lies in accuracy over considerable distances and easy deployment.  It is also indicative of a broader missile fetish that has gripped Canberra.  To make the point, the Australian government also announced the signing of a contract with Norway-based Kongsberg to purchase Naval Strike Missiles for its naval destroyers and frigates, designed to replace the Harpoon anti-ship missiles from next year.  Perceived obsolescence remains the militarist’s nightmare and the weapons manufacturer’s hope.

The nervousness towards Russian ambitions in Ukraine has done its bit to boost the purchases for countries historically clutched by the old empire and its interests.   Last month, the Baltic states secured deals to attain the rocket system.  Such purchases serve two purposes: to reassure the anxious and to fill the pockets of the ambitious.  Defence ministers will always cue their performance. “It is a big step for our armed forces, this new system, and it will significantly enhance our national and regional capabilities,” stated Lithuanian Defence Minister Arvydas Anusauskas.

The Australian example, however, is even less comprehensible, unless read through the demands and needs of a foreign power keen on keeping the gunpowder dry for war.  Otherwise, there are no threats to speak of, except in the feverish mind of stupefied analysts subsided by foreign powers.  Why, then, go for 20 of such systems at the cost of $385 million ($A558 million), which is more likely to be more expensive, given the refusal by government sources to reveal the actual amount?

James Heading, Director of Programs, Strategic Capabilities Office at Lockheed Martin Australia’s Missiles and Fire Control did little to explain the broader necessity for such a system for Australia, turning it into a logistics fun fair for adult children prone to violent urges.  What mattered was how good the killing system was, a toy the entire military family could have.  “HIMARS employs a ‘shoot to scoot’ capability which enhances crew and platform survivability in high threat environments.”

With gushing admiration, Heading spoke of “a generational leap in capability for Australia, taking Defence from cannon artillery to Long-Range Precision Fires that provide a 24/7 persistent, all-weather capability.”  Such historical comparisons are flawed to the point of caricature, but they tend to be predictable in weapons sales and the need to find ever more imaginative ways of killing.  For all the posturing, Heading did lift the cover on the broader strategic value of supplying Australian forces with such weapons: the US imperium, namely, demands it.  “HIMARS offers the Australian Defence Force the ability to use and share common munitions and to integrate into a coalition effort.”

This poorly-cooked tripe was swallowed by Australian Defence Minister and chief weapon’s fetishist Richard Marles,  “The Albanese Government is taking a proactive approach to keeping Australia safe – and the Naval Strike Missile and HIMARS launchers will give our Defence Force the ability to deter conflict and protect our interests.”  (No account has ever shown any defence minister authorising purchases against the country’s interests.)

The Australian Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy was also seduced by the whole issue of capability in the face of fictional demons, till one realises that the only demon being fantasised upon is located to Australia’s distant north and known historically as the Middle Kingdom.  To the ABC, he explained with a toddler’s enthusiasm that Australia would now have “an Army ground-launched missile that can reach targets up to 300 kilometres away.”

For all his confidence, Conroy’s Washington masters were also speaking in his ear.  “We are part of a developmental program with the United States called the Precision Strike Missile that will allow [the] the army to hit targets in excess of 499 kilometres.  So, this will give the Australian army a strike capability they have never had before.”

The US Defense Department was affirmingly clear in its rationale for endorsing the system’s export to Canberra.  “The proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States,” wrote the Pentagon.  “Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific.  The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region.”

The clods in defence are bound to be revelling in all of this.  There are no bounds of accountability, no reason to argue against insensible procurements.  It’s all about the toys and using them in the next war.

*

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 LifeSiteNews

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

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.

***

Dated 10 January 2023, the US Pentagon has released a memorandum on the rescission of COVID vaccine mandate for all members of the Armed Forces. 

It’s a crucial precedent for the worldwide reinstatement of individual freedom and rights.

The Pentagon has RESCINDED their COVID vaccine mandate.

This is a HUGE victory.

Now, it’s time to make it right for the people whose lives were destroyed by this disgraceful mandate! pic.twitter.com/M0CKukgSYX

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) January 10, 2023

*

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

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.

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.

***

There is ample evidence that from the very outset of the corona crisis in January 2020 the Director General of the WHO  Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has routinely upheld scientific fraud in relation to the alleged covid-19 pandemic. 

Extensive crimes against humanity have been committed.

Our message to WHO Director General Dr. Tedros and the representatives of the IHRRC of the WHO:

“The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

(Nuremberg Principle III)

According to the WHO:

The IHR Review Committee regarding amendments to International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) is convened pursuant to Articles 50.1.(a)2 and 47 of the IHR, as well as Decision WHA75(9).

This Review Committee will function in accordance with the WHO Regulations for Expert Advisory Panels and Committees, and will provide its report to the WHO Director-General no later than mid-January 2023. [i.e prior to WEF, Davos on January 16, 2023] 

The sole purpose of this Review Committee is to provide technical recommendations to the Director-General on amendments proposed by State Parties to the IHR, as decided by the Health Assembly in Decision WHA75(9).

We call upon the members of the IHR review committee to act responsibly and question the legitimacy of both the proposed amendments as well as the fraudulent leadership of  the WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Tedros’ leadership should be questioned. The evidence amply confirms that Dr. Tedros is in “conflict of interest” according to the WHO’s own definition:

“Generally speaking, a conflict of interest arises when a secondary interest interferes with the primary interest of WHO and its staff. The scope of conflict of interest goes beyond financial interest.” (WHO)

The World Economic Forum, Davos, January 2023

These so-called amendments will no doubt be “coordinated” by the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos in consultation with the parties concerned and Tedros will conform. 

It is understood that Principle III of Nuremberg applies to all decisions and/or recommendations envisaged by “responsible government officials” not to mention the “philanthropic billionaires” meeting under the auspices of the January 2022 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos Switzerland.

“The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

(Nuremberg Principle III) 

To consult the key WHO IHR documents, click here

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research,  January 12, 2022

The following summary review was compiled by James Roguski. (with thanks)

The International Health Regulations Review Committee (IHRRC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) is planning to meet in secret from Monday, January 9, 2023 to Friday January 13, 2023. The IHRRC will be working to finalize what is now a 46 page document that includes proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR).

1. Change the overall nature of the World Health Organization from an advisory organization that merely makes recommendations to a governing body whose proclamations would be legally-binding. (Article 1)
2. Greatly expand the scope of the International Health Regulations to include scenarios that merely have a “potential to impact public health.”
3. Seek to remove “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” (Article 3)
4. Give the Director General of the WHO control over the means of production through an “allocation plan for health products” to require developed states parties to supply pandemic response products as directed. (Article 13A)
5. Give the WHO the authority to require medical examinations, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine and to implement contact tracing, quarantine and TREATMENT. (Article 18)
6. Institute a system of global health certificates in digital or paper format, including test certificates, vaccine certificates, prophylaxis certificates, recovery certificates, passenger locator forms and a traveller’s health declaration. (Articles 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36 and 44 and Annexes 6, 7 and 8)
7. Redirect unspecified billions of dollars to the Pharmaceutical Hospital Emergency Industrial Complex with no accountability. (Article 44A)
8. Allow the disclosure of personal health data. (Article 45)
9. Greatly expand the World Health Organization’s capacity to censor what they consider to be mis-information and dis-information. (Annex 1, page 36)
10. Create an obligation to build, provide and maintain IHR infrastructure at points of entry. (Annex 10)

The 76th World Health Assembly is scheduled to occur from Sunday May 21, 2023 to Tuesday May 30, 2023.

In order for the proposed amendments to be considered during the 76th World Health Assembly, they must be submitted to the World Health Organization at least 4 months in advance.

The IHRRC plans to submit these proposed amendments to the WHO by Sunday, January 15, 2023.

The International Health Regulations are existing, legally-binding international law. If the proposed amendments are presented to the 76th World Health Assembly, they could be adopted by a simple majority of the 194 member nations.

According to the already agreed upon rules of the IHR, if the proposed amendments are adopted, the member nations would not need to take any additional actions. The United States Senate would not be required to provide a two-thirds vote to give their “advice and consent.” No signatures by national leaders would be needed.

*

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 Reclaim the Net

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. 

The Health Plot Against the People of the World

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 12, 2023

People are unaware that the sovereignty of every country over its health practices is about to be turned over to the World Health Organization, an unaccountable bureaucracy.  This is the final nail in our coffin.  Once this goes through, we are captured in Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab’s net.  The WHO alone can declare a pandemic and the protocols. 

Why Is the Associated Press Lying About Gene Therapy Shots?

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 12, 2023

While the COVID-19 shots are referred to as “vaccines,” they do not meet the classical definition of a vaccine. Health authorities actually had to change the definition to accommodate the COVID shots and shut down the argument that, as experimental gene therapies, they may be riskier than traditional vaccines.

US Threatens African Countries, Demanding to End Relations with Russia

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, January 11, 2023

On January 9th, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that relations between US and South Africa are tense. The reason for the diplomatic instability would be the fact that last month a South African naval base received a Russian cargo ship sanctioned by Washington, with no public information about the contents inside the vessel.

Grandson of Charles de Gaulle, an Old CIA Nemesis, Condemns West’s Policy in Ukraine

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, January 11, 2023

Pierre de Gaulle, a grandson of former French President Charles de Gaulle, has said the U.S. is making Europeans suffer by fueling the Ukraine conflict and waging a pre-planned economic war against Russia.

Aisha (2022): Despair and Desperation in Ireland’s Detention Centres

By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin, January 11, 2023

Frank Berry is an Irish film director and screenwriter who doesn’t shy away from exposing the harsh realities of contemporary life in Ireland. In his films, Berry has tackled difficult topics such as prisons, suicide and poverty. He doesn’t indulge in middle-class condescension of working class people either.

Geopolitical Games in the Asia-Pacific Will Not be Allowed, Warns China

By Countercurrents.org, January 11, 2023

China will not let the Asia-Pacific region turn into a hotspot for geopolitical conflict, and will defend its own sovereignty and integrity, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson declared on Monday.

Protests in Iran

By Misa Djurkovic, January 11, 2023

As is well known, Iran experienced a wave of protests after September 22, when a young woman, Masha Amini, died in the custody of the Iranian moral police. A prominent place among the protesters was occupied by women, especially younger ones, then students and other parts of the urban population. The Western media covered all of this with rhetoric about a spontaneous protest, about the struggle for the emancipation and liberation of women who allegedly live in a servile and humiliating position in Iran, etc. This version from the cartoons or fairytales, of course, also has another side, which unfortunately you cannot hear in the Serbian and western media.

Turkey and Syria Meeting in Moscow May Result in Peace Plan

By Steven Sahiounie, January 11, 2023

The outcome of that meeting, and the expected follow-up meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, may form the basis for the recovery of Syria, circumventing the UN resolution 2254, which has failed to produce results.

Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates Demand USG Military Involvement in Ukraine

By Kurt Nimmo, January 11, 2023

The latest demand by neocons that Russia must be wiped off the map is locked up behind a paywall at the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post. In order to read what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote, I used a browser text reader to bypass the paywall.

CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines Via FOIA

By Dr. Josh Guetzkow, January 11, 2023

Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here).

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

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 notion that the COVID shots are a form of gene therapy is so risky for Big Pharma’s bottom line, they’re going to great lengths to make sure people don’t think of them that way

The Associated Press published a “fact check” in which they argued that COVID shots are not gene therapy because they do not alter your genes

The AP misled readers by focusing on just one part of the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy — the part about modifying expression of a gene. But the full definition also includes the words “or to alter the biological properties of living cells,” which is precisely what the COVID shots do

When the mRNA shots were rolled out in 2021, they did not meet the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of a vaccine. They only met the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy

The only reason COVID shots meet the CDC’s definition of a vaccine now is because they changed the definition to prevent “COVID-19 deniers” from saying that “COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition”

*

While the COVID-19 shots are referred to as “vaccines,” they do not meet the classical definition of a vaccine. Health authorities actually had to change the definition to accommodate the COVID shots and shut down the argument that, as experimental gene therapies, they may be riskier than traditional vaccines.

Meanwhile, based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s definition of “gene therapy” they’re clearly gene therapies, and both Moderna and BioNTech acknowledge this. Despite that, the notion that the COVID shots are a form of gene therapy is so risky for Big Pharma’s bottom line,¹ they’re going to great lengths to make sure people don’t think of them that way.

Most recently, The Associated Press (AP) tried to debunk the idea that COVID shots are gene therapy, but as you’ll see, they’re either lying to protect the industry, or have gotten so inept they don’t know how to do investigative journalism anymore. Either way, it doesn’t reflect well on their credibility.

AP Lies About COVID Shots Not Being Gene Therapy

AP, at the end of December 2022, published a “fact check” titled “No, COVID-19 Vaccines Aren’t Gene Therapy,” in which they argued:²

“The COVID-19 vaccines do not change a person’s genes, as gene therapy does … The shots from Pfizer and Moderna use messenger RNA, or mRNA, to instruct the body to create a protein from the coronavirus. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, meanwhile, uses a modified adenovirus to trigger an immune response …

The Definition of Gene Therapy

The FDA defined gene therapy in July 2018 and has not changed it since. Per the FDA’s website as of this writing:⁴

“Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease …”

Here’s where AP went wrong. They only used ONE part of the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy — the part about modifying expression of a gene — in its debunking attempt. But the full definition also includes the words “or to alter the biological properties of living cells,” which is precisely what the COVID shots do.

The mRNA in the COVID jab are molecules that contain genetic instructions for making various proteins. mRNA COVID shots deliver synthetic mRNA with a genetic code that instructs your cells to produce a modified form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

In other words, they “alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.” Whether they modify your DNA is irrelevant. Note the word “or” in the FDA’s definition. It means it can be one OR the other. They don’t have to alter gene expression in order to still qualify as gene therapy, at least not per the FDA’s definition.

Yes, the COVID Jabs Are Gene Therapies Per Definition

Moderna’s November 2018 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration statement⁵also confirms that its mRNA injections are defined as gene therapy, clearly stating that “mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.”

The September 2019 SEC filing for BioNTech (its mRNA technology is used in the Pfizer vaccine) is equally clear, stating on page 21:⁶

“… in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products …”

So, in the U.S. and Europe, mRNA therapies, as a group, are classified as “gene therapy medicinal products.”⁷ There’s simply no way around this. Yet to this day, mainstream media tries to “debunk” the reality of the COVID jab.

Definition of Vaccine Was Changed to Fool You

In 2018, Moderna acknowledged that mRNA technology was of a “novel and unprecedented nature,”⁸ yet for the past three years, we’ve been told that it’s just a newer, faster way to make vaccines.

The fact of the matter is that when the mRNA shots were rolled out in early 2021, they didn’t meet the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of a vaccine. They only met the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy. And the only reason they meet the CDC’s definition of a vaccine now is because the CDC changed their definition.⁹

All the way up until the end of October 2021, the CDC defined a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” Immunity, in turn, was defined as “Protection from an infectious disease,” meaning that “If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.”

The new definition¹⁰ of “vaccine” is: “A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.” So, a “vaccine” went from being something that produces protective immunity, to simply stimulating an immune response. The key words “to produce immunity” were eliminated from the equation.

This makes the COVID shots fit the description, as they do not make you immune against COVID-19 and weren’t designed to prevent infection in the first place.

Internal CDC correspondence¹¹ obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests also conclusively prove the reason for the change was simply to shut down arguments by “right-wing COVID-19 pandemic deniers” that “COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.”

FDA Knew COVID Jabs Were Risky Territory

The FDA’s guidance for the human gene therapy products industry,¹² published in January 2020, also classified mRNA injections as gene therapy. Importantly, in this document the FDA stressed that gene therapy products that carry microRNA or cytokines can have “unknown pleotropic effects, including altered expression of host (human) genes that could result in unpredictable and undesirable outcomes.”

While the COVID jab certainly produces undesirable outcomes, negative consequences were not unpredicted. Early on, a number of scientists who had looked into the shots’ mechanisms of action warned about the possibility of severe adverse outcomes, including impairment of the immune system, neurological dysfunction and cancer. Today, a wide array of data and statistics prove those early concerns were valid.

Risk-Benefit Analysis Decimates Safety Claims

For example, a risk-benefit analysis¹³ looking at the impact of booster mandates for university students concluded that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected adults (aged 18 to 29) must be boosted to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization.

Meanwhile, for each hospitalization prevented, the jab will cause 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3 “booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities.” According to the authors, mandating a third COVID shot for university students will result in “a net expected harm.”

The authors also stress that “Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favorable.” They go on to state that “University booster mandates are unethical because:”¹⁴

“1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;

2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;

3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;

4) U.S. mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and

5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialization and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.”

Government Study Also Highlights COVID Jab Problems

A small observational study^15,16 led by neurology researchers at the National Institutes of Health brought equally bad news, as they found “a variety of neuropathic symptoms” occurring within three to four weeks of COVID injection:

“We studied 23 patients (92% female; median age 40 years) reporting new neuropathic symptoms beginning within 1 month after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. 100% reported sensory symptoms comprising severe face and/or limb paresthesias, and 61% had orthostasis, heat intolerance and palpitations …

Together, 52% (12/23) of patients had objective evidence of small-fiber peripheral neuropathy … This observational study suggests that a variety of neuropathic symptoms may manifest after SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations and in some patients might be an immune-mediated process.”

FDA and CDC Refuse to Release Key Safety Analyses

Isn’t it curious that the FDA, CDC, NIH and mainstream media refuse to admit there are risks, even though the NIH’s own research shows it? In all likelihood, the FDA’s and CDC’s data collection on the shots also reveal there are significant problems, as both agencies are stonewalling attempts to get key safety analyses released. As reported by The Epoch Times back in the summer of 2022:¹⁷

“According to operating procedures laid out by the agency and its partner in January 2021¹⁸and February 2022,¹⁹ the FDA would perform data mining ‘at least biweekly’ to identify adverse events ‘reported more frequently than expected following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines.’ The agency would perform the mining on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In a recent response, the FDA records office told The Epoch Times that it would not provide any of the analyses, even in redacted form. The agency cited an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act that lets the government withhold inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums and letters ‘that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.’

The agency also pointed to the Code of Federal Regulations, which says that ‘all communications within the Executive Branch of the Federal government which are in written form or which are subsequently reduced to writing may be withheld from public disclosure except that factual information which is reasonably segregable …’

It’s not clear why the FDA could not produce copies of the analyses with non-factual information redacted.”

According to the VAERS standard operating procedures cited above, the CDC is also required to perform data mining analyses using Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) data mining. PRR²⁰measures how common an adverse event is for a specific drug compared to all the other drugs in the database.

When The Epoch Times asked the CDC to release its results, it too refused. According to The Epoch Times,²¹ the CDC “has also twice provided false information when responding to questions.” First, they claimed that no PRR analyses were done and that data mining was outside their purview.

Some time later, they admitted the agency did perform PRRs starting in February 2021, only to later backtrack, saying they only started doing PRRs in March 2022. The Epoch Times cites several papers in which the FDA and/or CDC claim their data mining efforts have come up empty handed.

But if that’s true, why the reluctance to release the data? Don’t they want us to be reassured that these shots are as safe as they claim them to be? Why sit on exculpatory evidence? Unless, of course, the data proves the FDA and CDC are lying.

Was No-Test Drug Approval the Plan All Along?

While I cannot prove it, I suspect Operation Warp Speed — devised in the spring of 2020 by a dozen top officials from then-President Trump’s health and defense departments to expedite the development of a COVID 19 vaccine²² — may have been intended to normalize the approval of gene therapy drugs without the proper testing.

Before the COVID shots were given emergency use authorization, no mRNA gene therapy had ever made it to market, despite more than 20 years’ worth of research and development. That tells you something about how difficult it is to get these products right, to make sure they work and are safe.

With the FDA’s implementation of a “Future Framework” scheme in June 2022 to speed up the delivery of COVID boosters,²³ the regulatory obstacles for gene therapies, especially the stringent safety requirements, were brushed aside. Now, the FDA can and will authorize reformulated COVID shots without human trials.^24,25,26

The FDA basically rewrote the rules on the fly, deciding that mRNA gene therapies are equivalent to conventional influenza vaccines and can be updated and released without testing.

The idea is that the safety of the mRNA COVID shots has already been proven by the original shots, which they claim have harmed or killed no one. Hence, safety is a given, and the effectiveness of reformulated boosters can be assessed simply by checking the antibody levels in a few mice, which is what Pfizer and Moderna did.

In reality, however, millions of people around the world have been harmed and killed by the original shots, the human trials for those shots were riddled with fraud, antibody levels tell us nothing about the jab’s ability to protect against infection, and the two technologies (conventional flu vaccines and mRNA gene therapy) have no common ground.

Beware of Future mRNA Injections

I have no doubt this “Future Framework” will also, over time, be widened to include other vaccines and drugs that drug makers may want to tinker with. Already, there are mRNA shots in the pipeline against herpes, malaria, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), sickle cell disease, HIV, Epstein-Barr and cancer,^27,28 and vaccine makers have received fast-track approval designation for at least some of these shots.²⁹

Eventually, this fast-tracking trend may even lower standards for drug trials in general, which historically have required at least 10 years of multiphase testing.³⁰ The dangers of this trend really cannot be overstated — especially when we’re talking about gene-based products.

So, to circle back to where we started, hopefully you can now see how the AP and other media are misleading you in their “fact checks” by focusing on just one aspect of the FDA’s gene therapy definition (the DNA-altering part), while ignoring the fact that COVID shots DO meet the complete definition, and ARE classified as gene therapy, as acknowledged by BioNTech and Moderna in their SEC filings.

*

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, 5, 8 Moderna’s SEC Form S-1 Registration Statement

² AP December 23, 2022

^3, 4 FDA Gene Therapy Definition

⁶ US SEC BioNTech 2019

⁷ SWF Institute January 25, 2021

^9, 11 Pulse Stubstack November 9, 2021

¹⁰ CDC Immunizations: The Basics, Definition of Terms

¹² FDA Guidance for Industry January 2020

^13, 14 SSRN September 12, 2022

¹⁵ medRxiv May 17, 2022

¹⁶ Trial Site News September 1, 2022

^17, 21 Epoch Times September 10, 2022

¹⁸ VAERS Standard Operating Procedures January 2021

¹⁹ VAERS Standard Operating Procedures February 2022

²⁰ All About Pharmacovigilance PRR

²² Politico January 17, 2021

²³ FDA Briefing Document June 28, 2022

²⁴ The Defender June 27, 2022

²⁵ The Epoch Times June 28, 2022 (Archived)

²⁶ New York Times June 27, 2022 (Archived)

²⁷ MIT Technology Review February 5, 2021

²⁸ Nature Biotechnology 2022; 40: 840-854

²⁹ FDA News August 5, 2021

³⁰ Phrma.org Biopharmaceutical research and Development

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

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.

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.

***

Although Pakistan is suffering from a severe economic crisis, food shortages, and is locked in a decades-long struggle with India over Jammu and Kashmir, the country’s authorities are set to send another consignment of weapons and ammunition to help the Ukrainian army’s fight against Russia.

Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF), a state-owned defence industrial enterprise, is reportedly sending 159 containers of 155mm artillery shells, M4A2 propelling bag charges, M82 primers, and PDM fuses to Ukraine via Poland over the coming weeks. According to the Economic Times, Project Shipping – a Pakistani shipping and brokerage firm – will transport the consignment from the Karachi Port to the Gdansk Port later this month.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pakistan established military and industrial ties with Ukraine. Since achieving independence in 1991, Ukraine up until 2020 sold weapons and military equipment worth nearly $1.6 billion to Pakistan. These include more than 320 T-80UD tanks, along with a fully formed ecosystem for their maintenance, usage, ammunition, and spare parts.

In addition, Pakistan has become a key logistics hub in transporting humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine. It is recalled that the CEO of Pakistani logistics and engineering firm Kestral, Liaqat Ali Beg, travelled to Poland, Romania, and Slovakia in May and June 2022 to consolidate Pakistan as part of an air bridge to supply Ukraine with weapons. The UK is also using Pakistan’s Noor Khan Airbase in Rawalpindi as a key base for the transportation of military equipment for the Ukrainian Army.

While Pakistan will be supplied with Western military equipment in exchange for assistance to Ukraine, Islamabad has repeatedly ignored requests from Moscow for ammunition and weapons. This is despite the fact that the South Asian country still receives 100,000 barrels of Russian crude oil per day at discounted rates, thus signifying Islamabad’s rapid shift away from Moscow in the post-Imran Khan period.

Meanwhile, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) issued arrest warrants on January 10 for former prime minister Imran Khan and other top leaders of his party in a contempt case. The former prime minister has been calling for the resignation of the ECP chief for failing to be a neutral election commissioner – an allegation that the chief rejected by asserting that he was working as per law.

Khan was overthrown in April 2022 in a US-supported soft coup. He was specifically targeted because his independent foreign policy radically shifted from Pakistan’s traditional alliance with the US. Since being ousted, the former prime minister has held massive protests across Pakistan, blasting the unelected government for becoming an American “slave.”

“The US has made Pakistan a slave without having to invade it. The people of Pakistan will never accept the imported government,” he said while addressing a rally in Faisalabad in Pakistan’s Punjab province on May 15, 2022.

Khan believes that Pakistan should have been a non-aligned country during the Cold War instead of being a US vassal. He insists that Pakistan should be an independent country today, especially given the current geopolitical climate between the US and Western Europe on one side and China and Russia on the other.

“Pakistan should not take any sides,” Khan said. “Why do we have to take sides? Pakistan should have a good relationship with both China and with the United States. Similarly, I feel with Russia and the United States.”

“For instance, that’s the policy of India,” he added. “I must say that I have always admired the way India remained non-aligned during the [first] cold war. I thought it was a sensible thing to do.”

Only weeks before Khan was ousted, Washington demanded that he denounce Moscow over its war in Ukraine. For rebuking the Western pressure campaign and declaring that he refused to be a “slave,” it is unsurprising that Washington quickly supported a soft coup to place Shehbaz Sharif, an American asset, in power.

It cannot be forgotten that Khan arrived in Moscow on February 24, 2022 – the day that a massive global conflict started. This put the then-prime minister under immense pressure as he was the first world leader to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin since the war in Ukraine broke. He was expected to condemn Moscow’s actions.

For his steadfastness and defending his country’s interests, Khan was ousted instead. Islamabad’s unelected US-backed regime, before sending weapons to Ukraine, then changed the country’s position and promptly criticised Moscow.

While Pakistan is sending weapons to Ukraine, the country is also suffering from multiple overlapping crises, including the Covid pandemic, terrorism, food shortages and rising energy costs. Under this context, Russia is assisting Pakistan through its mostly self-inflicted economic crisis by providing discounted oil. Kremlin decision-makers could be mulling on whether to end the discount offer since Islamabad has now ended its extremely short foray of following an independent foreign policy and is now firmly back in Washington’s orbit of control vis-à-vis relations with Moscow.

*

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

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

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.

***

People are unaware that the sovereignty of every country over its health practices is about to be turned over to the World Health Organization, an unaccountable bureaucracy.  This is the final nail in our coffin.  Once this goes through, we are captured in Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab’s net.  The WHO alone can declare a pandemic and the protocols. 

There is no longer any doubt that the Covid pandemic was an orchestrated event and that the “Covid vaccine” was known in advance to be neither safe nor effective.  Indeed, it is not a vaccine.

The researcher in the video below, the third item, explains how beginning in 2013 the scheme was set up in secrecy in a way to protect all those involved in the scheme.  It shows clearly that there is a conspiracy.  

Meanwhile “vaccinated” people continue to die suddenly. 

See the following articles:

• Explosive Increase in Cardiac Symptoms After Second Injection
• New Analysis Shows Studies of COVID Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis Hid Critical Safety Signal 
• Video: Bombshell Docs Reveal COVID-19 Cover-Up Goes Straight to the Top 
• The Top 100 Reasons to #StopThePandemicTreaty, #StopTheAmendments, and #ExitTheWHO

*

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 where this article  was originally published. 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 Stop World Control

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

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.

***

How do you trust a government that continuously sidesteps the Constitution and undermines our rights? You can’t.

When you consider all the ways “we the people” are being bullied, beaten, bamboozled, targeted, tracked, repressed, robbed, impoverished, imprisoned and killed by the government, one can only conclude that you shouldn’t trust the government with your privacy, your property, your life, or your freedoms.

Consider for yourself.

Don’t trust the government with your privacy, digital or otherwise. In the two decades since 9/11, the military-security industrial complex has operated under a permanent state of emergency that, in turn, has given rise to a digital prison that grows more confining and inescapable by the day. Wall-to wall surveillance, monitored by AI software and fed to a growing network of fusion centers, render the twin concepts of privacy and anonymity almost void. By conspiring with corporations, the Department of Homeland Security “fueled a massive influx of money into surveillance and policing in our cities, under a banner of emergency response and counterterrorism.” For instance, all across the country, police are installing Flock Safety license plate readers as part of a public-private partnership program between police and the surveillance industry. These cameras, which upload data in real time to fusion crime centers, signal a turning point in the transition from a police state to a police-driven surveillance state.

Don’t trust the government with your property. In yet another effort to legitimize warrantless searches, police are employing “hit-and-hold” tactics in which police enter a home, carry out an initial sweep of the property, handcuff the occupants, then wait for official search warrants to be secured and applied retroactively. In the meantime, police have managed to bypass the Fourth Amendment. The rationale, to prevent possible destruction of evidence, is the same one used to deadly effect with no-knock raids. If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government. Hard-working Americans are having their bank accounts, homes, cars electronics and cash seized by police under the assumption that they have allegedly been associated with some criminal scheme.

Don’t trust the government with your finances. The U.S. government—and that includes the current administration—is spending money it doesn’t have on programs it can’t afford, and “we the taxpayers” are being forced to foot the bill for the government’s fiscal insanity. The national debt is $31.3 trillion and growing, and we’re paying more than $300 billion in interest every year on that public debt, yet there seems to be no end in sight when it comes to the government’s fiscal insanity. According to Forbes, Congress has raised, extended or revised the definition of the debt limit 78 times since 1960 in order to allow the government to essentially fund its existence with a credit card.

Don’t trust the government with your health. For all intents and purposes, “we the people” have become lab rats in the government’s secret experiments, which include MKULTRA and the U.S. military’s secret race-based testing of mustard gas on more than 60,000 enlisted men. Indeed, you don’t have to dig very deep or go very back in the nation’s history to uncover numerous cases in which the government deliberately conducted secret experiments on an unsuspecting populace—citizens and noncitizens alike—making healthy people sick by spraying them with chemicals, injecting them with infectious diseases and exposing them to airborne toxins. Unfortunately, the public has become so easily distracted by the political spectacle out of Washington, DC, that they are altogether oblivious to the grisly experiments, barbaric behavior and inhumane conditions that have become synonymous with the U.S. government, which has meted out untold horrors against humans and animals alike.

Don’t trust the government with your life: At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences. The number of Americans killed by police continues to grow, with the majority of those killed as a result of police encounters having been suspected of a non-violent offense or no crime at all, or during a traffic violation. According a report by Mapping Police Violence, police killed more people in 2022 than any other year within the past decade. In 98% of those killings, police were not charged with a crime.

Don’t trust the government with your freedoms. For years now, the government has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with the American people, letting us enjoy just enough freedom to think we are free but not enough to actually allow us to live as a free people. Freedom no longer means what it once did. This holds true whether you’re talking about the right to criticize the government in word or deed, the right to be free from government surveillance, the right to not have your person or your property subjected to warrantless searches by government agents, the right to due process, the right to be safe from militarized police invading your home, the right to be innocent until proven guilty and every other right that once reinforced the founders’ belief that this would be “a government of the people, by the people and for the people.” On paper, we may be technically free, but in reality, we are only as free as a government official may allow.

Whatever else it may be—a danger, a menace, a threat—the U.S. government is certainly not looking out for our best interests, nor is it in any way a friend to freedom.

Remember the purpose of a good government is to protect the lives and liberties of its people.

Unfortunately, what we have been saddled with is, in almost every regard, the exact opposite of an institution dedicated to protecting the lives and liberties of its people.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, “we the people” should have learned early on that a government that repeatedly lies, cheats, steals, spies, kills, maims, enslaves, breaks the laws, overreaches its authority, and abuses its power at almost every turn can’t be trusted.

*

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: A US government propaganda poster from the 1940s (Source: Multipolarista)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (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.

***

Collated by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

Summary

The Medical Case, U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al. (also known as the Doctors’ Trial), was prosecuted in 1946-47 against twenty-three doctors and administrators accused of organizing and participating in war crimes and crimes against humanity in the form of medical experiments and medical procedures inflicted on prisoners and civilians.

Physician and surgeon Karl Brandt, the lead defendant, was the senior medical official of the German government during World War II; other defendants included senior doctors and administrators in the armed forces and SS. Brandt had been appointed by Adolf Hitler to head the Euthanasia Program, Aktion T4. The defendants were indicted on four counts:

1. Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity;

2. War Crimes (I.E., Crimes Against Persons Protected by the Laws of War, Such as Prisoners of War);

3. Crimes Against Humanity (Including Persons Not Protected by The Laws of War); and

4. Membership in a Criminal Organization (the SS).

The specific crimes charged included more than twelve series of medical experiments concerning the effects of and treatments for high altitude conditions, freezing, malaria, poison gas, sulfanilamide, bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, bone transplantation, saltwater consumption, epidemic jaundice, sterilization, typhus, poisons, and incendiary bombs.

These experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates. Other crimes involved the killing of Jews for anatomical research, the killing of tubercular Poles, and the euthanasia of sick and disabled civilians in Germany and occupied territories. The defendants were charged with ordering, supervising, or coordinating criminal activities, as well as participating in them directly. The fourth count concerned membership in the SS (Schuttzstaffeln) of the Nazi regime.

Karl Brandt and six other defendants were convicted, sentenced to death, and executed; nine defendants were convicted and sentenced to terms in prison; and seven defendants were acquitted.

The material presented in this project includes case file documents (the briefs and document books created and used in the course of the trial), evidence file documents (the evidentiary documents from which the prosecution, and occasionally the defendants, derived their exhibits), and the trial transcript.

The trial documents and evidence file documents related to Case 1 amount to approximately 2800 documents and 13,000 pages of material.

Indictments – (25 Oct. 1946)

Four Counts:

1. Conspiracy to commit war crimes against humanity: The ordering, planning, and organization of the war crimes and crimes against humanity charged in counts two and three. Charged against all of the defendants. The tribunal decided not to convict on this charge.
2. War crimes: Charged against all defendants. 15 guilty, 8 acquitted.
3. Crimes against humanity: Charged against all defendants. 15 guilty, 8 acquitted.
4. Membership in a criminal organization:  Membership in the SS. Charged against K. Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, R. Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer. All found guilty.

Human Experiments and Other “Medical” Crimes (itemized in counts 2 and 3):

1. High-altitude experiments. March – August 1942. Conducted for the German air force to investigate the effect of high-altitude flying; experiments were conducted at the Dachau camp using a low-pressure chamber. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Romberg, Ruff, Schroeder, Sievers, and Weltz. Charges against K. Brandt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were withdrawn. R. Brandt and Sievers were convicted.
2. Freezing experiments. August 1942 – May 1943. Conducted primarily for the German air force to investigate treatments for persons who had been severely chilled, using prisoners at the Dachau camp. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Schroeder, Sievers, and Weltz. Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Weltz were acquitted; R. Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, and Sievers were convicted.
3. Malaria experiments. February 1942 – April 1945. Conducted to test immunization for and treatment of malaria;experiments were conducted on more than 1000 prisoners at Dachau. Charged against Blome, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rostock, and Sievers. (Evidence was also presented against Rose, but no judgment was reached.) No judgment was made concerning Mrugowsky. Blome, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Poppendick, and Rostock were acquitted; Sievers was convicted.
4. Mustard (“lost”) gas experiments. September 1939 – April 1945. Conducted for the benefit of the German armed forces to investigate treatment of injuries caused by Lost (mustard) gas; experiments were conducted at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other camps. Charged against Blome, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Rostock, and Sievers. Blome, Gebhardt, Handloser, and Rostock were acquitted; K. Brandt, R. Brandt, and Sievers were convicted.
5. Sulfanilamide experiments. July 1942 – September 1943. Conducted for the benefit of the German armed forces to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide and other drugs as treatments for infected wounds; experiments were conducted at Ravensbrueck. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, Blome, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Genzken, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Oberheuser, Poppendick, Rostock, and Schroeder. Charges against Becker-Freyseng, Blome, and Schroeder were withdrawn. No judgment was reached concerning R. Brandt. Genzken, Poppendick, and Rostock were acquitted; K. Brandt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, and Oberheuser were convicted.
6. Bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, and bone transplant experiments. September 1942 – December 1943.Conducted for benefit of German armed forces, using Polish inmates at the Ravensbrueck camp. Charged against K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Fischer, Gebhardt, Handloser, Oberheuser, and Rostock. Charge against R. Brandt withdrawn. K. Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock were acquitted; Fischer, Gebhardt, and Oberheuser were convicted.
7. Seawater experiments. July – September 1944. Conducted for the German air force and navy to test methods of making seawater drinkable; experiments were conducted at Dachau. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, Beiglboeck, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rostock, Schaefer, Schroeder, and Sievers. The charge against Mrugowsky was withdrawn. K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Handloser, Poppendick, Rostock, and Schaefer were acquitted; Becker-Freyseng, Beiglboeck, Gebhardt, Schroeder, and Sievers were convicted.
8. Epidemic jaundice experiments. June 1943 – January 1945. Conducted for the benefit of the German armed forcesto investigate causes of and inoculations against epidemic jaundice; experiments were conducted on Polish prisoners at Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler camps. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rose, Rostock, Schroeder, and Sievers. Charges against Becker-Freyseng, Rose, and Sievers were withdrawn. R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Handloser, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rostock, and Schroeder were acquitted; K. Brandt was convicted.
9. Typhus (“spotted fever”) and other vaccine experiments. December 1941 – February 1945. Conducted for the benefit of the German armed forces to test the effectiveness of vaccines against typhus, smallpox, cholera, and other diseases; experiments were conducted at Buchenwald and Natzweiler. Charged against Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Genzken, Handloser, Hoven, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Rose, Rostock, Schroeder, and Sievers. Becker-Freyseng, K. Brandt, Gebhardt, Poppendick, and Rostock were acquitted; R. Brandt, Genzken, Handloser, Hoven, Mrugowsky, Rose, Schroeder, and Sievers were convicted.
10. Poison experiments. December 1943 and September – October 1944. Conducted to investigate the effect of various poisons, including poison in food and poisoned bullets; experiments were conducted at Buchenwald (food) and Sachsenhausen (bullets). Charged against Gebhardt, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick. Gebhardt, Genzken, and Poppendick were acquitted; Mrugowsky was convicted.
11. Incendiary bomb experiments. November 1943 – January 1944. Conducted to test pharmaceutical treatments for phosphorus burns; experiments were conducted at Buchenwald, involving the infliction of burns by materials from incendiary bombs. Charged against Gebhardt, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick. All were acquitted.
12. Sterilization experiments. March 1941 – January 1945. Conducted to develop methods of rapid, large scale sterilization in order to ensure the eventual elimination of “enemy” populations while keeping captive workers as a labor force during the war. Experiments were planned and/or conducted at Auschwitz, Ravensbrueck, and elsewhere employing drugs, x-rays, and surgery. Charged against Brack, K. Brandt, R. Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Oberheuser, Pokorny, and Poppendick. The charges against Mrugowsky and Oberheuser were withdrawn. K. Brandt, Pokorny, and Poppendick were acquitted; Brack, R. Brandt, and Gebhardt were convicted.
13. Skeleton collection. June 1943 – September 1944. Conducted to complete a skeleton collection for an anatomical research project at the Reich University of Strasbourg; one hundred twelve Jews at Auschwitz were killed for the purpose. Charged against R. Brandt and Sievers; both were convicted.
14. Tubercular Polish nationals. May 1942 – January 1944. Polish nationals alleged to have incurable tuberculosis were imprisoned or killed on the pretext of protecting the health of Germans in Poland. Charged against Blome and R. Brandt; both were acquitted.
15. Euthanasia. September 1939 – April 1945. Involved the secret killing of the aged, insane, incurably ill, deformed children, and others, beginning at asylums in Germany and later in the camps and occupied territories. Charged against Blome, Brack, K. Brandt, and Hoven. Blome was acquitted; Brack, K. Brandt, and Hoven were convicted.

Other charges:

16. Phenol (gas oedema) experiments. 1942 – 1944. Conducted to investigate whether levels of phenol in gas oedema serum caused fatalities among wounded soldiers; experiments were conducted on prisoners at Buchenwald. Charged against Handloser, Hoven, and Mrugowsky. Handloser was acquitted; Hoven and Mrugowsky were convicted.
17. Phlegmon experiments. 1942. Conducted to test treatments for sepsis and related diseases, in coordination with sulfanilamide experiments at Ravensbrueck; experiments were conducted at Dachau and Auschwitz. Charged against Fischer, Oberheuser, and Poppendick; all were acquitted.
18. Polygal experiments. 1943 – 1944. Conducted to test the effectiveness of polygal, a blood coagulant, for the treatment of wounds. Charged against Blome, Handloser, Poppendick, and Sievers. Blome, Handloser, and Poppendick were acquitted; Sievers was convicted.
19. Planning, organization, and administration (of 1-15 above)
20. Conspiracy: Count 1.
21. Membership: Count 4.

The Nuremberg Code (1947)

Permissible Medical Experiments

See this.

The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

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

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.

***

Even with the emerging countries several times making clear their solid position of not supporting the sanctions against Russia, the US remains with an absolutely interventionist foreign policy, threatening the states that maintain relations with “blacklisted” nations. Now, South African authorities report that they are being blackmailed by the US because of business that the country maintains with Moscow. More than that, it is reported that across the African continent there are many cases of anti-Russian intimidation, which reveals the high levels of interventionism on the part of Washington.

On January 9th, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that relations between US and South Africa are tense. The reason for the diplomatic instability would be the fact that last month a South African naval base received a Russian cargo ship sanctioned by Washington, with no public information about the contents inside the vessel. US authorities demand that their African counterparts report details on the cargo contained on the ship, demanding a kind of “justification” for the fact that the country maintains relations with sanctioned Russian companies.

“[Washington is] concerned by the support the South African Armed Forces provided to the ‘Lady R’ (…) There is no publicly available information on the source of the containers that were loaded onto the ‘Lady R’ “, a senior US official told the WSJ – “Lady R” being the term used to refer to the Russian ship.

The lack of information about the ship’s contents makes it difficult to ascertain whether it was bringing Russian products to Africa or transporting African products to Russia. Obviously, the greatest fear of US officials is that Russia and South Africa are strengthening ties of military cooperation. In a statement issued by the South African Minister of Defense Thandi Modise it was said that “whatever contents this vessel was getting were ordered long before Covid”.

Darren Olivier, a consultant at African Defense Review, commented to the WSJ that “South Africa’s defense industry does not generally produce armaments and complete systems that are used by the Russian military”. He claims it is possible that Russia eventually becomes interested in some South African military products such as optics and guidance systems for combat drones, but this does not appear to be the case about the latest “Lady R” expedition.

Olivier believes that most likely the ship was carrying to South Africa some tons of Russian ammunition that had previously been ordered by Pretoria. In 2020, South Africa signed a contract with Russian suppliers valued at more than 500,000 dollars to acquire ammunition. Considering the information that the ship’s contents referred to contracts signed “before Covid”, as the minister said, so it is likely that this was the cargo in December.

Commenting on the topic, Minister Modisa also expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the US operates its relations with South Africa and other states on the continent. According to her, Washington “threatens Africa, not just South Africa, of having anything that is even smelling of Russia”. Indeed, the US does not seem willing to respect the sovereign foreign policy of African nations, simply ignoring the fact that there is real desire for cooperation with Russia on the part of these states.

In the specific case of South Africa, the American posture is even more serious, since Pretoria and Moscow are both members of the BRICS, maintaining a fundamental strategic alliance that cannot be vulnerable to the decisions taken by the American politicians. The posture of US diplomats in Pretoria in the “Lady R” case shows how Washington still conducts its diplomacy based on coercion. American officials called on the South African authorities to expose the ship’s cargo, simply because in Washington such ship is “blacklisted”.

In fact, American legislation itself allows this type of anti-diplomatic maneuver. There is a law in the US that permits the country to impose sanctions on any entities around the world that contract the services of blacklisted ships, which explains Pretoria’s stance on not disclosing details on the matter. The US wants to find out which South African entities are involved in the transaction in order to impose sanctions on them, which is why the South African state correctly omits the data to protect its domestic entities.

This shows how threat and coercion are not efficient diplomatic mechanisms. The American authorities seem connected to a belligerent logic according to which it is possible to obtain any kind of advantage through violence and blackmail. But the contemporary world goes in another direction. There is a process of transition towards geopolitical multipolarity that cannot be stopped through blackmail.

South Africa did not comply with the anti-Moscow sanctions because they were against its strategic interests. Currently, pragmatism, and not the “need” to please the US, is the parameter that guides the decisions of the 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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image is licensed under PDM-owner

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

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.

***

Pierre de Gaulle, a grandson of former French President Charles de Gaulle, has said the U.S. is making Europeans suffer by fueling the Ukraine conflict and waging a pre-planned economic war against Russia.

A corporate consultant and bank manager, Pierre told The Franco-Russian Dialogue Association on December 26:

“I revolt and protest this intellectual dishonesty in the Ukraine crisis because the triggers of the war are the Americans and NATO. The United States unfortunately continues the military escalation, making not only the Ukrainian population suffer, but the European population as well.”

Pierre continued:

“The scale and the number of sanctions show that all of this was organized a long time in advance. It is an economic war, from which the Americans are the beneficiaries. The Americans sell their gas to Europeans for a price four to seven times higher than they do in their own country.”

According to Pierre,

“public opinion in France is beginning to understand what the evil game of the Americans is today. By using lies, . . .the United States has managed to use the Ukrainian crisis to destabilize Europe. The Americans, as it were, cut off Europe from Russia, set the Europeans against the Russians. Why would they do that? Because Europe in alliance with Russia could be a strong bloc both politically and economically, culturally and socially…Ever since the Vietnam War and the economic crises that followed, Americans have always tried by force, cunning and other dishonest means to make up for the loss of their economic and political influence, although it is inevitable. In particular, Americans are trying to slow down the dollar’s loss of its status as the only…world exchange currency. And this policy continues.”

Target of the CIA

Charles de Gaulle was a hero of the French resistance against the Nazi occupation during World War II who went on to serve as French president from 1959 to 1969.

The CIA has declassified documents revealing that the Agency was involved in a plot in 1965 to kill de Gaulle, who had angered the Johnson administration by opposing the Vietnam War and throwing U.S. servicemen off French military bases.

De Gaulle had also pursued a progressive policy toward the Soviet Union, withdrawing French forces from NATO in 1966 and opening up negotiations with Soviet leaders, visiting Moscow numerous times and signing a trade agreement with the Soviets.

After a failed assassination attempt in 1961, right-wing military officers who hated de Gaulle for relinquishing French control over Algeria, approached the CIA and developed an assassination plot that involved infiltrating an agent wearing a poisoned ring into a group of old soldiers attending a reception at which de Gaulle would appear.

When de Gaulle gestured to shake his hand, the general would fall to the ground while the assassin strolled calmly off into the crowd.

Restoring Grandpa Charles’s Vision

In a speech on the national day of the Russian Federation in June at the Russian embassy in Paris, Pierre de Gaulle noted how Russia had been seen by his grandfather as an indispensable ally whose friendship would contribute to the stability of Europe.

“The General [his grandfather] even said ‘Napoleon’s disastrous decision to attack [Czar] Alexander I is the biggest mistake he ever made. Nothing forced him to do so. It was contrary to our interests, to our traditions, to our genius. It is from the war between Napoleon and the Russians that our decadence dates.’”

France’s greatest folly: Napoleon’s army retreating in the Russian snow. [Source: kanopy.com]

Emphasizing how the Russian and French people were linked together “by long years of friendship and by the blood shed against the Nazis,” Pierre stated that he had come here to “affirm once again, loud and clear, that it is in France’s interest to maintain good relations with Russia and to say that we must work together in order to help the union and security of our continent, as well as the balance, progress, and peace of the entire world.”

In Pierre’s view, the “systematic and blind policy of confiscation and discrimination directed against the entire Russian people” [reference to sanctions] was “scandalous.” French elites had betrayed his grandfather’s legacy by siding with the U.S. and NATO and the “reckless” and “condemnable policy of the Ukrainian government towards the Russian-speaking population of Donbas, [which involved] discrimination, plundering, embargoes and bombings.”

The West, according to Pierre, has “allowed Zelensky, his oligarchs and the neo-Nazi military groups to be trapped in a spiral of war,” with their “blindness having serious consequences for the Ukrainian people. But let’s make no mistake. What do the Americans want, if not to provoke a new East-West confrontation, whose only goal is to weaken and divide Europe in order to impose their directive, their economy, and their system.”

Pierre further noted that the Americans have “never accepted, nor the West with them, that after the difficult transition of 1991 and the reconstruction that followed, Russia would not fit into their unipolar world…nor that Russia should transform itself according to the Western model—in its own way. Because of this, and from the beginning, President Putin was perceived as a dictator, whereas he is a great leader for his country!”

The United States, Pierre continued, “has also never accepted the loss of the role of the dollar as the dominant currency in the settlement of international trade in the world.”

Pierre’s words are heretical to American ears and those of the French ruling elite; however, they present a wonderful and realistic vision that progressive movements should embrace.

Pierre ended his speech by noting that his grandfather loved Russia and “always supported and defended the imperative need, even in the most difficult moments of history, to build and preserve a strong and shared relationship with Russia. Allow me to quote General de Gaulle once again: ‘In France, we have never considered Russia an enemy. I am for the development of Franco-Russian friendship; and I have never sent and I will never send arms to people who would have fought against Soviet Russia.’”

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: Pierre de Gaulle [Source: rt.com]

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

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.

***

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

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.

***

Israel’s former military intelligence chief has said Israel convinced the US that Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani posed an “immediate threat” to American soldiers, the same language former President Trump used to justify his assassination at the time, although no evidence was ever provided for the claim.

Soleimani was the commander of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force and was killed in Baghdad by a US drone strike in January 2020. At the time, Tamir Hayman served as the head of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate. Hayman toldJewish News that Israel had provided the US with information to convince the US Soleimani posed a threat.

“We supplied the intelligence and shared analysis and over a long period of time they were eventually convinced that Soleimani was an immediate threat to American lives and its strategic posture in the Middle East,” Hayman said.

Trump told reporters at the time of the killing that Soleimani was “plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.” The claim was never confirmed, and according to then-Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi, Soleimani was in Baghdad as part of an Iraqi mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

“I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran,” Abdul-Mahdi said after the assassination.

Trump’s justification for the assassination later changed, and members of Congress briefed on the killing said the administration provided no evidence of “imminent attacks.” In a legally mandated memo to Congress issued in February 2020, the administration dropped the “imminent attacks” claim altogether.

The memo said the assassination was done to “protect United States personnel, to deter Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against United States forces and interests, to degrade Iran’s and Quds Force-back militia’s ability to conduct attacks, and to end Iran’s strategic escalation of attacks.”

The series of events that led to Soleimani’s assassination was sparked by a rocket attack on a base in Kirkuk, Iraq, that killed a US contractor on December 27th, 2019. The US blamed the Kirkuk attack on Kataib Hezbollah, a Shia militia the US views as an Iranian proxy.

The US responded to the Kirkuk attack by launching airstrikes on several Kataib Hezbollah targets, killing 25 of the group’s fighters. The airstrikes enraged many Iraqis, and protesters stormed the US embassy. After the embassy incident, President Trump ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani.

The US never substantiated the claim that Kataib Hezbollah was responsible for the Kirkuk attack. In February, Iraqi intelligence officials told The New York Times that it was more likely that ISIS carried out the Kirkuk attack. ISIS would also have the motive to spark fighting between the US and Iran and the Shia militias as they were previously allied against the Sunni terror group.

The drone strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, who led the Popular Mobilization Forces, a group of mostly Iraqi Shia militias that was formed in 2014 to fight ISIS. The killings enraged many in Iraq and brought the US and Iran to the brink of war, but the standoff was defused after Iranian missile strikes on bases in Iraq housing US troops that didn’t result in any deaths. But to this day, Iran vows revenge for Soleimani’s 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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from American Herald Tribune

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

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 a teenager in the 1970s, I recall talking to my dad about fears of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. My dad took a broad view, suggesting that if U.S. and Soviet leaders were stupid enough to blow each other to smithereens, a billion Chinese people would be left to pick up the slack and move the world forward.

My dad was right about many things, but what he didn’t realize was that U.S. nuclear war plans (known as SIOPs) often called for the elimination of the USSR and China, even if China had had no involvement in events leading up to the war. Basically, the ruling U.S. nuclear war philosophy was: If you’re red, you’re dead.

Daniel Ellsberg wrote about this in his book, The Doomsday Machine. As I wrote in my review of that book:

“U.S. nuclear war plans circa 1960 envisioned a simultaneous attack on the USSR and China that would generate 600 million deaths after six months.  As Ellsberg notes, that is 100 Holocausts.  This plan was to be used even if China hadn’t directly attacked the U.S., i.e. the USSR and China were lumped together as communist bad guys who had to be eliminated together in a general nuclear war.  Only one U.S. general present at the briefing objected to this idea: David M. Shoup, a Marine general and Medal of Honor winner, who also later objected to the Vietnam War.”

What’s truly startling is that only one U.S. military leader present, General David Shoup, objected to the SIOP that would lead to the death of 600 million people in six months. A decade later, scientists learned that such a huge nuclear exchange would likely cause a nuclear winter that would kill billions due to famine. Truly, the (few) living would envy the (many) dead.

Mention of David Shoup’s name leads me to this fine article: “The Marine Corps legend who tried to stop the Vietnam War,” by James Clark. Shoup was a remarkable American who helped to prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 from escalating to a nuclear war. Once he retired from the Marines, he became a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and militarism in general, a worthy successor to General Smedley Butler.

The Joint Chiefs in 1961. General Shoup is on the far right, next to General Curtis LeMay, architect of SAC and of a possible nuclear doomsday

I urge you to read Clark’s article on Shoup, who quotes Shoup’s hard-won wisdom here:

About the Vietnam War, Shoup said “I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own.”

In the Atlantic Monthly, Shoup, echoing the warning of Eisenhower about the military-industrial complex, wrote bluntly about America’s war culture and its anti-democratic nature:

Somewhat like a religion, the basic appeals of anti-Communism, national defense and patriotism provide the foundation for a powerful creed upon which the defense establishment can build, grow, and justify its cost. More so than many large bureaucratic organizations, the defense establishment now devotes a large share of its efforts to self-perpetuation, to justifying its organizations, to preaching its doctrines, to self-maintenance and management.

You would think that a Medal of Honor recipient who’d proved his bravery and patriotism at Tarawa during World War II would be immune from charges of being unpatriotic or weak on defense, but you’d be wrong.

Where are today’s Shoups among the U.S. military brass? Where are the leaders who are against genocidal nuclear war and who are willing to speak out against it? Where are the leaders who reject a new cold war with China and Russia? Where are the leaders with the courage to advocate for peace whenever possible in place of more and more war?

Have we fallen so far under the spell of militarism that America no longer produces leaders like Dwight Eisenhower, Smedley Butler, and David Shoup, generals who truly knew war, despised it, and wanted above all to put an end to 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.

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

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 America’s rush to build the nuclear arsenal that won the Cold War, safety was sacrificed for speed.

Uranium mills that helped fuel the weapons also dumped radioactive and toxic waste into rivers like the Cheyenne in South Dakota and the Animas in Colorado. Thousands of sheep turned blue and died after foraging on land tainted by processing sites in North Dakota. And cancer wards across the West swelled with sick uranium workers.

The U.S. government bankrolled the industry, and mining companies rushed to profit, building more than 50 mills and processing sites to refine uranium ore.

But the government didn’t have a plan for the toxic byproducts of this nuclear assembly line. Some of the more than 250 million tons of toxic and radioactive detritus, known as tailings, scattered into nearby communities, some spilled into streams and some leaked into aquifers.

Congress finally created the agency that now oversees uranium mill waste cleanup in 1974 and enacted the law governing that process in 1978, but the industry would soon collapse due to falling uranium prices and rising safety concerns. Most mills closed by the mid-1980s.

When cleanup began, federal regulators first focused on the most immediate public health threat, radiation exposure. Agencies or companies completely covered waste at most mills to halt leaks of the carcinogenic gas radon and moved some waste by truck and train to impoundments specially designed to encapsulate it.

But the government has fallen down in addressing another lingering threat from the industry’s byproducts: widespread water pollution.

Regulators haven’t made a full accounting of whether they properly addressed groundwater contamination. So, for the first time, ProPublica cataloged cleanup efforts at the country’s 48 uranium mills, seven related processing sites and numerous tailings piles.

Uranium Mill Waste Is Concentrated in the Four Corners Region

Data obtained by ProPublica via public agency documents and satellite imaging tools; map by Lucas Waldron, ProPublica

At least 84% of the sites have polluted groundwater. And nearly 75% still have either no liner or only a partial liner between mill waste and the ground, leaving them susceptible to leaking pollution into groundwater. In the arid West, where most of the sites are located, climate change is drying up surface water, making underground reserves increasingly important.

ProPublica’s review of thousands of pages of government and corporate documents, accompanied by interviews with 100 people, also found that cleanup has been hampered by infighting among regulatory agencies and the frequency with which regulators grant exemptions to their own water quality standards.

The result: a long history of water pollution and sickness.

Reports by government agencies found high concentrations of cancer near a mill in Utah and elevated cancer risks from mill waste in New Mexico that can persist until cleanup is complete. Residents near those sites and others have seen so many cases of cancer and thyroid disease that they believe the mills and waste piles are to blame, although epidemiological studies to prove such a link have rarely been done.

“The government didn’t pay attention up front and make sure it was done right. They just said, ‘Go get uranium,’” said Bill Dixon, who spent decades cleaning up uranium and nuclear sites with the state of Oregon and in the private sector.

Tom Hanrahan grew up near uranium mills in Colorado and New Mexico and watched three of his three brothers contract cancer. He believes his siblings were “casualties” of the war effort.

“Somebody knew that this was a ticking atomic bomb,” Hanrahan said. “But, in military terms, this was the cost of fighting a war.”

A Flawed System

When a uranium mill shuts down, here is what’s supposed to happen: The company demolishes the buildings, decontaminates the surrounding soil and water, and encases the waste to stop it from leaking cancer-causing pollution. The company then asks the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the lead agency monitoring America’s radioactive infrastructure, to approve the handoff of the property and its associated liability to the Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management for monitoring and maintenance.

ProPublica’s analysis found that half of the country’s former mills haven’t made it through this process and even many that did have never fully addressed pollution concerns. This is despite the federal government spending billions of dollars on cleanup, in addition to the several hundred million dollars that have been spent by companies.

Often, companies or agencies tasked with cleanup are unable to meet water quality standards, so they request exemptions to bypass them. The NRC or state agencies almost always approve these requests, allowing contaminants like uranium and selenium to be left in the groundwater. When ingested in high quantities, those elements can cause cancer and damage the nervous system, respectively.

The DOE estimates that some sites have individually polluted more than a billion gallons of water.

Bill Dam, who spent decades regulating and researching uranium mill cleanup with the NRC, at the DOE and in the private sector, said water pollution won’t be controlled until all the waste and contaminated material is moved. “The federal government’s taken a Band-Aid approach to groundwater contamination,” he said.

The pollution has disproportionately harmed Indian Country.

Residents of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in southeast Utah protest the last active uranium mill in the country, called the White Mesa Mill, which is operated by Energy Fuels. Credit: Liz Moughon and Gerardo del Valle/ProPublica

Six of the mills were built on reservations, and another eight mills are within 5 miles of one, some polluting aquifers used by tribes. And the country’s last conventional uranium mill still in operation — the White Mesa Mill in Utah — sits adjacent to a Ute Mountain Ute community.

So many uranium mines, mills and waste piles pockmark the Navajo Nation that the Environmental Protection Agency created a comic book superhero, Gamma Goat, to warn Diné children away from the sites.

A comic book produced by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999 warns children about the dangers of abandoned uranium mines, mills and waste in the Navajo Nation. Credit: Illustrations by Jay Robinson. Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica

NRC staff acknowledged that the process of cleaning up America’s uranium mills can be slow but said that the agency prioritizes thoroughness over speed, that each site’s groundwater conditions are complex and unique, and that cleanup exemptions are granted only after gathering input from regulators and the public.

“The NRC’s actions provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and the environment,” David McIntyre, an NRC spokesperson, said in a statement to ProPublica.

“Cleanup Standards Might Suddenly Change”

For all the government’s success in demolishing mills and isolating waste aboveground, regulators failed to protect groundwater.

Between 1958 and 1962, a mill near Gunnison, Colorado, churned through 540,000 tons of ore. The process, one step in concentrating the ore into weapons-grade uranium, leaked uranium and manganese into groundwater, and in 1990, regulators found that residents had been drawing that contaminated water from 22 wells.

The DOE moved the waste and connected residents to clean water. But pollution lingered in the aquifer beneath the growing town where some residents still get their water from private wells. The DOE finally devised a plan in 2000, which the NRC later approved, settling on a strategy called “natural flushing,” essentially waiting for groundwater to dilute the contamination until it reached safe levels.

In 2015, the agency acknowledged that the plan had failed. Sediments absorb and release uranium, so waiting for contamination to be diluted doesn’t solve the problem, said Dam, the former NRC and DOE regulator.

In Wyoming, state regulators wrote to the NRC in 2006 to lambast the agency’s “inadequate” analysis of natural flushing compared to other cleanup options. “Unfortunately, the citizens of Wyoming may likely have to deal with both the consequences and the indirect costs of the NRC’s decisions for generations to come,” the state’s letter said.

ProPublica identified mills in six states — including eight former mill sites in Colorado — where regulators greenlit the strategy as part of a cleanup plan.

When neither water treatment nor nature solves the problem, federal and state regulators can simply relax their water quality standards, allowing harmful levels of pollutants to be left in aquifers.

First image: A photo of a site marker at the Gunnison disposal cell taken in September 2022 by government officials. Second image: A 1992 report from the Department of Energy showing how to move waste from the Gunnison mill. Credit: Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica

County officials made a small area near the Gunnison mill off-limits to new wells, and the DOE suggested changing water quality standards to allow uranium concentrations as much as 475 times what naturally occurred in the area. It wouldn’t endanger human health, the agency said, because people wouldn’t come into contact with the water.

ProPublica found that regulators granted groundwater cleanup exemptions at 18 of the 28 sites where cleanup has been deemed complete and liability has been handed over to the DOE’s Office of Legacy Management. Across all former uranium mills, the NRC or state agencies granted at least 34 requests for water quality exemptions while denying as few as three.

“They’re cutting standards, so we’re getting weak cleanup that future generations may not find acceptable,” said Paul Robinson, who spent four decades researching the cleanup of the uranium industry with the Southwest Research and Information Center, an Albuquerque-based nonprofit. “These great mining companies of the world, they got away cheap.”

NRC staffers examine studies that are submitted by companies’ consultants and other agencies to show how cleanup plans will adequately address water contamination. Some companies change their approach in response to feedback from regulators, and the public can view parts of the process in open meetings. Still, the data and groundwater modeling that underpin these requests for water cleanup exemptions are often wrong.

One reason: When mining companies built the mills, they rarely sampled groundwater to determine how much contamination occurred naturally, leaving it open to debate how clean groundwater should be when the companies leave, according to Roberta Hoy, a former uranium program specialist with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. She said federal regulators also haven’t done enough to understand certain contaminants at uranium mills.

In one recent case, the NRC fined a mining company $14,500 for incomplete and inaccurate groundwater modeling data. Companies use such data to prove that pollution won’t spread in the future. Freeport-McMoRan, the corporation that owns the fined mining company, did not respond to a request for comment.

At a 2013 conference co-hosted by the NRC and a mining trade group, a presentation from two consultants compared groundwater modeling to a sorcerer peering at a crystal ball.

ProPublica identified at least seven sites where regulators granted cleanup exemptions based on incorrect groundwater modeling. At these sites, uranium, lead, nitrates, radium and other substances were found at levels higher than models had predicted and regulators had allowed.

McIntyre, the NRC spokesperson, said that groundwater models “inherently include uncertainty,” and the government typically requires sites to be monitored. “The NRC requires conservatism in the review process and groundwater monitoring to verify a model’s accuracy,” he said.

Water quality standards impose specific limits on the allowable concentration of contaminants — for example, the number of micrograms of uranium per liter of water. But ProPublica found that the NRC granted exemptions in at least five states that were so vague they didn’t even include numbers and were instead labeled as “narrative.” The agency justified this by saying the groundwater was not near towns or was naturally unfit for human consumption.

This system worries residents of Cañon City, Colorado. Emily Tracy, who serves on the City Council, has lived a few miles from the area’s now-demolished uranium mill since the late 1970s and remembers floods and winds carrying mill waste into neighborhoods from the 15.3-million-ton pile, which is now partially covered.

Uranium and other contaminants had for decades tainted private wells that some residents used for drinking water and agriculture, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The company that operated the mill, Cotter Corp., finally connected residents to clean water by the early 1990s and completed cleanup work such as decontaminating soil after the EPA got involved. But the site remains without a final cleanup plan — which the company that now owns the site is drafting — and the state has eased water quality standards for molybdenum, a metal that uranium mining and milling releases into the environment.

First image: Golfers watch as wind blows uranium mill waste off a now-covered pile at the Cotter Uranium Mill. Second image: Drone footage shot in July 2021 that shows the site of the former Cotter mill. Credit: Photos courtesy of Emily Tracy. Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica

“We have great concerns about what it might look like or whether cleanup standards might suddenly change before our eyes,” Tracy said.

Jim Harrington, managing director of the site’s current owner, Colorado Legacy Land, said that a final cleanup strategy has not been selected and that any proposal would need to be approved by both the EPA and the state.

Layers of Regulation

It typically takes 35 years from the day a mill shuts down until the NRC approves or estimates it will approve cleanup as being complete, ProPublica found. Two former mills aren’t expected to finish this process until 2047.

Chad Smith, a DOE spokesperson, said mills that were previously transferred to the government have polluted groundwater more than expected, so regulators are more cautious now.

The involvement of so many regulators can also slow cleanup.

Five sites were so contaminated that the EPA stepped in via its Superfund program, which aims to clean up the most polluted places in the country.

At the Homestake mill in New Mexico, where cleanup is jointly overseen by the NRC and the EPA, Larry Camper, a now-retired NRC division director, acknowledged in a 2011 meeting “that having multiple regulators for the site is not good government” and had complicated the cleanup, according to meeting minutes.

Homestake Mining Company of California did not comment on Camper’s view of the process.

Only one site where the EPA is involved in cleanup has been successfully handed off to the DOE, and even there, uranium may still persist above regulatory limits in groundwater and surface water, according to the agency. An EPA spokesperson said the agency has requested additional safety studies at that site.

“A lot of people make money in the bureaucratic system just pontificating over these things,” said William Turner, a geologist who at different times has worked for mining companies, for the U.S. Geological Survey and as the New Mexico Natural Resources Trustee.

If the waste is on tribal land, it adds another layer of government.

The federal government and the Navajo Nation have long argued over the source of some groundwater contamination at the former Navajo Mill built by Kerr-McGee Corp. in Shiprock, New Mexico, with the tribe pointing to the mill as the key source. Smith of the DOE said the department is guided by water monitoring results “to minimize opportunities for disagreement.”

Tronox, which acquired parts of Kerr-McGee, did not respond to requests for comment.

All the while, 2.5 million tons of waste sit adjacent to the San Juan River in the town of 8,000 people. Monitoring wells situated between the unlined waste pile and the river have shown nitrate levels as high as 80 times the limit set by regulators to protect human health, uranium levels 30 times the limit and selenium levels 20 times the limit.

“I can’t seem to get the federal agencies to acknowledge the positions of the Navajo Nation,” said Dariel Yazzie, who formerly managed the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund Program.

A 1977 report from the EPA acknowledging water pollution at the Shiprock mill Credit: Photo by the Department of Energy. Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica

At some sites, overlapping jurisdictions mean even less cleanup gets done.

Such was the case near Griffin, North Dakota, where six cows and 2,500 sheep died in 1973; their bodies emitted a blue glow in the morning light. The animals lay near kilns that once served as rudimentary uranium mills operated by Kerr-McGee. To isolate the element, piles of uranium-laden coal at the kilns were “covered with old tires, doused in diesel fuel, ignited, and left to smolder for a couple of months,” according to the North Dakota Geological Survey.

The flock is believed to have been poisoned by land contaminated with high levels of molybdenum. The danger extended beyond livestock. In a 1989 draft environmental assessment, the DOE found that “fatal cancer from exposure to residual radioactive materials” from the Griffin kilns and another site less than a mile from a town of 1,000 people called Belfield was eight times as high as it would have been if the sites had been decontaminated.

But after agreeing to work with the federal government, North Dakota did an about-face. State officials balked at a requirement to pay 10% of the cleanup cost — the federal government would cover the rest — and in 1995 asked that the sites no longer be regulated under the federal law. The DOE had already issued a report that said doing nothing “would not be consistent” with the law, but the department approved the state’s request and walked away, saying it could only clean a site if the state paid its share.

“North Dakota determined there was minimal risk to public health at that time and disturbing the grounds further would create a potential for increased public health risk,” said David Stradinger, manager of the Radiation Control Program in the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality. Contaminated equipment was removed, and the state is reevaluating one of the sites, he said.

“A Problem for the Better Part of 50 Years”

While the process for cleaning up former mills is lengthy and laid out in regulations, regulators and corporations have made questionable and contradictory decisions in their handling of toxic waste and tainted water.

More than 40 million people rely on drinking water from the Colorado River, but the NRC and DOE allowed companies to leak contamination from mill waste directly into the river, arguing that the waterway quickly dilutes it.

Federal regulators relocated tailings at two former mills that processed uranium and vanadium, another heavy metal, on the banks of the Colorado River in Rifle, Colorado, because radiation levels there were deemed too high. Yet they left some waste at one former processing site in a shallow aquifer connected to the river and granted an exemption that allowed cleanup to end and uranium to continue leaking into the waterway.

Uranium contamination extends several miles in an aquifer under the Bluewater disposal site in New Mexico. Credit: Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica

For a former mill built by the Anaconda Copper Company in Bluewater, New Mexico, the NRC approved the company’s request to hand the site off to the DOE in 1997. About a decade later, the state raised concerns about uranium that had spread several miles in an aquifer that provides drinking water for more than 15,000 people.

The contamination hasn’t reached the wells used by nearby communities, and Smith, the DOE spokesperson, said the department has no plans to treat the uranium in the aquifer. It’s too late for much more cleanup, since the DOE’s Office of Legacy Management’s mission is to monitor and maintain decommissioned sites, not clean them. Flawed cleanup efforts caused problems at several former mills after they were handed off to the agency, according to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report.

“Uranium has been overplayed as a boom,” said Travis Stills, an environmental attorney in Colorado who has sued over the cleanup of old uranium infrastructure. “The boom was a firecracker, and it left a problem for the better part of 50 years now.”

“No Way in Hell We’re Going to Leave This Stuff Here”

Mining companies can’t remove every atom of uranium from groundwater, experts said, but they can do a better job of decommissioning uranium mills. With the federal government yet to take control of half the country’s former mills, regulators still have time to compel some companies to do more cleanup.

Between 1958 and 1961, the Lakeview Mining Company generated 736,000 tons of tailings at a uranium mill in southern Oregon. Like at most sites, uranium and other pollution leaked into an aquifer.

“There’s no way in hell we’re going to leave this stuff here,” Dixon, the nuclear cleanup specialist, remembered thinking. He represented the state of Oregon at the former mill, which was one of the first sites to relocate its waste to a specially engineered disposal cell.

First image: A warning sign at the Lakeview disposal site. The photo appeared in a DOE annual report. Second image: A 1984 report from the Oregon Department of Energy discusses possible sites to host relocated mill tailings. Credit: Graphic composition by Mauricio Rodriguez Pons/ProPublica

A local advisory committee at the Lakeview site allowed residents and local politicians to offer input to federal regulators. By the end of the process, the government had paid to connect residents to a clean drinking water system and the waste was moved away from the town, where it was contained by a 2-foot-thick clay liner and covered with 3 feet of rocks, soil and vegetation. Local labor got priority for cleanup contracts, and a 170-acre solar farm now stands on the former mill site.

But relocation isn’t required. At some sites, companies and regulators saw a big price tag and either moved residents away or merely left the waste where it was.

“I recognize Lakeview is easy and it’s a drop in the bucket compared to New Mexico,” Dixon said, referring to the nation’s largest waste piles. “But it’s just so sad to see that this hasn’t been taken care of.”

*

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.

Mark Olalde is a Reporter at ProPublica covering the environment in the Southwest.

Mollie Simon is a research reporter at ProPublica.

Alex is a research reporter for the Local Reporting Network at ProPublica.

Gerardo del Valle is a Video and Film Fellow with ProPublica.

Liz Moughon is a Video and Film Fellow at ProPublica.

Mauricio Rodríguez Pons is a visual journalist.

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

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.

***

Two years after the traumatic experience of leaving Tehran at the time of the start corona, in December I had the opportunity to visit Iran again. Colleague Vladimir Trapara and I participated in a large international conference sponsored by Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and organized by their leading institute for international relations, IPIS.

The opportunity to visit Iran at this time has aroused great interest among Serbian and International, especially western colleagues. Namely, if you follow the western media and especially various foreign services in Persian language, you get the impression that everything is on fire there, that hundreds of thousands of people are protesting and that the country is facing great instability. So this was an extraordinary opportunity to see what is really happening, and to evaluate the reports I hear about the situation in both domestic and foreign media with the most competent Iranian colleagues.

As is well known, Iran experienced a wave of protests after September 22, when a young woman, Masha Amini, died in the custody of the Iranian moral police. A prominent place among the protesters was occupied by women, especially younger ones, then students and other parts of the urban population. The Western media covered all of this with rhetoric about a spontaneous protest, about the struggle for the emancipation and liberation of women who allegedly live in a servile and humiliating position in Iran, etc. This version from the cartoons or fairytales, of course, also has another side, which unfortunately you cannot hear in the Serbian and western media.

Image is from InfoBrics

The prehistory of these events begins in July, when the media announced that Iranian services had carried out hacking attacks on Albania’s cyber space. This happened again in September, which led to the expulsion of Iranian diplomats and the severance of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Why Albania? Well, this open Balkan friend and partner of ours has a very interesting and specific place in the intelligence world. In addition to being the center of the Gulenist network in the Balkans since 2016, Albania is also one of the two most important centers for the activities of the Iranian opposition. During my last visit to Tehran in 2020, colleagues from their Strategy Institute showed me photos of troll factories located in this country, where hundreds of Iranians sit in hangars and wage cyberwars, write comments as bots acting subversively against the current order in Tehran. Everything happens, of course, with the support of the host, in coordination with the Western intelligence systems, and the money is provided by the Middle Eastern country that most often finances such things, which happens to be the patron of Wahhabism around the world.

So the supposedly spontaneous protests that began after September 22 were prepared months in advance in coordination with Western intelligence systems. We will remember the protests from 2009, and on several other occasions the same actors tried to undermine or overthrow the regime in Iran. Let’s remember that in the meantime, evidence was disclosed that MI6 and the CIA organized a coup in 1953 that overthrew the democratic government of Muhammad Mossadegh, so the accusations of the same actors today have full logic and legitimacy. The Americans have not had an embassy there since 1979, and the former embassy where the hostages were kept, today is a museum that can be visited with everything found there, including interrogation rooms or a special section for encryption and similar operations. Today the institution exists under the name Museum of the USA Den of Spionage.

But the British are also present with the embassy, and Iranian officials again accused them of subversion. It is also extremely interesting that the late Masha was from the Kurdish part of Iran, which has also become the subject of serious international interest in recent months. This part of the imaginary Kurdistan was the only one that was peaceful during the last decades and there were no serious rebellions and unrest in it. In the Iraqi and Syrian parts, separate states within the state were created, and in the Turkish part, there are constant fights between the central government in Ankara and parts of the PKK, which Turkey defines as a terrorist organization. That is why many international actors are interested in burning that part as well.

As a result of the protests, the regime abolished the so-called Moral Police, which the opposition considers a great victory. On the streets of Tehran, girls and women walking without covering their hair can be seen en masse. This is especially pronounced in the north, where the wealthier parts of the elite live, as well as around the universities. In the southern parts of the city and in other places, this is not the case. The authorities believe that in these conditions it was necessary to show a certain flexibility so that the protests would not turn into even more serious manifestations, where dissatisfaction could go to the side of social protests due to inflation and the like.

The protests have slowly died down and life is going on normally. From time to time, for example, several hundred protesters gather around some university or in Tajriz square, and in the evening, even from the apartments of young people, you can hear chants of “death to the dictator”, directed against the supreme leader. The future will show whether this episode was another failed attempt at destabilization or the beginning of some more serious processes of westernization of society. In an increasing number of newly opened cafes, young people drink coffee instead of tea, while the music that can be heard in any western bar, but is not yet on the radio, comes from the speakers.

*

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.

Misa Djurkovic is a researcher from Belgrade, Serbia and at the time director of the Belgrade based Institute of European Studies.

Featured image: Iranian protestors on the Keshavrz Boulvard (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

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

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.

***

Today, the Foreign Ministers of Turkey and Syria will meet in Moscow.  This is the highest level meeting between the two countries who have been on opposite sides of the US-NATO war on Syria for regime change since 2011.

The outcome of that meeting, and the expected follow-up meeting between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, may form the basis for the recovery of Syria, circumventing the UN resolution 2254, which has failed to produce results.

The US has lost the war, but has used armed militias to remain occupying parts of Syria, and to impose a stalemate which prevents a peaceful solution and recovery for Syria.  America is no longer the only superpower, and decisions made in the new Middle East no longer depend on orders from the US State Department.

Erdogan is up for re-election in June and faces heavy opposition. The economy is dismal, and people blame the Syrian refugees for lost jobs and social ills.  Erdogan and the opposition promise to send the refugees packing.

The Turkish export market to Syria in 2011 represented half of the entire global export market for Turkey.  That was lost when Damascus banned all Turkish imports because of their participation in the war on Syria. Erdogan could get the Syrian market restored by repairing the relationship.

In order to win re-election, Erdogan proposes a rapprochement with Assad.  The US has voiced its displeasure at any attempt of any country to repair relations with Syria.  However, Erdogan will not be swayed by US opinion or threats, in light of the fact that the US supports, trains and supplies weapons to the Kurdish militia (SDF and YPG) linked to an internationally banned terrorist organization (PKK), which have killed thousands in Turkey over three decades of terrorism. The Kurds know that Turkey is a much more important ally to the US, and the US will never fight Turkey to save the Kurds.  Former US envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey, told the Kurds they should repair their relationship with Damascus for protection. The US never supported a “homeland” for the Kurds.

Syria and Turkey are united in their goal to demilitarize the Kurdish northeast of Syria.  Syria and Turkey share a common enemy (the Kurds), and a common ally (Russia). This may be the basis of forming a new foreign policy between the two neighbors.

Syria

Syrian officials have met with Turkish officials and Arab Gulf officials.  Some Arab embassies in Damascus were re-opened, and Assad made a visit to the UAE.

The Assad administration in Damascus controls the vast majority of the Syrian territory.  The exceptions are: Idlib province in the northwest is under the occupation of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a Radical Islamic terrorist group which was the former Al Qaeda branch in Syria, and the Kurdish administration region in the northeast under the occupation of about 600 US troops and two local Kurdish militias (SDF and YPG) which follow a communist political ideology first promoted by the jailed PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan.

Syria and Russia have been prevented from attacking and liberating Idlib from terrorist control. The US uses the three million civilians living under occupation as human shields to prevent attack. The US and its allies in the UN demand that the UN food and medical supplies be delivered to Idlib. The civilians are being fed and clothed, but the terrorists and their families are as well. The international community is supporting the welfare of the terrorists, who are there at the behest of the US, to prevent peace and recovery in Syria.  Despite the UN protocol which demands all UN members to fight Al Qaeda, or their affiliates, anywhere on earth, the US and Turkey have circumvented the protocol and use the terrorists as guards of the political stalemate which the US imposed on Syria.

The US

America has maintained an iron grip on Syria through the use of US sanctions and a brutal military occupation which has prevented the Syrian citizens from fuel for transportation and home heating, and to generate electricity.  Syrian houses, hospitals, schools and businesses have between 15 minutes to 1 hour of electricity in four intervals per day because of the US imposed sanctions, which have not affected the Syrian government, but have brought the Syrian people to desperation. Kidney dialysis machines require electricity constantly.  A gasoline powered generator can suffice when there are blackouts, but the US sanctions also prevent the importation of gasoline.  How can Syrians survive?

Despite Richard Haass writing in 1998 that US sanctions are ineffective and immoral against civilians, the US State Department hangs on to sanctions as a tool for regime change.

Iran

Iran and Syria have been united in their resistance to the occupation of Palestine Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms.  Iran stood firmly with Syria during the US-NATO attack on Syria because it is a key in the land route from Iran to Lebanon. Recently, there are some cracks appearing in the relationship between Damascus and Tehran.  Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s meeting in Damascus was postponed recently. Some experts feel Iran has been asking too much of Syria, and with new opportunities for improved relations with the Arab Gulf and Turkey, Syria may be taking time to evaluate its options.

Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries want to see Iran out of Syria.  As long as Iran is in Syria the Israeli airstrikes will continue, which have been deadly and destructive.

There were 32 Israeli raids in 2022 that destroyed and struck 91 targets, including civilian infrastructure, buildings, weapons caches and vehicles. Eighty-eight military personnel were killed and 121 wounded in the attacks.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is the United States’ largest foreign military sales customer, with more than $100 billion in active cases.  In the US there is a saying, “The customer is always right.”

Perhaps this may explain why the US takes no action against Saudi Arabia even when there have been deadly issues, or when Biden asked the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to pump more oil, and he refused.

MBS is making huge reforms, which includes loosening restrictions on women, and creating new tourism and international sports opportunities.

MBS and Netanyahu are united in a common issue: to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, despite Iran insisting on wanting nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes, such as energy production and medical research.  Netanyahu has stated one of his main priorities in office will be to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia.

The Arab League

The upcoming Arab League Summit will take place in Saudi Arabia, traditionally scheduled yearly in March.  Depending on the outcome of meetings between now and spring, Syria could possibly be reinstated and occupy their seat at the table.  Big changes have been taking place in the region involving the relations between Arab countries and the US, China and Russia. Saudi Arabia is in the driver’s seat and will use their hosting of the summit to project their ranking as the Middle East’s power broker.

Israel

Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen has announced that the next Abraham Accords summit will be held in Morocco in March 2023.

The US had brokered in 2020 the Abraham Accords for the normalization of relations between Israel, Morocco, the UAE and Bahrain. Later, Sudan joined the accords.  Areas of shared interests are: defense, investment, agriculture, tourism, and energy.

The meetings and realignments between Syria and Turkey, mediated by Russia, may produce lasting changes in the Middle East, and bring enemies together as new friends.  The Israeli occupation of Palestine will continue to be the primary cause of instability and violence in the region.  It fuels religious extremism and terrorism. If Israel values the establishment of relations with their Arab neighbors, they must first look at their closest neighbors in Gaza and the West Bank.  The Middle East and the world wait for a peace summit to begin the process of peace for Israel and Palestine, and the host country will not likely be the US.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

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

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 latest demand by neocons that Russia must be wiped off the map is locked up behind a paywall at the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post. In order to read what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote, I used a browser text reader to bypass the paywall.

Rice and Gates argue:

The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken—before it is too late.

In other words, this must happen prior to Russia concluding its SMO and its eradication of neo-Nazis elevated and empowered after the USG staged a 2014 coup in Kyiv.

For Putin, defeat is not an option… He cannot cede to Ukraine the four eastern provinces he has declared part of Russia. If he cannot be militarily successful this year, he must retain control of positions in eastern and southern Ukraine that provide future jumping-off points for renewed offensives to take the rest of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast, control the entire Donbas region and then move west. Eight years separated Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its invasion nearly a year ago.

When Rice and Gates claim Russia intends to “move west,” they are exploiting a Big Lie—invented by the USG and telegraphed by a corporate propaganda media—that Russia intends to occupy the whole of Ukraine, and who knows, possibly Europe and maybe the whole world!

Vladimir Putin remains fully committed to bringing all of Ukraine back under Russian control or — failing that — destroying it as a viable country. He believes it is his historical destiny — his messianic mission — to reestablish the Russian Empire and, as Zbigniew Brzezinski observed years ago, there can be no Russian Empire without Ukraine.

The Russian SMO objectives say nothing about conquering all of Ukraine or the absurd lie that Putin wants to reestablish the Soviet Empire. Rice and Gates know this. They are repeating falsehoods because Big Lies must be repeated over and over in order for lies to become faux “facts” (that do not require corroboration or evidence) similar to the way the Gulf of Tonkin lie resulted in the Vietnam War and three million dead people in Southeast Asia.

There is but one “messianic mission”—that of total neoliberal conquest, domination, and neutralization of any nation that does not play by “rules-based” authoritarianism.

Gates and Rice cite Zbigniew Brzeziński on Ukraine. His mention provides an opportunity. Brzeziński, the architect of intervention in Afghanistan and a Russophobe, wrote at length about the objectives of the global financial elite.

The three grand imperatives of imperial [neoliberal] geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together. (“The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.”)

The “barbarians” are those in opposition to the “geostrategy” of psychopaths.

The lesson of Moammar Gadaffi, raped with a knife, and brutally assassinated, is that if you refuse to participate in the neoliberal game of theft and murder, you will be eliminated, and gruesomely so.

In the past, this was accomplished in the dark by covert means. Now it is performed at high noon, with the sun blazing above, so all can see and take stock. The message sent: either accept the fiat dollar-dominated financial swindle or be turned out as a corpse.

Rice and Gates lay out what they consider unacceptable.

Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position to resume their invasion whenever they are ready. That is unacceptable.

Really, these people can’t help it. They are pathological liars.

The Ukronazis have yet to realize a “breakthrough and success” in preventing Russia’s SMO from terminating their murderous ethnic cleansing agenda.

It is now virtually impossible for Ukraine’s decimated armed forces to push Russia out of the eastern and southern regions of the country. Donbas is now part of the Russian Federation. It is the will of the people living there who have suffered eight years of Ukronazi bombardment and terrorism. Gates and Rice have nothing to say about that ongoing war crime. For them, the lives of ethnic Russians are immaterial. The “rules” demand they be terrorized, executed, tortured, and raped.

The solution is simple, according to Rice and Gates. Forget about a negotiated settlement, a peace deal. According to the neocon duo, defeating Russia is a simple matter—it requires battle tanks, more artillery, Lockheed Martin HIMARS, Patriot missiles, drones, fighting vehicles, etc., thrown into the cauldron. Not to worry, though. Future generations will pay down the massive debt incurred—if there are future generations.

Let’s face it—our “elder statesmen” (and women) are conscienceless psychopaths. They are addicted to war and its organized mass murder to achieve globalist political ends. They are unable or unwilling to accept that by far most people on the planet are disgusted by their threats, self-serving “rules,” forever wars, and insistence on calling the shots, never mind how many people must die.

Increasingly, members of Congress and others in our public discourse ask, “Why should we care? This is not our fight.” But the United States has learned the hard way — in 1914, 1941 and 2001 — that unprovoked aggression and attacks on the rule of law and the international order cannot be ignored. Eventually, our security was threatened and we were pulled into conflict. This time, the economies of the world — ours included — are already seeing the inflationary impact and the drag on growth caused by Putin’s single-minded aggression. It is better to stop him now, before more is demanded of the United States and NATO as a whole. We have a determined partner in Ukraine that is willing to bear the consequences of war so that we do not have to do so ourselves in the future.

The above quote is riddled with lies.

1914, 1941, 2001. Indeed, unprovoked aggression.

If not for the economic warfare imposed on Japan by FDR and the USG (similar to the economic warfare now waged against Russia and China), the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor and FDR’s “day of infamy” would have never occurred. FDR and the USG would not have had an excuse to enter another disastrous war, a hedious war concluded with the use of atomic weapons.

If not for the financial support of Wall Street and German industrialists, Hitler would have never come to power, and war in Europe would have been avoided. Harsh “war reparations” imposed on a defeated Germany at Versailles following WWI resulted in the destruction of the German economy and the rise of radical fascism, adopted from Mussolini’s Italian version.

France and Pax Britannica wanted a war to stop a unified Germany from embarking on colonial ventures. France and Britain, previous rivals, came together to stop Germany and Russia from partaking in the spoils of imperialism. All it took was the assassination of a Hapsburg archduke and his wife to get things rolling.

The German colonial empire held East Africa, Togoland, Southwest Africa, and the Cameroons. German Far East territories consisted of New Guinea, Samoa, the Chinese leasehold of Kiaochow, and a number of small islands.

The effort to roll back the German empire resulted in more than 15 million dead. It also precipitated a Bolshevik revolution that claimed five million lives during the Red Terror and the Russian civil war. In addition, another five million starved to death during famines and purges under Stalin.

According to the late Professor Antony Sutton, who taught economics at California State University, and was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Wall Street and the City of London assisted in funding the Five-Year Plans of Lenin. This was accomplished through finance, technology and industrial transfers, and technical assistance.

Winston Churchill is now cited when the state and its media talk about the Man in Green, the hapless president of a corrupt failed state overtaken by psychopaths, a state that will not rest until ethnic Russians (and Jews, Roma, and other resented minorities) in Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine are either dead or ethnically cleansed.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech before Congress last month reminded us of Winston Churchill’s plea in February 1941: “Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.” We agree with the Biden administration’s determination to avoid direct confrontation with Russia. However, an emboldened Putin might not give us that choice. The way to avoid confrontation with Russia in the future is to help Ukraine push back the invader now. That is the lesson of history that should guide us, and it lends urgency to the actions that must be taken — before it is too late.

Churchill was an unrepentant psychopath, a racist, and a war criminal. He suggested aircraft should use “machine-gun fire or bombs” against Irish revolutionaries in 1920. Churchill advocated using poison gas on rebellious Arabs, what he described as “uncivilized tribes.”

In Afghanistan, he demanded “all who resist will be killed without quarter,” because, as he insisted with racist arrogance, the Pashtuns need to “recognize the superiority of race.”

“We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation,” he bragged about the crimes committed by the British Empire in Afghanistan.

He was also responsible for massacring protesters in Athen, excluding Iran from its own oil reserves (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company refused to pay Iran its share of dividends, thus resulting in the nationalization of oil by Iran, followed by a Brit-USG orchestrated coup overthrowing the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953).

Then there was Britain’s “declared a state of emergency in Kenya in 1952 to protect its system of institutionalized racism that they established throughout their colonies so to exploit the indigenous population,” notes Crimes of Britain.

150,000 men, women and children were forced into concentration camps. Children’s schools were shut by the British who branded them “training grounds for rebellion”. Rape, castration, cigarettes, electric shocks and fire all used by the British to torture the Kenyan people under Churchill’s watch.

Palestine, South Africa, China, and “British Guiana,” all suffered the criminal behavior of Winston Churchill and the British Empire.

It makes perfect sense Rice and Gates, along with the USG and its war propaganda media, put Zelenskyy on a pedestal along with the racist war criminal Churchill.

It’s said the Man in Green cannot possibly be a neo-Nazi because he is Jewish. This is nonsense to be consumed by the cognitively handicapped and incurious headline skimmers.

Zelenskyy has closed down political opposition; his neo-Nazi brownshirts kill activists, dissidents, and journalists; the Russian Orthodox Church was forcibly shuttered, told to leave the country, and Ukrainians attending services are now deemed traitors. Add to this the wanton murder of fellow Ukrainians for the crime of their heritage, culture, and language, and you have a man paralleling Churchill, although not with the vile intelligence of Churchill.

Rice and Gates will not rest until the USG and NATO are fully involved, with soldiers on the ground in Ukraine, and participating in killing Russians and threatening the national security of Russia.

Putin has repeated what Russia will do if it faces an existential threat, the sort of threat Gates, Rice, the neocons, Biden, and practically the entire USG are calling for. It will undoubtedly result in an endgame none of them want.

*

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 author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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.

***

Britain has deployed its armed forces for combat over 80 times in 47 countries since the end of the Second World War, in episodes ranging from brutal colonial wars and covert operations to efforts to prop up favoured governments or to deter civil unrest

The British military has used or threatened to use military force much more in the postwar world than is conventionally remembered or believed. Declassified has documented 83 interventions by the UK armed forces since 1945, in 47 different countries.

The most striking of the British uses of force have been the overt invasions or armed attempts to overthrow governments such as in British Guiana (now Guyana) in 1953, Egypt in the 1950s, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

The brutal colonial counter-insurgency wars of the 1950s and 1960s – in Kenya, Malaya, Aden and Cyprus – involved the widespread use of torture and, often, pernicious operations to displace large numbers of people to control the local population.

In Malaya between 1948 and 1960, British forces herded hundreds of thousands of people into fortified camps, heavily bombed rural areas and resorted to extensive propaganda to win the conflict.

British brutality fighting ‘Mau Mau’ forces in Kenya demanding independence from the UK resulted in tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths, often from starvation in concentration camps.

UK military interventions since 1945

Click on a country here to see the number of interventions.

Colonial control

But this pattern of armed intervention – which was of course routine during the nineteenth century empire – was in the postwar period set immediately after Allied forces defeated Japan and Germany in 1945.

Britain’s first interventions in the postwar world sought to suppress budding, popular movements fighting European imperialism. In 1945-46, British forces intervened in Vietnam and Indonesia to restore French and Dutch, respectively, colonial control. In Vietnam the British rearmed defeated Japanese imperial troops to fight pro-independence forces.

The deployment of force continued as routine over the decades, notably to prop up favoured regimes. Armed forces were dispatched to Oman (1957), Nyasaland (now Malawi, 1959), Brunei (1962), Anguilla (1969) and Jordan (1970) to bolster pro-British governments being threatened by independence or popular movements.

In 1964, British forces put down army mutinies in three countries in close succession in East Africa – Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania – to shore up pro-British governments just after they had become independent.

Click here to read the document.

Covert wars

Covert military operations have been planned by Whitehall officials in numerous instances where their strategy would be unpopular at home or controversial abroad. British governments have if anything become less and less transparent about these covert operations over time.

The beginnings after the war were when UK forces sought to stir up opposition to emerging communist rule in Albania, Ukraine and the Baltic States in the late 1940s – operations which all failed to prevent these countries coming under communist control.

Covert wars continued in the 1950s in Indonesia – in an attempt to promote a rebellion against nationalist president Sukarno – and in the 1960s in Yemen – in a war to bog down the forces of Egypt’s leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, in which tens of thousands of people died.

In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s government executed Britain’s largest postwar covert operation to date, in backing mujahideen warriors to counter the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

The strategy involved not only supplying arms and training for combat inside Afghanistan, but also the sabotage of Moscow’s supply lines inside the then Soviet republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

British covert operations have recently proliferated again in view of the unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2011-13, Whitehall planners secretly launched at least four covert wars involving special forces on the ground in Libya, Syria, Somalia and Mali.

Overt intervention

Some of the UK’s most brutal interventions have been with the US, notably the bombing of and occupation of Afghanistan after 2001, the UK’s supportive role in Washington’s near-destruction of Vietnam from the 1960s and the forcibledepopulation of the Chagos Islands from 1968-73, to make way for a US military base in the Indian Ocean.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the UK acted as the US’ junior partner in a ferocious bombardment of Iraq the following year that destroyed much of the country’s civilian infrastructure. Anglo-American bombing of Iraq continued for a decade after the Gulf War until the 2003 invasion.

On several occasions, the British military has been used to counter threats to favoured allies from neighbouring countries, such as the deployment to Kuwait in 1994 to deter a threat from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and the dispatch of troops to Aqaba in Jordan in 1949 to fend off a territorial threat from Israel.

The UK intervened at least four times in British Honduras (which became independent as Belize in 1981) – in 1948, 1957, 1962 and 1977 – to deter Guatemala from its claims over the territory. The Falklands war of 1982 – after Argentina invaded the islands – was far from being the first time a Latin America state had claimed territory it saw as a relic of the colonial period.

Imposing order

Still more frequent when Britain was a formal colonial power was the despatch of forces to quell riots and protests – which occurred in countries as diverse as Singapore (1950), Bermuda (1968), New Hebrides (now Vanuatu, 1980), Hong Kong (1967), Mauritius (1965 and 1967) and the Maldives (1959) – and to break strikes – such as in the Bahamas (1958) and Swaziland (1963).

Britain’s longest-running military deployment, lasting nearly three decades from 1969, was in Northern Ireland, where the armed forces and intelligence services’ countering of the IRA also involved sectarian support for, and collusion with, loyalist paramilitary forces that contributed to hundreds of further deaths.

Only a handful of these interventions might be regarded as truly benign. The UK’s deployment of forces to Sierra Leone in 2000 prevented the vicious Revolutionary United Front taking control of the capital, Freetown.

Britain’s involvement in the Korean war in the early 1950s – one of the most destructive conflicts of the past century – upheld the non-communist south of the country, and allowed a future South Korea to prosper.

But most of the UK military deployments have been to maintain colonial or postcolonial control of states and key resource interests, uphold British prestige or great power status, and demonstrate to the US – Whitehall’s key ally – that London is, with Washington, still prepared to continue to rule the world by force.

Not included

The list of interventions is far from exhaustive. It is unlikely to have found all the British military deployments for combat since 1945. Further, it does not include mercenary operations by British personnel, often backed by Whitehall, or purely intelligence operations to overthrow governments.

It also excludes military involvement in international peacekeeping missions, relief activities and actions to evacuate UK nationals from countries. Finally, it does not include training and advisory military operations which, often linked to British arms exports, are another key way Whitehall officials try to maintain their global influence.

*

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.

Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.

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

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.

***

You might have heard of killer robots, slaughterbots or terminators – officially called lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs) – from films and books. And the idea of super-intelligent weapons running rampant is still science fiction. But as AI weapons become increasingly sophisticated, public concern is growing over fears about lack of accountability and the risk of technical failure.

Already we have seen how so-called neutral AI have made sexist algorithms and inept content moderation systems, largely because their creators did not understand the technology. But in war, these kinds of misunderstandings could kill civilians or wreck negotiations.

For example, a target recognition algorithm could be trained to identify tanks from satellite imagery. But what if all of the images used to train the system featured soldiers in formation around the tank? It might mistake a civilian vehicle passing through a military blockade for a target.

Why do we need autonomous weapons?

Civilians in many countries (such as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Yemen) have suffered because of the way global superpowers build and use increasingly advanced weapons. Many people would argue they have done more harm than good, most recently pointing to the Russian invasion of Ukraine early in 2022.

In the other camp are people who say a country must be able to defend itself, which means keeping up with other nations’ military technology. AI can already outsmart humans at chess and poker. It outperforms humans in the real world too. For example Microsoft claims its speech recognition software has an error rate of 1% compared to the human error rate of around 6%. So it is hardly surprising that armies are slowly handing algorithms the reins.

But how do we avoid adding killer robots to the long list of things we wish we had never invented? First of all: know thy enemy.

What are Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs)?

The US Department of Defence defines an autonomous weapon system as: “A weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator.”

Many combat systems already fit this criteria. The computers on drones and modern missiles have algorithms that can detect targets and fire at them with far more precision than a human operator. Israel’s Iron Dome is one of several active defence systems that can engage targets without human supervision.

While designed for missile defence, the Iron Dome could kill people by accident. But the risk is seen as acceptable in international politics because the Iron Dome generally has a reliable history of protecting civilian lives.

An Israeli missile defence system ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock

There are AI enabled weapons designed to attack people too, from robot sentries to loitering kamikaze drones used in the Ukraine war. LAWs are already here. So, if we want to influence the use of LAWs, we need to understand the history of modern weapons.

The rules of war

International agreements, such as the Geneva conventions establish conduct for the treatment of prisoners of war and civilians during conflict. They are one of the few tools we have to control how wars are fought. Unfortunately, the use of chemical weapons by the US in Vietnam, and by Russia in Afghanistan, are proof these measures aren’t always successful.

Worse is when key players refuse to sign up. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) has been lobbying politicians since 1992 to ban mines and cluster munitions (which randomly scatter small bombs over a wide area). In 1997 the Ottawa treaty included a ban of these weapons, which 122 countries signed. But the US, China and Russia didn’t buy in.

Landmines have injured and killed at least 5,000 soldiers and civilians per year since 2015 and as many as 9,440 people in 2017. The Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor 2022 report said:

Casualties…have been disturbingly high for the past seven years, following more than a decade of historic reductions. The year 2021 was no exception. This trend is largely the result of increased conflict and contamination by improvised mines observed since 2015. Civilians represented most of the victims recorded, half of whom were children.

Despite the best efforts of the ICBL, there is evidence both Russiaand Ukraine (a member of the Ottawa treaty) are using landmines during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine has also relied on drones to guide artillery strikes, or more recently for “kamikaze attacks” on Russian infrastructure.

Our future

But what about more advanced AI enabled weapons? The Campaign to Stop Killer Robots lists nine key problems with LAWs, focusing on the lack of accountability, and the inherent dehumanisation of killing that comes with it.

While this criticism is valid, a full ban of LAWs is unrealistic for two reasons. First, much like mines, pandora’s box has already been opened. Also the lines between autonomous weapons, LAWs and killer robots are so blurred it’s difficult to distinguish between them. Military leaders would always be able to find a loophole in the wording of a ban and sneak killer robots into service as defensive autonomous weapons. They might even do so unknowingly.

San Francisco, CA – December 5, 2022: Activists opposed to the implementation of armed police robots rallied at City Hall. Phil Pasquini

We will almost certainly see more AI enabled weapons in the future. But this doesn’t mean we have to look the other way. More specific and nuanced prohibitions would help keep our politicians, data scientists and engineers accountable.

For example, by banning:

• black box AI: systems where the user has no information about the algorithm beyond inputs and outputs
• unreliable AI: systems that have been poorly tested (such as in the military blockade example mentioned previously).

And you don’t have to be an expert in AI to have a view on LAWs. Stay aware of new military AI developments. When you read or hear about AI being used in combat, ask yourself: is it justified? Is it preserving civilian life? If not, engage with the communities that are working to control these systems. Together, we stand a chance at preventing AI from doing more harm than good.

*

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.

Jonathan Erskine, PhD Student, Interactive AI, University of Bristol

Miranda Mowbray, Lecturer in Interactive AI, University of Bristol

Featured image: Killer robots don’t look like this, for now. Denis Starostin/Shutterstock

Michael Inside is a new Irish movie which looks at the prison system in Ireland and the people who serve their time in it.

The film is about a young man who is sent to prison for the first time after being caught with drugs he had stashed in his grandfather’s house who he shares with. In prison he is taken under the wing of an older experienced prisoner who helps him to stand up for himself but also ensnares him in a cycle of violence in the prison itself.

We see the emotional and psychological growth and strengthening of Michael with these harrowing experiences. The big question of the film is then: will he become like his father, also in jail, or learn from his grandfather’s advice?

The most important aspect of this new Irish film is its cinematic approach to telling the story. Ireland has a long history of theatre and successful drama which spilled over into its film-making too. Irish films in the past have been worthy and wordy with directors more comfortable with theatrical styles than cinematic imagery. It was also difficult to achieve cinematic lift-off with the gravity of so many winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature. Ireland won four times in the 20th century: W. B. Yeats (1923), George Bernard Shaw (1925), Samuel Beckett (1969) and Séamus Heaney (1995), all of whom wrote plays. Not forgetting, of course, Lady Gregory, John Millington Synge, George Moore, Oscar Wilde and Seán O’Casey. The developing language of cinema filtered slowly into Irish film-making either for reasons of fear of audience reaction (more used to theatre) or a lack of an appreciation of the idea that sometimes less is more.

Michael Inside has at times an almost documentary feel to it in the way the prison and the prison officers are portrayed. They come across as empathetic and generally respectful of the prisoners. The director of Michael Inside, Frank Berry, stated the story-line was “researched with former prisoners” and authenticity was desired even to the point of using former prisoners as extras.

Michael Inside official trailer

The use of the camera has a Tarkovskian feel with long takes, blurring and choreography before the camera. Some scenes like in the grandfather’s house are performed in front of a stationary camera with minimal lighting and wonderful blocking as actors move in and out of shot during the dialogue. Michael’s life outside of prison seems almost as oppressive as inside. Sparse dialogue, sparse rooms and ennui add to this feeling.

The tyranny of montage is felt though when Michael goes into his cell for the first time and sits down on the bottom bunk. This would have been a perfect moment to let the camera linger and linger to illustrate the timelessness of prison life. Steve McQueen, the British director, does this brilliantly in Hunger (2008) (also a great movie) when he has a fixed camera on one end of a long prison corridor pointed at a person washing the floor and stays on him until he finally gets to the other end. A similar very long take is used in the Irish Traveler film (2005), Pavee Lackeen to illustrate the difficulty of such basic things as making a cup of tea as we see the young girl go outside and walk to a hose behind a metal fence, fill the bucket and walk back to the mobile home. However, in Michael Inside, it cuts all too soon in the prison cell to the next shot.

Cinema fans who liked A Prophet (French: Un prophète), the 2009 French prison drama-crime film directed by Jacques Audiard will also enjoy Michael Inside. Unlike A Prophet, the protagonist of Michael Inside is exposed to alternative paths for his future as a former prisoner who has studied for an MA and is progressing towards a PhD gives the inmates a talk on the importance of education. This is an important moment in the film as it demonstrates one way with which to break the cycle of violence and transgenerational incarceration. Indeed Michael plans to further his education despite the bias against former prisoners.

Michael Inside is a wonderful film about the Irish penal system, the sparseness of some working class lives and the potential for positive change. The irony of this depiction of working class poverty and hopelessness is the fact that the film is conceived, researched, and acted using the imagination, talents and experience of Irish working class people. It points to a new self-awareness and education happening in sections of Irish society that augur well for the future.

*

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country at http://gaelart.blogspot.ie/. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

Seeing Is Believing: What the Data Reveal About Deaths Following COVID Vaccine Rollouts Around the World

By Gavin de Becker, January 11, 2023

I asked Ed Dowd if I could have space in his book, “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” for an article about what we saw around the world as mass vaccination commenced. In light of Dowd’s stunning analysis, it is particularly instructive to look at data for those countries that did not have high numbers of COVID-19 deaths prior to mass vaccination, because they afford the simplest comparison.

US Never Ending Wars: Thirty-one Years Ago, America’s “First War” against Iraq

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 11, 2023

The 1991 Gulf War on Iraq began on 17th January. However, after the 28th February ceasefire was agreed and signed – following the Basra Road massacre of withdrawing soldiers and fleeing civilians on 26th/27th February – the US 24th Mechanised Infantry Division slaughtered thousands on 2nd March.“

Against Undiplomatic Diplomacy

By Sen. Rand Paul, January 11, 2023

When ambassadors or secretaries of State come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I ask them to detail what policy changes have been achieved as a result of America’s sanctions on Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea.

White House Colluded with Twitter to Censor RFK, Jr., Emails Reveal

By Michael Nevradakis, January 11, 2023

Citing documents and emails between social media employees and White House officials, Bailey exposed how the White House sought to censor Kennedy for a tweet questioning “suspicious” deaths of elderly individuals after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and seeking a good faith investigation into the true causes of the deaths.

32 Years Years Ago: The Gulf War

By Manlio Dinucci, January 11, 2023

Thirty years ago, in the early hours of January 17, 1991, Operation “Desert Storm” began in the Persian Gulf, this war against Iraq opened the sequence of wars after the Cold War. The USA and its allies launched it at the moment when, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were about to dissolve.

“The Republic of Kosovo”, A Classical Mafia State. The History of Kosovo and Metohia

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, January 10, 2023

Kosovo and Metochia (KosMet) is a southwestern province of the Republic of Serbia – a central region of the political, national, economic, cultural, and religious life of Serbia in the Middle Ages. The region was occupied by the Ottoman authorities in 1455 and subsequently was under the Islamic-Ottoman yoke until the beginning of the 20^th century.

The Upcoming Global South Summit Paves the Path for India’s Permanent UNSC Seat

By Andrew Korybko, January 10, 2023

Next week’s virtual summit will secure the support of the Global South for India’s permanent UNSC seat while the conclusion of its G20 chairmanship in September will do the same with respect to the Golden Billion. Once the vast majority of the international community unites around this cause, India will then likely draft a UN General Assembly resolution on this issue in order to prove the overwhelming support that it has.

Video: US Military Oversaw Secret Contents of COVID Jabs

By Sasha Latypova, Dr. Sam Dube, Lara Logan, and et al., January 10, 2023

Sasha Latypova, former owner and executive of multiple contract research organizations and former pharmaceutical executive, presented evidence on the DoD involvement with COVID countermeasures worldwide.

Propaganda’s Mask

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, January 10, 2023

The propagandist’s mask depicts one thing while behind the mask is another. The smiling urgent face of Dr. Anthony Fauci informing us that the Covid inoculations are safe and effective and necessary to prevent death is the hypocritical mask of the propagandist: the real Anthony Fauci knew differently, just as the real Fauci well understood that there was no actual science behind the mandates for masks, distancing, lockdowns and mass inoculation.

South Korea Wants to be World’s Fourth Arms Exporter

By Karsten Riise, January 10, 2023

South Korea wants to overtake the UK and Israel to become the world’s fourth biggest arms exporter. With big arms contracts to both Poland and Saudi Arabia, South Korea is well underway expanding. See this.

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

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.

***

Summary

• CDC’s VAERS safety signal analysis based on reports from Dec. 14, 2020 – July 29, 2022 for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines shows clear safety signals for death and a range of highly concerning thrombo-embolic, cardiac, neurological, hemorrhagic, hematological, immune-system and menstrual adverse events (AEs) among U.S. adults.
• There were 770 different types of adverse events that showed safety signals in ages 18+, of which over 500 (or 2/3) had a larger safety signal than myocarditis/pericarditis.
• The CDC analysis shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).
• Twice as many mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reports were classified as serious compared to all other vaccines given to adults (11% vs. 5.5%). This meets the CDC definition of a safety signal.
• There are 96 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, Bell’s Palsy, genital ulcerations, high blood pressure and heartrate, menstrual irregularities, cardiac valve incompetencies, pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrhythmias, thromboses, pericardial and pleural effusion, appendicitis and perforated appendix, immune thrombocytopenia, chest pain, increased troponin levels, being in intensive care, and having anticoagulant therapy.
• There are 66 safety signals for 5-11 year-olds, which include: myocarditis, pericarditis, ventricular dysfunction and cardiac valve incompetencies, pericardial and pleural effusion, chest pain, appendicitis & appendectomies, Kawasaki’s disease, menstrual irregularities, vitiligo, and vaccine breakthrough infection.
• The safety signals cannot be dismissed as due to “stimulated,” exaggerated, fraudulent or otherwise artificially inflated reporting, nor can they be dismissed due to the huge number of COVID vaccines administered. There are several reasons why, but the simplest one is this: the safety signal analysis does not depend on the number of reports, but whether or not some AEs are reported at a higher rate for these vaccines than for other non-COVID vaccines. Other reasons are discussed in the full post below.
• In August, 2022, the CDC told the Epoch Times that the results of their safety signal analysis “were generally consistent with EB [Empirical Bayesian] data mining [conducted by the FDA], revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.” So either the FDA’s data mining was consistent with the CDC’s method—meaning they “generally” found the same large number of highly alarming safety signals—or the signals they did find were expected. Or they were lying. We may never know because the FDA has refused to release their data mining results.

Introduction

Finally! Zachary Stieber at the Epoch Times managed to get the CDC to release the results of its VAERS safety signal monitoring for COVID-19 vaccines, and they paint a very alarming picture (see his reporting and the data files here, or if that is behind a paywall then here). The analyses cover VAERS reports for mRNA COVID vaccines from the period from the vaccine rollout on December 14, 2020 through to the end of July, 2022. The CDC admitted to only having started its safety signal analysis on March 25, 2022 (coincidentally 3 days after a lawyer at Children’s Health Defense wrote to them reminding them about our FOIA request for it).

[UPDATE: T Coddington left a link in comments to a website where he made the data in the Excel files more accessible.]

Like me, you might be wondering why the CDC waited over 15 months before doing its first safety signal analysis of VAERS, despite having said in a document posted to its website that it would begin in early 2021—especially since VAERS is touted as our early warning vaccine safety system. You might also wonder how they could insist all the while that the COVID-19 vaccines are being subjected to the most rigorous safety monitoring the world has ever known. I’ll come back to that later. First I’m going to give a little background information on the analysis they did (which you can skip if you’re up to speed) and then describe what they found.

Background on Safety Signal Analysis

Back in June 2022, the CDC replied to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the safety signal monitoring of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—the one it had said it was going to do weekly beginning in early 2021. Their response was: we never did it. Then a little later they said they had been doing it from early on. But by August, 2022, they had finally gotten their story straight, saying that they actually did do it, but only from March 25, 2022 through end of July. You can get up to speed on that here.

The analysis they were supposed to do uses what’s called proportional reporting ratios (PRRs). This is a type of disproportionality analysis commonly used in pharmacovigilance (meaning the monitoring of adverse events after drugs/vaccines go to market). The basic idea of disproportionality analysis is to take a new drug and compare it to one or more existing drugs generally considered safe. We look for disproportionality in the number of adverse events (AEs) reported for a specific AE out of the total number of AEs reported (since we generally don’t know how many people take a given drug). We then compare to existing drugs considered safe to see if there is a higher proportion of particular adverse events reported for the new drug compared to existing ones. (In this case they are looking at vaccines, but they still use PRR even though they generally have a much better sense of how many vaccines were administered.)

There are many ways to do disproportionality analysis. The PRR is one of the oldest. Empirical Bayesian data mining, which was supposed to be done on VAERS by the FDA, is another. The PRR is calculated by taking the number of reports for a given adverse event divided by the total number of events reported for the new vaccine or the total number of reports. It then divides that by the same ratio for one or more existing drugs/vaccines considered safe. Here is a simple formula:

So for example, if half of all adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines and the comparator vaccine(s) are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.5 = 1. If one quarter of all AEs for the comparator vaccine are for myocarditis, then the PRR is 0.5/0.25 = 2.

Traditionally, for a PRR to count as a safety signal, the PRR has to be 2 or greater, have a Chi-square value of 4 or greater (meaning it is statistically significant) and there has to be at least 3 events reported for a given AE. (This also means that if there are tons of different AEs reported for COVID vaccines that have never been reported for any other vaccine, it will not count as a safety signal. I found over 6,000 of those in my safety signal analysis from 2021.

Of course a safety signal does not necessarily mean there is a problem or that the vaccine caused the adverse event. But it is supposed to set off alarm bells to prompt closer inspection, as in this CDC pamphlet:

Ah yes, shared with the public — after first refusing to share the results and months of foot-dragging following repeated FOIA requests! We will see that the CDC has not done a more focused study on almost any of adverse events with “new patterns” (AKA safety signals).

So What Did the CDC Actually Do?

The Epoch Times obtained 3 weeks of safety signal analyses from the CDC for VAERS data updated on July 15, 22 and 29, 2022. Here I will focus on the last one, since there is very little difference between them and it is more complete. The safety signal analysis compares adverse events[1] reported to VAERS for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through July 29, 2022 to reports for all non-COVID vaccines from Jan 1, 2009 through July 29, 2022.

PRRs are calculated separately for 5-11 year-olds, 12-15 year-olds and 18+ separately. For each age group, there are separate tables for AEs from all reports, AEs from reports marked serious and AEs from reports not marked as serious.[2] Recall that a serious report is one that involves death, a life-threatening event, new or prolonged hospitalization, disability or permanent damage, or a congenital anomaly. I will focus on the reports for all AE’s.

They also have a table that calculates PRRs by comparing reports for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to reports for the Moderna vaccine and vice versa, again for all reports, serious reports only and non-serious reports. There were no remarkable findings in those tables, so I will not discuss them. [Edit: I forgot what Norman Fenton noted in his analysis: the overall proportion of reports with serious adverse events is 9.6% for Modern compared to 12.6% for Pfizer.] This isn’t that surprising since both vaccines are very similar and so should present relatively similar adverse events when compared to each other, and any differences are likely not large enough to be picked up by a PRR analysis. [Though the difference in the overall rate of serious adverse events, which are not specific to a particular type of event only how serious it is, was significant.]

The CDC seems to have calculated PRRs for every different type of adverse event reported for all the COVID vaccines examined – though it’s possible they only analyzed a subset. What seems clear is that, among the AEs they examined, the only ones included in the tables satisfy at least one of two conditions: a PRR value of at least 2 and a Chi-square value of at least 4 (Chi is the Greek letter χ and is pronounced like ‘kai’). When both conditions were met, they highlighted the adverse event in yellow, which appears to indicate a safety signal. There were no COVID vaccine AEs listed with fewer than 3 reported events, though for non-COVID vaccines there were many AEs listed that had only 1 or 2 reported since 2009. The CDC tables still include these and highlight them in yellow when the PRR is greater than 2 and the Chi-square value is great than 4, indicating these events are counted as safety signals.

What Safety Signals Did the CDC Find?

I’m going to divide this up by age groups and the Pfizer v. Moderna comparison. Let’s start with the 18+ group.

There are 772 AEs that appear on the list. Of these, 770 are marked in yellow and have PRR and Chi-square values that qualify them as safety signals. Some of these are new COVID-19 related codes, and we would expect those to trigger a signal since they didn’t exist in prior years to be reported by other vaccines. So if we take those off, we are left with 758 different types of non-COVID adverse events that showed safety signals.

I grouped these 758 safety signals into different categories. The figure below shows the total number of AEs reported for each of the major categories of safety signals:

Let’s dig into some of these categories to look at what types of AEs generated the most number of reports:[3]

You can peruse the adverse events using the Excel tables provided by the CDC, which were posted by The Epoch Times and Children’s Health Defense at the links at the top of this post.

What about The Children?

If there is anything that looks remotely like a bright spot in all of this is that the list of safety signals for 12-17 and 5-11 year-olds is much shorter than for 18+. There are 96 AEs that qualify as a safety signal for the 12-17 group and 67 for the 5-11. When we take out the new COVID-era AEs, there are 92 safety signals for 12-17 year-olds and 65 for 5-11 year-olds. Here are the most alarming ones:

I don’t know why the list of AE’s is so much shorter for these age groups. It could be that the list of AE’s for other vaccines for these age groups is much shorter, so in a case where AEs have been reported for the mRNA COVID vaccines but not for other vaccines, it will not be counted as a safety signal by definition.

Comparisons to Myocarditis and Pericarditis

We are told that the existence of a safety signal doesn’t necessarily mean the AE is caused by the vaccine, and I accept that premise. But the current practice seems to be to ignore safety signals, dismiss them as noise without any evidence, and stall any investigation into them as long as possible. The precautionary principle, however, dictates we should presume that a safety signal indicates causality, until proven otherwise. Since, it has been acknowledged that the mRNA COVID vaccines can cause myocarditis and pericarditis (often referred to as myo-pericarditis), we can take those AEs as a kind of benchmark, and propose that, at minimum, any AE with a signal of equal or greater size should be considered potentially causal and investigated more thoroughly.[4] After dropping the new COVID-era AEs, there are 503 AEs with PRRs larger than myocarditis (PRR=3.09) and 552 with PRRs larger than pericarditis (PRR=2.82).[5]

This means that 66.4% of the AEs had a bigger safety signal than myocarditis and 77.3% were larger than pericarditis. You can see what those were by use this Excel file provided by the CDC and sorting the 18+ tab by the 12/14-07/29 PRR column (Column E). Then just look at which AEs have PRRs larger than the ones for pericarditis and myocarditis.

For 12-17 year-olds, there is 1 safety signal larger than myocarditis (it’s ‘troponin increased’) and 14 safety signals larger than pericarditis (excluding myocarditis), which include: mitral valve incompetence, bell’s palsy, heavy menstrual bleeding, genital ulceration, vaccine breakthrough infection, and a range of indicators of cardiac abnormalities.

For 5-11 year-olds, the comparison to myo/pericarditis is less germane, as they seem to suffer less from this side effect. But we can still make the comparison: there are 7 safety signals larger than pericarditis, including bell’s palsy, left ventricular dysfunction, mitral valve incompetence, and ‘drug ineffective’ (presumably meaning they still got COVID). There are 16 safety signals larger than myocarditis (excluding pericarditis), which in addition to those listed above also include: pericardial effusion, diastolic blood pressure increase, tricuspid valve incompetence, and vitiligo. Sinus tachycardia (high heart rate), appendicitis, and menstrual disorder come in just below myocarditis.

Now if we think of a safety signal as having both strength and clarity, then the PRR can be thought of as an indicator of how strong the signal is, while the Chi-square is a measure of how clear or unambiguous the signal is, because it gives us a sense of how likely the signal is due to chance alone: the larger the Chi-square value, the less likely the signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 4 means there is only a 5% chance the observed signal is due to chance. A Chi-square of 8 means there is only a 0.5% chance of it being due to chance.[6] For the 18+ group, there are 57 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=303.8) and 68 with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=229.5). Again, you can see what these are by going the Excel file linked above and sorting on Column D.

For the 12-17 group, there are 4 AEs with a larger Chi-square than myocarditis (Chi-square=681.5) and 6 larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=175.4).

For the 5-11 group, there are 22 AEs with a Chi-square larger than myocarditis (Chi-square=30.42) and 34 AEs with a Chi-square larger than pericarditis (Chi-square=18.86).

Responding to Objections

Let’s dispense with some of the criticisms used to dismiss VAERS data, which will undoubtedly be raised if you try to bring the CDC’s analysis to people’s attention.

1. Objection: Anybody can report to VAERS. The reports are unreliable. Anti-vaxxers made lots of fraudulent reports. Nobody was aware of VAERS in the past, but now they are. So many people were afraid of the vaccine so they blamed all their health problems on it. Health workers were required by law to report certain adverse events, like deaths and anaphylaxis. Etc. Etc.

   All of these objections ultimately rely on the notion that VAERS reports for COVID-19 vaccines have been artificially inflated over previous years for one reason or another. The thing of it is, though, that the CDC has a method for distinguishing between artificial inflation and real signal. The idea is simple: if adverse events are artificially inflated, they should be artificially inflated to the same degree. Meaning, the PRRs for all of these safety signals should be about the same. But even a casual glance at the PRRs in the Excel file show they vary widely, from as low at 2 to as high as 105 for vaccine breakthrough infection or 74 for cerebral thrombosis. This method does not on the number of reports, but the rate of reporting for certain events out of all events reported. If anything, this method would tend to hide safety signals in a situation where a new vaccine generates a very large number of reports.

   The CDC has even done us the favor of calculating upper and lower confidence intervals, meaning that we can be at least 95% confident that two PRRs are truly different if their confidence intervals don’t overlap. So for example the lower confidence interval for pulmonary thrombosis is 19.7, which is higher than the upper confidence interval for 543 other signals. Artificially inflated reporting cannot explain why so many different adverse events have large PRRs that are statistically distinct from one another.

2. Objection: The safety signals are due to the huge number of COVID vaccines given out. Never before have we given out so many vaccine doses. By the end of July, the US had administered something like 600 million vaccine doses to people aged 18+. But the CDC analysis compares VAERS reports for these doses to all doses for all other vaccines for this age group since Jan. 1, 2009. But from 2015-2020 there were over 100 million flu doses administered annually to this age group alone. In previous work, I estimated 538 million doses of flu given to people 18+ from July 2015-June 2020. The number of flu and other non-COVID vaccines for this age group administered from Jan 1., 2009 through July 29, 2022 must be well over double this number, meaning VAERS reports for COVID vaccines are being compared to reports for at least double the number of doses for other vaccines. In addition to this, as already noted, the PRR methodology does not depend, strictly speaking, on the number of doses, but rather the rate of reporting of a specific AE out of all AEs for that vaccine.
3. Objection: the vaccines are mainly being given to older people who tend to have health problems, whereas other vaccines are given to younger people. This objection is dealt with, since the analyses are stratified by age groups. It might be still be somewhat valid for the 18+ group, except that in the safety signal analysis I did in the fall of 2021, I stratified by smaller age bands and still found safety signals. In any case, this objection is not enough to dismiss the safety signal analysis out of hand, but rather calls for better and more refined research.
4. Objection: The VAERS data is not verified and cannot be trusted. I’ll be the first person to agree that VAERS is not high quality data, but if it is completely untrustworthy, then how is it that the CDC uses these data to publish in the best medical journals such as JAMA and The Lancet? If the data were worthless, then these journals shouldn’t accept these papers. In that JAMA paper, they reported that 80% of the myocarditis reports met their definition of myocarditis and were included in the analysis. Many other reports simply needed more details for validation. Furthermore, the CDC has the ability and budget to follow-up on every report VAERS receives to get more details and even medical records to verify the report.

   So if myocarditis shows a clear signal in the CDC’s analysis, and 80% of those reports were apparently high quality enough to be included in a paper published in one of the world’s top medical journals, how is it possible that all the rest of the reports are junk? That all of the other safety signals are meaningless? Answer: it isn’t.

   And since we’re on the topic of safety signals that turned out to be real, it’s instructive to find appendicitis turn up as a safety signal in all 3 age groups, since a study published in NEJM based on medical records of over a million adult Israelis found an increased risk of appendicitis in the 42 days following Pfizer vaccination (but not following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test). That study also found an increase in lymphadenopathy (swollen lymph nodes) after vaccination, but not after positive COVID test. Lymphadenopathy was another safety signal.

5. And that brings us to our last objection to be dispensed with: all of these AEs were due to COVID. There was an epidemic and so people were falling ill due to COVID and having all of these problems that were then blamed on the vaccine. Well to begin with, as we just saw, at least two of them (appendicitis and lymphadenopathy) do not appear to have increased risk ratios following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and we know that the mRNA vaccines increase risk of myo/pericarditis independent of infections. So how can we assume the rest of these are and dismiss them with the wave of a hand? We can’t. At minimum, they need further investigation. Furthermore, in the safety signal analysis I did in 2021, I dropped all VAERS reports where any sign of a SARS-CoV-2 exposure or infection was indicated on the report, and I still found large, significant safety signals.

Putting It All Into Perspective

The Epoch Times article quotes my esteemed colleague and friend, Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management and an world renowned expert in Bayesian statistical analysis: “from a Bayesian perspective, the probability that the true rate of the AE of the COVID-19 vaccines is not higher than that of the non-COVID-19 vaccines is essentially zero…. The onus is on the regulators to come up with some other causal explanation for this difference if they wish to claim that the probability a COVID vaccine AE results in death is not significantly higher than that of other vaccines.” (See his post on the CDC analysis here.) The same is true for all the safety signals they found.

The CDC’s VAERS SOP analysis document lists 18 Adverse Events of Special Interest says they are going to pay close attention to. In their 2021 JAMA paper (and similar presentations to ACIP), the researchers responsible for analyzing the millions of medical records in the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) using the ‘Rapid Cycle Analysis’ only studied 23 outcomes. A Similar analysis in NEJM from Israeli researchers focused on only 25 outcomes. Compare this to over 700 safety signals found by the CDC when they finally decided to look—and that’s not even counting all the adverse events that have never been reported for other vaccines so cannot ever show a safety signal by definition. How can the CDC say that these safety signals are meaningless if almost none of them have been studied any further? And yet we are assured that these vaccines have undergone the most intensive safety monitoring effort in history. It’s complete and utter hogwash!

*

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] To be precise, the ‘adverse events’ are for ‘preferred terms’ (PTs) which is a type/level of classification used in the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), which is the classification system used by VAERS and in other pharmacovigilance systems and clinical research for coding reported adverse events. Not all preferred terms are a symptom or adverse event per se. Some refer to a specific diagnostic test that was done or a treatment that was given.

[2] It’s not entirely clear how they divided these up, since there are clearly AEs that should be considered serious that don’t show up in the serious Excel table — though maybe they don’t come up simply because they are looking within serious reports. I believe that they just filtered the reports to include only serious reports or non-serious reports, then did the safety signal analysis on all the AE’s coded in those reports. The reason I think this is that I used the MedAlerts Wayback Machine, selected just the serious COVID-19 vaccine reports, and the numbers of total reports was very close to the one in the table provided by the CDC (MedAlerts actually had a bit less). The files obtained by the Epoch Times do not include much in the way of a description as to how the analyses were done, so I had to infer some details, which might be incorrect. I will try to note when I am drawing an inference about how the analysis was done.

[3] Generally speaking, these figures show the top ten AEs in each category. In some cases I combined AEs that indicated the same thing, such as combining ‘heart rate irregular’ with ‘arrythmia.’ [UPDATE: Note that the charts of all categories, cardiac and thrombo-embolic events were updated on Jan 7, 2023. The reason is that I had previously categorized acute myocardial infarction as a cardiac issue and myocardial infarction as thrombo-embolic. To be consistent, I have now combined myocardial infarction and acute myocardial infarction into one AE category in the thrombo-embolic events (which made the total AEs reported for that category larger than for pulmonary ones) and then added a different cardiac AE to the cardiovascular AE category, ventricular extrasystoles, AKA premature ventricular contraction (PVC), which dependent on frequency and the presence of other cardiomyopathies is associated with sudden cardiac arrest.]

[4] Note that using the myo-pericarditis signal as a yardstick doesn’t mean that these are the only signals that matter. To give one example, anaphylactic reactions don’t even show up in the list of safety signals, even though that was one of the very first risk of the vaccine that became apparent from day one of the vaccine rollout.

One potential objection to this benchmark is that it is too low of a bar, since myo-pericarditis appears to disproportionately affect younger men and so a proper safety signal should be stratified by age and gender then compared with myocarditis similarly stratified. I agree, and it is the CDC’s job to do that. But the fact is that any adverse reaction might disproportionately affect some subgroup of people, in which case the safety signal for that group would be similarly faint or diluted when we look at everyone together. So objection overruled.

[5] In their Standard Operation Procedures document, the CDC said they would combine these and related codes together to assess a safety signal, but never mind – at least they finally got around to doing something.

[6] In this context, the Chi-square is largely driven by the sheer number of adverse events: the more adverse events reported, including for the comparator vaccine, the larger the Chi-square. For example, the PRR for pericarditis and subdural haematoma is the same (2.82), but there were 1,701 incidents of pericarditis reported for mRNA COVID vaccines versus 221for the comparator vaccines, with Chi-square of 229.5. For subdural haematoma, these numbers are 162 verus 21, for a Chi-square of 21.2.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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.

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 ambassadors or secretaries of State come before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I ask them to detail what policy changes have been achieved as a result of America’s sanctions on Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea.

To date, no official of our government has been able to describe behavioral changes due to the sanctions we impose. The response I have received that came the closest to an answer was that sanctions under President Barack Obama prompted Iran to come to the negotiating table to forge the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement. Perhaps. But one might argue that it was the lure of removing sanctions that actually brought Iran to the table.

Too often, loud voices on both sides of the aisle appear to believe that imposing more and more sanctions will change an adversary’s policy, rather than understanding that it is actually the offer of removing sanctions that can move our adversaries.

When the Iran agreement was initially negotiated, I had my doubts. I felt the U.S. could have insisted upon a more gradual release of impounded funds to Iran based on continued compliance with the pact. But as time went on, inspectors ascertained that Iran adhered to the uranium enrichment restrictions. In fact, the loudest criticism of Iran was not that they abrogated the JCPOA, but rather their continued development of ballistic missiles that were not restricted in the JCPOA.

Subsequently, the Trump Administration pulled out of the JCPOA, not because Iran was evading the pact but because Iran was building and improving weapons not regulated by the pact. But Trump and then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s maximum pressure campaign did not, in fact, influence or change Iran’s behavior in the least, nor did leaving the Iran agreement.

Instead, if we desire a ballistic missile treaty with Iran, the first thing to do is to ask why Iran develops ballistic missiles. Iranians live in a world dominated by nuclear powers. Europe, the U.S., Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, and India all have nuclear weapons. In addition, Iran sees the Sunni sheikdoms as its adversaries.

Under what circumstance would Iran choose to limit their ballistic missiles as the surrounding Sunni sheikdoms enhance their own missiles and house U.S. troops? Anyone seriously desiring a ballistic missile pact with Iran should understand that no such agreement will ever occur between the U.S. and Iran unless it includes the Sunni sheikdoms. A useful diplomatic goal would be to have a regional dialogue among the countries actually in the Middle East.

Now, some may reasonably argue that the U.S. can only use the removal of sanctions as a negotiating tool if sanctions are imposed in the first place. Fair enough. But while we have imposed sanctions on Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea for decades, there has been little U.S.-led dialogue about trading sanctions relief for policy change. The Russian–Ukraine war should present such an opportunity.

Instead, the loudest voices in the Senate continue to shout about labelling the killing of civilians in Ukraine a genocide, as if that will somehow push the Russians to the negotiating table. Contrary to what those noisy Senators assert, pushing a narrative that ultimately requires Russian leaders to be tried at the Hague for war crimes and jailed in perpetuity is unlikely to facilitate negotiations.

No one questions that the war has caused and continues to cause civilian deaths, or that Russia started the war and is the aggressor nation in defiance of all international norms. But genocide has a definition; it is a mass killing of an ethnic or religious group of people. To those eager to label Russia’s killing of civilians a genocide, how would they respond to a Japanese claim that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were genocide? Fortunately for the U.S., Japan was in no position to make such claims; Japan’s defeat was unconditional surrender.

But most wars do not end with unconditional surrender. Most wars end through negotiation.

Now, the people who want to label the killing of civilians in Ukraine a genocide also oppose negotiation in Ukraine. They argue that there should be no negotiations until every Russian leaves all Ukrainian territory. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the no-negotiations-until-victory crowd, but someone must also assess what Ukraine will ultimately look like if this war drags on interminably.

In addition to $100 billion already sent from U.S. taxpayers to Ukraine, the loud voices against negotiation are already talking of a trillion-dollar reconstruction plan for Ukraine. I guess they assume China will continue to loan us the money. One thing is certain, though: Instead of 1 to 2 percent interest on the borrowed money we airmail to Ukraine, the rate will likely be double that. Last year, the U.S. interest on our debt was about $400 billion. Expectations are that U.S. interest rates will continue to rise to over a trillion dollars a year over the next decade, ultimately exceeding what we spend on our military.

To those who advocate endless intervention in every foreign war on the planet, it might be prudent to ask if our national security is enhanced by having debt payments that exceed our defense spending.

No negotiation until victory resembles a position of no peace until unconditional surrender. Over and over again, the strategy of more and more sanctions has proved ineffective. The loud, chest-thumpers on Capitol Hill may believe they are the noble ones, but as the destruction of Ukraine continues, history may ultimately judge them the naïve.

*

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.

Rand Paul serves as the junior United States senator from Kentucky.

Featured image is from Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter

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

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.

***

Senator Angus King said the US should not put a timetable on support for Ukraine and remain involved in the war until “Putin is out.” Comparing the current situation with Russia to the Allies’ failure to stop Nazi Germany before World War II, the Maine senator insisted on more Western aid for Kiev.

During a virtual press conference following his recent visit to the Ukrainian capital, King was asked how long the United States should continue its role in the conflict, replying that support for Kiev should be indefinite.

“I believe we should remain there until Putin is out,” he said.

It is unclear if King was calling for Putin’s removal from power in a coup d’etat, or merely for Russian troops to vacate all Ukrainian-claimed territory. The two warring parties maintain conflicting territorial claims and King acknowledged the war is now in a stalemate, but he nonetheless claimed the conflict would not be a “20-year struggle” like America’s experience in Afghanistan.

Throughout the virtual presser, King referenced a historical need to prevail over Russia, saying nothing of the potential for escalation to nuclear war between the world’s largest atomic arsenals.

The senator noted that he often receives questions from constituents about the wisdom of US involvement in the war, but went on to cite his own version of a Bush-era epithet: ‘We fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.’

“I get letters every now and then, people saying, ‘Why are we doing this? Ukraine’s far away. It’s not our fight.’ Well, it is our fight, because if we don’t fight it now, it will spread,” King said. “And it will become something that we can’t avoid being involved in, just as occurred in the late 1930s at the beginning of World War II.”

He went on to claim that if Putin was not stopped in Ukraine, he would go on to conquer more of Europe, comparing the Russian leader to Adolf Hitler several times.

King also suggested the US could give additional aid to Ukraine, pointing to allies who are giving more when compared to their overall gross domestic product. “If you measure it in terms of GDP, we’re between fifth and tenth in the world, and other countries are contributing actually larger shares of their GDP to the defense of Ukraine,” he continued, “Why? Because they recognized, as hopefully we will continue to recognize, that this is really a fight for Western values.”

Since Russia’s invasion kicked off last February, Congress has authorized nearly $120 billion in aid for Kiev, including more than $21 billion in direct military assistance and a series of other financial and humanitarian aid packages. King claimed the American tax dollars are being well spent and accounted for, arguing “The software that they’re using, working with Deloitte and SAP, to track everything coming in – every spare part, every dollar.”

However, CNN has reported that US arms sent to Ukraine quickly fall into a “black hole” and are nearly impossible to track. In October, Finland’s national law enforcement agency warned that weapons being shipped to Ukraine are ending up in the hands of criminal gangs, while Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari warned weeks later that “the situation in the Sahel and the raging war in Ukraine serve as major sources of weapons and fighters that bolster the ranks of the terrorists in the Lake Chad Region.”

King’s latest presser followed a trip to Ukraine last week, where he said he held a “thrilling” meeting with President Volodymyr Zelensky and described him as among “the great leaders of the century.”

While the senator claimed Zelensky and Ukraine are champions of democracy, some analysts have argued that Kiev has only continued its transformation into an authoritarian state under his rule. As commentator Ted Galen Carpenter wrote in The American Conservative, “genuine democracies do not ban multiple opposition parties or close opposition media outlets. Nor do they rigorously censor (and put under strict government control) media outlets that they allow to remain open. Genuine democracies do not outlaw churches that advocate policies the government dislikes.” He added, “yet the Ukrainian government has committed not just one or two, but all of those abuses.”

*

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 news editor at the Libertarian Institute, assistant editor at Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.

Connor Freeman is a writer and assistant editor at the Libertarian Institute, and co-hosts Conflicts of Interest.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons / JD Lasica

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

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 bipartisan consensus in the Beltway on the United States being the ‘indispensable’ world power is usually attributed to the neocons who have been the driving force of the US foreign and security policy in successive administrations since the 1970s.

The op-end in the Washington Post on Saturday titled Time is not on Ukraine’s side, coauthored by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in George W. Bush presidency and Defence Secretary Robert Gates (who served under both Bush and Barack Obama), highlights this paradigm.

Rice and Gates are robust cold warriors who are enthusiastic about NATO’s war against Russia. But their grouse is that President Biden should ‘dramatically’ step up in Ukraine. 

The op-ed harks back to the two world wars that marked the US’ ascendance as world power and warns that the US-led ‘rules-based order’ since 1990 — code word for US global hegemony — is in peril if Biden fails in Ukraine. 

Rice and Gates indirectly acknowledge that Russia is on a winning streak, contrary to the western triumphalist narrative so far. Evidently, the expected Russian offensive ahead is rattling their nerves. 

Equally, the op-ed is contextual to American politics. The House speaker stalemate and its dramatic denouement in a bare-knuckle political fight among Republicans presages a dysfunctional Congress between now and 2024 election. 

Kevin McCarthy, who had former president Donald Trump’s backing, finally won but only after making a series of concessions to the populist wing of the GOP, which has weakened his authority. The AP reported, “Fingers were pointed, words exchanged and violence apparently just averted… It was the end of a bitter standoff that had shown the strengths and fragility of American democracy.”

A senior Kremlin politician already commented on it. McCarthy himself, in his statement after election as the new House speaker, listed as his priorities the commitment to a strong economy, counteracting illegal immigration through the Mexican border and competing with China, but omitted any reference to the Ukraine situation or providing funds to Kiev. 

Indeed, earlier in November, he had asserted that the Republicans in the House would resist unlimited and unjustified financial aid to Ukraine. 

Now, Rice and Gates refuse to march in lockstep with Trump. But, although a diminished player, Trump still remains an active player, a massive presence and exercises functional control and is by far the largest voice in the Republican Party. Arguably, what defines the GOP today is Trump. Therefore, his backing for McCarthy is going to be consequential.

Biden understands that. Conceivably, the Rice-Gates op-ed was mooted by the White House and the US security establishment and scripted by the neocons. The op-ed appeared on the day after the January 5 joint statement by Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz underscoring their ‘unwavering solidarity’ with Ukraine. 

Under immense pressure from Biden, Germany and France caved in last week to provide Ukraine with Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Scholz also agreed that Germany will supply an additional Patriot air defense battery to Ukraine. (A top SPD politician in Berlin has since voiced reservations.) 

On the same day as the op-ed appeared, Pentagon arranged, unusually for a Saturday, a Press briefing by Laura Cooper, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia. Cooper stated explicitly that the war in Ukraine threatens the US’ global standing: 

“From an overall strategic perspective, it is hard to emphasise enough the devastating consequences if Putin were to be successful in achieving his objective of taking over Ukraine. This would rewrite international boundaries in a way that we have not seen since World War II. And our ability to reverse these gains and to support and stand by the sovereignty of a nation, is something that resonates not just in Europe, but all around the world.” 

The cat is out of the bag, finally — the US is fighting in Ukraine to preserve its global hegemony. Coincidence or not, in a sensational interview in Kiev, Ukrainian Defence Minister Oleksii Reznikov also blurted out in the weekend that Kiev has consciously allowed itself to be used by NATO in the bloc’s wider conflict with Moscow! 

To quote him,

“At the NATO Summit in Madrid (in June 2022), it was clearly delineated that over the coming decade, the main threat to the alliance would be the Russian Federation. Today Ukraine is eliminating this threat. We are carrying out NATO’s mission today. They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons.” 

Reznikov, an ex-Soviet army officer,  claimed that he personally received holiday greeting cards and text messages from Western defense ministers to this effect.The stakes couldn’t be higher, with Reznikov also asserting that Ukraine’s NATO membership is a done thing.

Indeed, on Saturday, Pentagon announced the Biden Administration’s single biggest security assistance package for Ukraine so far from the Presidential Drawdown.Evidently, the Biden Administration is pulling out all the stops. Another UN Security Council meeting has been scheduled for Jan. 13.

But Putin has made it clear that “Russia is open to a serious dialogue – under the condition that the Kiev authorities meet the clear demands that have been repeatedly laid out, and recognise the new territorial realities.”

As for the war, the tidings from Donbass are extremely worrisome. Soledar is in Russian hands and the Wagner fighters are tightening the noose around Bakhmut, a strategic communication hub and lynchpin of Ukrainian deployments in Donbass. 

On the other hand, contrary to expectations, Moscow is unperturbed about sporadic theatrical Ukrainian drone strikes inside Russia. The Russian public opinion remains firmly supportive of Putin.

The commander of the Russian forces, Gen. Sergey Surovikin has prioritised the fortification of the so-called ‘contact line,’ which is proving effective against Ukrainian counterattacks.

Pentagon is unsure of Surovikin’s future strategy. From what they know of his brilliant success in evicting NATO officers from Syria’s Aleppo in 2016, siege and attrition war are Surovikin’s forte. But one never knows. A steady Russian build-up in Belarus is underway. The S-400 and Iskander missile systems have been deployed there. A NATO (Polish) attack on Belarus is no longer realistic.

On January 4, Putin hailed the New Year with the formidable frigate Admiral Gorshkov carrying “cutting-edge Zircon hypersonic missile system, which has no analogue,” embarking on “a long-distance naval mission across the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea.”

A week earlier, the sixth missile-carrying strategic nuclear-powered submarine of the Borei-A class, The Generalissimus Suvorov, joined the Russian Navy. Such submarines are capable of carrying 16 inter-continental ballistic missiles Bulava. 

The fog of war envelops Russian intentions. Rice and Gates have warned that time works in favour of Russia: “Ukraine’s military capability and economy are now dependent almost entirely on lifelines from the West — primarily, the United States. Absent another major Ukrainian breakthrough and success against Russian forces, Western pressures on Ukraine to negotiate a cease-fire will grow as months of military stalemate pass. Under current circumstances, any negotiated cease-fire would leave Russian forces in a strong position.” 

This is a brutally frank assessment. Biden’s call to Scholz on Friday shows the angst in his mind, too. With the fragmentation of the political class within America, Biden can ill afford cracks in allied unity as well.

Curiously, this was also the main thrust of an article a fortnight ago by a top Russian pundit Andrey Kortunov in the Chinese Communist Party daily Global Times titled US domestic woes could push Ukraine to sidelines of American public discourse. 

Kortunov wrote: “Putting emotions aside, one has to accept that the conflict has already become existential not only for Ukraine and Russia, but for the US as well: the Biden administration cannot accept a defeat in Ukraine without facing major negative implications for the US positions all over the world.”

Kortunov was writing almost a fortnight before Rice and Gates began getting the same metaphysical perception. But the neocons aren’t yet prepared to accept that the choice is actually staring at them — Biden swimming alongside Putin toward a multipolar world order, or sinking in the troubled waters.

*

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: President Vladimir Putin attending Christmas Mass, Annunciation Cathedral, Kremlin, Moscow, January 7, 2023 (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

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 series of Jan. 6 tweets by newly sworn-in Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey detailed how Biden officials sought to censor tweets by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief litigation counsel of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and others.

Citing documents and emails between social media employees and White House officials, Bailey exposed how the White House sought to censor Kennedy for a tweet questioning “suspicious” deaths of elderly individuals after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and seeking a good faith investigation into the true causes of the deaths.

The White House specifically targeted Kennedy’s Jan. 22, 2021, tweet about the then-recent death of baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron, 18 days after he publicly received the Moderna vaccine.

#HankAaron's tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly closely following administration of #COVID #vaccines. He received the #Moderna vaccine on Jan. 5 to inspire other Black Americans to get the vaccine. #TheDefenderhttps://t.co/vbuHt22bJz

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 22, 2021

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry on Jan. 7 also weighed in on Twitter about efforts to censor Kennedy on Facebook:

Facebook also told the White House how they could censor @RobertKennedyJR pic.twitter.com/aMDwN7c9KW

— Jeff Landry (@JeffLandry) January 7, 2023

Kennedy responded on Jan. 7 with this pair of tweets:

Compare Joe Biden’s approach with my uncle John Kennedy’s strategy on censorship:

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) January 7, 2023

Here, a White House employee asks Twitter to silence Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known critic of the White House’s COVID-19 narrative. (3/9) pic.twitter.com/kIVv60W8Gt

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

In a press release issued today, Landry said, “Government censorship is bipartisan; if they don’t like you, they will censor you — regardless of your political affiliation. No one is safe when the First Amendment is violated.”

Missouri and Louisiana in May 2022 sued President Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other Biden administration officials, alleging they violated the First Amendment by colluding with social media platforms to censor COVID-19-related content and content related to the 2020 U.S. presidential elections that contradicted the official government narrative.

“Throughout our case, we have uncovered disturbing collusion between Big Tech and Big Government,” added Landry. “Today’s reveal is yet another example of the ongoing coercive efforts by the White House to pressure social media companies into censoring American citizens.”

Legal experts familiar with the ongoing Louisiana and Missouri lawsuit told The Defender that Biden administration and federal government officials have until now claimed during their depositions that they never explicitly directed social media companies to remove content.

Instead, they claimed the government provided these platforms with “the science,” with no expectation, partnership or knowledge of what they would do with it.

According to legal experts, Meta claimed Kennedy and CHD were never targeted by name in the federal government’s communications with the platform.

However, Bailey cited an email showing government officials clearly called for the removal of Kennedy’s tweet about Hank Aaron’s death.

White House wanted Kennedy tweet ‘removed ASAP’

Over a span of nine tweets posted Jan. 6, Bailey revealed several emails and documents showing how Biden officials tried to censor social media content that opposed the government’s COVID-19 narrative.

“When I took office, I swore that I would protect the Constitution. Here’s why,” Bailey tweeted. He followed up with this tweet:

We now have hard evidence that President Biden’s Administration colluded with social media companies to censor differing viewpoints and silence “misinformation” that was later deemed true. (2/9)

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

The first example Bailey used to demonstrate collusion pertained to Kennedy:

Here, a White House employee asks Twitter to silence Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known critic of the White House’s COVID-19 narrative. (3/9) pic.twitter.com/kIVv60W8Gt

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

The tweet was accompanied by a screenshot of a Jan. 23, 2021, email by White House official Clarke Humphrey, digital director for the White House’s COVID-19 Response Team, to unidentified individuals at Twitter and copied to Robert Flaherty, White House director of Digital Strategy.

In the message, Humphrey “wanted to flag the below tweet” and asked about “the process for having it removed ASAP.”

Specifically, what Humphrey “flagged” in her email was a tweet by Kennedy from Jan. 22, 2021, addressing the death of baseball great Hank Aaron just days after he received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

Kennedy’s tweet was accompanied by a link to a story about Aaron’s death published on Jan. 22, 2021, by The Defender.

Humphrey, in the same email, also suggested “we keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same ~[general] genre,” adding that this “would be great.”

When questions arose about Aaron’s death following his COVID-19 vaccination, the federal government and the media sought to quash that conversation, Kennedy told The Defender.

Kennedy said:

“The White House was working to suppress this, and the implication is that they didn’t want Blacks in particular to understand the risks of vaccination. And so, they asked Twitter to suppress such content.

“At that point, it became clear that I was being shadow banned at that time, because my account simply stopped growing. Instagram, Facebook and Twitter. And I had been growing my audience at a very, very high rate.”

A Jan. 31, 2021, “fact check” by The New York Times claimed that the Fulton County, Georgia, medical examiner determined Aaron’s death was not related to his vaccination.

However, Kennedy said that in a conversation he had with the Fulton County medical examiner subsequent to the publication of that article, the medical examiner claimed he had never examined Hank Aaron’s body. A subsequent letter Kennedy wrote to the Times was never published.

“They never printed that letter,” said Kennedy. “They’ve abolished the traditional right to reply. They always gave you a right to reply and they have denied that to me consistently. Apparently, at the same time, the White House was working to suppress this.”

Tucker Carlson and others also targeted by the Biden administration

Bailey and Landry also cited documents confirming “the Biden White House direct[ed] Facebook to shut down conservative voices Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren.”

Here, the Biden White House directs Facebook to shut down conservative voices @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren (4/9) pic.twitter.com/BlFunGWc3Z

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

This tweet was accompanied by an April 14, 2021, email exchange between Flaherty and an unnamed Facebook official in which Flaherty appeared to suggest the platform was not doing enough to provide “reduction” to posts by these two personalities.

Flaherty wrote:

“Since we’ve been on the phone — the top post about vaccines today is Tucker Carlson saying they don’t work. Yesterday was Tomi Lehren [sic] saying she won’t take one.

“This is exactly why I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like — if ‘reduction’ means ‘pumping our most vaccine hesitant audience with Tucker Carlson saying it doesn’t work’ then … I’m not sure it’s reduction!”

The Facebook official responded, “Thanks — I saw the same thing when we hung up. Running this down now.”

In a tweet, Landry then shared this content, adding, “Rob Flaherty told Facebook to censor @tuckercarlson.”

However, Landry’s tweet included one additional document, apparently a continuation of the April 14, 2021, email exchange between the White House and Facebook, in which the Facebook official was “working on…running down question on Tucker [Carlson] and working on getting you report [sic] by end of week.”

In a follow-up tweet, Landry described the above exchange as a “clear effort at government-directed social media censorship,” and tagged Elon Musk.

And in two more follow-ups, Landry stated:

“A viral video was demoted 50% pending a 7-day fact checking period. That demotion continued by Facebook even though no ‘fact checking’ actually occurred. Follow [this account] for more coercive and collusive efforts by the @WhiteHouse to pressure @Facebook to censor @TuckerCarlson.”

Landry said, “Facebook continued to demote the Tucker Carlson video even though no fact checking actually occurred.”

In another tweet, Bailey wrote, “Here is an example of Big Tech toeing the line for Biden.”

The tweet was accompanied by a July 20, 2021, email from an unnamed Google official to Flaherty, explaining how YouTube (which is owned by Google) was working to limit the distribution of “borderline content” on that platform, stating:

“It is important to keep in mind that borderline content accounts for a fraction of 1% of what is watched on YouTube in the United States. We use machine learning to reduce the recommendations of this type of content, including potentially harmful misinformation.

“In January 2019, we announced changes to our recommendations systems to limit the spread of this type of content which resulted in a 70% drop in watchtime on non-subscribed recommended content in the U.S. and our goal is to have views of non-subscribed, recommended borderline content below 0.5%.

“I will keep you updated with any new policy or product improvements that we make as we continue our work to help people find authoritative health information on YouTube.”

Bailey also tweeted:

The truth no longer matters to the White House. They “Really couldn’t care less about products unless they’ve having measurable impact” on suppressing speech. (7/9) pic.twitter.com/AnTOmwW9Wa

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

The tweet referenced an April 9, 2021, email from Flaherty to an official at Facebook, writing in part:

“Will say I’m really mostly interested in what effects the interventions and products you’ve tested have had on increasing vaccine interest within hesitant communities, and which ones have shown promise.

“Really couldn’t care less about products unless they’re having measurable impact. And while the product safari has been interesting, at the end of the day, I care mostly about what actions and changes you’re making to ensure sure [sic] you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.

“I definitely have what I believe to be a non-comprehensive list of products you’re building but I still don’t have a good, empirical answer on how effective you’ve been at reducing the spread of vaccine-skeptical content and misinformation to vaccine fence sitters in the now-folded ‘lockdown.’”

Bailey also tweeted “evidence that this scheme starts ‘at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH [White House].’”

An April 22, 2021, email from Flaherty to seven Google officials, on which Humphrey and former White House COVID-19 adviser Andrew Slavitt were copied, was attached, where Flaherty wrote:

“All — Thanks again for the conversation today.

“To recap: As we move away from a supply problem toward a demand problem [apparently referencing the COVID-19 vaccines], we remain concerned that Youtube is ‘funneling’ people into hesitance and intensifying people’s hesitancy.

“We certainly recognize that removing content that is unfavorable to the cause of increasing vaccine adoption is not a realistic — or even good — solution. But we want to be sure that you have a handle on vaccine hesitancy generally and are working toward making the problem better.

“This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH, so we’d like to continue a good-faith dialogue about what is going on under the hood here.”

Bailey concluded his Twitter thread with this:

The truth no longer matters to the White House. They “Really couldn’t care less about products unless they’ve having measurable impact” on suppressing speech. (7/9) pic.twitter.com/AnTOmwW9Wa

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) January 7, 2023

Meta promised to use ‘a spectrum of levers’ to limit distribution and reach of ‘vaccine hesitancy’ content

In another Jan. 6 tweet, Bailey said, “Here’s more collusion,” and showed a screenshot of a “confidential” document from Meta — the parent company of Facebook — that was apparently directed at the White House.

In this document, Meta provided a screenshot of a link posted on Facebook to a Feb. 11, 2021, article critical of COVID-19 vaccines that appeared in The Defender.

Highlighting this as a “vaccine hesitancy example,” Meta’s memo stated, in part:

“The following examples of content are those that do not violate our Misinformation and Harm policy, but may contribute to vaccine hesitancy or present a barrier to vaccination.

“We utilize a spectrum of levers for this kind of content that is both proportionate and also helps our users make informed decisions. Actions may include reducing the posts’ distribution, not suggesting the posts to users, limiting their discoverability in Search, and applying Inform Labels and/or reshare friction to the posts.”

In other words, Meta appeared to tell the White House that while it could not identify a pretext to delete this particular content, it could nevertheless employ “a spectrum of levers” to limit its distribution and reach.

This was further confirmed by Landry in a Jan. 7 retweet of the Meta memo:

Facebook also told the White House how they could censor @RobertKennedyJR pic.twitter.com/aMDwN7c9KW

— Jeff Landry (@JeffLandry) January 7, 2023

More legal action coming as pressure on Twitter grows

Charlene Bollinger, co-founder of The Truth About Vaccines and The Truth About Cancer, remarked on these revelations, telling The Defender that if content questioning official narratives regarding the COVID-19 vaccines were not censored, “millions of people would still be alive today.”

Bollinger, who told The Defender that four Twitter accounts she was affiliated with, including the accounts for The Truth About Vaccines, The Truth About Cancer and the United Medical Freedom SuperPAC (political action committee) were taken down by Twitter, describing such actions as “a crime against humanity” which “has got to stop.”

“I am grateful for the attorney generals and the Twitter files coming out [with such content], which proves we were right,” she added.

Bollinger, along with Kennedy, Dr. Joseph Mercola and others were identified by the “Center for Countering Digital Hate” (CCDH) as being part of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen.” Bollinger has called upon Twitter owner and CEO Elon Musk to reinstate her accounts and others belonging to the “Disinformation Dozen.”

Described by Mercola as “a progressive cancel-culture leader,” CCDH has “extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has labeled questioning the COVID-19 injection as ‘threats to national security.’”

Officials including Fauci, former White House “disinformation” head Nina Jankowicz, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre have been subpoenaed in the ongoing Louisiana and Missouri lawsuit.

Fauci, as well as FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan — who is also heavily implicated in the “Twitter files” — and other Biden administration officials, have already been deposed, while the scheduled deposition of former White House press secretary Jen Psaki was blocked last week by the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Recently released “Twitter files” have provided further evidence of collusion between the Biden administration, federal entities including intelligence agencies and Twitter. Further releases of “Twitter files” are widely expected in the coming days, including the release of the so-called “Fauci files.”

The Epoch Times reports that House Republicans, who now hold a majority in the chamber, have pledged to investigate collusion between the federal government and private companies, including social media platforms, and the establishment of a subcommittee investigating the “weaponization” of the federal government.

This committee will reportedly be chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

Kennedy referenced other ongoing and forthcoming legal cases on related matters, on his part and from CHD, telling The Defender:

“We are already involved in a number of First Amendment cases. We’re involved in the litigation against Facebook on behalf of CHD. I personally am suing Elizabeth Warren. We’re about to file an antitrust suit against the Trusted News Initiative, which includes all of the social media sites.

“And [these new revelations] open up new claims, new opportunities. This is the government and the White House directly. We’re reviewing that right now, as public officials are not allowed to censor.”

*

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

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. 

Thirty two years ago, in the early hours of January 17, 1991, Operation “Desert Storm” began in the Persian Gulf, this war against Iraq opened the sequence of wars after the Cold War. The USA and its allies launched it at the moment when, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were about to dissolve.  

.

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

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.

***

Kosovo and Metochia (KosMet) is a southwestern province of the Republic of Serbia – a central region of the political, national, economic, cultural, and religious life of Serbia in the Middle Ages. The region was occupied by the Ottoman authorities in 1455 and subsequently was under the Islamic-Ottoman yoke until the beginning of the 20^th century. The consequences of the Ottoman administration on the further development of the region were quite tragic in several points:

1. The Christian medieval feature of KosMet was to the great extent replaced by Islamic characteristics.
2. The ethnic breakdown of the region was drastically changed at the expense of the Christian Serbs and in the favor of Muslim Albanians who occupied KosMet as migrants from neighboring North Albania.
3. The European culture of the region was significantly changed in the favor of the Asiatic-Oriental cultural feature.
4. KosMet became one of the fundamental sources of Balkan Islamic radicalism till today.
5. The region is during the last hundred years one of the principal points of the Balkan Powder Keg creating as such internationally recognized problematic Kosovo Question.

Nevertheless, after the Balkan Wars of 1912−1913, a larger (eastern) part of KosMet became reincluded into the Kingdom of Serbia, after the Ottoman Empire was pushed out from the biggest part of the Balkans by the Balkan Alliance composed of Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian and Montenegrin forces (the First and Second Balkan Wars 1912−1913).[i]

A minor (western) part of KosMet became at the same time for the first time in history included into the state of Montenegro due to Serbia’s generosity toward the Montenegrin “brothers”. In November 1918 Vojvodina, which was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, joined Serbia, which in her turn joined the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (renamed in 1929 as the Kingdom of Yugoslavia), the new state of all South Slavs except Bulgarians.[ii] However, by the creation of the first South Slavic state on December 1^st, 1918 KosMet brought into this political entity a sizeable trouble-making Muslim Albanian population (the Shqiptars in the following how they are calling themselves), whereas in Vojvodina lived an approximately equal number of peaceful ethnic Hungarians followed by the German Folksdeutschers. However, from the political viewpoint, the difference between KosMet’s Shqiptars on one hand and Vojvodina’s Hungarians and Germans on another was quite immense as the latter never caused any serious troubles in the new state for the next twenty years of its existence while the Shqiptars, in contrast, became from the very beginning of the Yugoslav unification in 1918 an extremely disturbing and disloyal element within both Serbia and Yugoslavia.

Furthermore, for the last almost three decades, since the disintegration of Yugoslavia in 1991, KosMet has become a hot spot on the globe attracting huge international attention primarily due to the Albanian policy of secessionism and Islamic holy war (jihad) against the local Christian Serb population.

On this place, one can ask a fundamental question: What makes a region of the size of Corsica and a population of something 1.5 million so special that it forced first Serbia, and then half the globe, to engage in extinguishing the fire which threatens in 1999 to endanger the entire world order and global security?

Nevertheless, the quasi-independent Republic of Kosovo is today a classical mafia state under the protection of the Western “democracies”.[iii] Why?

KosMet region, the southwestern part of Serbia, is considered by many Western authors as a “disputed land” for the last two centuries. A traditional Western image of the issue of the Kosovo Question is that two competing nations, the Serbs and the Albanians (Shqiptars) are fighting for the dominance over the region.[iv]

Nevertheless, it is finally created a wrong impression about the present-day political situation in concern to the Kosovo Question that it is that two sides are claiming their rights taking into consideration two different arguments:

the Serbs are referring to their “historical rights” while the Shqiptars are relying on their actual numerical preponderance which is, in fact, a product of 300 years of ethnic cleansing of and terror against KosMet Serbs. However, for all real and non-partisan experts on the Kosovo Question it is clear that, in essence, there is not the issue of “disputed land” between Serbs and Shqiptars but rather the issue of a robbery of the province by the latter.[v] In other words, the whole issue of the Kosovo Question is set up upside down by the Western corporate media, politicians, warmongers, and academics based on misconceptions, fake news, and even notorious lies about KosMet history and politics (one of the best examples is a British historian and “expert on Yugoslav history”, Noel Malcolm). Those misconceptions, fake news, and lies are developed and maintained for a longer period of time up to the present, and, therefore, they have to be publicly presented and decisively refuted before any serious discourse on this matter is going to be carried out.[vi] Basically, it has to be exposed as real and based on the relevant sources of the historical, political, demographic, ethical, and religious background of the Kosovo Question. It has to be noticed in this respect that there are authors who argue that the Kosovo Question is predominantly of an anthropological nature, rather than a political one. Anyway, in principle, it has to be examined a number of possible solutions to the “dispute”, from an ideal one to the realistic one, putting the whole issue in the broader historical and actual worldwide political perspective as otherwise, the issue of the Kosovo Question is going to be blatantly taken out from its real context (what a majority of Western “experts” are exactly doing).

A leading research direction of the issue can be, for instance, to take into serious consideration the case of Kosovo Shqiptars’ natural birth-rate phenomena. Here it is going to be presented only one illustrative case of this politically motivated phenomenon. A French magazine published a couple of photos from the Lion airport on April 18^th, 1999, during the airborne aggression by NATO on Serbia (and partly on Montenegro), in the course of their “preventing a humanitarian catastrophe” at KosMet. However, one picture showed the French weaponry ready to be transported to KosMet, and the other presented an ethnic-Albanian family from KosMet, “refugees” just arrived in France. The latter photo deserves well one’s attention, for it speaks very much about the core of the Kosovo Question indeed as it exposes vividly the very crux of the matter. Let us analyze this picture, presenting the “unfortunate” family of Kosovars (as the Western “experts” call KosMet Shqiptars). First of all, it was a single family, consisting of three generations. On the left, we see the grandmother (with scarf), and on the right father and mother of the children posing around. Evidently, it is the peasant family. Though the children appear well dressed (probably by a humanitarian agency), the adults reveal their modest well-being. One can notice the first three daughters, the eldest and two twin girls next to her followed by two daughters in the front and two boys beside as well. The central figure appears as the young girl, of about 8, who shows the V sign in a Churchill-like gesture. What is she trying to tell us? The family is hardly in a “victorious position”. Who is going to defeat whom? Who instructed her to pose before the cameras in that manner? These are the basic questions that come to mind when looking at this scene at the Lion airport.

Toponyms

The authentic and original toponyms of some regions probably tell the best about the genuine ownership of it from the ethnonational point of view. It is, however, the most problematic and hidden aspect of the Kosovo Question by the Western “experts” who never wanted to deal with this issue as it is clearly refuting their arguments about allegedly Albanian features of this region of South-West Serbia, called Kosovo and Metohia (but not only Kosovo), which is an autonomous province of Serbia since 1945 but enjoyed till 1989 a significant political sovereignty especially from 1974 (according to the last Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).

To start from the very beginning, the very name Kosovo is a short-term Kosovo Polje, meaning in the Serbian language Field of Blackbirds (kos – blackbird in the Serbian language).[vii] In order to avoid confusion, it has to be adopted the standard rule for the terms used in, at least, scientific literature. Therefore, ethnic Albanians who are citizens of Serbia have to be designated by Shqiptars (Shqiptare, “sons of eagles”),[viii] as they call themselves and were usually called in Yugoslavia until the mid-1970s. Nevertheless, another interpretation of the term is stemming from shqipoj, “one who understands”. This interpretation appears in accordance with the similar case of Slav – “one who speaks (slovi)”, as different from Nemac (German), “one who is mute (nem)”. However, it is a fact that most of Serbia’s Shqiptars consider now the term pejorative but only if it is used by the Serbs, for several historical reasons.[ix] The principal reason is that many designations of the present-day Shqiptars/Albanians throughout history were, to many Balkan people eponymous to wild people, including the Ottoman administration. In particular, the name Arnaut, widely used during the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans, was synonymous with the robber, highwayman, belligerent savage, etc.[x] The name Shqiptar was in many respects similarly used by the Slavic population. A modern equivalent to Shqiptar in Western usage as the term for KosMet ethnic Albanians/Shiptars is an artificial ethnonym Kosovars which is used mainly for purely political and propaganda purposes in order to show that a separate quasi-ethnic nation exists. Nevertheless, the term appears misleading for the very reason as it implies “inhabitants of Kosovo”, which includes all ethnicities of the province of KosMet. Shqipëria is the internal official name of present-day Albania and the Albanians (Shqiptars) themselves are calling their own national state in which they are living. The spoken and national language of all Shqiptars no matter which country they inhabitants is called by themselves Shqip. According to Albanian historiography, it is most probable that the ethnic name of Shqiptars is derived from the term shqipon (clearly to say).[xi]

The official term for Serbia’s southern province of KosMet is Kosovo and Metochia but for the very political reasons, the Shiptars are all the time omitting its second part (Metochia) using only the first one (as Kosova or Kosovë). The toponym Kosovo/Kosova/Kosovë with its root Kos simply means nothing in the Ship (Albanian) language as it is borrowed from Slavic/Serbian. Subsequently, the Shqiptars even do not have their name for the land they claim to be allegedly their own even from an immemorial time (by propagating false claims to be the oldest Balkan and even European people as the descendants of ancient Balkan Illyrians)![xii] The question is why they are purposely omitting to use of the toponym Metochia? For the very political reason as the toponym shows that the Shiptars have historically nothing to do with this province. To remind ourselves, Metochia is corrupt of Greek μετóχι, which designates a dependency of a monastery, usually allotted by the local ruler or the king. The name refers to the monasteries complex of the western part of the province, bordering both Montenegro and Albania. The essence is that Metochia is crowded by medieval Serbian monasteries but not Albanian. The Serbian Orthodox Church in this matter even claims that around 70% of KosMet land legally belongs to it. However, the same region of Metochia is called by Shiptars as Dukagjin – the land of a duke.[xiii] It has to be mentioned here that it designates generally a border region, which used to be under the military rule of a duke (like Frankish marka). Northern Serbia’s region, which is an autonomous province as KosMet, is called Vojvodina (the land of a duke), for the same reason, since it was situated on the border of the Habsburg/Austrian Monarchy (renamed Austria-Hungary from 1867) with the Ottoman Empire after the Great Vienna War in 1683−1699 and a big part of it was under the military rule as such. Here it has to be emphasized that kos is a purely Slavic/Serb name, as duka is a corrupted Italian one.

However, these facts are not merely of linguistic nature but bear a heavyweight when dealing with the essence of the Kosovo Question for the very reason that the authentic toponyms, in general, appear to be the most reliable identification of a region and at the same time crucial evidence of the fact as to whom the region, in fact, historically belongs. Therefore, the basic clarifications of the KosMet toponym issue are necessary to be pointed out in the next paragraphs.

Kosovo is a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic name of the kind of bird, which has about 300 subspecies, from the family Turdidae, derived from the Greek kopsihos. The Kosovo Field, where historically a number of important battles were fought, is situated northwest of the regional capital Priština.[xiv]

Metochia is derived from a Greek metohi as mentioned above, from meteho – to take part. It denotes a monastery estate (of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the KosMet case).

Priština, a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic term, derived from prysk, derived in its turn from the Indo-European (s)per, to become the verb prisnoti, meaning “to spurt”, “to gush”. In the modern Serbian language, the term prisht designates decease, boil (anthrax).

The town of Priština was an important trade and mine medieval center, with an important Dubrovnik colony. A Serbian King Stefan Dečanski (1321−1331)[xv] used to stay at Priština, while Serbian Emperor Stephan Dušan (1331−1355) had his court here for some time.[xvi]

After Stephan Dušan, Priština became the capital of Vuk Branković’s feud and retained that position even after the Kosovo Battle in 1389.

His wife Mara lived there with her sons, Grgur (Gregorie) and Đurađ (Georgie), as well as Prince Lazar’s widow Eugenia (known in the folk songs as Empress Milica). The Ottomans took Priština in 1439, but the Dubrovnik colony remains there as Dubrovnik had all the time very good political relations with the Ottoman authorities.[xvii] In 1660 a Roman-Catholic missionary mentions Priština as an important post between Novi Pazar and Istanbul (Constantinople). During the Austrian-Ottoman war in 1683−1699 (the Great Vienna War) the former had a small garrison there in 1689.[xviii] However, according to the Austrian records, there were about 360 villages around, some of which were set to fire by Muslim Turks and Tatars and (Serb Christian) inhabitants slaughtered. At the beginning of the 19^th century, Priština appears to be an important trade town, with a famous fair, with some 12.000 inhabitants. France established her consulate there in 1812. According to some reports, Priština had at the time about 7.000−9.000 inhabitants, mainly Christian Orthodox Serbs, but some Muslim Arnauts and semi-Islamized Serbs too. However, in 1852 the reports count 12.000−15.000 inhabitants, one-third Serbs and Tsintsars (the Christian Orthodox Vlachs), the rest Muslim Arnauts.[xix] After two big fires in 1859 and 1863, Priština suffered a considerable decline.

Prizren, a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic name, from zreti, to see. Derived from the Indo-European gher, to flash, participle perfect zren. A prefix pri is the common pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic. Prizren (a main urban settlement in Metochia) was mentioned as the episcopate in 1019 as subordinated to the Byzantine Ohrid archiepiscopate. The first Serbian archiepiscop (archbishop) St. Sava (1219−1236) subordinated it to his new Serbian archiepiscopate.[xx] Prizren was developed as a trade town in the 13^th and 14^th centuries, especially during Serbian King Milutin (1282−1321) and Serbian Emperors Stephan Dušan and Stephan Uroš (1355−1371), who had their courts there. Stephan Dušan built a monastery with a memorial church devoted to St. Archangels (Michael and Gavril). After falling into the Ottoman hands, the monastery was demolished and no trace of the grave of Emperor Dušan has remained. It was an important colony of Dubrovnik in Prizren, with two Roman-Catholic churches. The Ottomans took Prizren in 1455 and after that, the town was becoming more and more Islamic but even in 1878 2/3 of its population have been Christian Orthodox Serbs (today only several Serbs are left in the city). Nevertheless, during the Ottoman occupation, Prizren lost most of its trade role but there were some rich merchants like Turk Mehmed Hajredin Kukli-beg with his 117 shops, 6 watermills, and caravanserai (hotel). The Shqiptars appear there late, in the second half of the 17^th century only. In the 17^th century, trade receives a new impetus at Prizren, with some 8.600 (1610) and 12.000 (1655) homes. The town was renowned for its fountains, watermills (600), nice houses, and pleasant gardens. Craftsmanship was very developed, especially guns and sabers productions. Prizren was the largest Serb town in the region, second only to Skopje. Still, the overwhelming majority of the population was Christian Orthodox Serbs. Though there was a Roman-Catholic episcope chair, there were 30−40 Roman-Catholic homes only. However, in both the 16^th and 17^th centuries Prizren was a victim of ethnic-Shqiptar highlanders, mainly of the Mirdites tribe from North Albania. At the end of the 18^th century, many towns were devastated by the Shqiptars, including Prizren, mainly by highwaymen. For instance, father Sava reports how in 1795 Mahmud-pasha Bushatli and his Shqiptars devastated Prizren and only 7.000−8.000 homes remained, much lesser than there were in the 17^th century.

According to one record in 1805, Prizren experienced a revival. Its inhabitants were partly Muslims and partly Christian Orthodox, but both the Serbs, as their (Slavic) language revealed. The 19^th century witnessed the further development of Prizren. According to J. Miller (1844), the following statistics were offered; 6.000 homes, with 18.600 Orthodox citizens, 2.150 Roman Catholics, 4.000 Muslims (4/5 Serbs), and 600 Tsigans (Roma/Gypsies). Trade was mainly in the hands of the Serbs. The town had many mosques (12 big, 42 altogether), many clock towers, and one Christian Orthodox and one Roman-Catholic church. Trade was done mainly with Thessaloniki since the trade road to Skadar (Scodra/Scutari) was insecure due to the Shqiptar highwaymen.    

Mitrovica, after the Greek St. Demetrios, Serb Dimitrije. Demetrios itself means son of Demetre, goddess of fertility and agriculture.[xxi] When Serbian King Milutin donated in the 14^th century to the St. Stephan monastery at Banjska the church “St. Dimitrije under Zvečan”, the new town founded in the vicinity obtained the name D(i)mitrovica, or Mitrovica. Renowned Turkish traveler Evlia Čelebija mentions Mitrovica as “on the border of Bosnian vilayet”, with the castle (probably Zvečan) abandoned but the town flourishing. Father Jukić mentions (1852) 300 Muslim and 50 Orthodox houses. Unimpressive until 1871 Mitrovica experienced a fast development with a railway. 

Zvečan was a Serbian castle built in the 11^th century during Serbia’s fight against the Byzantine Empire. The castle served as a prison (something like London Tower), where many noblemen finished their lives, including King Stephan Dečanski’s brother, Constantine, and the King himself. Ottoman rule was imposed already at the end of the 14^th century after the Kosovo Battle. Zvečan used to be left empty for many periods. It suffered the most in 1884 when the wall material of the castle was used by the Ottoman authorities for building the bridge across the River Ibar in Mitrovica and some other objects.

As mentioned before, nearby Banjska was a village, which had a beautiful monastery, but was ruined after the Kosovo Battle.[xxii] Nevertheless, the place won its celebrity after the beautiful folk poem Strahinjić Bane, an epic Serb hero from Banjska. The Ottomans founded a small town over the ruins of Banjska, with a mosque and sahat-kula (clock tower). At the hill foot, there was a bath,[xxiii] in use a long time afterward. At the beginning of the 20^th century, one could still see a remnant of the minaret on the ruins of the old Serbian Christian Orthodox church, converted into the mosque in the 15^th century. 

Đakovica, from the Greek diakonos, servant, pupil. The earliest record about the place came from the 17^th century but the town probably existed before. The Albanian used toponym Gjakova was given by the Ottomans and the Shqiptars while the Serbs are calling the town Đakovica.[xxiv] This is the only area in KosMet (very close to Albania) in which, according to the first Ottoman population census (defter) in KosMet done in 1455, the Shqiptars lived in some big numbers.[xxv] It was a small town, which started to be massively populated by Shqiptars from neighboring North Albania after the First Great Serbian Migration from KosMet to the Habsburg Monarchy (i.e, to South Hungary) in 1689−1690.[xxvi] It was probably on that account that the Serbs used to call it Arnaut-Pazar. According to some sources, in 1844 there were 1.900 houses, 11 mosques, and 640−650 shops. In the same year, there were 18.000 Muslims, 2.600 Orthodox, and 450 Roman-Catholic inhabitants in Đakovica. As for the ethnic partition, the same records provide 17.000 Arnauts, 3.800 Slavs (Serbs), 180 Turks, and finally some Tsintsars and Gypsies (Tsigans). However, statistics greatly differ from author to author and may be taken as a rough estimate only. The Christians were engaged mainly in craftsmanship, with the Roman Catholics as goldsmiths and the Orthodox as saddle-makers and painters.

Peć, a pan-Slavic, and pra-Slavic from pekti, to roast. Pekt/peć means furnace. It is a cult place of the Serbian people, the former seat of the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć in the nearby church (est. 1346), established by the Serbian King Milutin (1282−1321). However, besides its spiritual importance, Peć was a town with a lively trade, especially by the Dubrovnik colony in the town. The Ottomans abolished the Patriarchate of Peć after 1459, to be re-established in 1557 and ultimately to be abolished in 1766 and subordinated to the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople.[xxvii] In the 19^th century, there were 2.000 houses with some 7.000−8.000 inhabitants, mainly the Christian Orthodox Serbs. The town had 900 shops. A principal occupation was silk production and agriculture (fruit and tobacco). Despite its size, Peć (in Turkish Ipek) was not able to develop trade,  due to, according to the source, insecurity ”from (the local) Arnauts”, who were “public highwaymen”. 

Uroševac, a pra-Church-Slavonic from Uroš, derived from ur, master, from Hungarian ursu for a lord. In Turkish Ferizović, in Shqip Ferizaj. It was a small Gypsy village. The railway made it a town and a trade center of the region. 

Lipljan, an old Serbian, probably from the Roman name for the nearby Roman-Byzantine castrum Ulpiana.

Orahovac, a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic name oreh for nut (orah in the contemporary Serb), derived from Indo-European ar and reks (to smash), something one eats skinned.

Drenica, derived from a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic dren, dogwood, from the Indo-European root dher(e)ghno. 

Vučitrn, derived from Serb vuk, a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic vlk, for wolf, the Indo-European ulkuos[xxviii] and trn, the Teutonic-pra-Slavic term for thorn (the Indo-European (s)ter, for thorny plants). The town is built probably over the ancient Vicianum. It is mentioned for the first time in the 14^th century as a place belonging to the Serbian feudal lord Vuk Branković, who had his palace there too. The town was renowned for its trade activities, especially for its Dubrovnik colony. A Serbian despot Đurađ Branković (1427−1456) used it as his seat too. In the vicinity, there was a well-known trade and mine town Trepča. Vučitrn fell to the Ottomans in 1439 (or 1440) for the first time, then definitely in 1455 when all KosMet became finally occupied by the Ottoman Empire. Some travelers mention it as an important trade center. The Ottoman historian Turk Evlija Čelebija counts 2.000 houses, then tekija,[xxix] schools, a Christian Orthodox school, a hammam (bath), vineyards, and orchards. In the 18^th century, Vučitrn appears as an insignificant place but becomes the seat of a sanjak.[xxx] In 1894 one counted about 7.000−8.000 inhabitants. The main occupation was blacksmith and leather craftsmanship. 

Glogovac, a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic name from glog for hawthorn (from Greek glohiis – top of a blade). 

Istok, from tok, a pra-Slavic noun for flow (from the Indo-European teq – to run (away), and iz as the perfective prefix for the verb teći – to flow, from the Indo-European eghs. 

Gračanica, a pan-Slavic and pra-Slavic diminutive of gord, initially any fenced settlement, later town, and castle, from the Indo-European gherdh, to fence.[xxxi] 

Kačanik, a Turkish name, from kaçak–highwayman. Kačanik (situated on the very border to the present-day Republic of North Macedonia) was notorious for its highwayman activities from the beginning of its history, which dates from the 16th century. Situated at the entrance of the gorge Kačanik, made by the river Lepenac, it controlled the passage through the gorge, the only possible between Macedonia and KosMet. A report from 1573 warns people to guard themselves well in passing the gorge, for the danger from the local Shqiptars.

It was for this danger that Sinan-pasha built the small fortress at the gorge entrance, which was intended to protect travelers, mainly tradesmen, from robbery and slaughter. The Austrian soldiers during the Great Vienna War under General Piccolomini took the fortress in 1689, but after their retreat in 1690, the Ottomans captured the fortress and slaughtered the Austrian garrison. It was not until 1807 when Reshid-pasha cleared Kačanik from highwaymen that the traffic through the gorge was resumed. Around the middle of the 19th century, the town consisted of, according to the source, about a „hundred miserable Arnaut (Shqiptar) houses“, situated beside the ruined fortress. Before the Balkan Wars (1912−1913) town was renamed by the Ottomans as Orhanije and at that time had about 250 houses.

Names of the rivers, mountains, and other geographical entities are likewise Slavic in the entire KosMet. They are easily recognized by suffixes, like –va for the river, -ica for rivers or settlements. We mention the Rivers Sitnica, Studenica, etc. The suffix -or for mountains is considered to be of Celtic origin, but mountains with this ending are scattered all around the West Balkans. Some toponyms bear Turkish names, as expected after centuries of Ottoman rule in this part of the Balkans.[xxxii] We emphasize here that since KosMet used to be separated from modern Serbia for two centuries, its development was considerably retarded concerning the language and folklore generally. It appears today as a sort of reservation in this respect, as a remnant of ancient times, from the medieval Serbian state and the Serbian nation in general. This is also the case with other mountainous regions of the Balkans, in particular, North Albania, Montenegro, and Herzegovina, which were on the margin of European civilization and culture for centuries.[xxxiii]

As for the toponyms in Albania, many appear corrupted from the original Greek or Roman, whereas some bear purely Slavic names. This applies particularly to the plain regions, which were settled by ethnic-Shqiptar (Albanian) highlanders only relatively recently.

As was already pointed out above, these linguistic details are not merely of a linguistic nature but reveal the essence of the issue of who is the genuine owner of the “disputed” land. It concerns the question of “negative designation” as well. The ancient Greeks (and Romans as well) used to call other nations “barbarians”, meaning “non-Greeks” or “neither Romans nor Greeks”. It had somewhat pejorative overtones, which one could appreciate regarding their superiority over the surrounding nations, in particular, those much less civilized, like Skits.[xxxiv]  The same point appears with the Israelites, who designate non-Jews as goyim, meaning (other, non-Jewish) nations.[xxxv] Though no Jew would admit it, it has a pejorative meaning whatsoever, and this overtone cannot be ignored.

The Shqiptar Question, in fact, involves all nationalities with whom the ethnic Shqiptars are in close contact at the Balkan Peninsula. Subsequently, one faces the conflict of the Shqiptars versus non-Shqiptars, which places inevitably the ethnic Shqiptars in a privileged position. This will sound cynical when we compare the civilization levels of both sides in the conflict over KosMet. Unfortunately, the term “non-Albanian” has been widely accepted by the international community, and even an eventual neologism that would substitute the unfortunate term “non-Albanian” would not do. In a sense, this terminology would correspond to a “non-sick” man (as compared to a sick one), meaning “healthy man”. “Non-Albanian” implies inevitably the feeling of “something wrong” with those singled out so.

Unfortunately, the story does not end here. Serbia used to have, during her recent history (since 1945), two regions, which had privileged positions relative to the rest of the state. One was the autonomous province of Vojvodina, the other the autonomous region (later to become a province, too) of . (KosMet). The problem is the “rest of Serbia”. Some call it “Serbia proper”, some “Central Serbia”. The first designation appears particularly unsuitable, for it implies that KosMet is not ”proper Serbia”, thus concealing in the very name a political message.

*

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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] After both the First and Second Balkan Wars of 1912−1913 the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro agreed to divide the territory of Kosovo (i.e., western portion of this province known as Metohia and eastern portion known as Kosovo) at such a way that largest portion of Metohia became incorporated into Montenegro, while whole portion of Kosovo (with Priština and Kosovo Field where the Kosovo Battle occurred on June 28^th, 1389 between the Serbs and the Ottomans) and smaller part of Metohia have been annexed by Serbia (Никола Ђоновић, Црна Гора пре и после уједињења, Београд: Политика А.Д., 1939, 76; Борислав Ратковић, Митар Ђуришић, Саво Скоко, Србија и Црна Гора у Балканским ратовима 1912−1913, Београд: БИГЗ, 1972, 323). 

[ii]  About the creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes see: Branko Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije, knjiga I, Beograd: NOLIT, 1988; Алекс Н. Драгнић, Србија, Никола Пашић и Југославија, Београд: Народна радикална странка, 1994; Vladislav B. Sotirović, Creation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes 1914−1918, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, 2007.

[iii] Pierre Pean, Sébastien Fontenelle, Kosovo une guerre “juste” pour créer un etat mafieux, Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2013.

[iv] See, for instance: Noel Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History, New York: New York University Press, 1998.

[v] About Serbian-Shqiptars relations in KosMet, see: Душан Т. Батаковић, Косово и Метохија у српско-арбанашким односима, Београд: Чигоја штампа, 2006.

[vi] For instance, it was clearly done in my article: “Kosovo: What Everyone (Really) Needs to Know” (http://global-politics.eu/kosovo-really/).

[vii] In the German language, it is Amselfeld after Amsel for the blackbird and feld for the field.

[viii] The term is derived from shqipojnë, which designates the eagle, possibly totem of a tribe.

[ix] Nevertheless, as a matter of historical fact, Yugoslavia’s Shqiptar political leaders at the federal level used to use this term absolutely freely, during Josip Broz Tito’s era (1945−1980).

[x] By contemporary Balkan population Arnauts used to be experienced in a similar sense as North-American Indians by European population in the 19-th century. However, the Arnauts are the Albanized KosMet Serbs while usual Ottoman term for ethnic Albanians was Arbanesh. It is estimated that today there are approximately 1/3 of the KosMet Shqiptar population to be of the ethnic Serb origin (the Arnauts). About this problem, see: Душан Т. Батаковић, Косово и Метохија: Историја и идеологија, Београд: Чигоја штампа, 2007, 38−46.     

[xi] Peter Bartl, Albanien: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1995, 20.

[xii] About the Illyrians, see: Aleksandar Stipčević, Iliri: Povijest, život, kultura, II dopunjeno izdanje, Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1989. In the book by Albanian historian Peter Bartl about Albania and Albanians KosMet as Albanian (Shqiptar) land is very rarely mentioned (Peter Bartl, Albanien: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1995). Oppositely to the Albanian case, KosMet is very well presented in the national folk songs of the Serbs. About the Slavic and Indo-European roots of the Serbian epic including and KosMet case, see: Александар Лома, Пракосово: Словенски и индоевропски корени српске епике, Београд: САНУ, Балканолошки институт, 2002. 

[xiii] There is a false Shiptar interpretation of this toponym as that it was a land of the medieval family Dukagjini of the Shiptar origin.

[xiv] Undoubtedly, the most important battle occurred in KosMet was that of 1389 (June 15/28th) between Serbian army led by Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović and Ottoman army led by Sultan Murad I. Both military leaders died during the battle. On the battle, see: Ратко Пековић (избор текстова), Косовска битка: Мит, легенда и стварност, Београд: Литера, 1987. About Prince Lazar, see: Раде Михаљчић, Лазар Хребељановић: Историја, култ, предање, Београд: БИГЗ, 1989.

[xv] About Stephan Dečanski, see: Станоје Станојевић, Сви српски владари: Биографије српских (са црногорским и босанским) и преглед хрватских владара, Београд: Отворена књига, 2015, 49−50.

[xvi] About the Empire of Stephan Dušan, see: Миладин Стевановић, Душаново Царство, Београд: Књига-Комерц, 2001.

[xvii] On the golden age of the history of Dubrovnik, see: Radovan Samardžić, Zlatni vek Dubrovnika, Beograd: Prosveta, 1962.

[xviii]  About this war and KosMet, see: Радован Самарџић и други, Косово и Метохија у српској историји, Београд: Српска књижевна задруга, 1989, 127−141.

[xix] The Ottoman census system for the very taxation purposes did not count ethnic nations but rather only the confessional groups (millets).

[xx]  About St. Sava, see: Драган Антић, Љиљана Цвекић, Венац Светога Саве, Шабац: Глас цркве, 1988.

[xxi] According to Robert Graves, Demetre means mother of barley.

[xxii] Slobodan Milošević’s family claims to have the origin from Banjska.

[xxiii] Banja in the Serbian language means bath or spa.

[xxiv] There are indications that the original town-name was Jakova or Giacovo.

[xxv] Translated text of the original defter from 1455 to the Serbo-Croat language is published in 1972 by the Oriental Institute in Sarajevo: https://www.scribd.com/doc/98035320/Oblast-Brankovica-Opsirni-Katastarski-Popis-Iz-1455-Godine.

[xxvi] About the First Great Serbian Migration, see: Стефан Чакић, Велика сеоба Срба 1689/90 и патријарх Арсеније III Црнојевић, Нови Сад: Добра вест, 1990.

[xxvii] About a historical role of the Patriarchate of Peć in the preservation of the Serbian national and cultural identity, see: Vladislav B. Sotirović, “The Historical Role of the Patriarchate of Peć in Preservation of Serbian National and Cultural Identity”, Актуальнье проблемы науки в контексте православных традиций, Сборник материалов международной научно-практической конференции, 28−29 февраля 2008 года, Армавир, Россия, 2008, 22−25.  

[xxviii] Ulk has been preserved in contemporary Albanian, as a common name, with the same meaning – wolf. In modern Serb Vuk appears a common name, too, in particular among the people coming from poor regions (usually high mountains).

[xxix] Dervish house, after Turkish tekke (Arab täkyä).

[xxx] Sanjak was the Ottoman smaller administrative-territorial unit as a part of a bigger pashalik.

[xxxi] Some toponyms Shiptars still call by Albanian names, like Ferizaj for Uroševac.

[xxxii] About the Ottoman rule in the region, see: Peter F. Sugar, Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354−1804, Seattle−London: University of Washington Press, 1977.

[xxxiii] See the book by Maria Todorova: Imagining the Balkans, New York−Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

[xxxiv] The anecdote on the dispute between a bully Greek and philosopher Abaris, of the Scythian origin, who exclaimed “My homeland is a shame for me, but you are the shame of your homeland!”  illustrates well the issue.

[xxxv] In modern parlance it renders gentiles.

All images in this article are from the author

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

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.

***

Square, the payment processing company also known as Block, Inc., has deactivated the account of former Freedom Convoy organizer Chris Barber for “security reasons,” reports news outlet True North.

“We recently reviewed your account, and found activity that our platform is unable to support. Because of this, we are sorry to inform you that your Square account is now deactivated,” the company told Barber in a notice, according to True North journalist Andrew Lawton.

“Unfortunately, we cannot disclose the reason for your account deactivation due to security reasons,” it added.

The cancellation of Barber’s payment processing platform reportedly came in late December 2022, which caused his hoodie and T-shirt brand Big Red Merch to put orders on hold.

“The store will be down as we deal with some unpredicted issues,” reads a notice on its website. “The store will be operational again by the end of next week.”

Square also told Barber that it did not take the decision to close his account lightly.

“We understand that this decision may cause changes in how you run your business and do not make it lightly,” the notice said, adding, “Although we can no longer process your payments, we encourage you to reach out to alternative payment processors.”

Lawton reported that Square gave no explanation for the account deactivation other than alleging that Barber’s account violated the platform’s service terms.

“When sellers sign up with Square they agree to our Terms of Service. If a seller violates those Terms, we notify them that we will have to close their account,” said a spokesperson.

Lawsuits

Barber and other prominent Convoy organizers like Tamara Lich and Benjamin Dichter are among defendants named in a lawsuit filed by Ottawa lawyer Paul Champ on behalf of public servant Zexi Li and other Ottawa residents and business owners, who are seeking $306 million in damages.

Two of the defendants, Chris Garrah and Dichter, recently had their request rejected to have $200,000 in frozen funds released by the court. Garrah and Dichter were requesting access to the funds—part of the roughly $5 million raised for truckers now held in escrow—to pay for legal fees related to the lawsuit.

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

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.

***

Sasha Latypova, former owner and executive of multiple contract research organizations and former pharmaceutical executive, presented evidence on the DoD involvement with COVID countermeasures worldwide.

*

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: Pfc. Shaniah Edwards, Medical Detachment, prepares to administer the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to soldiers and airmen at the Joint Force Headquarters, February 12, 2021. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Leona C. Hendrickson – Source.)

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.

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.

***

‘Propaganda’ is a word familiar to us all although, ironically enough, however fully we may understand its definition, we are still unlikely – if the propaganda is effective – to detect its operation upon us.

Etymologically it shares roots with the word ‘propagate’, and it implies a spreading forth, a dissemination of information with a view towards promoting a particular agenda, cause or viewpoint.

At its essence there is a forcible aspect to propaganda, and in conjunction with the intent to ‘go forth and multiply’, an avowedly sexual facet, so that one may in fact characterize propaganda as a kind of rapine activity. It seeks to move, to persuade, to control and to coerce, and it thus represents the very antithesis of what we have come to regard as free will and free expression and the exercise of autonomous ratiocination.

Propaganda is everywhere and its methods are legion. There are endless ways to propagandize, and the so-called art of propaganda may be practiced by individuals as well as groups. In the case of Big State propaganda – the kind of propaganda designed to capture millions – we can be sure that every means, every nuance, every little bit of useful human psychological knowledge are employed – soft, hard and, if the propaganda is especially perfect, invisibly.

In musing further upon its nature in the context of the Covidian Dystopia we have suffered these past three years, yet another element emerges to characterize its essence: it is an act of masquerade.

Consider the following. A sign erected along a roadway telling passersby of a restaurant in the vicinity is not propaganda. A sign depicting a well-lit and superb eatery when in fact the eatery is a dark and slovenly affair becomes, by its deception, an act of propaganda.

When we were inundated in early 2020 with images of soldiers disinfecting Chinese streets and Chinese authorities imprisoning people in their own apartments, we were being deliberately propagandized. The message to us was: ‘Covid is highly lethal and the strictest measures are necessary to protect us, measures that have priority over inalienable human rights’. We know now – and the perpetrators of this bit of propaganda knew back then – that this was untrue.

The propagandist’s mask depicts one thing while behind the mask is another. The smiling urgent face of Dr. Anthony Fauci informing us that the Covid inoculations are safe and effective and necessary to prevent death is the hypocritical mask of the propagandist: the real Anthony Fauci knew differently, just as the real Fauci well understood that there was no actual science behind the mandates for masks, distancing, lockdowns and mass inoculation.

This mask-like nature of propaganda appears also in the use of words. The neutral and clean-sounding ‘depopulation’ really means genocide. The technical term ‘gain of function’, as it pertains to research on viruses, conceals the deliberate engineering of these pathogenic agents to become dangerous weapons of greater ability to sicken and kill. ‘Excess mortality’ signifies murder, pure and simple.

Coincidentally – or not so coincidentally – enough, the most significant tool of the Covidian propagandists has been the mask itself. It is as if we are being further acculturated to accept and condone duplicity and deception at every turn. When I see people around me who continue to participate in the charade by wearing their useless and de-identifying facial coverings, people who are happy to hide themselves and conceal their most expressive feature, these unwitting missionaries, like good little unquestioning soldiers, become concrete examples of the effectiveness – and fundamental nature – of propaganda in general.

I suppose it is possible for a propagandist, in the realm of public relations, to conceal the truth in order to serve a greater good.

But what greater good, may I ask, has come out of the Covidian campaign of fear, deceit and control?

*

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. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

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.

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.

***

South Korea wants to overtake the UK and Israel to become the world’s fourth biggest arms exporter.

With big arms contracts to both Poland and Saudi Arabia, South Korea is well underway expanding. See this.

Poland is right now making mega-purchases of tanks and other heavy stuff to become the US bulwark against Russia when Ukraine falls. South Korea is the main supplier. There is even talk about South Korea building up arms production in Poland to make Poland a new top-quality European arms exporter using South Korean technology to compete with Germany in heavy arms.

Saudi Arabia is the World’s biggest arms importer and Saudi Arabia is tired of being in the pocket of the USA. Both South Korea and China are taking shares from the US in that huge market.

UAE is also high on the list as arms market – South Korea already supplied their nuclear power plant.

Germany continues its self-destruction by buying F-35 aircraft, air defenses, and other key equipment from the US – instead of developing it with partners in Europe. France is losing export shares because the US keeps stealing it contracts for submarines etc. The UK bets on gathering the crumbs from US deals – but as the Australian submarine deal shows, the UK is being held out promises but deceived by the US.

India, another ambitious arms exporter, takes due notice.

*

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.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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.

***

Even though one has become accustomed to seeing the United States government behaving irrationally on an epic scale with no concern for what happens to the average citizen who is not a member of one of the freak show constituencies of the Democratic Party, it is still possible to be surprised or even shocked. Shortly before year’s end 2022 an article appeared in the mainstream media and was quite widely circulated. The headline that it was featured under in the original Business Insider version read “A nuclear attack would most likely target one of these 6 US cities — but an expert says none of them are prepared.” The cities were New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and San Francisco.

The article seeks to provide information and tips that would allow one to survive a nuclear attack, repeating commentary from several “experts” in emergency management and “public health” suggesting that a nuclear war would be catastrophic but not necessarily the end of the world. One should be prepared. It observes that “those cities would struggle to provide emergency services to the wounded. The cities also no longer have designated fallout shelters to protect people from radiation.” It is full of sage advice and off-the-cuff observations, including “Can you imagine a public official keeping buildings intact for fallout shelters when the real-estate market is so tight?” Or even better the advice from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s “nuclear detonation planning guide” that for everyday citizens in a city that has been nuked: “Get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned.” Dr. Ron Paul asks “Are they insane? They act as if a nuclear attack on the United States is just another inconvenience to plan for, like an ice storm or a hurricane.”

The article argues that the six cities would be prime targets as they are centers for vital infrastructure. The bomb blasts would kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans with many more deaths to follow from radiation poisoning, but the article makes no attempt to explain why Russia, with a relatively sane leadership, would want to start a nuclear war that would potentially destroy the planet. Also, the targeting list of the cities provided by the “experts” is itself a bit odd. Surely Russia would attack military and government targets as a first priority to limit the possible retaliation while also crippling the ability of the White House and Pentagon to command and control the situation. Such targets would include both San Diego and Norfolk where the US Atlantic and Pacific fleets are based as well as the various Strategic Air Command bases and the underground federal government evacuation site in Mount Weather Virginia.

Reading the article, one is reminded of the early years of the Cold War that sought to reassure the public that nuclear war was somehow manageable. It was a time when we elementary school children were drilled in hiding under our desks when the air raid alarm went off. Herman Kahn was, at that time, the most famous advocate of the school of thought that the United States could survive the “unthinkable,” i.e. a nuclear war. An American physicist by training, Kahn became a founding member of the beyond neocon nationalist Hudson Institute, which is still unfortunately around. Kahn, who served in the US Army during the Second World War as a non-combat telephone lineman, started has career as a military strategist at the RAND Corporation. Kahn endorsed a policy of deterrence and argued that if the Soviet Union believed that the United States had a devastating second-strike capability then Moscow would not initiate hostilities, which he explained in his paper titled “The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence”. The Russians had to believe that even a perfectly coordinated massive attack would guarantee a measure of retaliation that would leave them devastated as well. Kahn also posited his idea of a “winnable” nuclear exchange in his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War for which he is often cited as one of the inspirations for the title character of Stanley Kubrick’s classic film Dr. Strangelove.

The appearance of the Business Insider article dealing with a cool discussion of the survivability from a nuclear war suggests that the nutcases are again escaping from the psychiatric hospital here in the US and are obtaining top jobs in government and the media. While one continues to hope that somehow someone will wake up in the White House and realize that the deep dark hole that we the American people find ourselves in mandates a change of course and a genuine reset, there is little daylight visible in the darkness.

My particular concern relates to the entangling relationships that have kept our country permanently at war in spite of the fact that since the Cold War ended in 1991 no potential adversary has actually threatened the United States. Now, the federal government appears to be in the business of cultivating dangerous relationships to justify defense spending and placing the nation on the brink of what might prove to be catastrophic. The current US mission to “weaken Russia” and eventually also China in order to maintain its own “rules based international order” includes such hypocritical and utterly illegal under international law anomalies as the continued military occupation of part of Syria to deny that country’s leaders’ access to their oil fields and best agricultural land. A recent UN humanitarian agency investigation determined that the Syrian people are suffering and even starving as a result of that and US imposed sanctions that the Biden Administration maintains against all reason and humanity.

At the present time, however, the most entangling of all relationships, even more than with Israel, has to be the engagement of the US in the proxy war being fought against Russia on behalf of Ukraine, which is exactly what threatens to turn nuclear if someone blinks at the wrong time. Billions of dollars in direct aid as well as billions more in the form of weapons stripped from arsenals in Europe and the US have been given to the corrupt regime of President Volodymyr Zelensky while Zelensky continues to work assiduously to milk the situation and draw Washington into a deeper war directly confronting Moscow.

In fact, by some reckonings the war has already begun, with the US and its allies clearly dedicated to crippling the Russian economy while also getting rid of President Vladimir Putin. The 101^st Airborne is now in place in Romania next to Ukraine to “warn” the Kremlin while the Pentagon has recently admitted that some American military personnel are already in Ukraine, contrary to the denials by White House spokesmen. The British have also revealed that some of their elite Special Ops personnel are on the ground. And there are reports that more American soldiers will soon be on the way, ostensibly to “track the weapons” being provided to Zelensky, which will include US-made, Patriot Missile batteries some of which might even be placed in NATO member Poland to provide air cover over Western Ukraine, a definite act of war as seen by Russia, which has warned that such a move would mean that the US and its allies had “effectively become a party” to the war in Ukraine and there will be “consequences.” “Consequences” means escalation.

The soldier-“trackers” mission may be in response to reports that weapons provided by NATO have been corruptly sold or given to third countries by the Ukrainians. The several US initiatives taken together could produce a rapid escalation of the conflict complete with dead Americans coming home in body bags and an inevitable direct US involvement in combat roles that could lead anywhere, but at this point it is the Russians who are acting with restraint by not targeting the NATO and US “advisers” who are already active in Ukraine.

Suspicion is also growing that the United States “green-lighted” in advance recent cruise missile attacks carried out by Ukraine against military targets deep inside Russia. Since the attacks, the White House has declared that Ukraine has “permission” to attack Russia and has basically conceded to the unbalanced Zelensky the right to make all the decisions and run the war that the US is largely funding, which is a formula for disaster. It is already known that Ukraine is receiving top level intelligence provided both by the US and also other NATO states. The precision attacks on Russia suggest that the Ukrainian army was given the coordinates of possible active targets, something that the US would be capable of providing but which would have been beyond the abilities of Ukraine, which possesses no satellite surveillance capability. If it is true that the White House was involved in escalating the conflict it would be a very dangerous move, inviting retaliation by Moscow.

To be sure, some idiots in Washington, mostly of the neocon variety, continue to see war against Russia as something like a crusade for world freedom. Rick Newman, Yahoo’s top Finance Columnist, observes how “Budget hawks in Congress are worried about granting President Biden’s request for an additional $38 billion in aid for Ukraine to help defeat the invading Russians.” He concludes “They’re right. Thirty-eight billion isn’t enough. Make it $50 billion. Or even $100 billion. The more, the better, until the job is done.”

Apparently, the bellicose Rick does not quite get that Russia has made clear that if it is about to be defeated by force majeure it will go nuclear. And Congress and the White House don’t seem to get it either, with both the Republican and Democratic parties oblivious to the real danger that confronts the American people. Nuclear war? Sure! Just hide in your basement, if you have one, and tune in.

*

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

“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.

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 December 16, Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced a new defense strategy that doubled Japan’s military spending by 2027. Japan further agreed to acquire offensive weapons and reshape its military command structure for its expanded armed forces.

On December 23, the draft budget was approved by Kishida’s cabinet.

Japan’s dangerous military expansion should set off international alarm bells. This major escalation is taking place based on intense U.S. imperialist pressure. It is the next step in the “Pivot to Asia,” aimed at threatening and surrounding China and attempting to reassert U.S. dominance in the Asia Pacific.

Source: indrastra.com

The movements opposing endless U.S. wars must begin to prepare material and draw mass attention to this ominous threat.

The plan to double military spending will add $315 billion to Japan’s defense budget over the next five years and make Japan’s military the world’s third largest, after the U.S. and China. Defense spending will escalate to 2% of gross domestic product, equal to the goal the U.S. sets for its NATO allies. Japan’s economy is the world’s third largest.

The Japanese government plans to buy up to 500 Lockheed Martin Tomahawk missiles and Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM), procure more naval vessels and fighter aircraft, increase cyber-warfare capabilities, manufacture its own hypersonic guided missiles and produce its own advanced fighter jets, along with other weapons. The plan shifts from relying solely on missile defense to also embracing “counter strike” capabilities.

This Japanese-language graphic shows the country’s two planned hypersonic weapons: (1) the Hypersonic Cruise Missile and (2) the Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectile. [Source: defensenews.com]

In a stinging editorial, the left-leaning Asahi, one of Japan’s largest dailies called Kishida’s plan a “radical and dangerous departure from the past,” accusing the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of “rushing headlong into beefing up the nation’s military muscle without developing plans or taking actions to improve the environment for building peace.” The editorial also took issue with the new counter strike capabilities, saying they would “eviscerate the nation’s long established principle of sticking to a strictly defensive security policy.”

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)’s foreign ministry, now led by veteran negotiator Choe Sun-hui meanwhile declared that Japan had effectively formalised “the capability for preemptive attack,” while criticizing the U.S government for “conniving and instigating Japan’s rearmament and reinvasion scheme.”

Article 9 – A Class Struggle Against Military Rearmament

Three key security documents—the National Security Strategy (NSS), as well as the National Defense Strategy (NDS) and the Defense Buildup Program (DBP)—shed some of the post-war constraints on the Japanese military.

Although the U.S. occupation force, after defeating Japan’s military in World War II, imposed a “pacifist” constitution on Japan, for decades U.S. strategists have pressured Japan’s government to aggressively rearm, to buy U.S.-made weapons, and to act as a junior partner to U.S. efforts to dominate the Asia-Pacific region.

Article 9 of the imposed Japanese constitution prohibits Japan from maintaining an army, navy and air force. To get around this, the “Japanese Self-Defense Forces” (JSDF) have since 1952 been treated as a legal extension of the police and prison system. The U.S. occupiers considered the JSDF an essential repressive tool defending capitalist property relations against the workers’ movement.

The decision for aggressive military expansion is in open violation of Japan’s supposedly pacifist constitution.

Japanese Self-Defense Force, 6^th Division. [Source: asian-defence-news.blogspot.com]

The effort to “reinterpret” Article 9 has been a continuing political struggle inside Japan. Mass rallies of hundreds of thousands have mobilized many times in defense of Article 9, which offers a clear prohibition of Japan’s maintaining a military force. The widespread opposition to the Japanese military and to constitutional change comes from working people, mobilized by the unions and the communist and socialist movements.

This movement pointed out to everyone how the wartime militarist regime of the 1930s and 1940s carried out brutal repression and led Japan into World War II. The people know from bitter experience that these ultra-rightist forces, whose roots are in historic Japanese colonialism, are the real threat to their rights and the social gains they have made.

The present doubling of the defense budget will be funded by raising taxes. A huge military budget will inevitably mean severe cuts to the country’s limited social spending.

The LDP, which has held power almost continually since the 1950s, is right-wing, pro-military and allied to U.S. imperialism, especially against China and the DPRK. They have been pushing for an end to the constitutional and legal restrictions on the country’s military.

The assassination of retired President Shinzo Abe on July 8, 2022, just two days before Japan’s election, brought additional votes to the LDP. It was able to win the two-thirds super-majority in the National Diet (Japanese Parliament) needed to move forward aggressively with its military plans.

Targeting China

Japan’s military expansion fits in with Washington’s aggression aimed at China, the DPRK and Russia. U.S. strategists’ goal is to use the U.S. alliance with Japan, South Korea and Australia, just as it uses the U.S.-led NATO alliance in Europe.

The doubling of NATO’s membership and NATO’s targeting of Russia have led to war in Ukraine, when the U.S. government imposed thousands of new sanctions against Russia, and the U.S. has ruptured the European Union’s mutually beneficial trade with Russia.

China is Japan’s largest trading partner in both imports and exports. Previous National Strategy Documents said Japan was seeking a “mutually beneficial strategic partnership” with China. Suddenly Japanese strategists started labeling China “the greatest strategic challenge in ensuring the peace and security of Japan.” (U.S. Institute of Peace, December 19)

Japan had expanded trade with Russia in gas, oil, autos and machinery. Previously Japan’s December 17, 2013, National Security Strategy document called for “enhanced ties and cooperation with Russia.” Now Japan considers Russia a “strong security concern.” (USIP, December 19)

A U.S.-Japan alliance is now defined as a “cornerstone” of Japan’s security policy. (Japan Times, December 17)

U.S. Praise of Japan’s Rising Militarism

The U.S. media praised Japan’s new security strategy document as a “bold and historic step.” U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan praised the defense spending hike, which “will strengthen and modernize the U.S.-Japan alliance.” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken called Japan an “indispensable partner” and cheered that the changed security documents reshape the ability to “protect the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world.” (quotes, whitehouse.gov, December 16)

U.S. corporate power is the immediate beneficiary of this sharp turn in policy, built on military threats and economic sanctions.

Foreign Affairs magazine calls the announcement “a profound transformation,” stating that “the new national security strategy, however, represents a stunning change….[T]he government is enacting policies that have been debated for decades but were always blocked. Until now . . . Japan’s new national security strategy should be applauded.” (Foreign Affairs, December 23)

U.S. needs collaborators

U.S. policy toward the defeated capitalist class in Germany, Italy and Japan was remarkably similar. At the end of World War II, many of the industrial leaders who had backed these fascist regimes were quietly protected and rehabilitated in Japan, Germany and Italy, along with the fascist collaborators who fled from workers’ control in Eastern Europe.

The U.S. and later NATO used the rehabilitated fascists against a rising workers movement in Western Europe and against socialist construction in Eastern Europe. U.S. corporations, which had aggressively moved into the defeated Axis countries, needed insurance that their investments would be protected from the strike waves.

By 1950 the U.S. was at war on the Korean peninsula and, while using U.S. troops in Korea, needed a military force for “peacekeeping and self-defense” of capitalist property relations in Japan. Germany, Italy and Japan began to rearm during that period.

The impact on Okinawa

A chain of 150 islands called the Ryukyu Archipelago, of which the largest island is Okinawa, 400 miles from the Japanese mainland, is in reality a colony of Japan. Its population of 1.74 million people suffers from Tokyo’s rule and from the occupation by U.S. military bases. Okinawa is geographically closer to Taiwan than it is to the main islands of Japan.

Upgrading and strengthening Japanese ground units on Okinawa is part of the new National Security Strategy (NSS). Other islands, which are part of the chain southwest of Japan, will be further militarized.

Upgrading of Japan’s 15th Brigade on these islands for future electronic warfare, cyber warfare and joint operations of the ground, maritime and air forces are clearly a sign of plans to intervene in the Taiwan Strait.

In recent years, Japan has deployed anti-ship and air-defense missiles on its southwest islands of Amami Oshima, Okinawa Main Island, Miyako Island and a missile base on Ishigaki Island, the island closest to Taiwan.

Source: thailanddaily.com

More than 50,000 U.S. troops remain as an occupying force in Japan, at present the largest U.S. occupation force in any country. More than half of U.S. troops are based on Okinawa.

Okinawa residents, the Indigenous Ryukyu people, have spent decades protesting the constant presence of the U.S. military in their daily lives. There are now 31 U.S. military installations on the island prefecture of Okinawa, which accounts for 74% of the area of all U.S. military bases in Japan, although Okinawa only constitutes 0.6% of Japanese territory.

The U.S. maintains 73 military bases and 28,500 troops in South Korea. Both South Korea and Japan are forced to pay for “hosting” these troops of occupation.

“Using North Korea threat as cover”

Japan has previously justified its remilitarization by claiming North Korea is a threat. However, retired Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) Admiral Tomohisa Takei told the media that China has been the main target for which Japan has been preparing, “by using North Korea’s threat as cover.” (AP, December 17)

Both Japan and South Korea engage on a regular basis in coordinated military drills under U.S. command threatening Korea DPRK. Massive demonstrations in South Korea and missiles fired from targeted North Korea respond to these military provocations.

This cynical admission of the planning and preparation for war, while claiming self-defense, is similar to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s December 8 admission that the signing of the 2014 Minsk Agreement was not a peace treaty with Russia. Merkel confirmed that NATO wanted war from the start but needed time to prepare Ukraine militarily. (Interview in Die Zeit, December 7)

Having goaded Russia into an invasion of Ukraine in a bid to weaken and fragment Russia, the U.S. is next seeking to turn Taiwan into a military quagmire for China. The Biden administration is facilitating Taiwan’s purchase of advanced weaponry from the U.S. and greater diplomatic ties with the island.

Part of an effort to focus political attention through fact sheets, talking points, videos and webinars on the growing threat of U.S. pressure for Japan’s rearming is the short video, posted on the International Action Center website titled: “Japan’s constitutional amendment: a dangerous signal.” (tinyurl.com/mwjdt8rm)

*

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.

Sara Flounders is an American political writer active in progressive and anti-war organizing since the 1960s. She is a Contributing Editor of the Marxist Workers World newspaper as well as a principal leader of the International Action Center. Sara also works actively with the SanctionsKill Campaign and United National Antiwar Coalition. Sara can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Japan is moving to remilitarize despite its pacifist constitution. Image: Shutterstock via The Conversation

Video: Bombshell Docs Reveal COVID-19 Cover-Up Goes Straight to the Top. Redacted with Clayton Morris

By Clayton Morris, January 09, 2023

A BOMBSHELL new report claims shows that the Department of Defense – meaning the Pentagon – controlled the COVID-19 Program from the very beginning. If true, it means that everything we were told was political theater, right down to the FDA vaccine approval process.

Honoring MLK Six Decades After the Mass Struggles of 1963

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 10, 2023

On January 16 in the United States, the 94th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be commemorated as a federal holiday. Since 1986, the third Monday of January has been designated in tribute to the martyred Civil Rights and Antiwar leader who was born on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Usual Suspects in the Attempted Coup Against Lula in Brazil

By Kurt Nimmo, January 10, 2023

There is an important element omitted from the emerging narrative on Brazil and the attack on the elected government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

New Analysis Shows Studies of COVID Vaccine-Induced Myocarditis Hid Critical Safety Signal

By Dr. Suzanne Burdick, January 09, 2023

A new peer-reviewed analysis of studies on COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis in young males shows many studies hid an important safety signal by not providing “adequate stratification.”

California Democrats Have Legislated Control Over Medical Practice Out of the Hands of Doctors

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 09, 2023

If you are so unfortunate to live in California, get out quickly.  The state government is insane.  Indeed, you could say criminally insane. Aside from water, electricity, earthquake and wildfire problems, the state has legislated away doctors’ judgments about how to best treat their patients, and the Woke governor’s state task force on reparations for blacks wants to rob California residents of $2,225,000,000,000 in order to give the  2,225,000 blacks who reside in California $1,000,000 each. 

WHO: Anti-Vaccine Activism Is Deadlier Than Global Terrorism

By Paul Joseph Watson, January 09, 2023

The video quoted Baylor College of Medicine’s Dr. Peter Hotez, who stated, “We have to recognize that anti-vaccine activism, which I actually call anti-science aggression, has now become a major killing force globally.”

The Top 100 Reasons to #StopThePandemicTreaty, #StopTheAmendments, and #ExitTheWHO

By James Roguski, January 09, 2023

The World Health Organization is attempting a GLOBAL POWER GRAB by seeking to have the 194 member nations of the World Health Assembly adopt amendments to the International Health Regulations as well as adopt a completely new international agreement commonly referred to as the proposed “Pandemic Treaty.”

The Plan to Carve Up Russia

By Mike Whitney, January 09, 2023

Here’s your geopolitical quiz for the day: What did Angela Merkel mean when she said “that the Cold War never really ended, because ultimately Russia was never pacified”?

Video: Japan Orders Investigation Into COVID Vaccine Deaths as MSM Admit “The Jabs Are Killing Us”

By Vigilent Citizen, January 09, 2023

In another case of yesterday’s conspiracy theory becoming today’s fact, mainstream media is finally reporting what we have known all along. Biden, Fauci and Gates have been sharing these information with us, there was no winter of severe illness and death for the unvaccinated; in reality, this is a pandemic of the vaccinated.

Is a Happy New Year Possible? Sisyphus and the Feeling of the Absurd Are Entwined

By Edward Curtin, January 09, 2023

If one carefully reads Camus’ oeuvre, it becomes apparent that his sense of the sacred was profound even while saying that he didn’t believe in God; so too was his commitment to resist evil and to see the sense of the absurd as a starting point and not a destination.

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

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 January 16 in the United States, the 94th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. will be commemorated as a federal holiday.

Since 1986, the third Monday of January has been designated in tribute to the martyred Civil Rights and Antiwar leader who was born on January 15, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee during the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s (SCLC) intervention in support of the sanitation workers’ strike for recognition from the racist city government of Henry Loeb. African American sanitation workers were subjected to near slave-like conditions despite the passage of legislation such as the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964-1965.

The mass Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. had gained momentum in the aftermath of the brutal lynching of Emmett Till in Mississippi in August 1955. Mamie Till Bradley Mobley, the mother of Emmett, militantly condemned the racist lynching of her son prompting mass rallies in several cities such as Detroit.

Later on December 1 in Montgomery, Ms. Rosa Parks, a longtime labor and civil rights activist, was arrested for violating the segregation laws of the State of Alabama. Parks refused to give up her seat on a public bus to a white passenger. Several days later the African American community embarked upon a year-long boycott of the city buses. They defied the threats and intimidations by the racist city administration. Dr. King and other leaders were subjected to unjustified arrests and the bombings of their homes.

The case against segregation in Alabama was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court resulting in a victory in November 1956. After the highest court confirmed the unconstitutionality of the segregated bus system, the boycott was called off by the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA).

According to a source on the historic ruling by the Supreme Court:

“Aurelia S. Browder v. William A. Gayle challenged the Alabama state statutes and Montgomery, Alabama, city ordinances requiring segregation on Montgomery buses. Filed by Fred Gray and Charles D. Langford on behalf of four African American women who had been mistreated on city buses, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld a district court ruling that the statute was unconstitutional. Gray and Langford filed the federal district court petition that became Browder v. Gayle on 1 February 1956, two days after segregationists bombed King’s house. The original plaintiffs in the case were Aurelia S. Browder, Susie McDonald, Claudette Colvin, Mary Louise Smith, and Jeanatta Reese, but outside pressure convinced Reese to withdraw from the case in February. Gray made the decision not to include Rosa Parks in the case to avoid the perception that they were seeking to circumvent her prosecution on other charges.”

After the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the movement accelerated. In 1960, African American college and university students began the mass sit-in struggles throughout the South including Greensboro, North Carolina and Nashville, Tennessee. In April 1960, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was formed while the following year, the freedom rides commenced resulting in additional legal victories outlawing segregation in interstate travel.

Mass Demonstrations Erupt in 1963

Despite these victories beginning with the Brown v. Topeka case of May 1954, where segregated K-12 public schools were deemed unconstitutional, to the Montgomery campaign, the sit-ins and freedom rides, the overall objective for the total elimination of Jim Crow was stalled by 1963. Then President John F. Kennedy had an image of being sympathetic to the plight of African Americans, yet his administration had not initiated a comprehensive Civil Rights Bill to nullify the draconian state and municipal laws enacted after the failure of Reconstruction in the late 19th century.

In Birmingham, the SCLC opened up a campaign to force the desegregation of the most industrialized city in the South. The Birmingham movement resulted in the arrest of several thousand youth who refused to halt their demonstrations in the city. Police Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor became the public face of the intolerant institutional racists who refused to integrate public facilities, businesses and schools.

A split between the outgoing and incoming segregationist municipal administrations in Birmingham led to a political vacuum where Connor was able to take administrative control of the efforts to halt the demonstrations during April and May 1963. These dynamics proved the opening for the business leaders in Birmingham to speak directly with the SCLC and other organizations where they reached a settlement to end the protests. Thousands were released from detention along with the reinstatement of African American students expelled from schools due to their involvement in the Civil Rights Movement.

During this same period, demonstrations erupted in numerous cities across the U.S. In Cambridge, Maryland, the struggle to desegregate the city led to mass militant protests and a rebellion. National Guard troops were ordered into Cambridge where they remained for over a year, representing the longest military occupation of a city since the Civil War.

Detroit march 125,000 during 1963 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Other municipalities impacted included Somerville, Tennessee; Danville, Virginia; Greensboro, North Carolina; and northern cities such as Chicago and Detroit where youth and workers took to the streets to protest the monumental injustices related to housing, police brutality and substandard education. In 1963, there were at least two cities where the demonstrations turned violent, providing a preview of the urban rebellions that became the focus of the Black struggle after 1964. In Cambridge, arson attacks and other forms of property damage occurred after many people became frustrated with the repressive tactics of the police. In Birmingham, there were occasions where youth and workers utilized unconventional methods to resist the brutality of Bull Connor’s law-enforcement agents.

On June 11, there was the historic admission of two African American students to the segregated University of Alabama, where then Governor George Wallace symbolically stood at the administration building to block the entrance. The admission of the two students had been authorized through a federal court decision which was supported by the Kennedy administration. These events and a speech by Kennedy suggesting he would introduce a Civil Rights Bill for deliberations in Congress, outraged segregationists in the South.

The following evening on June 12, Medgar Evers, a longtime Field Secretary for the NAACP in Mississippi, was assassinated outside his home in the capital of Jackson. The murder of Evers by a well-known racist businessman who boasted about committing the execution, infuriated people across the country.

In Detroit, a mass demonstration took place just two weeks later on June 23, representing a major departure for the overall movement for racial justice. This march known as the “Walk to Freedom” attracted hundreds of thousands of people within the city. The manifestation was led by Dr. King and the Rev. C.L. Franklin, a nationally-renowned minister based in Detroit and the father of the later designated “Queen of Soul” Aretha Franklin. This demonstration culminated at Cobo Arena where Dr. King delivered an early iteration of his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, over two months prior to the March on Washington. The speech was captured by Motown Records and released as a recording, the first of LPs featuring Dr. King.

Image: Cynthia Scott, 24, killed by Detroit police on July 5, 1963 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Although the Detroit Walk to Freedom was an overwhelming success attracting the participation of then UAW President Walter Reuther and liberal Democratic Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh, less than two weeks later, a 24-year-old African American woman, Cynthia Scott, was gunned down by two police bullets in her back during the early morning hours of July 5. Scott was walking on the street in the lower eastside when she was accosted by two white police officers. They demanded that she get into a police cruiser and when she refused, one of the officers shot her in the back while Scott walked away.

This incident mobilized the African American community in Detroit. The Wayne County Prosecutor and the Recorder’s Court refused to indict the officer who killed Scott. Thousands of people marched to police headquarters to protest the killing. Later a civil suit filed by Attorney Milton Henry was dismissed by the courts. A public rally was held at the Central Congregational Church attracted 700 people demanding justice for Cynthia Scott.

The corporate press during this period in Detroit attempted to criminalize Scott after her murder, citing previous arrests. The police claimed Scott had attacked them with a knife. Nonetheless, eyewitnesses to the killing gave statements to the police and the press saying that the shooting of Scott was completely unprovoked. (See this).

It would take another four years for the African American community to erupt in Detroit on July 23, 1967, with the largest urban rebellion in U.S. history. These events led to the election of the first African American mayor, Coleman A. Young, a decade after the Walk to Freedom and the police murder of Cynthia Scott, in 1973.

Lessons from the Mass Struggles of 1963

Today in 2023, there are no local or national elections for this year, therefore leaving the African American people largely abandoned by politicians who are not compelled to seek their votes. As in 1963, some six decades earlier, a Democratic administration will be in office which could not have been elected three years before without the electoral support of African Americans.

Similarly, as in 1963, the reformist program adopted by the Democratic National Convention in 2020 has not been fulfilled. African Americans are still suffering from police misconduct, impoverishment, unequal educational opportunities and increasing environmental degradation.

MLK at 1963 Detroit march with CL Franklin (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

The Pentagon war budget and the subsidization of the ruling class by the U.S. government continues to hamper the capacity of the state to meet the immediate needs of the masses of people. Dr. King in early 1967 began to speak out forcefully against the U.S. intervention in Vietnam demanding that the troops be withdrawn from Southeast Asia. He viewed the imperialist war machine as an enemy of the poor and oppressed.

Dr. King linked the struggles against poverty, racism and war into a program of action which the U.S. government feared. In 2023, we must study these developments which took place during previous decades to gain guidance and inspiration for the impending mass struggles ahead aimed at ending all forms of racism, national oppression, economic exploitation and imperialist war.

*

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.

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

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.

***

There is an important element omitted from the emerging narrative on Brazil and the attack on the elected government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

First, though, let’s take a look at the current situation in Brazil. According to the establishment “newspaper of record,” The New York Times,

Thousands of supporters of Brazil’s ousted former president, Jair Bolsonaro, stormed Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court and presidential offices on Sunday to protest what they falsely believe was a stolen election, the violent culmination of years of conspiracy theories advanced by Mr. Bolsonaro and his right-wing allies.

Jair Bolsonaro is characterized as the “Trump of the Tropics,” possibly an unfair comparison as Bolsonaro’s politics were far more radical and destructive than anything Trump could get past Congress or, for that matter, his own inner circle.

If we assume the election was fair, then it can be said the people of Brazil re-elected Lula, and the attack on Brazil’s Congress, Supreme Court, and presidential offices represent a coup attempt. Maybe Bolsonaro supporters organized the sacking on their own, and maybe they had help.

First and foremost, the USG is adamantly opposed to Lula holding office.

In 2021, the CIA was involved in removing Lula from Brazil’s political landscape. Brasilwire reported on June 3, 2021,

In a White House ‘Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on the Fight Against Corruption’, a Biden administration official admitted that the CIA and other parts of the U.S. intelligence apparatus were involved in assisting the “War on Corruption” which jailed former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and elected Jair Bolsonaro.

Reading through an official White House transcript, we learn the State Department and USAID were involved in, as Antony Blinken put it, “anti-corruption work in all of our bilateral context, as well as in multilateral fora,” in other words, in plain speak, making sure political enemies, designated as corrupt, are removed from the political landscape.

USAID, as former director John Gilligan admitted, functions as “a graduate school for CIA agents,” and at any given time “many AID offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people… It was pretty obvious what they were up to… The idea was to plant operatives in every kind of activity we had overseas, government, volunteer, religious, every kind.”

Jair Bolsonaro is on excellent terms with the CIA. He is, after all, the first Brazilian leader to visit CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. “He was accompanied by his Justice Minister Sergio Moro who had jailed main opponent Lula da Silva before the 2018 election, on now annulled charges,” Brasilwire reported. “In contrast, Bolsonaro has never visited ABIN, Brazil’s moribund equivalent of the CIA.”

Moreover, the Atlantic Council supported collaboration with Brazilian prosecutors in the attempt to get rid of Lula, according to a Brasilwire report. The Atlantic Council is an influential think tank “staffed with military, CIA, and their attendant politicians; and CEOs from strategic industries, like oil and media. It has strong connections to NATO, and is a central part of the modern military-industrial congressional complex,” according to WikiSpooks.

All of this is either ignored or underplayed by the corporate propaganda media. For instance, it would be rare indeed for USG involvement in Operation Lava Jato, the ostensible “anti-corruption” project in Brazil, to be mentioned, let alone investigated by the likes of The New York Times or The Washington Post, both hardly strangers to CIA misinformation campaigns.

A petition filed with the Federal Supreme Court (STF) by the defence of ex-president Lula presents such new evidence that ex-judge Sergio Moro colluded with foreign authorities in conducting the process which led to the arrest of the Workers Party leader, and his subsequent barring from a run for the presidency in 2018.

So, now we have “right-wing protesters” storming government offices, violently agitating for the overthrow of Lula. Considering the above, it is fair to say the USG and USAID (now doing much of the CIA’s dirty work) are involved behind the scenes in the storming of government offices.

I don’t know this for a fact. It is speculation based on history.

More to the point, the 1964 coup in Brazil was organized by JFK and the CIA. For all the lionization of Kennedy, it should be remembered he was an ardent anti-communist. Kennedy believed Brazilian President Goulart was too chummy with anti-colonial and anti-American activists in Latin America, many of them undoubtedly communists, such as Che Guevara, killed in Bolivia with CIA assistance in 1967.

In 1823 the Monroe Doctrine declared South and Latin America, indeed the entire western hemisphere, as USG property not to be claimed or occupied by other nations and empires. It later became the exclusive domain of US agricultural corporations and that domain was protected by USG Marines, as Major General Smedley Butler described in his short book, “War is a Racket.”

Considering the history of the USG, in collision with US corporations, and the “racket,” as Butler described it, we can assume this latest outbreak of violence in Brazil is designed to once again get rid of a politician not following neoliberal orders.

Lula’s Workers Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores) was formerly described as a straight-up socialist party but is now viewed as middle-of-road social democratic by many observers. In 1998, Lula cut all mention of socialist proposals from his political rhetoric. Despite his professed distance from socialism and the ideology of the Workers Party, it was decided by the financial elite in New York and London that Lula had to go.

This is Bolsonaro’s last hurrah, even if he said previously that he accepted the result of the election, and even though he may not be involved in the current effort to shock and awe the Lula government. Like so many other autocrats and psychopathic leaders and dictators before him, Bolsonaro and his supporters are being manipulated by the USAID, CIA, and the Biden State Department.

I seriously doubt this latest act of violence was cooked up entirely by outraged Bolsonaro supporters.

*

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 author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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 new peer-reviewed analysis of studies on COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis in young males shows many studies hid an important safety signal by not providing “adequate stratification.”

“Many studies lump everyone together to hide a legitimate safety signal,” said Vinay Prasad, M.D., M.P.H., co-author of the analysis published last month in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Stratification means isolating the people in a study into groups based on pertinent factors, such as age and sex, according to Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

By lumping all ages, sexes, dosages and COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers together, researchers “have been hiding and obscuring very necessary dialogue — which is that our vaccine policies don’t have to be the same for a 16-year-old man and an 87-year-old woman,” Prasad said.

Stratification is a basic skill for developing meaningful medical statistics, Prasad said. But the systematic review he conducted found that only a quarter of the studies used the four “elementary stratifying variables” (i.e. sex, age, dose number and manufacturer) when reporting the highest risk of myocarditis.

Prasad wrote this week that the net benefit of vaccination for a woman in her eighties was different from the net benefit of vaccination for a man in his late teens.

“As early as July 2021, with colleagues from mathematics, cardiology, and pediatrics, we worried that dose 2 [of the COVID-19 vaccine] was unfavorable in adolescent boys,” Prasad said. “With emerging data from the UK it was clear that for some products and some doses, myocarditis post vax exceeded myocarditis post illness.”

It turns out that when you look at myocarditis just in the highest-risk demographics — young men who get a second Moderna shot — the risk is substantially higher than when you lump “16-year-old boys with their great grandma.”

“This should be obvious,” Prasad added.

Why the one-size-fits-all COVID vaccine policy?

In a video discussion of his analysis, Prasad told viewers he sometimes feels pessimistic when he thinks about how “the only reason smart people would have a one-size-fits-all policy is it benefits the manufacturer because they can sell more dose of their product.”

“But that would be such a silly reason,” he added, “because credibility in public health is much more important than the meager short-term market share of a company like Pfizer. I can’t understand it.”

Prasad said he wonders if officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and members of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) could be “so bad at their job that they can’t understand that boosters and young people might have a different risk-benefit calculation than in older people” — even after “they literally had it told to them” by Marion Gruber and Phil Krause, two senior U.S. Food and Drug Administration vaccine leaders, who resigned over the issue.

“So they [CDC officials and ACIP members] are so dense that even when the people who’ve done it for decades are telling you, ‘I will resign over this issue,’ they still don’t understand,” Prasad said.

Prasad said he believes COVID-19 vaccine mandates were “always unjustified” and that he strongly supports the repeal of any such law — especially college vaccine mandates that were created by “some mid-level bureaucrat” who had no scientific expertise.

College students who were required for attendance to get the COVID-19 vaccine and now have myocarditis or pericarditis should be able to sue that college, he said.

Prasad added:

“Colleges need to be litigated. They need to lose the litigation so they learn some humility — which is that if you’re running random garbage liberal arts school you’re not qualified to be creating mandates.”

Watch the video 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

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.

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 U.S. government has still not formally admitted to any deaths directly attributable to the fast-tracked, emergency-authorized mRNA Covid shots, which comprise the vast majority of all doses administered, rolled out more than two years ago. Nevertheless, a new Rasmussen poll finds more than a quarter of adults think they “personally know someone whose death may have been caused by side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines.”

Rasmussen’s results are stunning, but the fact that Rasmussen decided to conduct this poll in the first place is perhaps more politically and culturally significant. It indicates a sea change in attitudes toward the jabs.

At the onset of mass vaccination, major platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter put in place strict speech codes that proscribe framing the Covid shots as “dangerous.” News outlets and pundits have often accused those who question the safety of the shots of spreading “dangerous misinformation” and promoting “vaccine hesitancy.” Even right-leaning outlets such as Fox News largely refused to give credence to those warning that the shots may be far less safe than advertised. Yet now, in 2023, a major polling firm is reporting that a substantial minority (28 percent) of Americans suspect someone they know died from adverse events caused by Covid vaccination.

Suspicion, of course, is a far cry from proof. But the sheer prevalence of such suspicion should prompt serious inquiry from the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public debate that isn’t quashed or watered down by censors.

Other Polling Patterns

The poll also found younger people were more likely than older people to say someone they know may have died due to side effects from the shot: 35 percent of adults under 40, compared to 28 percent of those aged 40 to 64, and only 14 percent of those over 65.

Most interestingly, more Democrats than Republicans think someone they know may have died from jab side effects (33 percent to 26 percent). Democrats are more likely to have been vaccinated themselves, and thus more likely to associate with people who are also vaccinated. The more people one knows who have been vaccinated, the higher the likelihood of reporting a suspicion of vaccine-related death.

Additionally, as Covid-response skeptic Igor Chudov has pointed out, more married people than unmarried report knowing someone who may have died from an adverse event (33 percent to 23 percent). Not only do the social circles of married people tend to be larger, but Rasmussen reports that married people were more likely to be vaccinated.

Pollsters also found concerns about the shots’ safety are higher among the unvaccinated. A full three-quarters of the un-jabbed think it’s “at least somewhat likely that side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have caused a significant number of unexplained deaths.” Many unvaccinated didn’t take the jab due to concerns the shots weren’t sufficiently proven to be safe, so this stands to reason. On the other hand, those who’ve taken the vaccine have far more incentive to believe the drug they willingly took is safe. (Some may have taken it due to employer mandates or other requirements, however.) People are not inclined to believe they risked their health unnecessarily. Even so, 38 percent of those who’ve taken the jab also believed the shot was “at least somewhat likely” to have caused “a significant number of unexplained deaths.” That is a substantial minority.

Can a drug be considered “safe” if it’s “somewhat likely” to have caused a “significant number” of deaths? Is it reasonable to conclude from these results that a substantial minority of people who’ve taken the drug themselves do not believe the shots to be safe? A belief they’ve possibly caused a “significant number of unexplained deaths” would certainly put the Covid shots well below the level of perceived safety that most childhood vaccines are widely considered to have.

Maybe booster uptake has been so low not due to doubts about adequate testing or efficacy, but because more people are wary of it than before. A Rasmussen report from Dec. 7 found 57 percent of respondents were concerned about “major side effects,” including 43 percent of Democrats who were “at least somewhat concerned.” Seven percent of respondents reported “major side effects” from the shot.

Chudov discusses paywalled portions of the new poll here, including a curious finding that those “other” than whites or blacks were significantly more likely to say they know someone who may have died from an adverse event.

More Investigation Needed

The findings of the new poll on beliefs about deaths post-vaccination come a full two years after the initial rollout of the shots, which were marketed at the time as being more than 90 percent effective at preventing infection and almost 100 percent effective at preventing death from illness caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus. Rasmussen conducted a poll on concerns over vaccine side effects in November 2021, but if the firm had polled about suspicion of deaths caused by the shot multiple times since vaccine rollout, we would have a better idea of how beliefs about the safety of the Covid shots have shifted. As more and more medical professionals and experts speak out, it is becoming more acceptable to ask questions that may yield frightening answers.

Our public health establishment has fallen prey to the sunk-cost fallacy. It is too terrible for them to imagine that the shots they pushed so aggressively could turn out to be unsafe, or at least a very poor risk-benefit tradeoff for many people. Because of this, honest, rigorous, and continuous investigation from both inside and outside public health agencies is all the more critical.

*

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.

Georgi is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist and host of The 180 Cast, where she interviews people who have changed their minds on important political and social issues. She is a regular guest on Kevin McCullough Radio and other talk radio programs, and her editorial writing brings Christian and conservative principles to the foreground. She is also the co-author of “Clocking Out Early: The Ultimate Guide to Early Retirement,” and enjoys a comfortably frugal life in central Washington with her family.

Featured image is from WIKIMEDIA COMMONS/U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE/CROPPED/CC BY 2.0

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.

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.

***

From fiery leftist rhetoric, to steadfast solidarity with Palestine, to a constant and unrelenting departure from cinematic conventions – including his own – film director Jean-Luc Godard was not known for compromise.

It may thus come as a surprise that this was not always the case. Godard, who died last September, began his cinematic project by experimenting with techniques – and through this process, he developed an affinity for socialism, anti-imperialism, the working classes and Palestine.

One of Godard’s earliest films, The Little Soldier, is a beautiful pastiche of the gangster and spy genres, with an unmistakable Italian neorealism influence and a raw documentary feel. The 1963 film focuses on the Algerian war of liberation from France, but skilful cinematography aside, it is replete with racist depictions. The French are denounced only inasmuch as they succumb to the savagery of the Algerians, who kidnap and torture the protagonist but fail to understand his human dignity. Godard has contended that he sought to present not the realities of the war, but his own moral and political questions.

It is telling that he chose to present these questions through a right-wing assassin with second thoughts (and a golden heart) who loves France not out of nationalism, but for its poets; who loves the US because he loves American cars; and who hates Arabs because he hates the desert.

Towards the end of the film, the (supposedly shocking) plot twist is that the French, like the Arabs, torture their victims, as the protagonist’s love interest, Veronica, turns out to be a spy who is captured and tortured to death by the French. Yet, compared with the meticulous depiction of the protagonist’s torture by the Arabs, the torture and death of Veronica is relayed through a few narrative lines and no visual representation whatsoever. The referent for wartime savagery thus remains Arab, even if the French partake in it.

Ideology and the image

Buried deep in the film, however, are the seeds of a more militant attitude, embodied by Veronica, who works for Algeria’s National Liberation Front and declares that unlike the French, the Algerians have ideals. Yet, this notion is suffocated by the verbal vomit of the protagonist, who imposes his reactionary views on Veronica and the audience via lengthy monologues.

Godard’s films are largely self-deconstructive, as seen through depictions of the relationship between the camera and its object. The symbolism of the assassin being a photographer is not to be missed. He subjects Veronica to the preying gaze of the camera, along with intrusive questions and demands that she mostly turns down.

Godard’s Les Carabiniers employs similar symbolism, with imperial pillage replaced by a collection of postcards. At the beginning of her study On Photography, cultural critic Susan Sontag cites this scene and notes: “To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge – and, therefore, like power.”

Godard was among the pioneers who exposed how the inherent racism of the image is deeply engrained within the very chemistry of film while working in Mozambique on a project that exhibited both Godard’s revolutionary solidarity with the African people and his white missionary attitude that presumed to give a self-image to a people lacking it.

Little by little, militant political rhetoric came to populate, and eventually dominate, Godard’s films. Yet, for all his Marxist-Leninist and Maoist “working class” slogans, the working classes remained curiously absent from his films up until his work with the Dziga Vertov Group, which he founded with filmmaker Jean-Pierre Gorin and others in the late 1960s.

In his early movies, we see a fascination with criminals, delinquents, adventurers, prostitutes and dropouts from the bourgeoisie class – in other words, what is known in Marxist literature as the “lumpen proletariat”, but never the working class. This is most obvious in his early representations of working women – always models, actresses or prostitutes. Even in Une Femme Mariee, wherein he artfully critiques the ways in which modern consumer culture controls and contours the bodies of women, he does so in a manner that caters to the male gaze and privileges bourgeois women.

‘A long march’

All of this changed in the aftermath of the wave of protests in France in 1968. At the height of the uprising, Godard himself took to the streets and famously denounced French filmmakers, himself included, for failing to engage with the concerns of the masses.

This set him on a path to creating militant cinema and, through the films he shot with the Dziga Vertov collective, he was able to turn his camera towards, and thus discover, the working classes. This culminated in one of his most beautiful films, Tout Va Bien, co-directed with Gorin and released in 1972.

It was also through the collective that Godard came in close contact with the Palestinian cause. In 1970, Godard and Gorin visited Palestinian training camps to shoot a documentary about the resistance; as Europeans, they felt directly implicated in the colonial situation in the Middle East. This was part of a larger post-1968 turn towards Palestine.

The documentary was never finished, and instead, several years later, the footage became part of the film Here and Elsewhere, which juxtaposed images of the Palestinian resistance with images from French media to demonstrate how, unlike the clarity with which Palestinians approached their struggle, the French were constantly diverted from the cause of revolution by consumer capitalism and media.

Did this end up appropriating the footage of the Palestinians, initially intended to serve as inter-revolutionary propaganda for anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles, as lessons for the French? Perhaps, but it remains laudable that the filmmakers dared to seek inspiration from real anti-colonial struggles outside of the cultural and geographic parameters of the West.

The constant experimentation and persistent impetus to transgress, which lasted until Godard’s final movie, meant that all of this was a process of exploration and learning – for the audiences, but especially for the filmmaker. In his landmark film La Chinoise, one of the protagonists, a French Maoist student in search of a militant cause, delivers a potent and moving epilogue applicable to Godard’s entire career and his growing self-awareness of his role in the struggle: “I thought I’d made a great leap forward, only to realise that I had made a first timid step in a long march.”

*

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 D Dardir is the co-founder of the Institute for De-Colonising Theory (IDCtheory). He holds a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from Columbia University. He is a regular contributor to a number of media outlets. His personal blog can be found at https://textualtrimmings.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Who2 Biographies

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

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.

***

If you are so unfortunate to live in California, get out quickly.  The state government is insane.  Indeed, you could say criminally insane. Aside from water, electricity, earthquake and wildfire problems, the state has legislated away doctors’ judgments about how to best treat their patients, and the Woke governor’s state task force on reparations for blacks wants to rob California residents of $2,225,000,000,000 in order to give the  2,225,000 blacks who reside in California $1,000,000 each.  As soon as blacks hear about this, practically the entire black population of the US will move to California. See this.

In 2020 the US black population was 41.1 million, raising the cost to California taxpayers to $41,100,000,000,000 if blacks all decide to become millionaires by moving to California. This reparations sum is 11.4 times larger than California’s GDP in 2022.  Only a dumbshit like California’s governor Gavin Newsom could come up with a task force this  stupid.  Of course, it was the dumbshit voters in California who elected him and refused the effort to recall him. So one could easily conclude that the  voters deserve to pay the reparations.  It serves their stupidity right.

Blacks comprise 5.7% of California’s population.  Latinos are the largest percentage of the population at 39%, followed by 35% white and 15% Asian.  Will the reparation bill be levied against Latinos and Asians or just whites?  

According to Kamilah Moore who heads California’s Reparations Task Force, black homelessness is another “atrocity” California has committed against blacks. It turns out that 34 to 40 percent of the state’s homeless are black. What accounts for the homelessness of the remaining 60-66%?  If there is an atrocity, it is against all races of the homeless.

The mindlessness of the California state government boggles the mind.  But it gets worse.

On January 1, California’s new law that criminalizes the Hippocratic Oath went into effect. This law, passed by California’s Big Pharma-owned Democrat government, makes it a punishable offense for doctors to take exception to or disagree with Big Pharma’s diktats enforced by Big Pharma controlled medical boards.  Debate and clinical evidence is now impermissible.  Doctors who on the basis of evidence think the mRNA injections are unsafe, and  doctors who treat Covid with known cures such as Ivermectin and HCQ, are guilty under the new California law of committing the crime of “misinformation” and can have their medical licenses revoked

Under the new California law, only Big Pharma and its “regulators” and bought and paid for medical boards can determine acceptable medical practice.

In California the corporate takeover of medicine is now complete.  Nothing counts but Big Pharma’s profits, which it shares with medical boards whose members are hired as consultants at pay levels above what they can make practicing medicine.  

For years Big Pharma’s lobbyists have succeeded in getting laws passed that squeeze medical doctors out of private practice. One of Big Pharma’s greatest successes was ObamaCare.  Health maintenance organizations (HMOs) receive higher payments from Medicare and private insurance than do doctors in independent practice for the same procedures. This has forced many doctors in private practice to sell their practices to the favored providers of health care and to become employees who have to follow medical protocols directed from above or be fired.  

The lack of independence is why doctors and nurses had to stand by helplessly while Big Pharma, Fauci, and the FDA murdered people with a deadly injection while withholding treatment with the known cures of Ivermectin and HCQ. 

Money over life is the American way.  There is no accountability.  In California as of January 1, 2023, doctors cannot dare mention the rise of medical tyranny as a weapon against the people.

The dumbshit insouciant California population has voted itself into tyranny.  

Expect legislation muzzling doctors to spread in blue states.

See this.

*

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 where this article  was originally published. 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 Children’s Health Defense

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

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.

***

I have said on national TV throughout the COVID-19 vaccine campaign that no young person should receive a shot because the risks far outweigh the benefits. Chiu et al published a report where both cardiac symptoms and ECG changes were recorded after the first and second injections. The results are alarming. After the second injection of mRNA 17.1% of students reported cardiovascular symptoms.

Chiu SN, Chen YS, Hsu CC, Hua YC, Tseng WC, Lu CW, Lin MT, Chen CA, Wu MH, Chen YT, Chien TH, Tseng CL, Wang JK. Changes of ECG parameters after BNT162b2 vaccine in the senior high school students. Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Jan 5:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36602621; PMCID: PMC9813456.

The difficulty for parents is to sort out symptoms indicative of the FDA acknowledged side effects of myopericarditis and pulmonary embolism. Because of the very high rate of symptomatic side effects, even ECG screening will not be enough. Fortunately, there were no serious adverse events in this study. However, when a cardiotoxic vaccine is administered to millions of adolescents, there are hundreds of thousands of symptomatic cases and the interpretation by parents and healthcare providers is quickly becoming a nightmare. Of great concern, are cases where the symptoms are interpreted as benign yet the child is suffering significant heart damage and later on is set up for sudden cardiac death during sleep or athletic events.

In summary the best way to protect both children and parents from this unnecessary nightmare is to decline COVID-19 vaccination and thereby eliminate the risk of iatrogenic heart disease.

*

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.

Source

Chiu SN, Chen YS, Hsu CC, Hua YC, Tseng WC, Lu CW, Lin MT, Chen CA, Wu MH, Chen YT, Chien TH, Tseng CL, Wang JK. Changes of ECG parameters after BNT162b2 vaccine in the senior high school students. Eur J Pediatr. 2023 Jan 5:1–8. doi: 10.1007/s00431-022-04786-0. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36602621; PMCID: PMC9813456.

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.

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 decades, many geopolitical experts have been claiming the United States is in constant need of geopolitical adversaries. The view was challenged by those claiming that all the US wants is the spread of “peace, prosperity, democracy, freedom, human rights,” etc. And yet, the belligerent thalassocracy is consistent in its rejection of mutually beneficial relations with other global powers.

USSR/Russia essentially dismantled its own superpower status in an attempt to establish normal ties with the political West and focus almost exclusively on economic cooperation and integration. The political West responded with an unrelenting eastward expansion and effective destabilization and encirclement of Russia’s core regions in the west of the country. Despite Moscow’s patience, the results of this are now seen in Ukraine, where the Eurasian giant is forced to fight the same ultra-radicals it had to fight eight decades ago.

A somewhat similar scenario seems to be playing out in the increasingly contested Asia-Pacific geopolitical theater, where the US and (most of) its regional vassals are taking aim at China. Despite Beijing’s attempts at rapprochement with Washington DC and its numerous satellites, this seems to be futile. The belligerent thalassocracy keeps insisting on not just meddling in China’s internal affairs, but is also engaging in repeated violations of Beijing’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is especially true concerning the South China Sea, as well as the Asian giant’s breakaway island province of Taiwan, which is being pushed ever closer to an armed conflict with (mainland) China. Beijing is certainly capable of winning if the ongoing dispute ever turns hot, but it’s still trying to avoid such a scenario.

In line with its attempts at detente with the US, the last major (geo)political move China made at the end of 2022 was the appointment of a new foreign minister. On December 30, its ambassador to the US, Qin Gang, was appointed as the Foreign Minister of China, taking the diplomatic helm from Wang Yi. Major Western media outlets noted that the move could indicate Beijing’s “softening” stance toward America. Indeed, this could be considered one of the biggest recent developments out of Beijing and it could have impacted the future of US-China relations, as Qin Gang tried his best to keep ties between the two superpowers as friendly as possible during his relatively short, seventeen months-long tenure in Washington DC.

In the first days of January, the new Chinese FM grabbed the headlines of Western media by posting tweets that he’s “deeply impressed” by the American people, while pledging to push US-China ties towards a more positive relationship. “I want to pay sincere thanks to the people of the United States for the strong support and assistance given to me and the Chinese Embassy during this period,” Qin tweeted on January 2, adding: “I have been deeply impressed by so many hard-working, friendly and talented American people that I met,” further saying he had “made many friends across the US.” He promised to “support the growth of China-US relations” in his capacity as the new Chinese FM.

And yet, China’s overtures have been shunned by the US. On January 4, barely two days after Gang’s words, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) announced it will be sending a delegation to Taipei this week for additional trade talks with the government of the breakaway island province. Washington DC and Taipei held formal trade talks last year and agreed to have more such meetings after the first round was held in New York in November. Although there are no official relations between the US and Taiwan, as even Washington DC officially considers the island as part of China, the American delegation is led by Terry McCartin, the assistant US trade representative for China affairs.

This means the move is carried out by President Biden’s Executive Office, giving the effort a formal diplomatic status, usually reserved for state-level contacts, which is highly unlikely to be appreciated in Beijing. In addition, the USTR stated that the meetings would be attended by officials from several other US government agencies. According to The South China Morning Post, Yang Jen-ni, Taipei’s deputy trade representative, will lead the Taiwanese delegations, which will also include officials from other departments. This clearly implies that the meeting will include more than just trade talks, further antagonizing China and its attempts at rapprochement.

Beijing views high-level contacts between Washington DC and Taipei as a direct violation of the One-China policy, to which, as previously mentioned, the US still officially adheres. This also includes trade talks, which have been almost exclusively aimed against China in recent years. Beijing views the trade talks as another US attempt to hurt China’s standing in the Asia-Pacific region. The USTR has dubbed the trade talks the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade and said that “they are intended to develop concrete ways to deepen the economic and trade relationship.”

A major point of the talks is Taiwan’s position as the world’s largest producer of advanced semiconductors. The US is aiming to push Taiwan-based companies to move facilities to America, while sanctioning China’s microchip industry, marking a hostile shift in US trade policy toward the Asian giant. Additionally, speaking of hostility, on January 5, only a day after the controversial trade talks were announced, Washington DC further insulted Beijing by ordering the US Navy 7th Fleet’s Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Chung-Hoon to pass through the Taiwan Strait as part of “its commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.” This was the latest sign that the US is clearly rejecting China’s peace initiatives.

*

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

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

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 UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) secretively seconded a military officer to Yemen in 2019, it can be revealed. The officer was attached to the office of the then UN special envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths.  

Declassified has shown that Griffiths’ is a founder of, and adviser to, a private conflict resolution company, Inter Mediate, that works with the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6.

The MOD has told Declassified the military officer “works directly with and provides advice to the UN Special Envoy for Yemen regarding security and military issues relevant to the conflict in Yemen.”

The MOD added: “The military officer is not based in Yemen but has visited with the UN Special Envoy.”

The officer visited the Yemeni capital Sana’a on nine occasions, Declassified was told. But the UK government did not publicly announce the secondment, and there is no mention of it on the government website. Sana’a is currently under the control of Iran-backed Houthi rebel forces.

Griffiths, a British expert in conflict mediation, was appointed as UN special envoy in 2018 after a campaign by the UK government. He held the position until August 2021 when he became the UN’s Under-secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs.

The secondment of the military officer raises further questions about the undermining of the appearance of impartiality crucial to the role of the UN special envoy. UK special forces are believed to have played a role in the war while the British military is maintaining the Saudi warplanes which have long operated over Yemen.

‘UN request’

The information was obtained by Declassified following a freedom of information request. It is not known if the military officer had a relationship with British special forces in Yemen or UK military personnel based in Saudi Arabia.

The defence section at the British embassy in Sana’a was evacuated to its embassy in the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh, in March 2015 as the Saudi air campaign—which has been paused for several months in 2022 due to a truce—began.

An MOD spokesperson told Declassified: “The UN requested a military adviser in order to support the planning and negotiation of a ceasefire in Yemen. The UK filled this role as part of our efforts to support the peace process.”

The MOD added that since 2015 the only other UK military personnel who had been in Yemen was the Defence Attaché, who accompanied the then foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt on a visit to the southern city of Aden in March 2019.

However, the MOD refused Declassified’s request for a list of the locations of Defence Intelligence personnel around the world, and special forces are not covered under freedom of information laws.

In July 2021, Declassified revealed that Britain has a secret detachment of up to 30 troops at Al-Ghaydah airport in Mahra province of eastern Yemen, where they are training Saudi forces.

Maritime Security Adviser

Declassified has also found that the UK military created a “Maritime Security Advisor” position in Yemen in 2015. Costing between £80,000 and £90,000 per year, some of which comes from the aid budget, the postholder was based temporarilywith the UK Yemen Office Network at the British embassy in Riyadh.

The government states that this role focused on “improving Maritime Security to sustain humanitarian access and legitimate trade into key ports, as well as service delivery and improved governance”.

The position raises questions in light of Saudi Arabia’s naval embargo on Yemen’s Red Sea coast, which UN experts have described as violating international humanitarian law. Human Rights Watch says the blockade has “severely restricted the flow of food, fuel, and medicine to civilians” during the war.

The UK is a strong supporter of the Saudi navy and has provided training on naval tactics that could be used for blockading Yemen, Declassified previously revealed.

The first Maritime Security Advisor was Kevin Stockton, who served from October 2015 to May 2016 in “Defence Section Yemen”, based in Riyadh. Stockton took up the position directly from being an advisor to the Saudis, as the Royal Navy’s Liaison Officer to the Saudi Naval Forces headquarters.

The government stated that “the maritime position in particular has been an excellent value add for the UK Government”. It added, “There should be strong consideration by MOD to transition this from a six month deployment to 12 months to build on access and influencing opportunities.”

The Royal Navy’s current Maritime Security Advisor to Yemen is Commander James Edwards, who is also based in Riyadh. He describes his role as involving “Delivery of timely maritime security advice, guidance and analysis to the FCDO and MoD on the maritime security of the southern Red Sea, Bab al Mandeb Strait and the Gulf of Aden”.

An MOD spokesperson told Declassified: “A Maritime Security advisor provides the UK government with analysis and advice on threats to maritime security in the Gulf, helping promote regional security and the protection of UK shipping in one of the busiest commercial shipping lanes in the world.”

UK special forces in Yemen

The UK government maintains it is not a party to the war in Yemen but the British military and arms corporation BAE Systems, which works under contract to the MOD, maintains Saudi aircraft that have conducted thousands of airstrikes against Houthi forces.

The Yemen Data Project documents that these air raids have contributed to nearly 9,000 civilian deaths.

Britain is also training Saudi pilots on Typhoon fighter jets and UK military personnel are based in the Saudi Air Operations Centre.

In 2019, it was reported that “at least five British special forces commandos had been wounded in gun battles as part of a top-secret UK military campaign in Yemen”. The men were from the Royal Navy’s special forces, the Special Boat Service (SBS), and received the injuries following battles in the Sa’dah area of northern Yemen, where “up to 30 crack British troops are based”, it was claimed.

The SAS has also operated inside Yemen. In January 2019, a 12-man US/UK special forces task force, comprising the SAS and the US Green Berets, was reportedly flown into Yemen from Djibouti, ostensibly on an “humanitarian mission”.

Martin Griffiths did not respond to Declassified’s request for comment.

*

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.

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

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 video promoting a fictional EctoLife facility recently went viral.  It featured pods in which babies could be grown from conception to birth.  Most people, having watched The Matrix, find it profoundly creepy.

Some reproductive experts were quick to point out that, of course, this is just science fiction and that anyone worrying about this is getting ahead of themselves.  Other experts, however, say that it really isn’t far off.  Our reproductive technology is getting better all the time, and moral qualms about tampering with the conception and birth process have mostly disappeared.

The dystopian novels and movies weren’t that far off.

Technology does move quickly.  When I was a kid, I thought the future would look like The Jetsons.  Sure, they predicted cell phones and video chatting.  But facial recognition tech?  The elimination of cash?  Changing birth from an organic process to a mechanical one?

Well, these things have been predicted too.  In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the first indicator society is about to turn upside down is when the main character’s credit card won’t work, and she finds she has to depend on her husband for all financial transactions.  We saw the human pods in The Matrix, but nearly 100 years ago Aldous Huxley described a similar baby-growth facility in Brave New World.

The Jetsons was a silly kids’ show; The Handmaid’s Tale and Brave New World were dystopian novels meant to provoke reflection about the direction in which our society has been moving.  Growing babies in pods is something most of us find instinctively disgusting; yet wealthy and influential people are attempting to sell us on the safety, convenience, and how it really isn’t so bad after all.  Why?

Fertility levels are low and still dropping.

The EctoLife video begins advertising as a way to help infertile couples conceive, and there is a need for this.  In November, Israeli scientists reported a worldwide sperm count decrease of 62% since 1973.  The same scientists had released a study in 2017, reporting that sperm counts from America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand had dropped by 50% since 1973 https://www.timesofisrael.com/sperm-counts-worldwide-fell-by-62-in-under-50-years-israeli-led-study-finds/  These world-class researchers have been monitoring these data for some time now and are finding that not only is sperm count decreasing, but it’s decreasing at an accelerated rate.

Fertility is low worldwide, for a variety of reasons.  Increased educational opportunities for women and the ability to plan families is a good thing; however, true infertility is tragic, and it’s becoming more common.

But why would we immediately jump to expensive, high-tech solutions?

Fertility may be dropping worldwide, but not at the same rate.  The EU’s birth rate was 1.5 as of 2020, far below the replacement level, while the birth rate for sub-Saharan Africa was 4.7. (See this) One can argue whether or not this is a good thing.  I’m not passing judgment; just stating that some populations are still, on average, having larger families.

It is similar to what’s going on with Covid.  While developed nations have been experiencing wave after wave of Covid, it is largely gone from Africa.  While Africans deal with a host of other health issues, as Dr. John Campbell points out in this video featuring an African doctor practicing in Africa, Covid is not one of them.

Africans are clearly able to still have babies as nature intended and are not getting sick from a disease making citizens of developed nations severely ill.  Isn’t this at least worth looking at?  Before looking for ever more expensive and technically complicated solutions to our First World problems, can we at least look at the Third World and ask some honest questions about what they do differently?  Is it not possible that they’re doing something better?  Technological innovation is a sign of progress; it’s also entirely possible to progress in the wrong direction.

And what about genetically engineered infants?

While wanting to help infertile couples is a noble cause, the rest of the video devolves into building your perfect baby, like infants are some kind of toy set.

EctoLife pods will be designed to replicate the exact conditions of the mother’s uterus, though they also claim to offer “germ-free” environments.  Uteruses aren’t germ-free so there’s an inherent contradiction.  Another selling point is the EctoLife app so that you can monitor your baby’s development from your phone.  Parents would be able to watch the baby’s development and pick out songs for the baby to listen to, all from their phones.  Parents could also sing into the baby’s pod, if they so choose.

Genetic engineering will be a possible feature.  They plan to use CRISPR technology to edit genes.  This will let parents not only weed out genetic defects, but also customize hair color and skin tone.  It’s important to note that nearly 80 years ago, Chronicles of Narnia author CS Lewis warned of genetically modified babies. Mothers will no longer have to confront the pain of childbirth; the process will occur with a push of a button.  And at the end, EctoLife will offer a free paternity test so you know the baby you take home is yours.

Many technical issues are not addressed.

The “germ-free” environment statement is significant, not only because it’s inherently false, but because it would be damaging.  All of us need regular exposure to a variety of substances for our immune systems to develop; any high school or college level biology textbook will tell you that.

And think about the last time you got an X-ray.  If you’re of reproductive age, they probably made you wear a lead apron.  Many medical imaging techniques will, after repeated exposures, have some effect and fetuses are particularly sensitive.  And yet EctoLife will let you look at your baby at any time?  This doesn’t make sense. There’s a reason people don’t get ultrasounds every single day.  But no thought seems to have been given to potential effects of imaging equipment.

Nowhere is there a discussion of how the mother’s body will be hormonally prepared to nurture a baby.  Motherhood isn’t a switch you just turn on. It’s a process, and shortly after giving birth most women will experience let-down, when milk starts flowing and the mother’s body is ready to feed the baby.  Maybe EctoLife assumes all babies will use formula?

Some of the claims are just silly to anyone that has actually given birth.  There’s no comparison between a lab setting with earbuds and the life of a pregnant woman. Most women are either working or taking care of other children while pregnant, which means the baby in utero is getting talked to and patted by Mom, her coworkers, and/or family for many hours a day.  Nothing can make up for the physical interactions with dozens of other people.

Our incubator technology has gotten good, and EctoLife sees itself as an extension of that.  Incubators are a blessing, for parents and babies that truly need them.  I’ve had a few close friends that have relied on incubators, though every parent I’ve known sees incubators as an emergency device, not something preferable.  A mother who wants to hold her baby will not be sold on convenience.  She won’t be sold on anything, other than the immediate need of the baby.

What about the philosophical issues of this?

And this touches on some extreme philosophical issues.  The minds putting effort into EctoLife differ profoundly from many actual parents.   They state, “Our goal is to provide you with an intelligent offspring that truly reflects your smart choices.”

I have a household full of intelligent offspring, and I have a very happy home.  But my first child was conceived in a vehicle when I was in my early 20s, and no, I’m not married to the father anymore.  My offspring most certainly do not reflect any “smart choices” on my part.  They reflect the impulsivity typical of young adults.

However, despite some rocky years, painful drama, and financial struggles, we found ways to meet our children’s needs.  By owning our mistakes and focusing on the needs of the kids, the stupid decisions of our young adulthood have led to incomparable emotional rewards of our more mature adulthood.

And that’s life.

Real life, not fake, ultra-planned artificial laboratory life.  We grow through struggle, and the struggles of pregnancy prepare you for parenthood.  The lack of control over your own body, the physical discomfort, the weird cravings, the inability to sleep all prepare you for parenting.

You don’t parent via app. Why pretend, in pregnancy?  None of this seems desirable to most parents, which leads us back to why?  Why put so much thought into these creepy baby pods?

Money’s the first, most obvious answer.  There are people in the world who want to commodify absolutely everything.  People in the most poverty-stricken parts of the world can and do have children.  All it takes is two reasonably healthy parents.

But there are an increasing number of potential parents who want everything to be absolutely perfect, and are willing to pay if they think that’ll happen.  And for anything someone is willing to pay for, there will be other people trying to provide it.

For a long time, couples conceived, gave birth, and nursed babies on their own.  Humans survived a long time without incubators and formula.  Again, incubators and formula are great when they’re truly needed, but EctoLife would take emergency equipment and make it standard.  Parents are happy when an incubator lets their preemie live, but I’m pretty sure they’d all just prefer healthy babies.  Same with formula.  It’s great for those who need it, but especially with all the formula shortages, I can’t imagine most people prefer it.

However, it isn’t the life that the powerful have reimagined.

I think this leads us to another, darker reason behind this effort to make something instinctively repulsive seem like the choice for smart people.  The past three years have seen enormous efforts on the part of worldwide governments and supra-national organizations to push everyone onto digital platforms, where they can be endlessly monitored.  It’s no secret that some very wealthy, powerful people want to completely reimagine society. This kind of technology would certainly influence who was able to “have” babies sheerly due to the price.

But of course, many of us plebes liked life before lockdowns.  We liked eating meat and conceiving children the old-fashioned way.  So these technocrats have taken it upon themselves to change our minds.  Since the publication of the book Nudge in 2008, there have been increasing efforts to nudge people’s behaviors, without them realizing it.  The Mercury Project has over $25 million in grant available to people researching how to increase vaccine uptake.  Changing behavior patterns is big business.

There are a lot of rich, powerful people out there who want us to overcome our disgust mechanisms and simply do what we’re told.  Overcoming our disgust toward baby pods, like our disgust toward eating insects, is just another part of that.

Our alarm bells should go off when we see ourselves being sold on something we would normally find disgusting.  Listen to your gut.  We’re being constantly bombarded with messaging, most of which is not good for us, and we need to be conscious of who is trying to sell us on what.

And maybe this should be a wake-up call, too, about our own health.  I’ve already had children; I want grandchildren, and hopefully, the healthy food and lifestyle I’ve tried to impart to my kids will make that possible.  A mentally, physically, and spiritually healthy population wouldn’t want or need baby pods.

What do you think of all this?

What are your thoughts on this technology? Is this just a creepy sci-fi video, or is it a glimpse of what the future might hold? Share your thoughts about it all in the comments.

*

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.

A lover of novels and cultivator of superb apple pie recipes, Marie spends her free time writing about the world around her.

Featured image is from The Organic Prepper