A Hair Trigger on Endgame

December 12th, 2022 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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

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 insouciance of Washington and its European puppets toward the dangerous situation they are provoking with Russia is frightening.  The Western world is now led by people who have made it clear that they will risk nuclear war in their pursuit of American hegemony.  Evil has clearly triumphed in the Western world.

We are now on the brink of a nuclear holocaust.  One false warning of nuclear attack, believed to be true, could cause Russia to launch a full-scale nuclear attack against the US and Europe.

False warning signals indicating incoming nuclear weapons have happened before, but were discounted because a sufficient level of mutual trust had been achieved.

Now, with two decades of reckless provocations against Russia, with missile bases being constructed on Russia’s borders in Poland and Romania, with US/NATO fully committed to defeating Russia in Ukraine, and with massive anti-Russian propaganda in place of diplomatic negotiation, trust has been destroyed.

Notice the provocative idiocy of US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who mischaracterizes Putin’s warning about the extremely dangerous situation as “Russian saber-rattling.”  With utter fools like Austin making decisions, there is a zero chance of avoiding Armageddon.  Lloyd’s position is that it is Putin who must avoid provocative behavior, not Washington.

The expressed willingness of Finland, Sweden, Poland, and Romania to accept US nuclear weapons in their countries, together with the ability of the US to launch against Russia from the Black and Baltic seas, greatly heightens anxiety in Russia.  Unlike the Cold War period, in the 21st century Washington has worked overtime to destroy all trust.  Consequently, one more false warning is all it takes to exterminate mankind.

We are on the brink of nuclear war, and we do not have a John F Kennedy in the White House to stop it. Instead, we have insane neoconservatives committed to US hegemony at all cost.

Putin said:

Russia’s nuclear doctrine is based on the “launch on warning” concept, which envisions nuclear weapons’ use in the face of an imminent nuclear attack spotted by its early warning systems.“When the early warning system receives a signal about a missile attack, we launch hundreds of missiles that are impossible to stop,” he said, smiling. “Enemy missile warheads would inevitably reach the territory of the Russian Federation. But nothing would be left of the enemy too, because it’s impossible to intercept hundreds of missiles. And this, of course, is a factor of deterrence.”

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 Notes from the Twilight Zone

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Hair Trigger on Endgame

A Looming Elephant in the Room: Inflation

December 12th, 2022 by Connor Vasile

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.

***

With rising inflation, ever-present shortages, and the legacy media recommending Americans tighten their belts, let’s take a look how much the federal government has been spending on foreign aid, and on what.

With Thanksgiving and Black Friday in the rearview mirror, American families are now preparing for the Christmas season, buying gifts and planning trips with family and friends. Despite our efforts to keep the holiday cheer, there will be a looming elephant in the room: inflation. Currently at 7.75 percent, there seems to be no stopping the price hikes, let alone the shipping delays.

On top of that, average gas prices are still around $3.50-3.60 (and likely to rise again). Many individuals are dipping into their savings accounts to deal with these price hikes, and the government has still not solved the baby formula shortagea problem it created—yet news outlets have deemed it too unimportant to continue to report on.

In order to combat these woes, legacy media has come up with countless articles and how-to videos, educating Americans on how they can stretch their dollars. Earlier this year, Bloomberg published an article recommending that families making under $300k a year should switch out meats for vegetables like lentils stating: “Though your palate may not be used to it, tasty meat substitutes include vegetables (where prices are up a little over 4%, or lentils and beans which are up about 9%)…” The author also recommends taking the bus instead of driving, not buying food in bulk, and forgoing pets’ medical bills. This seems perfectly logical; why halt an ever expanding bureaucracy from printing billions of dollars or raising the federal interest rate when the average American can contribute by tightening their belts, and buying less for themselves and their families?

As the Director of Research of the Economic Policy Institute Josh Biven has stated, “…Inflation is largely a global, geopolitical phenomenon that is just not under the Biden administration’s control…”

Then let’s see what steps the federal government and the Biden Administration have been taking in order to contribute to the alleviation of this global phenomenon of inflation, and in turn help Americans with pricing at home.

With the war in the Ukraine, labor strikes, social unrest, and, yes, still Covid on the tongues of many world leaders, the Biden Administration has taken on the herculean responsibility of providing/continuing foreign aid to various countries with the hopes of mending trade relations and to help get the globe back to some sense of economic normalcy.

In fiscal year 2022, the total amount of foreign obligations the federal government committed to disburse throughout the world was $44 billion dollars—a $9 billion increase from the previous year. The Biden government is distributing taxpayer dollars to many regions and for many purposes: from humanitarian aid, to military funding, to green initiatives.

Let’s focus on some of the salient contributions.

With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine now reaching its tenth month, the US government hasn’t wavered in providing military and humanitarian aid to the latter. According to the US State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, the United States has invested about $19.3 billion for “security assistance” since January of 2021. However, this doesn’t paint a full picture of exactly how much Biden sent to Ukraine this past fiscal year.

According to research conducted by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, from January 24 to October 3, the United States committed and dispersed $52.3 billion to Ukraine—$10.8 billion more than every other participating country and global institution combined ($41.5B).

Any portion of this could have made considerable strides towards fixing the ‘crumbling infrastructure’ dilemma this president and his predecessors have been campaigning on for decades, or to providing tax relief to Americans. The amount of aid we are funding to Ukraine may very well rise again soon, with Biden recently asking Congress for an additional $37 billion in “emergency aid” while Russia continues to fight in the Donbass.

One would assume that after the August 15, 2021 takeover of Kabul, the US would halt aid to a country now dominated by the Taliban. However, on top of the billions in military and transportation equipment left behind, the deaths of 13 US service members, and the countless women and young girls now being forcibly married and raped by militants, Biden has made sure to continue funding ‘humanitarian aid’ to Afghanistan in the form of $3.79 billion for fiscal year 2022.

Unfortunately, all federal information regarding the exact types of projects or initiatives these funds are reportedly supporting has been redacted in accordance with the exceptions outlined in the Foreign Aid Transparency Act of 2016—ironic to say the least. What we do know is that said monies are allotted for emergency disaster relief and “basic education.”

Considering how the Taliban commands with Sharia Law, dictates what is being taught and shared with the public, and outright bans girls from attending school, it begs the question of where exactly all this foreign aid is going. Why would the US continue to support a country which violates UN human rights agreements and is one of America’s largest enemies?

Let’s keep in mind that these payments were taking place while American citizens experienced exploding inflation, unemployment, price hikes, and a deadly opioid epidemic with no end in sight.

This is by no means an exhaustive list; one could write a white paper on the subject of US foreign aid allotments just in 2022. However, I wanted to highlight a handful of other expenses since 2020.

  1. As part of the 5,593 page, $1.4 trillion Omnibus bill passed in December 2020, “up to $15,000,000 may be made available for assistance for Sri Lanka for the refurbishing of a high endurance cutter” (aka speedboat) for the purpose of “instruction in human rights.” Considering how the Sri Lanka government has been under investigation for human rights abuses and land confiscations, such a hefty donation to progress “human rights” seems questionable.
  2. In the same bill, $15 million was allotted to “democracy programs,” $10 million to “gender programs” in Pakistan, and millions more to other countries’ defense budgets.
  3. In Ecuador, from September 30, 2022 until August 31, 2023, the US State Department is spending $20,600 on 12 drag queen theater performances, 3 workshops, and a 2-minute documentary in order to “promote diversity and inclusion”. The State Department told the Washington Examiner via email that this funding is “…to promote tolerance and … provide new opportunities for LGBTQI+ Ecuadorians to express themselves freely and safely”—during a time when Ecuador is currently taking in hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan refugees fleeing the communist Maduro regime. Priorities, I assume.

To put it into perspective—only in regards to the expenditures I’ve mentioned in this article—the US government has committed just over $93 billion in foreign aid while the US economy is still reeling from pandemic lockdowns, a rise in unemployment, and skyrocketing prices.

While we are all doing what we can to provide for our families as pricesacross pretty much every industry continue to rise, the Biden Administration has been doing what it can to provide billions of taxpayer dollars, gender programs, and military aid to other nations.

Some may see these “contributions” as a kind of benevolence, but it would be a mistake to confuse government largesse with genuine solicitude.

“It is easy to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost,” the economist Murray Rothbard once noted.

When he said Build Back Better, who would have thought he intended it for other countries?

*

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

Connor Vasile is a first-generation American and writer who wishes to raise awareness about classical liberal ideas which empower every individual, no matter their background or experience, to live their best lives and fulfill their goals. 

Featured image is from iStock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Looming Elephant in the Room: Inflation
  • Tags:

Ukrainian Forces Continue Shelling Donetsk

December 12th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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.

***

Kiev continues ceaselessly attacking the capital of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Despite the republic’s accession to the Russian Federation, operated after a popular referendum attesting to the will of local residents, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi regime maintains its policy of military actions against the region, violating Russian sovereign territory. Worsening the situation, the main targets of Ukrainian attacks are civilian buildings, killing innocent people without having any impact on the Russian armed forces or popular militias – which undoubtedly is a war crime and an abuse of international humanitarian law.

The second week of December was marked by brutal attacks in Donbass. Between 6 and 11 December, every day unarmed civilians were killed by Ukrainian shelling in the streets of Donetsk’s capital. During their long-range operations, Ukrainian military, neo-Nazi militiamen, and foreign mercenaries destroyed mainly civilian facilities in central Donetsk, with no damage reported to any Russian military base. As on other occasions, the streets near Donetsk’s central market, where there is a large concentration of civilians, were one of the most affected places. More precise data regarding the exact number of dead and injured people are still being analyzed. As the attacks have been constant and reached different parts of the republic, it is difficult to calculate the damage and the victims.

On December 6, for example, six civilians died in the region as a result of Ukrainian bombings. The following day, at least ten fatal victims were caused by the strikes. At the time, the Ukrainian authorities even made public pronouncements blaming Russia for the bombings, trying to produce another false flag situation. On 11 December, a huge number of bombings occurred, with over 170 shells of various calibers having been launched in the region. Just between 15:05 to 15:52 Moscow Time 36 shells were reported by Russian authorities in Donetsk.

In parallel with the official data reported by the local administration, there is also information circulating on social networks due to the work of several journalists on the ground. Various war correspondents documented the attacks and published photos and videos on the internet showing in real time the effects of the Ukrainian terror campaign. The photos include images of dead and wounded civilians, clearly exposing the brutality to which the population of Donetsk is constantly subjected.

It is important to emphasize that although Donetsk is the main target of these Ukrainian clandestine operations, Kiev has also been bombing other regions of Donbass. On the 11th, for example, two houses were destroyed and more than twenty people injured in Ukrainian bombings in the Lugansk People’s Republic. As well as some of the attacks in Donetsk, the assaults in Lugansk were operated with HIMARS missiles supplied by NATO, which once again makes it clear that Kiev only continues to commit crimes in Donbass because it is receiving Western weapons.

As well known, Ukrainian violence against the people of Donbass is nothing new. Scenes of terror have been constant in the region since the Maidan coup in 2014, with the extermination of the Russian-speaking population being considered by experts around the world as a true genocide. Indeed, this relentless violence was one of the main reasons why Moscow had no choice but to launch its special military operation in February. The main problem is that since September Donetsk and Lugansk are no longer seen by Moscow as part of the sovereign territory of Ukraine or as independent countries, but as Russian oblasts, which is why these attacks take on much greater seriousness.

Kiev is shelling unarmed, semi-pacified and almost fully demilitarized Russian regions far from the line of contact between the troops. Moscow has been tolerating Ukrainian attacks on still militarized regions within Russian territories, but it is unacceptable that aggression continues to escalate in the central zones, where the normalization of civilian life is progressing significantly. In addition to a violation of Russian sovereign space, these attacks are true war crimes, as they do not target military forces, with the sole objective of murdering innocents and destroying cities.

On the part of Moscow, this escalation is expected to be responded with more intense attacks on Kiev’s infrastructure, worsening the supply situation of Ukrainian military bases, which will reduce the ability of the neo-Nazi regime to conduct long-range operations. However, it is essential that international organizations also pronounce on these cases and denounce that NATO co-participates in the crimes by sending the weapons with which the neo-Nazis kill innocent people in Donbass.

*

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: Photo courtesy of Sonja Van den Ende

Defense Bill Includes Massive Military Land Grab in Nevada

December 12th, 2022 by Center For Biological Diversity

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 final version of the National Defense Authorization Act released Tuesday night by the House Rules Committee contains provisions that would enable an enormous military land grab in Nevada.

Despite celebrations by the environmental justice community about the omission of Sen. Joe Manchin’s permitting reform deal from the bill, the must-pass legislation does include a long-sought-after expansion of Naval Air Station Fallon in central Nevada. This provision would allow the Navy to gain complete or partial control of more than 500,000 acres of public land for bombing ranges and military exercise areas.

The public lands of central Nevada that would be turned into a military training area feature towering snow-capped mountain ranges and broad, sagebrush-filled basins. They’re rich in wildlife, including desert bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, golden eagles and greater sage-grouse.

“This is a dark day for the public lands and wildlife of central Nevada,” said Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “I’m outraged that Nevada’s senators are helping the military seize control of hundreds of thousands of acres of irreplaceable public land.”

The expansion would entail a significant increase in military airplane activity above Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge, an essential stopover on the Pacific flyway and a Western Hemispheric shorebird reserve. The refuge is dense with bald eagles, tundra swans and shorebirds such as American avocets and long-billed dowitchers. The increased overflights will disturb the birds as they stop to rest on their long migrations.

The bill also includes a backdoor authorization for the Dixie Valley water grab, a proposed project that would suck water out of remote Dixie Valley and pipe it 50 miles to Fallon to fuel unsustainable growth. This project was recently cited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a factor contributing to the endangered species listing of the Dixie Valley toad.

“Sen. Cortez Masto and Sen. Rosen have sold out Nevada’s public lands and wildlife,” said Donnelly. “They talk the talk about conservation, but when push comes to shove, they’re apparently willing to sacrifice our shared national heritage on the altar of the ever-expanding military-industrial complex.”

*

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

Featured image: Wetlands at Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge at sunset. Photo by Patrick Donnelly/Center for Biological Diversity.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Defense Bill Includes Massive Military Land Grab in Nevada

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 Federal Reserve is sowing the seeds for its central bank digital currency (CBDC). It may seem that the purpose of a CBDC is to facilitate transactions and enhance economic activity, but CBDCs are mainly about more government control over individuals. If a CBDC were implemented, the central bank would have access to all transactions in addition to being capable of freezing accounts.

It may seem dystopian—something that only totalitarian governments would do—but there have been recent cases of asset freezing in Canada and Brazil. Moreover, a CBDC would give the government the power to determine how much a person can spend, establish expiration dates for deposits, and even penalize people who saved money.

The war on cash is also a reason why governments want to implement CBDCs. The end of cash would mean less privacy for individuals and would allow central banks to maintain a monetary policy of negative interest rates with greater ease (since individuals would be unable to withdraw money commercial banks to avoid losses).

Once the CBDC arrives, instead of a deposit being a commercial bank’s liability, a deposit would be the central bank’s liability.

In 2020, China launched a digital yuan pilot program. As mentioned by Seeking Alpha, China wants to implement a CBDC because “this would give [the government] a remarkable amount of information about what consumers are spending their money on.”

The government could easily track digital payments with a CBDC. Bloomberg noted in an article published when the digital yuan pilot program was launched that the digital currency “offers China’s authorities a degree of control never possible with cash.” A CBDC could allow the Chinese government to monitor mobile app purchases (which accounted for about 16 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2020) more closely. Bloomberg describes how much control a CBDC could give Chinese authorities:

The PBOC [People’s Bank of China] has also indicated that it could put limits on the sizes of some transactions, or even require an appointment to make large ones. Some observers wonder whether payments could be linked to the emerging social-credit system, wherein citizens with exemplary behavior are “whitelisted” for privileges, while those with criminal and other infractions find themselves left out.

(Details on China’s social credit system can be found here.)

The Chinese government is waging war on cash. And they are not alone. In 2017, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published a document offering suggestions to governments—even in the face of strong public opposition—on how to move toward a cashless society. Governments and central bankers claim that the shift to a cashless society will help prevent crime and increase convenience for ordinary people. But the real motivation behind the war on cash is more government control over the individual.

And the US is getting ready to establish its own CBDC (or something similar). The first step was taken in August, when the Fed announced FedNow. FedNow will be an instant payment system and is scheduled to be launched between May and July 2023.

FedNow is practically identical to Brazil’s PIX. PIX was implemented by the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB) in November 2020. It is a convenient instant payment system (using mobile devices) without user fees, and a reputation as being safe to use.

A year after its launch, PIX already had 112 million people registered, or just over half of the Brazilian population. Of course, frauds and scams do occur over PIX, but most are social engineering scams (see herehere, and here) and are not system flaws; that is, they are scams that exploit the public’s lack of knowledge of PIX technology.

Bear in mind that PIX is not the Brazilian CBDC. It is just a payment system. However, the BCB has access to transactions made through PIX; therefore, PIX can be considered the seed of the Brazilian CBDC. It is already an invasion of the privacy of Brazilians. And FedNow is set to follow suit.

Additionally, the New York Fed has recently launched a twelve-week pilot program with several commercial banks to test the feasibility of a CBDC in the US. The program will use digital tokens to represent bank deposits. Institutions involved in the program will make simulated transactions to test the system. According to Reuters, “the pilot [program] will test how banks using digital dollar tokens in a common database can help speed up payments.”

Banks involved in the pilot program include BNY Mellon, Citi, HSBC, Mastercard, PNC Bank, TD Bank, Truist, US Bank, and Wells Fargo. The global financial messaging service provider SWIFT is also participating to support interoperability across the international financial ecosystem.” (This video details the pilot program and how the US CBDC would work.)

The IMF is also thinking of a way to connect different CBDCs under a single system. In other words, the IMF plans to create a PIX/FedNow for CBDCs around the globe:

Things could change as money becomes tokenized; that is, accessible to anyone with the right private key and transferable to anyone with access to the same network. Examples of tokenized money include so-called stablecoins, such as USD Coin, and central bank digital currency.

The reception of Brazil’s PIX shows that FedNow will likely be widely adopted due to its convenience; however, this positive economic and technological element should not overshadow the increased control instant payment systems will give to central banks. The BCB has access to all transactions made by Brazilians through PIX, and this would only get worse should a CBDC be implemented. With a CBDC, it would be easier for the government to carry out expansionary monetary policies (which cause misallocations of resources and business cycles) and exert greater control over citizens’ finances.

*

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.

André Marques is 27, Brazilian (Recife-PE) and he holds a graduate degree in Political Science and International Relations at Universidade Nova de Lisboa and a master’s degree in International Economics at Universidade de Lisboa. He also writes articles and analysis about economics and the precious metals market for Elementum Portugal.

Featured image is from Adobe Stock

Almost a Third of Wildlife Species at Risk of Extinction

December 12th, 2022 by Center For Biological Diversity

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.

***

An update released today by the International Union for Conservation of Nature found that 28% of plants and animals around the globe are threatened with extinction. The new IUCN Red List identifies 42,108 species as threatened out of 150,388 species for which there is enough information to determine a conservation status.

The Red List update comes as governments from around the globe gather in Canada at COP15, the Convention on Biological Diversity, to negotiate a framework on biodiversity conservation objectives for the next decade.

“These horrific Red List numbers are yet another wake-up call to negotiators in Montreal that we have to do everything in our power to save biodiversity,” said Tierra Curry, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We can halt the suicidal march toward mass extinction if we take bold actions to save life on Earth.”

Scientists are working to assess the status of all species. Today’s update focuses on the dire situation of marine species threatened by illegal and unsustainable fishing, pollution, climate change and disease. Of the 54 global species of abalone, 20 were found to be threatened.

The pillar coral found throughout the Caribbean, including Florida, was downgraded from vulnerable to critically endangered after its population shrunk by more than 80% since 1990 because of bleaching from climate change and pollution.

“These updates feel soul-crushing, but they should be a catalyst for action,” said Curry. “Nations have an opportunity to agree to halt extinctions now and build a framework to reduce threats to life. Real change must come out of the negotiations in Montreal that benefit wildlife and vulnerable human communities.”

Every decade, global governments negotiate a framework to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity over the next 10 years. This framework, more formally known as “the post-2020 global biodiversity framework,” is centered around the vision of living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Negotiators planned to adopt the agreement in 2020 but because of the pandemic, final negotiations are taking place now. Funding problems, controversies over sharing genetic resources and a lack of ambition have hamstrung the negotiations. The United States and the Vatican are the only countries not party to the Convention.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Almost a Third of Wildlife Species at Risk of Extinction
  • Tags:

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.

***

Track and control grid being erected right under our noses

The Central Bank of Nigeria announced it will begin, effective in January, restricting cash withdrawals from banks and ATMs to just $45 per day as part of a push to move the country toward a cashless economy.

If this were a one-off, I wouldn’t bother writing about it. But it comes on the heels of mega-banks announcing similarly creepy new policies in recent months in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Sweden, the U.S. and many other nations, all pointing to an imminent switch over to a global digital money system.

In the U.S., the Federal Reserve put out an announcement in November that it is launching a 12-week “pilot program” to test out a new central bank digital currency, or CBDC, with six major banks.

Thursday’s announcement in Nigeria is also a big deal because Nigeria is one of only nine countries that have already launched an official CBDC. That happened earlier this year, and now they are already moving to restrict the use of cash. This proves that digital currencies were never designed to function alongside paper currencies but rather to replace them.

Fox News reports that the Central Bank of Nigeria will limit weekly cash withdrawals to 100,000 naira ($225) for individuals and 500,000 naira ($1,124) for corporations, with a processing fee required to access more.

Haruna Mustafa, the central bank’s director of banking supervision, said cash withdrawals may be permitted in “compelling circumstances, not exceeding once a month.”

Isn’t that nice of him?

It’s almost that bad here in the U.S. Try going to your bank and telling them you want to withdraw as little as $5,000 and you will discover that you are required to basically state your case and prove you also have a legitimate “compelling” reason for wanting that much cash.

Of course it’s all for our own good, right? “Safety and security,” they tell us.

Policymakers in Nigeria say the limits on cash withdrawals along with the country’s new digital currency will “bring more people into the banking system and curb currency hoarding, illicit flows, and inflation,” according to Fox News.

Of course, it will do just the opposite, shutting more people out of the ability to buy and sell freely.

The same argument — fighting crime, money hoarding and inflation — could be made in any country in the world and it will be. But we all know the real reason has nothing to do with stopping crime or curbing inflation.

This is about going digital, and replacing cash with a more controllable, more trackable mode of exchange.

Remember what globalist economist Pippa Malmgren said at the World Government Summit in March of this year when she said the quiet part out loud, stating:

“We are on the brink of a dramatic change where we are about to, and I’ll say this boldly, we are about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one. And the new one; the new accounting is what we call blockchain… It means digital, it means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on.”

Nigeria’s economy is no different than any other in the sense that it relies heavily on informal activities outside the legal framework and government regulation, such as farming, street and market trade, flea markets, thrift stores, cab drivers, etc. In these businesses, cash is usually preferred for transactions because many lack bank accounts or just don’t want to fool with processing credit or debit cards.

The globalists know this and so they want to get everyone digitally marked and dependent on digital-only transactions for all their needs. That way they will know how much gasoline or heating oil you are consuming, how much meat you are consuming, and it will all be added to your carbon footprint by which you will be taxed for any usage over your allotted amount. If you persist in going over your allotted amount of food and fuel, you can now be controlled by simply cutting off the supply of digital money, which really isn’t money at all in the traditional sense. It’s more like a voucher system.

This will be easily accomplished once they lock everyone’s money into a bank account and replace actual money with digital tokens. At the point in which the American middle class accepts such a system, it’s game over and we will see tyranny sweep across the globe even faster than it is now. The banksters and corporate titans will have captured everyone into their digital beast system, which operates much like a high-tech feudal system, where you no longer truly own anything outright. You will become the equivalent of a sharecropper in the old feudal system of the Middle Ages — your obedience to whatever new rules they throw out for “sustainable living” will no longer be optional but mandatory.

The sustainability rules will start out as “suggestions” or “recommendations,” only to be later demanded and mandated, with heavy fines for disobedience. If you think you can ignore the fines, think again, as they now have direct access to your digital wallet and can simply deactivate whatever digital tokens are in that account.

Some analysts, such as Rebecca Walser at WalserWealth.com, have predicted that the U.S. Federal Reserve will launch its digital dollar as soon as May of 2023. You can listen to a Dec. 7 interview Walser did with Brannon Howse Live here.

Once they get the digital currency in place, the next big thing will be to restrict travel by plane and motor vehicles.

In case you missed it, the globalists are already experimenting with that, too.

Watch the excellent 13-minute video below for an update on what’s going on in Oxford, England, one of the World Economic Forum’s “smart cities,” which are also now being referred to as “15-minute cities.” Of course the only way to fight this will be to directly disobey all of their dictates. Use cash. Drive gasoline-powered cars. Eat real meat. Stop giving your money to “woke” corporations. Become as self-sufficient as possible and pray for God’s mercy!

*

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.

Leo Hohmann is a veteran investigative reporter and author whose recent book, “Stealth Invasion” spent the majority of 2017 among Amazon.com’s top 10 books on immigration. He has spent decades researching and writing about education, immigration, crime, politics and religion.

Featured image is from Truth Talk UK

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Central Banks Racing to Implement Digital Currencies as Cities Convert to ‘Smart’ Infrastructure
  • Tags:

End the U.S. Empire!

December 12th, 2022 by Eric Zuesse

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.

***

Currently, the U.S. has exactly 900 military bases in foreign countries, in addition to the 749 bases inside the U.S. itself. The U.S. Government minimizes and tries to hide this reality from the public.

Furthermore, although the U.S. is officially estimated to spend around 36% of the entire world’s military expenditures, the actual figure is around 50% of the world’s military expenditures, and the added approximately 14% is being paid-out through federal U.S. Departments other than the ‘Defense’ Department, so as to make the total U.S. figure appear to be only 36% of the global total. Moreover: on November 15th, the U.S. Department of ‘Defense’ announced that “The results of the fifth annual DOD [Department Of Defense] wide financial audit will be a disclaimer of opinion for DOD” and used other such obtuse phraseology, so that the reality that — as one of the very few published news-reports that was based on it headlined optimistically — “Defense Department fails another audit, but makes progress”, and it opened:

The Defense Department has failed its fifth-ever audit, unable to account for more than half of its assets, but the effort is being viewed as a “teachable moment,” according to its chief financial officer.

After 1,600 auditors combed through DOD’s $3.5 trillion in assets and $3.7 trillion in liabilities, officials found that the department couldn’t account for about 61 percent of its assets, Pentagon Comptroller Mike McCord told reporters on Tuesday.

Neither the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, nor AP, reported it, at all. Nor did anyone report that ONLY the U.S. Aggression (or ‘Defense’) Department fails — and repeatedly fails — its audit-attempts. All other Departments pass their audits. This attempt, which had hired 1,600 independent auditors, failed for the same reason as before: the audit-team refused to sign findings, because where or to whom most of the money is going can’t be traced. But the public don’t know how corrupt or otherwise bad the U.S. military actually is; so, at least ever since the year 2000, the most respected “institution” of all, by the American people, is “The military.” It’s a great PR success.

There is only a single empire remaining in the world: the U.S.-and-allied empire. It relies upon the U.S. military. U.S.-and-allied media have been serving it well.

On 1 December 2019, The Conversation.com headlined “Why does the US pay so much for the defense of its allies? 5 questions answered”, and said:

1. What’s in it for the US?

The U.S. currently has approximately 174,000 active-duty personnel deployed to overseas locations in approximately 140 countries. The Department of Defense Comptroller’s Office estimates the total cost of overseas bases and deployments at US$24.4 billion in fiscal year 2020. These figures generally exclude the costs of ongoing combat operations.

When stronger countries provide security for weaker countries, they receive non-material benefits in return.

For example, the weaker country may sacrifice control over their foreign policy.

To “sacrifice control over their foreign policy” is to be a vassal-nation, or ‘ally’, of the imperial power. It’s to serve the imperial power’s billionaires — to give them control over the vassal nation. That’s to “sacrifice” a lot. The imperial power’s billionaires benefit enormously. So, their media serve it. Here’s why that is being allowed:

U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt formulated his concept of, and named, “the United Nations,” during his conversations with the UK Empire’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Newfoundland Canada during 9-11 August 1941, because FDR discovered there that he and Churchill had very different aims for what the post-WW-II world should be like: Churchill insisting upon continuation of empires, and FDR insisting upon the end of all empires and the ultimate replacement of them by a “United Nations” that would possess the exclusive authority, and means, to make and to enforce international laws — the laws that would govern not in national (domestic) matters — but ONLY in international matters.

FDR was convinced that the WW-I-era League of Nations had failed because it was partisan between nations and excluded some, and that the thing that had caused both World Wars was conflicts between empires — it was, regarding both WW I and WW II, wars between imperialistic gangs of nations. Whereas Churchill wanted post-WW-II to be ruled globally by a joint UK-U.S. empire, FDR wanted post-WW-II to be ruled globally by a democratic U.N. that would respect and preserve the individual independence of each and every nation and thus there would no longer be any “imperial” countries (such as the English Empire, and the French Empire), but instead there would be only independent nations and no master-slave relationship any longer existing between an imperial country and its vassal nations or ‘allies’.

It was to be an international democracy of nations; and, in this international global democracy, no nation would possess any right to demand of any other nation compliance with its own internal (domestic) values and laws.

Whereas FDR’s vision was for a further implementation of the Westphalian Principle — that the difference between national laws and international laws must always be honored and adhered-to — Churchill, like all imperialists, rejected the Westphalian Principle. FDR’s successor, Harry S. Truman, starting on 25 July 1945, committed America to Churchill’s vision, and within two years of becoming President, he replaced FDR’s entire Cabinet and advisors, so as to build the coming U.S./UK all-inclusive global empire and to eviscerate FDR’s intended U.N. — which therefore became the weak U.N. we have today. The only way to prevent WW III is to implement FDR’s vision, of a global democracy of nations, but it can’t be done without first cancelling those 900 foreign U.S. military bases. The empire — empire itself — must end. FDR was right; Truman was wrong.

*

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.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book is AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. 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.

***

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” – Ayn Rand

While the masses continue to happily accept any and every tiny bit of ‘permission’ to have a miniscule amount of ‘freedom,’ all at the whim of the rulers, the drive toward more ‘climate change’ lockdown policy and societal regulation and total control are going forward quickly and without restriction. The candy offered to the herd in the form of temporary lifting of draconian mandates is meant only to satisfy the short-term longing of the proletariat so as to gain future compliance and obedience from the sheep in order for the state to create a true slave society. One of the  linchpins of this plot is to concentrate the population into so-called ‘smart’ cities, with 15 minute zones, where no travel outside this time frame is allowed without very restrictive monitoring. This is true insanity sold in the form of convenience, safety, and the bogus claim of protecting the earth.

Preparation, trials, and implementation of these atrocious prison-system cities are fully underway, and are being planned and sold as a public ‘good,’ an atrocious and deceptive lie. As I write this, 15-minute cities are being actively planned in Saudi, Arabia called “The Line,” Dubai, UAE, Oxford, U.K., Australia in Melbourne and Brisbane, in Spain in Barcelona, Buenos Aries, and even in Portland, Oregon in the Fascist U.S. While most have been asleep and basking in ignorance believing that totalitarianism has lessened, the master technocratic plot has never slowed. For those who are feeling left out, worry not, as a 15 minute prison system will soon be in a city or town near you.

Oxfordshire County in the U.K. is moving very fast to set up the first complete 15-minute city scam, and has announced a full “TRIAL” for January 2024. This is simply a climate lockdown trial meant to prepare the citizenry for continuous lockdowns, or more accurately, a minor existence in incarceration centers. Keep in mind that the plot to control the world depends on concentrating populations into smaller centers, with exhaustive technological measures of government regulation and authority that will require complete and total surveillance of all. This will be based on the ‘climate change’ lie, and world domination depends on a controlled, digital monetary system, that is also being structured by the central banking systems worldwide, and privately run by the ruling class. This is the same deep state that controls all government. Once the centralized bank digital currencies become reality, all freedom will end. The idea and implementation of controlled digital currencies is anathema to all liberty, and is mandatory for state control.

Once again I must mention the “big picture,”  as everything going on from ‘virus lies,’ ‘variants,’ staged wars, ‘climate change,’ CBDCs, 15-minute cities, transgender nonsense, fake racism, bioweapon injections, and a myriad of current and future control scenarios, are all meant to accomplish but one thing, and therefore, they are all linked, and all part of the singular agenda of total technocratic control of all people on earth. This is exactly what the ‘great reset,’ the new one world government, and the monetary takeover are all about. Regardless of which particular plot is the news item of the day, it is simply all meant to achieve but one end. Do not disregard all of the minor plots, but recognize that the single plot desired is to control you and all on earth, and nothing less.

The case addressed here can be summed up with one statement coming from the World Economic Forum (WEF) weforum.org on March 15, 2022.

“As climate change and global conflict cause shocks and stresses at faster intervals and increased severity, the 15-minute city will become even more critical.”

This single statement connects the entire fake ‘climate change’, and Ukraine (all war) scenarios and agendas as reasoning to lockdown the world. Make no mistake, this is the plan that is and has been in high gear for decades, but especially so since the bogus ‘covid’ lockdown terror levied at the hands of the state in 2020.

Without mass resistance to this totalitarian push, be prepared for more and more restrictions on every aspect of life; including movement, travel, thought, communication, health decisions,’ medical care,’ money and spending, carbon tracking, total and complete surveillance, social credit systems, and renewed climate lockdowns.

Considering the U.S. government and American citizens, remember that this government and all its controlling rule system is nothing more than an organized crime syndicate; an operation based on the mass cooperation and acceptance of a nearly universal, compliant, and submissive population, intent only on getting by and being able to survive with their smart phones, TVs, games, bread and circuses, and dependence on rule. This general attitude will be the death knell of this society, but it does not have to remain as such given the huge numbers of us, and the few who claim ownership of the bulk of the pathetic inhabitants that make up the vast majority in this country.

Remember that the term ‘climate change’ is the basis of all future plans to take total control over everything, and that is and will be the weapon of fear used to round up the masses. Every time you hear the word “sustainable” and accept it as legitimate, every time the state claims to be protecting the earth to ‘save it,’ every time ‘sustainable development’ is the term used to create and enforce government policy, you have lost all, while the state has gained more power and control over you. The final agenda of fear called ‘climate change,’ is the hammer, while each of you are only a nail, but acting as one, you can hold everything together.

As I stated in an article earlier this year:

“The intentional manmade ‘climate change’ fraud is continually gaining steam, as it will always be the linchpin to future abuses and control by the rulers and their pawns in politics and mainstream media. While the controllers are destroying economies, decimating all quality food sources and production, eliminating vast amounts of life-sustaining energy, greatly harming the environment and its vital resources necessary for life, pursuing eugenics agendas, and advancing depopulation efforts, the majority of people continue to acquiesce to all orders and propaganda, while completely attached and addicted to their cell phones and their apathetic and pitiful pretend lives. All this is indicative of the downfall of humanity, and the rise of the technocratic oligarchs.”

*

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 Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 15-Minute City Insanity Is Only ‘Climate Change’ Lockdown Madness
  • Tags:

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 major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after COVID vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine. A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.

The report, published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, detailed autopsies carried out at Heidelberg University Hospital in 2021. Led by Thomas Longerich and Peter Schirmacher, it found that in five deaths that occurred within a week of the first or second dose of vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, inflammation of the heart tissue due to an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine had likely or possibly caused the death.

Case characteristic of five deaths likely or possibly caused by the COVID vaccines.

Epoch Times Photo

Lymphocyte immune cells (white blood cells) are shown in blue and brown among the heart tissue, causing localised inflammation that proved fatal.

In total the report looked at 35 autopsies carried out at the University of Heidelberg in people who died within 20 days of COVID vaccination, of which 10 were deemed on examination to be due to a pre-existing illness and not the vaccine. For the remaining 20, the report did not rule out the vaccine as a cause of death, which Dr. Schirmacher has confirmed to me is intentional as the autopsy results were inconclusive. Almost all of the remaining cases were of a cardiovascular cause, as indicated in the table below from the supplementary materials, where 21 of the 30 deaths are attributed to a cardiovascular cause. One of these is attributed to blood clots (VITT) from AstraZeneca vaccination (the report was looking specifically at post-vaccine myocarditis deaths), leaving 20 from other cardiovascular causes.

Epoch Times Photo

For the five deaths in the main report attributed as likely or possibly due to the vaccines, the authors state:

“All cases lacked significant coronary heart disease, acute or chronic manifestations of ischaemic heart disease, manifestations of cardiomyopathy or other signs of a pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease.”

This indicates that the authors limited themselves to deaths where there was no “pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease,” making the report very conservative in which deaths it was willing to pin on the vaccines.

Dr. Schirmacher told me:

“We included only cases, in which the constellation was unequivocally clear and no other cause of death was demonstrable despite all efforts. We cannot rule out vaccine effects in the other cases, but here we had an alternative potential cause of death (e.g., myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism). If there is severe ischemic cardiomyopathy it is almost impossible to rule out myocarditis effects or definitively rule in inflammatory alterations as due to vaccination. These cases were not included.

“We did not aim to include or find every case but the characteristics of definitive, unequivocal cases beyond any doubt. Only by this way you can establish the typical characteristics; otherwise less strict criteria may lead to ‘contamination’ of the collective; it is absolutely plausible that by these criteria we may have missed further cases but the intention of our study was never quantitative or extrapolation and there are numerous positive and negative bias. But we wanted to establish the fact not the size.”

It is of course very possible that the vaccines also cause death where there is an underlying cardiovascular condition, and indeed, that it is more likely to do so. Thus these five deaths are the minimum from these autopsy cases in which the vaccines are involved—those in which there is no other plausible explanation.

It is worth noting here that initially in 2021, when the autopsies were first carried out, Dr. Schirmacher stated that his team had concluded 30–40 percent of the deaths were due to the vaccines. These earlier estimates may give us a better indication of how many of the deaths the authors really think are attributable to the vaccines, when they are unconstrained by highly conservative assumptions (and looking at causes besides myocarditis). Note that these percentages are based on a selection of deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination, not a random sample of all deaths, so the authors rightly warn that no estimation of individual risk can be made from them.

Did the autopsies find spike protein from the vaccines present in the heart tissue? The samples from the five vaccine-attributed deaths were tested for infectious agents including SARS-CoV-2 (in one instance revealing “low viral copy numbers” of a herpes virus, which the authors deemed insufficient to explain the inflammation). However, no tests were done specifically for the virus spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, such as have been used successfully in other autopsies to aid attribution to the vaccine, so unfortunately this evidence was unavailable for these autopsies.

The autopsies in the report also only cover doses 1 and 2, not any booster doses, and only deaths within 20 days of vaccination, so the report doesn’t address directly the question of what’s been causing the elevated heart deaths since the booster rollouts from autumn 2021 or whether the vaccines can trigger cardiovascular death weeks or months later. (Other autopsies have confirmed that the spike protein can persist in the body for weeks or months after vaccination and trigger a fatal autoimmune attack on the heart.)

What the report does do, however, is establish that people who die suddenly in the days immediately following vaccination may well have died from a vaccine-related autoimmune attack on the heart. It also confirms how deadly even mild vaccine-induced myocarditis can be—and thus why studies like the one from Thailand, finding cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teenagers (29.2 percent) following Pfizer vaccination and subclinical heart inflammation in one in 43 (2.3 percent), and the study from Switzerland finding at least 2.8 percent with subclinical myocarditis and elevated troponin levels (indicating heart injury) across all vaccinated people, are so worrying.

The authors of the new study diplomatically write that the “reported incidence” of myocarditis after vaccination is “low” and the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with COVID-19 are “stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination”—notably declining to commit themselves to the official propositions that they dutifully repeat.

The fact that those who die suddenly after vaccination may have died from the hidden effects of the COVID vaccine on their heart is thus now firmly established in the medical literature. The big remaining question is how often it occurs.

Stop Press: Dr. John Campbell has produced a helpful overview of the report’s findings in his latest video.

*

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. Will Jones is a math’s graduated with a Ph.D. in political philosophy and author of “Evangelical Social Theology: Past and Present” (2017). He is editor of The Daily Sceptic and blogs at Faith-and-Politics.com.

Featured image is from Anatta_Tan/Shutterstock


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

“Inside the COVID-19 Global Coup d’état”

December 12th, 2022 by Emanuel Pastreich

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.

***

Geopolitics & Empire: Geopolitics & Empire is joined by Emanuel Pastreich, who serves as the president of The Asia Institute and as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. He declared his candidacy for president of the US as an independent in February of 2020. Welcome to Geopolitics & Empire, Mr. Pastreich.

Emanuel Pastreich: It’s an honor to be here.

Geopolitics & Empire: I came across your work recently, your writing and your interviews, and I thought I had to have you on the show because you have many unique insights and you’ve got a fascinating life experience. It is hard to peg who you are because of your interesting background. If you could just briefly maybe tell us, who is Emanuel Pastreich?

Emanuel Pastreich: Right. Well, that’s a tough one and I’m maybe not the most qualified to explain myself. I came from a relatively establishment background in the United States. I’m still wearing a tie, and I was a professor of Asian studies, so I spent a good part of my life in Korea and Japan, and I studied Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. When I was at the University of Illinois back in 2000, 2001, I became quite committed to opposing the totalitarian rule in the United States, which continues to the day. And as a result of my efforts with others, I ended up being basically unable to work in the United States and living in Korea from 2007. Tried to come back to the United States once in 2019, which was not successful.

I’m back in the United States after three years away; just arrived a week ago. I am trying my best to address real issues in the United States and to puncture a hole in the blanket of hypocrisy and fraud that has wrapped around every aspect of American society, and, by extension, around the world. I want to talk about real things.

I had declared in February, 2020, when I saw what was happening with this so-called Biden-Trump election, that I would run as an independent candidate for president and address real issues, not with any particular leftist or rightist perspective. I tried to just scientifically address what were the problems in the United States. And that caused a lot of problems, but it did give me the chance to get in the habit of giving talks, speeches, which has now become my primary means of expressing myself.

I hope we can return to politics based on intellectual inquiry, on a moral commitment, and on real engagement with citizens, as opposed to a fraudulent “feel good” approach to blanket marketing.

Geopolitics & Empire: I purchased your book “I Shall Fear No Evil.” I think people can download it for free. You touch on most of your points in that book.

I agree with much of what you say. And maybe we can start with what you touched on: what’s wrong with the US?

I’m from Illinois, I’m from Chicago, and 20 years ago I saw a lot wrong. I’m a history major, former teacher, former professor of history, I could just see the cycle of history.

Emanuel Pastreich: Where were you teaching?

Geopolitics & Empire: Well, I taught abroad in Kazakhstan and in Mexico. That’s part of the story. I decided to leave the United States. When you’re born as an American, you never imagine we were an empire. I thought we were just a country, the United States, and then you realize there is stuff we get into like 9/11, and other things. The reality is we’re an empire, and we’re the biggest empire in the history of the world. So we are starting all these wars, killing millions of people.

There’s a lot of good that America has done, but a lot of bad too. We have to be fair. There’s the militarism. And we’re bankrupt financially–you talk about that. I also think that spiritually we’re bankrupt.

Emanuel Pastreich: Intellectually too.

Geopolitics & Empire: We’re at each other’s throats. Then there’s the techno-authoritarianism. I might get you in into trouble. In April, I believe the Department of Homeland Security told PayPal to shut off my account. I’m banned from using PayPal.

Emanuel Pastreich: Well, congratulations.

Geopolitics & Empire: And so if you could tell us basically, what’s wrong with America as you see it?

Emanuel Pastreich: Well, to some degree it’s a cyclical process. If you have any institution, any government or empire and it runs 250 years, you start to have these institutional contradictions and collapse. To some degree it’s because of the institutions that were originally set up no longer correspond with the reality of how decisions are made, or how the economy works. I happen to like the US Constitution and I refer to it. It’s not a perfect document, but it gives some basic principles for governance, which I think are quite unique.

It was a unique, successful experiment in history. It doesn’t mean the United States was successful, it just means that concept of constitutional government where they took some of the essence of what was discussed in Greece and Rome and tried to take the empire out of it. That was the concept behind the United States. It was a noble experiment that offers much for us.

However, it was flawed from the beginning. Obviously slavery, the destruction of the native peoples, also the idea of real estate and how it was imported here and enclosure, all that part of the project was obviously flawed. But we did have some good aspects to the United States, which sometimes were positive for the world.

But over the last 50 years, we saw the militarization of the economy and then this move towards a radical expansion of financialization and privatization. And in that process, I think, we also have to take note of the end of the Cold War, which has been celebrated in what we’re force fed in media and in academics. But the end of the Cold War was essentially the end of an opposing perspective in the world. Basically during the Cold War (I’m not saying Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China got it all right) socialist nations at least offered a different perspective, were able to suggest that things like class struggle, the concentration of capital, and ideology were topics to talk about. These were things that were important in their newspapers and universities. And when the Soviet Union and China basically went over to a modified neo-capitalism, with a little bit of socialist characteristics mixed in the drink, then we lost that other perspective in the world.

And as a result from the 1990s on increasingly these ridiculous ideas about economics spread. In the United States, or in Japan, or in Germany in the 1970s—through the 80s even, there were professors of economics who took Marxist economics as a major part of their approach to economic theory. There are zero people like that now, except for bloggers.

We’ve lost this potential for other perspectives. It’s not saying that Marxism is perfect. I’m not a Marxist by the way, but I’m sympathetic to Marxist analysis. I think that addressing class issues and finance and ideology is critical. And so we now are in this position in which consumption, growth, exports are assumed by basically everybody to be essential for the wellbeing of people, or that the stock market has a relationship (other than parasitic) to the lives of ordinary citizens.

These things are accepted as truths, right? They’re talking about a rise in the stock market as good for you.

And we have in the United States now these cardboard messiahs, whether it’s Bernie Sanders, or AOL, or Donald Trump who come up with these quirky ideas about what economics is, or how we can be more progressive, concerned with working people.

But essentially they buy into the entire economic money system and they’re not interested in saying, “Why don’t we make people independent from money?” They’re not trying to say, we can support ourselves.

We don’t have to spend money. People in the 19th century, most of them didn’t use money. They used it only when they went to market once a month to buy things they needed. Some metal products or certain items like clocks. But basically in their daily lives, they were able to support themselves and their communities were able to support them. That is real economics; that’s positive.

Actually that’s the real meaning of market economy. It has become a horrible term that’s been so distorted. Market economy means you go to the market in your community and you sell carrots, or the chairs you made, and you exchange them with your neighbor who is selling butter, or fabrics or whatever. And you have this mutual support system.

Now market economy means Google and Facebook and all these techno tyrants, which print up their own money by devaluing our money, and they control the entire system. They set up these IT systems (like the technology we are using now) in which we are forced to communicate with each other, to exchange, to buy things through them. They control the means of production, means of distribution, means of sales, and the means of communication, and increasingly the ideological structure itself. They produce these false conservatives and these false progressives whom we are supposed to buy.

Geopolitics & Empire: That was my next question. We’ve got an oligarchy in the US and I think it’s just as bad as the Russian oligarchies and these foreign dictatorships. I think the issue for us is that because Americans are more prosperous, we care less—as long as we can buy our nice cars, iPhones, and other stuff. We don’t really care about our oligarchy, but they’re just as bad, if not worse.

You mention sham elections. I agree with you; just to read a quote from your book, you say, “I say that if we do not have an election in which someone like me can be a candidate, can have a chance to be covered in the media, that we are not holding elections but rather holding an impressive sham. We have no intention of recognizing any such sham elections. In fact, until there is an election in which someone like me can get proper attention and the chance to be on the ballot, we will not recognize any of these elections.”

Just a quick thought on the elections. As you say, on our left, our right, we’ve got fake conservatives and a fake left. No one is anti-war anymore on the left.

Emanuel Pastreich: That’s true.

Geopolitics & Empire: There’s a handful on the right, but they all stay within a certain bounds. None of them have ever crossed the red line.

Emanuel Pastreich: Right. Well I think the decision to run as independent candidate for president was a serious one. I take it quite seriously and I put a lot of work into the speeches. The preference to my book is out in 40 languages. I don’t have Croatian, but I have many other languages—many from Central Europe for that matter. It was a campaign both in the United States and also globally meant to say, let’s have an alternative view.

And we’ve been basically blocked out. I think that American elections were always flawed. I wouldn’t say there was a perfect time, but there’s been a catastrophic collapse of the political system over the last 20 years. And the result is these sham elections, as I was suggesting in my recent post.

Now politics is determined not by elections, but by false flag operations, like 9/11 or COVID-19 or these mass shootings, whatever, these are how politics are determined, not by voting at the ballot.

In order to move beyond, to go back to some logical, scientific, rational process, I think we have to look back to the founding of the United States, or other countries, and recognize that the basis for the United States in the beginning, and the ways in which it was successful, were based on revolutionary thought, recognized that the United States is a revolutionary country.

That’s the core where we start. And we have to say that the Declaration of Independence notes very clearly,

“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Our two founding documents are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  You not only are entitled to, but you have a moral obligation to oppose this system, to overthrow it, and to create a system which is democratic, transparent and accountable.

That is my position when I am running as a candidate. I would love it if people vote for me, if they put me on TV, and if I got attention like Donald Trump, or these bedridden people like Joe Biden.

But that’s not my purpose. My purpose is to be revolutionary. And so I believe the best way that I can affect politics, that we can affect politics, is to take a stand and to say, “This is the truth. This is what needs to be done.” I’m not interested in whether the New York Times or CNN will cover me, because they’re so corrupt and so useless and dangerous, that as far as I’m concerned, we should lock them all up too. I have no interest in pandering to them.

And I would also say that that was the major mistake made by so many people in the United States over the last decade (as we fell into late imperial decay): they thought, I have this good idea, what might be a good idea, and in order to realize that idea, I’m going to compromise. I’m going to downplay it, going to soften it up a little bit, modify it in such a way that, one, the New York Times will mention me, and two, some wealthy donor will give me money.

And my position is to say, I’m not going to do that. And that this is the only way to achieve real change in the United States, and globally, to draw a line in the sand.

It may seem pointless. You might see me as someone who is a failure. I was not able to work in the United States from 2007. I have been unemployed for long periods of time, which was not all that pleasant. But I think that my actions were more politically meaningful than if I had compromised on 9/11 and other issues and tried to play the game here in Washington D.C.

Geopolitics & Empire: Just one real quick question on 9/11, not to go in depth, just get your big picture take. One of my subscribers recently tuned to the email list told me they’re signing off because I believe 9/11 was a false flag operation. And I’m like…

Emanuel Pastreich: It’s so obvious

Geopolitics & Empire: For me you’re not a serious person if you can’t take on the false flag operations. My response to him was that in graduate school in Geneva, Switzerland I was taught about this type of thing. It is a basic historical fact. The Roman Empire did it. Nazi Germany did it.

Emanuel Pastreich: I would even say it is an ancient tradition.

Geopolitics & Empire: Russia has done it. It’s a basic military strategy. NATO has done it. Japan has done it, Israel has done it, Turkey has done it. Tell me a country which has not run the false flag operation.

But just real quick, you mentioned previously, but also in one of your writings, you’ve written the false flag “serves as critical tool in American politics by creating mass trauma in the population that inhibits the formation of organized resistance or the possibility of rational intellectual discourse.” And so just your quick take on 9/11.

Emanuel Pastreich: Well I think that in that respect, 9/11 was extremely successful. Basically it shut down the American mind.

We need to use Hermann Broch’s term “the sleepwalkers” to describe our ruling class. We see people who are intellectuals, who are extremely well educated. They read books. They are lawyers, doctors, businessmen, but they’re incapable of conceiving of what is happening. They’re basically sleepwalking through history, unable to conceive of these higher-level traumatic shifts in governance.

And so 9/11, is most representative in that respect. If you’ve taken one semester of physics in high school, you can figure out that this event was impossible. It cannot possibly be true. I watched it. I was in the US, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign at the time. I saw it. I was not a physics major. I thought, this is not possible. Something else is going on here.

But there’s no way that if two (if it’s what happened) airliners crash, it’ll cause three buildings that made of concrete reinforced with steel to collapse. It cannot possibly be true.

But I think looking back on it now, that that was the whole point; the point was, just like with COVID-19, to force-feed the population a story which was not credible from the beginning. And the purpose of that was to degrade the ability of citizens to think for themselves scientifically and co-opt an entire class of intellectuals.

I’ve written about this topic using the ideas from Julien Benda’s classic book “The Treason of the Intellectuals” from 1927.

That was a large part of 9/11, and of COVID-19. This large class of privileged intellectuals, people like myself, decided –and I saw this at the University of Illinois and elsewhere– that they would go on with this incredibly stupid, unbelievable, argument on physics and on geopolitics to explain this trauma.

They went along with it. They took the money. There are always going to be some intellectuals like that, but the fact that there were so many for both 9/11 and COVID-19 who were willing to buy the story indicates something deeply wrong.

I have a classmate who’s a teaching at MIT and I talked to her, and talked to her about COVID-19 at the very start. She was just following the rules. I know that she’s smart enough to know that it just doesn’t make any sense scientifically.

As I put it in one of my articles, technology buried science in a shallow grave. We have a system in which technology is mistaken for science. We moved towards this “sciencism,” as opposed to science. In sciencism the truth is determined by experts at Harvard or Stanford, or wherever, as opposed to by a rigorous investigation of phenomena.

That started before 9/11. You can trace it back. In some ways it started with Oklahoma, which was the precursor to 9/11. I think if we hadn’t had the trauma of the Oklahoma bombings, that 9/11 would’ve been harder to pull off. And finally, I would conclude by saying that many of these things they’re planned out. DARPA (defense advanced research projects agency) and RAND and other agencies–now there’s a proliferation of these think tanks or consulting firms—planned these traumas. From the 1960s on they carried out a whole series of studies in psychology, mass trauma, et cetera, in which they essentially came up with these classified plans, some of which have been declassified, most of which have not. The plans describe how to transition a population from one state to another over time through the use of mass trauma.

And that’s what 9/11 was about. Oklahoma was the first point of mass trauma, then 9/11, then COVID-19–and there were a few others in between.

On the one hand the operations had very specific agendas, what they were trying to do in the short term. But there is a larger agenda, which is to create a totalitarian state, on in which people are not aware, as you mentioned, that the system is totalitarian.

There’s a radical alienation between the reality on the ground and the manner in which ruling class intellectuals, who set the tone and the message, perceive the world. We live in a fantasy world in which we are told this is how the United States works. And then there’s the reality of how it really works. Basically they’ve become two unrelated realms.

Geopolitics & Empire: Just to comment on the academic aspect, I worked in education, in academia here in Mexico, and just as you described it, I find it sad. Most academics, all they care about is their money, their salary, their wages, and their career. I want the truth. I had my classes taken away from me when I taught at a high school and at a university. And the trick was that it’s harder to get fired from the high school than it is the university.

Emanuel Pastreich: Interesting.

Geopolitics & Empire: After one or two semesters they took away my courses at the university on international relations because I was talking like you are. Eventually there was a new person who took charge and he didn’t know my way of thinking. And so I got my courses back. It’s just really sad. It just goes back to the fact that the people want the money, they don’t care about the truth.

Emanuel Pastreich: Well, I’ve seen that. Certainly many academics now, and I see this in my colleagues, people who I used to be quite close to in another lifetime. Consider the priority to be getting grants. And so grants are the goal, certainly not scientific method, right? They must go along with what grantors want. And that process no longer involves any sense of public good, or of government or institutions that are run for the public good.

We have the Drew Faust, the previous president of Harvard. When she retired, she was appointed to the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. Unprecedented in American history. But it’s telling. So the priority for these research institutes and their administrators is their ability to suck up to global capital.

That is what it’s about. And so obviously if we’re talking about Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, or other Blackstone, or other private equity, these guys are sophisticated. They hire consulting firms and tell them how to modify teaching and academic research at Harvard over time so that it serves their purpose, essentially they help to cover your tracks for you. You do not modify intellectual discourse in too explicit a way. You throw in a little bit of multiculturalism here, a little bit of gender theory there; you talk about how unfair it is that poor people are not doing so well, but you don’t identify the process of how we got here.

It’s become, I think it’s a major, major industry, this whole distortion of reality in advertising, public relations, consulting, and then on beyond that in research, academics, journalism, and the basic principles of discourse now. It’s a form of prostitution.

I like to talk this trauma in terms of incest, rape, and prostitution, the three fundamental traumas in human relations, in sexual relations–sexual relations have profound symbolic power in our society.

And all of them, incest, rape and prostitution, have their equivalents in our political world and in our intellectual world. And that’s what we’re witnessing. Increasingly we’re talking about all of those. Incest is the false flag, the internal compromise in which the compromise is so profound for the victim that it can’t even be addressed. Rape is similar in that it brings the person into this relationship which was unwanted, but in a way which is so embarrassing (and sometimes involves some mutual attraction), that it becomes so horrific that the individual cannot even conceive of what happened.

And so in many cases of rape in the real world, people never report it because they think it is so demeaning to the self and they can’t even confront it in themselves.

In the case of prostitution, that which should be expression of concern, or affection, or love, or commitment to family, becomes a means of making money, a service. And we see such a distortion all across our society, especially in education. Rather than teachers being concerned with society or with students, or with family, it becomes just a means to produce money. Maybe you are not selling your body but you are selling your soul.

Geopolitics & Empire: I wanted to have you unpack COVID-1984, as I call it, and basically the same thesis I’ve held from the very beginning, January, 2020, you put into words, I never viewed that there was a pandemic at all. My theory is that it was planned, this whole event. It was either some low key bio weapon or it was entirely manufactured from whole cloth. Either way, there was no pandemic. We just could have just gone on with our lives normally.

You wrote recently on your Substack, and I recommend people read this article, the links will be in the description. You say, “Operation COVID-19 was a global coup d’etat disguise as a pandemic that was launched against China and the world in December, 2019. And that continues onto the present.”

You say that, the reality is that a tiny group of key players representing the super-rich in the US and in China coordinate closely to promote COVID lockdowns in China. And you say that everywhere they were applying this digital dictatorship. This is my interpretation. All the nations did it. I was living in Kazakhstan, I fled through the US to Mexico. I observed the creation of the “algorithm ghetto” social credit system, the “electronic concentration camp” passports, QR codes, and mandatory injections. And in some places you couldn’t even buy food without it. It’s like the Book of Revelation. You can’t buy or sell without the mark.

Emanuel Pastreich: That’s true.

Geopolitics & Empire: I some places they say you can’t even go to the public park without vaccine certificates. I can see that it’s a global elite that has no allegiance to nationality. It’s the US elite, it’s the Chinese elite. And they use, as you said, these private tech IT companies that are already embedded within all of our countries. We’re basically being run by big tech. Could you tell us more about how you see COVID?

Emanuel Pastreich: Well, I think you’ve described it quite accurately there. I maybe just add a few words to say how it works. I think one of the key aspects of this takeover has to do with the concept of government. So we’re being fed this narrative by the controlled opposition that says government is bad, inherently bad, and all the bad things happen because of evil politicians or bad government. Now, obviously, government is bad these days, but if you say that government cannot possibly serve a purpose, meet the needs of the people, that this is a nihilistic and depressing perspective. I think that view is being force-fed to us by those power elites in order to discourage us from trying to organize ourselves and to create government. That is the first thing I would say.

The second part is the takeover of local government, and central governments, around the world by these IT companies. So, whether it’s in Sichuan province or it’s in Oklahoma, local governments are lobbied and then intimidated, bribed and threatened, in order to get these IT companies to run government for them. So whereas you previously had government officials, good and bad, who basically made the decisions based upon various pressures from around them in the community, now you have just one or two government officials, the president or the governor, or whatever. And their job is to outsource the budget to these IT companies who run everything for them. This happened to universities; it happened elsewhere.

This is a profound transformation. So essentially when you see a message that says, the government does this, or this is the government, or this QR code is scanned by the government, in fact, there’s no government behind it. It’s not government in any sense of the word. It’s a totalitarian dictatorship run by these global IT companies.

And they have some tricks to hide their tracks, but it’s not that hard to figure out. Basically Amazon, Google, Alibaba, there are 10 or so big players are taking over the world. And then there are smaller customized players. For example, as I mentioned, in Israel we have Black Cube and other customized private intelligence firms that facilitate the transformation. I think they were very much involved in what’s happened in China. I was criticized for this for not giving the evidence for this transformation in China, but just take my word for it.

I’d be happy to give you the evidence at some future date. But they also were very much involved in it.

And so we need to combine the evidence from these precedents. On the one hand, we have the research from DARPA and from RAND from the 1960s and 70s, how to modify people’s behavior and also how to take over basically the government through this privatization drive. Then we have the research from Guantanamo Bay and the so-called torture programs after 2001 in which experiments were carried out (Naomi Klein describes this in some detail) on how to modify behavior through isolation, i.e social distancing, masks, and other forms of repeated ritual behavior.

These rituals associated with COVID-19 are meant to be meaningless and fraudulent, and most importantly, the person involved at some level knows that the rituals (like wearing a mask) are fraudulent—but he still does them. And that action of participation in one’s own destruction degrades the ability to resist. So you can create very passive environments through those policies.

Those two strategies were combined with some understanding of AI and how it could be used to induce a passive, narcissistic, self-indulgent and decadent culture among people, especially in the mid-level ruling class. I discussed this in my article, “the terrarium economy.” We see in America this fake ruling class, people who went to Harvard and they become lawyers and doctors. They own three million, five million, $10 million in assets and a house by the beach or in France or in Italy.

They think they’re the ruling class, but it’s a fraud. The ruling class are these people who control basically the means of production and they control the nature of money. Those people are worth hundreds of billions. We don’t even know how much they’re worth because they make it up for themselves.

But for those people, the billionaires, the difference between a lawyer who has $10 million in assets and a homeless person is the difference between a roly poly and a spider. We are all bugs from their perspective. They know, based upon the reports they receive from their private intelligence and strategy teams, that by creating this false terrarium economy wherein there’s an imagined ruling class headed by someone like Biden, and it also contains a lot of poor people in it so as to create a visible little conflicts among us, that you can blind people to the fact that the whole system is all enclosed and controlled by this elite group.

And finally, much of the analysis that could be helpful for understanding economics is prohibited.

I hate to stress Marxist analysis because I’m not really a Marxist, but I’m also practical. Whatever approach works I will use—as I told Josh Jadwin the other day.

Marxist economics can be extremely helpful. I don’t think we should dismiss it just because we have some bias fed to us by the controlled opposition. We’re trapped in this system wherein the ideology is controlled by these people, as is the means of production, the means of distribution, the means of communication, and money itself is controlled by them.

And they’re dumbing us down. I think we have supercomputers doing this. They’ve calculated how fast or how slow to move towards the totalitarian system, how to create false conflicts like how Trump is excluded from Twitter, or whatever—all irrelevant. But it works because people’s thinking has been so degraded by technology. In fact, technology like Facebook or Twitter is designed to degrade your ability to think.

*

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

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Inside the COVID-19 Global Coup d’état”

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 EU has picked its partners in developing the bloc’s controversial Wallet – and one of them is the same company that previously worked to develop the UK’s official Covid Pass and tracing app.

The companies now awarded EU’s contact are Sweden’s Scytáles – and Luxembourg-based Netcompany-Intrasoft – that’s the one with significant involvement in the UK’s scheme.

The current plan is for EU’s Digital ID Wallet legislation to pass by mid next year, and then launch in 2024.

The purpose of the digital wallet is said to be setting up “universal” digital identities of people, including their electronic signatures, and making all that accessible across countries and sectors.

Naturally, no such plan is complete without those involved devising and implementing it promising data safety and transparency, but at the same time pitching digital wallets to the population mostly as on the personal convenience “merit,” and allegedly overall lower business costs.

Scytáles announced that the EU member-countries will have a chance to take up the product once it is finished, and it will also be accessible to “other stakeholders” who meet EU’s digital identity requirements framework.

Covid is cited by Scytáles execs as a game-changer in the field, which – whether or not the pandemic is still a thing – apparently makes it “imperative to digitize public services and companies as much as possible,” for reasons of “digital safety.”

Moving at its usual snail-mail pace, the EU is navigating its huge bureaucracy and complicated rules and has as of this writing managed to agree on a common position regarding EU digital identity framework. In order to speed up developing the Digital ID Wallet system – creating another, something called “EU toolbox” has to be developed as well.

Earlier in the year, Denmark’s Netcompany (minus Luxembourg’s Intrasoft) said that after playing a key role in UK’s NHS Covid Pass, is was likely to expand operations in that country, but is also reportedly seeing a lot of interest from other European states where it comes to digitizing education, tax administration, payment of benefits, and, of course, healthcare.

Once again, “convenience” is of key importance in the eyes of these companies, and those who promote them.

In this context Denmark is singled out as an example of “a country (that) has a strong digital identity offering for every citizen which makes stitching up services easier.”

*

The EU has picked its partners in developing the bloc’s controversial Wallet – and one of them is the same company that previously worked to develop the UK’s official Covid Pass and tracing app.

The companies now awarded EU’s contact are Sweden’s Scytáles – and Luxembourg-based Netcompany-Intrasoft – that’s the one with significant involvement in the UK’s scheme.

The current plan is for EU’s Digital ID Wallet legislation to pass by mid next year, and then launch in 2024.

The purpose of the digital wallet is said to be setting up “universal” digital identities of people, including their electronic signatures, and making all that accessible across countries and sectors.

Naturally, no such plan is complete without those involved devising and implementing it promising data safety and transparency, but at the same time pitching digital wallets to the population mostly as on the personal convenience “merit,” and allegedly overall lower business costs.

Scytáles announced that the EU member-countries will have a chance to take up the product once it is finished, and it will also be accessible to “other stakeholders” who meet EU’s digital identity requirements framework.

Covid is cited by Scytáles execs as a game-changer in the field, which – whether or not the pandemic is still a thing – apparently makes it “imperative to digitize public services and companies as much as possible,” for reasons of “digital safety.”

Moving at its usual snail-mail pace, the EU is navigating its huge bureaucracy and complicated rules and has as of this writing managed to agree on a common position regarding EU digital identity framework. In order to speed up developing the Digital ID Wallet system – creating another, something called “EU toolbox” has to be developed as well.

Earlier in the year, Denmark’s Netcompany (minus Luxembourg’s Intrasoft) said that after playing a key role in UK’s NHS Covid Pass, is was likely to expand operations in that country, but is also reportedly seeing a lot of interest from other European states where it comes to digitizing education, tax administration, payment of benefits, and, of course, healthcare.

Once again, “convenience” is of key importance in the eyes of these companies, and those who promote them.

In this context Denmark is singled out as an example of “a country (that) has a strong digital identity offering for every citizen which makes stitching up services easier.”

*

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

How WikiLeaks Revolutionised the World of Journalism

December 12th, 2022 by Eresh Omar Jamal

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.

***

Stefania Maurizi is an investigative journalist working for the Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano. She has worked on all WikiLeaks releases of secret documents and partnered with Glenn Greenwald to reveal the Snowden Files about Italy.

In an interview with Eresh Omar Jamal of  The Daily Star, she talks about her latest book, Secret Power: WikiLeaks and Its Enemies, and how WikiLeaks revolutionised the world of journalism.

*

Eresh Omar Jamal: What is this “secret power” that you are referring to in the title of your book, and why does it consider WikiLeaks its enemy?

Stefania Maurizi: I chose that title so that people around the world could understand who the real enemy of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is, who it is that wants him, the WikiLeaks journalists, and the WikiLeaks revolution dead. That is what I refer to as “secret power,” which is not a conspiratorial entity: it is the highest level of power, where intelligence services, armies, and diplomats operate. Long before WikiLeaks was created, President Eisenhower warned the US against this power: the military-industrial complex, which has at its heart agencies like the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA. Eisenhower was not a pacifist: he was a great military leader, one of the principal architects of the victory over the Nazis in Europe, and yet he warned his country against this leviathan.

The power and influence exerted by these institutions are felt at every corner of the globe; they plan wars, coup d’états, assassinations. They sway governments and elections.

I call it “secret power” because this power is shielded by thick layers of secrecy, and ordinary citizens don’t even perceive it as relevant to their lives. They tend to think: I am a humble teacher in Bangladesh or a caregiver in New York or a waitress in London, how can secret services influence my life as an ordinary citizen? And yet, that secret power does influence their lives. It decides, for example, if a war will be unleashed in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people and creating millions of refugees desperately trying to leave their countries and seek refuge in other nations. So, it is clear that this secret power influences the lives of all of us, but the ordinary citizen has no control over this power, because he/she has no access to the restricted information on how it operates.

But for the first time in history, WikiLeaks has ripped a gaping hole in this secret power, giving billions of people systematic and unrestricted access to enormous archives of classified documents revealing how our governments behave when, completely shielded from public and media scrutiny, they prepare wars or commit atrocities.

This is the revolution unleashed by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and this is the reason this secret power wants him dead. It wants him and WikiLeaks dead for exposing its dirty secrets, and those secrets have nothing to do with protecting the security of citizens, but rather with shielding state criminality at the highest level, so that the state criminals are protected and enjoy “complete impunity.”

EOJ: You mentioned how WikiLeaks had discovered methods to bypass some of the weaknesses of the traditional media in the digital age. Can you elaborate on that? Did it inspire any of the big traditional media houses to adopt any new strategies?

SM: Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks journalists have pioneered the use of cryptography and the power of the internet to bypass censorship and reveal exceptionally important information in the public’s interest. Their use of cryptography to protect whistleblowers and journalistic sources has encouraged many to step out of the darkness of state secrecy and expose war crimes, like the ones we saw in the “Collateral Murder” video, to expose torture, extrajudicial killings, etc.

You have to realise that, back in 2006, when WikiLeaks was created, no media organisation was systematically using cryptography to protect sources, not even the most advanced and powerful newsrooms like The New York Times and The Guardian. That was precisely what attracted my interest in 2008, when I first looked at the work that was being done by WikiLeaks, which at that time was a little-known organisation, and had not yet revealed its bombshell scoops like the “Collateral Murder” video.

I graduated in maths before going into journalism, and to me their use of cryptography was tremendously important, because they not only provided a shield to those blowing the whistle in public interest, they also attracted sources with unique talents and professional experiences, potentially sources with access to important information. After all, back then, who could really appreciate a tool as complex and unusual as encryption? Those who had studied it, or who worked in the field of computer science or intelligence. The technologically advanced structure of WikiLeaks appealed to an entire community familiar with the language of science and technology. After WikiLeaks pioneered the use of cryptography to protect whistleblowers and sources, all major news organisations started adopting it. But it took years before they did, and that too only after being inspired by WikiLeaks.

EOJ: Without addressing these loopholes, can traditional media presently serve the public interest, or can it even survive while doing what journalists are meant to be doing, that is, revealing secrets hidden away by powerful interests?

SM: We live in the age of mass surveillance, and it has become so pervasive that protecting journalistic sources who have access to extremely sensitive information has become almost “mission impossible.”

Even Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor who had worked for the CIA (and hence had special training), decided he had to leave his country to meet with Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and Ewen McAskill in Hong Kong, to give them access to the top-secret NSA documents. Of course, he was uniquely aware that if he had met with these journalists in the US, he would very likely have been discovered and arrested before he was even done talking to them. That tells you a lot. If even a CIA-trained journalistic source cannot escape his state when he has access to its dirty secrets, how can an ordinary source do so? This fact has immense consequences.

Unless we can protect our sources, no one will talk to us, because investigative journalism develops through confidential sources who talk to us.

EOJ: Having worked on many US diplomatic cables and written about them in your book, what do you make of the real “international order,” especially in comparison to what people around the world generally understand of it?

SM: I worked on the US diplomatic cables for an entire year, reporting on them for my newspaper and for my book. Even though those documents were published 12 years ago, I have never stopped regularly consulting them, because they still inform the public on the major crises the world is experiencing today, such as the Ukrainian war.

How did we end up in such a war and in this energy crisis? If you read the 251,287 cables, you gain a tremendous understanding of what was happening behind-the-scenes, and unfortunately you realise how servile US allies have been towards the US military-industrial complex, even in situations where being servile was not in their national interest and was definitely not in the interest of human rights and justice. The cables are not kind to US enemies either. They present a very bleak portrait of Russia, of course from the viewpoint of US diplomacy. And while the portrait of Russia that emerges from the cables is a grim one, that of the US is not particularly uplifting either, not only because of the wars and torture and human rights violations that it committed during the “war on terror,” but also because the cables expose the brutal face of US capitalism, backed by the most powerful diplomacy in the world: US diplomacy.

EOJ: Referring to you and your book, Daniel Ellsberg, who is famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, wrote, “No one conveys better the urgency of averting the extradition and prosecution of Assange, which would demolish First Amendment protection of freedom of the press in America.” But apart from that, what effects, if any, can it have on journalism around the world?

SM: I wrote my book to make people around the world understand why extraditing Julian Assange to the US and entombing him in a maximum-security prison is not only a monstrous injustice, as the great British film director Ken Loach writes in the foreword to my book, but is also a point of no return for democracy.

In a democracy, it must be possible for a journalist to reveal war crimes, torture, extrajudicial killings by drones and still sleep peacefully in his bed, rather than sleeping in Britain’s harshest prison, Belmarsh. This is precisely the difference between a democracy and an authoritarian state. In dictatorships and authoritarian societies, journalists cannot reveal such facts without being killed or incarcerated.

So, the destiny of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks journalists is the destiny of our democracies. What path are we embarking on? Are we defending the public’s freedom to know about state criminality at the highest level, or are we willing to lose this freedom and go authoritarian? Are we defending a society in which war criminals are accountable to the law and will go to jail for their atrocities, or a society in which war criminals and torturers are safe and free, and the journalists and people who have the conscience and courage to expose them rot in a high-security prison?

*

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

Video: On Destroying Our Health System and Big Pharma Capture

December 12th, 2022 by Dr. Emanuel Garcia

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.

***

We speak to New Zealand based American, Dr Emmanuel Garcia, about how and why his medical licence was revoked for opposing the Covid mandates.

We then speak to filmmaker, health campaigner and British General Practitioner Dr Bob Gill who opposes the Big Pharma corporatisation of the British National Health System (NHS).

*

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: Young indian doctor woman against a wall covering mouth, symbol of silence and repression, trying not to say anything (Source: Alliance for Natural Health)


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths

December 12th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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 his new book, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” former BlackRock fund manager Edward Dowd details data showing the COVID shots are a crime against humanity

Insurance industry research in 2016 concluded that group life policyholders die at one-third the rate of the general U.S. population, so they’re the healthiest among us. Group life policyholders are those employed with Fortune 500 companies, who tend to be younger and well-educated

In 2020, the general U.S. population had higher excess mortality than group life holders, but in 2021, that flipped. Ages 25 through 64 of the group life policyholders suddenly experienced 40% excess mortality, compared to 32% in the general population. In short, a far healthier subset of the population suddenly died at a higher rate than the general population

American disability statistics are equally revealing. In the five years before COVID, the monthly disability rate was between 29 million and 30 million. After the COVID jabs, the disability trend changed dramatically. As of September 2022, there were 33.2 million disabled Americans — an extra 3.2 million to 4.2 million — a three standard deviation rate of change since May 2021

Since May 2021, the overall U.S. population has experienced an 11% increase in disabilities, while the employed — which is about 98 million out of a total population of about 320 million — experienced 26% increased rate of disability. So, something was introduced into the workforce that caused working age people to die

*

In this video, I interview repeat guest Edward (Ed) Dowd, a former analyst and fund manager with BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world. With more than $10 trillion in assets, BlackRock wields greater financial power than any country in the world with the exception of the U.S. and China.

Dowd has a knack for seeing trends, and was able to grow the assets he managed during his time at BlackRock from $2 billion to $14 billion. Ten years ago, he left BlackRock, moved to Maui and became an entrepreneur. More recently, he’s come out as a whistleblower against the COVID shots and Big Pharma corruption.

In our last interview, we discussed the mathematical certainty of a financial collapse, and how COVID provided a convenient smoke screen to hide this reality.

Data Reveals Crimes Against Humanity

Dowd has now published a book, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” in which he details the data showing the shots are a crime against humanity.

“When this product [the COVID shots] came to market, I was very suspicious because I know a lot about health care,” Dowd says. “I was on Wall Street and I used to analyze health care stocks. I knew that normal vaccines took seven to 10 years to prove effectiveness and safety.

This was an experimental vaccine, a nontraditional gene therapy that had never been tested on humans. I read the literature on the animal tests and they were an abomination. Then, this thing was approved in 28 days. They got rid of the control group. I knew it was Operation Warp Speed, so I was highly suspicious of this whole thing from the get-go.

Then in early 2021, I started hearing anecdotes that people were getting sick and/or injured, or died, from distant friends and relatives. I started reading about sudden athlete deaths, [and] suspected the vaccine right away. I didn’t have the data that I have now, but I said to myself, ‘You know, I’m going to look at insurance company results, funeral home results.’

That eventually led to excess mortality statistics … I’m known as ‘the excess mortality guy’ right now. What I’ve learned through my own personal experience is that Pharma is, on the whole, mostly fraudulent. Most drugs that have been approved by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] aren’t really all that safe and effective.

They have to recall so many drugs every year. The FDA has been wholly captured by the pharma industry. Seventy to 75% of the drug approval pharma arm of the FDA comes from pharma fees, directly from the companies, so this has been corrupted for a long time.

It’s now exposed primarily because [the COVID shot] is [injuring and killing] such a large amount of people. It’s hard to hide this one … This fraud is unveiled and out there for people to see, but it’s only in the echo chamber. Mainstream media is still beholden to Big Pharma because of all the ad spend and the government policymakers … [who] want this to go away.

There’s a giant cover-up going on as far as I’m concerned. The data that I’m going to talk about today is there for the global health authorities to see. They see what I see, and at this point it’s negligence, malfeasance, a cover-up and a crime.

That’s why I’m here, because I don’t believe anybody has a right to tell me what to do with my body, and I can’t believe this actually happened. The numbers I’m going to reveal to you are now a national security concern.”

Group Life Insurance Statistics Tell a Curious Story

Dowd’s concerns are based on a variety of statistics, including but not limited to government mortality and disability data, as well as data from private insurance companies, such as group life insurance data. As explained by Dowd, group life policies are policies given to large Fortune 500 corporations and mid-sized companies.

Basically, when you start to work at one of these companies, you sign onto a policy from Day 1 that includes a health care plan and life insurance plan (death benefit), which is typically one or two times your annual salary. The only way you can get a claim on these policies is if you die while employed. If you quit or get fired, you don’t get this claim.

Group life insurance is a lucrative business for insurance companies because the death rates have historically been highly predictable. In the U.S., the available civilian labor force is about 164 million people in total. Of those, 98 million are actually employed, and of those 98 million, only small subset actually has group life insurance.

“These people are a tiny subset of the 98 million because these are the workers at the best corporations with access to the best health care. They’re highly educated and employed, and you have to have some measure of health to be employed.

The industry did research in 2016 to determine how healthy this population is compared to the general U.S. population … This report said that in any given year, the group life policyholders die at one-third the rate of the general U.S. population. They experience a third the mortality rate of the general U.S. population, so they’re healthy.

What happened in 2021 to this group? Well, let’s talk about what happened in 2020. COVID affected everybody, and the general U.S. population experienced more excess mortality from COVID pre-vaccine than the group life holders, so that relationship helped. Well, in 2021 that flipped. Ages 25 through 64 of the group life policyholders, as reported by the Society of Actuaries, experienced 40% excess mortality.

The general U.S. population in 2021 experienced 32% excess mortality. This is year two of the pandemic with miracle vaccines. Isn’t that interesting? A much healthier subset of the population died at a higher rate than the general population.”

Disability Stats Reveal Jabs Are a National Security Concern

American disability statistics are equally revealing. Every month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts surveys on disability. In the five years before COVID, the monthly disability rate was between 29 million and 30 million. Those are absolute numbers.

After the COVID jabs, starting in May 2021, the disability trend changed dramatically. As of September 2022, there were 33.2 million disabled Americans. That’s an extra 3.2 million or 4.2 million, depending on whether you’re using the 29 million or 30 million baseline. That’s a three standard deviation rate of change since May 2021.

A three standard deviation means that the chance of this happening is 0.03%, so something happened around May 2021 that was highly unusual. Since then, the overall U.S. population has experienced an 11% rate of increase in disabilities, while the employed — which is about 98 million out of a total population of about 320 million — experienced 26% increased rate of disability.

“So, we have two different databases suggesting the same thing,” Dowd says. “It was detrimental to your health to be employed in 2021 and 2022 … Something is happening to the most able-bodied amongst us, college students, those employed, those in the military, the frontline workers …

Those who are employed are getting disabled faster than the general U.S. population. That shouldn’t happen. The employed amongst us are healthier, generally speaking … If you have a job, you tend to be able to show up at work. Basically, the bottom line is this. The only explanation for this that I can see is mandates for experimental biological inoculations …

One of my whistleblowers from the insurance [industry] told me that as of August 2022, the millennial cohort of the group life holders is still experiencing 36% excess mortality.

People in Fortune 500 companies are dying at a much more excessive rate than those who are not employed there, so this has implications for years to come. It’s a national security concern as far as I can tell … We seem to have poisoned the most able-bodied amongst us through [COVID jab] mandates.”

The same trends are seen in Europe. Excess mortality amongst the young has gone up. In the first year of the pandemic, old people died. In the second year, it suddenly shifted to younger working folks.

A Disaster in the Making

For now, the excess mortality trend in the U.S. has leveled out between 15% to 20% for the general population. In the U.K. and Europe, the excess mortality trend in the general population is between 10% and 20%. Meanwhile, American millennials in the workforce with group life policies have an excess death rate of 36% as of August 2022.

As noted by Dowd, if you’re employed at a Fortune 500 company that mandate boosters, it makes sense that your excess mortality will be higher than the general population if the shots are harming people.

Many in the general population are too young to take the shots, are self-employed, work for small companies that aren’t obliged to mandate shots, or are retired. In short, the general population has had greater choice when it comes to taking the shots or not. If these trends continue at this same rate, it’s an absolute disaster for our economy and society at large.

“The CEO of OneAmerica, Scott Davison, said a 10% rise in excess mortality amongst younger-age working people is a three standard deviation event, or a once in a 200-year flood. That’s just 10%. He said the 40% they saw in 2021 was just unfathomable. They couldn’t even calculate what that meant.

We’re above 10%, so we’re well above the three standard deviation event. What we don’t know is the long-term trends. Anecdotally, one young woman I know, [aged] 30, got it in December 2021.

She’s presenting with heart issues now, in the month of October [2022]. She’s got a heart rate beat per minute of 30, so she’s got problems. I’m hearing about lots and lots of heart issues in my millennial friends’ circles that have presented themselves well after the shot.”

As detailed in “Is Long-COVID the Elephant in the Room?” recent research1 from Switzerland found the rate of subclinical myocarditis is hundreds of times more common than clinical myocarditis. In fact, 100% of those who got the jab suffered some level of heart injury, even if they were asymptomatic, as they all had elevated troponin levels (an indicator of or biomarker for heart damage).

Stock Trading as an Analogy for COVID Jab Uptake

The good news is that the uptake of the latest bivalent boosters is only 10%, which means 90% of those eligible for it have not gotten it. Hopefully, this is a sign of sanity returning. However, many remain stuck in the pro-mandate box for the simple reason that their egos are wrapped up in it.

Many didn’t take and push the shots for personal health reasons. As noted by Dowd, “They did it for virtue signaling tribal reasons, and they wanted to feel superior to other people.” To break the spell, they must come to the realization that they were duped, they were fooled, and that’s painful.

“If you buy a stock and your investment thesis is proven wrong, what you should do is pull a 180 and sell the stock, because you’re wrong. What I found, even with some of the greatest investors, is that if their ego was attached to it, they would ignore clear evidence that the thesis was compromised. Sometimes fraud would even be involved in some of these companies, but they would continue to buy the stock all the way down.

That’s an analogy for what taking boosters is at this point — taking boosters for a product that doesn’t work at all, doesn’t prevent COVID nor transmission. Let’s say you think it’s safe and effective. But now there are serious safety concerns that are proven, so it’s literally your ego that’s going to kill you. We call that ‘dumb money’ on Wall Street, so think of this like a trade.

You either long [i.e., take a long position on] the vaccine or short the vaccine. Those of us who didn’t take it are short. Those who are long have an opportunity to pull a 180 on this and not get boosters. That would be the equivalent of selling stock.

Those who continue to get boosters are getting longer as more and more evidence [against the COVID shots] rolls out. [Editor’s note: In stock trading, a long position is held with the expectation that the stock will rise in value in the future. If the value goes down, you lose money.]

This is the greatest asymmetric information gap I’ve ever seen in my lifetime, and it’s due to a whole host of factors — media blackouts, government corruption, regulator corruption and ego, people’s individual ego. This is the greatest trade of my lifetime and, what side of the trade do you want to be on?

My hope is to convince people to cut their losses and stop taking this thing and then look at ways to heal the damage that’s been done. The good news is there does seem to be people working on protocols to at least mitigate and hopefully reverse some of the damage.”

Impacts on US Infrastructure

If excess mortality and disability rates remain catastrophically elevated, the impacts on our infrastructure will be severe. Dowd estimates 2 million to 3 million Americans have already been disabled by the shots. Officially, the unemployment rate is 3%, but if you add in the excess disabilities, you find that the real unemployment rate is actually around 6%.

“Why is that important? We have 3% unemployment yet we have help wanted signs everywhere. Well, the reason you have help wanted signs is because people who used to be able to work, able-boded Americans, are no longer able to work, so it’s creating shortages.

There’s also not complete disability. Some people are sucking it up and dragging their ass to work, but they’re also missing days. A lot of people are calling in and missing days … I can also talk about what I’m seeing with supply chain with automobiles. My car was hit July 14th [2022]. My left headlight panel was destroyed and the radiator was damaged.

It took 10 days to get a police report because my police department has staff shortages. Then, I called around and there are shortages of parts all across the globe and the body shops are backed up. I couldn’t even get a tow to a body shop until November, so I couldn’t get an estimate to give to my insurance company. I had to do a photo estimate.

It took them about a month to get back to me, and then when I put in [a claim for] the repairs, my insurance company said, ‘We’re going to junk your car. It’s a total loss. We’ll cut you a check.’ Now, the reason they did that was because they’re making money off my junk car.

They’re going to sell the parts, [which is why] they gave me more money than the Blue Book value … This is kind of the glacial beginning, what I call the ‘glacial Mad Max’ scenario.

Goods and services that we used to take for granted are going to start to disappear. Uber Eats, that’s going to go the way of the dodo bird. There’s just not going to be enough people to fill these jobs and it’s going to become increasingly more difficult to get things. Supply chains are already broken. They’re going to become more broken with less people on the margin.

Remember, supply chains are all done just-in-time. That was a big thing when I was on Wall Street. ‘Just-in-time supply chain, super-efficient.’ Well, just-in-time was algorithmically designed to use the least amount of people. Now, you just need a couple of people to call in sick or disappear, and everything gets backed up. So, this is beginning.

I think it’s going to get worse and worse. What I’m hearing about the medium-term impacts scare me. Because of the uptake in boosters has lessened, we should have seen excess mortality start to drop into single digits. But it’s not.

It’s still running [high], and I suspect when the numbers are in from the flu season this winter, excess mortality will trend up again because people’s immune systems are compromised. Illnesses that would have been easy to withstand are going to knock some people out.”

Life Expectancy Has Plummeted

At the end of August 2022, we also discovered that life expectancy in the U.S. dropped precipitously during 2020 and 2021,2 which further supports the hypothesis that the shots are prematurely killing people.

As I was preparing for my interview with Ed, I realized I wanted to discuss the worst decrease in life expectancy in the U.S. in over 100 years with him, as he had not discussed it in his book. I used a few of the non-Google search engines and could not find it at all. Then I realized I saved a copy of the story in one of my PowerPoint lectures (see below):

US life expectancy has plummeted

If I had not saved this screenshot and not had the precise headline to search for I would likely have never found the article.

In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was nearly 79 years. By the end of 2021, life expectancy had dropped to 76 — a loss of nearly three years. Typically, a drop in life expectancy by a mere month or two is a big deal, so a three-year loss is a sign that something catastrophic has occurred.

It’s also rather incriminating that The New York Times article3 that reported this historical decline in life expectancy was quickly deleted, as were all reposts. To me, the decrease in life expectancy is prima facie evidence that the COVID shots are a dangerous fraud. Probably, the article was scrubbed to protect the pro-jab narrative.

This is a classic illustration of what the global cabal is doing, and I discussed it in great depth with an upcoming interview with Whitney Webb. It is clear this censorship and removal of important information will only worsen with time. So if you value a video or article it would be really helpful to download it to your personal drives as it very well may be gone the next time you go to look for it.

More Information

To learn more, be sure to pick up a copy of Dowd’s book, “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022.” To stay abreast on Dowd’s ongoing work, you can also follow him on GETTR.

“I’m not a scientist. I’m not a doctor. I’m a financial capital markets expert,” Dowd notes. “What do we do in financial capital markets? We accumulate information edges over other people to make decisions on asset classes, to make money before everybody else sees the trend change. That’s how you make money.

I live in the world between perception, reality and timing of that switch from perception to reality. Right now, the perception by 90% of the population seems to be that the COVID shot is a safe and effective and I’m crazy. Well, my data suggests that I’m not crazy. Not only am I not crazy, you’re so wrong it’s going to be detrimental to your health.

The book is a journey through how I think. I present the theory of the case. It’s simple deductive reasoning. You don’t have to believe me, but you have to ask this question: ‘If 2020 was so exciting to the media and the health officials that counted all the deaths with such glee, why are they not talking about the excessive death rates we’re now seeing globally, especially amongst the younger age working folks and the employed folks?’

There seems to be crickets on that, so you have to ask yourself, ‘If that’s not a national security concern and a national health crisis, then what is?’ Why the silence? Well, prima facie evidence of a cover-up is my thesis … Look at my book as a stock thesis. It’s my investment case on why I would pitch a stock to you … I’m just pitching you a trade.

Get out of the vaccine. Stop taking them. You’re on the wrong side of the trade, and if you don’t listen to me, instead of losing money, you’re probably going to lose your health and/or life.”

A Red Pill for Christmas

A great feature of “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022” is that it’s not going to overwhelm you with complex statistical analysis. It’s a simple read with lots of pictures and graphs. It also includes QR codes to references so you can rapidly confirm them.

“Everything I sourced,” Dowd says. “It’s a powerful book. It’s a book that I hope changes the marginal mind … I think it makes a great Christmas gift for the family member who doesn’t see the reality we see and, again, it’s coming from a Wall Street guy, laid out as an investment thesis. You can disagree, but all the stuff that I put in the book is sourced and the data is the data …

What we don’t do in the book is we don’t get into the who and why. We don’t want to assault someone’s worldview, but the data’s so compelling, we do say at the end of the book … ‘There’s a cover-up going on and malfeasance.’

Jessica Rose, Ph.D., said in an interview with me, and I put her quote in the book, ‘Some things are worse than death.’ The most acute adverse reaction is death. But there are other ones that can make your life pretty miserable for a long, long time, and also make other people’s lives miserable that have to take care of you.

When you think about labor statistics, if there’s someone in the house that’s disabled severely, the person who’s not disabled loses work hours and work weeks taking care of that person, taking them to hospital visits, what have you.

Also, think about the hospital infrastructure that’s going to be overwhelmed, especially with the health care workers who were mandated to take all these jabs. We’re going to have a health care crisis, whether you know it or not.

It’s coming, and you’re not going to have access to health care … That’s why I think people need to look at holistic health themselves and get as healthy as possible right now … Do what you can outside the medical system because soon it’s not going to be there for you.”

*

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

Notes

1 Daily Skeptic October 27, 2022

2, 3 New York Times August 31, 2022 (Archived)

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Israeli military on Sunday dropped threatening leaflets in southern Syria hours after launching missile strikes in the area.

The Israeli missile strikes took place late Saturday, and reports said the strike hit a Syrian military radar system in an area of southern Syria known as Tel al-Qalib, although the incident has not been confirmed by Syrian state media, which usually reports on Israeli operations.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) appeared to take credit for the missile strikes in the leaflets that were dropped. “Time after time, you have been responsible for the harm caused by your decisions,” the flyer reads, according to The Times of Israel.

The leaflet adds that the

“continuing presence of Hezbollah in the area of Tel al-Qalib and collaboration with it has brought and will bring you nothing good. The presence of Hezbollah in the area has brought you humiliation and you are paying the price for that.”

Israel frequently bombs Syria, but the IDF rarely acknowledges individual strikes. The Israelis frame their operations in Syria as attacks against Iran and Hezbollah, but they frequently kill Syrian soldiers and target civilian infrastructure, including airports in Damascus and Aleppo.

Asharq Al-Awsat, an Arabic newspaper based in London, reported on Saturday, citing unnamed Israeli political sources, that Israel has threatened Lebanon that it could bomb Beirut’s international airport. The threat was made based on allegations made in Saudi media that Iran has used civilian flights into the airport to transfer weapons to Hezbollah.

*

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 South Front

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Strikes Southern Syria, Drops Threatening Leaflets
  • Tags: ,

All Korean Tanks to be Deployed in North-eastern Poland Says MoD

December 12th, 2022 by Polish Press Agency

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 180 K2 tanks that Poland has purchased from South Korea will be deployed in north-eastern Poland, close to the border with the Russian Kaliningrad enclave, the defence minister has said.

On Tuesday, Poland received the first consignment of ten K2 tanks and 24 K9 self-propelled howitzers.

Mariusz Blaszczak told a local radio station on Saturday that ultimately all the tanks would be shipped to military units in Morag, Braniewo and Ostroda.

“It is the target location for those tanks,” the defence minister said, adding that the K2s were designed to operate in muddy, wet and hilly terrain, which is prevalent in the Polish north-eastern region of Warmia-Mazury.

“It is our priority to strengthen the eastern part of our country,” he said.

In total, Poland plans to purchase up to 1,000 K2 tanks and 672 K9 howitzers from South Korea. Additionally, the country will also buy close to K239 Chunmoo multiple rocket launchers and 48 FA-50 light combat jets.

Warsaw has stepped up its defence purchases after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24. (PAP)

*

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 Fot. PAP/Tomasz Waszczuk

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on All Korean Tanks to be Deployed in North-eastern Poland Says MoD

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.

***

With no serious public debate or discussion, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday to spend nearly a trillion dollars on the military over the next year, funding the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia and plans for military conflict with China.

The vast majority of both Democrats and Republicans in the House voted to spend another $858 billion on the US military, a figure $45 billion higher than President Joe Biden had requested and 8 percent higher than last year’s budget.

The principal target of the bill is China, with congressional lawmakers publicly discussing preparations for war with the world’s most populous country in barely-veiled terms.

“This year’s NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] takes concrete steps towards preparing for a future conflict with China by investing in American hard power, strengthening American posture in the Indo-Pacific, and supporting our allies,” Wisconsin Republican Representative Mike Gallagher said.

In a press statement, Gallagher praised the fact that the bill “Provides similar drawdown authority to arm Taiwan as we have Ukraine.”

Despite the war in Ukraine being used as the justification for the massive surge in military spending, the central focus of the bill is US preparations for military conflict with China.

For the first time in US history, the United States is directly arming Taiwan, providing $10 billion in arms over 10 years.  The direct arming of Taiwan strikes yet another major blow at the one-China policy.

Taiwan is by far the most referenced geographic area in the bill, with 438 mentions, more than Russia, with 237, and Ukraine, with 159.

The bill ends the requirement that the Pentagon provide competitive contracts for military procurement, opening the door to massive price-gouging by military contractors Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, which are already posting record profits fueled by the bloody, US-provoked war in Ukraine.

“Whether you want to call it wartime contracting or emergency contracting, we can’t play around anymore,” a senior congressional aide told Defense News earlier this year.

This “wartime contracting” means that arms dealers will be free to charge taxpayers effectively whatever they want, with no serious oversight or regulation.

Even as Congress slashes funding for vital measures to save lives in the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccines and testing, it is recklessly throwing money at the Pentagon. Every department of every service will get more money, without exception. The US Navy will get $32 billion for new warships, including three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and two Virginia-class submarines.

And the Pentagon is authorized to purchase a further 36 F-35 aircraft, each costing approximately $ 89 million, or enough to build six school buildings.

The bill continues the transformation of the US military from a force aimed primarily at subjugating and terrorizing former colonies such as Iraq and Afghanistan into one prepared to fight wars with “peer competitors” such as Russia and China.

Commenting on the planned retirement of the A-10 warthog attack aircraft, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown said in April: “The A-10 is a great platform for a [permissive] environment, but I don’t see very many [permissive] environments that we’re going to roll into in the future.”

The US media has largely ignored the House passage of the largest military budget in US history, treating it as a routine event. But what coverage does exist of US military spending has been devoted to demands for its expansion.

The bill includes a major concession to fascistic forces that make up a substantial section of the US military, repealing the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for military personnel 30 days after the bill’s passage.

Ahead of the House’s passage of the NDAA, the US military announced a “dramatic” increase in weapons production, vowing to triple annual production of 155mm artillery shells.

“We want to be able to build our stocks not just where we started the war, but higher. We’re posturing for a pretty ― over a period of three years ― a dramatic increase in conventional artillery ammunition production,” Doug Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, technology and logistics, said last week.

The passage of this bill is aimed at putting into practice a series of military strategy documents released earlier this year, which proclaimed the 2020s the “decisive decade” in the US struggle for world domination.

In June, the US-led NATO alliance pledged to prepare for “high-intensity, multi-domain warfighting against nuclear-armed peer-competitors” such as Russia and China.

US soldiers fire an M777 howitzer while deployed in Syria at Mission Support Site Conoco on December, 4, 2022. [Photo: US Department of Defense/ Army Sgt. Julio Hernandez]

In October, the US national security strategy pledged to “win the competition for the 21st century.”

Declaring that “Our strategy is rooted in our national interests,” the document pledges to “Modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition.”

Critically, the document declares that war abroad is a means of achieving domestic goals, stating, “[T]he United States has a tradition of transforming… foreign challenges into opportunities to spur… rejuvenation at home.”

The entire US political establishment is united behind plans for escalating its conflict with Russia and China, to be paid for through a deepening offensive against the social rights of the US population.

There is mounting opposition in the working class and youth to this policy of war and austerity.

To mobilize this opposition, this Saturday, December 10, the International Youth and Students for Social Equality is holding an online meeting, “For a mass movement of youth and students to stop the war in Ukraine!”  All readers of the World Socialist Web Site should make plans to attend this critical rally.

*

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: Soldiers assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division conduct convoy operations in Grafenwoehr, Germany, December 2, 2022. [Photo: US Department of Defense/Army Staff Sgt. Malcolm Cohens-Ashley ]

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 10, 2004, the body of journalist Gary Webb, 49, was discovered in his home near Sacramento after a moving company worker found a note posted to his front door that read: “Please do not enter. Call 911 and ask for an ambulance.”

Webb’s death was listed as a suicide, but Webb was found with two bullet holes in the head, indicating that he was executed.[1]

In the days leading up to his death, Webb had told friends that he was receiving death threats, being regularly followed by what he thought were government agents, and that he was concerned about strange individuals who were seen breaking into and leaving his house.

In the late 1990s, Webb had written a series of stories for the San José Mercury News, which provided the basis for his book, Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1998).

In it, Webb detailed how the explosion of crack cocaine in South Central Los Angeles during the 1980s was sparked by two Nicaraguan émigrés, Danilo Blandón and Norwin Meneses, who sold huge amounts of cocaine to raise funds for a CIA-backed rebel army—the Contras.

Webb was a Pulitzer Prize winner whose “Dark Alliance” series went viral in the early days of the internet. It caused a firestorm that led to the resignation of CIA Director John Deutch after he was grilled by angry Black activists at a meeting in L.A.[2]

Webb’s story had traced how cocaine was shipped into San Francisco and distributed in L.A. after Blandón and Meneses sold it to a street dealer from South Central named “Freeway” Ricky Ross.

Through this connection, “Freeway Rick” became a crack kingpin, using his contacts with L.A.’s Crips and Blood street gangs to help distribute crack to many other cities across the country.

Webb had first heard about the story after receiving a tip from the girlfriend of a drug dealer against whom Blandón was testifying.

In his lead paragraph, Webb wrote that “a Bay Area drug ring had funneled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency” which was in league with “Uzi-toting ‘gangstas’ of Compton and South-Central L.A.”

The thrust of Webb’s research was confirmed in 1998 when a CIA inspector general’s report acknowledged that the CIA had worked with suspected drugrunners while supporting the Contras in Nicaragua.[3]

The corruption Webb exposed led all the way to the White House and President Reagan via his aide, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, who was coordinating, under Reagan’s orders, the illegal supplying to the Contras of weapons that were purchased with profits from the cocaine being smuggled into the U.S. and distributed around the country by criminals in league with the CIA.

Because of the far-reaching implications, Webb became the target of what Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair called “one of the most venomous and factually inane assaults on a professional journalist’s competence in living memory.”

The assault was spearheaded by the CIA in collaboration with the major agenda-setting media like The New York Times, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times—which put some 17 reporters on the assignment to destroy Webb.[4]

The Mercury News’s top editor, Jerry Ceppos, ultimately buckled, and threw Webb to the wolves, deleting the website and penning a letter of apology to the readers for the “Dark Alliance” series.[5]

Webb was in turn banished to a small Mercury News bureau in Cupertino, California, south of San Francisco—125 miles from his home and family in Sacramento—and forced to write stories normally assigned to cub reporters. His career was effectively destroyed and he would never again get a job with a daily newspaper.

Webb stood by his research, nevertheless, and continued to expose corruption as a freelance journalist. His final publication unearthed the strategic use of video games by the Pentagon as a method of indoctrination and recruitment of teenage boys.

In a tribute to Webb, Robert Parry, the founder of Consortium News, wrote that Webb’s death marked “an exclamation point” on a “sorry era of journalism that began with the rise of Ronald Reagan and saw the gradual retreat—under right-wing fire—of what had once been Washington’s Watergate/Pentagon Papers watchdog press corps.”

Since these words were written, things have only gotten worse, with the media helping to advance the Russia Gate conspiracy theory while promoting scurrilous allegations against Russia that have helped mobilize public support for the war in Ukraine.

All the more reason to honor Webb and the uncompromising journalistic integrity that he stood for.

*

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].

Notes

  1. Webb’s friends said that there is no way he would have taken his own life: He loved life and loved his kids. His cause of death was changed to “single gunshot wound” when people began to question how or why a man would shoot himself in the face twice. This represented a concentrated effort to cover up the nature of Webb’s death. After Webb died, he was immediately cremated thereby destroying forensic evidence of the gunshot wounds.

  2. Webb’s book was endorsed by Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) who said that “the time I spent investigating the allegations of the Dark Alliance series led me to the undeniable conclusion that the CIA, DEA, DIA and FBI knew about drug trafficking in South Central Los Angeles. They were either part of the trafficking or turned a blind eye to it, in an effort to fund the contra war. . . . This book is the final chapter on this sordid tale and brings to light one of the worst official abuses in our nation’s history.” 
  3. Associated Press journalists Robert Parry and Brian Barger had earlier reported that Contra groups had “engaged in cocaine trafficking, in part to help finance their war against Nicaragua.” 
  4. Alexander Cockburn wrote at CounterPunch that “squadrons of hacks, some of them with career-long ties to the CIA, sprayed thousands of words of vitriol over Webb and his paper, the San Jose Mercury News, for besmirching the Agency’s fine name by charging it with complicity in the importing of cocaine into the U.S.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell characteristically branded Webb’s story as a “conspiracy theory.” 
  5. Ceppos went on to receive an award from the Society of Professional Journalists for his “superior ethical conduct” in handling the aftermath of the series and, in 1999, was promoted to vice president for news at Knight-Ridder. 

Featured image: Gary Webb with his exposé about the CIA and crack. [Source: educateinspirechange.org]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Eighteen Years Ago: Journalist Gary Webb Was Murdered After Exposing CIA Drug Trafficking
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

 

 

 

 

Professor Michel Chossudovsky’s book is unmatched in his analysis of this Covid crime of biblical proportion, committed on humanity’s historic trajectory.

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists.

In concise terms, Professor Chossudovsky presents an investigative study of connecting the dots of a bigger plan, The Great Reset, alias UN Agenda 2030, that is to reset and digitize our planet, and to transhumanize or robotize mankind. Michel describes how this horror holocaust on humanity, planned for decades, is destroying the people’s asset base, abolishing economies, creating unemployment, poverty, famine and death; exacerbated by an equally relentless falsely named coercive “vaccination” campaign, causing worldwide population reduction and large-scale infertility, a crime being perpetrated on all 193 UN-member countries.

Michel’s masterpiece leaves us, however, with hope for an awakening in solidarity that may lead us to overcome this tyranny, back to personal, communal, national and regional sovereign freedom and autonomy.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity. Book Review

What Does the US Federal Reserve’s Jerome Powell Have Up His Sleeve?

By Ellen Brown, December 12, 2022

The Fed is doubling down on what appears to be a failed policy, driving the economy to the brink of recession without bringing prices down appreciably. Inflation results from “too much money chasing too few goods,” and the Fed has control over only the money – the “demand” side of the equation.

Video: Prepare for ‘Climate Lockdowns’: Rogue British Council Wants to Strip You of Freedoms

By Sky News Australia, December 12, 2022

Sky News host Rowan Dean says according to Darren Birks at the independent website Vision News, the Oxfordshire County Council is planning to embark on “climate lockdowns” in 2024.

New Study Confirms What We Knew All Along: mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Are Associated with More Serious Harms Than Originally Claimed

By Paul Anthony Taylor, December 12, 2022

A new study published in the journal Vaccine examines the occurrence of serious adverse events following adult clinical trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Authored by researchers from the United States, Spain and Australia, the analysis reveals that together these vaccines were associated in the trials with an excess risk of ‘serious adverse events of special interest’ of 12.5 per 10,000 people vaccinated.

Xi Jinping’s Visit to Saudi Arabia and the Overthrow of Atlanticism

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, December 12, 2022

With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-awaited three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, a powerful shift by the Persian Gulf’s most strategic Arab state toward the multipolar alliance is being consolidated. Depending on which side of the ideological fence you sit on, this consolidation is being viewed closely with great hope or rage.

Canadian Quarantine Cops Fined Close to 5,000 Children for Violating Trudeau’s COVID Rules

By Anthony Murdoch, December 12, 2022

Recently released figures show Canadian Public Health Agency inspectors who were empowered to issue fines cited an alarming 4,883 children for breaking government COVID quarantine rules.

Dr. David Martin Blasts Health Authorities for Turning Roughly 4 Billion People into “Bioweapons Factories”

By Belle Carter, December 12, 2022

Martin related this as well to the 10-year National Science Foundation grant that gave rise to the company now known as Moderna. Through its COVID-19 vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna picked up nearly $1 billion in research aid. Then, it joined the list of pharmaceutical companies to take a supply order from the federal government.

COVID Booster Mandates for Young Adults Will Cause ‘Net Harm,’ BMJ Study Says

By Children’s Health Defense, December 12, 2022

Any potential benefits of the COVID-19 booster fail to outweigh the harms for young people ages 18-29, according to a peer-reviewed study published Monday in The BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics. Researchers performed a risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis using data from Pfizer, Moderna and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They concluded that “booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm.”

Russia Hands UN Details of Ukrainian Attacks on Civilian Targets

By RT News, December 12, 2022

Russia has submitted a letter to the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly offering a detailed description of recurring Ukrainian strikes on civilian targets in Donbass. The document also heavily emphasizes the role the Western-supplied weapons have played in these atrocities.

What Did the Biggest Anti-terror Raid in German History Uncover?

By Free West Media, December 12, 2022

The massive raid continues to make waves, especially after more than 3 000 police officers searched more than 150 properties across Germany on Wednesday. At least 27 people were arrested and another 25 are being investigated. They are said to have planned an extensive armed coup.

Defense Aid to Ukraine Tops $20 Billion as New $275M Package Announced

By Zero Hedge, December 12, 2022

The Biden administration on Friday unveiled another $275 million in weapons and defense equipment for Ukraine, which crucially will come via the presidential drawdown authority. This means the Pentagon will pull arms from its own stockpiles to send to Ukraine to fulfill this package, despite defense officials having long been on record expressing deep concern over dwindling supplies necessary to protect and defend America.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: What Does the US Federal Reserve’s Jerome Powell Have Up His Sleeve?

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.

***

Sky News host Rowan Dean says according to Darren Birks at the independent website Vision News, the Oxfordshire County Council is planning to embark on “climate lockdowns” in 2024.

“I believe we are facing a sinister threat to the freedoms and everyday liberties that we and our parents have taken for granted all our and their lives,” Mr Dean said.

“But are being squeezed out of us by woke left-wing authoritarian governments more effectively than a python crushing the breath out of Mrs Kafoops pet.

“And if we don’t wake up soon and start saying no, it will be too late.”

*

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 a screenshot from the video

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 study published in the journal Vaccine examines the occurrence of serious adverse events following adult clinical trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Authored by researchers from the United States, Spain and Australia, the analysis reveals that together these vaccines were associated in the trials with an excess risk of ‘serious adverse events of special interest’ of 12.5 per 10,000 people vaccinated.

Describing how their results raise concern that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time they were given emergency authorization, the researchers say their findings point to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses to be conducted.

The analysis carried out in the study utilizes a priority list created in March 2020 by the Brighton Collaboration, a vaccine safety research network. Endorsed by the World Health Organization and subsequently updated, the list contains potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. The Vaccine journal researchers adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Serious adverse events resulting from mRNA vaccines

The researchers describe how, to the best of their knowledge, the Brighton Collaboration’s list has not previously been applied to serious adverse events in randomized trial data. They therefore sought to investigate the association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and serious adverse events identified by the Brighton Collaboration, using data from the randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials on which the authorizations were based.

For the purposes of the vaccine trials, serious adverse events were defined as being adverse events that result in either death; an incident that was life-threatening at the time of the event; inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect; or a medically important event, based on medical judgment.

The researchers found that the Pfizer trial exhibited a particularly notable 36 percent higher risk of serious adverse events occurring in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 percent higher risk of such events occurring in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group. Overall, compared to trial participants receiving placebos, the researchers found that the recipients of mRNA vaccines had a 16 percent higher risk of experiencing serious adverse events.

Serious adverse events of special interest

The researchers also evaluated serious adverse events of special interest observed in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials. Such events included coagulation disorders, cardiac disorders, and other serious problems.

In the Pfizer trial, serious adverse events of special interest were reported in the vaccine group at a rate equivalent to 27.7 incidents per 10,000 people vaccinated. For each 1 million people vaccinated, this would translate into an excess risk of 2,770 serious adverse events. Compared to the placebo group, people receiving the Pfizer vaccine had a 57 percent higher risk of experiencing a serious adverse event of special interest.

In the Moderna trial, serious adverse events of special interest were reported in the vaccine group at a rate equivalent to 57.3 incidents per 10,000 people vaccinated. For each 1 million people vaccinated, this would translate into an excess risk of 5,730 serious adverse events. People receiving the Moderna vaccine had a 36 percent higher risk of experiencing a serious adverse event of special interest than those in the placebo group.

Overall, compared to those in the placebo group, people receiving these vaccines had a 43 percent higher risk of experiencing a serious adverse event of special interest. Together, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest equivalent to 12.5 per 10,000 people vaccinated. For each 1 million people vaccinated, this would translate into an excess risk of 1,250 serious adverse events.

A rational health policy would consider potential harms

Disturbingly, the researchers note that in both the Pfizer trial and the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was actually higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization. This is clearly contrary to what the general public has been led to believe. As the researchers correctly point out, rational health policy formation should consider potential harms alongside potential benefits.

In their conclusion, the researchers argue that a systematic review and meta-analysis using individual trial participant data should be undertaken to address questions of harm-benefit in various demographic subgroups, particularly in people at low risk of serious complications from COVID-19. They add that full transparency of COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, however, 2 years after the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, the fact is that participant level trial data remain inaccessible.

While non-transparency might be in the financial interests of the vaccine industry, it most definitely isn’t in the health interests of the general public. If the companies manufacturing mRNA vaccines really have nothing to hide, it’s time for them to come clean and prove 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.

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paulis also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from fernandozhiminaicela/Pixabay


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Real Goal of Fed Policy: Breaking Inflation, the Middle Class or the Bubble Economy?

“There is no sense that inflation is coming down,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell at a November 2 press conference, — this despite eight months of aggressive interest rate hikes and “quantitative tightening.” On November 30, the stock market rallied when he said smaller interest rate increases are likely ahead and could start in December. But rates will still be increased, not cut. “By any standard, inflation remains much too high,” Powell said. “We will stay the course until the job is done.”

The Fed is doubling down on what appears to be a failed policy, driving the economy to the brink of recession without bringing prices down appreciably. Inflation results from “too much money chasing too few goods,” and the Fed has control over only the money – the “demand” side of the equation.

Energy and food are the key inflation drivers, and they are on the supply side. As noted by Bloomberg columnist Ramesh Ponnuru  in the Washington Post in March:

Fixing supply chains is of course beyond any central bank’s power. What the Fed can do is reduce spending levels, which would in turn exert downward pressure on prices. But this would be a mistaken response to shortages. It would answer a scarcity of goods by bringing about a scarcity of money. The effect would be to compound the hit to living standards that supply shocks already caused.

So why is the Fed forging ahead? Some pundits think Chairman Powell has something else up his sleeve.

The Problem with “Demand Destruction”

First, a closer look at the problem. Shrinking demand by reducing the money supply – the money available for people to spend – is considered the Fed’s only tool for fighting inflation. The theory behind raising interest rates is that it will reduce the willingness and ability of people and businesses to borrow. The result will be to shrink the money supply, most of which is created by banks when they make loans. The problem is that shrinking demand means shrinking the economy – laying off workers, cutting productivity, and creating new shortages – driving the economy into recession.

Demand has indeed been shrinking, as evidenced in a November 27 article on ZeroHedge titled: “The Consumer Economy Has Completely Collapsed – ‘It’s A Ghost Town’ for Holiday Shopping Everywhere.” But retailers have cut their prices about as far as they can go. While the rate of increase in producer costs is slowing, those costs are still rising; and retailers have to cover their costs to stay in business, whether or not they have customers at their doors. Rather than lowering their prices further, they will be laying off workers or closing up shop. Layoffs are on the rise, and data reported on December 1 showed that U.S. factory activity is contracting for the first time since the lockdowns of the Covid-​19 pandemic.

It is not just activity in shopping malls and factories that has taken a hit. The housing market has fallen sharply, with pending home sales dropping 32% year-over-year in October. The stock market is also sinking, and the cryptocurrency market has fallen off a cliff. Worse, interest on the federal debt is shooting up. For years, the government has been able to borrow nearly for free. By 2025 or 2026, according to Moody’s Analytics, interest payments could exceed the country’s entire defense budget, which hit $767 billion in fiscal 2022. That means major cuts will be needed to some federal programs.

Breaking the “Fed Put”

In the face of all this economic strife, why is the Fed not reversing its aggressive interest rate hikes, as investors have come to expect? Former British diplomat and EU foreign policy advisor Alastair Crooke suggests that the Fed’s goal is something else:

The Fed … may be attempting to implement a contrarian, controlled demolition of the U.S. bubble-economy through interest rate increases. The rate rises will not slay the inflation “dragon” (they would need to be much higher to do that). The purpose is to break a generalized “dependency habit” on free money.

Danielle DiMartino Booth, former advisor to Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher, agrees. She stated in an interview with financial journalist and podcaster Julia LaRoche:

Maybe Jay Powell is trying to kill the “Fed put.” Maybe he’s trying to break the back of speculation once and for all, so that it’s the Fed – truly an independent apolitical entity – that is making monetary policy, and not speculators making monetary policy for the Fed.

The “Fed put” is the general idea that the Federal Reserve is willing and able to adjust monetary policy in a way that is bullish for the stock market. As explained in a Fortune Magazine article titled “The Stock Market Is Freaking Out Because of the End of Free Money – It All Has to Do with Something Called ‘The Fed Put:’”

For decades, the way the Fed enacted policy was like a put option contract, stepping in to prevent disaster when markets experienced serious turbulence by cutting interest rates and “printing money” through QE [quantitative easing].

… Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Fed had supported markets with ultra-​accommodative monetary policy in the form of near-​zero interest rates and quantitative easing (QE). Stocks thrived under these loose monetary policies. As long as the central bank was injecting liquidity into the economy as an emergency lending measure, the safety net was laid out for investors chasing all kinds of risk assets.

… The idea that the Fed will come to stocks’ aid in a downturn began under Fed Chair Alan Greenspan. What is now the “Fed put” was once the “Greenspan put,” a term coined after the 1987 stock market crash, when Greenspan lowered interest rates to help companies recover, setting a precedent that the Fed would step in during uncertain times.

But the “free money” era seems to be over:

The regime change has left markets effectively on their own and led risk assets, including stocks and cryptocurrencies, to crater as investors grapple with the new norm. It’s also left many wondering whether the era of the so-​called Fed put is over.

Killing the Parasite That Is Killing the Host

The Fed put favors the rich – investors in the stock market, the speculative real estate market, the multi-trillion dollar derivatives market. It favors what economist Michael Hudson calls the “financialized” or “rentier” economy – “money making money,” formerly called “unearned income” – which drives up prices without adding productive value to the “real” economy. Hudson calls it a parasite, which is sucking out profits that should be going toward building more factories and other economic development.

By backstopping the financialized economy, the Fed has been instrumental in widening the income gap of the last two decades, pushing housing prices to heights that are unaffordable for first-time homebuyers, driving up rents and educational costs, and crushing entrepreneurs. DiMartino Booth explains:

Fed policy feeds passive investing … because you don’t have to carefully allocate your resources. You simply have to be long the NASDAQ and sit there with your money. What does that feed? It feeds the monopolization of America. The largest companies, the companies such as Google and Microsoft … if there is a competitor in their world they simply absorb them. They acquire them, which quashes … the entrepreneurial spirit that made this country so great.… If the Fed succeeds, Main Street will be the main winner.

… [T]he trick here is for the Fed to not break anything big, and that’s the delicate balancing act, … if … they can slowly, methodically take the rot out of the system without breaking anything big that forces them to pull back.

The “rot” in the system is particularly evident in the housing market:

Since the financial crisis, there’s been a lot of private equity that’s entered the space and snapped up all these homes and they’re renting them … It’s definitely exacerbated this housing cycle. It’s added an element of speculation because so many of them are all cash buyers. Don’t get me wrong, they’re levered — it is borrowed money — but they’re coming in as all cash buyers, and that I think created a lot of these massive bidding wars …

DiMartino Booth discusses the risk of derivatives contagion using the example of AIG, a giant insurance company brought down by derivatives exposure in 2008:

During the financial crisis … we rescued AIG because we didn’t want to actually see what it looked like on the other side of that cliff had derivatives actually been unwound, and what that contagion might have looked like.… We never tested the derivatives market, so that risk continues to lurk out there…. I’m not a cheerleader for there being some kind of a systemic risk event, and I do hope again that the Fed succeeds in managing this unwind, in seeing risk pulled out of the system, but one company at a time, not something that makes the global financial system implode.

Financial blogger Tom Luongo takes this argument further. He maintains that Fed Chair Powell is out to break the offshore eurodollar market – the speculative, unregulated offshore money market where the World Economic Forum and “old European money” (including mega-funds Blackrock and Vanguard) get the cheap credit funding their massive spending power. That is a complicated subject, which will have to wait for another article; but the principle is the same. Without the backstop of the Fed’s virtually free dollars to satisfy a surge in demand for them, these highly-leveraged dollar investments will collapse. (“Leverage” is an investment strategy that uses borrowed capital to increase potential returns. The risk is that if the investment sours, losses are also increased.)

Pushing “Until Something Breaks”

Whether or not popping these raging speculative bubbles is the goal, the Fed’s interest rate hikes are having that effect. According to a November 25, 2022 article on CNBC.com, “Interest rate hikes have choked off access to easy capital ….” As a result, “Investors have lost roughly $7.4 trillion, based on the 12-month drop in the Nasdaq.”

House prices are also tumbling. The third quarter of 2022 saw the biggest home equity drop ($1.3 trillion) ever recorded. Fortune Magazine quotes Moody’s Analystics: “Before prices began to decline, we were overvalued [nationally] by around 25%. Now, this means prices will normalize. Affordability will be restored.”

In 2021, 25% of all real estate purchases were being made by institutional investors. In the third quarter of 2022, investor buying of homes tumbled 30%. Blackstone, a real estate income trust notorious for buying up homes and turning them into rentals, was reported on December 2 to be limiting withdrawals from its $125 billion property fund as investors rush for the exits. George Cipolloni, portfolio manager at Penn Mutual Asset Management, said the U.S. Federal Reserve’s sharp interest rate increases have not “worked all the way through the economy yet,” and that he expects to see “more Blackstone-type news events coming forward in the next year.”

In May 2022, BlackRock stock (BLK) was down 30% for the year. And by November, the cryptocurrency market cap had plummeted from $3 trillion to $900 billion, with Bitcoin, its largest component, down 77% year-over-year.

Currently featured in the news is the crypto exchange FTX and its 30-year-old billionaire owner Sam Bankman-Fried. FTX was exposed as a Ponzi scheme by the receding tide of dollar liquidity, catching Bankman-Fried and team “swimming naked when the tide went out.” According to Swiss bank UBS’ chief of investment, “FTX’s collapse shows Federal Reserve tightening is crushing speculative assets.” Outing FTX is thought to be only the beginning of a succession of exposures of financial frauds to come.

The Delicate Balancing Act

DiMartino Booth said in a live twitter presentation on December 8, “If Jay Powell breaks the Fed put and takes away the unfair ability of private capital to rape and pillage the system, he will have finally addressed income inequality in America.”

Looked at in that light, breaking the Fed put sounds like a good idea. But can it be done without breaking the whole economy? More reputable establishments than FTX are at risk. Rate hikes seriously impact local retailers and wholesalers. In September, risky leveraged bets brought UK pension funds near to collapse, forcing the Bank of England to reverse course and lower its interest rates. And there is the stress in the U.S. Treasury, which is dealing with an enormous interest tab on its debt.

Other disturbing outcomes are being envisioned. One podcaster posits that the economy is intentionally being driven to collapse, at which point the government will declare a “bank holiday” as Pres. Roosevelt did in 1933. When the banks reopen, he says, we will have a “currency reset” in the form of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The concern is that it will be a “programmable” currency, one that can be regulated or turned off altogether based on the user’s “social credit” score, as is already happening in China.

Alarmed observers note that the New York Fed recently embarked on a pilot project for a CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency). But defenders point out that it is a “wholesale” CBDC, used just for transfers between banks, particularly overseas transfers. Settlement times of foreign exchange transactions typically take two days. Project Cedar, the New York Innovation Center’s pilot project, found that settlement for foreign exchange transactions using distributed ledger technology can happen in 10 seconds or less, significantly reducing risks. Whether that technology will be developed and used by the Fed has not yet been determined. DiMartino Booth observes that Powell and other Fed officials have frequently questioned the need for a “retail” CBDC, in which Fed accounts would be opened directly with the public.In a Substack article titled “A Grand Unified Theory of the FTX Disaster,” author and educator Matthew Crawford lays out a darker possibility – that the end goal of the powerful network of players behind the FTX scheme is not just a U.S. CBDC but a “Global Digital Central Bank” run by international powerbrokers. Whether or not the Federal Reserve intended it, aggressive interest rate hikes could expose this sort of parasitic corruption and remove the money machine that is its power source.

Rising from the Ashes

Meanwhile, the supply-side issues inflating the prices of food, energy and other key resources need to be addressed. Those are matters for federal and state legislatures, not the Fed. In the 1930s, a federal financial institution called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation pulled the economy out of the Great Depression, put people back to work, and crisscrossed the country with new infrastructure, including the dams and power lines that brought electricity to rural America. (See my earlier article here.) The government acted quickly and decisively because times were desperate.

A bill for a National Infrastructure Bank modeled on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation is now before Congress, H.R. 3339. For a local government bank, a viable model is the publicly-owned Bank of North Dakota, which pulled that state out of a regional agricultural depression in the 1920s. (See here.) As an iconic Depression-era poster declared, “We can do it!” We just need to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

*

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 first posted on ScheerPost.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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.

***

Recently released figures show Canadian Public Health Agency inspectors who were empowered to issue fines cited an alarming 4,883 children for breaking government COVID quarantine rules.

As per Blacklock’s Reporter, Canada’s cabinet, in an Inquiry of Ministry brought before the House of Commons, said warnings to kids under age 18 were given in person by law enforcement officials “as a result of non-compliance identified either at the port of entry or during a police check at the traveler’s quarantine address.”

The information was requested by Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu and shows that some 58,760 minors, at one point or another mandated to stay home under Canada’s Quarantine Act, were issued warnings under the act.

The information did not say how old the children were but that the warnings were mostly made by Public Health Agency inspectors.

Gladu had asked,

“With regard to minors being warned of imprisonment or fines if they broke the previous quarantine requirements for certain individuals returning to Canada, since April 2020 broken down by year: How many travelers under age 18 received such warnings?”

The report noted the warnings, which “may be verbal or written. are issued to the parent or guardian.”

“They contain information regarding possible enforcement actions,” the report added.

In total, Canada’s Public Health Agency gave out a whopping $14.9 million in quarantine fines.

The fine amounts ranged from $100 for a child breaching a quarantine order to $275 for those who gave false or misleading information. A $500 fine was handed to those for “failure to comply with a reasonable measure.”

Those who breached a quarantine order were fined $750, and those who entered the county illegally were fined $1,000.

Canada’s Public Health Agency spent over $43 million hiring security guards who enforced COVID quarantine rules by making house calls on returning travelers.

Canada’s Quarantine Act was suspended October 1, and there are currently no COVID restrictions for entering or leaving the country. The rules had been in place since mid-2020. The much-hated ArriveCAN travel app was also made optional, and a mandate that foreigners must be jabbed to enter Canada was removed.

The Quarantine Act was used by the federal government to enact severe draconian COVID travel rules on all returning travelers to the country.

Trudeau’s use of the Quarantine Act gave his government the power to place upon Canadians “unprecedented travel and isolation” requirements.

*

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 Shutterstock


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

***

Financial analyst and self-help entrepreneur Dr. David Martin has slammed public health authorities around the world for forcing roughly four billion people to take the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) mRNA “kill shots,” turning them into biological weapons in the process.

“The reason why [the mRNA injections] are important and distinct is that they turn your body into being what I refer to as the bioweapons factory,” Martin told “Man in America” host Seth Holehouse. “Because legally, when you actually create a thing that manufactures a known pathogen, that is actually biological weapon manufacturing and the fact that your body is doing it means you’re a bioweapons factory.”

He pointed out that this “scamdemic” that paved the way for billions people to submit to the “experimental” vaccine mandate, would cause a fundamental existential problem with humanity. “That means that we have mRNA and we have DNA modifications that are going to not only impact this generation, but will also impact generations to come,” he said.

Martin related this as well to the 10-year National Science Foundation grant that gave rise to the company now known as Moderna. Through its COVID-19 vaccine partnership with the U.S. government, Moderna picked up nearly $1 billion in research aid. Then, it joined the list of pharmaceutical companies to take a supply order from the federal government.

“So anybody who wants to sit back and pretend like this is some sort of innocuous thing and it doesn’t have any long effects is absolutely ludicrous,” he said.

According to Martin, the best-case scenario would be the death or disability of 300 million vaccinated individuals. These many people would be incapacitated and would not be able to contribute to the economy, as per his risk management analysis.

The worst case, on the other hand, would be the death of more than three billion people.

“When you think about the combination of the death rates that are coming off of the injections and the fertility and miscarriage problems coming off of people exposed to the spike protein, this is a much more catastrophic event,” he noted.

Mandatory vaccination of cows a direct attack on food supply

Elsewhere in the show, Martin also discussed with Holehouse how the mRNA technology would be eventually injected into livestock per the Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA’s) most recent standards.

According to an InfoWars article back in October, dairy farmers in Australia are now being forced to inject the gene-altering vaccine that contains spike protein into their cattle so they could remain in business. And just like in humans, the experimental jabs are causing severe damage to the animals as 35 out of 200 cows died immediately after being administered the injection. (Related: Nearly 2 in 10 cows injected with mRNA vaccine DIE almost instantly.)

Analysts consider the mandatory vaccination of cows as a direct attack on the food supply. Many of them are asking if the milk and other by-products would contain the spike protein that actually harmed the animals.

This was in line with Martin’s analysis that allowing cows to be injected would just be the gate opening for injecting the “kill shots” into other forms of food supply.

“And not unlike what we’ve seen with now, over 50 percent of the population have gastrointestinal problems because of our gene therapies in plants and crops,” he stated, adding that in case this “dangerous move” pushes through, 70 to 80 percent of the world’s population is going to be directly impacted by the mRNA modified meats and foods in the next five years.

Watch the full episode of “Man in America” with Seth Holehouse and Dr. David Martin below.

*

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 NaturalNews.com


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. David Martin Blasts Health Authorities for Turning Roughly 4 Billion People into “Bioweapons Factories”

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.

***

Any potential benefits of the COVID-19 booster fail to outweigh the harms for young people ages 18-29, according to a peer-reviewed study published Monday in The BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics.

Researchers performed a risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis using data from Pfizer, Moderna and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). They concluded that “booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm.”

More than 1,000 U.S. universities and colleges mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for residential students and more than 300 mandate the booster. Students who do not comply risk disenrollment.

The authors of the BMJ study concluded universities should not enforce booster vaccine mandates.

The researchers estimated that over a six-month period, 31,207 to 42,836 young adults ages 18-29, previously uninfected with COVID-19, would have to receive a third mRNA vaccine — a booster — in order to prevent a single hospitalization.

They also anticipated there would be at least 18.5 serious adverse events among the boosted group during that time, including in males, 1.5-4.6 booster-associated cases of myopericarditis, typically requiring hospitalization.

For 32 hospitalizations prevented, there would be 593.5 serious adverse events.

The researchers also anticipated that for every hospitalization averted there would be 1,430 to 4,626 cases of adverse events serious enough to stop people from carrying out regular daily activities.

Any vaccine mandate must be based on the public health principle of “proportionality” — the benefits must outweigh the relevant risks — the authors said. Until now, no risk-benefit assessment had been done.

In April, Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine advisory board, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine called on the CDC to conduct a risk-benefit analysis of vaccines for young people.

The CDC has not yet carried out such a study. In response, lead author Kevin Bardosh, Ph.D., explained on Twitter that their team of bioethicists, epidemiologists, legal scholars and clinicians “took up the challenge.”

Building on their empirical risk-benefit assessment, the authors argued mandates are “unethical” because they may result in a net expected harm to young people.

They added that the mandates aren’t based on updated, age-stratified risk-benefit assessment and that expected harms don’t outweigh the public health benefits “given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission.”

The mandates also violate the reciprocity principle, the authors said, because vaccine harms are not reliably compensated and vaccines may result in wider social harms, including social ostracization of unvaccinated people and loss of faith in public institutions.

The authors of The BMJ study concluded that:

“General mandates for young people ignore key data, entail wider social harms and/or abuses of power and are arguably undermining rather than contributing to social trust and solidarity.”

‘Mandates have caused backlash, resistance & anger’

Controversy surrounds vaccine mandates at colleges and universities, particularly for the boosters, with some arguing the mandates are based on politics, not medicine.

Last year an FDA advisory committee voted overwhelmingly against boosting the general population, including healthy young adults, but the Biden administration and the CDC overruled this recommendation.

“There’s actually a controversy, a fundamental controversy among experts in the world of vaccinology, about the appropriateness of boosters in younger people,” Bardosh told The National Desk.

“Most people have had COVID and that provides very durable protection that’s on par with two vaccines or even three vaccines if you haven’t actually had the virus,” he added.

In February, the CDC estimated that 63.7% of adults ages 18-49, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, had infection-induced SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

This, combined with increasing evidence of serious adverse effects for young people from the vaccine, which CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Pfizer both acknowledged does not stop transmission, led many to question the mandates.

Bardosh tweeted:

Calls to end the mandates have grown. The study reported that more than 50 petitions were filed against the mandates, with substantial support. Petitions on Change.org call out institutions including Stanford, George Mason, UMass, University of Scranton, University of Notre Dame, University at Buffalo, SUNY Stony Brook, Siena College, Manhattanville College, Le Moyne College, Merrimack College, DePauw University, Virginia State University, Salve Regina University, Montclair State University, and California State University.

Some university professors have filed open letters to their institutions, including a letter from University of California administrators in late November demanding an end to the booster mandate.

Last week, Yale alumni, Rhodes Scholar and journalist Dr. Naomi Wolf spoke at a rally against Yale’s vaccine mandates. “Putting Yale on notice,” she said if Yale continues to mandate the COVID-19 boosters, it will:

“have blood on its hand for damaging young healthy women and men. mRNA Covid Vaccines do not stop transmission but do cause multiple irreversible harms, so they do not make any sense to mandate.

“Yale, DO NOT coerce minors and young adults into damaging their lives and submitting to an illegal dangerous, injection that violates the Geneva Convention, that violates the Nuremberg Code, that violates basic human rights …

“Coercion is not consent!”

This week Ohio Republican State Rep. Scott Lipps introduced a bill that would ban COVID-19 vaccine mandates at Ohio colleges and universities. Lipps told the House Higher Education and Career Readiness Committee:

“By requiring vaccines and discriminating against individuals who choose not to receive one, we are not only making very intimate health decisions for our students, but we are showing them that their education, choice, and autonomy are less meaningful and not of their own control.”

On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that included rescinding the COVID-19 vaccine mandate for the military. The Senate still has to pass the bill. President Biden, who said he opposed eliminating the mandate, has not said he will veto it.

Despite evolving data about young people’s low risk for severe COVID-19 and high risk of mRNA vaccine adverse effects, the CDC recently launched a new grant, offering $1.5 million in research funds for colleges to study how to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake among students.

They posted the funding opportunity in November and will accept grant applications until Jan. 13, 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 Merrimack College/flickr


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

Russia has submitted a letter to the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly offering a detailed description of recurring Ukrainian strikes on civilian targets in Donbass. The document also heavily emphasizes the role the Western-supplied weapons have played in these atrocities.

This comes ahead of a Security Council meeting expected to be held on Friday about Moscow’s initiative to discuss Western arms shipments for Ukraine, First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said on Telegram. The letter was drafted by the Donetsk-based public organization ‘Fair Protection’, he added.

The NGO appeals to the UN “in connection with the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Russia’s Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, which was caused by “the inhumane shelling of the civilian population” by Kiev’s forces.

The document offers a compilation of at least a dozen major Ukrainian attacks on Donetsk and neighboring towns between late May and early December. All the destruction and casualties outlined in the report are “mainly due to the supply of weapons to Ukraine from Western countries,” the letter claims.

According to the document, in the past two weeks alone, Kiev’s forces “daily, [and] with special ferocity attack chaotically crowded places of the central districts of Donetsk, Makeevka, Gorlovka, Yasinovataya and Elenovka.” As a result, 22 civilians have been killed and 83 wounded, the report claims.

Since February 17, Ukrainian armed forces have bombed 8,897 residential buildings and 2,113 civil infrastructure facilities in Donbass, including 106 medical and 424 educational institutions, the letter says.

“The obvious purpose of these inhumane acts by Kiev is to terrorize Donbass civilians and cause maximum damage to civilian infrastructure,” the document claimed.

Apart from other weaponry, the attacks used NATO-grade 155mm artillery and US-made HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), according to the report. The West has also provided Ukraine with Caesar and PzH 2000 self-propelled artillery systems that use shells of the same caliber.

Given the recurring bombardments, ‘Fair Protection’ appealed to the UN Security Council “to consider taking immediate measures” to prevent “these massive war crimes by the armed formations of Ukraine” as well as to put an end to supporting Ukraine with weapons used in attacks.

Russia has repeatedly warned the West against pumping Ukraine with weapons, arguing that this will only prolong the conflict and “bring more suffering” to the country.

*

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: Men study the damage to the Donetsk City Youth Center, which was damaged as a result of artillery shelling. ©  Sputnik / Sergey Averin

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.

***

Some 36 hours after the largest raid in the history of Germany, there are increasing indications that the investigators apparently did not find the expected arsenal of weapons. The Attorney General has offered no explanation.

The massive raid continues to make waves, especially after more than 3 000 police officers searched more than 150 properties across Germany on Wednesday. At least 27 people were arrested and another 25 are being investigated. They are said to have planned an extensive armed coup.

But what have the investigators actually found in this unprecedented large-scale operation?

According to the Federal Criminal Police Office, weapons were found in 50 of the 150 locations searched. That sounds like an operation with a high risk potential, but conveys very little. In the past, baseball bats, Swiss army knives and brass knuckles were also considered “weapons” in comparable large-scale operations.

It is still not clear if the authorities have found machine guns, grenades or actual firearms. It would presumably take more than a handful of kitchen knives to launch a so-called planned military coup.

Attorney General is unusually unresponsive

Berlin weekly Junge Freiheit therefore sent the Federal Public Prosecutor a comprehensive catalog of questions about what items had been confiscated, how many firearms were among them and which of them were illegal. In view of the extent of the raid and the importance that Nancy Faeser’s (SPD) interior ministry has attached to it, it can be ruled out that the authorities do not know this already.

However, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office refuses to respond to the JF request: A spokesman asked “for your understanding that we are currently not commenting on the evidence found during the search measures – which have not yet been completed”.

It is apparently completely unclear why questions are raised in this regard or when the public will be informed. As a reminder, Faeser spoke of an “abyss of terrorist threat” from the rightwing.

These are strong words in a country where the RAF swept through Germany in the 1970s and where an Islamist with a truck killed twelve people and injured dozens more while driving into pedestrians at a Berlin Christmas market in 2016. It would be in Faeser’s interest to back up her peculiar comments with facts as soon as possible.

Service weapons found

According to German daily Welt, so far “a firearm”, stun guns, prepper supplies and thousands of euros in cash have been found. That sounds like a rather meager yield, especially since “thousands of euros” distributed over 150 houses searched certainly is no indication of the formation of a terrorist group. Notably, the Ministry of the Interior, in view of the risk of power cuts, has itself called for cash to be kept at home at all times.

The same applies to the supposed “prepper supplies”. The government has recommended that citizens prepare themselves extensively for emergencies due to risks associated with German support for the war in Ukraine.

It is therefore not clear where crisis prevention ends and supposed “prepping” starts. Since some of the suspects are said to have gun ownership cards, the discovery of stun guns is not surprising in the least. As a reminder, no parliament can be stormed with the latter.

The representatives of the Interior Committee in the Bundestag were said to have been informed a little more extensively on Friday. According to media reports, two rifles, a pistol and swords, stun guns and flare guns were confiscated. Even service weapons from accused police officers were taken. It is not yet known whether there were gun permits for the various weapons.

More and more media outlets have doubts

Meanwhile, doubts are growing in the media as to whether the historical raid was really appropriate. The editor-in-chief of Cicero, Alexander Marguier, wrote on Wednesday: “Today I spoke to a number of colleagues from other media – including those media that were at the forefront of the exuberant coverage of the treasonous plan. In unison (and of course only in confidence) it was said: It all seems completely exaggerated to us, but when the competition reacts so dramatically, we can’t take a tepid approach.”

The reporter Anna Schneider spoke on Twitter of an “extremely peculiar hysteria and staging of this spectacle”.

The former head of the parliamentary office of the Bild newspaper, Ralf Schuler, wrote on the social network that he could only hope that those responsible for the “giant raid” would also provide evidence of the alleged coup attempt.

The fact that numerous media had apparently been informed about the raids for some time can be considered proven in view of the fact that they arrived with camera teams on site at the same moment as the police task forces.

‘Organized media support’

The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) commented: “The historical large-scale operation and the accompanying media reporting raise questions.”

The author noted: “In political Berlin it has been heard for days that there is ‘a big thing in the bush’. Some media obviously knew about the impending raids and arrests, because many editorial offices published extensive reports on the breaking news, which was actually quite new, almost at the same time – as if after an embargo.”

She considered the “organized media support of the operations” to be fundamentally problematic. “It indicates that the matter wasn’t that dangerous after all. In the latter case, the impression could arise that this is primarily – or also – a political public relations exercise.”

A ‘show’

The domestic policy spokeswoman for the Left Party in the Bundestag, Martina Renner, criticized the handling of the Interior Ministry with the raid by 3000 police officers. The so-called “anti-terror operation” against 25 suspects around the 71-year-old Heinrich XIII living in Frankfurt am Main, Prince Reuss shouldn’t be a “show”, said the politician, who has been in the Bundestag since 2013.

*

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: Prepper gear for a coup? Photo credit Thomas Thompson

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 Biden administration on Friday unveiled another $275 million in weapons and defense equipment for Ukraine, which crucially will come via the presidential drawdown authority.

This means the Pentagon will pull arms from its own stockpiles to send to Ukraine to fulfill this package, despite defense officials having long been on record expressing deep concern over dwindling supplies necessary to protect and defend America.

A Defense Department press release indicated the package is to include “more ammunition for high mobility artillery rocket systems (HIMARS), 80,000 155 mm artillery rounds, counter-unmanned aerial systems equipment, counter air defenses, additional High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, ambulances and medical equipment, 150 generators and other field equipment.”

The Ukrainian government and armed forces have been especially interested in procurement of more and longer-range anti-air defense systems. A recent report in The Wall Street Journal indicated the Pentagon had altered missile systems transferred to Ukraine to limit their range at 50 miles, in order to prevent the Ukrainians from targeting Russian territory.

The Friday DoD press release stated further, “This security assistance package will provide Ukraine with new capabilities to boost its air defenses in addition to providing critical equipment that Ukraine is using so effectively to defend itself on the battlefield.”

This brings US defense aid commitment since the war’s start to $19.3 billion, while the total tab at the American taxpayer’s expense for Ukraine has reached $20 billion since the start of the Biden administration (accounting additionally for aid sent just prior to the Russian invasion).

One “lesson” on display this week (and an obvious longtime trend) is that the deep state and military-industrial complex will always opt for more spending and less accountability – even at the expense of national defense readiness. On Thursday the House passed the massive, record-setting annual defense authorization bill, which will now see the $847 billion measure go to the Senate. Its mammoth size includes plans for much more Ukraine aid to come for the next fiscal year.

Just two days prior to the House approving the massive, record-setting NDAA, the Democrat-led House Foreign Affairs Committee voted down a bill to audit the tens of billions of dollars that Congress has approved to spend on the war in Ukraine. This despite high-level admissions that much of the weaponry sent to Ukraine has little to no oversight once it enters the country, thus it could end up in the hands of terrorists or criminal gangs outside the borders.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Defense Aid to Ukraine Tops $20 Billion as New $275M Package Announced

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 Atlanticists continue their commitment to a future shaped by energy scarcity, food scarcity, and war with their nuclear-capable neighbors, most states in the Persian Gulf that have long been trusted allies of the west have quickly come to realize that their interests are best assured by cooperating with Eurasian states like China and Russia who don’t think in those zero-sum terms.

With Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-awaited three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, a powerful shift by the Persian Gulf’s most strategic Arab state toward the multipolar alliance is being consolidated. Depending on which side of the ideological fence you sit on, this consolidation is being viewed closely with great hope or rage.

Xi’s visit stands in stark contrast to US President Joe Biden’s underwhelming ‘fist bump’ meeting this summer, which saw the self-professed leader of the free world falling asleep at a conference table and demanding more Saudi oil production while offering nothing durable in return.

In contrast, Xi’s arrival was greeted by a multi-cannon salute and Saudi jets painting the red and yellow colors of China’s flag in the skies over Riyadh. Beijing’s delegation of political and business elites, in the following days, will continue to meet with Saudi counterparts to strike long-term strategic deals in cultural, economic and scientific domains.

The visit will culminate in the first ever China-Arab Summit on Friday, 9 December, where Xi will meet with 30 heads of state. The Chinese foreign ministry described this as “an epoch-making milestone in the history of the development of China-Arab relations.”

While $30 billion in deals will be signed between Beijing and Riyadh, something much bigger is at play which too few have come to properly appreciate.

Riyadh’s steps toward the BRI since 2016

Xi Jinping last visited the kingdom in 2016, to advance Riyadh’s participation in China’s newly unveiled Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). A January 2016 policy report by the Chinese government to all Arab states reads:

“In the process of jointly pursuing the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road initiative, China is willing to coordinate development strategies with Arab states, put into play each other’s advantages and potentials, promote international production capacity cooperation and enhance cooperation in the fields of infrastructure construction, trade and investment facilitation, nuclear power, space satellite, new energy, agriculture and finance, so as to achieve common progress and development and benefit our two peoples.”

It was only three months later that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) inaugurated Saudi Vision 2030 which firmly outlined a new foreign policy agenda much more compatible with China’s “peaceful development” spirit.

After decades serving as an Atlanticist client state with no viable manufacturing prospects or autonomy beyond its role in supporting western-managed terror operations, Saudi Vision 2030 demonstrated the first signs of creative thinking in years, with an outlook toward a post-oil age.

On the energy front, China Energy Corp is building a sprawling 2.6 GW solar power station in Saudi Arabia, and Chinese nuclear developers are helping Riyadh develop its vast uranium resources while also mastering all branches of the nuclear fuel cycle.

In 2016, both nations signed an MoU to build fourth generation gas-cooled nuclear reactors. This follows the UAE’s recent leap into the 21st century with 2.7 GW of energy now constructed.

By early 2017, Riyadh had firmly bought its ticket on the New Silk Road with a $65 billion agreement integrating the Saudi Vision 2030 and BRI with a focus on petrochemical integration, engineering, refining, procurement, construction, carbon capture, and upstream/downstream development.

In the new post-American epoch, signs of this spirit of cooperation and bridge building have increasingly come to be felt, even while its effects have been forcibly restrained – as millions of Yemenis suffering under seven years of war can testify.

Unlike the Atlanticist fixation on Green New Deals which threaten to annihilate industry and farming, Riyadh’s post-oil outlook is much more synergistic with China’s idea of “sustained growth” that demands nuclear power, continued hydrocarbons, and robust agro-industrial development.

China’s trade with Saudi Arabia rose to $87.3 billion in 2021, which saw a 39 percent increase over 2020, while US-Saudi trade has collapsed from $76 billion in 2012 to only $29 billion in 2021.

Some of this Beijing-Riyadh trade may now be conducted in the Chinese Yuan, which will only undermine the US-Saudi relationship further.

In the first 10 months of 2022, China’s imports from Saudi Arabia were $57 billion and exports to the kingdom rose to $30.3 billion. China is additionally building 5G systems and cultivating a vast technology hub with a focus on selling electronic goods, all while helping Saudi Arabia build up an indigenous manufacturing sector.

A trend of Harmonization

Despite the continued chaos in Yemen, and economic devastation in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, Beijing’s subtle trend has nonetheless been one of healing with Saudi Arabia – and regional power Turkiye.

Saudi Arabia and Turkiye have often acted as rivals, and front two distinct foreign agendas with broad regional ambitions that overlap on many fronts. But despite this competitive past, higher necessities have induced both nations to harmonize their foreign policy outlooks with a new “look east” focus.

This was expressed during the Saudi crown prince’s visit to Ankara in June 2022 where the two heads of state called for “a new era of cooperation” with a focus on political, economic, military and cultural cooperation outlined in a joint communique.

Only days after MbS’s return from Turkiye, then-Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi visited Jeddah to promote regional stability stating in a press release “they changed points of view on a number of issues that would contribute to supporting and strengthening regional security and stability.”

Iraq and Saudi Arabia had only re-established diplomatic ties in November 2020 due to Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait 30 years earlier.

Between 2021-2022, Iraq had worked hard to host bilateral talks between Saudi Arabia and Iran with five rounds of talks held and Kadhimi stating his belief that “reconciliation is near.” Tehran-Riyadh diplomatic ties were cut in the aftermath of the 2016 execution of outspoken Saudi Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, prompting the storming of the Saudi embassy in Tehran by angry protestors.

In March 2022, MbS stated that Iran and Saudi Arabia “were neighbors forever” and stated that it is “better for both of us to working it out and to look for ways in which we can co-exist.”

By August 23, 2022, the UAE and Kuwait created a new milestone by restarting diplomatic relations with Iran. And although nearly every Persian Gulf state (plus Turkiye) had devoted years to supporting regime change in Syria, a new reality has imposed itself with all Arab parties veering toward the Chinese BRI model of regional integration and economic development.

The Key Role of Iran

Not only is Iran a key player in the Greater Eurasian Partnership serving as a strategic hub for the southern route of China’s BRI, but it is also a keystone of the Russia-Iran-India-led International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) which has become a major force synergizing with the BRI.

Iraq and Iran themselves are in the final stages of building the long-awaited Shalamcheh-Basra railway which will unite the two nations by rail for the first time in decades while also offering a potential extension to the already existent 1500 km railway through Iraq to Syria’s border.

The climate for cooperation was undoubtedly made possible by the presence of Chinese economic diplomacy which established a 25 year, $400 billion energy and security deal with Iran – but also Russia, whose similar but smaller $25 billion, twenty-year deal with Tehran may easily expand to $40 billion in Russian investments in Iran’s vast oil and natural gas fields in the coming years.

Saudi Arabia and Russia’s relationship with OPEC+ demonstrated its potency this summer when Riyadh won the ire of Washington by not only denying Biden’s requests for increased oil production, but cutting overall oil production and driving up global prices of oil. Saudi Arabia benefited by vastly increased imports of discounted Russian oil which were then sold to a desperate Europe.

Furthermore, Saudi plans to join the global hub of multipolarity itself, BRICS+ (alongside Turkiye, Egypt, and Algeria), in addition to recently becoming a full-fledged Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) dialogue partner, have placed its destiny ever deeper into the growing Multipolar Alliance.

With the increased potential for stability and harmonization of interests across various power blocs, an atmosphere more conducive to long-term economic investments is finally presenting itself to Chinese investors who had long looked upon conflict-ridden West Asia with justifiable trepidation.

In August 2022, the Saudi state oil company Aramco and China’s Petroleum and Chemical Corporation Ltd signed an MOU expanding on the aforementioned $65 billion cooperation deal of 2017, which involves the construction of Fujian Refining and Petrochemical Company (FREP) and Sinopec Senmei Petroleum Company (SSPC) in Fujian, China, and Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refining Company (YASREF) in Saudi Arabia.

Rail and interconnectivity

Perhaps most exciting are prospects for interconnectivity that play directly into the development corridors tied to the BRI. In Saudi Arabia, this train has moved steadily apace with the 450 km high speed Haramain Railway built by China Railway Construction Company connecting Mecca to Medina completed in 2018.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Discussions are well underway to extend this line to the 2400 km North South Railway from Riyadh to Al Haditha completed in 2015. Meanwhile, 460 km of rail connecting all Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members is currently under construction, which is driving reforms in engineering, trade schools, and manufacturing hubs across the Arabian Peninsula.

In 2021, all GCC states gave their full support to a $200 billion Persian Gulf-Red Sea high speed railway dubbed “The Saudi Landbridge,” which also dovetails another $500 billion megaproject with vast Chinese investments, dubbed the futuristic NEOM mega-city on the Red Sea.

The Eurasianists stand to gain

It can only be hoped that this new chemistry of harmonization and win-win cooperation may soon provide a key to ending the fires of conflict in Yemen and other regional states.

Further, with Russia and China both helping to broker diplomatic backchannels, and with Iran playing an active role within this process, perhaps negotiations for reconstruction can begin in this war-torn zone of conflict.

It is not an extreme stretch of the imagination to see the new Persian Gulf-Red Sea rail project extending north into Egypt and south into Yemen.

Looking at a map of the region, one can imagine the reactivation of the “Bridge of the Horn of Africa” first unveiled in 2009, that would have extended rail across the 25 km Bab el Mandeb strait connecting pipelines and rail lines into Djibouti and East Africa, more broadly.

While a western-manipulated Arab Spring derailed that concept in 2011, and the Saudi war against Yemen drove it further under ground since 2015, perhaps this new spirit of inter-civilizational cooperation under a new economic architecture liberated from the Atlanticist-dominated dollar system may provide just what it takes to revive the idea once again.

*

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.

Matthew Ehret the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas trilogy. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle


The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

Important article by Michael Snyder

I suppose that we should have known that this was inevitable.  After establishing a precedent during the pandemic, now the elite apparently intend to impose lockdowns for other reasons as well. 

What I have detailed in this article is extremely alarming, and I hope that you will share it with everyone that you can.  Climate change lockdowns are here, and if people don’t respond very strongly to this it is likely that we will soon see similar measures implemented all over the western world.  The elite have always promised to do “whatever it takes” to fight climate change, and now we are finding out that they weren’t kidding.

Over in the UK, residents of Oxfordshire will now need a special permit to go from one “zone” of the city to another.  But even if you have the permit, you will still only be allowed to go from one zone to another “a maximum of 100 days per year”

Oxfordshire County Council yesterday approved plans to lock residents into one of six zones to ‘save the planet’ from global warming. The latest stage in the ’15 minute city’ agenda is to place electronic gates on key roads in and out of the city, confining residents to their own neighbourhoods.

Under the new scheme if residents want to leave their zone they will need permission from the Council who gets to decide who is worthy of freedom and who isn’t. Under the new scheme residents will be allowed to leave their zone a maximum of 100 days per year, but in order to even gain this every resident will have to register their car details with the council who will then track their movements via smart cameras round the city.

Are residents of Oxfordshire actually going to put up with this?

 

I never thought that we would actually see this sort of a thing get implemented in the western world, but here we are.

Of course there are a few people that are loudly objecting to this new plan, but one Oxfordshire official is pledging that “the controversial plan would go ahead whether people liked it or not”.

Ouch.

Meanwhile, France has decided to completely ban certain short-haul flights in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions…

France can now make you train rather than plane.

The European Commission (EC) has given French officials the green light to ban select domestic flights if the route in question can be completed via train in under two and a half hours.

The plan was first proposed in 2021 as a means to reduce carbon emissions. It originally called for a ban on eight short-haul flights, but the EC has only agreed to nix three that have quick, easy rail alternatives with several direct connections each way every day.

This is nuts.

But if the French public accepts these new restrictions, similar bans will inevitably be coming to other EU nations.

In the Netherlands, the government is actually going to be buying and shutting down approximately 3,000 farms in order to “reduce its nitrogen pollution”… 

The Dutch government is planning to purchase and then close down up to 3,000 farms in an effort to comply with a European Union environmental mandate to slash emissions, according to reports.

Farmers in the Netherlands will be offered “well over” the worth of their farm in an effort to take up the offer voluntarily, The Telegraph reported. The country is attempting to reduce its nitrogen pollution and will make the purchases if not enough farmers accept buyouts.

“There is no better offer coming,” Christianne van der Wal, nitrogen minister, told the Dutch parliament on Friday.

This is literally suicidal.

We are in the beginning stages of an unprecedented global food crisis, and the Dutch government has decided that now is the time to shut down thousands of farms?

I don’t even have the words to describe how foolish this is.

Speaking of suicide, Canada has found a way to get people to stop emitting any carbon at all once their usefulness is over.  Assisted suicide has become quite popular among the Canadians, and the number of people choosing that option keeps setting new records year after year

Last year, more than 10,000 people in Canada – astonishingly that’s over three percent of all deaths there – ended their lives via euthanasia, an increase of a third on the previous year. And it’s likely to keep rising: next year, Canada is set to allow people to die exclusively for mental health reasons.

If you are feeling depressed, Canada has a solution for that.

And if you are physically disabled, Canada has a solution for that too

Only last week, a jaw-dropping story emerged of how, five years into an infuriating battle to obtain a stairlift for her home, Canadian army veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier was offered an extraordinary alternative.

A Canadian official told her in 2019 that if her life was so difficult and she is ‘desperate’, the government would help her to kill herself. ‘I have a letter saying that if you’re so desperate, madam, we can offer you MAiD, medical assistance in dying,’ the paraplegic ex-army corporal testified to Canadian MPs.

“Medical assistance in dying” sounds so clinical.

But ultimately it is the greatest lockdown of all.

Because once you stop breathing, you won’t be able to commit any more “climate sins”.

All over the western world, authoritarianism is growing at a pace that is absolutely breathtaking.

If they can severely restrict travel and shut down farms today, what sort of tyranny will we see in the future?

Sadly, most people in the general population still do not understand what is happening.

Hopefully they will wake up before it is too late.

***

Our thanks to Michael Snyder. 

It is finally here! Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

 

***

 

Biden Regime Secretary of State Blinken has blocked negotiations between Russia and Ukraine by declaring it is US policy to drive Russia out of the reincorporated territories, including Crimea.

Biden’s announcement that the US will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear threats, and the knowledge that US nuclear weapons are deployed close to Russia are forcing Putin to abandon his no first use of nuclear weapons pledge.

In other words, unlike the 20th century Cold War, today there is a hair-trigger on nuclear war.

People who say nuclear war is impossible because there are no winners are out to lunch.

Wars are the product of humans, and humans are emotional and stupid. They make mistakes hand over fist. Error is the human way.

During the Cold War, US presidents assured the Kremlin that the US had no intention of initiating a war.  Today this assurance does not exist.

A Russian official has charged that the CIA and NSA were involved in the attack by drones deep inside Russia.

So here we see the total validity of my warnings that Putin’s Goody Two Shoes behavior invites more and more reckless provocations.  It is the inability of Putin to understand that Russia is at war with Ukraine and the US/NATO and that his “limited military operation” is nothing but his own delusion that is leading to nuclear war.

The United States government has now attacked Russia twice, not counting the attacks on the former Russian territory Russia has reincorporated

The attack on the Nord Stream pipelines and now drone attacks deep inside Russia are beyond Ukraine’s unassisted capability.

Washington feels comfortable in these reckless acts, because Washington has dismissed Putin’s declared, but never defended, “red lines” as meaningless.  

One wonders what is wrong with Putin and with the Kremlin in general that Russia forever complains but never acts. It should be self evident to the Kremlin that the longer the conflict and anti-Russian propaganda continue, the harder for the West to bow out.  

Prestige and predictions are at risk. a network of relationships develops.

Powerful interest groups such as armaments corporations acquire  stake in the conflict. With Ukraine facing defeat, there will be agitation for committing US and European soldiers.

At first the claim will be that only one division is needed to bolster Ukraine at this or that point.  Then to save that division another will be needed.  We saw it all in Vietnam.

Will Putin finally realize that Russia is at war when Moscow goes up in smoke?

That would be a bit too late.

Putin now admits that he waited too late to intervene in Ukraine, thus giving Washington time to build a Ukrainian military force.  So why wait too late again?  Can Putin learn from his mistakes?

My fear is that Putin is unrealistic and does not comprehend the likely consequences of his Goody Two Shoes behavior.

Putin’s restrained behavior gives the green light to greater provocations from Washington. These provocations are accelerating. Russia needs to use the force necessary to quickly end the war before it spins out of control.

Some years ago I wrote that Russia was disadvantaged, because Putin and the Russian liberals overestimated the humanity of the West.

Now Putin says that “we may have realized too late” that Russia was being deceived.

Nevertheless, he is still willing to negotiate and to be deceived again.

Russian liberals, alienated from the Soviet government, were easy victims of American propaganda presenting the US as a light unto the world.  This has had a disarming effect on the Russian ability to comprehend the West.

The Kremlin complains endlessly but never acts.  Russia complains to the UN Security Council that weapons supplied by the West are used to hit Russian schools and homes.  Why does Russia think the Security Council cares or will do anything about it?  The real question is why does Putin by pulling Russia’s punches permit Ukraine the latitude to use the “foreign-supplied” weapons?  The Russians are too diplomatic to say “West-supplied.” Russia says there will be legal consequences for the war crimes in the future.  Why not military consequences now?  Until Putin gets serious about the war, provocations will continue their escalation.

Another mistake Putin is making is not having a large professional standing army.

Notice how long it took for Russia to mobilize 300,000 soldiers for reinforcing the “limited” operation in Ukraine.

This should have taught the Kremlin something, but no, Putin announces no further need for more mobilization.

Consequently, if the Ukraine situation does spin out of control, Putin has nothing to fight with except nuclear weapons.

Perhaps Putin fears domestic opposition from Americanized Russian youth that the Kremlin permitted American-financed NGOs to indoctrinate unhampered for years, or perhaps the Kremlin is “saving money.”

How does Putin reconcile his statements that the West seeks the destruction of Russia with the absence of a large professional Russian army?  That leaves him with only the nuclear option.

Commentators scoffed at my warnings that Western intervention in Ukraine was cooking up nuclear war.

Now Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO Secretary General says

“I fear that the war in Ukraine will spiral out of control and become a major war between NATO and Russia. If things go wrong, they can go horribly wrong.” 

Amazing how long it took him to realize that.  With dumbshits like Stoltenberg and the American neoconservatives running the show, how can war be avoided?

To come back to my 8 year old question:

Why does Putin refuse to act and bring the conflict to a quick close before it widens out of control?

The “limited operation” has not limited anything.  It has expanded the war into attacks on Russia herself.  Foreign Minister Lavrov has admitted that Washington and NATO are “directly involved” in war against Russia.

How can the Kremlin make such an admission and do nothing about it?

How provocative will the next attack be?  Why not go ahead and win the war before the next provocation happens?

Yes, I would rather  Russia win the war than for the conflict to escalate into nuclear war.

Until recently, Ukraine was a part of Russia for centuries. During the 20th century Soviet leaders attached parts of Russia to their Ukrainian province.

These Russians were suffering under the neo-Nazi regime established by Washington in 2014, formed independent republics and asked to be returned to Russia.  This legitimate request is no basis for a nuclear war.

Washington and Europe need to consider that sooner or later Putin will have to act if US/NATO keep pushing him into a corner.

The harder and further Putin is pushed, the more limited his options.

As Stoltenberg now realizes, the situation can spin out of control.

Are American neoconservatives capable of this realization?  Does Putin realize the situation is spinning out of control because of his inaction?

I was involved in the 20th Century Cold War.  I helped President Reagan end it. The situation was never as dangerous as the current situation.  In those days there were still intelligent people in Washington.  Today there are none.

In those days no one doubted that the Soviets would act. Today Russia is seen as all talk and no action.  Consequently, push is coming to shove.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned economist and author, U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Image Professor Peter Dale Scott

This article was originally published in November 2011

“I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”   — Senator Frank Church (1975)

I would like to discuss four major and badly understood events – the John F. Kennedy assassination, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. I will analyze these deep events as part of a deeper political process linking them, a process that has helped build up repressive power in America at the expense of democracy.

In recent years I have been talking about a dark force behind these events — a force which, for want of a better term, I have clumsily called a “deep state,” operating both within and outside the public state. Today for the first time I want to identify part of that dark force, a part which has operated for five decades or more at the edge of the public state. This part of the dark force has a name not invented by me: the Doomsday Project, the Pentagon’s name for the emergency planning “to keep the White House and Pentagon running during and after a nuclear war or some other major crisis.”1

My point is a simple and important one: to show that the Doomsday Project of the 1980s, and the earlier emergency planning that developed into it, have played a role in the background of all the deep events I shall discuss.

More significantly, it has been a factor behind all three of the disturbing events that now threaten American democracy. The first of these three is what has been called the conversion of our economy into a plutonomy – with the increasing separation of America into two classes, into the haves and the have-nots, the one percent and the 99 percent. The second is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, which has become more and more routine and predictable, to wage or provoke wars in remote regions of the globe. It is clear that the operations of this American war machine have served the one percent.2

The third – my subject today — is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history of structural deep events: mysterious events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which violate the American social structure, have a major impact on American society, repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, and in many cases proceed from an unknown dark force.

There are any number of analyses of America’s current breakdown in terms of income and wealth disparity, also in terms of America’s increasing militarization and belligerency. What I shall do today is I think new: to argue that both the income disparity – or what has been called our plutonomy — and the belligerency have been fostered significantly by deep events.

We must understand that the income disparity of America’s current economy was not the result of market forces working independently of political intervention. In large part it was generated by a systematic and deliberate ongoing political process dating from the anxieties of the very wealthy in the 1960s and 1970s that control of the country was slipping away from them.

This was the time when future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, in a 1971 memorandum, warned that survival of the free enterprise system depended on “careful long-range planning and implementation” of a well-financed response to threats from the left.3 This warning was answered by a sustained right-wing offensive, coordinated by think tanks and funded lavishly by a small group of family foundations.4 We should recall that all this was in response to serious riots in Newark, Detroit, and elsewhere, and that increasing calls for a revolution were coming from the left (in Europe as well as America). I will focus today on the right’s response to that challenge, and on the role of deep events in enhancing their response.

What was important about the Powell memorandum was less the document itself than the fact that it was commissioned by the United States Chamber of Commerce, one of the most influential and least discussed lobbying groups in America. And the memorandum was only one of many signs of that developing class war in the 1970s, a larger process working both inside and outside government (including what Irving Kristol called an “intellectual counterrevolution”), which led directly to the so-called “Reagan Revolution.”5

It is clear that this larger process has been carried on for almost five decades, pumping billions of right-wing dollars into the American political process. What I wish to show today is that deep events have also been integral to this right-wing effort, from the John F. Kennedy assassination in 1963 to 9/11. 9/11 resulted in the implementation of “Continuity of Government” (COG) plans (which in the Oliver North Iran Contra Hearings of 1987 were called plans for “the suspension of the U.S. constitution”). These COG plans, building on earlier COG planning, had been carefully developed since 1982 in the so-called Doomsday Project, by a secret group appointed by Reagan. The group was composed of both public and private figures, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.

I shall try to show today that in this respect 9/11 was only the culmination of a sequence of deep events reaching back to the Kennedy assassination if not earlier, and that the germs of the Doomsday Project can be detected behind all of them.

More specifically, I shall try to demonstrate about these deep events that

1) prior bureaucratic misbehavior by the CIA and similar agencies helped to make both the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 happen;

2) the consequences of each deep event included an increase in top-down repressive power for these same agencies, at the expense of persuasive democratic power;6

3) there are symptomatic overlaps in personnel between the perpetrators of each of these deep events and the next;

4) one sees in each event the involvement of elements of the international drug traffic – suggesting that our current plutonomy is also to some degree a narconomy;

5) in the background of each event (and playing an increasingly important role) one sees the Doomsday Project — the alternative emergency planning structure with its own communications network, operating as a shadow network outside of regular government channels.

Bureaucratic Misbehavior as a Factor Contributing to both the JFK Assassination and 9/11

Both the JFK assassination and 9/11 were facilitated by the way the CIA and FBI manipulated their files about alleged perpetrators of each event (Lee Harvey Oswald in the case of what I shall call JFK, and the alleged hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in the case of 9/11). Part of this facilitation was the decision on October 9, 1963 of an FBI agent, Marvin Gheesling, to remove Oswald from the FBI watch list for surveillance. This was shortly after Oswald’s arrest in New Orleans in August and his reported travel to Mexico in September. Obviously these developments should normally have made Oswald a candidate for increased surveillance.7

This misbehavior is paradigmatic of the behavior of other agencies, especially the CIA, in both JFK and 9/11. Indeed Gheesling’s behavior fits very neatly with the CIA’s culpable withholding from the FBI, in the same month of October, information that Oswald had allegedly met in Mexico City with a suspected KGB agent, Valeriy Kostikov.8 This also helped ensure that Oswald would not be placed under surveillance. Indeed, former FBI Director Clarence Kelley in his memoir later complained that the CIA’s withholding of information was the major reason why Oswald was not put under surveillance on November 22, 1963.9

A more ominous provocation in 1963 was that of Army Intelligence, one unit of which in Dallas did not simply withhold information about Lee Harvey Oswald, but manufactured false intelligence that seemed designed to provoke retaliation against Cuba. I call such provocations phase-one stories, efforts to portray Oswald as a Communist conspirator (as opposed to the later phase-two stories, also false, portraying him as a disgruntled loner). A conspicuous example of such phase-one stories is a cable from the Fourth Army Command in Texas, reporting a tip from a Dallas policeman who was also in an Army Intelligence Reserve unit:

Assistant Chief Don Stringfellow, Intelligence Section, Dallas Police Department, notified 112th INTC [Intelligence] Group, this Headquarters, that information obtained from Oswald revealed he had defected to Cuba in 1959 and is a card-carrying member of Communist Party.”10

This cable was sent on November 22 directly to the U.S. Strike Command at Fort MacDill in Florida, the base poised for a possible retaliatory attack against Cuba.11

The cable was not an isolated aberration. It was supported by other false phase-one stories from Dallas about Oswald’s alleged rifle, and specifically by concatenated false translations of Marina Oswald’s testimony, to suggest that Oswald’s rifle in Dallas was one he had owned in Russia.12

These last false reports, apparently unrelated, can also be traced to officer Don Stringfellow’s 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.13 The interpreter who first supplied the false translation of Marina’s words, Ilya Mamantov, was selected by a Dallas oilman, Jack Crichton, and Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin.14 Crichton and Lumpkin were also the Chief and the Deputy Chief of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.15 Crichton was also an extreme right-winger in the community of Dallas oilmen: he was a trustee of the H.L. Hunt Foundation, and a member of the American Friends of the Katanga Freedom Fighters, a group organized to oppose Kennedy’s policies in the Congo.

We have to keep in mind that some of the Joint Chiefs were furious that the 1962 Missile Crisis had not led to an invasion of Cuba, and that, under new JCS Chairman Maxwell Taylor, the Joint Chiefs, in May 1963, still believed “that US military intervention in Cuba is necessary.”16 This was six months after Kennedy, to resolve the Missile Crisis in October 1962, had given explicit (albeit highly qualified) assurances to Khrushchev, that the United States would not invade Cuba.17 This did not stop the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the JCS Directorate of Plans and Policy) from producing a menu of “fabricated provocations to justify military intervention.”18 (One proposed example of “fabricated provocations” envisioned “using MIG type aircraft flown by US pilots to … attack surface shipping or to attack US military.”)19

The deceptions about Oswald coming from Dallas were immediately post-assassination; thus they do not by themselves establish that the assassination itself was a provocation-deception plot. They do however reveal enough about the anti-Castro mindset of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit in Dallas to confirm that it was remarkably similar to that of the J-5 the preceding May – the mindset that produced a menu of “fabricated provocations” to attack Cuba. (According to Crichton there were “about a hundred men in [the 488th Reserve unit] and about forty or fifty of them were from the Dallas Police Department.”)20

It can hardly be accidental that we see this bureaucratic misbehavior from the FBI, CIA, and military, the three agencies with which Kennedy had had serious disagreements in his truncated presidency.21 Later in this paper I shall link Dallas oilman Jack Crichton to the 1963 emergency planning that became the Doomsday Project.

Analogous Bureaucratic Misbehavior in the Case of 9/11

Before 9/11 the CIA, in 2000-2001, again flagrantly withheld crucial evidence from the FBI: evidence that, if shared, would have led the FBI to surveil two of the alleged hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaz al-Hazmi. This sustained withholding of evidence provoked an FBI agent to predict accurately in August, 2001, that “someday someone will die.”22 After 9/11 another FBI agent said of the CIA: “They [CIA] didn’t want the bureau meddling in their business—that’s why they didn’t tell the FBI….  And that’s why September 11 happened. That is why it happened. . . . They have blood on their hands. They have three thousand deaths on their hands”23 The CIA’s withholding of relevant evidence before 9/11 (which it was required by its own rules to supply) was matched in this case by the NSA.24

Without these withholdings, in other words, neither the Kennedy assassination nor 9/11 could have developed in the manner in which they did. As I wrote in American War Machine, it would appear that

Oswald (and later al-Mihdhar) had at some prior point been selected as designated subjects for an operation. This would not initially have been for the commission of a crime against the American polity: on the contrary, steps were probably taken to prepare Oswald in connection with an operation against Cuba and al-Mihdhar [I suspect] for an operation against al-Qaeda. But as [exploitable] legends began to accumulate about both figures, it became possible for some witting people to subvert the sanctioned operation into a plan for murder that would later be covered up. At this point Oswald (and by analogy al-Mihdhar) was no longer just a designated subject but also now a designated culprit.25

Kevin Fenton, in his exhaustive book Disconnecting the Dots, has since reached the same conclusion with respect to 9/11: “that, by the summer of 2001, the purpose of withholding the information had become to allow the attacks to go forward.”26 He has also identified the person chiefly responsible for the misbehavior: CIA officer Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit. Blee, while Clinton was still president, had been one of a faction inside CIA pressing for a more belligerent CIA involvement in Afghanistan, in conjunction with the Afghan Northern Alliance.27 This then happened immediately after 9/11, and Blee himself was promoted, to become the new Chief of Station in Kabul.28

How CIA and NSA Withholding of Evidence in the Second Tonkin Gulf Incident, Contributed to War with North Vietnam

I will spare you the details of this withholding, which can be found in my American War Machine, pp. 200-02. But Tonkin Gulf is similar to the Kennedy assassination and 9/11, in that manipulation of evidence helped lead America – in this case very swiftly – into war.

Historians such as Fredrik Logevall have agreed with the assessment of former undersecretary of state George Ball that the US destroyer mission in the Tonkin Gulf, which resulted in the Tonkin Gulf incidents, “was primarily for provocation.”29 The planning for this provocative mission came from the J-5 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the same unit that in 1963 had reported concerning Cuba that, “the engineering of a series of provocations to justify military intervention is feasible.”30

The NSA and CIA suppression of the truth on August 4 was in the context of an existing high-level (but controversial) determination to attack North Vietnam. In this respect the Tonkin Gulf incident is remarkably similar to the suppression of the truth by CIA and NSA leading up to 9/11, when there was again a high-level (but controversial) determination to go to war.

Increases in Repressive Power After Deep Events

All of the deep events discussed above have contributed to the cumulative increase of Washington’s repressive powers. It is clear for example that the Warren Commission used the JFK assassination to increase CIA surveillance of Americans. As I wrote in Deep Politics, this was the result of

the Warren Commission’s controversial recommendations that the Secret Service’s domestic surveillance responsibilities be increased (WR 25-26). Somewhat illogically, the Warren Report concluded both that Oswald acted alone (WR 22), . . . and also that the Secret Service, FBI, CIA, should coordinate more closely the surveillance of organized groups (WR 463). In particular, it recommended that the Secret Service acquire a computerized data bank compatible with that already developed by the CIA.31

This pattern would repeat itself four years later with the assassination of Robert Kennedy. In the twenty-four hours between Bobby’s shooting and his death, Congress hurriedly passed a statute— drafted well in advance (like the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 and the Patriot Act of 2001) — that still further augmented the secret powers given to the Secret Service in the name of protecting presidential candidates.32

This was not a trivial or benign change: from this swiftly considered act, passed under Johnson, flowed some of the worst excesses of the Nixon presidency.33

The change also contributed to the chaos and violence at the Chicago Democratic Convention of 1968. Army intelligence surveillance agents, seconded to the Secret Service, were present both inside and outside the convention hall. Some of them equipped the so-called “Legion of Justice thugs whom the Chicago Red Squad turned loose on local anti-war groups.”34

In this way the extra secret powers conferred after the RFK assassination contributed to the disastrous turmoil in Chicago that effectively destroyed the old Democratic Party representing the labor unions: The three Democratic presidents elected since then have all been significantly more conservative.

Turning to Watergate and Iran-Contra, both of these events were on one level setbacks to the repressive powers exercised by Richard Nixon and the Reagan White House, not expansions of them. On the surface level this is true: both events resulted in legislative reforms that would appear to contradict my thesis of expanding repression.

We need to distinguish here, however, between the two years of the Watergate crisis, and the initial Watergate break-in. The Watergate crisis saw a president forced into resignation by a number of forces, involving both liberals and conservatives. But the key figures in the initial Watergate break-in itself – Hunt, McCord, G. Gordon Liddy, and their Cuban allies — were all far to the right of Nixon and Kissinger. And the end result of their machinations was not finalized until the so-called Halloween Massacre in 1975, when Kissinger was ousted as National Security Adviser and Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller was notified he would be dropped from the 1976 Republican ticket. This major shake-up was engineered by two other right-wingers: Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in the Gerald Ford White House.35

That day in 1975 saw the permanent defeat of the so-called Rockefeller or liberal faction within the Republican Party. It was replaced by the conservative Goldwater-Casey faction that would soon capture the nomination and the presidency for Ronald Reagan.36 This little-noticed palace coup, along with other related intrigues in the mid-1970s, helped achieve the conversion of America from a welfare capitalist economy, with gradual reductions in income and wealth disparity, into a financialized plutonomy where these trends were reversed.37

Again in Iran-Contra we see a deeper accumulation of repressive power under the surface of liberal reforms. At the time not only the press but even academics like myself celebrated the termination of aid to the Nicaraguan Contras, and the victory there of the Contadora peace process. Not generally noticed at the time was the fact that, while Oliver North was removed from his role in the Doomsday Project, that project’s plans for surveillance, detention, and the militarization of the United States continued to grow after his departure.38

Also not noticed was the fact that the US Congress, while curtailing aid to one small drug-financed CIA proxy army, was simultaneously increasing US support to a much larger coalition of drug-financed proxy armies in Afghanistan.39 While Iran-Contra exposed the $32 million which Saudi Arabia, at the urging of CIA Director William Casey, had supplied to the Contras, not a word was whispered about the $500 million or more that the Saudis, again at the urging of Casey, had supplied in the same period to the Afghan mujahedin.40 In this sense the drama of Iran-Contra in Congress can be thought of as a misdirection play, directing public attention away from America’s much more intensive engagement in Afghanistan – a covert policy that has since evolved into America’s longest war.

We should expand our consciousness of Iran-Contra to think of it as Iran-Afghan-Contra. And if we do, we must acknowledge that in this complex and misunderstood deep event the CIA in Afghanistan exercised again the paramilitary capacity that Stansfield Turner had tried to terminate when he was CIA Director under Jimmy Carter. This was a victory in short for the faction of men like Richard Blee, the protector of al-Mihdhar as well as the advocate in 2000 for enhanced CIA paramilitary activity in Afghanistan.41

Personnel Overlaps Between the Successive Deep Events

I will never forget the New York Times front-page story on June 18, 1972, the day after the Watergate break-in. There were photographs of the Watergate burglars, including one of Frank Sturgis alias Fiorini, whom I had already written about two years earlier in my unpublished book manuscript, “The Dallas Conspiracy” about the JFK assassination.

Sturgis was no nonentity: a former contract employee of the CIA, he was also well connected to the mob-linked former casino owners in Havana.42 My early writings on the Kennedy case focused on the connections between Frank Sturgis and an anti-Castro Cuban training camp near New Orleans in which Oswald had shown an interest; also in Sturgis’ involvement in false “phase-one” stories portraying Oswald as part of a Communist Cuban conspiracy.43

In spreading these “phase-one” stories in 1963, Sturgis was joined by a number of Cubans who were part of the CIA-supported army in Central America of Manuel Artime. Artime’s base in Costa Rica was closed down in 1965, allegedly because of its involvement in drug trafficking.44 In the 1980s some of these Cuban exiles later became involved in drug-financed support activities for the Contras.45

The political mentor of Artime’s MRR movement was future Watergate plotter Howard Hunt; and Artime in 1972 would pay for the bail of the Cuban Watergate burglars. The drug money-launderer Ramón Milián Rodríguez has claimed to have delivered $200,000 in cash from Artime to pay off some of the Cuban Watergate burglars; later, in support of the Contras, he managed two Costa Rican seafood companies, Frigorificos and Ocean Hunter, that laundered drug money.46

It is alleged that Hunt and McCord had both been involved with Artime’s invasion plans in 1963.47 It was I believe no accident that the organization of Hunt’s protégé Artime became enmired in drug trafficking. Hunt, I have argued elsewhere, had been handling a U.S. drug connection since his 1950 post in Mexico City as OPC (Office of Policy Coordination) chief.48

But McCord not only had a past in the anti-Castro activities of 1963, he was also part of the nation’s emergency planning network that would later figure so prominently in the background of Iran-Contra and 9/11. McCord was a member of a small Air Force Reserve unit in Washington attached to the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP); assigned “to draw up lists of radicals and to develop contingency plans for censorship of the news media and U.S. mail in time of war.”49 His unit was part of the Wartime Information Security Program (WISP), which had responsibility for activating “contingency plans for imposing censorship on the press, the mails and all telecommunications (including government communications) [and] preventive detention of civilian ‘security risks,’ who would be placed in military ‘camps.’”50 In other words, these were the plans that became known in the 1980s as the Doomsday Project, the Continuity of Government planning on which Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld worked together for twenty years before 9/11.

A Common Denominator for Structural Deep Events: Project Doomsday and COG

McCord’s participation in an emergency planning system dealing with telecommunications suggests a common denominator in the backgrounds of almost all the deep events we are considering. Oliver North, the Reagan-Bush OEP point man on Iran-Contra planning, was also involved in such planning; and he had access to the nation’s top secret Doomsday communications network. North’s network, known as Flashboard,  “excluded other bureaucrats with opposing viewpoints…[and] had its own special worldwide antiterrorist computer network, … by which members could communicate exclusively with each other and their collaborators abroad.”51

Flashboard was used by North and his superiors for extremely sensitive operations which had to be concealed from other dubious or hostile parts of the Washington bureaucracy. These operations included the illegal shipments of arms to Iran, but also other activities, some still not known, perhaps even against Olof Palme’s Sweden.52 Flashboard, America’s emergency network in the 1980s, was the name in 1984-86 of the full-fledged Continuity of Government (COG) emergency network which was secretly planned for twenty years, at a cost of billions, by a team including Cheney and Rumsfeld. On 9/11 the same network was activated anew by the two men who had planned it for so many years.53

But this Doomsday planning can be traced back to 1963, when Jack Crichton, head of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit of Dallas, was part of it in his capacity as chief of intelligence for Dallas Civil Defense, which worked out of an underground Emergency Operating Center. As Russ Baker reports, “Because it was intended for ‘continuity of government’ operations during an attack, [the Center] was fully equipped with communications equipment.”54 A speech given at the dedication of the Center in 1961 supplies further details:

This Emergency Operating Center [in Dallas] is part of the National Plan to link Federal, State and local government agencies in a communications network from which rescue operations can be directed in time of local or National emergency. It is a vital part of the National, State, and local Operational Survival Plan.55

Crichton, in other words, was also part of what became known in the 1980s as the Doomsday Project, like James McCord, Oliver North, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney after him. But in 1988 its aim was significantly enlarged: no longer to prepare for an atomic attack, but now to plan for the effective suspension of the American constitution in the face of any emergency.56 This change in 1988 allowed COG to be implemented in 2001. By this time the Doomsday Project had developed into what the Washington Post called “a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing ‘continuity of operations plans.’”57

It is clear that the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP, known from 1961-1968 as the Office of Emergency Planning) supplies a common denominator for key personnel in virtually all of the structural events discussed here. This is a long way from establishing that the OEP itself (in addition to the individuals discussed here) was involved in generating any of these events. But I believe that the alternative communications network housed first in the OEP (later part of Project 908) played a significant role in at least three of them: the JFK assassination, Iran-Contra, and 9/11.

This is easiest to show in the case of 9/11, where it is conceded that the Continuity of Government (COG) plans of the Doomsday Project were implemented by Cheney on 9/11, apparently before the last of the four hijacked planes had crashed.58 The 9/11 Commission could not locate records of the key decisions taken by Cheney on that day, suggesting that they may have taken place on the “secure phone “ in the tunnel leading to the presidential bunker – with such a high classification that the 9/11 Commission was never supplied the phone records.59 Presumably this was a COG phone.

It is not clear whether the “secure phone” in the White House tunnel belonged to the Secret Service or (as one might expect) was part of the secure network of the White House Communications Agency (WHCA). If the latter, we’d have a striking link between 9/11 and the JFK assassination. The WHCA boasts on its Web site that the agency was “a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.”60  However it is not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, for the WHCA logs and transcripts were in fact withheld from the Warren Commission.61

The Secret Service had installed a WHCA portable radio in the lead car of the presidential motorcade.62 This in turn was in contact by police radio with the pilot car ahead of it, carrying DPD Deputy Chief Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit.63 Records of the WHCA communications from the motorcade never reached the Warren Commission, the House Committee on Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board.64 Thus we cannot tell if they would explain some of the anomalies on the two channels of the Dallas Police Department. They might for example have thrown light upon the unsourced call on the Dallas Police

tapes for a suspect who had exactly the false height and weight recorded for Oswald in his FBI and CIA files.65

Today in 2011 we are still living under the State of Emergency proclaimed after 9/11 by President Bush. At least some COG provisions are still in effect, and were even augmented by Bush through Presidential Directive 51 of May 2007. Commenting on PD-51, the Washington Post reported at that time,

After the 2001 attacks, Bush assigned about 100 senior civilian managers [including Cheney] to rotate secretly to [COG] locations outside of Washington for weeks or months at a time to ensure the nation’s survival, a shadow government that evolved based on long-standing “continuity of operations plans.”66

Presumably this “shadow government” finalized such long-standing COG projects as warrantless surveillance, in part through the Patriot Act, whose controversial provisions were already being implemented by Cheney and others well before the Bill reached Congress on October 12.67 Other COG projects implemented included the militarization of domestic surveillance under NORTHCOM, and the Department of Homeland Security’s Project Endgame—a ten-year plan to expand detention camps at a cost of $400 million in fiscal year 2007 alone.68

I have, therefore, a recommendation for the Occupy movement, rightfully incensed as it is with the plutonomic excesses of Wall Street over the last three decades. It is to call for an end to the state of emergency, which has been in force since 2001, under which since 2008 a U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team has been stationed permanently in the United States, in part to be ready “to help with civil unrest and crowd control.”69

Democracy-lovers must work to prevent the political crisis now developing in America from being resolved by military intervention.

Let me say in conclusion that for a half century American politics have been constrained and deformed by the unresolved matter of the Kennedy assassination. According to a memo of November 25 1963, from Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, it was important then to persuade the public that “Oswald was the assassin,” and that “he did not have confederates.”70 Obviously this priority became even more important after these questionable propositions were endorsed by the Warren Report, the U.S. establishment, and the mainstream press. It has remained an embarrassing priority ever since for all succeeding administrations, including the present one. There is for example an official in Obama’s State Department (Todd Leventhal), whose official job, until recently, included defense of the lone nut theory against so-called “conspiracy theorists”71

If Oswald was not a lone assassin, then it should not surprise us that there is continuity between those who falsified reports about Oswald in 1963, and those who distorted American politics in subsequent deep events beginning with Watergate. Since the deep event of 1963 the legitimacy of America’s political system has become vested in a lie — a lie which subsequent deep events have helped to protect.72

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War.

His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan.

His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here http://www.peterdalescott.net/q.html  

Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

Notes

1 Tim Weiner, “The Pentagon’s Secret Stash,” Mother Jones Magazine Mar-Apr 1992, 26.

2 J.A. Myerson “War Is a Force That Pays the 1 Percent: Occupying American Foreign Policy,” Truthout, November 14, 2001, link. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 6, etc.

3 Scott, Road to 9/11, 22, 29, 98.

4 Scott, Road to 9/11, 22, 97.

5 Scott, Road to 9/11, 21, 51-52; Kristol as quoted in Lewis H. Lapham, “Tentacles of Rage: The Republican Propaganda Mill, a Brief History,” Harper’s Magazine, September 2004, 36.

6 E.g. Peter Dale Scott, American War Machine, 204-05.

7 Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy, 354.

8 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics II, 30-33; Scott, The War Conspiracy, 387; Scott, American War Machine, 152.

9 Clarence M. Kelley, Kelley: The Story of an FBI Director (Kansas City, MO:

Andrews, McMeel, and Parker, 1987), 268, quoted in Scott, The War Conspiracy (2008), 389.

10 Scott, Deep Politics, 275; Scott, Deep Politics II, 80, 129n; HSCA Critics Conference of 17 September 1977, 181, link. Stringfellow worked under Jack Revill in the Vice Squad of the DPD Special Services Bureau. As such he reported regularly to the FBI on such close Jack Ruby associates as James Herbert Dolan, a “known hoodlum and strong-arm man” on the FBI’s Top Criminal list for Dallas (Robert M. Barrett, FBI Report of February 2, 1963, NARA#124-90038-10026, 12 [Stringfellow]; cf. NARA#124-10212-10012, 4 [hoodlum], NARA#124-10195-10305, 9 [Top Criminal]). Cf. 14 WH 601-02 Ruby and Dolan]. Robert Barrett, who received Stringfellow’s reports to the FBI, had Ruby’s friend Dolan under close surveillance; he also took part in Oswald’s arrest at the Texas Theater, and claimed to have seen DPD Officer Westbrook with Oswald’s wallet at the site of the Tippit killing [Dale K. Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit (Milford, MI: Oak Cliff Press, 1998), 287-90]).

11 It was sent for information to Washington, which received it three days later (Scott, Deep Politics, 275; Scott, Deep Politics II, 80, 129n; Scott, War Conspiracy, 382).

12 Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383. (Marina’s actual words, before mistranslation, were quite innocuous: “I cannot describe it [the gun] because a rifle to me like all rifles” (Warren Commission Exhibit 1778, 23 WH 383; discussion in Scott, Deep Politics, 168-72).

13 Stringfellow himself was the source of one other piece of false intelligence on November 22: that Oswald had confessed to the murders of both the president and Officer Tippit (Dallas FBI File DL 89-43-2381C; Paul L. Hoch, “The Final Investigation? The HSCA and Army Intelligence,” The Third Decade, 1, 5 [July 1985], 3),

14 9 WH 106; Scott, Deep Politics, 275-76; Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 119-22.

15 Rodney P. Carlisle and Dominic J. Monetta, Brandy: Our Man in Acapulco (Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 1999), 128.

16 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1 May 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 12. Cf. pp. 15-16: “The United States should intervene militarily in Cuba and could (a) engineer provocative incidents ostensibly perpetrated by the Castro regime to serve as the cause of invasion…”

17 Robert Dallek, An Unfinished Life, 568; James A. Nathan, The Cuban missile crisis revisited, 283; Waldron and Hartmann, Legacy of Secrecy, 9.

[18 Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1 May 1963, NARA #202-10002-10018, 12.

19 “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” NARA #202-10002-10018, 20. I see nothing in this document indicating that the President should be notified that these “fabricated provocations” were false. On the contrary, the document called for “compartmentation of participants” to insure that the true facts were not leaked (“Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” NARA #202-10002-10018, 19).

20 Quoted in Baker, Family of Secrets, 122. One of these, DPD Detective John Adamcik, was a member of the party which retrieved a blanket said to have contained Oswald’s rifle; and which the Warren Commission used to link Oswald to the famous Mannlicher Carcano. Adamcik was later present at Mamantov’s interview of Marina about the rifle, and corroborated Mamantov’s account of it to the Warren Commission. There is reason to believe that Mamantov’s translation of Marina’s testimony was inaccurate (Scott, Deep Politics, 268-70, 276).

21 See James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).

22 9/11 Commission Report, 259, 271; Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower:

Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 352–54 (FBI agent).

23 James Bamford, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies (New York: Doubleday, 2004, 224. For a fuller account of the CIA’s withholding before 9/11, see Kevin Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots; Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski, “Insiders Voice Doubts about CIA’s 9/11 Story,” Salon, October 14, 2011, link.

24 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 7-12, 142-47, etc.

25 Scott, American War Machine, 203.

26 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 371, cf. 95. Quite independently, Richard Clarke, the former White House Counterterrorism Chief on 9/11, has charged that “There was a high-level decision in the CIA ordering people not to share information” (Rory O’Connor and Ray Nowosielski, “Insiders Voice Doubts about CIA’s 9/11 Story,” Salon, October 14, 2011).

27 Coll, 467-69.

28 Fenton, Disconnecting the Dots, 107-08.

29 James Bamford, Body of Secrets, 201. Cf. Fredrik Logevall, Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the Escalation of War in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 200, citing John Prados, The Hidden History of the Vietnam War (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), 51.

30 “Courses of Action Related to Cuba (Case II),” Report of the J-5 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 1, 1963, JCS 2304/189, NARA #202-10002-10018, link.

31 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 280.

32 Public Law 90-331 (18 U.S.C. 3056); discussion in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L.

Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (New York: Random

House, 1976), 443–46.

33 Army intelligence agents were seconded to the Secret Service, and at this time there was a great increase in their number. The Washington Star later explained that “the big build-up in [Army] information gathering…did not come until after the shooting of the Rev. Martin Luther King” (Washington Star, December 6, 1970; reprinted in Federal Data Banks Hearings, p. 1728).

34 George O’Toole, The Private Sector (New York: Norton, 1978), 145, quoted in

Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 278–79.

35 Scott, Road to 9/11, 52-53.

36 Scott, Road to 9/11, 53-54.

37 Scott, Road to 9/11, 50-64.

38 Peter Dale Scott, “Northwards without North,” Social Justice (Summer 1989). Revised as “North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011.

39 Scott, Road to 9/11, 132.

40 Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott, and Jane Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection, 13 (Contras); Richard Coll, Ghost Wars, 93-102 (mujahedin).

41 Richard Coll, Ghost Wars, 457-59, 534-36,

42 According to testimony from CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters, only “Hunt and McCord had ever been CIA full-time employees. The others [including Sturgis] were contract employees for a short duration or a longer duration” (Watergate Hearings, 3427). Cf. Marshall, Scott, and  Hunter, The Iran-Contra Connection, 45 (casino owners).

43 Peter Dale Scott, “From Dallas to Watergate,” Ramparts, December 1973; reprinted in Peter Dale Scott, Paul L. Hoch, and Russell Stetler, The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, 356, 363.

44 Peter Dale Scott, Crime and Cover-Up, 20.

45 Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 25-32, etc.

46 Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press  (London: Verso, 1998), 308-09; Martha Honey, Hostile Acts: U.S. Policy in Costa Rica in the 1980s (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1994), 368 (Frigorificos).

47 Tad Szulc, Compulsive Spy: The Strange Career of E. Howard Hunt (New York: Viking, 1974), 96-97.

48 Scott, American War Machine, 51-54. Hunt helped put together what became the drug-linked World Anti-Communist League. Artime’s Costa Rica base was on land whose owners were part of the local WACL chapter (Scott and Marshall, Cocaine Politics, 87, 220).

49 Woodward and Bernstein, All the President’s Men (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 23

50 Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda (New York: Random House, 1984), 16, citing Department of Defense Directive 5230.7, June 25, 1965, amended May 21, 1971.

51 Peter Dale Scott, “North, Iran-Contra, and the Doomsday Project: The Original Congressional Cover Up of Continuity-of-Government Planning,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, February 21, 2011. Cf. Peter Dale Scott, “Northwards Without North: Bush, Counterterrorism, and the Continuation of Secret Power.” Social Justice (San Francisco), XVI, 2 (Summer 1989), 1-30; Peter Dale Scott, “The Terrorism Task Force.” Covert Action Information Bulletin, 33 (Winter 1990), 12-15.

52 Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 140-41, 242 (Iran, etc.); Ola Tunander, The secret war against Sweden: US and British submarine deception in the 1980s, 309 (Sweden).

53 Scott, Road to 9/11, 183-87.

54 Russ Baker, Family of Secrets, 121.

55 “Statement by Col. John W. Mayo, Chairman of City-County Civil Defense and Disaster Commission at the Dedication of the Emergency Operating Center at Fair Park,” May 24, 1961, link.

Six linear inches of Civil Defense Administrative Files are preserved in the Dallas Municipal Archives; a Finding Guide is viewable online here.  I hope an interested researcher may wish to consult them.

56 Scott, Road to 9/11, 183-87.

57 Washington Post, May 10, 2007.

58 9/11 Report, 38, 326, 555n9; Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, 224.

59 Scott, Road to 9/11, 226-30. A footnote in the 9/11 Report (555n9) says:

“The 9/11 crisis tested the U.S. government’s plans and capabilities to ensure the continuity of constitutional government and the continuity of government operations. We did not investigate this topic, except as needed to understand the activities and communications of key officials on 9/11. The Chair, Vice Chair, and senior staff were briefed on the general nature and implementation of these continuity plans.”

The other footnotes confirm that no information from COG files was used to document the 9/11 report. At a minimum these files might resolve the mystery of the missing phone call which simultaneously authorized COG, and (in consequence) determined that Bush should continue to stay out of Washington. I suspect that they might tell us a great deal more.

60 “White House Communications Agency,” Signal Corps Regimental History, link.

61 The Warren Commission staff knew of the WHCA presence in Dallas from the Secret Service (17 WH 598, 619, 630, etc.).

62 Statement of Secret Service official Winston Lawson, 17 WH 630 (WHCA radio).

63 Pamela McElwain-Brown, “The Presidential Lincoln Continental SS-100-X,” Dealey Plaza Echo, Volume 3, Issue 2, 23, link (police radio); Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 272-75 (Lumpkin).

64 In the 1990s the WHCA supplied statements to the ARRB concerning communications between Dallas and Washington on November 22 (NARA #172-10001-10002 to NARA #172-10000-10008).  The Assassination Records Review Board also attempted to obtain from the WHCA the unedited original tapes of conversations from Air Force One on the return trip from Dallas, November 22, 1963. (Edited and condensed versions of these tapes had been available since the 1970s from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library in Austin, Texas.) The attempt was unsuccessful: “The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes.” See Assassinations Records Review Board: Final Report, chapter 6, Part 1, 116, link. In November 2011 AP reported that Gen. Chester Clifton’s personal copy of the Air Force One recordings was being put up for sale, with an asking price of $500,000 (AP, November 15, 2011, link).

65 See Scott, War Conspiracy (2008), 347-48, 385-87.

66 Washington Post, May 10, 2007.

67 Dick Cheney, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir (New York: Threshold Editions, 2011), 348: “One of the first efforts we undertook after 9/11 to strengthen the country’s defenses was securing passage of the Patriot Act, which the president signed into law on [sic] October 2001.” Cf. “The Patriot Act, which the president signed into law on October 2001,″ link; “Questions and Answers about Beginning of Domestic Spying Program; link.

68 Scott, Road to 9/11, 236-45; Peter Dale Scott, “Is the State of Emergency Superseding our Constitution? Continuity of Government Planning, War and American Society,” November 28, 2010, http:/1/japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3448.

69 “Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1,” Army Times, September 30, 2008, link. As part of the Army’s emergency plan GARDEN PLOT in the 1960s, there were until 1971 two brigades (4,800 troops) on permanent standby to quell unrest.

70 “Memorandum for Mr. Moyers” of November 25, 1963, FBI 62-109060, Section 18, p. 29, link. Cf. Nicholas Katzenbach, Some of It Was Fun (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008), 131-36.

71 Leventhal’s official title is (or was) “Chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team, U.S. Department of State” (link). In 2010 the U.S. State Department “launched an official bid to shoot down conspiracy theories….The “Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation” page… insists that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F Kennedy alone, and that the Pentagon was not hit by a cruise missile on 9/11” Daily Record [Scotland], August 2, 2010, (link). The site still exists here, (“Conspiracy theories exist in the realm of myth, where imaginations run wild, fears trump facts, and evidence is ignored.”) The site still attacks 9/11 theories, but a page on the Kennedy assassination has been suspended (link). Cf. Robin Ramsay, “Government vs Conspiracy Theorists: The official war on “sick think,” Fortean Times, April 2010, link; “The State Department vs ‘Sick Think’

The JFK assassination, 9/11, and the Tory MP spiked with LSD,” Fortean Times, July 2010, link; William Kelly, “Todd Leventhal: The Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza,” CTKA, 2010, link.

72 For Nixon’s sensitivity concerning the Kennedy assassination, and the way this induced him into some of the intrigues known collectively as Watergate, see e.g. Scott, Hoch, and Stetler, The Assassinations, 374-78; Peter Dale Scott, Crime and Cover-up (Santa Barbara, CA: Open Archive Press, 1993), 33, 64-66.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate This Article 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 11, 2022

***

On March 11, 2022, President Biden reassured the American public and the world that the United States and its NATO allies were not at war with Russia. “We will not fight a war with Russia in Ukraine,” said Biden. “Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.”

It is widely acknowledged that U.S. and NATO officers are now fully involved in Ukraine’s operational war planning, aided by a broad range of U.S. intelligence gathering and analysis to exploit Russia’s military vulnerabilities, while Ukrainian forces are armed with U.S. and NATO weapons and trained up to the standards of other NATO countries.

On October 5, Nikolay Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, recognized that Russia is now fighting NATO in Ukraine. Meanwhile, President Putin has reminded the world that Russia has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them “when the very existence of the state is put under threat,” as Russia’s official nuclear weapons doctrine declared in June 2020.

It seems likely that, under that doctrine, Russia’s leaders would interpret losing a war to the United States and NATO on their own borders as meeting the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.

President Biden acknowledged on October 6 that Putin is “not joking” and that it would be difficult for Russia to use a “tactical” nuclear weapon “and not end up with Armageddon.” Biden assessed the danger of a full-scale nuclear war as higher than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Yet despite voicing the possibility of an existential threat to our survival, Biden was not issuing a public warning to the American people and the world, nor announcing any change in U.S. policy. Bizarrely, the president was instead discussing the prospect of nuclear war with his political party’s financial backers during an election fundraiser at the home of media mogul James Murdoch, with surprised corporate media reporters listening in.

In an NPR report about the danger of nuclear war over Ukraine, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons expert at Harvard University, estimated the chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon at 10 to 20 percent.

How have we gone from ruling out direct U.S. and NATO involvement in the war to U.S. involvement in all aspects of the war except for the bleeding and dying, with an estimated 10 to 20 percent chance of nuclear war? Bunn made that estimate shortly before the sabotage of the Kerch Strait Bridge to Crimea. What odds will he project a few months from now if both sides keep matching each other’s escalations with further escalation?

The irresolvable dilemma facing Western leaders is that this is a no-win situation. How can they militarily defeat Russia, when it possesses 6,000 nuclear warheads and its military doctrine explicitly states that it will use them before it will accept an existential military defeat?

And yet that is what the intensifying Western role in Ukraine now explicitly aims to achieve. This leaves U.S. and NATO policy, and thus our very existence, hanging by a thin thread: the hope that Putin is bluffing, despite explicit warnings that he is not. CIA Director William Burns, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and the director of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, have all warned that we should not take this danger lightly.

The danger of relentless escalation toward Armageddon is what both sides faced throughout the Cold War, which is why, after the wake-up call of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, dangerous brinkmanship gave way to a framework of nuclear arms control agreements and safeguard mechanisms to prevent proxy wars and military alliances spiraling into a world-ending nuclear war. Even with those safeguards in place, there were still many close calls – but without them, we would probably not be here to write about it.

Today, the situation is made more dangerous by the dismantling of those nuclear arms treaties and safeguards. It is also exacerbated, whether either side intends it or not, by the twelve-to-one imbalance between U.S. and Russian military spending, which leaves Russia with more limited conventional military options and a greater reliance on nuclear ones.

But there have always been alternatives to the relentless escalation of this war by both sides that has brought us to this pass. In April, Western officials took a fateful step when they persuaded President Zelenskyy to abandon Turkish- and Israeli-brokered negotiations with Russia that had produced a promising 15-point framework for a ceasefire, a Russian withdrawal and a neutral future for Ukraine.

That agreement would have required Western countries to provide security guarantees to Ukraine, but they refused to be party to it and instead promised Ukraine military support for a long war to try to decisively defeat Russia and recover all the territory Ukraine had lost since 2014.

U.S. Defense Secretary Austin declared that the West’s goal in the war was now to “weaken” Russia to the point that it would no longer have the military power to invade Ukraine again. But if the United States and its allies ever came close to achieving that goal, Russia would surely see such a total military defeat as putting “the very existence of the state under threat,” triggering the use of nuclear weapons under its publicly stated nuclear doctrine.

On May 23rd, the very day that Congress passed a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine, including $24 billion in new military spending, the contradictions and dangers of the new U.S.-NATO war policy in Ukraine finally spurred a critical response from The New York Times Editorial Board. A Times editorial, titled “The Ukraine War is Getting Complicated, and America Is Not Ready,” asked serious, probing questions about the new U.S. policy:

“Is the United States, for example, trying to help bring an end to this conflict, through a settlement that would allow for a sovereign Ukraine and some kind of relationship between the United States and Russia? Or is the United States now trying to weaken Russia permanently? Has the administration’s goal shifted to destabilizing Putin or having him removed? Does the United States intend to hold Putin accountable as a war criminal? Or is the goal to try to avoid a wider war…? Without clarity on these questions, the White House…jeopardizes long-term peace and security on the European continent.”

The NYT editors went on to voice what many have thought but few have dared to say in such a politicized media environment, that the goal of recovering all the territory Ukraine has lost since 2014 is not realistic, and that a war to do so will “inflict untold destruction on Ukraine.” They called on Biden to talk honestly with Zelenskyy about “how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain” and the “limit to how far the United States and NATO will confront Russia.”

A week later, Biden replied to the Times in an Op-Ed titled “What America Will and Will Not Do in Ukraine.” He quoted Zelenskyy saying that the war “will only definitively end through diplomacy,” and wrote that the United States was sending weapons and ammunition so that Ukraine “can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

Biden wrote, “We do not seek a war between NATO and Russia.…the United States will not try to bring about [Putin’s] ouster in Moscow.” But he went on to pledge virtually unlimited U.S. support for Ukraine, and he did not answer the more difficult questions the Times asked about the U.S. endgame in Ukraine, the limits to U.S. involvement in the war or how much more devastation Ukraine could sustain.

As the war escalates and the danger of nuclear war increases, these questions remain unanswered. Calls for a speedy end to the war echoed around the UN General Assembly in New York in September, where 66 countries, representing most of the world’s population, urgently called on all sides to restart peace talks.

The greatest danger we face is that their calls will be ignored, and that the U.S. military-industrial complex’s overpaid minions will keep finding ways to incrementally turn up the pressure on Russia, calling its bluff and ignoring its “red lines” as they have since 1991, until they cross the most critical “red line” of all.

If the world’s calls for peace are heard before it is too late and we survive this crisis, the United States and Russia must renew their commitments to arms control and nuclear disarmament, and negotiate how they and other nuclear armed states will destroy their weapons of mass destruction and accede to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, so that we can finally lift this unthinkable and unacceptable danger hanging over our heads.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, available from OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.


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.

First published on November 30, 2022

***

That the economic sanctions resulting from the invasion of Ukraine affect Europe more than Russia is an annoying fact. But now a recent study by The Economist suggests that because of high fuel prices, the additional death toll in Europe in the coming winter could exceed the number of soldiers killed in combat in Ukraine so far. Food for thought. 

Before the war, Russia supplied about 40 percent of the European Union’s total gas consumption. In response to the war and in order to reduce dependence on Russian gas, Ukraine and Poland have shut down some pipelines bringing gas from Russia to Western Europe.

Countries, such as Finland, Bulgaria and Poland, that were unwilling to pay for their gas in rubles were disconnected by Russia. In addition, the maintenance required to keep the important Nord Stream I pipeline at full capacity was also compromised.

The sharply reduced gas supply, which for now cannot be fully offset by imports from elsewhere, has sent gas prices and indirectly electricity prices in Europe skyrocketing.

Due to the very mild autumn and because Europe has built up a large gas stock, market prices have meanwhile fallen compared to their peak in the summer. Yet the average price for gas today is almost two and a half times as much as in the period 2000-19. For electricity, it is almost double.

And now winter is upon us. It is a well-known phenomenon that more people die in winter, because of the cold, than in summer. In both Europe and the US, the number of deaths is about 20 per cent larger on average.

In the past, energy prices had little or no impact on excess mortality, because price fluctuations were very small. But now the cost increases are remarkably large and therefore a much greater impact is expected.

To calculate that impact, The Economist has built a statistical model. Besides the price of energy, there are three other factors that cause the number of extra deaths: the most important is how severe the winter is, in addition to that, the severity of the flu season (which is partly determined by how cold it is) and, finally, the compensation of the governments to households for absorbing the price hikes.

High fuel prices can exacerbate the effect of low temperatures on deaths by discouraging people from using heating and making people more exposed to cold. The same applies significantly to the government’s support to households meant to absorb the energy shock.

According to The Economist’s model, the “firm conclusion” is that the impact “will prove highly potent” and the death toll “could exceed the number of soldiers who have died so far in combat”.

If energy prices remain at current levels, about 147,000 more people in Europe would die in a typical winter than under a situation with “normal” prices. With mild temperatures – assuming the warmest winter of the past 20 years for each country – this figure drops to 79,000. In a severe winter, using the coldest winter for each country since 2000, the extra excess mortality rises to 185,000.

Supposedly, about 25,000 to 30,000 military personnel on both sides died in the war and another 6,500 Ukrainian civilians were killed. In total, this is less than in the best-case scenario from The Economist’s model.

The magazine notes that the effect can vary greatly from country to country. In countries that have set maximum prices or a maximum bill, there will be hardly any additional mortality or the mortality rate may even fall. This is the case for France, Britain, Spain and Austria, among others.

Much larger numbers of deaths are predicted in countries where government support is (for now) low, such as Italy, Estonia and Finland. The Economist does not explicitly mention Belgium, the country where I live. In terms of government support, the country is somewhere between the two extremes.

In the long run, the sanctions against Putin will most certainly weaken the Russian economy. But so far that is absolutely not the case. Expected revenues from Russian energy exports will be a third higher this year than last year.

It is mainly the European countries that are shooting themselves in the foot with the sanctions. Recent data shows that the Russian ‘current activity indicator’ (measure of economic activity) is higher than in other major European countries.

As a result of high energy prices, many companies may have to close or relocate to other regions, where energy costs are lower. Moreover, to combat inflation, which in turn is mainly due to high energy prices, we are almost certainly heading for a full-blown recession in Europe.

In addition to the economic self-flagellation, the toll in human lives in Europe will be extremely high. It may be time to think deeply about the sense or nonsense of the economic sanctions against Russia.

*

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.

Marc Vandepitte is a Belgian economist and philosopher. He writes on North-South relations, Latin America, Cuba, and China. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

The ‘Twitter Papers’ Reveal the Totalitarians Among Us

December 11th, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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 December 6, 2022

***

I admit to being skeptical of Elon Musk as a free speech hero. He has moved from one US government-subsidized business to another on his path to becoming the world’s richest person. But there is no denying that his release of the “Twitter Papers” this past weekend, which blew the lid off government manipulation of social media, has been a huge victory for those of us who value the First Amendment.

The release, in coordination with truly independent journalist Matt Taibbi, demonstrated indisputably how politicians and representatives of “official Washington” pressed the teams that were then in charge of censorship at Twitter to remove Tweets and even ban accounts that were guilty of nothing beyond posting something the power-brokers did not want the general public to read. Let’s not forget that many of those demanding Twitter censorship were US government officials who had taken an oath to the US Constitution and its First Amendment.

It is important to understand that both US political parties were involved in pushing Twitter to censor information they didn’t like. There is plenty of corruption to go around. However, as the Twitter Papers demonstrated, vastly more Tweets were censored at the demand of Democratic Party politicians simply because Twitter employees on the censorship team were overwhelmingly Democratic Party supporters.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence released in this first installment of the Twitter Papers was a series of Tweets from the Biden 2020 campaign to its contact inside Twitter asking that the social media censor them. An internal Twitter document shows that the censor team “handled these,” meaning censored them.

Elon Musk himself openly stated before the release that, prior to his taking control of the company and engaging in mass firing, Twitter had been manipulating elections. So all those years we heard lies from the Washington elites that Russia was interfering in our elections when after all it was Twitter. Of course that raises the question about other large social media companies like Facebook. Will Mark Zuckerberg come clean about his own company’s election interference? Will anyone have the courage to demand that he do so?

How did they get away with all of this? As another truly independent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, pointed out on the Tucker Carlson show the night the “Twitter Papers” were released, while it was once controversial for the CIA to attempt to manipulate what Americans consume in the mainstream media, nowadays these outlets openly hire “former” US intelligence leaders and officers as news analysts. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and the rest of them all bring on “former” members of the intelligence services to tell Americans what to think. “Big tech censorship is a critical tool of the national security state,” Greenwald told Tucker. “Whenever anyone tries to do anything about it these former people from the CIA and the Pentagon and the rest jump up and say ‘we cannot allow you to restore free speech.’”

This is a corruption scandal so massive that it is almost guaranteed to never be properly investigated. Government itself is among the most guilty and we know “government commissions” are really about covering up rather than uncovering the crimes committed. But the truth is powerful. Some 58 years after the Warren Report whitewashed the assassination of President Kennedy, polls show that few Americans believe the “official” narrative.

Truth is powerful and we must always seek it. No amount of lies can withstand the disinfectant of truth. Thanks to Elon Musk for his courage and we encourage him to continue.

*

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 OneWorld

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 November 16, 2022

***

For decades the world has been exposed to US-weaponized dollar-economics – US sanctions dished out left and right, whenever an autonomous, sovereign regime refuses to do Washington’s bidding.

These “sanctions” – as they call them benignly – were and are anything but benign. They bring untold human suffering and kill people. The most vulnerable, the infirm, elderly, children and women, are most affected by US sanctions.

For example, reports from UNICEF and different other sources, on children killed by sanctions in Iraq during the 1990s, put the death rate of children alone at between 500,000 and a million.

When then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was later confronted by a journalist, questioning the sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children, Albright said “it was well worth it.”

You may not find this statement anymore on internet. It has been white-washed by “fact-checkers” or outright eliminated. This killer mindset – devoid of any humanitarian conscience – is still omni-prevalent in US foreign policy.

It is high time that this instrument of fraud and death, the US-dollar, and the self-declared US economic world dominance, is broken, once and for all.

“Sanctions” are economic measures that have so far, in the course of the last at least half a century, caused millions if not tens of millions of deaths around the world. It is difficult to assess an exact number, because sanctions come with many faces, and different and multiple consequences, but they always, hit the innocent and the weak, the poor and the sick.

Economic sanctions are possible only because the world has been – and to a large extent remains dependent on the US-dollar which still controls to about 60% the world’s trade and monetary transactions. This figure was close to 100% only some 25 years ago. So, the peace-thinking world – the East with its de-dollarization policy, is moving in the right direction.

Sanctions are a crime against humanity. But so far, nobody dares stopping the crime. With a few exceptions, the entire UN system dances to the tune of Washington. Why? – Many governments are afraid to speak up, precisely because of fear of sanctions. Others are coerced by Washington to follow the US sanction regimes applied to third countries, or else….

This has been slowly changing in the past ten years or so, and a major shift in scenery, in effective resistance, is imminent.

Several new Asian strategic and economic partnerships are being created and old ones enhanced.

A new one is, for example, the strategic partnership between Russia and Iran that emerged from a recent meeting of the two respective Security Officers, Russian Nikolai Patrushev and Iran’s Ali Shamkhani, who is the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council.

Their vision goes way beyond agreements on a tight security alliance; it leads into a close cooperation within different Asian coalitions, covering defense strategies, trade, as well as economic development schemes. We may see more formations of such alliances as time progresses, where the West meets the East, in a quest of peaceful, mutually beneficial cohabitation.

Strategic and economic alliances include the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which Iran is already a member; the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU or EEU), fostering closer economic cooperation among Republics of the former Soviet Union – and more.

Eurasia is emerging as a fluid Continent, where resurgent great power politics by Russia and China are marginalizing Europe and the western imposed neoliberal order.

Brussels take note: The magnitude of Eurasia and her trade and economic potential, may be best summarized by her sheer size of 55 million square kilometers (km2), more than a third of the world’s land surface (149 million km2); and about 5.4 billion people, close to 70% of the world’s population.

Simultaneously, Moscow and Beijing are enhancing their Eurasian integration projects, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Funding for BRI and other inter-Asian projects may come from the Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) – delinked from the dollar.

To avoid the loss of Europe’s trade potential in Eurasia, the EU, led by Germany, might want to adjust their Asia strategy, by abandoning the Washington-vassal status and seeking peaceful, sanction-free alliances with Eurasian countries and trade organizations.

So far, under pressure from Washington, they are doing exactly the contrary.

Eurasia should be newly defined as a European approach seeking connectivity towards China and Russia. It is now the time – rather than following the dictate of Washington / NATO / WEF, and the huge capital power behind them. Vanguard, BlackRock, StateStreet, et al, are powerless if governments decide collectively and in unison not to follow their monetary, fiat-dollar-based blackmail.

The challenge is breaking lose from the Dark Cult Matrix, the fiat dollar-backed currency ties, and joining up with the dawning new eastern horizon, where, no doubt, a peaceful and prosperous future is grounded, with steadfast economy-backed currencies.

Even North Korea will defy the US sanctions regime, as her ties with China and Russia may guarantee food and health security. If the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s (DPRK) leader, Kim Jong-un, and the people of the DPRK, feel secure, there will be no nuclear threat emanating from North Korea.

President Trump demonstrated clearly that peaceful relations with Kim Jong-un are possible.

When all is said and done, US sanction warnings may be nothing more than propaganda, when confronted with an ethical European and Global South leadership, rather than the corrupted, WEF-educated and infiltrated Young Global Leadership.

Eurasia Economic Force

Asian within-trading is a new asset of the Eurasia economic force. Take the ASEAN-plus Five Free Trade Agreement – the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the largest ever Free Trade Agreement, negotiated during 8 years and having enteredinto effect on 1 January 2022.

The trade deal will encompass some 2.2 billion people, commanding some 30% of the world’s GDP. It is expected that the ASEAN-plus 5 free trade agreement may within 5 years control a fourth to a third of all world trade. See this and this.

China’s Belt and Road

The Chinese Belt and Road, initiated in 2013, consists already of over 130 member countries and 30-plus international organizations. It is an economic instrument of PEACEFUL cooperation and connection of the world’s sovereign nation-states, as a win-win approach to socioeconomic development and improved standards of living.

While the Washington-driven west shuns and despises the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), alias the New Silk Road, there are ever-more western countries, mostly in Europe and Latin America – let alone of the Global South – which see their future in an alliance with the east and connect to the BRI. They know that with the BRI there are a myriad of Asian economic and strategic associations protecting them from western sanctions – which are progressively fading into a cloudy sunset.

Asian economic blocks will become increasingly attractive to non-Asian nations, as the latter seek national securities, independent of the insecure and rapidly decaying US “shield”.

The shift from the western unipolar hegemony to an eastern multipolar world in which national sovereignties will be maintained, is already in full swing – and unstoppable.

Clearly, the coercive power of the west is abating. Last ditch efforts of wildly bashing Russia, China and eastern alliances in general, with propaganda and nuclear threats, are losing their punch.

In a multi-polar world with Asian economies and currencies being delinked from the US-dollar / Euro realm, as well as with a production and service apparatus ever-more independent form the west, takes the power out of the trillions of dollar-based assets that has been the command stick for the Washington / NATO force.

Manipulative instruments, such as fake diseases, i.e., covid and whatever other plandemics may be invented by the west, as well as false energy crises, manufactured inflation and food shortages, proxy wars, all fearmongering instruments to intimidate people with the goal to reducing populations – so that more resources will be available for a small elite that pretends to be in charge of the remaining useless eaters, albeit transformed into insect-eating transhumans.

Add to this the climate change narrative – also fear and guilt-mongering of a hapless misinformed western population – is losing its luster as more people are waking up to the fact that “climate change” is indeed man-made – not by CO2 emissions, but by geoengineering which has been going on for decades – and, as per a Pentagon paper, will allow the US to control the weather worldwide by 2025.

Owning the weather for military use

It is confirmed by a US Air Force document entitled “Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025

Screen Shot from the Report submitted to Air Force 2025

Weaponizing the weather can be a powerful killing machine. But the science to control the weather is no longer just a US-western monopoly; it may be used with equal force by the eastern powers. The geo-manipulation has proliferated in similar ways as did nuclear power some sixty years ago.

 The Spanish State Meteorological Agency (AEMET) has recently admitted that Spain is being sprayed with chemicals and heavy metals to influence the weather. They added that there are today at least 50 countries mastering the technology of geoengineering, meaning weather manipulation.

In the end, what counts is peaceful cohabitation of peoples, nations and societies; and a growing equilibrium of wellbeing throughout the world. It is all in reach and well under way. If based on truth, the People-Power is unbeatable.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Russia’s Winter Offensive and NATO’s Response

December 11th, 2022 by James W. McConnell

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.

Important article first published on November 30, 2022

***

Russia has decided to use the force necessary in Ukraine. The Russians have begun to destroy the Ukrainian lines of communications — the power grid, bridges, roads and railroads — without which Ukraine’s forces can’t be resupplied. Once the destruction of the lines of communication is completed, Russia’s army, particularly its extensive artillery, will present Ukrainian forces with the unpleasant reality that they are vastly outgunned and outnumbered.

How far west Russia chooses to advance is an open question but it must be assumed that in addition to the four oblasts already claimed — Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhya and Kherson — they’d want at least Mykolayiv and Odesa. With those two additional oblasts Russia would have absorbed most of the territory referred to as Novorossiya (New Russia) and deprive what’s left of Ukraine access to the Black Sea. In addition, Odesa shares a border with Transnistria, a breakaway Moldovan state which has hosted a small (two battalions) Russian Army presence since 1995.

Once the Russian advance begins, NATO can either accept Russia’s victory or engage the Russians with NATO forces. While a compelling case can be made that this conflict should have been seen as a local matter with an inevitable outcome, there’s little to suggest NATO’s leadership is capable of drawing that conclusion.

Unfortunately, Russia is a formidable adversary. Russia leads the world in air defense systems. NATO air forces would be engaging Russia’s S-400 air defense system. The S-400 is generally regarded as the world’s best widely fielded system. NATO member Turkey, for example, purchased the export version of the S-400 over NATO objections and in preference to the US Patriot system. The Russian S-500, an improvement of the S-400, has only recently entered production and is currently deployed at critical sites in Russia.

Russia has an estimated five year lead over the US in hypersonic missiles. The US has no defense against hypersonic missiles, which travel at hypersonic speed and can vary their flight paths. While the US is still conducting hypersonic tests, Russia has fielded four different hypersonic missiles within their existing missile system families — Kinzhal, Kalibr, Iskander and Tsirkon — so far. They also have a hypersonic glide vehicle, the Avengard.

Among the highest value military targets anywhere is a US Navy aircraft carrier. Should NATO enter a war with Russia, the US Navy’s carrier task force in the Ionian Sea is an obvious Russian target. How can it successfully defend itself against Russia’s simultaneous and probably massive hypersonic and conventional missile attack?

The inability of a carrier task force, the linchpin of the US Navy’s surface fleet, to survive a missile attack would have enormous implications and an immediate real-world impact.

Should the Russians sink a carrier task force, Taiwan would, for example, have to rethink any illusions it has about the US coming to its aid in a conflict with China and become far more amenable to a soft conquest similar to the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong.

The US Navy’s core missions are Power Projection, Sea Control, Strategic Deterrence and Strategic Sea Lift. While the US Navy has excellent submarines which play an important role, the Navy’s core missions require a powerful surface fleet, currently built around aircraft carriers.

Building capable and survivable modern warships is a complex and time consuming process. It’s what makes the Navy the most inelastic and capital intensive service. When it comes to defending the United States against a capable adversary, the Navy is also America’s most essential service.

The US currently has in excess of 850 bases around the world. Boots on the ground give the US influence of a sort the Navy can’t match and are essential to those who see the US as the world’s policeman. Inexcusably, the cost of these bases and the extended (and counterproductive) efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and now Ukraine, have come at the expense of the Navy and America’s defense.

While the US Navy is, by far, the world’s largest Navy in tonnage, China’s Navy has more ships and an ambitious naval construction program. China’s fleet is expected to continue its rapid growth while the US Navy is expected to shrink. Congress has begun to address the US Navy’s limited ship yard capacity but continues to limit the Navy’s budget in preference to the other services.

Funding and ship yard capacity aren’t the only serious problems which need to be addressed. The Buy American Act of 1933, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 and the Berry Amendment — which has existed since the beginning of WWII and became permanent law in 1993 — are the principal military construction domestic content laws. While this is a complex legal subject constrained by a number of factors, waivers of critical components which permit the use of foreign components in domestic military construction are overdue for review, as America’s deindustrialization has greatly expanded the need for waivers. The case for additional waivers is also furthered by permitting consideration of the cost of components. All of this combines to leave military construction vulnerable in a future conflict. Congress should recognize the necessity of quickly moving to 100% US components and understand that initial costs incurred in domestic production are a one time cost. Military construction requirements can be an important catalyst for US manufacturing which, in a conflict, will prove essential.

For the last twenty years, the Russians and the Chinese have sought to strengthen their armed forces while America’s leadership has, on a bipartisan basis, been obsessed with the Middle East. As a result, a persuasive argument suggests the US is no longer unbeatable. Let’s hope it isn’t too late to change course.

*

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.

McConnell is a Colonel, US Army Reserves, Retired and graduate of the US Army War College. Formerly a Member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Le Catene del “Libero Mercato”

December 11th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Il “libero mercato è il Verbo del pensiero globalista, il metro con cui si misura il grado di democrazia di un paese. Ma sono proprio i suoi predicatori a dimostrare quanto sia effettivamente libero. Emblematica la situazione dell’Italia. Mentre i prezzi di benzina e gasolio continuano a salire, provocando un aumento generalizzato del costo della vita pagato da tutti noi, NATO e UE ci proibiscono di acquistare il petrolio e i prodotti petroliferi libici che il Governo di Bengasi ci offre a prezzi stracciati. A Bengasi – mostra Michelangelo Severgnini nel documentario trasmesso da Byoblu il 12 dicembre – la benzina costa alla pompa 3 centesimi di euro al litro, circa 60 volte meno che in Italia.

Ci viene allo stesso tempo proibito di acquistare il gas che la Russia ci offre a prezzi estremamente inferiori rispetto a quelli che paghiamo in base alle quotazioni determinate dalla Borsa di Amsterdam, controllata da un potente gruppo finanziario statunitense. L’entrata in produzione di un nuovo giacimento di gas nella Siberia occidentale, con una capacità di oltre 320 miliardi di metri cubi di riserve recuperabili, porta a un livello record la produzione russa di gas.

La Russia esporta sempre più il suo gas a basso prezzo in Cina, India e altri paesi asiatici, data l’impossibilità di esportarlo in Europa. L’Unione Europea si sta muovendo per bloccare, dopo il sabotaggio del Nord Stream, l’unico gasdotto che ancora porta in Europa gas russo, fino in Ungheria e Austria, attraverso i Balcani. Nel vertice a Tirana tra la UE e Balcani Occidentali, la Ursula Von der Leyen ha dichiarato che i paesi di questa regione devono “uscire dal ricatto del gas di Putin”, ossia bloccare l’arrivo del gas russo in Europa attraverso i Balcani. “I Balcani Occidentali – ha ingiunto la Von der Leyen con tono minaccioso – “devono decidere da che parte stare: o con l’Unione Europea o con la Russia”. 

Manlio Dinucci

 

STASERA ALLE 20:30

SUL CANALE TV 262 BYOBLU

GRANDANGOLO

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.

***

 

 

 

 

 

Controversial New Documentary Reveals How A Teenage Army Physicist Named Ted Hall Saved The Russian People From A Treacherous U.S. Sneak Attack In 1950-51—And May Well Have Prevented A Global Nuclear Holocaust

The provocative documentary “A Compassionate Spy” tells the amazing but almost unknown story of a “near-genius” Harvard physics major, who at age 17, was selected to help develop an atom bomb before the Nazis did.

At 18, after graduating from Harvard, Ted was the youngest physicist to work on the atomic bombs at Los Alamos, New Mexico. He worked with uranium and the implosion system for the plutonium bomb used in the Trinity test on July 16, 1945, one month before that bomb type killed tens of thousands of civilians at Nagasaki.

Between the bombings at Hiroshima, August 6, and Nagasaki, August 9, somewhere around 200,000 civilians were killed, and a similar number died within some months afterwards from radiation sickness and injuries.

The film also illustrates why and how Ted shared his knowledge with the Soviets: to prevent a post-war U.S. perhaps heading toward fascism and/or world domination intoxicated by having a nuclear monopoly. He foresaw correctly because, by 1946, Wall Street bankers and weapons industrialists had convinced President Harry Truman, as the film shows, to produce 400 more atomic bombs to attack the Soviet Union in 1950-51, kill millions of its people, and take over its huge land and natural resources.

Nine months after beginning work on the bomb, in October 1944, Ted received leave to celebrate his 19th birthday in New York City. It was there that he made his first contact with a Russian, Sergei Kurnakov, who was a writer and an undercover intelligence officer. Ted gave detailed plans for the plutonium bomb to the Russians, sometimes using his enthusiastic friend Saville Sax, whom he roomed with at Harvard, as courier.

In transmitting communications, the two novice spies used Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Ted’s Soviet spy code name was MLAD (youth).

Ted’s information corroborated what the Russians were receiving independently from scientist Klaus Fuchs. So critical was this to Soviet scientists’ ability to develop an atom bomb of their own that they made a virtual copy of the Nagasaki bomb, which was Ted’s specialty.

They exploded a test bomb on August 29, 1949, between two and five years earlier than otherwise expected by U.S. experts. According to the film, Truman was then forced to cancel his plans to pre-emptively invade Russia because retaliation by the Soviets would be likely.

(A similar dilemma was faced by President John F. Kennedy during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when Wall Street capitalists, the Pentagon and the CIA, which was created under Truman in 1947, saw a chance to annihilate Soviet peoples in several areas. The U.S. had sought to destroy the Soviet Union ever since the Wilson administration invaded Russia following the 1918 Bolsehvik revolution. When Kennedy chose another path, a naval blockade of Cuba, it worked. The missiles were withdrawn. Yet Kennedy had also signed his death warrant).

President Kennedy with U.S. Army officials during the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962. (Credit: Corbis via Getty Images)

JFK with army officials during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. [Source: history.com]

This documentary, however, is not a political film per se. Central is the passionate, durable love story of Ted and his wife Joan, intermeshed with the history of the atomic bomb-making, its use and near-use.

Journalist and producer Dave Lindorff initiated the film idea in 2018. He, together with director Steve James and fellow producer Mark Mitten, started with three days of interviews with Joan, now 93. Joan also gave the team a video cassette which Ted, at his attorney’s suggestion, made for the “historical record.” Ted explains his reasoning for volunteering as a Soviet asset at Los Alamos.

Lindorff received the I.F. Stone “Izzy Award” for “Outstanding Independent Journalism” over his five-decade career and specifically for his exposé: “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed,” The Nation, December 2018.

Steve James, two-time Academy Award nominee, was called “Chicago’s documentary poet laureate,” by The Hollywood Reporter in its September 2 review of the first film showing, which took place at the Venice Film Festival. One thousand viewers filling the Lido Hall rose to applaud for five minutes at its conclusion. A day later, the U.S. premiere was held in four full theaters at Colorado’s Telluride Film Festival.

So far, the film has been presented at six U.S. and European film festivals with at least two more to come. The funding comes from Participant Media, which is receiving bids for general distribution.

This reviewer, and my companion-photographer Jette Salling, saw the film in Cambridge where Joan and Ted lived from 1962 until his death in 1999. She still lives in the same house.

Although I am not a professional film reviewer, my six decades of peace and racial equality activism, and five decades of professional journalism lead me to the conclusion that A Compassionate Spy is both a horrendous and great film.

Horrendous because the United States of America, claiming to be the greatest democracy in the world, killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in the Pacific War gratuitously.

Horrendous, all the more, because the U.S. elite and their politicians callously targeted millions more to die in the Soviet Union just as World War II was won, primarily by the USSR.

Greatest because of what two men, Ted, and Klaus Fuchs (see below) did to prevent the genocidal action. Ted Hall, and a handful of other scientists and couriers, deserve world-wide recognition by all humans who have any sense of brotherhood, sisterhood, solidarity and world peace.

One of the last public statements Ted Hall made just before he died was to encourage the next generations to demand government policies that do not put the world at such risk again.

Film Sequences

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\los alamos national laboratory.jpg

Main gate at Los Alamos. [Source: newmexico.org]

The gripping film flows smoothly, comprehensively. It opens in Cambridge, 1998, with witty, introspective and ever-feisty Joan interviewing Ted. When he arrived at remote Los Alamos, physicist Robert Oppenheimer was the scientist in charge, but the whole Manhattan Project was under the military with General Leslie Groves, a hawk, in charge. There were no sidewalks and one waded through the mud. Oppenheimer made a deal with Groves: You get your request to recruit younger scientists into the Army (less pay), and you get some streets and sidewalks paved.

Ted hated the Army and its uniform, but he had no choice.

Besides Joan, there are many interviews: her daughters; Sax’s children; the authors of Bombshell: The Secret Story of America’s Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy (1997) Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel; and co-author of To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans Daniel Axelrod.

Actors portray the loving couple and their friend Saville in several re-enactments narrated by Joan and Ted.

In one taped interview, Ted tells Joan: The Russians were warm, helpful, charming, even funny; not authoritarian at all. They agreed on how to conduct communication, which went on for nearly two years. One method was to make codes out of passages of Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass.

When the Los Alamos test occurred on July 16, 1945, the allied leaders were at the Potsdam Conference: Truman, Stalin and Churchill plus Clement Attlee, who had just overwhelmingly defeated Churchill for the prime minister post. They were planning how to divide Europe post-war, and Stalin reiterated to Truman the agreement with Roosevelt at Yalta that he would send Soviet troops to help defeat Japan. That was not what Truman wanted. He planned to use the atomic bomb, in large part to prevent the Russians from sharing victory.

Ted kept to his room, away from the cheering party-makers, glad to see that their bomb worked.

Manhattan Project Scientists

Many Manhattan Project scientists did not want the bomb to be dropped on Japan, especially on civilians. When Gen. Groves told a few top scientists about that plan, one of them, Joseph Rotblat, resigned. Albert Einstein and Danish physicist-philosopher Niels Bohr, who had received the 1922 Nobel Prize for Physics, wanted FDR to share bomb information with the Soviets.

Bohr had fled Denmark early in the war upon learning that occupying Nazi forces were about to arrest him. He became part of the British component in the Manhattan Project. Bohr encouraged both Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt to share knowledge. Churchill and Roosevelt viewed him as crazy or naïve. FDR had the FBI surveil him.

(Churchill, in fact, was soon to develop his own plan—Operation Unthinkable—formulated just after the war ended in Europe. He sought to use captured but rearmed German troops and British troops to invade Eastern Europe cities under Soviet control, and bomb three cities in the Soviet Union with Truman’s atomic bombs. Truman said they had to wait as he had only enough for Japan.)

A number of other nuclear scientists wrote a letter to President Truman asking him not to drop the bomb on civilians but to invite Japanese leaders to watch the upcoming test and thus encourage a surrender. They gave the letter to Gen. Groves, who decided not to forward it to the president.

Even the top, most hardened U.S. generals did not want the bomb dropped. They had just finished firebombing and devastating 64 cities. They knew first-hand that Japan was finished.

U.S. commander in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, explained:

“Secretary of War Stimson visited my Secretary of War headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act—dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary. I [also] thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’ The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude…”

Generals Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay had just bombed nearly all Japanese cities. They both held the same view as did Eisenhower. Furthermore, its use could lead to further nuclear proliferation. Nine countries now possess nuclear bombs, and some extremist terrorist jihad organizations seek them.

Despite all the protests and evidence that there was no need, Truman held fast. He claimed the bombing would save 20,000 American soldiers’ lives by not being killed in battle. We do not know how he came to that figure, but it was too low to justify the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by the two atomic bombs. Within a few years, propaganda had fabricated a figure of one million lives saved.

Truman and other U.S. chiefs learned from their main propagandist Nazi enemy, Joseph Goebbels.

To win over the masses: Tell a lie, a big lie, repeat it everywhere over and over. You win.

As Joan says in the film: The public is not taught to think. They form opinions as told by the mass media and at schools.

Film Sequences

The shattering information about U.S. cruelty toward Japanese civilians, and its ruthless genocidal plans to decimate millions of the 193 ethnic peoples in Russia, is supported in the film by archival newsreels and declassified information, including illustrated Pentagon plans of attack.

We see that major bank owners-CEOs and weapons industrialists urged Truman to take over the Soviet Union (15 republics), in order to engorge Wall Street profits.

In contrast, war-time government propaganda and media were quite favorably inclined toward the Soviets. They were suffering many millions of deaths, and after three years of German Nazi troops and Axis ally Finnish troops occupying much of Russia and Ukraine, the Soviets were turning the tide.

Besides many favorable newsreels, Mission to Moscow is a 1943 film based on a 1941 book by the former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies. The film used clips from that government-funded Hollywood film to chronicle Davies’ experiences in the USSR, in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt who wanted the book and film made. The book sold 700,000 copies and was translated into 13 languages.

Source: imdb.com

On February 14, 1945, just three months before the end of the war in Europe, Life magazine ran a favorable cover story about the Soviet Union, how well people lived, how much they suffered under the war and how brave they were. Within a year of Life magazine’s praise, several nuclear war operations were in the works, among them Operation Dropshot. It called for making 300-400 nuclear bombs, and 29,000 highly explosive bombs to be dropped on 200 targets in 100 cities of the Soviet Union.

The War Tally

The war caused between 70 and 85 million deaths (3% of the world’s population) and untold numbers of seriously wounded. Soviet Union and China citizens accounted for half of the deaths. The Chinese lost 15-20 million, ca. 3-4% of its population. The Soviets lost 16-18 million civilians, and 9-11 million soldiers ca. 14% of its population.

A similar number were seriously wounded. It lost 70,000 villages, 1,710 towns and 4.7 million houses. Of the 15 republics comprising the Soviet Union, Russia lost 12.7% of its population: 14 million, just over half were civilians. Ukraine lost nearly seven million, over five million civilians, a total of 16.3% of its population.

The U.S. lost just 12,000 civilians, 407,300 military, i.e., 1/3 of one percent of its population. England lost just 1% of its population.

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\Dropshot Bombing attack plan.png

Source: Image courtesy of A Compassionate Spy

In 2015, the National Security Archive, located at George Washington University, published declassified government files revealing that, in 1956, after trashing its earlier plans to drop atomic bombs on the Soviet Union, the U.S. planned to employ the new hydrogen bomb against the populations of the USSR, Eastern Europe and China.

“Plans to target people violated international legal norms. [The Air Force Strategic Air Command] wanted a 60 Megaton bomb, equivalent to over 4,000 Hiroshima atomic weapon. Strategic Air Command Declassifies Nuclear Target List from 1950s (gwu.edu)

What plans do they have today?

Meeting Joan

After the war, Ted enrolled in the University of Chicago to earn a doctorate in bio-physics. Then 20, he met Joan, 17, who was taking general courses at the university. Saville was also there. The three were good friends, and both men were initially in love with Joan.

One day, cuddling on a bare wooden floor, listening to Mozart, Ted asked Joan to marry him. Yes. Joan had otherwise thought she would wait to marry until she was 28 years old, but she could not resist Ted. However, he had one catch. He had to tell her what he had done with his Los Alamos work. Only Saville knew. She had to swear to secrecy. Joan listened and felt proud of him. (Her grandparents were Russian Jews.) Then, she recalled, they went back to what they were doing on the floor.

They got married, and joined the Communist Party. They viewed Chicago communists as good people, supporting Black people and unions, and world peace. Ted later pioneered important techniques in X-ray microanalysis, and kept in contact with the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) at their suggestion so they could get him out of the U.S. if he were to be in danger.

Ted and Joan were happy: Ted doing important work, getting graduate degrees, immersed in love.

Then the FBI came knocking.

Venona Project

The U.S. Army’s Signal Intelligence Service Venona Project (precursor to the National Security Agency) decrypted some Soviet messages. In January 1950, they uncovered two cables, one identifying Hall and Sax, and another Klaus Fuchs, as Soviet spies.

Until the encrypted documents’ public release in early 1995, nearly all of the espionage regarding the Los Alamos nuclear program was attributed to Klaus Fuchs. He had been arrested in Britain by national intelligence MI5. He caved in during interrogation to protect his sister from arrest. Fuchs served nine years of a 14-year sentence, and went to live in East Germany.

Dave Lindorff, writing in The Nation magazine on January 4, 2022, obtained, on appeal in 2021 through the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI file for Ted’s 11-year older brother Edward Nathaniel Hall. The Air Force needed to protect Ed Hall so he could continue with his rocket-making science. He was the father of the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) program and Minuteman missile.

This 130-page FBI file on Ed Hall included communications between FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and the head of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, a former FBI agent. The file shows how Carroll had blocked Hoover’s intended pursuit of Ted Hall and Saville Sax, fearing that Hall’s arrest would have, in the political climate of the McCarthy era, forced the Air Force to lose their top missile expert, Ted’s brother.

Instead, the Air Force promoted Ed Hall to Lt. Colonel and later Colonel, and stopped the FBI from arresting any of them. The FBI also needed to keep the Soviets in the dark about how the U.S. had broken the Soviet encrypted code. So, the FBI settled for a one-time interrogation of Ted and Saville, in March 1951, which the two stone-walled. They tried again with Ted a few days later, but he just walked away as agents looked on. The FBI then kept a rather low-key surveillance of Ted and Joan, and Saville, which included tapping the Halls’ telephone.

The day after Ted and Saville had been interrogated, and the Air Force had asked Ed what he knew about Ted, Ed came to visit Ted and Joan. A telephone “repairman” was “fixing” their phone, which was not broken. Once the “repairman” left, Ed detected the bug.

Ed and Ted simply shared that they had been questioned. Ed did not ask if Ted had done anything. Ed died in 2006, seven years after his brother. Ed had known since Bombshell was published what Ted had done, but he never criticized him for his action.

After Ted earned his Ph.D., he and Joan believed they had to flee the FBI. Ted left the University of Chicago’s Institute for Radiobiology and Biophysics to do research in biophysics at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City.

Driving to a party of Ted’s work colleagues, they passed by Sing Sing Prison where, it turned out, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg were to be executed that day. Julius had allegedly been involved in transmitting some Manhattan Project information to the Soviets, although he did not work there.

Ted later reflected with Joan that he felt remorseful. He should have turned himself in to save the Rosenbergs. Joan did not waver. The authorities, she told her husband, would simply have taken you away from me and the children, and continued the execution of Ethel and Julius. Ted knew his wife was right.

Ted and Joan had three daughters in the 1950s: Ruth, Debbie and Sara. Years later in Cambridge, Debbie died when a truck driver hit her bicycle. Joan, who became a poet and artist, read a poem in the film about Ted:

What If

What if I had died instead
and left you here behind
alone in your eighties?

How would you have lived
Would you have solved the riddle
of quantum mechanics?

Of course you’d have kept the audio
system in working order, go on
listening to your music.

Always a better housekeeper than I, you’d
have kept things much tidier. Though
come to think of it when I recall

the state of your study I sometimes wonder.
And would you have learnt to cook?
Frozen ready meals, I suppose.

But no doubt you’d have been invited
to dinner every day by one or another
of your women friends, who once

were my women friends. How would you
have remembered me? Anyway, soon
you’d surely have married again, one

of those women who loved you and envied me.
And for long years of Indian summer you
would drive along together and talk

in the car and in bed, my grey ashes melted
silently into the earth under that tall tree
in the park. Ah, now I’m jealous.

I want to be your second wife.

Their children were attending schools in Connecticut where they lived during the 1950s.

In 1962, Ted and Joan, to get away from the anti-Red hysteria in the U.S., decided to move to Cambridge University in England where Ted had been offered a research position by Vernon Ellis Cosslett’s electron microscopy research laboratory.

He created the Hall Method of continuum normalization, developed for the specific purpose of analyzing thin sections of biological tissue. Joan went to Cambridge College to learn the Russian language and its literature, and Italian. She soon taught Italian at the college, and substituted in Russian, for the next 20 years.

When some Venona files were released in 1995, Joseph Albright and Marcia Kunstel wrote Bombshell: The Secret Story of America’s Unknown Atomic Spy Conspiracy. This was the first public exposure about these whistle-blowing spies. Written in 1996, it was published in 1997.

The mass media encircled Ted and Joan’s house in Cambridge. He was maligned by the media as a traitor. Samuel T. Cohen, father of the neutron bomb, and a good friend of Ted’s at Los Alamos, turned on Ted and said in one film about atomic spying that he should be recalled to the Army, court-martialed and executed.

In a never-aired portion of the 1998 CNN-TV series “Cold War” used in the film A Compassionate Spy, Ted Hall stated:

“I decided to give atomic secrets to the Russians because it seemed to me that it was important that there should be no monopoly, which could turn one nation into a menace and turn it loose on the world as…Nazi Germany developed. There seemed to be only one answer to what one should do. The right thing to do was to act to break the American monopoly.”

Asked in another interview, what motivated him to share information, Ted pondered, and simply replied: “compassion.” Toward the end of A Compassionate Spy, Joan says, “the arms race was a farce at the expense of the American people and the world. First nuke strike was the U.S. goal.”

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\Tree where Teds ashes are.png

Ruth (l), Joan and Sara stand by Ted’s favorite tree—common beech—near their home. His ashes are buried by the tree, and Joan will lie beside him. [Source: Photo courtesy of Ron Jette Salling]

Steve James, in an interview in Cambridge following the British premiere of the film, said: “The threat of nuclear warfare remains. None of the nine nuclear powers signed the United Nations’ 2021 treaty to ban nuclear weapons.”

Only Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev had sought dismantling all nuclear weapons in the 1980s, and wanted to join NATO as partners, a proposal rejected by the Pentagon, CIA and President Ronald Reagan.

Steve James, Joan Hall, and Dave Lindorff talked at Joan’s home the day after the film showing. During end-of-film comments, Dave said Ted deserved the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. Coincidentally, photographer Jette Salling had earlier suggested that we present a Peace Lily to Joan at the film showing.

C:\Users\Ron Ridenour\Pictures\A Compassionate Spy\peace lily and remembering.jpg

Steve James, left, Joan Hall, center, and Dave Lindorff, right. [Source: Photo courtesy of Ron Ridenour]

Ted died November 1, 1999, of Parkinson’s disease and renal cancer. He likely acquired cancer precursor elements from the plutonium he had worked with to make the atom bomb.

*

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.

Ron Ridenour is a U.S.-born author and journalist, anti-war and civil rights activist since 1961. After joining the U.S. Air Force at 17, he saw the inner workings of U.S. imperialism first hand and resigned. In the 1980s and 1990’s he worked with the Nicaraguan government and on Cuban national media. Ron can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Poster for A Compassionate Spy showing photo of Ted Hall. K-19 was his badge number at Los Alamos. [Source: imdb.com]

Today December 10, 2022 we commemorate assassination of San Jose Mercury News journalist Gary Webb.

This article by the late award winning journalist Robert Parry was first published on December 13, 2004

***

In 1996, journalist Gary Webb wrote a series of articles that forced a long-overdue investigation of a very dark chapter of recent U.S. foreign policy — the Reagan-Bush administration’s protection of cocaine traffickers who operated under the cover of the Nicaraguan contra war in the 1980s.

For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb’s marriage broke up.

On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, died of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.

Whatever the details of Webb’s death, American history owes him a huge debt.

Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb’s contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.

Failed Media

Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal — the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal — but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.

Even after the CIA’s inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush’s case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA’s confession from the American people.

The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA’s “executive summary,” which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz’s findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA’s report was published, though Webb’s initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Times’ cover-up has now continued after Webb’s death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA’s inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb’s death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb’s allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]

By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up — even after the CIA’s had admitted the facts — the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media — the chief competitor to the mainstream press — isn’t going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.

That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth.”

Contra-Cocaine Case

Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a “randy conspiracy buff.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Contra-Cocaine Chapter.”]

So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled “Dark Alliance,” editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.

The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News’ sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb’s series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.

In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.

Without doubt, Webb’s series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early “crack” production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb’s conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.

Counterattack

When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb’s series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.

But — in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years — the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb’s story.

The Post’s approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news — “even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers,” the Post reported — and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted — that it had not “played a major role in the emergence of crack.” A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to “conspiracy fears.”

Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.

But the CIA’s decade-old cover-up began to crack on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.

Mocking Webb

Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. “Oliver Stone, check your voice mail,” Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]

Webb’s suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. “Few of the so-called leaders of the movement … really care about the boys in the field,” Owen wrote. “THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM.” [Capitalization in the original.]

Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.

On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series “fell short of my standards.” He criticized the stories because they “strongly implied CIA knowledge” of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. “We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship.”

The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos’s retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News’ continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.

For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national “Ethics in Journalism Award” by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.

Probes Advance

Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA’s defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz’s findings on Jan. 29, 1998.

Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz’s Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb’s allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA’s knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth”]

On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA’s weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.

Justice Report

Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb’s series, Bromwich’s report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA’s Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.

According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.

The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb’s series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.

Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb’s series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses’s operation and his financial assistance to the contras.

For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.

The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich wrote: “We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport.”

CIA’s Volume Two

Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning disclosures in the CIA’s Volume Two..

In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan’s National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.

Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz’s evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking

In Volume Two, the CIA’s defense against Webb’s series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA’s own analytical division.

Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.

ADREN’s leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb’s series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz’s report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.

Priorities

Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn’t want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.

According to Hitz, the CIA had “one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. … [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program.” One CIA field officer explained, “The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war.”

Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA’s analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that “only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking.” That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations — serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.

Though Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.

Two days after Hitz’s report was posted at the CIA’s Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb’s work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA’s Volume Two.

Consequences

To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb’s career never recovered.

At Webb’s death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he — along with angry African-American citizens — forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.

The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.

But the real tragedy of Webb’s historic gift — and of his life cut short — is that because of the major news media’s callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It’s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’

Copyright © 2004 The Consortium for Independent Journalism

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Contra-Cocaine Drug Trade: America’s Debt to Journalist Gary Webb

Today we commemorate the death Gary Webb on December 10 2004. The following article by Kurt Nimmo was written on December 12 2004

***

Write about the CIA and drugs, end up dead. You may recall Webb’s 1996 series in the San Jose Mercury about how the CIA sold coke in Los Angeles and used the money to fund the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s. He received a Pulitzer Prize in 1990 for his coverage of the Loma Prieta earthquake. Even so, he had a difficult time keeping a job, mostly because editors and publishers are a timid lot these days.

“Webb was found Friday morning at his home in Sacramento County, dead of an apparent suicide. Moving-company workers called authorities after discovering a note posted on his front door that read, ‘Please do not enter. Call 911 and ask for an ambulance,’” reports the Associated Press . “Webb died of a gunshot wound to the head, according to the Sacramento County coroner’s office.”

A post on the Indybay forum notes:

Four Bush biographers, Mark Lombardi, J.H. Hatfield, Danny Casalaro, and now Gary Webb—all “suicide” victims. What are the odds all of these people actually committing suicide?

… Examining the male U.S. suicide rate for recent years, we can extrapolate a conservative estimate of 17 male suicides per 100,000 people, or 0.017%. The odds of 4 specific, male biographers committing suicide would be the 4th power of 17/100000, or 8.3521 4.913 x 10^-17… roughly 1 chance 10,000,000,000,000,000. About as good a definition of impossible as you can get. A person would stand a better chance of playing the Canadian lottery 6/49 exactly twice in one’s lifetime and winning ther grand jackpot BOTH TIMES! (That is, picking 6 numbers out of 49 possible numbers and matching all 6 numbers out of 6 random draws, on 2 separate occasions, and having only purchased two Canadian lottery tickets ever.) This calculation should be regarded as a conservative estimate: the actual odds against such a “coincidence” would be much greater. For example, if any of the biographers were female, the odds would be even greater.

Now that Bush has his “mandate,” we will probably see other critics fall victim to accidents and suicides.

Crime families usually deal harshly with their enemies—and so does the CIA.

Wie Mitmenschen verstandes- und gefühlsmäßig erreichen?

December 10th, 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Hänsel

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

Immer wieder stehen mutige Aufklärer vor der Frage, wie sie ihre Mitmenschen intellektuell und gefühlsmäßig erreichen können, um ihnen die individuellen und kollektiven Vorurteile nehmen zu können. In einer Zeit, in der laut Präsident Putin die Gefahr eines Atomkrieges wächst (1) und die Selbstvernichtung der Menschheit möglich ist, bedürfen wir mehr denn je Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger, die uns sagen, was Wahrheit und was Lüge ist.

Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie noch wenig gefragt

Die Antwort der humanistischen Psychologie auf die aufgeworfene Frage könnte lauten: Vor den Mitmenschen keine Angst haben, sich mit ihnen zusammenschließen, sich in sie einfühlen und ohne Zwang an sie appellieren.

Welche segensreichen Auswirkungen würde es für unsere Kinder und unser gesellschaftliches Zusammenleben haben, wenn wir die Angst vor den Mitmenschen aufgeben könnten und sie freilassen würden. Der Mensch ist ein harmloses Wesen und von Natur aus nicht böse, sondern gut (Alfred Adler). Die Menschen – auch die seelisch kranken – würden gesund werden. Einige reife Menschen haben das bereits im vorletzten Jahrhundert erahnt und die Tiefenpsychologie hat ihnen Recht gegeben (2).

Zwar wird die Aufklärung durch alternative Medien als wichtig empfunden, doch immer weniger Menschen sind in der Lage, die eigenen Lebensprobleme wegen des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Niedergangs im Land zu lösen. Deshalb wird eine friedliche Welt erst bei einer tiefgreifenden Änderung der gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse entstehen. Für eine solche Welt setzen sich die Menschen aber erst dann in Bewegung, wenn sie in der Lage sind, ihre eigenen Probleme zu lösen. Die humanistische Psychologie und nicht-spekulative Psychotherapien bieten hierfür Erfolg versprechende Lösungen an.

In einer Zeit, in der die grenzenlose soziale Not und Ungerechtigkeit weiter aufrecht erhalten bleibt und sich sogar verstärken wird, weltbedrohende Kriege inszeniert und der gewaltige Fortschritt von Natur und Technik zum Nachteil und Schaden der Menschen missbraucht werden, sind wir erst recht auf die Einsichten der modernen tiefenpsychologischen Forschung angewiesen.

Doch das Wissen der psychologischen Fakultät ist bis heute noch wenig gefragt, da ihre Forschungsergebnisse relativ neu, wenig bekannt und schwer vermittelbar sind. Überdies werden sie von den Herrschenden nicht geschätzt oder sogar bekämpft. Erst wenn man erkannt hat, dass die Menschheit ohne Psychologie nicht vorankommt, wird man auf ihre Erkenntnisse dankbar zurückgreifen.

Ausgangspunkt für das anstehende Problem sollte nach Erkenntnissen der Tiefenpsychologie die Erziehung sein.

Kasernenhof in der Erziehung – „da liegt der Hund begraben“

Natürlich lehren die Eltern das Kind die Regeln des Anstands: Wie sich zum Beispiel bei Tisch gut benehmen und sich zuvor die Hände gründlich waschen. Aber die meisten Eltern nehmen sich nicht die Mühe, dem Kind zu vermitteln, „komm mit mir, schau, wie ich die Hände wasche!“ und erklären ihm, warum es die Hände waschen soll.

In der Regel ist in der Erziehung Zwang im Spiel: „Gehe zuerst die Hände waschen, bevor du zu Tisch kommst, sonst bekommst du eine Ohrfeige!“ Die ganze Haltung der Eltern ist der Zwang, die Gewalt, der Kasernenhof. Und das macht die Kinder krank, verdirbt bereits in jungen Jahren ihre Seele. Man muss die Menschen nicht zum Kooperieren zwingen, das Kind kooperiert ohne Zwang gerne. Es sind gerade Zwang und Gewalt, die beim Kind das natürliche Bedürfnis zur Mitarbeit ersticken.

Als Erwachsene finden sich diese Menschen dann nicht zurecht; sie können mit dem Partner nicht zusammenleben und die Ehen gehen zugrunde, weil sie verschiedene Meinungen über die Erziehung, über die anderen Menschen und die Welt haben.

Die Welt wird nur dann genesen und die Menschheit weiterkommen – das zeigt uns die Geschichte –, wenn sich die Menschen auf freiwilliger Basis assoziieren; wenn sie sich zusammensetzen und überlegen, wie sie die Probleme gemeinsam lösen können. Die Freiheit im Sinne der Freiwilligkeit ist ein wesentlicher Teil der sozialen Natur des Menschen. Missbraucht man sie, kann das schwerwiegende Konsequenzen haben.

Negativ-Beispiel der Russischen Revolution und des Umgangs mit religiösen Menschen

In Russland haben die Führer der Revolution die Menschen verkannt und Zwang angewandt; sie konnten die Menschen nicht frei lassen. Hätte Russland auch nur zum Teil den humanistischen Weg gewählt, wäre eventuell der Zweite Weltkrieg verhindert worden.

Die Menschen machen ja mit, sie wollen leben. In Russland haben sich die Menschen in der Oktoberrevolution befreit, aber anschließend sind sie nicht unabhängig geworden. In einer Gesellschaft, die sich in zwei Klassen organisiert – in eine, die regiert und in eine, die regiert wird – entwickeln sich zwei Ideologien, zwei Mentalitäten: die Mentalität der Sklaven / Knechte und die des Meisters. Ein solche Organisation verunmöglicht die Freiheit.

Und wie haben sich die Bolschewiki religiösen Menschen gegenüber verhalten? Sie haben die Kirchen zugesperrt und daraus Versammlungslokale gemacht. Damit verletzten sie die Menschen in ihrem tiefsten Inneren, in ihrem Glauben, in ihrer Abhängigkeit, in ihrer Angst. Wurde der russische Bauer dadurch bekehrt? Nein! Er war unwillkürlich dagegen. Heute weiß man, dass man den Menschen die Religion nicht nehmen muss: „Willst du beten?“ Ja, bete nur!“

An die Bauern hätte man appellieren können: „Was, du willst deinen Acker, dein Korn nicht versichern? Dein Nachbar bekommt einen möglichen Schaden von der Versicherung in Rubel ausbezahlt und kann sich neues Korn kaufen. Und du? Wer wird dir helfen, wenn du in der Gemeinschaft der Versicherten nicht mitmachst?“ Die russischen Revolutionäre waren eben nicht so weit, weil das Problem der Psychologie noch nicht bekannt war.

Menschen die Freiheit geben, damit sie gerne mitmachen und gesund werden

Mit Freiheit ist nicht die Freiheit der Herrschenden gemeint. Diese nehmen sich die „Freiheit“ heraus, den Menschen auszubeuten: Eine Clique von Kapitalisten beutet die anderen Menschen aus. Diese haben dann kein Lebensrecht, die Freiheit wird ihnen nur vorgespielt. Ein Knecht zum Beispiel muss sein ganzes Leben Knecht bleiben; er kann nicht heiraten, keine Familie gründen, weil er eben Knecht ist. Aber wenn der Präsident oder Führer ruft, dann kann er nicht NEIN sagen. Er könnte sagen: „Ich habe doch nichts, deshalb habe ich auch nichts zu verteidigen!“

„Freiheit“ ist in dem Sinn zu verstehen, dass die Menschen ihre Sicherheit haben und nicht betteln müssen. Stellen wir uns das Prinzip der Freiheit so vor, dass jeder arbeitende Mensch weiß, dass wenn er nicht mehr arbeiten kann, wenn er zum Beispiel erkrankt oder alt wird, dass er dann dieselbe Möglichkeit hat zu leben, dass er den Lohn, den er heute hat, weiter bekommt, dass er seine Wohnung und eventuell sein kleines Häuschen behalten und dass er weiter leben kann. Im kapitalistischen System haben die Menschen keine Ruhe und keine Sicherheit. Das würden sie in einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft haben.

Der Mensch ist doch ein harmloses Wesen – besonders derjenige in der heutigen kapitalistischen Gesellschaft. Er ist eingestellt auf das Arbeiten. Für ein bisschen Freiheit wäre er froh. Auch mit den Kranken würde man fertig werden, sie würden nicht stören. Wenn seelisch kranke Menschen eine andere Gesellschaft vorfinden, eine andere Situation, eine andere Moralauffassung, dann werden sie gesund und verhalten sich anders.

Lassen wir die Menschen frei, verlangen wir nichts von ihnen. Sie werden das gerne aufnehmen. Assoziieren wir uns mit den Menschen, glauben wir an sie, fühlen wir uns ein in sie und appellieren an sie. Der andere will so gut leben wie ich. Dann wird er mitmachen. Wir müssen keine Angst haben vor unseren Mitmenschen.

An die Menschen appellieren und sie frei entscheiden lassen

Die Menschen werden von allen Institutionen – angefangen von der Erziehung zuhause und in der Schule bis hinauf zur Rekrutenschule – so programmiert, dass sie in der Regel alles machen, was die Machthaber von ihnen verlangen. Das ist Programm, das ist bewusst. Und in dieser Stimmung werden sie ein Leben lang gehalten – sowohl sogenannte Intellektuelle als auch die Masse der Bevölkerung. So liefern sich heute junge wie auch ältere „Handy-Süchtige“ ganz und gar den Wertvorstellungen großer, übelmeinender Tech-Giganten aus.

Doch gleichzeitig kann man feststellen, dass sowohl Jugendliche als auch ältere Mitbürger gerne bereit sind, sich im Kaffee oder Bus auf ein persönliches Gespräch von Angesicht zu Angesicht einzulassen, wenn man nicht als Besserwisser auftritt, der schon weiß, wenn man sich wirklich für ihre persönlichen Probleme interessiert und eine Ausdrucksweise wählt, die jeder verstehen kann. Dabei ist es ganz wichtig, nur an sie zu appellieren und sie frei entscheiden zu lassen.

Auch in schriftlichen Äußerungen geht es darum, selbst schwierigste tiefenpsychologische Erkenntnisse und Befunde in einer Sprache zu vermitteln, die nicht allein dem Fachmann, sondern auch dem interessierten Laien verständlich sein kann.

Es bleibt die zu Beginn gestellte Frage, wie man möglichst viele Mitmenschen intellektuell und emotional erreichen dann, damit sie eines Tages gegen das Unrecht aufstehen – gedanklich, gefühlsmäßig und politisch.

Basis- oder Graswurzel-Bewegungen entstehen aus der Basis der Bevölkerung

Die interessante Idee der Gründung einer Graswurzel-Bewegung wurde während einer internationalen Webinar-Debatte von einem Freund geäußert.

Eine Graswurzel-Bewegung ist laut „Wikipedia“ eine gesellschaftliche Initiative oder Bewegung, die aus der Basis der Bevölkerung entsteht:

„Graswurzelbewegungen haben typischerweise basisdemokratische und konsensorientierte Strukturen, da sie den gewöhnlichen lobbyistischen oder parteipolitischen Meinungsbildungsprozess umgehen wollen. Der Wandel soll durch engagierte Artikulation von Bürgerinteressen (…) erreicht werden. (…).

Das Ziel von einigen Graswurzel-Initiativen ist es, gesellschaftliche Alternativen zum Bestehenden aufzubauen, bis hin zum revolutionären Anspruch, grundsätzliche Systemveränderungen zu bewirken. Dabei wird sowohl auf den langfristigen Aufbau von Netzwerken gesetzt als auch auf spektakuläre Einzelaktionen, die in erster Linie Öffentlichkeit schaffen sollen. Nicht selten bedient man sich hierbei der Methoden des zivilen Ungehorsams.“ (3)

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen.

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Viele Jahrzehnte unterrichtete er und bildete Fachkräfte fort. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und zum Frieden. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Global Research.

Noten

1. https://de.rt.com/kurzclips/video/156642-putin-bedrohung-atomkrieges-waechst-russischer/

2. http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=28358; https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-with-whom-can-we-reorganise-society/5800536

3. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graswurzelbewegung

Das Bild stammt von The Free Farm

 

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wie Mitmenschen verstandes- und gefühlsmäßig erreichen?

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 peaceful dissolution of the USSR according to the agreement between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan in 1988 in Reykjavik brought a new dimension of global geopolitics in which up to 2008 Russia, as a legal successor state of the USSR, was playing an inferior role in global politics when an American Neocon concept of Pax Americana became the fundamental framework in international relations. Therefore, for instance, Boris Yeltsin’s Russia capitulated in 1995 to the American design regarding an outcome of the USA/EU policy of the destruction of ex-Yugoslavia in November 1995 (the Dayton Agreement) followed by even worse political capitulation in the case of Washington’s Kosovo policy that became ultimately implemented in June 1999 (the Kumanovo Agreement).

Russia in the 1990s was geopolitically humiliated by the USA and its West European clients to such an extent that we can call the period of Boris Yeltsin’s servile policy toward the West a Dark Time in the history of Russian international relations when the main losers became the Serbs who were and still are (since February 2022 together with Russians) extremely demonized by the Western mass-media and academic institutions.[i]

An ideological-political background of Boris Yeltsin’s foreign policy of Russia was Atlanticism – an orientation in foreign policy that stresses the fundamental need to cooperate (at any price) with the West, especially in the area of the politics and economy. In other words, the integration with the West and its economic-political standards became for Boris Yeltsin’s Russia, governed by the Russian Liberals, an order of the day. This trend in Russia’s foreign policy in the 1990s had its roots in the 19th century’s geopolitical and cultural orientation of Russian society by the so-called Russian „Westerners“ who became the opponents to the Russian „Slavophiles“ for whom the ultimate aim of the Russian foreign policy was to create a Pan-Slavonic Commonwealth with the leadership of Russia.

The actual outcome of the Russian Liberals „in the years following Yeltsin’s election was catastrophic as, for instance, Russia’s industrial production dropped by nearly 40%, over 80% of Russians experienced a reduction in their living standards, health care disintegrated, life expectancy fell along with the birth rate, and morale overall collapsed“.[ii]

However, the political influence of the Russian Liberals became drastically weakened by Vladimir Putin’s taking power in Russia from 2000 onward and especially from 2004. A new global course of Russia’s foreign policy after 2004 became directed toward the creation of a multipolar world but not a unipolar Pax Americana one as the American Neocons wanted. Therefore, the Caucasus, Ukraine, and Syria became currently directly exposed to the Russian-American geopolitical struggle while Kosovo is up to now still left to the exclusive US sphere of interest.

Nevertheless, after 2022−? the special military operation in East Ukraine (Russia Minor) by Moscow, it can be expected in the nearest future that post-Yeltsin’s Russia will take decisive geopolitical steps concerning Kosovo as from the year 2000 the Russian exterior policy is constantly becoming more and more imbued with the neo-Slavophile geopolitical orientation advocated by Aleksandar Solzhenitsyn (1918−2008) as a part of a more global Eurasian geopolitical course of the post-Yeltsin’s Russian Federation supported by many Russian Slavophile intellectuals like a philosopher Aleksandar Dugin.

Ivan L. Solonevich, probably, gave one of the best explanations of Russia’s geopolitical situation and peculiarity in comparison to those of the USA and the UK focusing his research on the comparative analysis of geography, climate, and levels of individual freedoms between these countries:

„The American liberties, as well as American wealth are determined by American geography. Our [Russia’s] freedom and our wealth are determined by Russian geography. Thus, we’ll never have the same freedoms as the British and Americans have, because their security is guaranteed by the seas and oceans, but ours could only be guaranteed by military conscription“.[iii]

*

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] As a very example of such moral, cultural and civilizational demonization of the Serbs by the Western academic writings is [John Hagan, Justice in the Balkans: Prosecuting War Crimes in The Hague Tribunal, Chicago−London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003].

[ii] John Baylis, Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Second edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 124.

[iii] Irina Isakova, Russian Governance in the Twenty-First Century: Geo-strategy, Geopolitics and Governance, London−New York: Frank Cass, 2005, 12.

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 1991 Dissolution of the USSR: Will Russia Take Decisive Geopolitical Steps Regarding Kosovo?
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

Research by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that 35% of European citizens want the Ukraine war to end as soon as possible.  Their EU government has called on citizens to give up their lifestyle of abundance in order finance Kiev’s war. Europeans are bearing the cost of economic sanctions on Russia and spending more on weapons and aid sent to Ukraine while Europeans are suffering from the economy and home heating costs.

Washington knows that Kiev can be unpredictable, as evidenced by the Ukrainian missile shot into Poland in November which took the lives of two Polish civilians and threatened an escalation based on Ukrainian mistakes.

US General Mark Milley suggested that the coming cold winter weather could present an opportunity for peace negotiations to begin.  Milley admitted that Kiev has very little chance of removing Russian troops from occupied areas.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscource interviewed international Human Rights Lawyer Arnaud Develay to understand the current issues surrounding the Ukraine conflict.

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  On Tuesday, Ukraine used drones to attack locations far inside Russia. In your opinion, what will be the Russian response?

Arnaud Develay (AD):  The Russian Federation has been quite clear in at least one of the objectives it pursues in Ukraine: The Special Military Operation aims to disable the war-making (demilitarization) abilities of the Kiev regime. This means that Moscow will not only continue to take out the constant supplies of weaponry supplied by NATO to Zelensky and his cronies, it will likely continue its campaign of raids on Ukraine’s energy infrastructures in order to coax Kiev to come to the realization that the only way out of the conflict is to call for negotiations. It is a delicate balancing act in that while Russia certainly cannot afford to leave attacks on its own territory unanswered, it must retaliate in a way that does not lead to an escalation and thus avoid an open conflict with the United States which would be catastrophic. It bears noting that some reports indicate that the next deliveries of HIMARS will feature built-in mechanisms preventing Kiev from using the systems into Russian territories. (The latest attacks were carried out through the use of drones). Make no mistake about it: Washington is perfectly aware that Kiev is an unpredictable player (as seen recently in the matter of the “Russian missile” in Poland).

SS:  Recently the EU announced a $ 60 cap on Russian oil. In your opinion, how will this effect Russia and will they respond?

AD:  Russia has been quite clear on this issue: it will not accept to supply oil under these conditions under any circumstances. Moscow will thus merely reorient its oil deliveries to customers which are willing to pay market prices. The reasoning is that if the EU is bent on (completely) downgrade its own economies (and thus pay a higher price to intermediaries), it should be forced to confront the absurdity of its own decisions rather than expect Moscow to comply with what amounts to (yet) another unacceptable injunction.

SS:  Are there any divisions among the EU and NATO member states concerning the support for the war in Ukraine?

AD:  While on the whole the political class in the Collective West appears to display unity of the Ukraine issue, Hungary and Serbia have taken great heed in not angering Moscow. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has called for the organization of a referendum in his country on the issue of imposing sanctions on Russia. Brussels was quick to sanction Budapest in withdrawing 7.5 billion euros in EU funds to Hungary albeit on the pretext of completely unrelated matters. The divide in Europe has more to do with the ever-increasing schism between the people and its leaders. Unqualified assistance to the criminal regime in Kiev has led to EU government calling for their citizens to accept “the end of abundance”. Energy prices have led to the closure of hundreds of thousands of small and medium size businesses. Inflation has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, leaving many to struggle making ends meet. Trudeau, Sunak and Macron have not only branded protesters a threat to democracy; these DAVOS puppets have expressed a willingness to use emergency legislation in order to justify the unleashing of massive police/military powers to crush dissent.

SS:   The Azov Battalion professes Nazi political ideology. In your opinion, do the Neo-Nazis in Ukraine have wide support from the Ukrainian population?

AD:  It is difficult to estimate the level of support for these militias in the Ukrainian population. Obviously, one would assume that support for the “integral nationalism” ideology is strongest in the Western part of the country. One must however get a grasp of the (often Western-financed) indoctrination programs imposed in Ukraine these past 9 years. Former SBU operative Vassili PROSOROV recently produced a documentary (Culturocide) in which he describes in particularly vivid details how Ukraine’s school manuals depict an altogether completely alternate version of history. Infamous figures such as Stepan BANDERAS are glorified while the rejection of anything related to Russia and its culture is turned into a central fixture of Ukraine’s “identity”.

SS:  The special operation in Ukraine is now in the 10th month. In your opinion, as winter grows colder, will there be any peace negotiations?

Obviously, the answer to this question resides in Washington. There are currently reports of divergent tactical opinions as to what should be expected in the coming months. Joint Chief of Staff Gen. Milley is said to favor a “freeze” of the current front lines until Spring while neocons in the State Department call for continued military operations. Obviously, the Ukraine conflict is as much an informational war as it is a military conflict per se. Neocons (for ideological reasons) and those who benefit from the gigantic grift going on in Ukraine needs to prevent “Ukraine fatigue” from settling in. (There are reports that the incoming Republican House of Representatives will demand an audit on the distribution circuits of the various aid packages). In order to do that, they need to keep feeding the propaganda machine with Kiev’s “military exploits”. At the end of the day, war is a serious matter and conditions on the ground are the ultimate arbiter. While the mainstream media continues its hysterical rant about Russian “retreat”, Moscow is methodically reorganizing its military for what could be a massive Winter offensive.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Ukraine conflict is an informational war as well as a military conflict.” Interview with Arnaud Develay
  • Tags:

Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?

December 10th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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.

***

Cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra shares data on the Big Pharma takeover of modern medicine

Due to Big Pharma’s stronghold over health care, we’re facing what Malhotra calls a pandemic of misinformed doctors and unwittingly harmed and misinformed patients

Drug companies and medical device manufacturers aren’t in business to make patients happy; they’re beholden to their shareholders, for whom they have a financial obligation to produce a profit

Malhotra shares data showing why he believes COVID-19 shots should be suspended

Malhotra notes that political involvement and policy advocacy, combined with social participation and social movements, can together lead to the creation of relevant knowledge to protect public health

*

Fear inhibits your ability to think critically. This is a central point made by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra in his London presentation November 14, 2022. Many people were gripped by unprecedented fear during the COVID-19 pandemic, which shaped attitudes about the pharmacological interventions offered.

Willful blindness is another phenomenon to be aware of. It’s when people turn a blind eye to the truth. Also known as conscious avoidance, this tactic has historically been used in legal trials to avoid criminal liability by ignoring or purposely staying unaware of key facts.

However, Malhotra notes, people also engage in willful blindness in order to feel safe, avoid conflict, reduce anxiety and to protect prestige or, in some cases, “precious, fragile egos.”1

The Illusion of Knowledge Is Worse Than Ignorance

Malhotra quoted the late Stephen Hawking, who stated, “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”2 In terms of health care, evidence-based medicine has been hijacked by Big Pharma; it’s now an illusion. There’s also an illusion that we’re at the forefront of medicine, with prestigious organizations leading the helm, when in reality multiple health crises are upon us.

The World Health Organization’s (WHO) definition of health is a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”3 Public health, too, is not only about preventing disease, but also promoting health and prolonging life, while helping populations reach the highest possible level of well-being. But are public health agencies actually helping to achieve these goals?

Malhotra, a cardiologist trained by the U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS), as well as a visiting professor of evidence based medicine at Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health in Salvador, Brazil,4 cited a 2020 study published in the British Medical Bulletin.5

It used data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics from 2010 to 2020, which showed a “dramatic slowdown in life expectancy and diverging trends in infant mortality in the UK as a whole and England and Wales, respectively.” Health trends in the U.K., the study concluded, “are worrying and raise important questions about government policies.”6

Throughout his career, Malhotra has tried to call attention to failures in treating heart disease. “Despite so-called modern science,” heart disease remains the No. 1 cause of death globally.7 “So clearly there’s something that we’ve done wrong on that front,” Malhotra said.8

More recently, he’s focused on using real evidence-based medicine to share the truth about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. His two-part paper on the topic was published in the Journal of Insulin Resistance, specifically,9,10 because this journal does not accept money from the pharmaceutical industry.11

A Pandemic of Misinformed Doctors and Patients

Due to Big Pharma’s stronghold over health care, we’re facing what Malhotra calls a pandemic of misinformed doctors and unwittingly harmed and misinformed patients. This misinformation comes from a variety of sources, including:12

Malhotra describes John Ioannidis, professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, as the “Stephen Hawking of medicine.”13 Ioannidis cowrote a paper in 2017 titled, “How to Survive the Medical Misinformation Mess.”14 At the time, he described four key problems:

  1. Much published research is unreliable, offers no benefit to patients or is not useful to decision makers
  2. Most health care professionals are not aware of this problem with published research
  3. Health care professionals lack the necessary skills to evaluate the reliability of medical evidence
  4. Patients and families lack accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance when they need to make medical decisions

The solution, according to Ioannidis, involves focusing efforts on “making health care professionals more sensitive to the limitations of the evidence, training them to do critical appraisal, and enhancing their communication skills so that they can effectively summarize and discuss medical evidence with patients to improve decision-making.”15

Ioannidis also wrote a 2005 paper about why most published research findings are false. Not surprisingly, one factor that makes a research finding less likely to be true is “greater financial and other interest and prejudice.”16

Drug Companies Are Beholden to Their Shareholders

Drug companies and medical device manufacturers aren’t in business to make patients happy; they’re beholden to their shareholders, for whom they have a financial obligation to produce a profit.17 There’s no legal requirement for them to offer patients the “best” treatment.

Further, regulators regularly fail at their duty to prevent industry misconduct, while doctors and medical journals — which do have a responsibility to put patients’ interests and scientific integrity first — collude with industry for financial gain.18

Recently, Malhotra was heavily involved in campaigning to end NHS COVID-19 shot mandates. But prior to this he spoke to the European Parliament in 2018 to warn them of the epidemic of misinformed doctors and patients, stating, “Honest doctors can no longer practice honest medicine. We have a complete health care system failure …”19

In fact, in 2016, Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, cofounder of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Institute for Scientific Freedom, stated prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death — most of them preventable.20 “The reason for that,” Malhotra said, “is the information that comes from drug companies — essentially the results of clinical trials — exaggerate the benefits and the safety of the drugs.”21

Corporate crime and fraud are also rampant — from 2009 to 2014, Gotzsche noted that most of the top 10 drug companies committed fraud, totaling about $14 billion, including hiding data on drug harms and illegally marketing drugs.

Yet, the fines the drug companies had to pay for their crimes were miniscule in comparison to the profits they made from the drugs. Since then, however, nobody was fired and “nothing has changed to stop them from committing these crimes again.”22

Tobacco Tactics Revisited During COVID Pandemic

Malhotra is among those who early on during the pandemic that poor diet can increase your risk of dying from COVID-19, by increasing obesity risk, chronic disease and disrupting your gut microbiome.23 In April 2020, he tweeted, “The government and public health England are ignorant and grossly negligent for not telling the public they need to change their diet now.”24

Not only did they not publicly share the importance of healthy weight and diet to ward off COVID-19, but they glamorized and encouraged junk food consumption via their official social media channels. At one point during the pandemic, Royal Free Hospital, which is part of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, tweeted the following along with a photo showing dozens of doughnut boxes:25

“You guys at @krispykremeUK Enfield sure know how to put a smile on our staff’s faces!1,500 doughnuts delivered to our staff at Barnet Hospital-#glazeamaze.”

“I’ve got nothing against people having a treat,” Malhotra said. “But hospitals shouldn’t be promoting … and essentially advertising the fact that we are giving 1,000 free Krispy Kreme doughnuts to nurses in the middle of the pandemic. I don’t think that was very productive considering what we know about the influence on COVID.”26

That hospitals were promoting junk food and junk food companies instead of healthy food is reminiscent of Big Tobacco’s tactics, which not only suppressed the harmful effects of cigarettes but also recruited doctors to promote them, using slogans such as, “More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette.”

“We see the same tactics repeating themselves,” Malhotra continued. “What Krispy Kreme is doing is using the NHS as a branding opportunity for what are essentially addictive, toxic foods that should just be treats but not part of the regular diet.”27

How COVID Shots Were Oversold

Malhotra was one of the first to take Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, and he’s double-jabbed. Initially, he was in favor of the shots but a study published in Circulation, which found an increased incidence of inflammatory markers linked to heart attacks in people who’d received mRNA COVID-19 shots,28gave him pause.

Then, a whistleblower from a prestigious British institution contacted him and said a group of researchers had found inflammation of coronary arteries after the mRNA shot. However, the researchers had a meeting and decided not to share their findings because it might affect their funding from the drug industry.29 He then learned of data from Scotland that showed an unexplained 25% increase in heart attacks.

He went to the media, armed with data, to share his concerns in October 2021, calling for an investigation. It received a lot of attention, but Malhotra was soon targeted by anonymous complaints to a medical organization, which put his medical license at risk. At that point, he decided to gather other experts and critically review the data — then publish the truth.

In November 2020, Pfizer claimed their COVID-19 shot was 95% effective against COVID-19, but this was highly misleading and, according to Malhotra, based on flawed methodology:30

“‘Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention … which would be in the interest of people trying to sell you something — in this case, the pharmaceutical industry.

So if, for example, you have 1,000 people in a trial that didn’t have the vaccine versus 1,000 people that did in the placebo group … you may have two people dying. And in the intervention group, you may have just one person dying. And that’s a reduction of 50%. One over two is a 50% relative risk reduction. But actually, you’ve only saved one life out of 1,000.

So, the absolute risk reduction is only 1 in 1,000. It’s a big difference. The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone; otherwise, it’s considered unethical,’ Malhotra said.

The accusation is that governments acted on Pfizer’s relative risk figure of 95% efficacy, when the absolute risk was a mere 0.84%. In other words, you’d have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent just one from catching COVID. ‘So we were basically sold on something that ultimately, and in retrospect now, was very, very misleading.'”

Big Pharma Provides Majority of Budget for Leading Regulators

If there were ever any doubt that regulatory agencies are captured by industry, consider that significant portions of regulatory agencies’ budgets come from the pharmaceutical industry that these agencies are supposed to regulate. For instance:31

Data and health advice from these agencies cannot be considered independent or trustworthy when it’s clouded by vested interests. What did one study32 — conducted by people who do not take money from the drug industry — find?

It reanalyzed data that led to the original approval of the shots, and subsequent shot mandates, revealing people were more likely to suffer a serious adverse, disability, hospitalization or life-changing event after receiving an mRNA COVID-19 shot than be hospitalized with COVID.33Malhotra shared additional facts about COVID-19 shots that are now known based on the best available evidence:34

  • COVID-19 shots offer no protection against infection now
  • No reduction in COVID mortality
  • Natural immunity is very protective
  • Shot side effects are nearly three times more likely if you get the shot after having COVID-19
  • Unprecedented harms have been reported from the shots

“We have pulled vaccines in the past for much less,” Malhotra said. “… This vaccine needs to be suspended completely, pending an inquiry.”35 So why haven’t you heard about this? It’s clear that willful blindness has taken over. Malhotra notes that political involvement and policy advocacy, combined with social participation and social movements can together lead to the creation of relevant knowledge.

“We need to make sure we’ve got clear, relevant, concrete knowledge in a way that can be disseminated and understandable to the public.”

Toward that end, Malhotra states that it’s crucial for the integrity of public health for the facts to be acknowledged and for regulators to state that they’ve changed their minds too. Moving forward, in order to ensure access to real, evidence-based medicine, key changes need to be made, according to Malhotra, including:

  • Drug industry should play no role in testing drugs
  • Drug industry should not be able to hide raw data from trials
  • All results of all trials in humans must be made publicly available
  • Regulators such as the FDA and MHRA should not get any money from the drug industry

What Can You Do to Help?

To help enact change, Malhotra is calling for citizen power in the U.K. to use social media, calling for the suspension of mRNA shots. Specifically, he suggests tweeting and sharing the following, which can be tweaked depending on your location:

“My name is … and I call on the Secretary of State for Health, @SteveBarclay to #SuspendTheMRNAjabsnow until the raw data is released for independent analysis.”

Further, in order to beat the psychopathic corporate tyranny that has taken over, we must act virtuously, which involves embracing the following to keep moving forward:

  1. Wisdom
  2. Courage
  3. Moderation
  4. Justice

*

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 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 2:43

2 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 3:20

3 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 3:41

4 Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Biography

5, 6 Br Med Bull. 2020 May 15;133(1):4-15. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldz041

7 World Health Organization, Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs)

8 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 5:30

9 Journal of Insulin Resistance. 2022; 5(1): a71

10 Journal of Insulin Resistance. 2022; 5(1): 72

11 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 6:20

12 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 8:50

13 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 9:33

14, 15 Eur J Clin Invest. 2017 Nov;47(11):795-802. doi: 10.1111/eci.12834. Epub 2017 Sep 28

16 PLOS Medicine August 30, 2005

17 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 12:31

18 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 12:52

19 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 13:18

20 The BMJ Opinion June 16, 2016

21 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 13:45

22 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 14:29

23 Science Daily May 29, 2019

24 Twitter, Dr Aseem Malhotra

25 Twitter, Royal Free London April 21, 2020

26 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 35:00

27 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 36:00

28 Circulation November 8, 2021

29 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 38:50

30 Rumble, Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion September 28, 2022, 15:11

31 YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, WHO, YouTube and funding November 7, 2022, 10:34

32 Vaccine. 2022 Sep 22;40(40):5798-5805. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036. Epub 2022 Aug 31

33 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 49:28

34 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 52:15

35 YouTube, Aseem Malhotra, Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence Based Medicine? November 23, 2022, 52:23

Featured image is from Global Justice Now

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Has Big Pharma Hijacked Evidence-Based Medicine?
  • Tags:

Ukraine, Russia, and the New World Order

December 10th, 2022 by Fyodor A. Lukyanov

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.

***

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, marked the re-emergence of war on the European continent, and an ultimate attempt to correct the Western-led system prevailing since the end of the Cold War. Fyodor A. Lukyanov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, clarifies the motives behind the Russian leadership’s decisions in Ukraine. He also shares how Russia views shifts to the new world order and how global governance could be improved. This article is part of Ukraine Shifting the World Order.

Institut Montaigne: Several rationales have been advanced by President Putin and his circle to justify the attack on Ukraine. How do you assess the respective weight of the motivations behind Russia’s move?

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: The launching of a military campaign against Ukraine is undoubtedly a groundbreaking event in post-Soviet history – perhaps the most significant. Many intertwined motivations guided this decision. We can try to summarize the most important ones.

  • First, there was development both inside and around Ukraine pointing to increased military cooperation between Ukraine, NATO and the US. During the war, many things from the previous period came up, confirming the Kremlin’s suspicious belief that military interaction between Ukraine and the West had been essential and growing after 2014. Now the secret is out in the open and has become a matter of pride for the US, the British and NATO. Since Moscow noticed this dynamic for a protracted while, a conclusion was made that either Ukraine (or Ukraine together with NATO) may try to challenge Russia one day in the foreseeable future. So, when Russian leaders said that the February move was a preemptive strike, they meant it.
  • Ukraine is the culmination of a long history of Russian attempts to limit NATO expansion, which started in the 1990s and never stopped since. From the Russian point of view, NATO abused its exceptional position obtained after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The alliance de facto positioned itself as equal to the European security system. Its expansion was presented as the consistent extension of the security zone in Europe despite Russian claims that this went against the overall consensus on indivisible securities. Starting from the late 1990s, Russia came up with several proposals about how to adapt the European security architecture to address Russia’s concerns as a country never considered a potential NATO ally. All Russian ideas were consistently dismissed by Western allies without proper discussions. The assumption that security arrangements (as they emerged in the wake of the collapse of communism and the USSR) were non-negotiable was seen by Western powers as an axiom. Russian bitter irritation grew with each new state joining NATO, and it was clear since 2008 that Moscow considered Ukraine as an absolute red line when it came to NATO membership, Putin warned about that during NATO’s Bucharest summit. The 2014 Euromaidan in Ukraine, passionately supported by the West, contributed to the feeling that the West decided to disregard any red lines drawn by Russia.

The specific part of this decision clearly outlined in President Putin’s article in July 2021 is a perception in Russia that Ukraine in its current borders, and with its current identity based on sharp distancing from Russia, is an artificial creature with no real historical grounds. This is a complicated reckoning with the Soviet past, considered in today’s Russia in an ambivalent way – both as a historic peak of Russian might and an experiment that undermined traditional Russia and encouraged quasi-ethnic separation. Some call the current situation a postponed Russian civil war: one which the nation avoided immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but with growing internal tensions fueled by what was described above.

IM: Was NATO not de facto in decline? Was the NATO threat not exaggerated by the Russian leadership?

FAL: I would not deny that Russia’s leadership and strategic community were excessively focused on the NATO threat. But Moscow had reasons to grow suspicious of this organization. How should one define the decline of NATO? 1991 – 16 member states, 2022 – 30. Is this decline? NATO did not engage in any military campaign during the Cold War, but starting from the 1990s, NATO (or at least NATO countries like Iraq) launched several big campaigns, including a big military operation in Europe (Kosovo war) immediately after the first post-Soviet enlargement in 1999. Obama was supposed to be reluctant to make any new military commitments but he made new ones.

Trump was presented as friendly to Russia, but he proclaimed in his strategic doctrine the new era of great power rivalry between China and Russia. NATO officially stated in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia will be members of the alliance and did stick to this commitment all the way. Should leaders of those countries and Russian leadership have seen those statements as jokes? Chancellor Scholz said in a recent interview that he told Putin privately that Ukraine had no chance to join NATO within the next 30 years. Well, why not declare this publicly? It was exactly what Russia asked for: denounce the open-door policy.

Especially given the fact that the Kremlin had the experience of oral and private commitments about NATO, which were just abandoned by the US and its allies when they didn’t need them anymore. And, of course, the military support for Ukraine was rapidly growing over several years, regardless of the probability of formally joining NATO. We see it now in the war.

IM: Do you agree that shaking up a world order still dominated by the West (more specifically the US) was an important motivation for the Russian leadership?

FAL: Allow me to formulate it differently. Russia did not want to shake up the Western-led world order. Rather, as it saw signs of a weakening world order due to multiple objective reasons (while remaining pushy when it came to expansionist moves), Russia wanted to use this decline to get rid of post-Cold War arrangements. It is hard to deny that Russia raised this issue many times in different forms – from polite and constructive suggestions in the early 2000s until the ultimatum in December 2021. Until the end, the West assumed that Russia had no legitimate right to demand something beyond the “rules-based order”, whereas rules were formulated without real Russian participation. It should be emphasized that Russia literally turned to arms after decades of other, peaceful attempts to correct (not destroy) the Western-led system and find a proper place there. It did not produce any meaningful response from the West, because the West was fully convinced that the existing scheme was fine for all. And those who thought differently were just wrong.

IM: Seen from Moscow, what kind of developments, triggered by the war in Ukraine, should produce a real weakening of the grip of the West on the main pillars of the world order?

FAL: The most remarkable result so far is that the US failed to recruit any country beyond its official allies to join the anti-Russian coalition. Given the severity of the crisis and the heavy human consequences of it, one could expect the broader scope of countries to support Western attempts to punish Russia. It did not happen; a majority of nations preferred not to join anti-Russian measures. It does not mean they support what Russia is doing, but they flatly rejected to follow prescriptions from the West. And this is a sign of a changing constellation of forces in international relations, and certain Western fatigue among the “Rest”. US monopoly after the Cold War was too overwhelming. The lack of alternatives that did exist during the bipolar era prompted many to aspire to more diversity. The movement towards a new order and away from the hegemonic one has started and will continue.

The way in which the US and its allies orchestrated economic warfare against Russia, which is primarily based on the monopoly of the US dollar, and almost monopoly of the Western financial infrastructure (international payment systems, insurance, currency reserves), moved many nations to question how to avoid such a critical dependence. It will not happen very soon, but sooner than we could imagine, profoundly shifting the international landscape.

The movement towards a new order and away from the hegemonic one has started and will continue.

On the other hand, Russia was not able to get strong support from many countries, including for instance in Central Asia.

Russia is implementing its own security agenda with very harsh methods. This is a national task as formulated by the leadership and basically supported by a large part of the population. Russia did not consult anybody and did not ask for advice because Russian leadership is convinced that it should be done, despite how the rest of the world views it. In such a situation it would be strange to expect “strong support” from anybody. But the very fact that many countries remain neutral or express understanding is important per se.

As far as Central Asia is concerned, expectations that this region will become an apple of discord between Russia and China are not new. As always, the reality is finer and more nuanced. The main reason why it is not happening is that Central Asian countries are much more sophisticated than one suggests. All of them know that they:

  • Need to keep friendly and balanced relations with powerful neighbors;
  • Feel more comfortable with Russia due to cultural and historical closeness and the economic gravity of Russian space;
  • Try to use economic opportunities offered by China, but know exactly that there is no such thing as free cheese;
  • Follow changes in the international environment to finetune their policies. To ask who will overtake Central Asia means to be arrogant vis-à-vis those states.

IM: Even if Russia wins on the ground in Ukraine, it looks like it is doomed to end up in bad shape i.e, more dependent on China,  isolated from the West, maybe keeping some support in the Global South, but with less capacity for influence. Do you have a different view?

FAL: Russia is facing enormous challenges, no doubt about that. The Russian leadership decided that the path of the last thirty years was wrong and should change. The Soviet Union, by the end of its history, experienced a sharp political and economic decline, but paradoxically, was at the peak of countries’ technological capacities and strategic self-sufficiency. The decision to open up and integrate into a globalized international environment led to improved conditions for a part of the population, but a loss of many skills and rapidly increasing dependency on international markets.

The Russian economy thirty years after the Soviet Union’s collapse became more simplistic, and raw material based than in the Soviet time. Expectations that the technological level can be improved through cooperation and interdependence faced obvious limitations because technological leaders were predictably not keen to share the most advanced developments. Rather the opposite, the post-Soviet period was marked by the massive brain drain and leak of technologies, additionally weakening Russia (as the other former Soviet Republic’s) innovative potential.

While small or even middle-sized countries could base their strategies on integration into other powers’ technological spheres, Russia was too big to count on that. And too ambitious to take a subordinated position.

Of course, the next question arises, whether Russia will be able to catch up with its technological level being cut from the West and increasingly dependent on China. One can have well-grounded doubts about that. But Russian history showed that the country can produce unexpected results in the situation of force-majeure while comfortable prosperity leads to strange apathy. Second, the peaceful and linear development of globalization started to show signs of disruption well before the Ukrainian conflict, interdependence has been replaced by the growing rivalry between great powers, and the conclusion made by Russian leadership was that strengthening independent sovereign capacities is the only way to be prepared for the next stage of international development – a Hobbesian style fierce competition on all levels.

As far as China is concerned, the Sino-Russian rapprochement will have the same limits as the Russian-Western one. When Russia starts to feel that there is a chance to lose strategic independence (which is not the case by far yet), it will start to distance itself and seek counterbalances.

IM: Retaining the hypothesis of a relatively weakened Russia – politically and economically vis-à-vis the US and China – will Moscow increasingly rely on military power and social control to assert dominance? Will destabilizing Europe be the solution for Russian strategists to offset the relative weakening vis-à-vis the US and China?

FAL: Relying more on military power and domestic societal control is undoubtedly the path forward for Russia in the foreseeable future. There is simply no other alternative in this crisis environment. The question is whether Russia will be unique in this sense, or whether those trends in various forms will prevail universally. The more crisis and instability worldwide, the more inclined to rely on force and control; this is a universal trend, although forms can differ depending on the political system.

Russia is certainly not capable of breaking the EU, even if this scenario may be seen as desirable in certain constituencies in Moscow. There is another issue that the European integration process shows multiple signs of internal crisis, mostly unconnected to Russian affairs. In the current stage of relations, the European Union is clearly of no value to Russia. So, there is no reason to believe that Moscow will do something to strengthen ties with the European Union anytime soon.

Russia is certainly not capable of breaking the EU, even if this scenario may be seen as desirable in certain constituencies in Moscow.

There are different views in Russia on how to behave vis-à-vis Europe in the next period – to take distance as much as possible and stress differences with Europe at all levels, or to contribute to European transformation towards a more traditional “Europe of nations“. There is an open debate, but no result yet.

IM: To what extent is the “special relationship” with China counted in Russia’s strategic calculations? What does it mean for Taiwan’s future? Would such a showdown be anticipated as the “last nail” in the coffin of Western dominion over the world order?

FAL: The “special relationship” with China is crucial for Russian development in the next period for several reasons. Conflict with the West is the obvious one, but there are other motives of equal importance. China’s position in world affairs fluctuating between being the first or the second superpower is likely under any circumstances. China is Russia’s biggest neighbor, this simple logic suggests that good relations are indispensable. Both economic and geopolitical gravitation of China is in place, this is fact of life. China carefully avoids any allied status in relations with Russia, but objectively, countries move towards each other as both of them are labeled as dangerous revisionists by the US. In the case of Taiwan, China sees the US as an ultimate provocateur who is ready to destroy any mutually beneficial interdependence for its own sake. Russian views on the US, and especially the EU in the Ukrainian context are similar. So, the interests of Russia and China are not coinciding, but the logic of how the West sees them brings Moscow and Beijing ever closer together.

IM: Finally, for the Russian leadership, what new order should replace the current one? Any alternative to the last 30 years? How can global governance for our most pressing issues be assured in a new world?

FAL: The second half of the 20th century was a unique period in the history of international relations. Institutions played a defining role in how to shape relations between states, it has never been the case before (not to that extent at least), and there are doubts that this will be repeated in the future. The international constellation of powers was too specific and exceptional between 1945 and 1991. The more traditional and “normal” situation in international relations is a much more chaotic stance with situational arrangements and agreements based on changing power balances – both regionally and now even globally. It does not mean a high degree of stability, on the contrary, but at least the permanent awareness of all important players, that they should be cautious and always think about the intended and unintended consequences. The universalist ideological framework as it emerged after the end of the Cold War (i.e. after the end of the period with two competing ideological frameworks) can’t stay without an overwhelming dominance of a superpower, the polycentric system requires a “peaceful coexistence” of different ethical and cultural frameworks, based on pragmatic balance and mutual benefits, not on the perception of sides of history, which are “right” or “wrong”.

If this picture is correct, one conclusion follows: the order as we knew it from the previous decades is unlikely to be restored any time soon. All major international problems (including those which used to be called “global”) should be addressed on a much more flexible transactional base, in the process of permanent adjustment of interests and possibilities. This does not promise a very stable future. But in the situation of a deeply asymmetric international environment (multiple players of different caliber and characteristics) without a chance to install anybody’s solid control (be it institutions or great powers) each country should be prepared for a protracted period with very limited ability to strategize.

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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 discussion was held in the US Senate today with distinguished doctors and scientists from major universities and medical centers. The story they told of corruption and mismanagement of the COVID pandemic is a turning point for humanity. I summarize some of the highlights here, and plan to conclude tomorrow.

Most of the people on today’s panel suffered loss of income, loss of status, or loss of their jobs because they publicized truths about COVID and COVID policies that were anathema to the medical establishment and detrimental to pharmaceutical profits.

COVID policy has been a crime against humanity, and underlying that crime has been a crime against science. Science is held in high public regard, even as the reputations of most other institutions have declined in recent decades. The reputation of science is based on open debate and logical evaluation of evidence. Debate has been stifled by people with money and power, and those same people then claim to speak for “science”. The public is gradually recognizing the enormity of this fraud. I fear the public support for science will crumble.

Sen Ron Johnson introduced the hearing by reminding us that promising drugs for early treatment of COVID were made known to him by some of the people at today’s hearing already in the spring of 2020, and yet our government agencies were advising against their use, despite long and assuring safety records.

Liz Willner created a website to make the CDC’s vaccine safety data available in a more accessible format. According to VAERS data reported to CDC, vaccine injuries increased twenty-fold in 2021 and vaccine-related deaths increased fifty-fold.

Aaron Siri, a lawyer for Del Bigtree’s ICAN, described how the CDC created a system called V-Safe for recording a large sample of vaccine safety data, and then hid the data from the public. Siri pressed through the Freedom of Information Act to obtain that data for more than 1½ years before some of it was released. Much still remains secret. Risk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and autoimmune disorders was recognized and reported early in the Pfizer trials, and these conditions were in early specifications for the V-Safe system. In the end, none of these conditions were included, suggesting that CDC made a deliberate decision not to create a paper trail for them.

Ed Dowd, a securities analyst, reported data from Group Life insurance policies that cover healthy, employed people ages 18 to 64. The death rate in this group jumped 40% in the third quarter of 2021, coincident with Federal vaccine mandates for large employers who buy these Group Life policies. [Note: The death rate for healthy, employed people is quite low, so the absolute number of deaths continued to be dominated by people who are old and sick. The overall death rate in America increased only a little during this time, but the Group Insurance companies took a big hit. —JJM]

Josh Stirling, another security analyst, summarized data from Britain’s Office of National Statistics. To date, vaccinated people in the UK are dying at a rate 26% higher than the unvaccinated. The increase was concentrated in young people, who have suffered 49% increased risk of mortality to date.

Lt Col Theresa Long, MD, MPH, reported that alarming increases in disabling conditions for the US Army were reported right after vaccination was mandated, and these signals were dismissed as a “computer glitch”. The glitch was fixed, abut disabling illnesses and injuries continue in the Army, where they are now occurring at almost twice the pre-vaccination rate of 2020. The number of military deaths from the COVID vaccines is about 50% higher than the deaths from COVID itself.

Dr Ryan Cole reported that coronaviruses as a class mutate rapidly, and that’s why we have never had a vaccine for any coronavirus in the past. A largely vaccinated public drives the virus to mutate even faster. The current COVID vaccines immunize against a variant of COVID that was extinct more than a year ago.

Dr Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, emeritus professor of epidemiology from Yale, reminded us that for young, healthy people, the risk of serious COVID is lower than the risk of injury from the COVID vaccines. Vaccine mandates can only be justified for vaccines that lower risk of transmitting the virus, and the current vaccines do not prevent transmission, even in the old and vulnerable groups where they protect against serious COVID.

Dr Pierre Kory specialized in pulmonary medicine and critical care as a professor at University of Wisconsin before he was dismissed from the UW medical school for advocating early treatment for COVID. He reminded us that early treatment has always been our best line of defense for everything from the common cold to cancer. (This include the original SARS virus of 2003.) 30% of the world’s people live in countries where hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin is taken daily as preventives, and these countries have had much lower rates of COVID mortality than the “developed world”, where these medicines were discouraged. Why were early treatments for COVID disparaged by the authorities?

Dr Paul Marik, with 300 peer-reviewed publications, is the second most published expert on critical care in the world. He estimated that hundreds of thousands of American deaths would have been avoided if HCQ and IVM had been adopted as early treatments beginning in 2020. He reported that in his hospital, he was forbidden from using safe, effective treatments for COVID, including vitamin C. Instead, he was encouraged to prescribe Remdesivir. Remdesivir is a patented antiviral drug and costs about $3,000 per patient. But Remdesivir can only be administered in a hospital, and antivirals are useless by the time a patient gets to the hospital, because he is well past the stage where the virus has been vanquished, and the patient is threatened by its after effects, including lung damage, low blood oxygenation, and sepsis. Remdesivir is highly toxic to the kidney. According to WHO, Remdesivir increases risk of kidney failure twenty-fold. Dr Marik claimed that there are no legitimate medical uses for Remdesivir, and yet Federal reimbursement to hospitals is boosted 20% (for the entire bill) if Remdesivir is included in the treatment plan.

Dr Kory talked straight to doctors and medical researchers: “High-impact journals have been under the control of the pharmaceutical industry…We’ve seen repeated cases of manipulation of the data to show that a company’s product is effective and, conversely, manipulated trials to try to prove to everyone that safe, effective repurposed drugs that offered no profit were ineffective or dangerous. There is an immense amount of corruption in medical publishing and in the conduct of science.”

Dr Peter McCullough, MD, MPH is a heart specialist with a degree in epidemiology, and was professor at Baylor College of Medicine before he was dismissed for his vocal stance on early treatment of COVID. America suffered 250,000 deaths before the COVID vaccines. Normally, the second year of a pandemic is milder, both because the virus evolves to be less deadly and because the most vulnerable people were killed in the first year. But since the vaccine rollout, we have had 750,000 additional COVID deaths in America. This is not the record of a successful vaccine.

Paul Alexander, PhD, reported that the COVID vaccines lose their efficacy and dip into negative efficacy after a few months, such that people who have been vaccinated are more likely to get COVID multiple times. Vaccinated individuals only have immunity to the part of the virus that is mutating most rapidly. As long as we keep boosting people every few months, the virus will continue to mutate and the pandemic will continue for many more years. “Had we not mass vaccinated, it is probable that we would have achieved herd immunity in the United States in the winter of 2021.”

Dr Robert Malone, MD, who holds the patent as the original inventor of mRNA technology, changed his perspective on the COVID vaccines after he had a near-fatal response to vaccination. Vaccine development is a very slow process, and viruses mutate rapidly. The hope for mRNA technology was that a generic vaccine platform could be developed so that a new viral genome could just be plugged into an existing technology and vaccines could be developed at warp speed. This very promising idea has not panned out, but those who are heavily invested in the paradigm refuse to recognize the failures and the danger of mRNA vaccine technology.

Dr Malone described the innovation of using pseudouridine instead of natural uridine as one of the four nucleotide bases in mRNA vaccines. This is a trick that causes the body not to degrade mRNA as it normally would, so the mRNA stays around much longer. The upshot is that once the body is injected with an mRNA vaccine, the mRNA stays around and continues to generate spike protein for at least 60 days. We have no data beyond 60 days, so it is “at least” 60 days. The vaccine was designed to do its job of stimulating immunity in the first 48 hours. After this, the continued production of spike protein serves no protective purpose, but it can continue to be toxic.

Dr Janci Lindsay, professor of toxicology, reported on the vaccines’ effects on fertility, and evidence that the mRNA can incorporate into the genome and be passed through sperm or egg to the next generation. As long as the mRNA is turned to DNA, it can be passed to the next generation through plasmids in the sperm. The spike protein might become a part of the human genome.

David Wiseman (PhD pharmacologist from Johnson & Johnson) told us that FDA has strict standards for safety testing of “vaccines” and much stricter standards for “gene therapies”, including 5 to 15 years of follow-up for cancer and DNA damage. The FDA did not even apply the looser “vaccine” standards when evaluating the COVID vaccines, even though these mRNA products meet the definition of “gene therapies”.

Dr Ryan Cole reported on the change in definition of “vaccine” that made possible the approval of the mRNA products, which have a very different mechanism from traditional vaccines. They should have been tested with standards appropriate for gene therapies.

Dr McCullough emphasized that immunity provided by the COVID vaccines does not extend to the nose or throat, so that vaccinated people are exhaling a viral load that is no different from unvaccinated. This is why the current crop of vaccines cannot stop transmission, and why any argument for mandating vaccination as a public health measure is flawed. “These vaccines have no support for reducing transmission of the infection.” So the justification for vaccination must be lowering the risk of hospitalization and death. And yet, the only clinical trials that we had were not designed to measure rates of hospitalization and death. [NB Data from the Pfizer trial showed a higher death rate among the vaccinated compared to the control group — JJM]

Dr Malone and Dr Alexander raise the subject of “original antigenic sin”. In teaching the body to respond to just one part of the virus with one arm of the immune system, we hijack the body’s response when a COVID virus comes along a few months later that has a mutated spike protein. The immune system is fixated on the original spike protein, and its response to the altered virus is impaired. This is a well-known mechanism for several decades, so we should not be surprised when COVID vaccines show negative effectiveness after a few months.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Senate Roundtable: COVID Policy Has Been a Crime Against Humanity

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 December 3, 2022

***

 

 

 

 

 

From the very outset in January 2020, people worldwide were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic. Media disinformation and the fear campaign were instrumental in sustaining the COVID-19 narrative.

Scientific lies and falsehoods have been used to sustain the legitimacy of the COVID-19 policy mandates including lockdowns, the imposition of the face mask, social distancing and the suppression of fundamental human rights.

People worldwide were led to believe that Big Pharma’s COVID-19 vaccine injections were the “solution”.

A structure of  “Global Governance” dominated by powerful financial interests is unfolding which undermines democracy and the institutions of civil society.  More than 7 billion people worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis and the destructive mandates implemented by morally depraved national governments. The entire planet is in state of economic and social chaos.

Click here or the image below to watch the video. (Just released. At present, you may experience slow download.)

Video: Interview of Michel Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux


Michel Chossudovsky’s book entitled:

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

will be launched on December 6, 2022 at 13.00 pm ET.

Click the link above for details.

The book in pdf can be downloaded free of charge, click here. 

The book includes 15 Chapters. For details and book reviews, click here.

  • Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Video: The Corona Lockdown, The Most Devastating Crisis in Modern History. What We Need is “Democratic Regime Change”. Michel Chossudovsky

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.

***

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis told attendees at a private GOP event Saturday that he plans to hold Pfizer and Moderna “accountable”, arguing they were not transparent about their oft-mandated drugs’ side effects.

DeSantis, who seized a massive re-election victory in last month’s gubernatorial race, made the remarks during a Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) event on December 3 at the governor’s mansion in Tallahassee, according to American Greatness.

In a video embedded in the outlet’s report, DeSantis promised to work in conjunction with Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo “to hold these manufacturers accountable for this mRNA [shot] because they said there were no side effects and we know that there have been a lot.”

While DeSantis didn’t name names, the mRNA jabs widely in use in the U.S. are made by Big Pharma giants Pfizer and Moderna. Johnson & Johnson’s shot doesn’t use mRNA technology.

The conservative governor, who has surpassed former president Donald Trump in recent polls gauging Republican preference for the 2024 presidential race, also referenced a recent analysis conducted by Florida’s Department of Health that uncovered a disturbing spike in heart problems among mRNA jab recipients.

“We did a study in Florida and we saw an 86% [sic] increase in cardiac related activity in people ages 18 to 39 from mRNA shots — and so we’re going to be doing some stuff to bring accountability there,” DeSantis said.

In October, Florida’s department of health formally advised young men against receiving themRNA injections, citing their analysis that found “an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination,” according to a department press release.

“Studying the safety and efficacy of any medications, including vaccines, is an important component of public health,” Ladapo said in the October 7 statement. “Far less attention has been paid to safety and the concerns of many individuals have been dismissed – these are important findings that should be communicated to Floridians.”

“With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group,” the statement added.

To date, the CDC maintains that the mRNA COVID-19 shots are “safe and effective and severe reactions after vaccination are rare.” The agency notes that “[s]ome people have no side effects” following jab reception, but that “[m]any people have reported side effects, such as headache, fatigue, and soreness at the injection site, that are generally mild to moderate and go away within a few days.”

However, the CDC does acknowledge a “small but increased risk of myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines” especially among young men.

In his Saturday remarks, DeSantis highlighted the work Florida has already done to protect residents from coercive jab mandates, including the November 2021 legislation banning blanket vaccine mandates.

“We wouldn’t let them mandate on you in Florida,” DeSantis told attendees at the Saturday GOP event, making note of attempts by Florida localities and companies like Disney to enforce jab mandates upon workers.

“We said no across the board, so everybody had the ability to opt out of anything they were trying to impose on you,” the governor said. He observed that many Americans who didn’t live in Florida were compelled to get the jab because their state governments didn’t protect them against mandates.

“And then what? They’re not allowed to sue or get any sort of recourse when this was something they wanted to do? So this is something that we’re going to lead on in Florida,” DeSantis vowed.

In addition to promising to hold vaccine manufacturers to account and urging “particular caution” regarding reception of the shots for young men, Florida has stood alone as the only state to refuse participation in the rollout of COVID shots for  babies and young children between six months and five years old.

In March, the Sunshine State formally advised against jabbing children and teens under age 18 with the experimental injections.

*

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 a screenshot from a Rumble video via LSN


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 World Health Organization (WHO) announced that member states inched closer to developing a legally binding global pandemic treaty. 

“I welcome the agreement by @WHO Member States to develop a zero draft of a legally binding #PandemicAccord designed to protect the world from future pandemics and to continue discussions on the draft in February 2023,” said WHO CEO Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

The development follows a third meeting from WHO member states to develop a global pandemic treaty. The first meeting was in December 2021, and the second was in March 2022.

It’s unclear how the WHO’s pandemic treaty will affect its 194 member states, including Canada.

The WHO states the global pandemic treaty will determine future pandemic requirements for individual countries, such as lockdowns, and that these requirements will be “legally binding.”

The WHO says the treaty will be a “legal instrument, rooted in the WHO Constitution, designed to protect the world from future pandemics.”

Article 21 of the WHO’s constitution states the WHO has “authority to adopt regulations concerning (a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of disease.”

“Other procedures” presumably include global vaccine passports, which member states have already supported.

However, the WHO also claims the pandemic treaty will “respect sovereignty.”

The draft that resulted from this third meeting includes a provision that reads:

“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems pursuant to their own policies and legislation provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to other States and their peoples.”

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has been outspoken regarding the potential impact a global pandemic treaty could have on Canadians.

In April, she said the treaty would allow the WHO to determine what a pandemic is and when one is occurring — even over something non-viral like an obesity crisis.

Earlier this year, the WHO and the German health minister said that countries disobeying regulations dictated by the WHO through their pandemic treaty might need to be sanctioned.

The Counter Signal contacted the WHO for comment but did not receive a response by publication.

*

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

Featured image is from The Counter Signal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on WHO Member States Agree to Develop Legally-binding Pandemic Treaty
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

Germany saw what is perhaps its largest police raid in history, involving 3,000 officers targeting 130 properties across nearly the entire country. With 25 “Reichsbürger” suspects arrested, that amounts to 120 police officers per suspect. It was quite the show of force, and in a sign that the media knew well in advance about the coming arrests, a number of suspects, including German aristocrat Heinrich XIII and former AfD MP Birgit Malsack-Winkemann, were photographed and filmed as they were perp walked out of their homes.

It was a real coup for Germany’s left-wing government and Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, who has made it her political goal to wipe out the right.

It is worth noting that nobody has been found guilty yet, but of course, even with the notoriously left-wing German media using the incident to whip up fear of the German right, the past may indicate the case could end up being more PR than reality.

The notorious “Nordkreuz” terror group, which was trumpeted by the media in 2017 as a far-right extremist network preparing for “Day X” — or the day when the group would carry out assassinations of left-wing opponents following the collapse of the German government — mostly fizzled out. At the time, politicians, journalists, and various anti-racist organizations jumped on the case, which involved up to 50 people, as an example of Germany’s growing far-right scene.

Ultimately, the Office of the Attorney General halted its investigations into the group, saying they had “no probable cause” to keep going. Like this most recent case involving “Reichsbürger,” the “Nordkreuz” group also contained a variety of individuals with military and police experience.

The supposed ring leader of “Nordkreuz” was only given a suspended sentence of 21 months, as the judge in the case said that nearly every weapon and piece of ammunition he owned was legal, and that although he had made some “unconstitutional” comments in a group chat with other members, there was no evidence he had any active plans to overthrow the government or carry out any terror attacks.

In the end, even if some members of the group “fantasized” about a Day X, there was no indication they had any concrete plans to partake in any direct action. Many in the left dream of a communist overthrow of the German government, or a society based on anarchist collectives, and some of them may even discuss what such a society would look like in various groups scattered across Germany’s cities, but would such discussions constitute an imminent threat to Germany’s democratic order?

The question is always when does fantasy start to cross into the realm of reality.

If the plan was real, it was crazy to begin with

The details from the current Reichsbürger case remain unclear, as the case has yet to go to trial. However, if Prince Heinrich XIII, who authorities deem the leader of the group, truly planned to imminently storm the Reichstag and seize power, then he and his cohorts are delusional, potentially insane, and acutely unaware of how power actually works. Power is not a capture-the-flag game where you can run into a government building and scream: “Look, now I’m in power!”

Even if the group was planning to storm the Reichstag, which is a claim we should take with a grain of salt until all the facts come to light, there is little possibility of such a “coup” succeeding in the modern era. If the group managed to defy all odds and take control of the Reichstag, the individuals allegedly involved in this case would have been promptly handcuffed and ushered into prison. After all, any successful coup requires a base of power. That means support from the military, a segment of the current elite, or a mass of the country’s populace — with all three being ideal, but the former two prerequisites far more important.

Of course, if the group was procuring illegal weapons and making concrete plans to conduct a coup, then the authorities are no doubt going to take action and are likely justified in conducting searches on the houses of the suspects, but the question will remain how far along were their plans, how many of the weapons were actually illegal, and how concrete these plans actually were.

According to media reports, there are about 25,000 people in Germany who identify with the Reichsbürger movement, a loosely defined movement but one that generally believes that the country’s current government is illegitimate and that the old monarchy was never properly dissolved in a legal manner. While some of them may be doctors, lawyers, former soldiers, and engineers, this does not represent a base of support for ushering in a new government. Many of them would also likely balk at a few members storming the Reichstag and seizing power through violent means.

We can take it a step further. If the Reichbürgers in this case actually managed to take power, all it would take is one negative report from German public broadcaster ARD and the whole Reich citizens government would promptly see an angry Twitter mob perform a reverse coup, this time with the full support of a very woke populace and increasingly woke security service. As the saying goes, China has state-run media, and the West has media-run states. The Reichbürger movement has no media, no backing, and therefore no power.

If Heinrich XIII truly wanted to rule, as the media claims was his plan, then he would have been better off taking out some Facebook ads first, perhaps explaining things a bit beforehand. Did most Germans even know what a Reichsbürger was before this case? Probably not.

Even the Islamists who dream of sharia in Germany, and there is no small number of them, are not looking to “seize power” through their terror attacks. They instead often cite revenge for Western actions in Muslim lands and sometimes sheer hate for what they describe as an atheistic and godless Western culture. For those Muslims serious about overthrowing democracy and ushering in sharia law, they openly say that demographics and time are on their side, and most hold no illusions about a band of Muslims storming government buildings to seize power. In other words, Islamic rule, if it were to ever happen, will come through the humdrum affair of “democracy.”

Fuel for a crackdown on the right

Regardless of the merits of the Reichsbürger case, the latest raid will be used to justify further oppression against the right, including of the Alternative for Germany (AfD). That means more surveillance and even more police raids. Even the notorious left-wing RAF terror group active in the 1970s and 1980s, which committed a number of high-profile murders, never had such a police response as the latest Reichsbürge arrests, but with the AfD rapidly growing in popularity, the public needs a spectacle.

The media also welcomed the distraction from the brutal random murder of a 14-year-old German girl by an Eritrean migrant in Illerkirchberg, which has once again raised questions about mass immigration at the national level and led to the city of Ulm to suspend intake of all refugees.

This is the same media that has also mostly ignored that of the 226 investigations launched by the Federal Public Prosecutor up until June 30 of this year; 131 were targeted at radical Islamists, 68 against foreign extremists, and only nine against right-wing extremists.

However, nothing should contradict the government’s narrative that the right is the “biggest threat,” and if an Islamist was perp walked out of their home in front of the camera for every terror investigation, the evening media would indeed have a very hard time keeping this narrative up.

It is also the same media that has also long disregarded the fact that the right-wing AfD is routinely subjected to assaults, vehicle arson, doxing, and in Germany’s celebrated liberal democracy, threats of an outright ban on the political party. In fact, it’s the most attacked party in all of Germany, according to government data.

The latest Reichsbürger case, regardless of how valid the allegations may turn out to be, is necessary for the left-wing government to shape public opinion of the AfD, which from a political standpoint, is the main target of this investigation, even though it has little do with the case. After all, there are just not enough “right-wing extremists” prepared to use violence to really justify the government’s claim of the right being the biggest threat. That is why the media was informed well in advance of these raids and was ready to record just in time for the evening news.

Coups are very hard in the modern age

On a side note, most revolutions and coups, which were always difficult to pull off, are especially difficult in the modern age and doubly so in Germany where — despite inflation and a souring economy — most people live in relative comfort and a deep fear of anything the media labels extreme right or even right-wing. Most of the coups that do work in the modern era require NGO funding, support from the CIA, Big Tech, and repetitious media messaging, such as the color revolutions seen across Eastern Europe and the Middle East over the last two decades.

Even in the “old days,” coups were rarely successful, and even in cases such as Castro and Che’s communist overthrow of Cuba, they were won against all odds. When Castro and Che’s ship arrived in Cuba with 81 armed revolutionaries, Batista’s army was already waiting for them. Only 19 men survived, including Castro and Che, who escaped into the Sierra Maestra mountain range and waged an extraordinary guerilla warfare campaign that saw them eventually overthrow the entire government.

Even for those who despise the politics of Che and Castro, what they pulled off from a military and propaganda perspective has rightly gone down in the annals of history. Most men would have thrown in the towel after 85 percent of their comrades were killed in the first minutes of the “revolution.”

The fact that Batista knew Castro was coming indicates informers were already in the group, or Western intelligence or Batista’s own agents used other means to know from top to bottom what the group’s plans were. This intelligence leak was before the era of smartphones and internet surveillance.

In contrast, German domestic intelligence is inside encrypted chats, they are inside people’s computers, and they are openly monitoring members of one political party but also a large variety of political groups. For those “planning” a coup, regardless of whether they are on the left, right, or adhere to some other political or religious ideology, the odds have never been more stacked against you.

*

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

Featured image: Patrolcars used by the Northrhine-Westphalian Police (Licensed under CC0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Germany’s Massive Right-wing Extremist Raid: Is It More Show Than Substance?
  • Tags: ,

US Internationalises Iran’s Unrest

December 9th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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 ongoing unrest in Iran since mid-September following the death of a Kurdish woman in police custody shows no signs of abating as of now. The unrest has drawn support from all social strata and assumed anti-government overtones. The efficacy of suppressing the unrest is doubtful. Iran is entering a period of turmoil. 

Indeed, the government faces no imminent threat but seems cognisant of the imperative need to address the hijab policy to pacify the protestors. As the protests continue, many women are walking on the streets of cities across Iran, especially in Tehran, without head coverings.

There is a long history of Western countries fuelling public unrest in Iran. Regime change agenda must be there in the western calculus but,  curiously, Washington is also signalling interest in reaching an accommodation with Tehran under certain conditions relating to the regime’s foreign and security policies in the present international milieu. 

Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian stated explicitly on Monday that the US and a number of other Western countries have incited riots, because “one of the US’ objectives was to force Iran to make big concessions at the negotiating table” for the revival of the JCPOA. Amirabdollahian’s remark followed some megaphone diplomacy by Rob Malley, the US special envoy on Iran last weekend.

Speaking in Rome, Malley connected the dots and outlined the linkages in the matrix. He said: 

“The more Iran represses, the more there will be sanctions; the more there are sanctions, the more Iran feels isolated. The more isolated they feel [isolated], the more they turn to Russia; the more they turn to Russia, the more sanctions there will be, the more the climate deteriorates, the less likely there will be nuclear diplomacy. So it is true right now the vicious cycles are all self-reinforcing. The repression of the protests and Iran’s support for Russia’s war in Ukraine is where our focus is because that is where things are happening, and where we want to make a difference.”

In effect, Malley admitted that the Biden Administration is a stakeholder in the ongoing protests in Iran. Importantly, he also hinted that although Iran has taken a series of fateful decisions that make a full revival of the nuclear deal and a lifting of some economic sanctions a political impossibility for now, the door to diplomacy is not shut if only Iran’s leadership changed course on relations with Russia. 

In further remarks to Bloomberg on Saturday, Malley said that “Right now we can make a difference in trying to deter and disrupt the provision of weapons to Russia and trying to support the fundamental aspirations of the Iranian people.” 

As he put it, Washington now aims to “disrupt, delay, deter and sanction” Iran’s weapon deliveries to Russia, and any supplies of missiles or assistance in the construction of military production facilities in Russia “would be crossing new lines.” 

In sum, Malley has linked the US approach toward Iran’s protests with Tehran’s foreign and security policies in regard of Russia and its war in Ukraine. 

The first signs that the US intelligence was focusing on Iran-Russia military ties — in tandem with its Israeli counterpart, of course —appeared in late July, when the US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made an allegation during a media briefing at the White House that Iran wanted to sell weapons-capable unmanned aerial vehicles to Moscow. 

Sullivan claimed that Iran was already training Russian personnel in using the drones. Within the week, Sullivan doubled down on that allegation. 

The timing of Sullivan’s disclosure must be noted carefully — coinciding with a visit to Tehran by Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 19. Putin’s talks with the Iranian leadership messaged a strategic polarisation under way between Moscow and Tehran with far-reaching consequences for regional and international politics. 

Putin’s discussions ranged from the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Syria to the legality of Western-led sanctions regimes, de-dollarisation, geopolitics of energy, the International North-South Transport Corridor, defence cooperation and so on, anchored on the congruent interests of the two countries on a number of important strategic and normative issues. 

Following up Putin’s discussions, Iran’s armed forces Chief of Staff, General Mohammad Bagheri travelled to Moscow in mid-October. Gen. Bagheri met Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, which signalled that the military relations between the two countries was acquiring an irreversible momentum. 

A fortnight after Gen. Bagheri’s visit, Russian Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev came to Tehran to discuss “various issues of Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of security, as well as a number of international problems,” according to Interfax news agency. 

Russian state media said Patrushev discussed the situation in Ukraine and measures to combat “Western interference” in both countries’ internal affairs with his Iranian security counterpart Ali Shamkhani. Patrushev also met with Iran’s president Ebrahim Raisi. 

Meanwhile, Washington senses that there is disharmony within the Iranian establishment on how to handle the protests, and, in turn, this is sharpening the internal Iranian debate about the wisdom of growing alliance with Russia vis-a-vis re-engaging with the West in a fresh attempt to revive the nuclear deal. 

Clearly, Malley’s remarks hinted that amidst the US’ support for protests in Iran, it still remains open to doing business with Tehran if the latter rolls back its deepening strategic partnership with Moscow and refrains from any involvement in the conflict in Ukraine. 

In fact, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Grossi (who holds Washington’s brief) also chipped in with a remark on Monday that the UN watchdog has no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon programme, implying that the resumption of negotiations in Vienna faces no “systemic” block. 

That said, Tehran’s cooperation with Moscow on foreign and security policy policies is of long-term consequence to Iran and there is no question of the Iranian leadership putting all its eggs in the American basket. For Russia, too, the partnership with Iran is of strategic importance in the conditions of multipolarity. 

Significantly, Iranian media has reported that Iran’s nuclear negotiator and deputy foreign minister Ali Bagheri Kani visited Moscow last weekend and met his Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabkov in Moscow to “discuss the prospects of full-scale implementation” of the JCPOA (2015 nuclear deal) “in order to strengthen the approach of multilateralism and confront unilateralism and adhere to the principles contained in the United Nations Charter” as well as the two countries’ “efforts to prevent instrumental political abuse and selective treatment of human rights issues by Western powers.” 

The official news agency IRNA later reported from Tehran quoting Bagheri Kani that the two sides “reviewed bilateral relations over the past months and created frameworks and mechanisms in agreement with each other for developing relations.” He mentioned Syria, South Caucasus and Afghanistan as areas of cooperation between Tehran and Moscow. 

Most certainly, the latest round of Iran-Russia consultations was noted in Washington. On Saturday, the Director of National Intelligence in the Biden Administration Avril Haines held out a veiled threat that while Iranian leaders may not see the protests as a threat now, they could face more unrest because of high inflation and economic uncertainty. She said, “We see some kind of controversies even within them about exactly how to respond — within the government.”

On the other hand, Bagheri Kani’s consultations in Moscow would have taken into account the large-scale US-Israeli air exercises last Tuesday simulating strikes on the Iranian nuclear program. The Israeli military said in a statement that joint flights of four Israeli F-35i Adir stealth fighter jets that accompanied four US F-15 fighter jets through Israel’s skies simulated “an operational scenario and long-distance flights.”

The statement added, “These exercises are a key component of the two militaries’ increasing strategic cooperation in response to shared concerns in the Middle East, particularly those posed by Iran.” 

The US-Israeli exercises underscores the criticality in the situation surrounding Iran. Tehran’s shift to enrichment at 60% causes disquiet in Washington. But a military strike on Iran is fraught with unpredictable consequences not only for West Asian region but also the global oil market, which is facing uncertainties due to the US attempt to put a price cap on Russian oil. 

The bottom line is that the protests in Iran are assuming the proportions of a casus belli. The US has internationalised Iran’s internal upheaval. 

*

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 JARED RODRIGUEZ / TRUTHOUT

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.

***

Ukrainians have been paying a terrible price for the failure of ensuring sensible and reasonable negotiations from 2014 to February 2022 – which could have prevented the invasion by Russia in the first place, and once the war started, could have led to the end of this war.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. This war has been horrendous, though it does not compare with the terrible destruction wrought by the US bombardment of Iraq (“shock and awe”) in 2003. In the Gomel region of Belarus that borders Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian diplomats met on February 28 to begin negotiations toward a ceasefire. These talks fell apart. Then, in early March, the two sides met again in Belarus to hold a second and third round of talks. On March 10, the foreign ministers of Ukraine and Russia met in Antalya, Turkey, and finally, at the end of March, senior officials from Ukraine and Russia met in Istanbul, Turkey, thanks to the initiative of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. On March 29, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said, “We are pleased to see that the rapprochement between the parties has increased at every stage. Consensus and common understanding were reached on some issues.” By April, an agreement regarding a tentative interim deal was reached between Russia and Ukraine, according to an article in Foreign Affairs.

In early April, Russian forces began to withdraw from Ukraine’s northern Chernihiv Oblast, which meant that Russia halted military operations around Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. The United States and the United Kingdom claimed that this withdrawal was a consequence of military failure, while the Russians said it was due to the interim deal. It is impossible to ascertain, with the available facts, which of these two views was correct.

Before the deal could go forward, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv on April 9. A Ukrainian media outlet – Ukrainska Pravdareported that Johnson carried two messages to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky: first, that Russian President Vladimir Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with,” and second, that even if Ukraine signed agreements with the Kremlin, the West was not ready to do so. According to Ukrainska Pravda, soon after Johnson’s visit, “the bilateral negotiation process was paused.” A few weeks later, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin visited Kyiv, and following the trip, Austin spoke at a news conference at an undisclosed location in Poland and said, “We want to see Russia weakened.” There is no direct evidence that Johnson, Blinken, and Austin directly pressured Zelensky to withdraw from the interim negotiations, but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that this was the case.

Russian and Ukrainian delegations at the negotiating table on March 7, 2022. Photo: Belta news agency via Xinhua

The lack of willingness to allow Ukraine to negotiate with Russia predates these visits and was summarized in a March 10, 2022, article in the Washington Post where senior officials in US President Joe Biden’s administration stated that the current US strategy “is to ensure that the economic costs for Russia are severe and sustainable, as well as to continue supporting Ukraine militarily in its effort to inflict as many defeats on Russia as possible.”

Long before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, since 2014, the United States has – through the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative of the US Department of Defense – spent more than $19 billion in providing training and equipment to the Ukrainian military ($17.6 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022). The total annual budget of the United Nations for 2022 is $3.12 billion, far less than the amount spent by the US on Ukraine today. The arming of Ukraine, the statements about weakening Russia by senior officials of the US government, and the refusal to initiate any kind of arms control negotiations prolong a war that is ugly and unnecessary.

Ukraine is not in Iowa

Ukraine and Russia are neighbors. You cannot change the geographical location of Ukraine and move it to Iowa in the United States. This means that Ukraine and Russia have to come to an agreement and find a solution to end the conflict between them. In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky won by a landslide (73%) in the Ukrainian presidential election against Petro Poroshenko, the preferred candidate of the West. “We will not be able to avoid negotiations between Russia and Ukraine,” Zelensky said on a TV panel, “Pravo Na Vladu,” TSN news service reported, before he became president. In December 2019, Zelensky and Putin met in Paris, alongside then-Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and France’s President Emmanuel Macron (known as the “Normandy Four”). This initiative was driven by Macron and Merkel. As early as 2019, France’s President Emmanuel Macron argued that it was time for Europe to “rethink… our relationship with Russia” because “pushing Russia away from Europe is a profound strategic error.”

In March 2020, Zelensky said that he and Putin could work out an agreement within a year based on the Minsk II agreements of February 2015. “There are points in Minsk. If we move them around a bit, then what bad can that lead to? As soon as there are no people with weapons, the shooting will stop. That’s important,” Zelensky told the Guardian. In a December 2019 press conference, Putin said, “there is nothing more important than the Minsk Agreements.” At this point, Putin said that all he expected was that the Donbas region would be given special status in the Ukrainian constitution, and during the time of the expected Ukraine-Russia April 2020 meeting, the troops on both sides would have pulled back and agreed to “disengagement along the entire contact line.”

Role of Macron

It was clear to Macron by 2020 that the point of the negotiations was about more than just Minsk and Ukraine; it was about the creation of a “new security architecture” that did not isolate Russia – and was also not subservient to Washington. Macron developed these points in February 2021 in two directions and spoke about them during his interview with the Atlantic Council (a US think tank). First, he said that NATO has “pushed our borders as far as possible to the eastern side,” but NATO’s expansion has “not succeeded in reducing the conflicts and threats there.” NATO’s eastward expansion, he made clear, was not going to increase Europe’s security. Second, Macron said that the US unilateral withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019 – and Russia’s mirroring that – leaves Europe unprotected “against these Russian missiles.” He further said, “As a European, I want to open a discussion between the European Union and Russia.” Such a discussion would pioneer a post-Cold War understanding of security, which would leave the United States out of the conversation with Russia. None of these proposals from Macron could advance, not only because of hesitancy in Russia but also principally because they were not seen favorably by Washington.

Confusion existed about whether US President Joe Biden would be welcomed into the Normandy Four. In late 2020, Zelensky said he wanted Biden at the table, but a year later it became clear that Russia was not interested in having the United States be part of the Normandy Four. Putin said that the Normandy Four was “self-sufficient.” Biden, meanwhile, chose to intensify threats and sanctions against Russia based on the claims of Kremlin interference in the United States 2016 and 2018 elections. By December 2021, there was no proper reciprocal dialogue between Biden and Putin. Putin told Finnish President Sauli Niinistö that there was a “need to immediately launch negotiations with the United States and NATO” on security guarantees. In a video call between Biden and Putin on December 7, 2021, the Kremlin told the US president that “Russia is seriously interested in obtaining reliable, legally fixed guarantees that rule out NATO expansion eastward and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in states adjacent to Russia.” No such guarantee was forthcoming from Washington. The talks fizzled out.

The record shows that Washington rejected Macron’s initiatives as well as entreaties from Putin and Zelensky to resolve issues through diplomatic dialogue. Up to four days before the Russian invasion, Macron continued his efforts to prevent an escalation of the conflict. By then, the appetite in Moscow for negotiations had dwindled, and Putin rejected Macron’s efforts.

An independent European foreign policy was simply not possible (as Macron had suggested and as the former leader of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev had proposed in 1989 while talking about his vision for a “common European home” that would stretch from northern Asia to Europe). Nor was an agreement with Russia feasible if it meant that Russian concerns were to be taken seriously by the West.

Ukrainians have been paying a terrible price for the failure of ensuring sensible and reasonable negotiations from 2014 to February 2022 – which could have prevented the invasion by Russia in the first place, and once the war started, could have led to the end of this war. All wars end in negotiations, but these negotiations to end wars should be permitted to restart.

*

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 produced by Globetrotter.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter. He is an editor of LeftWord Books and the director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He is a senior non-resident fellow at Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China. He has written more than 20 books, including The Darker Nations and The Poorer Nations. His latest books are Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism and (with Noam Chomsky) The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Four Minutes of Undiluted Truth on Mainstream TV

December 9th, 2022 by Mike Whitney

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 last thing you’d ever expect to hear on a mainstream news channel, is the truth. But—strange as it might seem—that’s exactly what happened on Wednesday night on the Tucker Carlson Show.

Carlson interviewed veteran journalist Glenn Greenwald in a 4-minute segment that provided the best ‘easy-to-understand’ summary of the Ukraine War you’ll hear anywhere. And what was so shocking about the interview, was how casually both men veered onto topics that are essential to grasping “How we got to where we are today” but which are entirely banned on all the other cable news channels. You are not allowed to know, for example, that Russia was “lured into the conflict in Ukraine”. That does not fit the script that has been passed-along from the Biden State Department to their lapdogs at the cable news stations. You’re also not allowed to know that the US does not fight wars “to spread democracy” or that “the US has no vital interests in Ukraine” or that “Russia is not really our enemy”. All of those topics are verboten. You’re not even allowed to think about these things, which is why– for the most part– they have been completely scrubbed from any-and-all discussion of foreign policy in the corporate media.

That’s what makes the segment with Greenwald such a stunner, because it’s 4 glorious minutes of pure, unvarnished truth delivered from a platform that typically only produces, lies, disinformation and propaganda. That’s why I transcribed the entire interview. Any mistakes are mine. Here it is:

or here —

Tucker Carlson– What bothers me is not so much what Zelensky is doing– there’ alot of tyranny abound the world (and) I don’t brood on it. But the fact that (a) we are paying for it, and (b) our leaders are defending it. I think every American should be upset about that.

Glenn Greenwald– “I think in general, Americans should be very skeptical when the government says ‘We’re going to fight wars on the other side of the world and spend tens of billions of dollars in military aid to spread democracy.’ The US government doesn’t actually care about spreading democracy. Many of its closest allies in the world have always been some of the world’s most despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. All the US government cares about is whether these regimes serve US interests. …If you want to believe the fairy tale that the US government goes to war to spread democracy, then Ukraine is not the place for you. You mentioned the argument that ‘Zelensky is in war, he has to curb liberty’, but go back to 2021, a year before Russia invaded and you’ll find articles where he shut down opposition television stations and shut down opposition political parties (which is) the hallmark of what every tyrant or despot does….and that was true even before Russia invaded.”

Tucker Carlson– I wonder how Republicans can continue to defend this (because) I think you are right; I think our foreign policy is almost always about defending our interests…. But I don’t see our critical interests at stake here, so, what is this about?

Glenn Greenwald– If the US government was honest… they would get rid of this script that we have to go and defend democracy. That is a fairy tale that tries to get Americans to feel better about the fact that we are involved in many, many countries all over the world. That is not the real reason. The only reason to do it is for ‘vital US interests’. The line in Washington for decades was the US has no vital interests in Ukraine. That was Obama’s view, that was the bipartisan view. Why did that change? The only reason is because we saw an opportunity to trap Russia inside Ukraine all based on the view that Russia is our enemy (which is) something only Democrats should believe because they think Russia is to blame for the 2016 election and Hillary’s defeat. But why would Republicans want confrontation with Russia? What American benefits from that except arms manufacturers? …

Tucker Carlson– That’s a really good question, and I haven’t unraveled it. (But) It seems pretty clear that the Biden administration baited Russia into this invasion. You had the Vice President (Kamala Harris) in western Europe days before telling Zelensky to join NATO which, of course, they knew was a red line (for Russia) They wanted this invasion, I think that’s very obvious. Do you think this was all about ‘preparing for war with Russia’?

Glenn Greenwald– If you think Russia is a grave enemy of the United States, then it makes sense to try to lure them into a war that they can’t win, like we got lured into Afghanistan for 20 years or like we lured the Soviet Union into Afghanistan back in the ’70s because it does deplete your enemy. The question is: Why should Russia be seen as our enemy? Both Obama and Trump said there’s no reason to see Russia that way. It has one-fifteenth the size of our military budget. It’s not threatening American borders. Why are we so obsessed with spending tens of billions of dollars to weaken Russia which we could be using here at home to benefit the lives of American citizenswhen Russia is not doing anything to the United States unless you are a crazy ‘resistance’ person who believes they’re the reason Donald Trump won. But if you don’t believe that, what is the rational for this? There is none.”

Tucker Carlson– “I know, and as always, they have hijacked the best instincts of the American people, their compassion, and turned it against them. Glenn Greenwald, great to see you tonight”.

*

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.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Featured image is a screenshot from the video via 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.

***

 

 

The ideology of Nazism came into being in the years after the First World War. Had the conflict not erupted, it is unlikely that Adolf Hitler and his henchmen would have ever risen to prominence. 

The Nazi fervour did not emerge out of thin air following the end of World War I in November 1918. Almost all of the elements of Nazism were present in Germany even prior to the war; but before 1914 those ingredients had been scattered and rather dormant. They did not constitute a solid whole.

German historian Martin Broszat, who grew up during Hitler’s reign, wrote that in pre-1914 Germany there had existed “a virulent anti-Semitism, a blood-and-soil ideology, the notion of a master race, the idea of territorial acquisition and settlement in the East”. Broszat noted “only the First World War was to cause the decisive seismic shift in the country’s political culture. This was the soil in which Nazism was to grow”. (1)

In rural Germany before 1914, overall there had been scant political consciousness. With the general mobilisation of German males during World War I, the nation’s rural sectors were politically awakened. As Broszat put it, after the fighting was over Germany had “become a mass society” and “Young peasants and land labourers returned with changed personalities, after the war had torn them from the slow-moving pace of provincial life, and had thrown them into the ‘wide world’ and onto the stage of fateful national developments”.

The unrest in interwar German society was much greater than in countries like France and Britain. The Germans had not been victorious in the war, and it was more likely therefore that an extreme right ideology should rise forth in Germany, and not in the so-called Western democracies.

The warning signs were emerging early on, when a far-right military coup d’état was implemented in Berlin during the spring of 1920 [Kapp Putsch, 13–17 March] (2). Leading the Kapp Putsch into Berlin, on the morning of 13 March 1920, was the Marine Brigade of Lieutenant-Commander Hermann Ehrhardt, whose soldiers had served in the German military during the war.

Once Ehrhardt’s men marched into Berlin’s city centre, they could be seen wearing the ancient swastika symbol in large white print on their helmets and armoured vehicles. Perhaps it can be said that the Marine Brigade, which consisted of between 5,000 to 6,000 men, were among the first true Nazis.

The swastika was displayed by Ehrhardt’s Marine Brigade before it was used by Hitler and the new Nazi Party, which had officially been founded on 24 February 1920, a couple of weeks before the Kapp Putsch. The swastika was then adopted by Hitler for the Nazi Party in the summer of 1920. (3)

Aged 38 in 1920, Ehrhardt was an ex-officer in the German Imperial Navy. Ehrhardt had participated in a commanding role, for example, in the Battle of Jutland (31 May–1 June 1916), the largest naval battle of World War I and which forever destroyed the myth of invincibility of the Royal Navy, as over 6,000 British seamen lost their lives in the course of little more than a day.

Ehrhardt was a ruthless, daring and fanatical soldier, which was the case with many of the men under his command. Military author Donald J. Goodspeed wrote of the Marine Brigade, “All in all, it would have been hard to find a more formidable body of troops”.

Through 1919, the Marine Brigade had helped to liquidate various leftist developments in Germany, such as in the cities of Dresden and Brunswick. The Marine Brigade assisted further in eliminating the Bavarian Soviet Republic, which was toppled in early May 1919, while they also overcame the groups of Polish fighters who had attacked Upper Silesia. Ehrhardt’s unit was part of the paramilitary formations (Freikorps) which were springing up in Germany shortly after the war.

It was at this time, in late February 1919, that General Erich Ludendorff returned to Germany after 3 months voluntary exile in southern Sweden (4). General Ludendorff had ruled Germany through a military autocracy from August 1916 to October 1918, failing narrowly to defeat the larger forces of the Anglo-French-American armies. Lt. Col. Goodspeed, a biographer of Ludendorff, wrote that the general possessed “outstanding military abilities”. (5)

The war was over, however, and the 54-year-old Ludendorff had to get on with the rest of his life. He would be a figure of inspiration for the radical German right. Following his return to Berlin from Sweden, Ludendorff, because he was one of the most well-known people in Germany, was given spacious quarters at the Adlon Hotel in central Berlin. The Adlon Hotel was among the best hotels in Europe and was the headquarters of the Allied Disarmament Commission.

Ludendorff informed the English generals staying at the Adlon Hotel that Germany “would never have lost the war if it had not been for the vacillation and weakness of the German Government and people”.

The old order in Germany had collapsed, when Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated on 9 November 1918 and left permanently for the Netherlands, ending his 30-year tenure as the German Empire’s monarch. A left-leaning government promptly came to power in Germany, which would become known as the Weimar Republic. The German president from 11 February 1919 was Friedrich Ebert, who for many years had been a member of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) of Germany. Also prominent in the Weimar government was Philipp Scheidemann, the SPD leader.

Through 1919 and beyond Ludendorff said repeatedly of the leftist forces and politicians, “The greatest blunder of the revolutionaries was to leave us all alive. If I once get back to power there will be no quarter. I should hang up Ebert, Scheidemann and their comrades with a clear conscience and watch them dangle!”

As soon as possible, Ludendorff’s intention was to reclaim complete power in Germany, and then embark upon a massive war of conquest across Europe. He wanted to re-establish Germany as the dominant nation on the continent and, once that was accomplished, retire in peace.

Ludendorff’s megalomania was already pronounced by 1919. In a letter to wife Margarethe during his exile in Sweden, Ludendorff compared himself to Hannibal, the Carthaginian general often considered to be one of history’s greatest commanders. Ludendorff wrote to his wife, “Tell everybody how like my fate was to that of Hannibal. That will teach them to understand”. Hannibal went into voluntary exile in the year 195 BC, having been forced to do so by the Romans. (6)

Forefront in Ludendorff’s mind was the overthrow of the Ebert government. The Adlon Hotel was too conspicuous a place for the sort of work which Ludendorff was thinking of. Later in 1919, some friends proposed to lend him a luxuriously furnished apartment on the Viktoriastrasse (Victoria Street), located opposite the Tiergarten park in the centre of Berlin. He accepted their offer.

Before long, comrades and conspirators were convening in Ludendorff’s flat on the Viktoriastrasse, from Dr. Wolfgang Kapp and General Walther von Lüttwitz, to Ludendorff’s former Chief-of-Operations Colonel Max Bauer, and Captain Waldemar Pabst. Captain Pabst, who would later be in contact with Hitler and Benito Mussolini, had in January 1919 ordered the executions in Berlin of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, the revolutionary socialists.

With Ludendorff’s backing, in October 1919 Pabst formed a far-right political organisation called the Nationale Vereinigung, or Bureau of National Union. Its aims were to co-ordinate the anti-Republican forces and to oust the German Republic by a military coup, which would be known as the Kapp Putsch. Involved in the Bureau of National Union was Dr. Kapp, a far-right politician, and General von Lüttwitz, the overall commander of the German paramilitary units.

With the war imprinted on people’s minds, including that of the Western Allies, Ludendorff moved carefully in his aim of regaining control of Germany. For the time being he remained somewhat obscured from the centre of events. Goodspeed wrote,

“As Kapp looked about him for a sword he thought first of General Ludendorff himself, who had returned from Sweden, and whose name still commanded considerable respect throughout the country… but in early 1920 he [Ludendorff] still retained enough sense of reality to proceed with some caution. Although Ludendorff lent the rebel movement his moral support, he declined to lead a putsch”. Kapp settled for General von Lüttwitz.

After initially succeeding, the coup would collapse after just 5 days. This was due largely to the lack of ruthlessness and efficiency shown by Kapp and von Lüttwitz in dealing with their adversaries on Berlin’s streets, and their leniency to the Weimar politicians, who were allowed to leave Berlin unmolested rather than being apprehended by the Kappists.

Following the Kapp Putsch’s fall on 17 March 1920, the conspirators slunk away from the Reich Chancellery and Berlin. Kapp went to Sweden, von Lüttwitz fled to Hungary, while Pabst left for Austria. Ludendorff’s involvement in the coup and presence in the Reich Chancellery with the other plotters was not a secret; unlike the ringleaders, Ludendorff held sufficient authority to remain in Germany. Yet he could not stay in Berlin for much longer, as the capital itself had become too hot a place to hold the general.

Before Ludendorff departed Berlin he shook hands with Colonel Max Bauer, a key ally of his during the war, and said, “Bauer, we are the richer for a bitter experience”. Bauer then fled to Hungary. In late March 1920 Ludendorff, now going by the name of “Herr Lange”, left Berlin by train for the southern German state of Bavaria, a region that would be a hotbed of Nazi activity for years and which the Weimar government could not control.

Lieutenant-Commander Ehrhardt, who had become properly acquainted with Ludendorff during the Kapp Putsch, made his way to join the general in Bavaria. Ernst Pöhner, the anti-communist Bavarian Chief of Police, had invited Ehrhardt and the Marine Brigade to Munich, the capital of Bavaria. Ehrhardt was made the Chief of the Emergency Police, and his troops were given positions as agricultural labourers on the sprawling estates around Munich.

In late 1920 Ehrhardt established a far-right murder society, called the Organisation Consul. It comprised of members of the Marine Brigade, which after the failure of the Kapp Putsch was outlawed by the Ebert government. In a 2 year period, Ehrhardt’s Organisation Consul would commit at least 354 political assassinations in Germany. (7)

The Organisation Consul simply killed anybody who Ehrhardt deemed an enemy of Germany. Among the various terrorist associations which hindered the Weimar Republic, the Organisation Consul would be surpassed in notoriety only by the Nazi Party. Very few of the Organisation Consul’s members were ever convicted for the murders. (8)

Ludendorff, meanwhile, shortly after relocating to Bavaria, moved to the small village of Ludwigshöhe, beside Munich. Threatened with assassination from communist or left-wing militants, Ludendorff lived in a villa in Ludwigshöhe surrounded by high walls, where he was guarded around the clock by Ehrhardt’s men. Ludendorff’s daily existence was one of incessant conspiracy, and though he was not personally involved with the Organisation Consul or their killings, Goodspeed pointed out, “These were the people around Ludendorff now and he was, in spirit at least, one of them”.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes 

1 Martin Broszat, Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar Germany (Berg Publishers, 1st edition, 1 January 1987) 

2 Adriana Popa, “German citizens defend democracy against Kapp Putsch, 1920”, Nvdatabase.Swarthmore.edu, 27 November 2010 

3 Jean-Denis Lepage, Hitler’s Stormtroopers: The SA, The Nazis’ Brownshirts, 1922-1945 (Frontline Books, 30 Sept. 2016) 

4 “Erich Ludendorff, German General”, Britannica 

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, Ludendorff: Soldier: Dictator: Revolutionary (Hart-Davis, 1 January 1966) 

6 “Hannibal”, eHistory, The Ohio State University 

7 Goodspeed, Ludendorff 

8 Howard Stern, The Organisation Consul, Jstor


History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

By Shane Quinn

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Rise of Nazism and Terrorist Groups in Interwar Germany
  • Tags: ,

We Need a Smaller Pentagon

December 9th, 2022 by Lindsay Koshgarian

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.

***

Can you imagine the audacity to fail a multi-trillion dollar audit of public funds, and then ask for even more of those taxpayer dollars?

Pentagon leaders just did exactly that.

This month news broke that the agency once again failed to pass a basic audit showing that it knows where its money goes. And instead of holding out for any kind of accountability, Congress stands ready to give a big raise to an agency that failed to account for more than 60 percent of its assets.

This is a sign of an agency that is too big, plain and simple.

Other major government agencies have long since passed audits. But the Pentagon — with its global sprawl of more than 750 military installations, expensive contractors, and boondoggle weapons systems — is so big and disjointed that no one knows where its money goes.

Here’s a simple solution: the Pentagon needs to be a lot smaller.

After 20 years of war, when government spending is desperately needed elsewhere, the Pentagon’s fifth failed audit in as many years —  it’s never, ever passed — should be the last straw.

Instead, recent reports suggest that Congress is moving toward an $858 billion budget for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons — and that figure may grow even more. The increase alone from last year’s spending would more than double the entire diplomacy budget at the State Department.

This isn’t using our taxpayer dollars wisely. It’s robbing programs that we need, like the discontinued Child Tax Credit expansion that cut child poverty by half. The only winners here are the military contractors who commandeer roughly half of the Pentagon’s budget in any given year.

For what taxpayers spend on Lockheed Martin in a typical year alone, we could instead give every American child a strong startin life through quality childcare and preschool. Which would make us stronger?

It looks like the people in this country are starting to catch on, though: A new poll shows that just 48 percent of Americans trust the military, down from a high of 70 percent in 2018.

It’s not because they don’t trust the troops. It’s because after 20 years of ill-begotten wars, the brass expects to get $858 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars when they can’t even account for half of what they’ve already gotten. Sorry, but we have too many other needs in this country for that to make sense anymore.

With the tide of public opinion turning, the days of endlessly growing Pentagon budgets are numbered.

*

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.

Federal budgeting expert Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Need a Smaller Pentagon
  • Tags:

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.

***

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): Congress Considers Giant “Gift Wrapped” Defense Bill of $858 Billion

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 corporate media is flooded with reports of the supposed spontaneous uprisings of Chinese citizens against the oppressive Communist regime enforcing inhuman zero-COVID policies that lock down entire cities and that require QR code scans for the use of all public buildings, including public restrooms.

Granted that the media has entirely ignored efforts of Chinese to organize protests, strikes, and online campaigns against the true exploitative forces in China, multinational corporations like Walmart, Amazon, and Foxconn, it seems doubtful that this new flurry of political heavy breathing represents a serious effort to address economic inequality in China.

Rather we are being fed yet another flavor of color revolution customized to the current ideological environment of narcissistic decay in the United States, one that encourages the projection of internal totalitarianism onto the “other,” onto China.

China is the only place, within the sickly etiolated intellectual discourse of the United States, wherein the enemy techno-fascism can be accurately limned without political risk.

At the same time, there can be no doubt that China is subject to a massive campaign to destroy governance and to create a docile population subject to the whims of faceless powers who hide behind online systems masquerading as “government.”

But that “communist government” turns out to be, if you scratch the surface, private contractors, Israeli, Japanese, American and other IT and intelligence firms, who have set up shop across China at the local level and are seizing control of government by privatizing all functions of government, using COVID-19 as the wedge to force everything online.

This strategy has no precedent in the policy of the Communist Party of China, or in the Communist tradition of Chen Duxiu and Mao Zedong. Rather it draws on the strategies private contractors to seize control of local government using the control of IT infrastructure. That strategy has much in common with the takeover of local government by contractors that has been implemented in Oklahoma (as documented by Julianne Romanello) and in Louisiana.

The knowhow for contract tracing, facial recognition technology. Geo-fencing, and mandatory daily PCR tests can be traced back to the technology and policy for the control of Palestinians on the West Bank, as well as American research on social manipulation carried out by DARPA, RAND, and other contractors for the Department of Defense and the CIA.

The reader of the media is offered a choice between two flawed interpretations of what is happening in China. On the one hand, there are those who suggest that the techno-fascist policies we see in China are a product of an alien and dangerous Chinese culture that threatens the freedom of the West and its glorious constitutional tradition. This threat is attributed to communism and a docile Chinese civilization stretching back to the antiquity.

On the other hand, there are others who defend China as an emerging alternative civilization, one maligned by the jealous declining Western powers because of its new technological and economic power. But such critics choose to look the other way when it comes to totalitarian governance that Chinese workers face under COVID-19.

Let me illustrate these two perspectives with statements made by two colleagues of mine, men with whom I have had close exchanges in the past.

For an example of China-threat rhetoric, I cite a fellow contributor to Global Research John Whitehead who writes,

“The fate of America is being made in China, our role model for all things dystopian. An economic and political powerhouse that owns more of America’s debt than any other country and is buying up American businesses across the spectrum. China is a vicious totalitarian regime that routinely employs censorship, surveillance, and brutal police state tactics to intimidate its populace, maintain its power, and expand the largess of its corporate elite.”

The dystopian world that Whitehead describes in China, is beyond dispute. But it is most certainly not “made in China.” Rather large parts of Chinese local government (and the enforcement of the COVID regime varies immensely from region to region) have been taken over by private contractors tied to investment banks like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, and private contractors for IT.

The reductive rhetoric used by Whitehouse precludes the most obvious conclusion: that the working people of China and the United States are having their lives, their freedoms, and their health destroyed by multinational corporations and that they should work together to combat this global takeover.

Many American intellectuals feed us a warmed-over “yellow peril” argument such as was advanced in the 19th century, presenting Chinese culture as inherently repressive and corrupting, something that must be stopped from entering the United States at any cost. Such an effort to demonize an alien culture is a classic strategy employed by the rich to deflect a serious discussion of class conflict and of the control of the means of production to a reductionist emotional anger at the foreign.

The alternative view offered in the media is that presented by intellectuals like Martin Jacques, author of the thoughtful study of China’s rise, “When China Rules the World.” Although Jacques offers a more balanced and fair perspective on China than does the “yellow peril” gang, his decision to present China and its civilization as an alternative to a corrupt and decadent West, without mentioning a word about how COVID 19 has been used as an excuse to implement radical social control, deeply undermines his arguments.

Jacques stated recently that “for China to embrace common prosperity, to establish a society of greater fairness, greater equity, that is a very important message not only to China, but to the world as well” while remaining silent on COVID policies. Such an approach is intellectually dishonest and suggests that he has agreed to collaborate with the deeply compromised gang of Chinese, Israeli, American and other teams of investment banks and consulting firms who are radically restructuring Chinese society.

Although China does offer some alternatives to the extraction-based imperialism that drives the Western economies—especially as a nation that has not waged any foreign wars in recent history, and has had almost no overseas military presence, nevertheless, the narcissistic advertisements for designer clothes used by multinational corporations to turn Chinese into consumers, the push to eliminate books and newspapers from hotels and other public spaces, the radical degrading of the quality of journalism (which was superior to the US until the last five years) and the promotion of the lives of the rich and powerful as an ideal for youth, suggests a covert war has been launched against the Chinese people by multinational interests that is at least the equal of campaigns in the US and Europe.

The failure of those sympathetic to China to confront this cruel reality, and to rather limit their analysis to praise for China’s more rational diplomacy, for its advances in rail technology and in solar energy, or for its less imperialist approach to investment in Africa, is unacceptable.

Why should we call it the “Third Opium War?”

Those struggling to understand the nature of the COVID-19 assault on China would do best to consider the last time that the Western powers, and specifically the financial powers in London, set out to take over the Chinese political system, to control the Chinese economy, and to degrade and diminish the authority of Chinese culture.

That process of political, ideological and military assault was launched in the two Opium Wars. British corporate interests worked hand-in-hand with corrupt members of the Chinese ruling class, men who saw in the decay of the Qing Dynasty opportunities for personal benefit through the promotion of British propaganda, namely arguing that Western civilization was inherently more advanced than China’s.

The first Opium War of 1840 was launched by the British to establish absolute authority in East Asia and to strip China of its autonomy through a political and cultural assault that not only impoverished the Chinese economy, but also reduced the ability of Chinese to think for themselves.

The British employed the same strategy they used in India: developing corrupt relations with the gentry at the local level so as to undermine the central government, attacking Chinese civilization as inherently backwards, and inducing economic dependency on the British imperial trade system and finance system.

At that time, China had the most powerful economy in the world, a highly educated population, and an admirable commitment to stable agricultural production and sustainable long-term development. Unlike other nations, China could not be drawn into the tangled spider’s web of trade and finance controlled by the British easily.

The British ruling class could not stand it that China ran a trade surplus with England and that it had no need for British products or use for British logistics in external trade, but sold the British large amounts of tea, porcelain and other products on its own terms.

The British cultivated ties with corrupt local gentry and introduced ideas about transportation via trains, mail service, finance and banking, and medicine that were radically different than what existed in China. The British suggested in the publications that they produced, and later in the missionary schools that they set up, that massive changes were necessary in China in order China to make progress towards modernity. Some of those suggestions were accurate; most were twisted so as to justify imperialism; some concepts like the imperative for growth and international trade were deeply destructive.

Although the British victory in the first Opium War and in the Second Opium War (together with France in 1856 to 1860) was a result of British superior military technology, the British were not ahead because they were smarter but rather because they had waged constant wars in the 18th and 19th centuries that pushed the development of these specific technologies.

At the same time, “Britain” or “England” are misleading terms that habit and institutions force on us so that we can only perceive conflicts in terms of countries, and mistake battles between corporate interests for conflicts between the presidents of China, the United States and Russia.

It was not “England” that attacked China in 1840 after Governor General Lin Zexu wrote an open letter to Queen Victoria in 1839 asking that she end the immoral opium trade and then proceeded to burn illegal opium that the government had seized. Rather it was the British bankers in London who formulated and implemented this plan to take China apart, to reduce it to a semi-colony using the knowhow they had from their takedown of India, Bangladesh and other nations.

The organization at the center of the Opium Wars was the British East India Company, private corporation reporting to the richest British citizens that was able to employ the authority of the government to justify and to advance its activities.

The British East India Company developed a sophisticated system for analysis, for the assessment of opportunities for financial benefit, and for the exploitation of weaknesses in other countries in the early 19th century. It had teams of experts prepared to take action, including military action, for the benefit of the banks, and it lobbied at home British politicians to encourage military action that benefited its clients.

The British East India Company was the father of MI6 (military intelligence section 6) intelligence agency founded in 1909, and more importantly, the grandfather of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency of the United States) founded in 1947. Both of those organizations pose as government agencies but work, for the most part, for the benefit private interests.

Operation COVID-19

Let us move forward to Operation COVID-19, the global coup d’état disguised as a pandemic that was launched against China, and the world, in December of 2019 and that continues on to the present. Although not directed exclusively at China this operation resembles the previous two Opium Wars in method and in purpose.

The author does not have inside knowledge as to exactly how the COVID-19 operation was planned and launched; most likely no one has the full picture. Enough information is available, however, to permit an informed assessment, as opposed to the repetition of the disinformation circulated as journalism these days.

The strategy behind the Wuhan outbreak of 2019, the start of the COVID Wars, had its roots in classified research conducted at DARPA, RAND, and other American institutions, on how to conduct warfare using biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cyber-warfare.

The cyber-warfare imagined in security circles was less concerned with hacking computers and more with hacking the minds of citizens so as to render them incapable of independent thinking and encourage psychological and ideological dependency on a consumer culture powered by narcissism. The promotion of a banal consumer culture that destroys the intellectual functions of the educated classes in politics was a critical part of the groundwork for the COVID wars.

This new form of warfare is best described as “silent weapons for quiet wars,” to use the term employed in the (supposedly) classified manual from the 1950s discovered in 1986 that describes the use of social engineering and automation as a strategy for domination. Private finance and intelligence complexes like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Goldman Sachs, along with the strategic teams of billionaires are the primary clients of this campaign.

China was selected as a primary target (although the strategy is being carried out around the world) for the radical degradation of the population’s thinking through the promotion of AI, smart phones, thereby creating addiction to consumption culture and immediate stimulation, and forcing dependency on technology.

China was a ripe target because modernization ideology has been so central to Chinese society and the imperative to surpass the West that humiliated China in the 19th century is so acute among Chinese intellectuals that the promotion of dangerous automation and geo-fencing could be easily justified as a means for China to surpass the West and to become truly modern. Moreover, Chinese Confucian thought encourages a trust in the role of government that makes it hard for citizens to grasp how corporations have seized control of policy and administration in government.

The use of QR codes for all public spaces, including public restrooms, the requirement of vaccination, and PCR tests within the last 48 hours (or sometimes last 24 hours) was initially accepted by citizens because it was justified as more advanced than the “West.”

Most likely the operation was launched by corrupt elements of intelligence in both the United States and China who are pursuing plans to create a slave society in which billionaires set the ideological and administrative rules for the entire society.

The Chinese and the foreign agents involved in COVID-19 policies at the local level follow directives issued by private intelligence companies that work together with the World Economic Forum, intergovernmental agencies like the World Health Organization that is controlled by the Gates Foundation, and to other multinational institutions tied to global finance.

The promotion of a “new Cold war” between the United States and China in the corporate media is critical to this campaign. Lower level government officials, and citizens, on both sides, are fed the story that because relations between China and the United States are getting worse, that there can be no cooperation or communication between the two nations. This narrative is made substantial by directives that prohibit, or make difficult, interactions between government officials, academics, and cultural figures.

The reality is that a tiny group of key players representing the super-rich in the United States and in China coordinate closely to promote COVID-19 lockdowns in China.

If anyone asks who makes these policies in China, who handles the data, or who is control of the programs, that undergird QR codes and contact tracing, the answer is inevitably it is the Chinese government. But the truth is that few, or none, of these policies were made up or implemented by the Chinese government itself, but rather that the Chinese government is occupied by IT corporations that report to the billionaires (often through Israel and the United States,) and bypass the Chinese government altogether.

Those involved in the Wuhan COVID-19 action in 2019 ruthlessly attacked those in the Chinese government who opposed them, setting up their own shadow government in cooperation with private consulting firms and intelligence contractors.

That shadow government in China (or the United States for that matter) draws its power from its control of IT processes that government depends on. Control of the transfer, storage, processing and all internal communications in government by private IT firms (often simply private intelligence firms in effect selling off data to the highest bidder) has made possible the construction of a shadow empire that is run for the benefit of the billionaires, using a carefully calibrated process to degrade the thinking of citizens, and to decrease freedom of movement and action over months and years. This plan effects massive shifts in society in a manner that is slow enough as to avoid detection by citizens (especially if they are addicted to smart phones) and rapid enough to make the organization of effective resistance difficult.

Ironically, the Communist Party of China, which is described by the Western press as the unique source of totalitarianism in the world, is often the only force capable of resisting the march of techno-fascism. Whereas Western corporations are busy eliminating humans from organizations and implementing AI-based automation, and transforming political parties into appendages of investment banks, the CPC actually holds meetings with large numbers of people, conducts concrete debates on policy that involve detailed consideration of specifics.

A walk through any city in China will make it obvious what sort of a war is taking place below the surface.

Advertisements for I-phones, Italian designer clothes, processed foods laden with sugar, and other consumer goods produced by multinational corporations scream out from every corner at the citizen rendered consumer.

This campaign creates an uncompromising money economy linked to the spider’s web of global finance. Youth gather at I-Phone lounges to gossip and message each other about banal topics, or eat at fashionable restaurants at a great distance from any awareness of the reality that faces working people.

At the same time, there are posters put up along the streets that call on the citizens to be ethical, to treat others with respect, to keep the city clean, and to care for family. These posters encouraging ethical behavior remind me of things I saw in early childhood that have since disappeared since in the United States.

These efforts at ethical government are products of the CPC, not foreign concerns.


Read Part II:

China’s “Third Opium War”. Covid-19 and the Opium Wars. The Alliance of Global Finance and IT Tyranny

By Emanuel Pastreich, December 08, 2022


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 US Provisional Government.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from US Provisional Government