Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Anarchy in America: We’re Being Gunned Down Like Dogs in the Street

November 2nd, 2022 by John W. Whitehead

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.

***

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
—William Butler Yeats, “The Second Coming”

Things are falling apart.

How much longer we can sustain the fiction that we live in a constitutional republic, I cannot say, but anarchy is being loosed upon the nation.

We are witnessing the unraveling of the American dream one injustice at a time.

Day after day, the government’s crimes against the citizenry grow more egregious, more treacherous and more tragic. And day after day, the American people wake up a little more to the grim realization that they have become captives in a prison of their own making.

No longer a free people, we are now pushed and prodded and watched over by twitchy, hyper-sensitive, easily-spooked armed guards who care little for the rights, humanity or well-being of those in their care.

The death toll is mounting. The carnage is heartbreaking. The public’s faith in the government to do its job—which is to protect our freedoms—is deteriorating.

With alarming regularity, unarmed men, women, children and even pets are being gunned down by the government’s standing army of militarized police who shoot first and ask questions later, and all the government does is shrug and promise to do better.

Things are not getting better.

Killing of Patrick Lyoya.png

Image: Screenshot of video of the Killing of Patrick Lyoya (Photo by Grand Rapids Police Department, licensed under Fair Use)

Patrick Lyoya is dead. The unarmed man was pulled over for having a mismatched license plate and shot in the back of the head while lying on the ground during a struggle with a Michigan police officer.

Donovan Lewis is dead. The 20-year-old unarmed man was sitting up in bed when he was shot and killed by police within a second of their barging through his bedroom door.

Tavis Crane is dead. Police shot the unarmed driver during a traffic stop that arose after his two-year-old daughter threw a plastic candy cane out of the window. When Crane refused to exit his vehicle, police climbed into the backseat of the parked car, placed Crane in a chokehold, and shot him repeatedly.

Justine Damond is dead. The 40-year-old yoga instructor was shot and killed by Minneapolis police, allegedly because they were startled by a loud noise in the vicinity just as she approached their patrol car. Damond, clad in pajamas, had called 911 to report a possible assault in her neighborhood.

Ismael Lopez is dead. The 41-year-old auto mechanic was shot and killed by Mississippi police who went to the wrong address looking for a suspect in connection with an aggravated domestic violence case. Police also shot the man’s dog, which had raced out of the house ahead of him.

Mary Knowlton is dead. The 73-year-old retired librarian was shot and killed by Florida police during a “shoot/don’t shoot” role-playing scenario when police inadvertently used a loaded gun intended for training.

Andrew Scott is dead. Although the 26-year-old homeowner had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by Florida police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” in Scott’s apartment complex.

Richard Ferretti is dead. The 52-year-old chef was shot and killed by Philadelphia police while trying to find a parking spot. Police had been alerted to investigate a purple Dodge Caravan that was driving “suspiciously” through the neighborhood.

Charleena Lyles is dead. The pregnant, 30-year-old mother of four had called the police to report a stolen Xbox video game unit. She was shot and killed by Seattle police after they arrived at her home to find her holding a knife.

In every one of these scenarios, police could have resorted to less lethal tactics.

They could have acted with reason and calculation instead of reacting with a killer instinct.

They could have attempted to de-escalate and defuse whatever perceived “threat” caused them to fear for their lives enough to react with lethal force.

That police instead chose to fatally resolve these encounters by using their guns on fellow citizens speaks volumes about what is wrong with policing in America today, where police officers are being dressed in the trappings of war, drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon “every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making.”

Remember, to a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.

We’re not just getting hammered, however. We’re getting killed, execution-style.

It no longer matters whether you’re innocent of any wrongdoing or guilty as sin: when you’re dealing with police who shoot first and ask questions later, due process—the constitutional assurance of a fair trial before an impartial jury—means nothing.

All the individuals who have been shot and killed by police—fired at three and four and five times in a split second—have already been tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. And in that split second of deciding whether to shoot and where to aim, the nation’s police officers have appointed themselves judge, jury and executioner over their fellow citizens.

In this way, we’re seen as nothing more than animals and treated as such.

In fact, we’re being gunned down like dogs.

Consider that a dog is shot by a police officer “every 98 minutes.”

The Department of Justice estimates that at least 25 dogs are killed by police every day.

Image: A pit bull was shot in an apartment hallway while walking towards an officer and wagging its tail, video shows. (Source: ABC News)

Spike, a 70-pound pit bull, was shot by NYPD police when they encountered him in the hallway of an apartment building in the Bronx. Surveillance footage shows the dog, tail wagging, right before an officer shot him in the head at pointblank range.

Arzy, a 14-month-old Newfoundland, Labrador and golden retriever mix, was shot between the eyes by a Louisiana police officer. The dog had been secured on a four-foot leash at the time he was shot. An independent witness testified that the dog never gave the officer any provocation to shoot him.

Seven, a St. Bernard, was shot repeatedly by Connecticut police in the presence of the dog’s 12-year-old owner. Police, investigating an erroneous tip, had entered the property—without a warrant—where the dog and her owner had been playing in the backyard, causing the dog to give chase.

Dutchess, a 2-year-old rescue dog, was shot three times in the head by Florida police as she ran out her front door. The officer had been approaching the house to inform the residents that their car door was open when the dog bounded out to greet him.

Yanna, a 10-year-old boxer, was shot three times by Georgia police after they mistakenly entered the wrong home and opened fire, killing the dog, shooting the homeowner in the leg and wounding an investigating officer.

Clearly, it doesn’t take much for a cop to shoot a dog.

Dogs shot and killed by police have been “guilty” of nothing more menacing than wagging their tails, barking in greeting, or merely being in their own yard.

According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, all it takes for dogs to pose a sufficient threat to police to justify them opening fire is for the dog to move or bark.

A dog doesn’t even have to be an aggressive breed to be shot by a cop.

Radley Balko has documented countless “dog shootings in which a police officer said he felt ‘threatened’ and had no choice but to use lethal force, including the killing of a Dalmatian (more than once), a yellow Lab , a springer spaniel, a chocolate Lab, a boxer, an Australian cattle dog, a Wheaten terrier, an Akita… a Jack Russell terrier… a 12-pound miniature dachshund… [and] a five-pound chihuahua.”

Chihuahuas, among the smallest breed of dog (known as “purse” dogs), seem to really push cops over the edge.

In Arkansas, for example, a sheriff’s deputy shot an “aggressive” chihuahua for barking repeatedly. The dog required surgery for a shattered jaw and a feeding tube to eat.

Same thing happened in Texas, except Trixie—who was on the other side of a fence from the officer—didn’t survive the shooting.

Let’s put this in perspective, shall we?

We’re being asked to believe that a police officer, fully armed, trained in combat and equipped to deal with the worst case scenario when it comes to violence, is so threatened by a yipping purse dog weighing less than 10 pounds that the only recourse is to shoot the dog.

Compounding the tragedy, if a cop kills your dog, there will be little to no consequences for that officer. Not even a slap on the wrist.

In this, as in so many instances of official misconduct by government officials, the courts have ruled that the cops have qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that incentivizes government officials to engage in lawless behavior without fear of repercussions. As a side note: if you happen to kill a police dog, you could face a longer prison sentence than if you’d murdered someone or abused a child.

This is the heartless, heartbreaking, hypocritical injustice that passes for law and order in America today.

Whether you’re talking about police shooting dogs or citizens, the mindset is the same: a rush to violence, abuse of power, fear for officer safety, poor training in how to de-escalate a situation, and general carelessness.

This is the same mindset that sees nothing wrong with American citizens being subjected to roadside strip searches, forcible blood draws, invasive surveillance, secret government experiments, and other morally reprehensible tactics.

Unfortunately, this is the fallout from teaching police to assume the worst-case scenario and react with fear to anything that poses the slightest threat (imagined or real). This is what comes from teaching police to view themselves as soldiers on a battlefield and those they’re supposed to serve as enemy combatants. This is the end result of a lopsided criminal justice system that fails to hold the government and its agents accountable for misconduct.

So what’s to be done about all of this?

Essentially, it comes down to training and accountability.

It’s the difference between police officers who rank their personal safety above everyone else’s and police officers who understand that their jobs are to serve and protect.

It’s the difference between police who are trained to shoot to kill, and police trained to resolve situations peacefully.

Most of all, it’s the difference between police who believe the law is on their side and police who know that they will be held to account for their actions under the same law as everyone else.

This is no longer a debate over good cops and bad cops.

It’s a tug-of-war between the constitutional republic America’s founders intended and the police state we are fast becoming.

So how do we fix what’s broken, stop the senseless shootings and bring about lasting reform?

For starters, stop with the scare tactics. In much the same way that American citizens are being cocooned in a climate of fear by a government that knows exactly which buttons to push in order to gain the public’s cooperation and compliance, police officers are also being indoctrinated with the psychology of fear. Despite the propaganda being peddled by the government and police unions, police today experience less on-the-job fatalities than they ever have historically.

Second, level the playing field. Police lives are no more valuable than any other citizen’s. Whether or not they wield a gun, police officers are public servants like all other government officials, which means that they work for us. While police are entitled to every protection afforded under the law, the same as any other citizen, they should not be afforded any special privileges. They certainly should not be shielded from accountability for misconduct by the courts and the legislatures.

Third, require that police officers be trained in non-lethal tactics. According to the New York Times, the training regimens at nearly all of the nation’s police academies continue to emphasize military-style exercises, with the average young officer made to undergo 58 hours of firearms training and 49 hours of defensive tactical training, but only eight hours of de-escalation training. If police officers are taking classes in how to shoot, maim and kill, shouldn’t they also be trained in non-lethal force, crisis intervention training on how to deal with the mentally ill, de-escalation techniques to use the lowest level of force possible when responding to a threat, and how to respect their fellow citizens’ constitutional rights?

Fourth, ditch the quasi-military obsession. Police forces were never intended to be standing armies. Yet with police agencies dressing like the military in camouflage and armor, training with the military, using military weapons, riding around in armored vehicles, recruiting military veterans, and even boasting military titles, one would be hard pressed to distinguish between the two. Still, it’s our job to make sure that we can distinguish between the two, and that means keeping the police in their place as civilians—non-military citizens—who are entrusted with protecting our rights.

Fifth, demilitarize. There are many examples of countries where police are not armed and dangerous, and they are no worse off for it. Indeed, their crime rates are low and their police officers are trained to view every citizen as precious.

Sixth, stop making taxpayers pay for police abuses. Some communities are trying to require police to carry their own professional liability insurance. The logic is that if police had to pay out of pocket for their own wrongdoing, they might be more cautious and less inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

Seventh, support due process for everyone, not just the people in your circle. Remember that you no longer have to be poor, black or guilty to be treated like a criminal in America. All that is required is that you belong to the suspect class—a.k.a. the citizenry—of the American police state. As a de facto member of this so-called criminal class, every U.S. citizen is now guilty until proven innocent.

Finally, we need to do a better job of protecting our four-legged friends. Many states are adopting laws to make canine training mandatory for police officers. As dog behavior counselor Brian Kilcommons noted, police “need to realize they’re there to neutralize, not control… If they have enough money to militarize the police with Humvees, they have enough money to train them not to kill family members. And pets are considered family.”

After all, as the Washington Post points out, while “postal workers regularly encounter both vicious and gregarious dogs on their daily rounds… letter carriers don’t kill dogs, even though they are bitten by the thousands every year. Instead, the Postal Service offers its employees training on how to avoid bites.” Journalist Dale Chappell adds, “Using live dogs, handlers and trainers put postal workers through scenarios to teach them how to read a dog’s behavior and calm a dog, or fend it off, if necessary. Meter readers also have benefited from the same training, drastically reducing incidents of dog bites.”

The Rutherford Institute is working on a program aimed at training police to deescalate their interactions with dogs rather than resorting to lethal force, while providing pet owners with legal resources to better protect the four-legged members of their household.

Yet as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we will continue to be shot down like dogs in the street—unarmed Americans and dogs alike—until we demand that police be given better—and constant—training in nonviolent tactics, serious consequences for police who engage in excessive force, and a seismic shift in how law enforcement agencies and the courts deal with those who transgress.

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from CounterPunch

Posted in English
Comments Off on Anarchy in America: We’re Being Gunned Down Like Dogs in the Street
Tags: justice, law, police state, United States

Must Serbia Harmonize Its Foreign Policy with the EU and the Rest of the West?

November 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

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 lot of dilemmas, lies, and misconceptions are present in Western geopolitical narratives taken without any critical approach by domestic Serbian pro-Western supporters (usually financed by Western agencies and Governments) about the war in NATO/EU-sponsored Ukraine, and Serbian position in newly geopolitical circumstances. This article aims to present the focal Western lie about Serbia trying to give some reasonable arguments regarding some open questions: Serbia must harmonize its foreign policy with the EU and the rest of the West!

Serbia, in essence, must not harmonize its foreign policy with the EU for several reasons.

First, not all EU Member States harmonized their foreign policies including anti-Russian sanctions with the general line of the foreign policy of Brussels (like 5 states which did not recognize Kosovo’s independence, or Germany, France, and Hungary which did not impose total sanctions against Russia concerning the energy policy.)

Second, Serbia is not obliged to join the EU at all as the alternatives are closer relations with Russia, China, and especially the emerging Eurasian Union or growing BRICS, etc. Third, the EU itself does not have its own foreign policy at all as it is entirely, in fact, the policy of Washington (or NATO, which is again the US).

However, on other hand, what does it mean American foreign policy at all? In reality, it is an abbreviated expression, it is about the interests of a very narrow group of people who make decisions – who are completely outside the public in that function of the main administrators and the wider apparatus that is in the function of implementing their decisions – the Deep State.

During the last 25 years, the Clintons (Bill and Hillary) are typical expressions of the foreign policy of the Deep State. In their Balkan politics, there was no any place for any national interest of Serbia. Serbs are simply required to cancel all national interests (including territorial integrity of their own state) according to some required order (line), and the “freedom” given to Serbs is constituted within the framework that they do not have to implement all requirements immediately and at the same time, but the whole required package must be implemented in the course of close time under Western monitoring:

Introduction of sanctions against Russia;

Recognition of Kosovo’s independence in the form of consent to receive a seat in the UN;

To agree that the Serb Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina has to be cancelled what is against the 1995 Dayton Agreement;

To support the unitization of Bosnia-Herzegovina, so that Muslim Bosniaks could outvote the Orthodox Serbs, as they are already doing to the Catholic Croats in the Bosniak-Croat Federation within Bosnia-Herzegovina;

To end successful economic cooperation with China and to agree to all sanctions imposed by the USA/EU on China; To stop assist the regional Serbs living outside Serbia;

To accept Western narrative that genocide was committed in Srebrenica in July 1995; To make distance from the Serbian Orthodox Church;

To accept in all forms the entire LGBT’s ideology; To accept the green (ecological) agenda at the cost of energy instability and enormous indebtedness of Serbia; and finally, to join NATO. No more, no less!

It is obvious that Serbia as an independent state with her own national interests cannot survive if it aligns with the West (USA/EU/NATO) in any of the upper presented requirements – because it is connected as a whole package that is ultimately demanded, and the West separated the items of the package only in time.

Nevertheless, on other hand, Serbia’s new struggle for the preservation of national interests and the state’s territorial integrity is having a real sense as the geopolitical global situation is more favorable for Serbia than it was in the 1990s:

1) All those (NATO/EU/USA) who destroyed former Yugoslavia in 1991−1995 and attacked Serbia in 1999 are incomparably weaker today than they were then; and

2) All those whom Serbia made aware by her struggle for independence (that is, showed them what the West is in its essence) are today much stronger than they were then (Russia, China).

In one word, the West is both economically and militarily weaker compared with focal Serbia’s supporters (Russia and China, plus India). Is there a real sense to capitulate now in front of the Western blatant ultimatums?!

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.

Featured image is from the author

Posted in English
Comments Off on Must Serbia Harmonize Its Foreign Policy with the EU and the Rest of the West?
Tags: European Union, foreign policy, Serbia

Pfizer’s Lack of Transparency, Accountability ‘Creates a New Tyranny’

November 2nd, 2022 by Dr. Suzanne Burdick

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.

***

Comedian and political commentator Russell Brand asks his audience why Pfizer can’t release unredacted copies of its COVID-19 vaccine contracts with the EU, when the drugmaker plans to charge 10,000% above the cost of production for the vaccine.

Pfizer executive Angela Lukin on Oct. 20 said the drugmaker plans to raise the price of its COVID-19 vaccines by about 400%, to $110 to $130 per dose, after the U.S. government’s purchase program expires — even though new estimates suggest the vaccines can be produced for as little as $1.18 a dose.

“Pfizer had their most profitable year and they’ve just jacked up the prices of their vaccine by 10,000%,” Russell Brand said in his latest video. “So we’re asking, how much profit do they need before they’ll release those bloody redacted pages?”

The comedian and political commentator was referring to a request by the European Parliament’s COVID-19 committee to see Pfizer’s contract with the EU for its COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer handed over the documents — but with many pages completely redacted.

Not only that, but Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla, Ph.D., who was due to testify Oct. 10 before the committee, pulled out of the appointment, effectively refusing to answer any of the committee’s questions.

When the committee requested to review Pfizer’s contract with the EU for the COVID-19 vaccine, Bourla’s representative told the committee,

“They can’t fully disclose these contracts because they have some ‘commercial secrets’ over there and they have to ‘protect their interests,’” member of the European Parliament (MEP) Cristian Terhes said on Oct. 12.

“Now I’m asking you: ‘What about the interests of our people?’” asked Terhes, who is also a human rights activist.

Terhes showed page after page of heavy redactions from Pfizer’s contracts that it handed over to the committee.

Brand made fun of Pfizer for bothering to share the heavily redacted documents with the public because they were “black as night” and showed no information. “What’s the point?” Brand asked.

“Just say, ‘We’re not going to show you.’ It’ll save your photocopier,” he added.

Brand also pointed out that according to a September 2021 report by Investigate Europe, negotiations between the EU and pharmaceutical companies for the COVID-19 vaccine happened behind closed doors.

“Why is this stuff all so shady?” Brand asked. “Why is it the contract has to be blacked out? Why are the deals happening in secret? This is supposed to be democracy.”

The report also stated that “new variants, international competition and darkness around manufacturing costs” allowed Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to “increase the bill for European taxpayers.”

“So this ‘darkness’ — these redactions, this lack of transparency,” Brand said, “increases their ability to glean profit without transparency.”

Lack of transparency and accountability to taxpayers creates a new tyranny, he said.

“They’re doing whatever they want to do and even this dude — an elected MEP— ain’t even able to get a straight answer.”

Brand added:

“Where’s the real power if an MEP can’t compel a CEO to turn up and offer an account after a global pandemic that’s seen record expenditure, record suffering and record profits?”

Watch the video here:

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

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on Pfizer’s Lack of Transparency, Accountability ‘Creates a New Tyranny’
Tags: COVID vaccines, Pfizer

Global Digital IDs Are Coming to America and Nobody Is Allowed to Talk About It

November 2nd, 2022 by Baxter Dmitry

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.

***

Congress has taken a huge step towards rolling out digital IDs for U.S. citizens, fulfilling the wishes of the World Economic Forum and Bill Gates, and there has hardly been a whisper about the major development in the mainstream media.

It’s almost as though the globalist elite have instructed their minions in the mainstream media to keep quiet about their plans for global domination.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, efforts have been underway to advance digital identification systems, including mobile driver’s licenses and vaccine passports. In 2020, the World Economic Forum (WEF) rolled out plans for its COVIDPass, which required users to have their blood screened at an approved COVIDPass laboratory.

Now, in the midst of a media blackout, a proposed national digital ID system for U.S. citizens is fast becoming a reality following a vote by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to advance the Improving Digital Identity Act.

John Solomon’s Just the News outlet report:

In simple language, a digital identity enables an individual to prove who they are in the virtual world. Proponents claim digital IDs offer greater privacy than traditional forms of identification and can help minimize some of the risks associated with physical documents such as driver’s licenses, passports, etc. Others, though, are quick to sound the alarm, warning that the introduction of digital IDs will almost certainly lead to an erosion of civil liberties.

“Digital is often touted as the ‘future,’ and many people cast such a transition as inevitable,” writes Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, who believes digital IDs could prove to be a privacy nightmare. “But digital is not always better — especially when systems are exclusively digital.”

“There’s a reason that most jurisdictions have spurned electronic voting in favor of paper ballots, for example,” Stanley writes. With voting software in some states vulnerable to outside interference, paper ballots increasingly appear to be much safer.

Similarly, digital IDs are vulnerable to attack. Horror stories involving people’s identities being stolen are not uncommon. Remember, digital IDs are synonymous with data, and if there is one thing hacker’s love, it’s data — especially the data of U.S. citizens.

Some have speculated that the introduction of digital IDs and vaccine passports in the U.S. is laying the infrastructure for a social credit system similar to the one in China. China’s social credit system, a massive undertaking of government surveillance that aims to combine 600 million surveillance cameras — about one for every two citizens — with facial recognition technology, has an end-goal of being able to identify anyone, anywhere, within three seconds.

Programmable central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) add another layer of control. As a fiat currency in digital form that is programmable, it would be easy to make it so you can only spend your money on certain things or in specific places, as desired by the issuer.

Then there are the seemingly innocuous smart meters, which raise serious privacy concerns, not to mention health concerns from their related electromagnetic fields. Before smart meters were widely available, your electricity usage was recorded by a meter reader who would visit your property once a month and manually record your energy usage.

As The Telegraph reported, Britain’s Crossbench Peer Lord Alton warned of the dangers of intertwining mass surveillance systems with daily living. “[W]e simply cannot allow the tools of genocide to continue to be used so readily in our daily lives. Mass surveillance systems have always been the handmaiden of fascism. The government should come forward with a timetable to remove these cameras and technology from the public sector supply chain.”

The end goal

In the end, the global superpowers won’t go so far as to create a worldwide digital ID that can simply be left behind when you feel like it. They’ll want something much more permanent, something that can’t be left at home.

Sweden is one of the earliest adopters of implantable microchips. The chip is implanted just beneath the skin on the hand, and operates using either near-field communication (NFC) — the same technology used in smartphones — or radio-frequency identification (RFID), which is used in contactless credit cards.

Already, Sweden has become more or less a cashless society. Now, this tiny implant will replace the need for debit and credit cards all together, as well as identification and keys. To pay for an item, all you have to do is place your left hand near the contactless card reader, and the payment is registered.

An estimated 5,000 to 10,000 Swedes have been chipped so far, although Swedish authorities claim they don’t know the exact number, as there’s no central registry. In the end, everything will be connected to a single implantable device.

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.

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at News Punch. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

Posted in English
Comments Off on Global Digital IDs Are Coming to America and Nobody Is Allowed to Talk About It
Tags: bill gates, Digital ID, United States, WEF

Ukraine Bans Last Opposition Party

November 2nd, 2022 by Free West Media

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

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 Ukrainian High Court has finally banned all 12 political opposition parties. Curiously, the banned parties were all accused of having acted in accordance with the Minsk Agreements (2015), recognized by the United Nations Security Council (Resolution 2202).

The remaining political party to be banned was the Socialist Party of Ukraine. Despite this, Ukraine is described as a “great democracy”, according to NATO.

In March, the Ukrainian Security Council adopted a decision to ban it and a law was passed by the unicameral parliament of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada on 3 May, which was signed by President Zelensky on May 14. Because the Russian Federation decided to intervene in order to protect the victims resulting from the violations of the Minsk Agreements, any reference to these international agreements is regarded as “high treason”.

Only the Transcarpathian Oblast (close to Hungary) has refused to remove the local representatives of the political opposition parties from office.

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

Featured image: President Zelensky hailed as a ‘democratic’ leader. Photo from Free West Media

Posted in English
Comments Off on Ukraine Bans Last Opposition Party
Tags: ukraine

New Plan to Secure US Weapons in Ukraine Leaves Gaps: Experts

November 2nd, 2022 by Connor Echols

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.

***

Following months of pressure from arms control groups, the State Department released its first detailed plan on how it intends to stop U.S. weapons from being diverted away from their intended use in Ukraine.

The new policy focuses on one major area: stopping the illegal trade of powerful yet portable weapons like Javelin and Stinger missile systems, which could be used by non-state groups to destroy large vehicles or even shoot down commercial planes. The multi-year plan sets out to train Ukrainians on how to keep track of such weapons, bolster border security to stop smuggling, and work with Ukraine’s neighbors on how to identify and stop illicit weapons sales.

Rachel Stohl of the Stimson Center welcomed the policy as a first step, noting that “these are things that should be written into all weapons transfer agreements.” But she lamented that the plan does nothing to address small arms, which can have a major impact in war.

“A small number of small arms and light weapons can cause enormous lethality or deadly consequences but also can change the course of a particular conflict,” Stohl said, noting that guns smuggled out of Ukraine in the 1990s sometimes played a decisive role in civil wars and other conflicts. Washington has sent 10,000 guns or grenade launchers and 64 million rounds of small arms ammunition to Kyiv since February, according to the Pentagon.

The narrow focus on missiles seems to be part of a trend in Washington, where concerns about the proliferation of small arms have fallen on deaf ears in recent years. Notably, that pattern has held under both Democratic and Republican administrations. For example, President Joe Biden has so far kept in place Trump-era measures that make it harder for the public to track where U.S. small arms are being sold despite protests from civil society groups.

When it comes to Ukraine, questions of potential diversion are complex. Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, the country has earned a reputation as a major node in the illicit weapons trade. Concerns about diversion have grown in recent years as a low-scale conflict has flooded the country with small, relatively easy to smuggle weapons.

Arms control experts worry about this proliferation within Ukraine, but many note that there have been few verifiable examples of these weapons winding up outside of the country, which they attribute to the fact that many people who acquire weapons would prefer to keep them while the country remains at war. And, despite periodic reports of U.S. weapons ending up on the black market in recent months, there is no evidence of widespread diversion since the Russian invasion in February.

But there’s simply no easy way to keep track of a sudden influx of billions of dollars worth of weapons. As a Pentagon Inspector General report from 2020 notes, monitoring practices suffered when American defense aid to Kyiv went from $30 million in 2013 to $400 million in 2019. With U.S. military aid totaling about $18 billion in just the past eight months (and a brutal war in progress), serious questions remain about how the United States will be able to prevent diversion.

And concerns go beyond fueling the global black market for weapons. As Jordan Cohen of the Cato Institute noted, internal proliferation of small arms could allow a rebel group to emerge if the conflict continues to drag on, especially if Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky loses the support of far-right groups like the Azov Battalion. Such a possibility could extend the war by allowing hard-line groups to play spoiler in future negotiations.

“If he loses control of those groups, then I think you’re gonna start seeing those groups kind of creating their own military units, and that’s dangerous,” Cohen said.

In the end, only time will tell whether the United States has placed enough protections in place to ensure that its weapons don’t fall into the hands of bad actors. As Stohl argued, the highest risk of diversion will come after the war reaches its conclusion, and Washington needs to be ready when that moment comes.

“I would imagine that we will see significant diversion after the conflict ends,” she said. “But you have to put the structures in place [to fight diversion] now.”

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

Featured image: A Ukrainian soldier holding a Javelin missile system. (Image via the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine)

Posted in English
Comments Off on New Plan to Secure US Weapons in Ukraine Leaves Gaps: Experts
Tags: military weapons, Ukraine war, United States

Ukraine, Asterix and Rules: Notes from the Birthplace of American Empire. Nebojsa Malic

November 2nd, 2022 by Nebojsa Malic

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 first parliamentarian summit of the International Crimea Platform showed the world Europe ALMOST entirely united against Russian aggression,” the US embassy in Belgrade posted on Twitter last week, accompanied by a map showing all of the continent in blue – with Belarus, Serbia and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad in grey.

No doubt the embassy thought this would bring home the “isolation” of Serbia. Not the first time, however, the Imperial legation had miscalculated. The map made Serbia look more like the “one small village of indomitable Gauls” from the famous prologue of Asterix, while the representation of “Kosovo” as a separate, independent state just lost Washington another 10 points in favorability polls. I know this, because I had just come back from several weeks in Serbia and Bosnia, where the vibe was very much in evidence.

American ambassadors in Belgrade have acted less like diplomats and more like imperial gauleiters ever since the October 2000 “color revolution” that ousted the legitimately elected Slobodan Milosevic and installed a US-friendly regime. Activists trained in Hungary by the National Endowment for Democracy went so far as to sack the Yugoslav National Assembly and torch the ballots, so no one could dispute their claims. Yet the Western media did not label them “insurrectionists” or “election deniers,” but celebrated them as democratic democrats. The model was then applied elsewhere, including Ukraine – twice, in 2004 and 2014 – triggering the conflict that eventually went fully kinetic.

The current gauleiter is one Christopher Hill, a 1990s sidekick of Richard Holbrooke. Not a day goes by that the condescending Hill doesn’t lecture the Serbs on what they “must” do to please him and the Globalist American Empire (aka Our Democracy). His predecessor Anthony Godfrey was a gaffe machine in his own right, but at least he had enough charm – genuine or manufactured – to compliment the country’s cuisine. The dour Hill can’t be bothered; he’s a downgrade even from Godfrey’s humorless predecessor Kyle Scott, who had actually forced Serbian media to transliterate his surname as “Scat” instead, believing it less offensive.

Hill objective is the same as it has been for ambassadors over the past 21 years: compel the Serbian government to recognize “Kosovo” as independent, and thereby retroactively justify NATO’s 1999 air war that resulted in the province’s occupation. Whatever one wishes to hold against current president Aleksandar Vucic, he has – so far – refused to do so, even when told outright this would be the necessary precondition for Serbia’s (still very hypothetical) entry into the EU. Yet Vucic’s continues to maintain Serbia’s future is with the bloc, even as the EU is imploding from a combination of consequences from pandemic lockdowns and hare-brained trade embargoes against Russia over the conflict in Ukraine.

The vast majority of Serbs are opposed to recognizing Kosovo and embargoing Russia. The rest amount to professional “woke” activists reciting Imperial talking points in Western-owned media to justify their grants and projects, their words falling on deaf ears. Much like their US counterparts, they are unable to be decent, even tactically: When the women’s volleyball team defended their word title, these moral busybodies insisted the patriotic song belted out by the celebrating crowd (“Rejoice the Serbian kindred“) amounted to bigotry.

Their approach is about as effective as the Ukrainian method of pressuring Belgrade to side with Kiev: phoned-in bomb threats against the airport, schools and other public buildings. All have been fake, so far, but with a regime perfectly willing to assassinate Darya Dugina or suicide-bomb the Crimean Bridge, one can never tell.

If Serbia is quasi-occupied but defiant, the neighboring Bosnia is simply schizophrenic. The US-brokered deal to end the civil war in 1995 partitioned the country into the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Serb Republic (RS), with a rudimentary central government. Rather than find a modus vivendi and live side by side in peace, however, the Muslims continued to claim the country was rightly their nation-state and demand centralization.

Party politics has entirely coalesced around ethnic interests. The only major upset in the October general election was the defeat of Bakir Izetbegovic, whose nepotism and corruption must have finally angered enough Muslims. Even so, the setback was only personal – his party still got the most votes in Muslim jurisdictions. However lackluster Bakir (and his vain, power-hungry wife) may be, the vision of his father Alija – wartime leader of the Bosnian Muslims, who in 1971 wrote a manifesto urging the rejection of democracy and socialism alike and RETURN to Islamic political forms – continues to hold sway.

Over in the Serb Republic, the US-backed opposition tried to stage a “color revolution,” accusing the dominant SNSD party of election shenanigans in order to stop Milorad Dodik from becoming president. It didn’t work: even when the central elections authority in Sarajevo – illegally – took over the vote-counting, they found no irregularities. Meanwhile, over 50,000 people rallied in Banja Luka in support of Dodik.

Bosnia’s domestic deadlock translates into external policy as well: the Serbs don’t mind joining the EU but are absolutely against membership in NATO – which Muslims want – and sanctions against Russia. Officially, the tripartite presidency cannot make decisions except by consensus. That hasn’t stopped the Muslim member from unilaterally endorsing the “Crimea Platform,” which is why Bosnia was shaded blue on that US embassy map mentioned earlier. So much for the “rule of law” or “norms” or “rules” the world order is supposedly based on: turns out the “international community” doesn’t care about any of those, if violating them achieves the desired result.

Sojourning in Serbia and Bosnia this October, I was once again reminded that is where the Globalist American Empire arose in the 1990s. Far from bringing order or prosperity, either to the American people or the foreigners it sought to conquer, it has fueled chaos and misery at home and abroad. Its obsession with power is now destroying lives and livelihoods in Ukraine and raising the specter of a nuclear war. Meanwhile, that “one small village” indomitably abides.

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 Nebojsa Malic

Posted in English
Comments Off on Ukraine, Asterix and Rules: Notes from the Birthplace of American Empire. Nebojsa Malic

Why Are NATO and Russia Both Now Training for Nuclear War?

November 2nd, 2022 by William Leben

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 should be deeply concerned that, in the midst of what US President Joe Biden has described as the greatest risk of Armageddon since the Cuban missile crisis, Russia and NATO are this week conducting virtually simultaneous exercises of their nuclear forces, including live (conventional) missile launches. Both Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin no doubt believe the risks involved in signalling their resolve this way are manageable, but experience during the Cold War suggests otherwise.

Clearly, Putin would not use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine if he believed it would ultimately lead to a nuclear exchange with the United States. That would be suicidal for the Russian regime, to say nothing of the broader global implications. But even threatening their use or conducting military exercises in a crisis can trigger events that rapidly increase the risk of a wider war. Richard Ned Lebow, an expert on nuclear risk, has identified three primary paths by which this can occur: pre-emption, miscalculated escalation and loss of control.

Pre-emption refers to the dynamics in a crisis in which neither side may want a war but each fears an imminent attack by the other and feels compelled to strike first to prevent a disadvantageous outcome. Of course, there’s no significant advantage to either side in striking first in an all-out nuclear war, but leaders may be convinced that advantages exist at lower levels of warfare.

Strategist Thomas Schelling’s work on this issue is particularly notable, and cycles of mutually reinforcing belief in imminent attack are possible whenever the element of surprise confers significant advantage.

The risks around NATO’s 1983 Able Archer exercise may have come close to triggering such a pre-emptive escalatory cycle. For a range of reasons, Soviet intelligence analysts and political leaders believed the exercise was preparation for a NATO first strike against the USSR, and they started preparing for it.

Miscalculation refers to crossing a threshold in the mistaken belief that the action will be tolerated by the adversary. Two good examples are the American decision to march north of the 38th parallel in Korea in 1950, and Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982. Both led to responses that had not been considered likely—Chinese entry into the Korean War, and a determined British campaign to retake the islands.

Loss of control might occur for any number of reasons. Military preparations or procedures might be poorly understood by political leaders, and certain steps taken by one side to defensively heighten readiness might be interpreted by the other as an offensive move. Their early warning and intelligence systems might misread force-posture changes in the adversary, leading one side to increase its own alert levels, which then triggers the other to do the same. The two sides can become locked in an action–reaction feedback loop.

Perhaps the classic example of loss of control is the July crisis of 1914, although it unfolded at a much slower pace than would be the case today with nuclear-armed adversaries. Statesmen and generals made deliberate decisions, including choices to accept or seek ‘limited’ war. But mutual and interacting mobilisations contributed to the outbreak of a world war in a ‘quasi-mechanical manner’.

Failures of technology can also lead to loss of control. In 1960, US early warning systems incorrectly interpreted with high certainty that the rising moon was a Soviet nuclear missile attack. Fortunately, decision-makers correctly identified it as an error. Vastly improved early warning systems would make that sort of error highly unlikely today, although other technological vulnerabilities continue to exist.

A profoundly worrying risk of loss of control relates to the interplay between restrictions placed on nuclear weapons to prevent their accidental or unauthorised use in peacetime (known as ‘negative controls’) and the systems to ensure their authorised use in crises (‘positive controls’). As a nuclear state seeks to prepare forces for potential use—or simply prepares them to signal resolve to an adversary, without the intention to employ them—the balance of controls shifts from negative to positive measures.

Under typical peacetime conditions, many nuclear states physically separate warheads and delivery systems. That’s not true of all systems; nuclear ballistic missile submarines are a critical case here. But states don’t tend to have bombers sitting on the tarmac with nuclear missiles or free-fall weapons already loaded. Examples of positive controls include the protocols and codes through which release authority is communicated and targets confirmed.

At a heightened state of readiness, with warheads married to delivery systems and various potential delivery systems physically dispersed and held at shorter and shorter notice, these positive controls assume much greater relative importance. In effect, the ‘safety catches’ are gradually released, increasing the capacity to launch and the risk of accidents.

The range of escalation options open to Russia is broad and has been repeatedly parsed over the past eight months. Putin could conventionally target Western supply lines at a border location or conduct a nuclear test in the Artic, or even the Black Sea, as a signal. He could also ‘jump rungs’ on the so-called escalation ladder and use a relatively small ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon, either demonstratively on Ukrainian territory or on military targets.

Pre-emption, miscalculation and loss of control—and their linkages—could well play out in the lead-up to or aftermath of any of these actions.

Putin may simply not believe that an American-led response would follow a given escalatory action by Russia. Or he could believe that the response would be limited enough to be tolerable. That is, he could miscalculate.

Or, if Putin used a tactical nuclear weapon and the US responded with large-scale, conventional strikes as signalled by retired American general David Petraeus recently, the risks of loss of control and pre-emption might both increase. Russian military leaders might misread preparations for conventional strikes against battlefield targets in Ukraine as instead positioning for strikes on Russia’s leadership or command-and-control systems.

Other factors could interact with this kind of escalatory dynamic. We are currently experiencing a heightened period of solar flare or ‘sunspot’ activity, which has historically interfered with satellites, as well as with terrestrial high-frequency radio. One hopes Russian and American systems have been hardened to withstand this well-known problem, but it is emblematic of any number of prima facie unlikely factors that could contribute to catastrophic escalation.

In 1963, the year after the Cuban missile crisis, US President John F. Kennedy gave a speech professing his commitment to peace. Among many remarks that resonate nearly 60 years later, Kennedy observed:

‘[N]uclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy or a collective death wish for the world.’

Putin’s humiliation is Putin’s doing, and Ukraine is understandably committed to reconquering its own territory. Paths must be found despite these realities that avert the spectre of the worst possible outcome for Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world. A good starting point would be for leaders to understand that the risks of nuclear escalation are likely to be even greater than they have assumed.

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

William Leben is an analyst on secondment to ASPI (where this first appeared) from the Australian Army. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Department of Defence, the Australian Army or the Australian government.

Featured image: Tu-160 Bomber. Image Credit: Creative Commons.

“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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Why Are NATO and Russia Both Now Training for Nuclear War?
Tags: nuclear war

НАЦИЗАМ ЈЕ, КОНТИНУИТЕТ, ВОЛСТРИТА

November 2nd, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Ако погледамо сву трагедију америчких ратова, то је земља у којој нема послератног периода, јер стално ратује. Зато, теза о Првом, Другом и трећем светском рату напросто није тачна, јер све је то један велики рат, о коме се све можете наћи у документу „Пројекат новог америчког века“!

***

Aко не пре, најшира српска јавност чула је за професора емеритуса Мишела Чосудовског 2014. године, када је од Републике Србије одликован Златном медаљом за заслуге, а поводом радова написаних о агресорском нападу НАТО-а на СР Југославију. Уз већ поменуту професуру на Универзитету Отава у Канади, професор Чосудовски је и директор Центра за истраживање глобализације и оснивач и уредник портала „Глобал рисерч“. Био је и гостујући професор у Западној Европи, Југоисточној Азији, Пацифику и Латинској Америци. Радио је и као економски саветник владама земаља у развоју и консултант за неколико међународних организација. Сарадник је Енциклопедије Британика, а списи су му објављени на више од 20 језика. Све своје знање и искуство о глобалним светским дешавањима преточио је у 11 књига…

Професор Чосудовски био је чест гост скупова које је поводом годишњица НАТО агресије на СРЈ организовао Београдски форум за свет равноправних и његов председник, бивши министар спољних послова господин Живадин Јовановић. Ових дана професор Чосудовски поново је гост Београда и у хотелу „Москва“ представљена је његова књига „НАТО агресија на СР Југославију“, а „Печат“ је том приликом разговарао са аутором о најновијим геополитичким догађањима, укључујући изгледе за почетак нуклеарног рата у Украјини.

Господине професоре, рат у Украјини доказ је да смо савременици вероватно најмрачнијег периода у људској историји. Да ли је могућа победа добра над злом, или је ово крај слободе и независног људског духа?

Можемо да предвидимо тенденције, али не можемо да предвидимо крајњи исход рата на историју цивилизације. Јер ни у једном тренутку откад је 6. августа 1945. прва атомска бомба бачена на Хирошиму свет није био ближе незамисливом. Све заштитне мере из доба Хладног рата које су нуклеарну бомбу категорисале као „оружје у крајњој инстанци“– укинуте су. На врхунцу рата у Украјини Пентагон у својој ратној мапи има уцртан „превентивни нуклеарни напад на Русију“. То, међутим, не значи да ће он бити спроведен. Јер као што је рекао амерички председник Реган, „нуклеарни рат се не може добити и никада се не сме водити“, а „једина вредност две нације које поседују нуклеарно оружје (САД и Русије, прим. аут.) је да осигурају да оно никада не буде употребљено“. Без обзира на то постоје моћни гласови и лобистичке групе унутар америчког естаблишмента и Бајденове администрације који су убеђени да је нуклеарни рат могуће добити. Зато сам уверен да треба да обновимо дипломатију и дијалог. С друге стране, морамо рат у Украјини презентовати јавности у оквиру истине и историјских чињеница, не само осам година уназад него и у много даљој прошлости, што сада није случај. Сви знамо да је свеукупна ратна пропаганда спонзорисана од владе САД и да су сви уговори, сви савези, договорени против Русије, а у корист Украјине.

На чему заснивате тврдњу коју сте управо изнели?

На основу свеукупне историје Америке и њеног понашања у последњих више од стотину година. Конкретно, на основу једног рата који је у потпуности „заборављен“, а који је почео у јануару 1918. године и био директна операција против Совјетског Савеза уз учествовање више земаља. Тај рат је трајао две године током којих су непријатељске трупе доведене чак до Владивостока. Све се то десило након само два месеца од догађаја који ми зовемо Октобарском револуцијом. Постоји још једна фундаментална историјска одредница за односе СССР-а и САД, а то је одлука Америке о бомбардовању 66 градова Русије са више од 200 бомби, донесена 15. септембра 1945. године, само две недеље после завршетка Другог светског рата и месец дана после догађаја у Хирошими и Нагасакију. Данас су документи о томе доступни и могу да се про читају, али никада нису били део историје нуклеарног рата. Моје је мишљење да „Менхетн пројекат“, инициран од Америке 1939, никада и није био намењен нацистичкој Немачкој него Совјетском Савезу. Дакле, фундаментално питање су разговори о миру и преговори са циљем избегавања нуклеарног рата као средства масовног уништења, јер не смемо заборавити да САД од 2001. године нуклеарни рат презентују као употребу нуклеарних бомби у хуманитарне сврхе. Такође, многи његови лобисти, као што су Хилари Клинтон, Барак Обама и сада Џо Бајден, сматрају да нуклеарни рат може да буде само један, и то онај покренут од Сједињених Држава, што је ноторна глупост.

Ипак, колико је нуклеарни рат реалан, с обзиром на то да Владимир Путин поручује да га Русија не жели и да нуклеарни рат што се Русије тиче може да буде само изнуђен?

Сасвим сам сигуран да Русија не жели нуклеарни рат, јер политичко руководство Русије разуме оно што се назива „обезбеђење узајамног уништења“. На крају, то је била доктрина Хладног рата коју су разумели и Америка и Совјетски Савез, али што се тиче овог концепта, Америка у њега више не верује и доказала је то редефинисањем нуклеарне бомбе и посебно тактичког нуклеарног наоружања. Процедура у том процесу је брза и једноставна колико и промена ознаке на паклици цигарете са „штетна је“ на „није штетна по здравље корисника“. Другим речима, Американци нам кажу да је нуклеарна бомба, заправо, хуманитарна бомба и да је они користе у одбрамбене сврхе.

Шта значи америчка доктрина „превентивног нуклеарног рата“ као средства „самоодбране“ против нуклеарних и ненуклеарних држава, која је у постхладноратовском времену заменила доктрину „узајамно осигураног уништења“?

То је доктрина Америке из 2001. године када је извршена ревизија нуклеарног положаја САД и редефинисана употреба нуклеарног оружја на начин да такозвано тактичко нуклеарно наоружање може да се користи у конвенционалном ратовању без одобрења врховног команданта, односно председника Сједињених Држава. И та доктрина је постала веома опасна јер је подржавају и верују у њу многи који не разумеју шта је нуклеарни рат. Изјава Владимира Путина од 21. фебруара 2022. управо је одговор на претње САД да ће „превентивно употребити нуклеарно оружје против непријатеља Америке“. А познато нам је, као што је нагласио Путин, да је Русија у свим документима НАТО-а означена као главни непријатељ и главна претња САД и Северноатлантске алијансе. Путин је, због тога, у истом говору изразио уверење да ће Украјина послужити као одскочна даска за напад нуклеарним оружјем.

Коме је, онда, то што зовете „приватним нуклеарним ратом“, у интересу, и шта њиме жели да се постигне?

Када сам поменуо приватизацију нуклеарног рата, мислио сам на тајни састанак одржан од 6. до 8. августа 2003, баш на дан када је давне 1945. извршен нуклеарни напад на Хирошиму, иза затворених врата у штабу Стратешке команде у ваздухопловној бази Офут у Небраски. Присуствовали су му високи руководиоци из нуклеарне индустрије и војноиндустријског комплекса, али и представници приватног сектора и неки политичари. Циљ је био да се приватне компаније интегришу не само у процес производње него и у процес одлучивања о производњи нуклеарног наоружања, што је постао непресушан извор огромног профита. Било је, наравно, и других састанака, али након овог састанка буџет за производњу нуклеарног оружја САД одређен је у висини од трилион долара, који је у међувремену порастао на садашњих 1,3 трилиона долара, а у Бајденовој администрацији дефинисан је на два трилиона долара у 2030. години. То није годишњи буџет него само буџет за једно од тих специфичних нуклеарних оружја који је кренуо у небеса. Што више новца се троши на одбрану, то више ратова има и више пара се улива у џепове светских моћника. Према томе, рат је одличан бизнис. Међутим, производња наоружања, као уосталом и производња хране, детерминисане су енергијом и ако се на тржишту енергије створи хаос, по целом свету производни систем може да се дестабилизује. Хенри Кисинџер је о томе већ рекао да – „ко контролише нафту, контролисаће владе држава, а ко контролишите храну, контролисаће људе“. И у основи то је суштина свих ратова.

Јесу ли главни завереници нуклеарног рата, у ствари, носиоци крупног капитала који своју идеју новог светског поретка промовишу и спроводе кроз агенду утврђену иза кулиса Светског економског форума?

С апсолутном сигурношћу могу да кажем да употреба нуклеарног оружја није смањење броја људи него дефинитивно уништење цивилизације на планети Земљи. Али постоје и атомске бомбе малог приноса које су окарактерисане као употребљивије, имају капацитет експлозивности отприлике једне трећине бомбе бачене на Хирошиму, али и шест до 12 пута виши од бомбе бачене на Хирошиму. Стратешко нуклеарно оружје је, наравно, моћније. С обзиром на то да се нуклеарне бомбе могу користити и против земаља које немају нуклеарно наоружање, НАТО и САД су их искористили 1995. у борби против Либије. А постоји веома реалан контекст да буду употребљене на Средњем истоку. Бомбе које су постављене на границу Украјине према Руској Федерацији, оне којима је Русија окружена са западне, европске стране, могу да буду активиране у року од осам минута јер су веома близу великих градова, то су стратешке бомбе, и њихова могућа употреба може да нас доведе до нуклеарног холокауста. А коме је он у интересу, јасно је.

Ово звучи као отрежњење онима који мисле да је Русија јача са нуклеарним наоружањем од НАТО-а и Америке?

Русија засигурно има технологију и напредна оружја која Запад нема. А не треба заборавити ни чињеницу да Русија има и најнапреднији систем ваздушне одбране, С-400. Турска има један С-400. Друге земље су углавном ослоњене на ваздушно одбрамбени систем Америке, али треба напоменути да оно што Американци имају није окренуто одбрамбеном систему. Велики део овог буџета од 1,3 трилиона долара се користи за стварање тактичког наоружања, на бомбе с различитим финесама. Дакле, не за стварање неких нових бомби. А све то доводи до тренутног колапса здравственог и образовног система. Још је интересантно да многе земље купују наоружање од Русије, па чак и оне које су савезници Америке, као што је Турска. Има ту логике, јер не можеш да имаш одбрамбени систем Русије ако немаш руско оружје.

Како сте дошли до закључка да америчка претња нуклеарним ратом Русији постоји дуже од једног века и, штавише, да су Волстрит и Рокфелери финансирали немачку ратну машинерију и предизборну кампању Адолфа Хитлера?

Захваљујући веома опсежној литератури о томе како је Волстрит учествовао у финансирању нацистичке Немачке, у њену војну и осталу индустрију. Међутим, много важније од тога је инвестирање у изборну кампању Адолфа Хитлера раних 30-их од стране Федералних резерви Америке и Банке Енглеске. Браћа Далс су такође учествовала у томе, али историчари то не желе да признају. Сада се такође зна да је деда Буша Млађег био дубоко укључен у нацистичку Немачку. Али постоји још један прилично јасан доказ – нацистичка Немачка није имала нафте, осим нешто од Румуније, а вођење Другог светског рата, посебно операције „Барбароса“, захтевало је континуирано снабдевање нафтом коју је обезбеђивао „Стандард ојл“ у власништву Рокфелера. Другим речима, без Рокфелера и његове подршке не би било Другог светског рата, или не би било операције „Барбароса“. Постоје многе књиге које анализирају ову специфичну тему, и које су ми помогле да закључим – да је Други светски рат покренут са циљем уништења Совјетског Савеза и свега онога што су поседовали Немачка, Италија и Британска империја која се у историјским књигама не помиње. Међутим, Америка је 1921. формулисала тзв. црвени план, чија је намера била да се изврши инвазија на Британско царство. Мени је познатији план који се односио на инвазију Канаде која је те 1921. била део Британског царства и по коме је требало бомбардовати Ванкувер, Монтреал и Халифакс и засути их хемијским оружјем. Основна идеја Другог светског рата била је да се разбију велике империје, али се од напада на Канаду из неког разло га одустало и он је мировао све до 1939. године.

Да ли све о чему говоримо потврђује континуитет нацизма и после Другог светског рата, односно његов наставак у рату који се сада води другим средствима, као што је биолошки рат чије је делимичне потенцијале Пентагон инсталирао у украјинске лабораторије а, можда, и кинеске?

То је нешто веома комплексно, а опет јасно. Све је континуитет Волстрита, јер од самог почетка Волстрит је подржавао и финансирао нацисте у Немачкој. То је историјска чињеница. А за време буђења Другог светског рата помагали су и нацисте у Украјини који су до данас остали ту. Мислим да је проблем што људи посматрају нацизам као идеологију. Али кад гледате политику и економију иза нацизма, тада откривате људе који су их финансирали из својих приватних, профитерских интереса. Данас је у Немачкој на позорници Националсоцијалистичка радничка партија која је акроним за нацизам.

Дакле, управо из на сваки начин најјаче државе Европе Немачке, САД и НАТО воде рат до уништења Европске уније!?

То недвосмислено доказује терористички акт на Северном току који је Бајденова администрација испланирала и пре руске специјалне операције у Украјини, а сам Бајден јавно потврдио изјавом „моћи ћемо то да урадимо“. Северни ток настаје у Русији, али пролази кроз територијалне воде четири земље чланице ЕУ, укључујући Финску, Шведску, Данску и Немачку, чији су га парламенти одобрили пре изградње. Штавише, гасоводи Северни ток такође су захтевали одобрење Естоније, Летоније, Литваније и Пољске. А са правне тачке (Међународно право: Повеља УН, Поморско право) ово није био терористички напад на Русију већ је то био амерички акт рата против Европске уније. Јер гасоводи Северни ток који су били предмет напада налазе се у (поморској) територијалној јурисдикцији четири државе чланице ЕУ, а у међународном праву „територијални интегритет“ протеже се на „имовине“ које се налазе унутар територијалних вода националне државе. А намерно уништавање поменуте „имовине“ унутар територијалних вода земље од стране или у име страног државног актера представља чин рата. Истовремено, овај терористички акт представља издају на највишим нивоима власти у државама ЕУ, уз чију помоћ Вашингтон води рат против Европе. Дакле, Америка више није савезник ЕУ, јер њени корумпирани политичари постављају позорницу за уништење Европске уније у име САД.

Могу ли свакодневни протести широм Европе против увођења санкција Русији на своју штету прерасти о озбиљан антиглобалистички покрет за рушење глобалиста и њихових корумпираних колаборациониста на власти у земљама широм света?

Рекао бих да је одговор НЕ! А искључиви разлог за то је што све покрете антиглобалиста финансирају управо сами глобалисти. Заправо, постоје различити прогресивни покрети за које не знамо ко стоји иза њих. Они, на пример, промовишу реторику да су по борници здраве, природне климе, или да су против глобализма, али не схватају да новац којим су финансирани долази од Рокфелера, или од Сороша у случају Србије. Дакле, неопходно је створити такве покрете које неће финансирати Сорош. Што се Србије тиче, они лево оријентисани подржавају и независно Косово зато што су финансирани из Сорошевог фонда.

Шта је улога зелених у ратном замешатељству глобалиста?

Важно је да се разуме да је и клима део онога што финансира Рокфелер. Иронија је у томе што су ти који брину за климу власници нафтних компанија. И говоре о фосилним горивима која уништавају климу, што је апсолутно ван памети. Они такође стоје иза пројеката УН о одрживости, што је опет повезано с климом. Ако гледате те пројекте о одрживом развоју, ту има читав низ хуманитарних пројеката. Али средства која воде до тих хуманитарних пројеката су све само не хуманитарна. И то можемо да видимо на примеру Холандије где фармери више не могу да користе гнојива што је предуслов за банкрот привреде. Такође је иронична велика брига о клими Египта где је долина Нила, почев од 1991, потпуно уништена. Иако је била житница хиљадама година уназад, долина Нила је сада банкротирала и египатска влада је била присиљена да увози поврће. При томе, ГМО храна је увелико ушла у све земље, а та чињеница прикрива се лажима.

Како цените позицију Србије у случају да се њено политичко руководство не одупре притисцима и приклони се санкцијама против Русије?

Мислим да није у интересу Србије да прихвати ставове Европске уније, и да Србија треба да направи отклон од онога што се под утицајем САД и НАТО-а дешава на Старом континенту. Потпуно подржавам самосталну политику коју спроводи Србија.

На крају, да ли би повратак на хладноратовску позицију и евентуални договор великих сила о новој блоковској подели могли да доведу свет до мирне коегзистенције слободних и мислећих људи?

Мислим да је то дуготрајан процес, којему крај није на видику. Поменућу један историјски догађај – конгрес у Ђенови 1923. године, на коме је Совјетски Савез предложио документ о мирној коегзистенцији. Америка је ту била само посматрач, али су западне силе одбиле понуђени документ, и то је веома важна чињеница у историјском погледу. Мислим да је фундаментална та мирољубива коегзистенција између нација, али ако погледамо сву трагедију америчких ратова, то је земља у којој нема послератног периода, јер стално ратује. Зато, теза о Првом, Другом и трећем светском рату напросто није тачна, јер све је то један велики рат, о коме све можете да нађете у документу „Пројекат новог америчког века“!

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

All images in this article are from ПЕЧАТ

Posted in Srpski
Comments Off on НАЦИЗАМ ЈЕ, КОНТИНУИТЕТ, ВОЛСТРИТА

Dr. Peter McCullough Is Being Progressively Stripped of His Medical Credentials

November 2nd, 2022 by Steve Kirsch

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.

***

Dr. Peter McCullough, one of the most respected doctors in the world, has been a beacon of light throughout this pandemic. His reward for speaking the truth? He’s being stripped of his credentials.

Peter McCullough is an author of 677 articles published in the scientific peer-reviewed journals. He’s one of the most respected cardiologists in the world. He’s been right about everything throughout the pandemic. He has an encyclopedic memory of every paper he’s ever read. And he’s just a wonderful, nice person to boot. You really never met a nicer guy.

He’s sacrificed everything so he can speak the truth about the COVID policies. If there was one COVID advisor that the government should be listening to, Dr. Peter McCullough would be at the top of every list.

So how is he being rewarded for having the courage to speak the truth?

I got this message from him this morning:

I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors. There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process. Just e-mails or certified letters. Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.

Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.

None of this will stop until there is a “needle in every arm.”

Want to see what the medical journal said about his termination? Here it is:

Yet another Editor-In-Chief termination for not following the narrative

I also received this message from Dr. Ronald Kostoff who authored a paper showing how deadly the vaccines are:

The EIC of Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) has resigned. Based on his letter below, there are myriad reasons, but I suspect the main one is the pushback from having published the Seneff et al article. In my view, this does not bode well for the Seneff article. Hope I’m wrong.

Here is the email the Editor-in-Chief sent out:

From: José Luis Domingo Roig <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 6:17 AM
Subject: My resignation as Editor-in-Chief of FCT induced by the PUBLISHER. Currently FCT is a BLUFF!
To: <redacted>

Dear colleagues/friends (1st relation),

Due to deep discrepancies in the way of directing FCT in recent months, a few days ago (October 16th) I sent to our Publisher, Jagna Mirska, a resignation message and early termination of my agreement with FCT (my current contract would end on December 31, 2023). The resignation was accepted yesterday. It means that I will end of receiving new submissions on November 6th (21 days after the date of resignment, based on the clausula of the agreement).

Firstly, I want to thank your valuable help during the 6 years and 10 months in which I have been the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of the Journal. Of course, without your valuable collaboration as Editors, AEs, authors and reviewers, the great achievements of FCT would have not been possible. You will remember that in 2021, FCT reached the first position (according to the Clarivate IF) among all the Journals on general toxicology. We were going for an IF = 7.0, never reached before by a toxicology journal. From now on, and with the new EiC, curiously appointed before being my resignation accepted, Dr Bryan Delaney (according to Scopus, he has 57 documents and h-index: 20), I am afraid you can forget about this.

I ignore if you are aware of this. The significant decrease in the IF (from 6.0 in 2020 to 5.5 in 2021) was mainly because Clarivate included the RIFM documents published in FCT as citable items. Since I was appointed EiC of FCT, the IF had been continuously increasing until surpassing that of Arch Toxicol, doubtless the Journal #1 during years in general toxicology. I cannot understand why Clarivate included the RIFM documents as citable items, when it is evident that they are not scientific papers. However, in spite of my claims to the Publisher, I have no record on the negotiations between Clarivate and the Direction of FCT to solve this incongruity. It seems that for the Direction of FCT, the IF is not something sufficiently important for the prestige of the Journal. The IF is something important only for all of us, but not for them. The economic benefits obtained with the publication of the RIFM documents are doubtless much more important. I have never been informed on the sum obtained by publishing these documents, which are a drag for the IF of FCT.

On the other hand, since a few months ago FCT is the Official Journal of the Chinese SOT, another of my points of concern. Right now, more than 70-75% of our submissions come from China. If one of my main concerns had always been the lack of submissions from expert authors in Canada-USA/Europe, who can think that being now FCT the official journal of the Chinese SOT, this will increase the number of US/European good submissions? I do believe that just on the contrary. In a couple of years, the papers from non-Chinese authors will be the exception.

Just a couple of years ago -and this is written- the Publisher of FCT suggested to me that we should be very careful with the number of papers accepted from Chinese colleagues. Interestingly, 2 years later, FCT is the Official Journal of the Chinese SOT. I am sure that the Publisher did not inform them -when the agreement was signed- on her previous suggestion. However, I assume that the agreement with the Chinese SOT should mean a good (economic) injection for the Journal and she and her Bosses will be happy.

Last, but not the least. A few months ago, I published in FCT an Editorial on the lack of publications of studies on the potential toxicological effects of the vaccines for the COVID-19. I have not any proof, just feelings, but I think that the Editorial -and its consequences, among others, with a Review-paper published in FCT that I have not allowed to retract- was the final nail in my coffin.

Doubtless, and based on my almost 7 years as EiC, I should highlight that the commercial interests and economic benefits are the main priority in FCT. No the quality of the papers, and the prestige of the Journal based on the IF.

Economic benefits are currently the most important for the Direction of FCT. The scientific interest is just for us, the authors, who pay for publishing in Open Access, for the reviewers who work for nothing (sooner than late the reviewer will be paid), and for most Editors -like me- who have not had an only day of vacation in the last 7 years. All of you, who have contacted me during that time, know well this how fast are my responses.

I am fully disappointed with the Direction of FCT. Instead of solving the above indicated problems -created by them- they have accepted rapidly my resignment, because probably I was going a burden for them. It does not matter what you and I have done by the Journal. Science is not their business although they try to dress it as such. A BIG LIE!

I would sincerely appreciate your thoughts and ask for your support in the way that you feel more appropriate. A good response could be to quarantine FCT (without agreeing to review or publish) until the Direction decide that the scientific issues are a priority. I may be deluded, but maybe we can.

Thanks again for your valuable help during these years.

Best wishes,

Jose L

PS. Please pass this message to your colleagues. Thank you

Dr Jose L. Domingo
Distinguished Professor (Emeritus) of Toxicology and Environmental Health
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, School of Medicine
Sant Llorens 21, 43201 Reus, SPAIN
Tel: 34 977 759380; Fax: 977 759322; e-mail: [email protected]
www.tecnatox.cat

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 Steve Kirsch’s Newsletter

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on Dr. Peter McCullough Is Being Progressively Stripped of His Medical Credentials
Tags: COVID vaccines, COVID-19, Peter McCullough

Selected Articles: War Without End. What Is Wrong with the United States of America?

November 2nd, 2022 by Global Research News

War Without End. What Is Wrong with the United States of America?

By Philip Giraldi, November 01, 2022

Prussian Major General Carl von Clausewitz famously drew on his own experience in the Napoleonic Wars to examine war as a political phenomenon. In his 1832 book “On War” he provided a frequently quoted pithy summary of war versus peace, writing in terms of politico-military strategy that “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.”

Pfizer Increases Price of COVID Jab by 400%

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, November 01, 2022

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

‘Military Madness’: US to Deploy Nuclear-Capable B-52s to Australia, Provoking China

By Kenny Stancil, November 01, 2022

In what critics are calling a “dangerous escalation,” the United States is reportedly preparing to deploy up to six nuclear-capable B-52 bombers to northern Australia, where they would be close enough to strike China.

Latin America and the Caribbean – Between Cooperation and Intervention

By Stephen Sefton, November 01, 2022

The military, economic, diplomatic and psychological war between the Russian Federation and NATO has revealed several weaknesses in the ability of the United States and its allies to maintain their dominance in the world. A remarkable fact has been that practically no government in Latin America and the Caribbean has collaborated with the illegal coercive measures of the United States and the European Union against Russia and Belarus.

COVID-19 Vax Destroys Hearts & Brains of Billions of People – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

By Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and Greg Hunter, November 01, 2022

World renowned microbiologist and virologist professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD has won many medical and scientific awards and has more than 300 peer reviewed research papers. Dr. Bhakdi was one of the first top global doctors to warn about the deadly and debilitating effects of the CV19 vax. He was right.

The Big Lie: Worldwide Energy Shortage Plus Multiple Crises – All Manufactured – Meant for Destruction of Western Civilization

By Peter Koenig, November 01, 2022

It’s all part of the plan to destroy civilization as we know it, to replace it with the 4^th Industrial Revolution robots and humanoids – acting on AI-generated electronic commands and surviving on programmable digital central bank currencies (DCBC).

Elon Musk Alarmed After Apparent Inclusion on Well-known Ukrainian ‘Kill List’

By Zero Hedge, November 01, 2022

Elon Musk has publicly expressed alarm over his name and profile appearing to have been added to a well-known Ukrainian ‘kill list’, following controversy and outrage from Kiev over his prior “Russia-Ukraine peace poll” and subsequent threats to cut funding for Starlink satellite internet services deployed in the country.

Virtuous Hypocrisy: The Socceroos and the Qatar World Cup

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 01, 2022

Qatar, for its part, has taken a softening voice in disguising reform. The number of deaths among the toiling workers behind the various venues and stadia for the World Cup has been calculated to be in the order of 37 between 2014 and 2020. The Guardian report from February 2021, using records from a number of embassies, suggests that 6,500 Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan nationals had perished since 2010.

Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now

By Caitlin Johnstone, November 01, 2022

Mainstream punditry in the latter half of 2022 is rife with op-eds arguing that the US needs to vastly increase military spending because a world war is about to erupt, and they always frame it as though this would be something that happens to the US, as though its own actions would have nothing to do with it.

How the Media Quarantined Evidence of Cancer in Iraq and the Role of B.P.

By Media Lens, November 01, 2022

Some of the worst ‘modern sacrifice zones’ are found on the outskirts of Basra, in the south-east of Iraq, ‘some of the country’s biggest oil exploration areas’. Flared gases from these sites are dangerous because they emit a mix of carbon dioxide, methane and black soot which is carcinogenic.

Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Selected Articles: War Without End. What Is Wrong with the United States of America?

Pfizer Increases Price of COVID Jab by 400%

November 1st, 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.

***

The same day, Pfizer announced it will raise the price on its COVID jab by about 400%, from $30 per jab to somewhere between $110 and $130 once the current U.S. purchase program expires

Pfizer has forecasted expected revenues into the foreseeable future and they’re not going to let real-world market demands dictate its revenue stream. Instead, they’re going to make up the difference through price hikes which, ultimately, will be paid by government and insurance companies

Meanwhile, a judge is about to rule whether Pfizer and other COVID jab makers can be held accountable for fraud. In January 2022, Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for committing fraud against the American people. In February, the judge ruled that the lawsuit could proceed to pretrial discovery phase. It is now on the verge of potentially going to trial

According to a legal analyst, the U.S. Congress has, over the past 30 years, paved the way for legalized tyranny and even genocide. What were once state and/or federal crimes have been legalized, and the reason the Food and Drug Administration is not protecting the public from what is clearly the most dangerous “vaccine” the world has ever seen is because it’s part of a biowarfare program run jointly by the FDA, Health and Human Services, the Defense Department, the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Pfizer, Moderna and the World Health Organization

By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, the CDC is securing Pfizer’s and Moderna’s permanent liability shield so that no one can sue them for damages for injuries and deaths occurring as a result of the shots. It also opens the door for states to mandate the jab for school children.

The very same day, Pfizer announced it will raise the price on its COVID jab by about 400%,² from $30³ per jab to somewhere between $110 and $130 once the current U.S. purchase program expires.

While in direct opposition to how capitalism normally works, Reuters⁴ claims significant price hikes were predicted⁵ by Wall Street analysts “due to weak demand for COVID vaccines, which meant vaccine makers would need to hike prices to meet revenue forecasts for 2023 and beyond.”

As noted by comedian Jimmy Dore in the video above, normally, in a free market economy, when demand goes down, prices are reduced. Not so in this case, though.

Pfizer has already forecasted expected revenues into the foreseeable future, and they’re not going to let real-world market demands dictate its revenue stream. No, they’re simply going to make up the difference through price hikes which, ultimately, will be paid by government and insurance companies.

By increasing their price by 400%, Pfizer is tipping its hand that its projections for vaccine uptake will decrease by the inverse or 75% as this would allow them to continue to earn their obscene profits. In other words Pfizer believes that COVID jab uptake will only be 25% of what is was under the emergency use authorization (EUA).

Indeed, to help ensure profits keep rolling into Big Pharma’s pockets as forecasted before public demand fell off a cliff, ACIP has also added to the shots to the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program,⁶ which provides vaccines to children at no or low cost using federal funding.⁷

Pfizer revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022,⁸ thanks to the COVID jab and Paxlovid, and with that kind of revenue stream, you can be sure they’ll lobby states to mandate the shot for school children like they’ve never lobbied before.

Judge About to Rule on Pfizergate

Meanwhile, a judge is about to rule whether Pfizer and other COVID jab makers can be held accountable for fraud. As reported by Becker News:⁹

“The last shred of hope for holding Big Pharma accountable for fraud now rests on a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturer Pfizer. In an update provided to Becker News, a judge is soon expected to issue his ruling on whether or not the ‘Pfizergate’ fraud case proceeds to trial.

‘The judge is deciding … whether we go to discovery or the case is dismissed,’ Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson tells Becker News. After the CDC this week voted to add the COVID shots to its Childhood Vaccines Schedule, under the PREP Act, it has effectively been granted legal immunity to lawsuits.

There is no legal immunity if Pfizer committed fraud, however. In September, Pfizer whistleblower Brook Jackson came forward with her explosive report about the company’s alleged malfeasance, citing ‘falsified data’ and manipulated clinical trials.¹⁰

In January, she filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for committing fraud against the American people. In February, the judge ruled that the lawsuit, being led by attorney Robert Barnes, can proceed to pre-trial discovery phase. It is now on the verge of potentially going to trial.”

Pfizer has filed a motion to dismiss, which the U.S. government supports. As explained by legal analyst Katherine Watt:¹¹

“Pfizer’s core argument in its Motion to Dismiss, which the US Government has now endorsed in its Oct. 4 statement of interest, is that clinical trials and clinical data from all of the sites, including the serious adverse event reports from the very start of the trials in Summer 2020, were not ‘material’ or ‘necessary’ to the FDA’s decisions to grant Emergency Use Authorization (Dec. 11, 2020) and approval (Aug. 23, 2021) to Pfizer’s product.”

Just how can clinical trial data, including adverse event reports, be immaterial and unnecessary to the FDA’s EUA decision? Is this not an admission — both by Pfizer and the U.S. government — that the FDA colluded with Pfizer to get the shots to market without regard for safety? That’s what it sounds like to me.

CDC Director Contracts COVID

As you may have heard, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky tested positive for COVID October 21, 2022, despite being up to date on her boosters. She received her fifth shot, the latest bivalent booster which has only been tested on mice, on September 22.¹²

Exactly one month later, she’s “experiencing mild symptoms” and is “isolating at home.”^13,14 So, not only did the bivalent shot fail to protect Walensky, it failed in just four weeks.

CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky bivalent COVID booster

Back in March 2021, Walensky went on record stating that CDC data “suggest that vaccinated people do not carry the virus.”¹⁵ Four months later, a CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, which occurred July 6 through July 25, 2021, found 74% of those who received a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 80% of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.^16,17

The CDC also found that fully vaccinated individuals who contracted the infection had just as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who got infected.¹⁸ In other words, the jabbed were determined to be just as infectious as the unjabbed. At this point, the list of instances where Walensky has been proven wrong is a long one.

The More Shots You Get, the More Likely You’ll Die of COVID

To those actually analyzing and paying attention to the data — which Walensky apparently must not be doing, or else she wouldn’t be going to a public pharmacy to get injected for the fifth time — her COVID diagnosis is no surprise.

As noted by Dr. Charles Hoffe in a September 15, 2022, interview with Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, “The more shots you get, the more likely you will die from COVID-19.” An excerpt from the interview is included above. You can find the full interview on Bitchute.¹⁹

According to the latest data from Canada, summarized by Hoffe, 85% of Canadians have received at least two COVID shots, and in June 2022, 92% of all COVID deaths were in fully jabbed individuals. And, while only 34% of Canadians had received three or four doses, they made up 81% of all COVID deaths in the month of June:

“This is the clearest evidence that the more shots you have, the more likely you will die of COVID,” Hoffe said. “These [shots] are severely damaging the immune system. And so, the discrimination against those who have chosen to be vaxx free is absolutely absurd because those are the people who are going to survive.”

The Legal Architecture for Genocide

In closing, many of us have wondered just how the FDA, CDC and other governmental agencies can act with impunity and get away with what is essentially murder.

Well, in a June 2022 interview²⁰ with Dr. Jane Ruby of “The Jane Ruby Show,” Watt, the paralegal whom I quoted earlier, explained how the U.S. Congress has, over the past 30 years, slowly but surely paved the way for legalized tyranny and even genocide.

In short, what were once state and/or federal crimes or human rights violations have been legalized through statutory revisions. Watt also describes in an April 28, 2022, Substack article how this regulatory framework grew into being.²¹ As noted in that article:

“The basic goal of the architects, which has been achieved, was to set up legal conditions in which all governing power in the United States could be automatically transferred from the citizens and the three Constitutional branches into the two hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary, effective at the moment the HHS Secretary himself declared a public health emergency, legally transforming free citizens into enslaved subjects …

Congress and US Presidents legalized and funded the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. government and the American people, through a massive domestic bioterrorism program relabeled as a public health program, conducted by the HHS Secretary and Secretary of Defense on behalf of the World Health Organization and its financial backers.”

In another article titled “COVID-19 Injectable Bioweapons as Case Study in Legalized, Government-Operated Domestic Bioterrorism,” Watt explains why the FDA is not protecting the public from what is clearly the most dangerous “vaccine” the world has ever seen, by any metric whatsoever:²²

“FDA is not pulling the EUA products from the market or stopping the ‘vaccination’ campaign because Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf are running the US government’s bioterrorism program jointly with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Department of Justice Attorney General Merrick Garland, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorkas, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel, and World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.”

How to Protect and Restore Our Rights and Freedoms

In her April 28 article,²³ Watt lays out a plan for how to build a case “to prosecute members of Congress, presidents, HHS secretaries and federal judges for treason under 18 USC 2381.” Less drastic measures presented by Watt during her interview with Ruby include:²⁴

Speaking out against and educating other about how the tyranny is being implemented to prevent it from getting worse — something professor Mattias Desmet has been recommending
Getting the U.S. out of the WHO and not funding it anymore
Congress could repeal the statutes that put this framework into place, or implement oversight to rein in the HHS, which is the institutional structure that is running this overthrow scheme, or dissolve the HHS altogether
Given enough political pressure the HHS could also voluntarily roll back the regulations that form the framework for legalized tyranny and bring back Nuremberg Code principles. For example, informed consent principles have been nullified, which is what has enabled mask and vaccine mandates. Those regulations need to be reversed and informed consent principles reinstated
Federal judges also need to start hearing Constitutional cases, which they’ve so far rejected
State legislatures can also consider secession to protect the Constitutional rights of their residents

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.

¹ Rumble October 20, 2022

² Daily Wire October 21, 2022

^3, ⁴ Reuters October 20, 2022

⁵ Reuters October 21, 2022

⁶ Meryl Nass Substack October 19, 2022

⁷ CDC VFC Program

⁸ Fierce Pharma November 21, 2021

⁹ Becker News October 22, 2022

¹⁰ BMJ November 2, 2021; 375: n2635

¹¹ Bailiwick News Substack October 19, 2022

¹² Twitter Ian Miller October 22, 2022

¹³ World Freedom Alliance October 23, 2022

¹⁴ NY Post October 22, 2022

¹⁵ Twitter The Recount March 30, 2021

¹⁶ CDC MMWR July 30, 2021; 70

¹⁷ CNBC July 30, 2021

¹⁸ NBC News August 7, 2021

¹⁹ Bitchute Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson September 15, 2022

^20, ²⁴ Childrens Health Defense Pennsylvania Chapter June 22, 2022

^21, ²³ Bailiwick News April 28, 2022

²² Bailiwick News June 9, 2022

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on Pfizer Increases Price of COVID Jab by 400%
Tags: COVID vaccines, Pfizer, Pfizer vaccines

‘Military Madness’: US to Deploy Nuclear-Capable B-52s to Australia, Provoking China

November 1st, 2022 by Kenny Stancil

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 ability to deploy U.S. Air Force bombers to Australia sends a strong message to adversaries about our ability to project lethal air power,” the U.S. Air Force told “Four Corners,” a television program of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), on Sunday.

Becca Wasser, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, told ABC that “having bombers that could range and potentially attack mainland China could be very important in sending a signal to China that any of its actions over Taiwan could also expand further.”

Investigative journalist Peter Cronau, however, described the plan, which came with “no debate [or] discussion,” as “military madness [that] is fanning tensions with China.”

No debate, no discussion — democracy shelved.
‘No nukes’ policy trashed — US is making northern Australia prime targets for their planned war with China.

Military madness is fanning tensions with China. US to deploy nuclear B-52 bombers to Australia. https://t.co/FrbMKHosG8

— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) October 30, 2022

Cronau’s message was echoed by David Shoebridge, an Australian Greens senator for New South Wales.

“This is a dangerous escalation,” Shoebridge wrote on Twitter. “It makes Australia an even bigger part of the global nuclear weapons threat to humanity’s very existence—and by rising military tensions it further destabilizes our region.”

According to ABC, “Washington is planning to build dedicated facilities” for the nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal, less than 200 miles south of Darwin, the capital of the country’s Northern Territory.

The Pentagon’s plan represents the latest U.S. act of hostility toward China.

Relations between the two countries have only worsened since August, when U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other members of Congress visited Taiwan (the Republic of China, or ROC) despite opposition from Beijing, which—along with most of the international community, including Washington since the 1970s—considers the breakaway province to be part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

In a departure from more than four decades of “One China” policy—in which the U.S. recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China and maintains informal relations with the ROC while adopting a position of “strategic ambiguity” to obscure how far it would go to protect Taiwan—U.S. President Joe Biden has repeatedly threatened to use military force in response to a Chinese invasion of the island.

Although Biden warned earlier this month that Russia’s assault on Ukraine has brought the world closer to “Armagedeon” than at any point since the Cuban Missile Crisis, his move to station B-52 bombers in Australia further increases the global risk of nuclear war.

News of the impending deployment comes just days after the Biden administration released a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that nonproliferation advocates said makes catastrophe more, rather than less, likely.

“The formal statement of U.S. nuclear strategy pays lip service to the need to limit the spread and prevent the use of atomic weaponry and cancels an egregious Trump-era missile program,” Common Dreams reported last week, but “the document makes clear that the country will move ahead with dangerous and costly modernization plans—and leaves intact the option of a nuclear first strike.”

According to Stephen Young, senior Washington representative at the Union of Concerned Scientists, “The world is becoming a more dangerous place, but the only military threat to the survival of the United States is a nuclear war with Russia or China.”

“Rather than recognizing that threat and seeking to find ways to end it,” said Young, “the Biden NPR doubles down on nuclear deterrence and the status quo approach to security that says we all must be prepared to die in less than an hour.”

The move to park B-52 bombers at the Tindal air base also comes just over a year after the establishment of the so-called AUKUS alliance, a trilateral military partnership through which the U.S. and the United Kingdom plan to help Australia build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines—a long-term initiative widely seen as a challenge to China by Western powers determined to exert control over the Pacific region.

Some Australian critics expressed concerns that the planned deployment of U.S. military aircraft to the Northern Territory locks the country into joining Washington in the event an armed conflict with China erupts.

“It’s a great expansion of Australian commitment to the United States’ war plan with China,” said Richard Tanter, a senior research associate at the Nautilus Institute and longstanding anti-nuclear activist.

“It’s a sign to the Chinese that we are willing to be the tip of the spear,” said Tanter. “It’s very hard to think of a more open commitment that we could make. A more open signal to the Chinese that we are going along with American planning for a war with China.”

Beijing, for its part, accused Washington of destabilizing the entire Pacific region with its planned deployment of B-52s to the Tindal air base.

Asked about the U.S. positioning nuclear-capable bombers in Australia, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said that military cooperation pacts between countries should “not target any third parties or harm the interests of third parties.”

“The relevant U.S. behaviors have increased regional tensions, seriously undermined regional peace and stability, and may trigger an arms race in the region,” Zhao told reporters at a regular briefing in Beijing.

“China urges the parties concerned to abandon the outdated Cold War and zero-sum mentality and narrow-minded geopolitical thinking, and to do something conducive to regional peace and stability and enhancing mutual trust between the countries,” he added.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on ‘Military Madness’: US to Deploy Nuclear-Capable B-52s to Australia, Provoking China
Tags: Australia, B52 bombers, China, Nuclear weapons, United States

War Without End. What Is Wrong with the United States of America?

November 1st, 2022 by Philip Giraldi

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.

***

Prussian Major General Carl von Clausewitz famously drew on his own experience in the Napoleonic Wars to examine war as a political phenomenon. In his 1832 book “On War” he provided a frequently quoted pithy summary of war versus peace, writing in terms of politico-military strategy that “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means.” In other words, war-making is a tool provided to statesmen to achieve a nation’s political objectives when all else fails.

One can reject the ultimate amorality of Clausewitz’s thinking about war while also recognizing that some nations have historically speaking exploited war-making as a tool for physical expansion and the appropriation of foreigners’ resources. As far back as the Roman Republic, the country’s elected leaders doubled as heads of its consular armies, which were expected to go out each spring to expand the imperium. More recently, Britain notably engaged in almost constant colonial wars over the course of centuries to establish what was to become history’s largest empire.

America’s dominant neocons characteristically believe they have inherited the mantle of empire and of the war powers that go hand-in-hand with that attribute, but they have avoided other aspects of the transition in turning the United States into a nation made and empowered by war. First of all, what comes out the other end after one has initiated hostilities with another country is unpredictable. Starting with Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq as well as other minor operations in Latin America, Africa and Asia, American war-making has brought nothing but grief on those on the receiving end with little positive to show for the death, destruction and accumulated debt. Also forgotten in the rush to use force is the raison d’etre to have a federal national government at all, which is to bring tangible benefit to the American people. There has been none of that since 9/11 and even before, while Washington’s hard-line stance on what has become a proxy war against Russia over Ukraine promises more pain – perhaps disastrously so – and no real gain.

If one has any doubt that going to war has become the principal function of both Democrats and Republicans in Washington, it is only necessary to consider several stories that have appeared in the past several weeks. The first comes from the Republican side, and it includes a possibly positive development. House Minority leader Republican Kevin McCarthy warned two weeks ago that the GOP will not necessarily continue to write a “blank check” for Ukraine if they obtain the House majority in next month’s election, reflecting his party’s growing skepticism about unlimited financial support for the corrupt regime in place in Kiev. McCarthy explained

“I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine. They just won’t do it. … It’s not a free blank check.”

America’s uncritical support for Ukraine, which has been a contrivance by the White House and media since the fighting started, has led to a growing number of Republicans, particularly some of those aligned with Donald Trump’s “America First” approach, to challenge the need for massive federal spending abroad at a time of record-high inflation at home. Since Russia launched its invasion in February, Congress has approved tens of billions in emergency security and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, while the Biden administration has shipped billions more worth of weapons and equipment from military inventories, all done with only limited or even no oversight of where the money and weapons are winding up.

But, unfortunately, the GOP is far from unified on its approach to Ukraine-Russia. Congressman Liz Cheney demonstrated that her apple did not fall far from her father’s tree, taking some time off from trying to hang Donald Trump to denounce what she refers to as the “Putin wing of the Republican Party.” She put it this way:

“You know, the Republican Party is the party of Reagan, the party that essentially won the Cold War. And you look now at what I think is really a growing Putin wing of the Republican Party.”

Cheney criticized Fox News for “running propaganda” on the issue and in particular called out Fox host Tucker Carlson as “the biggest propagandist for Putin on that network… You really have to ask yourself, whose side is Fox on in this battle? And how could it be that you have a wing of the Republican Party that thinks that America would be standing with Putin as he conducts that brutal invasion of Ukraine?”

Cheney notably did not address the issue of how the war developed in the first place because the US and UK preferred saber rattling to diplomacy with Moscow. Or why the United States feels compelled to tip-toe to the brink of a possible nuclear war over a foreign policy issue that is of no real national interest to the American people. And where did she make her comments? At the McCain Institute in Arizona. Yes, that’s a legacy of Senator John McCain another Republican who never saw a war he couldn’t enthusiastically support.

Both President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have confirmed that the US is in with Ukraine until “victory” is obtained, whatever that is supposed to mean, while other Administration officials have indicated that the actual purpose of the fighting is to weaken Russia and remove President Putin. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre glibly spouted the party line when asked about McCarthy’s comments. She thanked congressional leaders for bipartisan work to “support Ukraine to defend itself from Russia’s war crimes and atrocities,” adding that “We will continue to work with Congress and continue to monitor those conversations on these efforts and support Ukraine as long as it takes. We are going to keep that promise that we’re making to the brave Ukrainians who are fighting every day, to fight for their freedom and their democracy.”

Perhaps more bizarre than Cheney’s comments is the tale of a letter that was prepared by thirty Democratic Party progressives urging US support for negotiations to end the fighting in Ukraine. The letter was prepared in June but not released until last week before being quickly retracted under pressure on the following day. Pramila Jayapal, who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said it was retracted because it “was being conflated with [the] comments” made by McCarthy over his warning about budget cutting for Ukraine. Jayapal referred to the letter as a “distraction,” but what she really meant was that her group had no desire to make common cause with the Republicans over any issue, including war and peace in an escalating conflict that is manifestly pointless.

A clueless Jayapal also took pains to contradict the message put out by her own group, emphasizing that there has been no opposition to the administration’s Ukraine policy from Democrats in Congress. She said Democrats “have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every package of military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people.” She doubled down on the White House message, affirming that the war in Ukraine will only end with diplomacy after “a Ukrainian victory.”

So basically, anyone talking sense about Ukraine in Washington is being shut down by forces within the political parties themselves working together with a compliant national media that is mis-representing everything that is taking place on the ground. It is a formula for tragedy as the Biden administration has shown no sign of seeking diplomacy with Russia to end the conflict despite the president’s recent surprising warning that the world is now facing the highest risk of nuclear “Armageddon,” which he, of course, blames on Putin. Given all of that, in my humble opinion a government that is unable or unwilling to take reasonable steps to protect its own citizens while also avoiding a possible nuclear catastrophe that could end up engulfing the entire world is fundamentally evil and has lost all legitimacy. It should recognize that fact before submitting its resignation.

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

Posted in English
Comments Off on War Without End. What Is Wrong with the United States of America?

Latin America and the Caribbean – Between Cooperation and Intervention

November 1st, 2022 by Stephen Sefton

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.

***

This continental reality is largely explained by the different experiences of the respective cooperation policies of China, Russia, the United States and the European Union. It is instructive to explore these experiences, focusing on the contrast between the practice of development cooperation on the part of Russia and China and the corresponding US practice. In that regard, on October 27th last, President Vladimir Putin commented in his remarks to the Valdai Club:

“Technological development should not increase global inequality, but rather reduce it. This is how Russia has traditionally implemented its foreign technology policy. For example, when we build nuclear power plants in other countries… In fact, we give other countries a chance to break new ground in their scientific and technological development, reduce inequality, and bring their energy sector to new levels of efficiency and environmental friendliness…

If liberal globalisation is about depersonalising and imposing the Western model on the entire world, integration is, in contrast, about tapping the potential of each civilisation for everyone to benefit. If globalism is dictate – which is what it comes down to eventually, – integration is a team effort to develop common strategies that everyone can benefit from.”

In Nicaragua, our experience of Russian cooperation reflects this vision of respect, equity and solidarity. Apart from the growing trade relations and educational and cultural exchanges, Russia supports Nicaragua in different areas, for example with information from the Glonass satellite system, with imports of hundreds of buses for public transport and with significant quantities of wheat. Donations of vaccines against Covid-19 have been a key aspect of health collaboration, in addition to the production of vaccines at the Mechnikov plant in Managua. Russia is also cooperating with resources and training to combat organized crime and drug trafficking and with the modernization of the equipment of the Nicaraguan Army.

The limited trade profile of imports from the Russian Federation to the region (40% of fertilizers and 15% of semi-finished steel among others) does not reflect the importance of Russian cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially in the nuclear technology sector. Russia maintains extensive cooperation in this sector with the entire region in the implementation of mutually beneficial scientific, educational and commercial projects. This cooperation covers agreements for the supply of isotope products, radiopharmaceutical infrastructure and irradiation processes and the development of the nuclear industry.

Russia has extensive cooperation agreements in the nuclear sector with Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Peru, Mexico and Cuba. With Cuba, Russia also collaborates in oil exploration, aeronautics and space technology, and the two countries maintain constant sport and cultural exchanges, in education and health care, as well as in energy and food security. Likewise, with Venezuela, Russia maintains close cooperation ties through more than 260 binational agreements in the areas of energy, industrial development, construction, medicine, tourism, agriculture and mining.

In the case of China, President Xi Jinping has expressed a vision of development cooperation similar to that of President Vladimir Putin. In January of this year, for example, in words addressed to the World Economic Forum, President Xi Jinping commented:

“No matter what difficulties may come our way, we must adhere to a people-centered philosophy of development, place development and livelihoods front and center in global macro-policies, realize the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and build greater synergy among existing mechanisms of development cooperation to promote balanced development worldwide.”

China has become the first or second commercial and financial partner of many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. In terms of cooperation and investment, it is estimated that China implemented more than 80 infrastructure projects in the fifteen years from 2005 to 2019. In Argentina, projects with a value of more than US$30 billion dollars were carried out and in Peru, investments also worth around US$30 billion, developed the energy and mining sectors, fisheries and forestry and infrastructure projects. China has cooperated with Bolivia on road, energy and transport projects worth US$17 billion.

In Ecuador, China has helped with projects worth more than US$9 billion in infrastructure and energy. In Central America and the Caribbean, up until 2019 China had implemented projects worth almost US$10 billion. With Venezuela, China has developed a close strategic relationship that includes, apart from extensive commercial and financial relations, all types of investment in industry, transport, mining, housing, digital technology and communications. China cooperates with Cuba in the development of its nickel industry, oil resources, biotechnology, tourism and infrastructure as well as cultural, educational and sports exchanges.

This year, Argentina and China agreed to build another nuclear power plant at a cost of US$ 8 billion. With Chile, China also has an extensive portfolio of cooperation programs and projects in hydroelectric energy, digital technology and communications, astronomy, agricultural technology and education. Gradually, China is diversifying the range of projects it finances in the region. Between 2012 and 2019 it is estimated that China has disbursed loans amounting to almost US$140 billion to 18 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The huge and diverse investments of China and the quality of technological investment of the Russian Federation contrast sharply with the relative lack of economic investment from US cooperation and its highly ideological nature. Since the end of World War II, American development cooperation has been managed not to promote the development of its counterpart countries, but to promote the geopolitical interests of the United States and ensure its ideological and cultural dominance. In 2021, President Biden’s regime reaffirmed this reality in its document “Interim Guide to the National Security Strategy” which notes “Global development is among our best methods to articulate and realize our values while simultaneously pursuing our national security interests.”

The United States’ control of major international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank allows it to control the finance made available by those institutions for investment projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. US bilateral development cooperation is managed by the United States International Development Agency (USAID). This so-called cooperation is complemented by hundreds of millions of dollars in funds disbursed by quasi non-governmental institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, aimed at non-governmental organizations abroad as tools for US intervention.

Over time, US policies for achieving, promoting and maintaining its global dominance have changed, shape shifting from one period to the next. For example, in December 2019, the US Congress passed the little-known Global Fragility Act, which the editors of Black Agenda Report describe as “a re-setting of US foreign policy in ways that shift tactics while maintaining the objectives and strategies of U.S. global domination.”

The Act prioritizes human rights and governance and emphasizes environmental issues. It stresses the priority importance of attention to gender issues for achieving equity and equality and also prioritizes the issue of governance of security forces while openly advocating efforts to control rival powers such as China and Russia. In effect, it is an update of the “soft power” policies of President Obama, which developed to the maximum the false manipulation of human rights and, too, the abuse of criminal justice systems for political purposes, often called ”lawfare”.

President Biden’s “Partnership of the Americas for Economic Prosperity” proposal presented in June of this year deepens the neoliberal approach of the Global Fragility Act. In effect, US development cooperation marginalizes the issue of poverty reduction and the defense of economic and social rights. It promotes neocolonial intervention under the pretext of defending the environment, advances Western ideas of identity and gender over traditional cultural values and explores how to co-opt national security forces.

While China and Russia continue to promote a vision of a multipolar world based on genuine cooperation inspired by respect and equity, in Latin America and the Caribbean the United States continues to apply illegal coercive measures against Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Likewise, they continue to apply similar punitive measures against twenty other countries around the world, including Iran, Russia and China. Similarly, interference and intervention by US embassies around the world is constant.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the respective U.S. embassies this year have publicly accused several serving officials in Paraguay and Guatemala of corruption. In Argentina, the US ambassador has intervened in the electoral process for 2023, with comments and suggestions on possible alliances and candidates. In Honduras, the ambassador has openly criticized government measures to reform the energy sector, among other improper interventions in the internal affairs of that country. The US continues to abuse its cooperation programs in the region, seeking to super-impose its justice system on national jurisdications.

In Nicaragua, the days are gone when yankee ambassador Oliver Garza could march into the Supreme Electoral Council’s vote counting center, as he did on the night of the 2001 elections, and demand changing the personnel after earlier campaigning openly for the candidate of the Liberal Alliance in those elections. As President Daniel Ortega has said, Nicaragua will never again be anyone’s colony. In the same way, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean keep their options open in their relations with the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China and, admittedly to varying degrees, increasingly reject counterproductive neocolonial submission to the wishes of the United States and the European Union.

This article was originally published on Tortilla con Sal, translated from Spanish.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

Posted in English
Comments Off on Latin America and the Caribbean – Between Cooperation and Intervention
Tags: Caribbean, latin america

COVID-19 Vax Destroys Hearts & Brains of Billions of People – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

November 1st, 2022 by Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

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.

***

World renowned microbiologist and virologist professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD has won many medical and scientific awards and has more than 300 peer reviewed research papers. Dr. Bhakdi was one of the first top global doctors to warn about the deadly and debilitating effects of the CV19 vax. He was right. Dr. Bhakdi says there is proof that if the injections reach the heart or the brain, they will be damaged beyond repair.

Dr. Bhakdi brings up one autopsy that found this and explains,

“In multiple parts of the brain in this deceased man, the doctor found the same thing. . . . He found the damned spike proteins in the smallest capillaries of the brain. . . There is no repair because what the doctor found was these small vessels were attacked by the immune system and destroyed. The doctor found irrefutable evidence of brain cell damage of cells that are dead and dying. This poor fellow died because his brain cells were dying. . . . The same patient that died . . . . had this multifocal, meaning at many different locations, necrotizing, meaning dying, encephalitis. . . . He had typical things being seen now in people post vax. They lose their personality. They lose their minds. They lose their capacity to think. They become demented. They can’t hear. They can’t speak. They can’t see. They are no longer the humans that they were. They are destroyed human beings. Their brains are destroyed. The doctor found something so terrible he had to publish right away. This was published October 1, 2022, in “Vaccine,” which is a leading scientific journal. It’s peer reviewed, and it was accepted right away. . . . It can be read by anyone. I beseech you to read it for yourself. The doctor doing the autopsy found apart from these terrible things happening to the brain, the same things were happening in the heart. It was happening in the heart of the same patient. He saw these same damned devil designed spike proteins. This means the gene that the perpetrators injected into billions of people reach the vessels of the brain and the heart. They are killing people. They are killing people in the most terrible, terrifying and tormenting way.”

Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Mike Yeadon and I always sing the same thing. You have to realize we did not know each other until Covid came, and there are so many others. They are not stupid, and they are wonderful and intelligent people, and if everyone is saying the same thing, you have to start thinking we may be right. If we are right, and I say it’s not me, I am one of thousands, and these thousands are right maybe, you are killing yourself and your children and your loved ones. Why do you do this? Why?”

Dr. Bhakdi contends that the world should stop the injections now. . . . and Covid is a “criminal hoax.”

In closing, Dr. Bhakdi says,

“I am afraid to say it, but up until one and a half years ago, I was a scientist. Now, I see what is going on. I have to admit that the colleagues and friends of mine that have been telling me that this is genocide may be right. I don’t know, but I feel in my mind there can be no other agenda. There is no other explanation. There is no other explanation because it is clear these gene-based vaccines are not needed because we are not dealing with a killer virus that is destroying mankind. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously lying to your face. Second, it is obvious these so-called vaccines could never ever have protected against infection. . . . Third, and the worst, these gene-based vaccines are the most terrible instruments that have ever been introduced into the human body to destroy humans. . . . These vaccines are going to destroy mankind.”

There is much more in the 53-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes one on one with world renowned microbiologist and virologist, professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD for 10.29.22.

Dr. Bhakdi says the German government is persecuting him with totally false charges of antisemitism, but he is really being punished for speaking out against the CV19 vax. Early on he told people not to get the CV19 injections. If convicted, Dr. Bhakdi says he faces 5 years in prison. His trial is in 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 a screenshot from the video

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on COVID-19 Vax Destroys Hearts & Brains of Billions of People – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi
Tags: COVID vaccines

Elon Musk Alarmed After Apparent Inclusion on Well-known Ukrainian ‘Kill List’

November 1st, 2022 by 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.

***

Elon Musk has publicly expressed alarm over his name and profile appearing to have been added to a well-known Ukrainian ‘kill list’, following controversy and outrage from Kiev over his prior “Russia-Ukraine peace poll” and subsequent threats to cut funding for Starlink satellite internet services deployed in the country.

On Friday, the billionaire SpaceX founder responded directly to a viral tweet by independent journalist Eva Bartlett which claimed “Musk added to Ukraine’s Myrotvorets kill list (which includes 327 children!),” in which he asked her “is this list real?”

Musk later appeared to answer is own question in the affirmative, tweeting out a link to the ‘kill list’ website’s Wikipedia page. The website within recent weeks fell into the spotlight after Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters highlighted his own inclusion on the list.

“Concerning,” Musk later wrote.

In the case of Waters, Louder Sound writes;

The ‘list’ that Waters is referring to is stored on the NSFW website Myrotvorets (‘Peacemaker’), which, in addition to posting graphic photos of dead Russian soldiers, allegedly features around 187,000 names of people critical of the Ukrainian government, alongside their home address, phone numbers and contact details. The left-wing UK website The Canary actually identified Waters’ name on the list in an article published in May, stating that the musician was on the database as he is accused of “Anti-Ukrainian propaganda. An attempt on the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Participation in attempts to legalize the annexation of Crimea by Russia.”

Newsweek, meanwhile, in attempting to identify and verify the Ukrainian website suggested that it is independently-run, but at the same time kept open the question of whether it has direct links to the Ukrainian government:

As various media reports on Mirotvorets note, it is an NGO that keeps an open-sourced database of persons that it deems to have promoted anti-Ukrainian narratives or acted to destabilize Ukraine’s national security. Since the start of the war, it also keeps count of the Russian soldiers and agents killed on its territory.

It was founded by a Ukrainian politician and activist Heorhiy/Georgiy Tuka. It has also been closely linked to politician Anton Gerashchenko, whom The Times of London in a recent interview referred to as a co-founder of the project.

According to Rolling Stone, “There is a list maintained by a far-right Ukrainian organization that contains hundreds of thousands of enemies of Ukraine, from alleged members of the Wagner private military company to journalists accused of cooperating with puppet governments in the Donbas region. The site, which has been roundly internationally condemned — but not taken down by the Ukrainian government itself — claims not to be a kill list but rather “information for law enforcement authorities and special services.”

Newsweek highlighted that in some instances names of Ukrainians that had their names and addressed published as “collaborators” were hunted down and prosecuted, and that some turned up dead.

The Mirotvorets list has no official standing in Ukraine, though Al Jazeera, citing the rights group Uspishna Varta, reported that it had been used as evidence in more than 100 court cases against those suspected of involvement with pro-Russian paramilitaries.

In April 2015 two pro-Russian Ukrainians, politician Oleg Kalashnikov and publicist Oles Buzina, were shot dead in Kyiv.

Al Jazeera reported that the attacks took place just days after Mirotvorets published personal details, including addresses, about the two men, but no direct link has been found or proven in court. -Newsweek

And according to Mirotvorets’ Wikipedia page, the site does maintain an “enemies of Ukraine” list, and has even come under censure from Western allies of Kiev, who find it somewhat of an uncomfortable embarrassment.

“The site has remained open despite repeated requests from the UN, G7 ambassadors, the EU and human rights groups to close it down, and although it has no official status, it acts to supplement government databases at checkpoints,” the Wikipedia page which Musk refers to cites.

Eva Bartlett herself, the journalist and pundit that Musk interacted with on Twitter, is reported to be on the kill list.

Screenshot of “liquidated persons” on the Myrotvorets site… names that appear were accused of publicly supporting Russia or of being “anti-Ukrainian”, or being collaborators with the occupying Russian army.

While a screenshot of Musk’s profile on the kill list is now being widely circulated, his name may have only briefly appeared on the website, reportedly having been taken down quickly after it became focus of attention on social media.

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 Elon Musk Alarmed After Apparent Inclusion on Well-known Ukrainian ‘Kill List’
Tags: Elon Musk, Mirotvorets, Ukrainian kill list

Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are the Fast-Track to Jopocalypse

November 1st, 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 Biden administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is, at heart, a terrifying document. It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk. Citing rising threats from Russia and China, it argues that the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.” Stephen Young, Union of Concerned Scientists

Maybe you’re one of the millions of people who think the US would never use its nuclear weapons unless the threat of a nuclear attack was imminent.

Well, you’d be wrong, because according to the recently-released Nuclear Posture Review, the bar for using nukes has been significantly lowered. The new standard reads like this: (nukes can be used) “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

“Defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies”??

That’s a pretty broad net, isn’t it? That could include anything from a serious threat to national security to an ordinary economic competitor. And that loosy-goosy definition appears to be just what the authors were looking for. The hardliners wanted to fundamentally change US nuclear doctrine so the conditions under which nukes could be used was greatly expanded. The obvious objective of this dramatic policy-shift is to eliminate any obstacle to the free and unfettered use of nuclear weapons. Which is precisely what the neocons have always wanted; a green light to Armageddon. Now they got what they wanted. Here are a few of the changes in policy that suggest that a full-blown nuclear war is no longer a remote possibility, but an increasingly likely prospect.

1– First-Strike Use: Biden refuses to rule out first-strike use of US nuclear weapons …in reversal of his campaign promise. This is from The Daily Mail:

“… on the campaign trail, Biden had vowed to switch to a ‘sole purpose’ doctrine, which maintains that the US would only use nuclear weapons to respond to another nation’s nuclear attack….

President Joe Biden is abandoning a campaign vow to alter longstanding US nuclear doctrine, and will instead embrace existing policy that reserves America’s right to use nukes in a first-strike scenario, according to multiple reports.” (Daily Mail)

2– Nuclear Escalation: The Biden team has accelerated the deployment of modernized U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons to NATO bases in Europe. (The B61-12 carries a lower yield nuclear warhead than earlier versions but is more accurate and can penetrate below ground.) This is from Reuters:

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernised U.S. B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning.

Amid the Ukraine crisis, Politico reported on Oct. 26 that the United States told a closed NATO meeting this month that it would accelerate the deployment of a modernised version of the B61, the B61-12, with the new weapons arriving at European bases in December, several months earlier than planned.

“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency.(Reuters)

3– ‘Tactical’ means ‘Usable’: Biden’s new regime of low-yield nukes (which can still blow up a city the size of New York) are called “tactical” weapons because they are designed for use on the battlefield, which is to say, Biden no longer limits the use of nukes for national defense but also supports their use in conventional wars. (Like Ukraine?) This is from Aljazeera:

“Tactical nuclear warheads were created to give military commanders more flexibility on the battlefield. In the mid-1950s, as more powerful thermonuclear bombs were being built and tested, military planners thought smaller weapons with a shorter range would be more useful in ‘tactical’ situations,” according to Al Jazeera’s defence analyst Alex Gatopoulos. (Aljazeera)

4– Fasttrack to Nuclear War: Biden’s New Euro-Nukes have lowered the threshold for nuclear war. This is from MSN:

Russia said on Saturday that the accelerated deployment of modernized US B61 tactical nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Europe would lower the “nuclear threshold” and that Russia would take the move into account in its military planning…

“The United States is modernizing them, increasing their accuracy and reducing the power of the nuclear charge, that is, they turn these weapons into ‘battlefield weapons’, thereby reducing the nuclear threshold,” Grushko said….

…

Russia’s ambassador to Washington, Anatoly Antonov, said on Saturday on Telegram that the new B61 bombs had a “strategic significance” as Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons were in storage, yet these U.S. bombs would be just a short flight from Russia’s borders.

“We cannot ignore the plans to modernize nuclear weapons, those free-fall bombs that are in Europe,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko told state RIA news agency. (MSM)

5– Increasing the Reasons for using Nukes: The Nuclear Posture Review abandons Biden’s promise to ensure that US nuclear weapons would be used for the “sole purpose” of deterring or responding to a nuclear attack. Instead, the NPR states that the US will consider the use of nuclear weapons “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.”

Sole purpose could significantly reduce the risk of unintended escalation and increase the credibility of more flexible and realistic nonnuclear response options in a range of importance contingencies.” (Federation of American Scientists)

6– More Escalation: The US now reserves the right to use its nukes against non-nuclear weapon countries. This is from an article at Bloomberg News:

The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden.

Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.” In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies.” (“Pentagon’s Strategy Won’t Rule Out Nuclear Use Against Non-Nuclear Threats”, Bloomberg)

Here’s more from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

In the Defense Department briefing, this point is elaborated. The NPR, a department official stated, “establishes a strategy that relies on nuclear weapons to deter all forms of strategic attack. This includes nuclear employment of any scale, and it includes high-consequence attacks of a strategic nature that use non-nuclear means.”

The publication of the document was rapidly condemned by arms control experts. “The Biden administration’s unclassified Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is, at heart, a terrifying document,” wrote the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

“It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk,” the UCS argued, by claiming that “the only viable U.S. response is to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, maintain an array of dangerous Cold War-era nuclear policies, and threaten the first use of nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.”…

This marks a significant development from Trump’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which largely referred to the use of military force to secure economic interests in the negative—asserting that it was China that was doing so. While this was the clear implication of the 2018 document, the definition of “national interests” advanced by the Pentagon’s 2022 document to include “economic prosperity” constitutes an even more open step toward advocating the doctrine that war is an acceptable means to secure economic aims.

A section of the 2022 National Defense Strategy:

These documents, which were not seriously discussed in the US media, make clear the fundamental falsehood that the massive US military buildup this year is a response to “Russian aggression.” In reality, in the thinking of the White House and Pentagon war planners, the massive increases in military spending and plans for war with China are created by “dramatic changes in geopolitics, technology, economics, and our environment.”

These documents make clear that the United States sees the economic rise of China as an existential threat, to be responded to with the threat of military force. The United States sees the subjugation of Russia as a critical stepping stone toward the conflict with China.” (“Pentagon national strategy document targets China”, Andre Damon, World Socialist Web Site)

The White House, the Pentagon and the entire US foreign policy establishment now march in lockstep behind the most fanatically-lethal defense policy in the nation’s 246-year history. The National Defense Strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review and the National Security Strategy all embrace the same reckless warmongering policy that will inevitably lead to mass annihilation and civilizational collapse. The doves and critical thinkers have all been removed from the foreign policy apparatus while the madmen and warhawks drag the world inexorably towards catastrophe. God help us.

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

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 from TUR

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War”

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research!

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Reviews

Posted in English
Comments Off on Brandon’s “Usable Nukes” Are the Fast-Track to Jopocalypse
Tags: Nuclear Posture Review, nuclear war, Nuclear weapons, United States

Self-Destructive Social Habits, Loneliness, and Propaganda

November 1st, 2022 by Edward Curtin

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 the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

-T.S. Eliot, “The Hollow Men”

When many people share thoughts, speech, or conduct that is frequently repeated and becomes automatic, it is fair to call it a social habit. Such habits tend to become invisible and unspeakable. They become part of our taken-for-granted-world.

When I recently wrote an essay about hoarding – “The Last Temptation of Things,” many people got angry with me. A friend wrote to me to say: “I congratulate and curse you for writing this.” He meant it as a complement. I took it as meaning I had touched a raw nerve and it touched off a series of further thoughts about social habits and people’s angry reactions when they are challenged.

Some people who criticized me absurdly complained that I was supporting Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s “You Will Own Nothing” campaign, something I have opposed from the start. Others said that I was attacking people who kept mementos and photographs, etc. and that I was advocating living in a shack. This was clearly false. Some got it, of course, and knew that I was using an extreme example to make a point about excessivesaving of all sorts of things and how debilitating it is to surround ourselves with far more than we could ever use, need, or even know we have. My case study was a friend’s house that my wife and I had just cleaned out in an exhaustive case of what felt like an exorcism.

Now I see that there is a clear connection between hoarding – or whatever word you choose to give it when the saving of things is excessive – and propaganda. Both are forms of habitual clutter, one mental and the other physical, the former imposed from without and accepted passively and the latter self-created to try to protect from loss. In both cases, the suggestion that your social habits need to be examined is often greeted as a threat to one’s “existence” and elicits anger or dismissal.

Sociologists, of which I am one, have various terms for what I am calling social habits. They don’t speak the language of ordinary people, and so their lingo rarely enters into common discourse to be heard by most people. Such verbiage often just mystifies.

But habit is a plain and clear word, and social habit simply extends the meaning I am referring to. José Ortega Y Gasset, the Spanish philosopher, and Max Weber referred to it as “usage” before settling on habit. While usage is accurate, it lacks the stickiness of habit, which is the simplest word and one everyone understands as behavior that has become automatic through frequent repetition.

For example, in the inconsequential realm of clothing fashions, men are now wearing tight leg-fitting pants, and it seems normal to most, just as loose pants did in the past. It will change, of course, and a new or ”old” social fashion habit will replace it and most will go with it. Either way you choose you lose – or win – depending on whether or not you follow the fashions of dress, which mean little or much depending on whether you interpret them symbolically as signifying more than their appearances present.

It is true that all ideas, language usage, and behavior become second nature until they are not. For example, “my bad” may no longer be good, as far as I know, a phrase I have avoided along with “a ton of fun,” “you guys,” and “overseas contingency operations.”

Some social habits persist for a very long time because they are continually reinforced with propaganda that created them in the first place. As Jacques Ellul has emphasized, such propaganda is not the touch of a magic wand. “It is based on slow, constant impregnation. It creates convictions and compliance that are effective only by continuous repetition.” Like a slowly dripping faucet, it drips and drips and drips to reinforce its point.

Take the hatred of Russia promulgated by the U.S. government. It is more than a century old. Few Americans know that the U.S. invaded Russia in 1918 to try to stop the Russian Revolution. Today’s U.S. war against Russia is nothing new, yet many people buy the daily lies about the war in Ukraine because it is a habit of mind, part of their taken-for-granted-world.

Take the CIA assassinations of President Kennedy and his brother, Robert. For decades the U.S. media has worked hand-in-glove with the CIA to reinforce the official lies by calling those who have exposed those lies “conspiracy theorists,” a term that the CIA itself promoted and the media continues to use daily to ridicule dissent. The phrase “conspiracy theorist” is a handy social usage regularly used now to dismiss critics of any official claim, not just the Kennedys’ murders. Additionally, it is used to lump together the most absurd claims available – e.g. a Martian woman gives birth to a cat in Las Vegas – with the exposure of real government conspiracies in order to dismiss both as ridiculous.

Take the U.S. government assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that has been covered up by giving MLK, Jr. his own holiday and reducing his message to pablum. Now you can have a day of service to forget King’s passionate denunciation of the U.S. government as the most violent nation on the earth and the government’s murder of him for his powerful anti-war stance and his campaign for economic justice for all.

Take the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks. They too were wrapped in propaganda from day one that has been reinforced since, resulting in the social habit shared by the majority that Osama bin Laden and nineteen Arab hijackers planned and carried out the attacks. This propaganda supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the so-called war on terror that has never ended, the destruction of Libya, Afghanistan, the ongoing war against Syria, the aggression toward China, and the U.S. war against Russia, to name the most obvious. And it ushered in twenty-one years and counting of the squelching of civil liberties, government censorship, and surveillance. All this with no mass resistance from a population lost in the taken-for-granted world of mind control. Their minds cluttered with lies.

Take the Covid pandemic propaganda that introduced the New Normal in March 2020 and continues today. Destroying small businesses, crippling the economies, fattening up the elites and the wealthiest classes and corporations, injecting millions with untested mRNA so-called vaccines, this diabolical Big Lie has accustomed people to accepting further restrictions on their natural rights under the guise of protecting their health while severely damaging their health. Despite the fact that all the official claims have been proven false, the fear of death and disease, promoted for many years, has dramatically entered into the social bloodstream and additional censorship of dissenting voices has been embraced.

In all these examples and so many more, people’s minds have been slowly and insidiously filled with ideas and distorted facts that are false and controlling, similar to a hoarder’s accretion of objects that can overwhelm them. The propagandists have stuffed them with “things” that can assuage their fear of emptiness and the consequent possibility of being able to think clearly for themselves. Excessive information is the last thing people need, for as C. Wright Mills said sixty years ago, “… in this age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it.”

Ellul describes the modern person thus:

Above all he is a victim of emptiness – he is a man devoid of meaning. He is very busy, but he is emotionally empty, open to all entreaties and in search of only one thing – something to fill his inner void …. He is available and ready to listen to propaganda. He is the lonely man …. For it, propaganda, encompassing Human Relations, is an incomparable remedy. It corresponds to the need to share, to be a member of a community, to lose oneself in a group, to embrace a collective ideology that will end loneliness. Propaganda is the true remedy for loneliness.

And whenever one questions any of the social habits that sustain people’s illusions, their reactions can be sharp and shrill. To suggest that people collect too many things out of a fear of emptiness, as I did with the hoarding piece, becomes a direct attack on some deep sense they have of themselves. As if the “stuff” were an extension of their identities without which they would drown. Even more threatening to so many is to question their opinions about Covid 19, JFK, RFK, the U.S war against Russia, 9/11, etc., and to suggest they have swallowed massive doses of deep-state propaganda. This often infuriates them.

It is “unspeakable,” as the Trappist monk Thomas Merton said, as quoted by James W. Douglass in his extraordinary book, JFK and The Unspeakable:

One of the awful facts of our age is the evidence that the [world] is stricken indeed, stricken to the very core of its being by the presence of the Unspeakable …. It is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss. It is the void out of which Eichmann drew the punctilious exactitude of his obedience …

Social habits are very hard to break, especially when they are reinforced by official propaganda. They tend to be addictive. Ownership and use of the cell phone is a prime example. Such phones are a key element in the digital revolution that has allowed for increased social control and propaganda. Few can give them up. And when your mind is filled with years of propaganda that has become second-nature, your ability to think independently is extremely limited. There is no place for the creative emptiness that leads to genuine thought. Dissent becomes “conspiracy theory.”

Hollow heads filled with straw indeed.

But Eliot may have been wrong in the way he ended his poem:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

It may end with a bang while many just whimper.

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Dissident Voice

He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book, click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all. Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso. Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

Posted in English
Comments Off on Self-Destructive Social Habits, Loneliness, and Propaganda

Public Health Nutrition

November 1st, 2022 by The Nutrition Society

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.

***

Public Health Nutrition provides an international peer-reviewed forum for the publication and dissemination of research and scholarship aimed at understanding the causes of, and approaches and solutions to, nutrition-related public health achievements, situations and problems around the world. The journal publishes original and commissioned articles, commentaries and discussion papers for debate. The journal is of interest to epidemiologists and health promotion specialists interested in the role of nutrition in disease prevention; academics and those involved in fieldwork and the application of research to identify practical solutions to important public health problems.

Click here to view the journal.

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 Cambridge Core

Posted in English
Comments Off on Public Health Nutrition
Tags: nutrition, public health

Selected Articles: Biden Surrenders First Use Nuke Policy to Pentagon Neocons

November 1st, 2022 by Global Research News

Biden Surrenders First Use Nuke Policy to Pentagon Neocons

By Kurt Nimmo, October 31, 2022

According to the National Defense Strategy, delayed after Russia went into Ukraine, a policy of non-use of nukes, except in response to a nuclear attack, “would result in an unacceptable level of risk in light of the range of non-nuclear capabilities being developed and fielded by competitors that could inflict strategic-level damage.”

A Crippling Shortage of Diesel Fuel Threatens to Devastate Western Economies in 2023

By Michael Snyder, November 01, 2022

“Let’s Get Out of NATO”: Discontent Soars Across Europe as Russian Sanctions Backfire

By Zero Hedge, November 01, 2022

Western sanctions against Russia have been considered a powerful foreign policy tool by the US and the EU to paralyze Moscow back to the ‘stone age.’ Though sanctions against Moscow have entirely backfired, sparking the worst cost-of-living crisis for Europeans in a generation.

Video: U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, an Oral History

By Sandia National Labs, November 01, 2022

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, An Oral History explores the origins of United States strategic nuclear policy and how it evolved. The documentary looks at this topic through the oral history of key participants including Robert McNamara, Edward Teller, James Schlesinger, Andrew Goodpaster, Harold Brown, Richard Garwin and William Kaufmann. The video largely presents the “official” history and narrative, upholding the nuclear weapons program as a means to means to saving lives.

NATO Had Plans for a Preemptive Strike on Russia Using the Cover of a French-Led Naval Exercise in the Mediterranean

By Sonja van den Ende, November 01, 2022

Journalists have come into possession of documents which detailed plans for the NATO coalition to use the POLARIS exercise to send a French carrier strike group to preemptively attack Russia in the case of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which the U.S. and NATO were in the process of provoking. The UK signed an agreement with Ukraine that granted it access to naval bases in Ukraine that could be used to attack the Russian Federation.

The Kosovo Knot and How to Solve It?

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, November 01, 2022

What Is in the So-called COVID-19 “Vaccines”?

By David Hughes, October 31, 2022

COVID Reset: The Day of Reckoning Is Coming

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, October 31, 2022

October 7, 2022, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo issued new COVID jab guidance, recommending men between the ages of 18 and 39 abstain from the COVID jab, as data show an 84% increase in heart-related death among men within 28 days of injection.

Putin: ‘The Situation Is, to a Certain Extent, Revolutionary’

By Pepe Escobar, October 31, 2022

The Valdai report duly acknowledges the role of Global South medium-sized powers that “exemplify the democratization of international politics” and may “act as shock absorbers during periods of upheaval.” That’s a direct reference to the role of BRICS+ as key protagonists.

How the Media Quarantined Evidence on Nord Stream Sabotage

By Media Lens, October 31, 2022

The Observer editorial which failed to even mention this major terror attack on civilian infrastructure talked of a ‘Putin plague’, describing the Russian leader as ‘a pestilence whose spread threatens the entire world. Ukraine is not its only victim’. That’s the Bad Guy. So who are the Good Guys in this fairy-tale?

Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Selected Articles: Biden Surrenders First Use Nuke Policy to Pentagon Neocons

A Crippling Shortage of Diesel Fuel Threatens to Devastate Western Economies in 2023

November 1st, 2022 by Michael Snyder

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 my entire lifetime, global supplies of diesel fuel have never been tighter than they are right now. And that is really bad news, because the entire economy of the western world runs on diesel. If we suddenly had no more diesel fuel, virtually all of our trains, trucks and ships would stop running. Needless to say, just about everything that stocks our store shelves comes to us via trains, trucks and ships. So the fact that there is not enough diesel fuel to go around is a really big deal. Supplies have been declining for months, and at this point diesel inventories have fallen so low that we only have a 25 day buffer remaining…

The U.S. is facing a diesel crunch just as demand is surging ahead of winter — with only 25 days of supply left, according to the Energy Information Administration.

National Economic Council Director Brian Deese told Bloomberg TV that diesel inventories are “unacceptably low” and “all options are on the table” to bolster supply and reduce prices.

Unfortunately, this is not just a problem here in the United States.

Globally, supplies of diesel fuel have fallen to the lowest level that we have seen since 1982…

“The demand for diesel tends to rise as you get close to the winter, because the molecule that makes up diesel is very similar to the molecule that you use for heating homes in the U.S., for winter fuels in Europe,” Tom Kloza, dean of U.S. oil analysts at Oil Price Information Service (OPIS), told Newsweek.

The issue is global, said Kloza, adding that diesel inventories around the world are the lowest as they’ve been since 1982, “and we’ve added about 3.4 billion people in that time.”

Read that last line again.

The total population of the planet has nearly doubled since the early 1980s, and so we truly are in unprecedented territory.

Like I said earlier, I have never seen global supplies of diesel fuel any tighter than they are at this moment.

Of course that doesn’t mean that we are about to totally run out of diesel fuel.

But as supplies get tighter, we are likely to increasingly witness temporary shortages that have the potential to cause immense supply chain headaches…

A shortage of diesel fuel is spreading across the United States, with one company launching an emergency delivery protocol, requesting a 72-hour advance notice from clients to be able to make the delivery.

Per a Bloomberg report, fuel supplier Mansfield Energy wrote in a note to its clients that “conditions are rapidly devolving” and “At times, carriers are having to visit multiple terminals to find supply, which delays deliveries and strains local trucking capacity.”

In a desperate attempt to alleviate the pressure, two tankers that were loaded with diesel and jet fuel that were headed to Europe have been turned back around…

Meanwhile, the scarcity of diesel has prompted traders to start diverting cargoes with the fuel that were originally bound for Europe, Reuters reported earlier this month.

Tanker tracking data showed that at least two tankers with some 90,000 tons of diesel and jet fuel that were initially bound for Europe were diverted toward the U.S. East Coast.

That may help us a bit, but it is not good news at all for the Europeans.

In fact, some areas of Europe have already started to experience very serious shortages of diesel fuel.

Unfortunately, things are not likely to improve much any time soon.

In recent years, politicians in the United States and Europe have made life really difficult for refiners.

As a result, the number of refineries has actually been shrinking, and nobody has really wanted to build any new ones.

Now we get to experience the consequences of their very foolish policies.

At this point, we are being told that the only way to reduce demand for diesel is to have a “significant slowdown in freight movements and manufacturing activity”…

Stabilizing then rebuilding inventories to more comfortable levels will require a significant slowdown in freight movements and manufacturing activity.

There are early indications manufacturing and freight activity peaked in the third quarter of 2022. If confirmed that would take some of the pressure of distillate inventories.

But a deeper and more prolonged slowdown in the United States and/or in Europe and Asia will be needed to boost inventories significantly.

Rebalancing diesel supply will likely require a further rise in interest rates and tighter financial conditions in the United States and other major economies to reduce fuel consumption to more sustainable levels.

In other words, it is going to take a recession and/or a depression in order to fix this crisis.

Ouch.

We should have never allowed things to get this bad.

Over the past decade, we should have been building a lot more refining capacity.

But our politicians didn’t want that, and so now we all get to pay the price.

And thanks to the war in Ukraine, supplies from Russia that could help alleviate this nightmare are not going to be available.

So there will be shortages.

Also, it is likely that diesel prices will go a lot higher than they are right now.

Needless to say, that is going to add even more fuel to our ongoing inflation crisis, because just about everything that we buy has to be transported.

This is yet another reason why our standard of living is going to continue to go down at a frightening pace in the months ahead.

We truly have got a colossal mess on our hands, and it is going to be with us for quite some time to come.

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

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.

Posted in English
Comments Off on A Crippling Shortage of Diesel Fuel Threatens to Devastate Western Economies in 2023
Tags: diesel, energy crisis, europe

“Let’s Get Out of NATO”: Discontent Soars Across Europe as Russian Sanctions Backfire

November 1st, 2022 by 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.

***

In early September, we first noticed a wave of discontent sweeping across Europe as tens of thousands of people took to the city streets to protest soaring electricity bills and the worst inflation in decades. Some countries delivered relief packages to citizens to tame the anger, while other countries did not have the financial capacity to hand out checks.

Tens of thousands of people have marched across metro areas in France, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Germany — many of them are fed up with sanctions on Russia that have sparked economic ruins for many households and businesses — but also very surprising, support for NATO’s involvement in Ukraine is waning.

There has been increasing awareness and dissent among Europeans about their countries’ leaders prioritizing NATO’s ambitions in Ukraine over their own citizens. The prioritization has been in the form of sanctions against Moscow, sparking energy hyperinflation and supplying weapons to Ukraine, which has made Moscow displeased with any country that does so. Some Europeans are now demanding NATO negotiate with Moscow to end the war so that economic turmoil can abate.

Here are the latest protests across Europe of tens of thousands of people (if not more) frustrated with high inflation and crying out anti-NATO slogans.

Otra multitudinaria Manifestación sucedió hoy en Francia 🇫🇷.
"Let's get out of NATO!"

Another massive protest against NATO and the EU on the streets of Paris, France today. pic.twitter.com/1CRwhzBhzx

— Joel la Rosa (@Pedrola51624238) October 23, 2022

Another massive #protest against #NATO and the #EU on the streets of #Paris, France today. #MSM pretend it didn't happen. pic.twitter.com/XPHqKRve5V

— Axel Le Reer (@AxelLeReer) October 22, 2022

Mass protests continue in #Moldova calling for the removal of the pro-EU regime of Maya Sandu.

The Western media has completely blacked out these mass protests in Moldova. They are peddling the CIA nonsense instead blaming Russia for this. pic.twitter.com/kpvPQEk0aZ

— UkraineNews (@Ukraine66251776) October 28, 2022

On October 28, local time, Czech people took to the streets to protest and demonstrate, advocating to withdraw from the European Union and #NATO: "Russia is not our enemy, the belligerent Czech government is" slogan!#Russia #Ukraine #NEWS #新闻 #World #UN #Asia #Europe #EU pic.twitter.com/0ihSnJJLuN

— China-News (@China_News12) October 29, 2022

Mass protest in Prague, for Peace, elections and the right not to freeze for NATO. https://t.co/4SuAfzHnvz

— Caractacus Mann (@CaractacusMann) October 29, 2022

🧵Thread of protests that are erupting all over Europe against EU, NATO, inflation, politicians, governmental control, arm sales, etc about which mainstream media is completely silent 🧵 pic.twitter.com/U8BK2veelm

— mohamed.emam (@mohamed42811653) October 26, 2022

Thousands of Germans in Dresden to end sanctions on Russia, they want to remain neutral. Europeans don't want to starve and freeze for Zelensky and Ursula von der Leyen. EU media censor these demonstrations, they want war. pic.twitter.com/Lio07Yx8NG

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) October 30, 2022

Post by Juan Sinmiedo on telegram. Rome, Italian's protest Nato and their sanctions on Russia pic.twitter.com/sWUxnbGN0B

— Monet Van Gough (@GoughMonet) October 30, 2022

Germany 🇩🇪 HAMBURG Peace and Freedom Demonstration 🔥🔥🔥 in Protest against the Governments Restrictions, Mandates, Anti-NATO, Inflations cost of Living and Energy (29/10/2022) pic.twitter.com/EMcEruW9Ww

— Holy Troller (@IscoPar5) October 29, 2022

WSJ pointed out that a majority of Germans strongly support Kyiv and Russia policy of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government, though the popularity of the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, has been increasing as they benefited from the souring mood of the people who have been crushed into energy poverty. AfD has called for the lift of sanctions against Russia. Their popularity has risen from 10% to 15% in 9 months.

“This is merely the silence before the storm—the discontent is great, and people do not have any sense that the government has a plausible strategy to master the crisis,” said Manfred Güllner, head of Forsa, a pollster.

Worse, the sanctions have sparked a further weakening of the economy where a recession might not be avoided this winter. Efforts by the European Central Bank to rapidly tighten its monetary policy and increase interest rates to quell inflation also have their risks.

We recently penned two pieces, the first “”Worst Has Yet To Come”: Civil Unrest Set To Surge Worldwide As Socioeconomic Pressure Builds, Report Warns” and “IEA Head Warns “Wild West” Energy Scenario Could Unravel Europe” that both outline the rising risks of social unrest in Europe if inflation remains high and the energy crisis doesn’t abate.

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 “Let’s Get Out of NATO”: Discontent Soars Across Europe as Russian Sanctions Backfire
Tags: economic crisis, europe, Russian sanctions

Video: U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, an Oral History

November 1st, 2022 by Sandia National Labs

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.

***

U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, An Oral History explores the origins of United States strategic nuclear policy and how it evolved.

The documentary looks at this topic through the oral history of key participants including Robert McNamara, Edward Teller, James Schlesinger, Andrew Goodpaster, Harold Brown, Richard Garwin and William Kaufmann.

The video largely presents the “official” history and narrative, upholding the nuclear weapons program as a means to means to saving lives.

Global Research is featuring this video for information purposes.

This video was originally published in December 2018.

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: The USS John Warner, a nuclear-powered submarine of the type Australia will soon be developing. Source: US Navy

Posted in English
Comments Off on Video: U.S. Strategic Nuclear Policy, an Oral History
Tags: nuclear policy, United States

Virtuous Hypocrisy: The Socceroos and the Qatar World Cup

November 1st, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

For a time, the confused and muddled approach from Australian football (soccer to some) did much of a side-step regarding the human rights imbroglio and Qatar’s hosting of the FIFA World Cup. There was ample cash and participation in one of the world’s biggest tournaments on the line. There was FIFA’s reluctance that footballing sides show any political streak; such figures, it was hoped, should best focus on kicking a ball on a pitch. And then there was the sport itself. Here was a chance to take football to the desert reaches and build new bastions.

A number of footballing teams, however, could not contain themselves. While not wanting to seem totally complicit in a regime’s atrocious labour practices and archaic punishments, there was the sense that something had to be done. But how could disagreement with Doha’s policies possibly take place alongside continued attendance?

A stretch of air-gun salutes filled with vanilla anger has been the answer, a measure of displeasure from teams who would still be participating in Qatar 2022. Yes, of course they would go, and never mind such silly notions as a boycott or any naff idea of staying at home. All those contracts; all that publicity! They would put in an appearance and keep the broadcasters happy. Such players merely wanted to let those organising the festivities and sponsorships know about a moral awakening.

Denmark decided to use a form of protest so stealthy as to be unnoticeable, a case of monochrome shirts freed of logos and integrity. Such a protest was also free of sense and strength, but that did not bother the manufacturer Hummel, which had a product to promote on the world stage.

The teams of other footballing nations, including Germany, France and England, are promising an even meeker response: wearing rainbow coloured armbands as part of anti-discrimination campaign featuring the message “One Love”.

As has been the case before, Australia wanted to go one step further in foolishness; and mightily foolish its players turned out to be. Sixteen were given a chance to vent at the host country, salving their troubled consciences without so much as lifting a finger. In video recordings, the players claimed to “stand with FIFPro, the Building and Wood Workers’ International, and the International Trade Union Confederation, seeking to embed reforms and establish a lasting legacy in Qatar.”

Policy suggestions follow. “This must include establishing a migrant resource centre, effective remedy for those who have been denied their rights, and the decriminalisation of all same-sex relationships.” The players insist that, “These are the basic rights that should be afforded to all and will ensure continued progress in Qatar – a legacy that goes well beyond the final whistle of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.”

Such venting came with mighty qualifications and veiled praise. No player wanted to suggest that Qatar had not made genuine steps to improve the state of labour rights. There was even a heaving acknowledgment that the kafala system has been dismantled, which raised the question why migrant workers have engaged in strike action, with others promising to do so during the tournament.

The statements had their cinematic effect. They even caught the interest of a number of Australian politicians, including the Treasurer Jim Chalmers, whose interest in football is scant relative to his enthusiasm for rugby league. “These guys make me proud to be an Australian and they’re going to turn this rugby league tragic into someone who’s going to follow them more closely than I might have.”

The unsavoury Piers Morgan, former host of Good Morning Britain, was unimpressed. “Fine virtue-signalling words… presume you will now be boycotting the tournament? Or don’t you guys care THAT much.”

The Morgan formula was one that has fallen out of favour in modern sport: the boycott. “Either go and play football, or don’t go. Pretending you’re outraged by a country’s morality but then actively promoting the country is hypocritical.”

The impression left is that of a bunch of political interns schooled in the fine art of hypocrisy. It gave Qatari officials and the tournament’s organisation committee room to co-opt the players’ collaboration. Yes, some of the criticism might have been stinging, but not all of it.

A spokesman for the Qatari organising committee revealed Doha’s chosen strategy: “We commend footballers using their platforms to raise awareness for important matters. We have committed every effort to ensure that this World Cup has had a transformative impact on improving lives, especially for those involved in constructing the competition and non-competition venues we’re responsible for.”

The “health, safety, security, and dignity of every worker contributing to this World Cup” was a priority. And a number of government labour reforms had been implemented, as “acknowledged by the IL, ITUC, and numerous human rights organisations as the benchmark in the region.” Their “robust implementation” was “a global challenge, including in Australia.” From a public relations perspective, this was solid play.

In language turned inside out to justify Doha’s own malfeasant practices and “lethargy” on the issue of labour reform, the World Cup could be blessed for leaving “a legacy of progress, better practice and improving lives”. It would be one that would “live long after the final ball is kicked.”

Another legacy is more likely. The kicking of the first ball will induce a collective sporting amnesia for which the Socceroos will be complicit, their consciousness reassured. The glitzy, environmentally depraved, humanly costly show will go on.

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Wikipedia

Posted in English
Comments Off on Virtuous Hypocrisy: The Socceroos and the Qatar World Cup
Tags: FIFA World Cup, Qatar

Unholy Alliance — Faith Leaders Pushing Covid Pharma Fraud

November 1st, 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.

***

A key component of the campaign to entice people into taking the experimental COVID shots has been to enlist “trusted messengers,” from social media influencers and celebrities to medical doctors and faith leaders. The U.S. government has established formal collaborations with faith-based organizations for the sole purpose of pushing the government’s narrative

According to Walmart, many of the company’s most successful vaccination clinics have been held after Sunday services. Facebook ads in which faith leaders promoted the COVID jabs also outperformed other “trusted messengers,” including health care providers

Evangelical pastors, theologians and seminary heads across the U.S. followed the lead of Dr. Francis Collins, a self-proclaimed Christian and the former head of the National Institutes of Health, who leveraged his relationships with church leaders to convince Christians that submitting to lockdowns and COVID jab mandates was a matter of obedience to God

A number of faith leaders have insisted that Jesus himself would get the jab, were he here today. But not once did Jesus advise people to rely on the tools — or word — of man. Instead, he warned of a future time when even the elect will fall prey to a grand deception

Hindsight, scientific evidence and statistical data allow us to conclude that many faith leaders led their flocks astray. The COVID shot does not protect you from infection and death, nor does it protect anyone else. It was all a lie, and excess death rates skyrocketed after the rollout of the COVID shots

The video¹ above is a short teaser from “Plandemic 3,” the third documentary film about the COVID scamdemic from filmmaker Mikki Willis. It shows just how widespread the advertising of the COVID shots were.

Entertainment industries across the world were enlisted to sing and dance about the wonder of vaccines, and how the COVID shot would end lockdowns, give us back our freedom and save the world. The constant message was “Just get the shot!”

As noted in the film, 46% of all vaccine injuries in the last three decades have occurred in the past two years,² following the rollout of these experimental gene therapies, and deaths from the COVID jabs now surpass deaths from COVID-19 itself.

That’s the end result of this mass indoctrination campaign. Not improved public health. Not freedom. And even though a majority of the populations across the globe have received the shot, the pandemic STILL has not been declared “over.”

Trusted Messengers

A key component of the campaign to entice people into taking these experimental bioweapons has been to enlist “trusted messengers,”^3,4,5 from social media influencers and celebrities to medical doctors and faith leaders.

Even former U.S. presidents preached the gospel of the COVID jabs, as seen in the video above. In it, they repeat the Big Lie — that the shots will prevent infection and spread, thereby putting an end to the pandemic. But the enlistment of faith leaders has perhaps been one of the most effective, yet egregious, ways to get shots into arms.

As reported by the Daily Wire,⁶ evangelical pastors, theologians and seminary heads across the U.S. followed the lead of Dr. Francis Collins, a self-proclaimed Christian and the former head of the National Institutes of Health, who “leveraged his relationships with church leaders like ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ author Rick Warren and apologist Tim Keller to convince Christians across the nation that submitting to lockdowns and mandates was a matter of obedience to God.”

Christianity Today theologian Russell Moore and Ed Stetzer, director of the Billy Graham Center — both personal friends of Collins — “argued that Christians had a responsibility to tamp down on ‘conspiracy theories’ like the notion that the virus leaked from a Wuhan lab or that masks were ineffective,” Daily Wire writes.

Former NIH Director Pushed the Big Lie to Christians

Collins’ messaging was in part distributed via BioLogos, an organization founded by Collins in 2007 “to create bridges between scientists and Christians.” In late August 2020, BioLogos distributed a public statement titled “Love Your Neighbor, Get the Shot.”⁷

The statement was signed by a long list of well-known Christian leaders, including theologian N.T. Wright, Christian authors Philip Yancey and Lisa Sharon Harper, Veggie Tales creator Phil Vischer, Christianity Today CEO Timothy Dalrymple and several seminary presidents.

All vowed to “actively promote accurate scientific and public health information from trustworthy, consensus sources,” and to counter “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories.” Messaging included statements such as:⁸

“Mask rules are not experts taking away our freedom, but an opportunity to follow Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves (Luke 6:31),” and “Get vaccinated” because “Vaccination is a provision from God.”

March 16, 2021, Collins, Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities director Dr. Eliseo Pérez-Stable and White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships executive director Melissa Rogers also joined faith leaders at the Washington National Cathedral to promote the COVID jab and “inspire confidence in the coronavirus vaccines.”^9,10

Attending clergy included Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, African Methodist Episcopal, Baptist and non-denominational Christians, as well Jewish and Islamic denominations. At the end, more than two dozen of these faith leaders lined up to get the shot, right then and there, on camera, “as examples for their worship communities.”

Faith Leaders Beguiled by False Teachings

Even Pope Francis went on record urging people to get the shot — and to encourage others to get it — calling it “an act of love”¹¹ and “an ethical option because it concerns your life but also that of others.”¹²

Curiously, the Vatican went so far as to say “It is morally acceptable to receive COVID-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses” provided there are no other alternatives, and provided it “does not constitute formal cooperation with … abortion …”¹³

According to Vatican News,¹⁴ Pope Francis’ announcement was made in collaboration with the Ad Council, which has led “a massive communications effort to educate the American public and build confidence around the COVID-19 vaccines,” and whose stated goal “is to shift the public mindset from vaccine concern to vaccine confidence.”¹⁵

The Ad Council also produced the presidential COVID jab ad above. It has toolkits with “message guidance” and “language do’s and don’ts” for a wide variety of communities, including Black, Hispanic, rural and faith communities.¹⁶

The Ad Council’s toolkit for faith communities include prewritten sermons, preselected Bible quotes, Sunday school curricula on “making wise decisions” and a “parents conversation guide.”¹⁷Care USA¹⁸ and The U.S. government’s own COVID-19 public education campaign called “We Can Do This” also provides materials aimed directly at faith-based leaders.¹⁹

What Would Jesus Actually Do?

A number of faith leaders, including evangelist Franklin Graham,²⁰ Rev. Jane Willan²¹ and Canterbury Archbishop Justin Welby,²² have insisted that Jesus himself would get the jab, were he here today.

It’s an odd conclusion, considering Jesus depended solely on God for his ability to heal people of everything from chronic bleeding and leprosy to death itself. Not once does Jesus advise people to rely on the tools and schemes — or word — of man. Instead, he warns of a future time when even the elect will fall prey to a grand deception.

How do we know all these faith leaders led their flocks astray? Hindsight. Some, like minister Tony Hopkins, valiantly tried to make a case for Jesus as a vaccine peddler:²³

“The more theological among us might center the discussion on Jesus’ divine nature: given his ability to heal any disease, he wouldn’t need the vaccine.

The point is well made, but isn’t there a striking parallel with Jesus’ baptism? For the rest of us, baptism is about repentance. Jesus did not sin and therefore did not need to repent, yet he chose to be baptized as an example for us …

The apostle Paul summarizes Jesus’ teachings on selflessness with remarkable brevity in Philippians 2:4: ‘Let each of you look not to your own interests but to the interests of others.’ Vaccination actually does both, show thoughtfulness toward others while also protecting the vaccine recipient!”

Alas, therein lies the rub. The COVID shot does not protect you from infection and death, nor does it protect anyone else. It was a lie, and excess death rates skyrocketed after the rollout of the COVID shots.

That’s how we can unequivocally say that faith leaders around the world have utterly failed in their duty to the flocks they shepherd — and in their interpretation of the Bible. And why? Because they believed the lies of people who’ve made careers out of lying — which, by the way, is a hallmark of Satan himself, according to the Bible.

Hindsight Proves Who Was Right and Who Was Wrong

Pfizer is one of the leading criminal corporations in the world,²⁴ yet this is whom faith leaders chose to place their trust in. Jesus specifically stated that “by their fruits shall ye know them,” good or bad, yet faith leaders completely overlooked the drug industry’s checkered past, placing the lives of their followers into their untrustworthy hands. They also overlooked the role of the military-industrial complex in the development of these shots.

In his 2010 paper,²⁵ “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.

In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,²⁶and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.²⁷

They also had a $75 million judgment to settle charges relating to their unethical testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. That same year, Pfizer also faced thousands of lawsuits accusing it of hiding known side effects of its anticholesterol drug Lipitor.²⁸

The Biggest Crime in History

As for the COVID shots, we have whistleblowers showing how they falsified trial data. Pfizer’s own documents also reveal they mislabeled almost all side effects that occurred during its Phase 3 trials and that deaths and serious adverse events actually numbered in the tens of thousands.

Mounting evidence also shows the COVID shots destroy immune function over time and actually make you more susceptible to COVID, other infections and chronic illness.

The clincher, of course — which demolishes the “love your neighbor” argument once and for all — is unequivocal proof that the shots do not prevent infection or transmission. In fact, the shots were never tested to determine if they could do either, yet we were told that they would. It was all a lie.

Many of us saw through the narrative right from the start and tried to warn people. We were silenced and written off as a bunch of looney-tune conspiracy theorists, but the fact of the matter is that anyone with half their normal allotment of critical thinking skills could have investigated the claims about the COVID shots and come to the same conclusions we did.

Instead, most were effectively brainwashed by ultrasophisticated brainwashing from the mainstream and social media and ignored the warning signs and swallowed the lies of known deceivers whole. And while faith leaders aren’t the only ones guilty of this, their role in pushing the false narrative has been significant.

According to Amy Hill, senior director for public affairs for Walmart, many of the company’s most successful vaccination clinics have been held after Sunday services.²⁹ Care USA has also reported that Facebook ads in which faith leaders promoted the COVID jabs outperformed other “trusted messengers,” including health care providers.³⁰

Breaking Rather Than Building Bonds of Trust

During a May 2021 Faiths 4 Vaccines online summit, White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships executive director Melissa Rogers read a letter from President Joe Biden to the clergy helping get shots into arms:³¹

“You are not only saving lives; you are building lasting bonds of trust. With your partnership and dedication, we will beat this virus, save lives and build back better from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In reality, COVID jab-pushing clergy have contributed to hundreds of thousands of serious injuries and deaths,³² so rather than build trust, they’ve broken it. As it turns out, the blind have been leading the blind straight into a ditch.

Nothing New Under the Sun

The fact that government will team up with faith-based organizations to ensure its agenda won’t meet with resistance behind the pulpit is nothing new. While the modern-day idea of faith-based organizations teaming up with government started with Jimmy Carter, the collaboration between government and churches to give vaccines began under Barack Obama during the 2009 H1N1 swine flu pandemic.^33,34,35

In March 2019, the American Journal of Public Health published an article³⁶ detailing the history of faith-based collaborations to increase uptake of influenza vaccines:

“The Partnership Center and IHP [Interfaith Health Program at Emory University] created the partnership, ‘Faith-Based and Public Health Partnerships: Strengthening Community Networks,’ (referred to as ‘the Influenza Initiative’), which was supported by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The goal of the Influenza Initiative was to quickly mobilize existing local faith and health collaboratives to bring 2009 H1N1 prevention services to priority populations. In the partnership’s second year, the focus shifted to seasonal influenza, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) became a new national partner.

Together, the Interfaith Health Program (IHP) and ASTHO [Association of State and Territorial Health Officials] formed a unique multilevel, multidirectional 6-year partnership to align and leverage the strengths of the faith community with those of public health organizations to address influenza prevention and health disparities.”

So, in closing, it’s important to realize that many churches are actively collaborating with government on health programs that may or may not be in your best interest. And the fact that your faith leader is promoting a health intervention such as the COVID shot does not mean he or she has actually researched the issue before coming to a conclusion. In many if not most cases, they’re simply parroting the narrative they’ve been brainwashed to promote.

It’s also possible that faith-based organizations are given financial incentives to collaborate with federal health authorities, although I have no evidence of this at the moment. Either way, when it comes to COVID-19, this collaborative effort to promote a one-sided message has had devastating consequences, as faith leaders around the U.S. have led their flocks to proverbial slaughter.

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 Bitchute Plandemic 3 Teaser

² Bitchute Plandemic 3 Teaser, 02:00 minutes

³ CT Post May 1, 2021

⁴ Penn Today August 5, 2022

⁵ Journal of the National Medical Association February 2021; 113(1): 6-7

^6, ^7, ⁸ Daily Wire How Church Leaders Aligned With Fauci… (Archived)

⁹ NIH Record April 16, 2021

¹⁰ VeryWell Health March 30, 2021

^11, ¹⁴ Vatican News August 2021

¹² Angelus April 7, 2021

¹³ The Independent December 22, 2022 (Archived)

¹⁵ Ad Council

¹⁶ Ad Council, Get Involved

¹⁷ Ad Council, Black Faith Vaccine Toolkit Sermons and Guides

^18, ³⁰ Care.org September 8, 2021

¹⁹ HHS We Can Do This, Faith-Based Leaders Toolkit

²⁰ WBTV April 17, 2021

²¹ Telegram & Gazette September 11, 2021

²² Daily Mail December 21, 2021

²³ Index Journal July 23, 2021

²⁴ Reuters September 2, 2009

²⁵ Healthcare Policy 2010 May;5(4):16-25

²⁶ DOJ October 21, 2011

²⁷ Reuters August 6, 2014

²⁸ Reuters August 8, 2014

^29, ³¹ Religion News May 27, 2021

³² OpenVAERS.com

³³ Obama White House Archives February 5, 2009

³⁴ Obama White House Archives November 17, 2010

³⁵ HHS Partnership Center

³⁶ American Journal of Public Health March 2019; 109(3): 371-377

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on Unholy Alliance — Faith Leaders Pushing Covid Pharma Fraud
Tags: COVID vaccination, COVID vaccines, faith leaders, pastors

Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now

November 1st, 2022 by Caitlin Johnstone

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.

***

Mainstream punditry in the latter half of 2022 is rife with op-eds arguing that the US needs to vastly increase military spending because a world war is about to erupt, and they always frame it as though this would be something that happens to the US, as though its own actions would have nothing to do with it. As though it would not be the direct result of the US-centralized empire continually accelerating towards that horrific event while refusing every possible diplomatic off-ramp due to its inability to relinquish its goal of total unipolar planetary domination.

The latest example of this trend is an article titled “Could America Win a New World War? — What It Would Take to Defeat Both China and Russia” published by Foreign Affairs, a magazine that is owned and operated by the supremely influential think tank Council on Foreign Relations.

“The United States and its allies must plan for how to simultaneously win wars in Asia and Europe, as unpalatable as the prospect may seem,” writes the article’s author Thomas G Mahnken, adding that in some ways “the United States and its allies will have an advantage in any simultaneous war” in those two continents.

Western arms systems are among the best in the world—but to win a potential conflict against both China and Russia, the United States will also need to develop new fighting techniques, writes Thomas Mahnken.https://t.co/1xLExCQx5D

— Foreign Affairs (@ForeignAffairs) October 27, 2022

But Mahnken doesn’t claim a world war against Russia and China would be a walk in the park; he also argues that in order to win such a war the US will need to — you guessed it — drastically increase its military spending.

“The United States clearly needs to increase its defense manufacturing capacity and speed,” Mahnken writes. “In the short term, that involves adding shifts to existing factories. With more time, it involves expanding factories and opening new production lines. To do both, Congress will have to act now to allocate more money to increase manufacturing.”

But exploding US weapons spending is still inadequate, Mahnken argues, saying that “the United States should work with its allies to increase their military production and the size of their weapons and munitions stockpiles” as well.

Mahnken says this world war could be sparked “if China initiated a military operation to take Taiwan, forcing the United States and its allies to respond,” as though there would be no other options on the table besides launching into nuclear age World War Three to defend an island next to the Chinese mainland that calls itself the Republic of China. He writes that “Moscow, meanwhile, could decide that with the United States bogged down in the western Pacific, it could get away with invading more of Europe,” demonstrating the bizarre Schrödinger’s cat western propaganda paradox that Putin is always simultaneously (A) getting destroyed and humiliated in Ukraine and (B) on the cusp of waging hot war with NATO.

It's crazy how many people are making entire careers out of advocating the worst thing that could possibly happen. pic.twitter.com/GfmBrNDEDg

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) October 27, 2022

Again, this is just the latest in an increasingly common genre of mainstream western punditry.

In “The skeptics are wrong: The U.S. can confront both China and Russia,” The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin wags his finger at Democrats who think aggressions against Russia should be prioritized and Republicans who think that military and financial attention should be devoted to China, arguing porque no los dos?

In “Could The U.S. Military Fight Russia And China At The Same Time?“, 19FortyFive’s Robert Farley answers in the affirmative, writing that “the immense fighting power of the US armed forces would not be inordinately strained by the need to wage war in both theaters” and concluding that “the United States can fight both Russia and China at once… for a while, and with the help of some friends.”

In “Can the US Take on China, Iran and Russia All at Once?” Bloomberg’s Hal Brands answers that it would be very difficult and recommends escalating in Ukraine and Taiwan and selling Israel more advanced weaponry to get a step ahead of Russia, China and Iran respectively.

In “International Relations Theory Suggests Great-Power War Is Coming,” the Atlantic Council’s Matthew Kroenig writes for Foreign Policy that a global democracies-versus-autocracies showdown is coming “with the United States and its status quo-oriented democratic allies in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia on one side and the revisionist autocracies of China, Russia, and Iran on the other,” and that aspiring foreign policy experts should adjust their expectations accordingly.

When they’re not arguing that World War Three is coming and we must all prepare to fight it and win, they’re arguing that a global conflict is already upon us and we must begin acting like it, as in last month’s New Yorker piece “What if We’re Already Fighting the Third World War with Russia?”

New: The skeptics are wrong: The U.S. can confront both China and Russia https://t.co/raxePmSa0T by me @PostOpinions

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) August 4, 2022

These Beltway swamp monster pontifications are directed not just at the general public but at government policymakers and strategists as well, and it should disturb us all that their audiences are being encouraged to view a global conflict of unspeakable horror like it’s some kind of natural disaster that people don’t have any control over.

Every measure should be taken to avoid a world war in the nuclear age. If it looks like that’s where we’re headed, the answer is not to ramp up weapons production and create entire industries dedicated to making it happen, the answer is diplomacy, de-escalation and detente. These pundits frame the rise of a multipolar world as something that must inevitably be accompanied by an explosion of violence and human suffering, when in reality we’d only wind up there as a result of decisions that were made by thinking human beings on both sides.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s no omnipotent deity decreeing from on high that we must live in a world where governments brandish armageddon weapons at each other and humanity must either submit to Washington or resign itself to cataclysmic violence of planetary consequence. We could just have a world where the peoples of all nations get along with each other and work together toward the common good rather than working to dominate and subjugate each other.

As Jeffrey Sachs recently put it, “The single biggest mistake of president Biden was to say ‘the greatest struggle of the world is between democracies and autocracies’. The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality.”

MUST WATCH: The brilliant Professor Sachs speaks the truth and offers his wisdom and advice for humanity.

"The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality."

Original video: https://t.co/WFZAbS1cPG pic.twitter.com/zhW3IIOXQ6

— Kimmee Lee (@KimmeeLee2) October 22, 2022

We could have a world where our energy and resources go toward increasing human thriving and learning to collaborate with this fragile biosphere we evolved in. Where all our scientific innovation is directed toward making this planet a better place to live instead of channeling it into getting rich and finding new ways to explode human bodies. Where our old models of competition and exploitation give way to systems of collaboration and care. Where poverty, toil and misery gradually move from accepted norms of human existence to dimly remembered historical record.

Instead we’re getting a world where we’re being hammered harder and harder with propaganda encouraging us to accept global conflict as an unavoidable reality, where politicians who voice even the mildest support for diplomacy are shouted down and demonized until they bow to the gods of war, where nuclear brinkmanship is framed as safety and de-escalation is branded as reckless endangerment.

We don’t have to submit to this. We don’t have to keep sleepwalking into dystopia and armageddon to the beat of manipulative sociopaths. There are a whole lot more of us than there are of them, and we’ve got a whole lot more at stake here than they do.

We can have a healthy world. We’ve just got to want it badly enough. They work so hard to manufacture our consent because, ultimately, they absolutely do require 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.

Featured image is from CaitlinJohnstone.com

Posted in English
Comments Off on Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now
Tags: Mainstream media, military aid, NATO, Russia, Ukraine war, United States

NATO Had Plans for a Preemptive Strike on Russia Using the Cover of a French-Led Naval Exercise in the Mediterranean

November 1st, 2022 by Sonja van den Ende

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.

***

POLARIS 21 was a large-scale French naval exercise in the Mediterranean that took place from November 18 to December 3, 2021, off the island of Corsica between France and Spain.

Officially, the aim of the training was to test the capabilities of the sea and air elements to face future wars, using the latest systems and naval vessels to develop tactics.

The scenario of the exercise—which saw the participation of 23 ships, one submarine, 65 aircraft and 6,000 personnel from six NATO nations including the U.S.—was to enable the Allies to maintain control of the Mediterranean in the event of a threat from the Russian air force and navy.

Charles De Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, from which NATO preemptive strike was to be carried out. [Source: wikipedia.org]

According to Slavisha Batko Milacic writing in Global Village Space, the POLARIS 21 exercise became for the Russian Federation a signal of the real preparation of NATO for the start of hostilities against it—as happened when a full-scale U.S.-NATO military operation to affect regime change in Libya (Operation Odyssey Dawn) followed two NATO air-sea exercises (Baltops-2010 and Frisian Flag-2010).

U.S. Air Force jet participating in Frisian Flag exercise prior to the launching of Operation Odyssey Dawn over Libya. [Source: northernskiesaviation.com]

Defender Europe 21 and Regime-Change Plans

The POLARIS 21 exercise was carried out in conjunction with the U.S. Army Europe-Africa’s Exercise DEFENDER EUROPE 21.

It was set up under the premise that Russia was an aggressor power like the Nazis—though it was the Soviet Union that had stood up to the Nazi invasion in World War II.

Significantly perhaps, the Headquarters of the U.S. Army Europe-Africa’s command for the so-called “Eastern front” is in Wiesbaden, Germany, which was headquarters of the Nazi Wehrkreis XII during World War II.

Source: janes.com

From the Russian point of view, its special military operation in Ukraine was necessary in the face of a potential preemptive strike by NATO—combined with the fact that NATO wanted to use Kyiv as a base for conducting a war against the Russian Federation.

Ukraine has now very clearly evolved into a proxy war. The West’s aim is to overthrow Putin’s government, fitting the pattern of past military interventions against nationalist regimes in Libya, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq.

In Syria, Russia had supported the sovereignty of the legitimate government of President Bashar al-Assad, while the U.S. and EU supported various jihadist groups like al-Qaeda, al-Nusra and eventually ISIS, in Arabic called DAESH—the amalgamation of all terrorist groups.

Wikipedia reported that 26 NATO members participated in the Defender-Europe 21, a U.S.-Army led military exercise including operations in the Baltics that extended into March. This month, 14 NATO countries are participating in a followup exercise, Steadfast Noon, designed to train flight crews to handle thermonuclear bombs.

These exercises assume Putin’s willingness to use nuclear weapons—though Russia was put on high nuclear alert because of heavy U.S. and NATO provocation, and U.S. leaders have been the ones more frequently threatening nuclear war.

In 2019, the Trump administration withdrew from the INF treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) which put a cap on the deployment of U.S. and Russian strategic warheads.

This was a good example of the move away from diplomatic engagement by U.S. leaders waging a new Cold War that has already become hot.

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.

Sonja is a freelance journalist from the Netherlands who has written about Syria, the Middle East, and Russia among other topics. Sonja can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: New U.S. Army command in Wiesbaden to coordinate war support for Ukraine. [Source: stripes.com]

Posted in English
Comments Off on NATO Had Plans for a Preemptive Strike on Russia Using the Cover of a French-Led Naval Exercise in the Mediterranean
Tags: Mediterranean, NATO, POLARIS 21, Russia

The Kosovo Knot and How to Solve It?

November 1st, 2022 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

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

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

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

***

Kosovo (in fact, Kosovo-Metochia), a disputed territory claimed by Serbia and Kosovo Albanian separatists, which Serbs regard as central to their cultural identity (differently to the Albanians), is going to pose much more unexpected problems for the international community concerning its political status as it became obvious that Belgrade and Prishtina cannot found common language during 22 years of negotiating process. The European Union already in 2007 formally warned the former leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army–Hashim Tachi, a winner of the 2007 November parliamentary and local elections to freeze the proclamation of independence as the final solving solution for Kosovo knot mainly due to the Russian strong support of Serbia’s viewpoint that Kosovo is an integral part of her state territory and cannot be internationally recognized as an independent state.

However, with direct support from the US administration, on February 17^th, 2008, Kosovo Assembly unilaterally (without a public referendum) declared Kosovo independence as the final political solution to the problem called the Kosovo knot. From that time onward, the Western part of the international community (NATO and the EU) is just expecting that Serbia would confirm such a solution in order to close the Kosovo chapter forever.

Source: Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

Nevertheless, there are three possible political solutions to solve the Kosovo knot followed by the real situation on the ground.

The first solution: State independence

The creation of an independent Kosovo is an option that is not rejected by the Western part of the international community as thoroughly unacceptable but there should be respected the principle that the borders could be changed only by peaceful means and with the agreement of the parties concerned.

However, taking into consideration public opinion as well as the opinion of the most important political factors in Serbia, who decisively reject such a possibility, the realization of this option as the final solution for the Kosovo knot could be possible to be achieved only by a new military conflict what none of the parties, in fact, wants.

Considering this reality, those Albanians who advocated before February 2008 the strategy “step by step” (from the 1990s) supported the modality of achieving the status of the republic or confederal unit under international protection within Serbia, what would in the future open the possibility for a less painful secession, i.e., independence. Nevertheless, the (Western) idea of Kosovo independence already created a boomerang effect like in East Ukraine or South Caucasus.

The second solution: Provincial autonomy

In the case of Kosovo having the administrative status of the highest political and national autonomy (that is a final Serbia’s offer – the “Hong Kong” or “Scandinavian” model), however, could create a precedent that would encourage minority communities in other states which make a compact majority in some territory (Kurds, Catalans, Corsicans, etc.) to follow the same way. Nonetheless, a such political solution would turn the ethnic issue into a global issue of security in many multiethnic countries around the globe.

The danger of the creation of independent Kosovo does not only lie in the fact that the official Belgrade is opposing this idea (likewise, for instance, the Greek Cypriot Government that is opposing the creation of an independent Turkish North Cyprus), but also in the danger that the newly-created state would strive to get united with the neighboring areas populated by ethnic Albanians like South-East Serbia (Medvedja, Bujanovac, and Preshevo municipalities), West North Macedonia, or East Montenegro).

This would, by itself, as it is already, endanger the security and stability in the region (for instance, the Albanian rebellion in North Macedonia in 2001 that was directly supported by the veterans of the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army for the matter of pan-Albanian political unification).

The third solution: Political re-unification with quasi-“the motherland”

The core of the problem starts when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the SFRY) broke up but no agreement was achieved in changing the borders. One-sided separation of some federal units–republics was allowed to occur by Western “democracies” and that was the principle that was respected from the beginning till the end of the Yugoslav crisis (from 1990 to 1999).

Since Kosovo enjoyed in the SFRY the status of territorial-national autonomy within Serbia (likewise the region of Vojvodina), the demands for independence have not been supported by the international community. However, encouraged by Slovenian, Croatian, Macedonian, and Bosnian independence (internationally recognized firstly by Western countries followed by the rest of the world) the greatest hard-liners within the Albanian national movement – followers of Redzep Cosja, member of the Kosovo Academy of Arts and Science, championed Kosovo independence with a final task of joining Kosovo to Albania (the wish publicly confirmed in 1997 by Kosovo Albanian leader – Dr. Ibrahim Rugova). Actually, according to the idea and the things, this line pleads for in politics, the mother state of Albania would gather together all “Albanian lands” or the territories populated by the Albanian inhabitants who are there in majority.

However, it has to be clearly noticed that Albania was never the real motherland of Kosovo different from the case of Serbia. Kosovo was never part of Albania except during WWII when B. Mussolini created a Greater Albania together with the biggest portion of multiethnic Kosovo but, nevertheless, without its northern part which is even today exclusively populated by the Serbs. In other words, all of those Albanians advocating the creation of a Greater Albania including Kosovo too are, in fact, supporting the idea of re-creation of the Second World War’s Mussolini’s Greater Albania.

What is reality?

However, after the turmoil in Albania in 1997 caused by the collapse of “the pyramidal system of private banks” in which the Albanian Government was involved too, and when Albania was at the edge of the civil war and threatened by the danger of institutional disintegration, the idea of Kosovo unification with Albania has been pushed aside by many politicians and citizens on both sides of the border as the Albanians in Albania faced up with the struggle for survival and civil war of tribal and regional character. Political and economic circumstances have pushed temporarily Kosovo from Albanian nationalists’ primary political vision at least up to the mid-1999. On other hand, the Albanians in Kosovo have become less enthusiastic to join their poor and divided brothers for the sake of great romantic ideas.

Nevertheless, today, as a matter of fact, there is no strict border between Albania and Kosovo and, therefore, the traffic of people, goods, arms, etc. between these two Albanian national states is free like within the Schengen Zone in Europe. Kosovo is already since mid-June 1999 occupied by NATO forces (redressed into KFOR uniforms) while, in fact, the focal boss of the province is Washington. In conclusion, Kosovo is de facto separated from Serbia, de iure, quasi-independent state but in reality, an American colony.

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.

Posted in English
Comments Off on The Kosovo Knot and How to Solve It?
Tags: Kosovo

How the Media Quarantined Evidence of Cancer in Iraq and the Role of B.P.

November 1st, 2022 by Media Lens

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

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

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

***

Read Part I:

How the Media Quarantined Evidence on Nord Stream Sabotage

By Media Lens, October 31, 2022

In Part 1, we described how state-corporate media non-reporting of evidence relating to the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines on September 26 was an example of how the truth on key issues is increasingly being quarantined from public awareness by ‘mainstream’ media.

At first sight, our second example might appear to contradict this claim.

To its credit, in several news reports, and in an hour-long film, ‘Under Poisoned Skies’, the BBC provided news from Iraq that will have shocked many readers and viewers (in truth, it is a shock to read any UK media news on life in Iraq):

‘Communities living close to oil fields, where gas is openly burned, are at elevated risk of leukaemia, a BBC News Arabic investigation has revealed.’

By BBC standards, the report was absolutely damning:

‘The UN told the BBC it considers these areas, in Iraq, to be “modern sacrifice zones” – where profit has been prioritised over human rights.

‘Gas flaring is the “wasteful” burning of gas released in oil drilling, which produces cancer-linked pollutants.’

If this sounds bad, it gets worse when we consider just who has been subordinating Iraqi human welfare to profit in this way:

‘BP and Eni are major oil companies we identified as working on these sites.’

Eni is an Italian multinational energy company. BP, of course, is one of the world’s oil and gas ‘supermajors’, and is British.

In other words, these BBC reports highlighted the rarely discussed fact that a British oil giant is deeply involved in a country that was illegally invaded in 2003, at the cost of one million Iraqi lives, on a pack of bogus claims relating to ‘national security’ and ‘human rights’. The 2003 war was, of course, waged by a coalition led by the United States and Britain. Italy was part of the coalition.

Not only did this US-UK war crime secure substantial quantities of Iraq’s oil for US and UK corporations, but BP has now been accused of creating environmental mayhem in Iraq. The BBC reported:

‘A leaked Iraq Health Ministry report, seen by BBC Arabic, blames air pollution for a 20% rise in cancer in Basra between 2015 and 2018.

‘As part of this investigation, the BBC undertook the first pollution monitoring testing amongst the exposed communities. The results indicated high levels of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals.

‘Using satellite data we found that the largest of Basra’s oil fields, Rumaila, flares more gas than any other site in the world. The Iraqi government owns this field, and BP is the lead contractor.

‘On the field is a town called North Rumaila – which locals call “the cemetery”. Teenagers coined the phrase after they observed high levels of leukaemia amongst their friends, which they suspect is from the flaring.

‘Prof Shukri Al Hassan, a local environmental scientist, told us that cancer here is so rife it is “like the flu”.’

This was a truly shocking comment; no wonder the BBC initially used it as the headline for its report:

‘BP in oil field where “cancer is like the flu”’

The News Sniffer website, which tracks edits made to media articles, found that this headline only lasted a few hours before being toned down to:

‘BP in oil field where “cancer is rife”’

Remarkably, the less dramatic headline and citation was actually fake. The relevant part of the text reads:

‘Prof Shukri Al Hassan, a local environmental scientist, told us that cancer here is so rife it is “like the flu”.’

Professor Al Hassan was not quoted as using the word ‘rife’, nor was anyone else quoted in the article. The edited headline was simply made up.

The BBC quoted Dr Manuela Orjuela-Grimm, professor of childhood cancer at Columbia University:

‘The children have strikingly high levels [of cancer-causing chemicals]… this is concerning for [their] health and suggests they should be monitored closely.’

The BBC report also gave us an idea of the nature of the ‘democracy’ installed in Iraq by the 2003 US-UK invasion and occupation. The leaked Iraqi health ministry report shows the government is aware of the region’s health issues:

‘But Iraq’s own prime minister issued a confidential order – which was also seen by BBC Arabic – banning its employees from speaking about health damage caused by pollution.’

David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, told the BBC that people living near oil fields are ‘the victims of state-business collusion, and lack the political power in most cases to achieve change’.

Ali Hussein, a 19-year-old childhood leukaemia survivor, from North Rumaila, said:

‘Here in Rumaila nobody speaks out, they say they’re scared to speak in case they get removed.’

Indeed, the BBC reported:

‘Until now health researchers have been prevented from entering the oil fields to carry out air quality tests.’

As the BBC noted, their reports also revealed ‘millions of tonnes of undeclared emissions from gas flaring at oil fields where BP, Eni, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell work’. Major oil companies are not declaring this significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.

These were important exposés by the BBC, but what is simultaneously so shocking, and yet so normal for the media strategy of quarantine over inoculation, is that our search of the ProQuest media database for terms like ‘Iraq’ and ‘cancer’ found no articles mentioning or following-up the BBC reports in any UK national newspaper. This important story involving harm caused by powerful British interests was deemed unworthy even of mention.

In a free media environment, the report would have triggered serious reflection on whether the Iraq war really was, in fact, about oil, as honest commentators have long claimed, albeit at the margins of ‘respectable’ discourse. What does it say about Western ‘civilisation’ and its ‘rules-based order’ that UK and US oil companies like BP and Exxon have been able to profit from the vast crimes of their governments in Iraq? And what does it say that they’re able to do so without any state-corporate journalists noticing any controversy, or feeling any need to comment at all?

In a recent alert, we described how the Al Jazeera documentary series, ‘The Labour Files’, has been effectively quarantined by ‘mainstream’ media. The ban on discussion is so extreme that a caller to journalist Matt Frei’s talk show on LBC was simply cut off when he mentioned the series. More than 1,200 people supported our polite request for an explanation from Frei on Twitter, but he simply ignored them and us.

In previous alerts, we have described how whistle-blowers from within the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) challenging claims of chemical weapons attacks allegedly committed by Assad’s forces in Syria have been quarantined by ‘mainstream’ media. The silence has been overwhelming. News on the grim fate of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, imprisoned in Belmarsh maximum security prison, has been similarly quarantined. Other examples abound.

Agony is piled on agony for anyone who knows and cares about the torment inflicted by the West on Iraq over the last 30 years, when we recognise the strong echoes in the latest devastation of earlier horrors inflicted in the process of conquering Iraq.

In 2010, the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a leading medical journal, published a study, ‘Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009’. Noam Chomsky described the study’s findings as ‘vastly more significant’ than the Wikileaks Afghan ‘War Diary’ leaks.

The survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah showed a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. It found a 10-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia. By contrast, Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia. According to the study, the types of cancer are ‘similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout’.

The extent of genetic damage suffered by residents in Fallujah suggested the use of uranium in some form. Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey, said:

‘My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.’

The truth on Nord Stream and on cancer in Iraq has been effectively quarantined – journalists are deeply reluctant to point the finger of blame at the state-corporate Establishment of which they are a part and by which they are richly rewarded.

We are not supposed to notice that the same British media endlessly packing their pages with realpolitik-friendly ‘concern’ for the plight of Ukrainian people suffering invasion and bombardment by Russia have no interest whatever in massive environmental damage and mass human suffering caused by US and British corporations profiting from the crimes of their governments. Latest media reports predict that ‘2022 profits at Britain’s BP could break the $20bn mark’ in the next week. ExxonMobil is ‘expected to report year-to-date earnings approaching $70bn’.

By contrast, all ‘mainstream’ media gave high-profile coverage over several days to allegations that a policeman in oil-rich Iran had been caught on camera committing ‘sexual abuse’. The BBC analysed video footage of the incident: ‘officer approaches her from behind and puts his left hand on her bottom’.

Former Guardian journalist Jonathan Cook asked: why does the West not ‘give a damn about these women’s lives, or those of their brothers, when it comes to enforcing decades of western sanctions?’

The answer: for the same reason the West doesn’t give a damn about its victims in Libya, Palestine, Iraq, or anywhere else. Western state-corporate ‘concern’ for human rights is a function of power, not of compassion.

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 Media Lens

Posted in English
Comments Off on How the Media Quarantined Evidence of Cancer in Iraq and the Role of B.P.
Tags: BP, cancer, disinformation, gas, iraq

Video: His Wife’s Plea: The Case for Julian Assange

October 31st, 2022 by UnHerd

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 case of Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who published huge troves of sensitive government documents and classified military logs, has been going on for over a decade. Assange has been under house arrest, hidden from extradition inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London and since 2019 has been held in Belmarsh prison.

During that time, he has married and had two children with a lawyer called Stella Moris. Moris first met Assange as a researcher on his case and they were forced to conduct their relationship under close surveillance. Moris’ fears for her husband are not only personal but philosophical, she wonders what precedent Assange’s case will set for press freedom.

Will Assange be remembered as a pioneer of the free internet or as one of its victims?

With his extradition case looming, UnHerd’s Freddie Sayers met Stella Moris to hear her case for her husband, Julian Assange.

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 Lawyers for Assange

Posted in English
Comments Off on Video: His Wife’s Plea: The Case for Julian Assange
Tags: free internet, Julian Assange, Press freedom, Stella Moris, WikiLeaks

What Is in the So-called COVID-19 “Vaccines”?

October 31st, 2022 by David Hughes

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.

***

Abstract

Between July 2021 and August 2022, evidence of undisclosed ingredients in the COVID-19 “vaccines” was published by at least 26 researchers/research teams in 16 different countries across five continents using spectroscopic and microscopic analysis. Despite operating largely independently of one another, their findings are remarkably similar and highlight the clear and present danger that the world’s population has been lied to regarding the contents of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. This raises grave questions about the true purpose of the dangerous experimental injections that have so far been shot into 5.33 billion people (over two thirds of the human race), including children, apparently without their informed consent regarding the contents. Surprise findings include sharp-edged geometric structures, fibrous or tube-like structures, crystalline formations, “microbubbles”, and possible self-assembling nanotechnology. The blood of people who have received one or more COVID-19 “vaccines” appears, in case after case, to contain foreign bodies and to be seriously degraded, with red blood cells typically in Rouleaux formation. Taken together, these 26 studies make a powerful case for the full force of scientific investigation to be brought to bear on the COVID-19 “vaccine” contents. If the findings of these 26 studies are confirmed, then the political implications are nothing short of revolutionary: a global crime against humanity has been committed, in which every government, every regulator, every establishment media organization, and all the professions have been complicit.

Click here to read the full report.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on What Is in the So-called COVID-19 “Vaccines”?
Tags: COVID vaccines

COVID Reset: The Day of Reckoning Is Coming

October 31st, 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.

***

We have a long list of challenges facing us at the moment. There’s the global economic crisis, the European energy crisis, runaway inflation and the threat of escalating war, just to name a few. On top of all of that, the “COVID industry” is gearing up for another round of “biosecurity” tyranny

The global response has been nothing short of disastrous, and following the same playbook once more is pure insanity. There’s only one reason to return to strategies proven harmful, and that is because the harmful outcomes are actually desired

The crimes committed by the “COVID military-industrial complex” — which includes governments, Big Tech, media, Big Pharma and the bioweapons research industry worldwide — are now so numerous and so egregious in nature, it’s hard to fathom they’ll get away with it forever

A day of reckoning is coming. It seems our public health authorities fear this as well, which is why they’re fighting tooth and nail to prevent the release of COVID jab data. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent 15 months fighting a legal battle to prevent the release of V-Safe data, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now refusing to release autopsy results of people who died post-jab

As noted in an October 10, 2022, GB News article¹ by British presenter Mark Dolan, we have a long list of challenges facing us at the moment. There’s the global economic crisis, the European energy crisis, runaway inflation and the threat of escalating war, just to name a few.

But on top of all of that, there’s the “COVID industry,” to use Dolan’s term, which is not about to let go of the pandemic anytime soon. And, why would they? After all, it’s the justification for the global biosecurity state; the perfect excuse to usher in biological surveillance, digital identities, The Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution (i.e., transhumanism).

Calls for Renewed COVID Measures Are a ‘Sick Joke’

So, as we head into fall and winter, the COVID industry is ramping up for another round of freedom-robbing countermeasures. In the U.K., the BBC has already kicked off the fearmongering, making a big ado about a supposed rise in COVID “cases.” Are people still buying into that worn-out fraud? Must we really spend another winter explaining how the PCR test cannot identify infection? We’ll see, but I hope not. Dolan writes:²

“The Beeb’s [BBC News] obsession with COVID at the expense of everything else was pointed out by former ONS statistician Jamie Jenkins this week.

‘A rise in COVID cases and Hugh Pym at the BBC is all over it for the main news bulletin even when there’s little impact on serious illness — for the majority. Excess deaths for months for non COVID reasons in under 60s, and nothing on main news that I’ve seen. Selective BBC reporting just shocking.’

Isn’t it wonderful that we are paying through the nose — 160 quid [British pounds] a year, for this mental torture. And powerful groups, like independent Sage … will stop at nothing until we’re all masked, working from home, socially distanced, sanitized and freshly jabbed.

At this point, hearing these siren voices calling for more restrictions is just a sick joke, given the damage these people have inflicted on our country — two and a half years of experimental lockdowns that show no discernible benefit to countries and regions that stayed open and carried on as normal.

We borrowed half a trillion quid to pay perfectly healthy people to stay at home, and we closed once viable businesses. All at the behest of those who thought you could control a seasonal respiratory virus.

Well, the data is in, the numbers are there for all to see, and the graphs are clear. Stop it we did not. Can you imagine if we had more economy destroying measures in the months to come? We are surely just a couple of lockdowns away from being so broke as a country, we will be deciding which of our offspring to eat first.”

Refuse All Continued COVID Measures

I can only agree with Dolan, who believes “there should be zero [COVID] measures ever again.” We have up to two years’ worth of data on most of the measures, and NONE has proven fruitful.

Instead, they’ve all been shown to be harmful — to economic stability, mental health, physical health, education, life expectancy, quality of life and more. The global response has been nothing short of disastrous, and following the same playbook once more is pure insanity.

There’s only one reason to return to strategies proven harmful, and that is because the harmful outcomes are actually desired. Unfortunately, that appears to be the case, because COVID tyranny is about to be unleashed yet again.

“Mark my words, the mask mandates will return, economically damaging work from home directives will kick in and vaccine tyranny, will no doubt rear its ugly head,” Dolan writes.³

“Although it’s hard to sell now, given that Denmark have effectively banned the vaccine for anyone under 50 — you’ve got to have a doctor’s note and evidence of a serious medical condition to get the [jab]. And Norway have done the same, for the under 65s. If you are under 65 in Norway you will not be able to get boosted …

[And] news just in — the Australians as well, as revealed by US journalist Alex Berenson. Australia, one of the most jab happy the countries in the world, who have been drinking the zero COVID Kool-Aid for two years have stopped offering the vaccine to under 50s …

Why would that be? I wonder if the Norwegians and the Danes and are concerned about both the efficacy of the vaccine — in other words if it works, and the safety. Perhaps they’ve been looking at a report published in the Lancet from the University of Oxford, suggesting the vaccinated are 44% more likely to get COVID. Get jabbed to get the disease. That’s some vaccine isn’t it …

Perhaps I’m putting two and two together and coming up with five, but it looks to me like these countries — Denmark, Norway and even Australia, are running for the hills. It’s my instinct, that a day of reckoning in regard to the vaccines is coming, and I can’t wait. I’ll be bringing popcorn …

It’s time to live with this virus, as we do with all others, and push back on any measures, that threaten the economy, children’s education, our mental and physical well-being, our freedoms and our way of life. [To] those calling for more measures, which have already broken our country and broken our society, just say no.”

Florida Surgeon General Censored

In the U.S., Florida is pretty much alone in following the path of Norway and Denmark. October 7, 2022, Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo issued a new COVID jab guidance,^4,5recommending men between the ages of 18 and 39 abstain from the COVID jab, as data show an 84% increase in heart-related death within 28 days of injection.

Ladapo posted the updated guidance on Twitter the same day.⁶ Twitter promptly removed the tweet for violation of Twitter rules, but eventually restored it. According to the October 7 guidance:⁷

“The Florida Department of Health (Department) conducted an analysis⁸ through a self-controlled case series, which is a technique⁹ originally developed to evaluate vaccine safety. This studied mortality risk following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

This analysis found there is an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination. Individuals with preexisting cardiac conditions, such as myocarditis and pericarditis, should take particular caution when considering vaccination and discuss with their health care provider.

As such, the Florida Department of Health has issued the following guidance: Based on currently available data, patients should be informed of the possible cardiac complications that can arise after receiving a mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. 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 State Surgeon General now recommends against the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for males ages 18-39 years old. Individuals and health care providers should also be aware that this analysis¹⁰ found: Males over the age of 60 had a 10% increased risk of cardiac-related death within 28 days of mRNA vaccination …

The Department continues to stand by its Guidance for Pediatric COVID-19 Vaccines issued March 2022, which recommends against use in healthy children and adolescents 5 years old to 17 years old.

This now includes recommendations against COVID-19 vaccination among infants and children under 5 years old, which has since been issued under Emergency Use Authorization.”

Post-Jab Autopsy Results Withheld

Like Dolan, I believe a day of reckoning is coming. It seems our public health authorities know this as well, which is why they’re fighting tooth and nail to slow the release of COVID jab data to a slow drip. They’re probably all hoping they’ll be dead and buried by the time the whole truth comes out.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spent 15 months fighting a legal battle to prevent the release of V-Safe data^11,12 (ultimately losing that fight), and now we find out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is refusing to release autopsy results of people who died post-jab. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction:¹³

“The FDA has refused a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to release the autopsy results of people whose deaths were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) after receiving a COVID-19 shot. The FOIA request was submitted by The Epoch Times newspaper …

According to The Epoch Times, the FDA declined to release any autopsy reports of VAERS deaths, even redacted copies, citing FOIA section (8) (A) which allows federal agencies to withhold information from the public if an agency ‘reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption,’ with the exemption being ‘personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy’ …

All of the FDA’s stated concerns about protecting privacy seem rather bogus, as the autopsy results sought through the FOIA request could be released with personal information blacked out.

‘The personal information could easily be redacted without losing the potential learnings from [the] autopsy,’ said Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who serves as an adviser to the FDA.

Besides, Witczak logically points out: ‘If someone submits their experience to VAERS they want and expect to have it investigated by the FDA. This includes autopsy reports. Autopsies can be an important part of postmortem analysis and should be done especially with increased deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.’”

CDC Has Ignored Clear ‘Death’ Signal

While the CDC has insisted that no safety signal has ever been triggered in any of the adverse event collection databases, analyses of both the V-Safe and VAERS data suggest otherwise.

Of critical importance is the CDC’s apparent failure to identify a massive warning signal for death. In an October 3, 2022, article,¹⁴ Kirsch pointed out that the formula the CDC uses to trigger safety signals — described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual¹⁵ — is “seriously flawed,” as the more dangerous a vaccine is, the less likely it is that a safety signal will be triggered.^16,17,18

However, the COVID jabs are so incredibly hazardous that even the CDC’s flawed formula cannot cover up their lethality. Using the CDC formula, “death” still meets all the safety signal criteria and should have been flagged, yet the CDC has kept mum.

The FDA is following the same playbook, refusing to release data that rightfully should be made public. We paid for it. The data belong to the American public, and the only reason the FDA, as the CDC, is hiding it is because it proves they’ve acted in bad faith and haven’t followed the data at all.

A Reckoning Is Surely Coming

Surely, a day of reckoning is in the making, as more and more people start to wake up to reality. The CDC and FDA aren’t the only entities whose crimes against humanity are being exposed. Here’s a short-list of other recent exposures:

Getting the COVID jab to protect others was always a lie, and there was never any legal basis for COVID passports — These truths were confirmed by Dutch Parliament member Rob Roos in early October 2022.¹⁹

During a COVID hearing, Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout. Small responded, “No. We had to really move at the speed of science … and we had to do everything at risk.”²⁰

As noted by Roos, “this means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”²¹

Medical boards are showing their true colors by censoring doctors — The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) is calling on states to create laws that punish doctors for sharing medical information that does not align with “consensus” opinion. Punishment would include stripping doctors of their medical license.

The American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine support the FSMB’s position and have warned doctors certified by their boards that spreading misinformation could prompt the board to revoke their certification.

While physicians who are speaking honestly about the vaccine science are labeled “misinformers” and may face disciplinary action, the “consensus” would never be a consensus of physicians treating patients, but of those powerful few who have assumed the role of oversight and whose focus is political policy and future agenda, not patient care.

U.S. government is illegally censoring Americans by proxy — Over the past couple of years, it’s become abundantly clear that government officials are trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by calling on and/or threatening private tech companies to censor on their behalf.

Brazenly power-drunk, many have not even tried to hide it. They’ve admitted it publicly. In other cases, FOIA’s and lawsuit discovery procedures have forced the release of documents proving government has been violating Americans First Amendment rights by colluding with private companies on whom and what to censor and ban.

As reported by Tablet magazine, “At least 11 federal agencies, and around 80 government officials, have been explicitly directing social media companies to take down posts and remove certain accounts that violate the government’s own preferences and guidelines for coverage on topics ranging from COVID restrictions, to the 2020 election, to the Hunter Biden laptop.”²²

Financial institutions show their colors by punishing users for opinions — We’ve also seen how financial institutions are weaponized to keep the public in check.

For example, the U.S. and European Union banned Russian banks from the Swift system,²³ and then seized more than $30 billion in assets owned by Russian oligarchs plus another $300 billion in Russian Central Bank reserves.²⁴ Following that same pattern, Canadian banks froze the bank accounts of hundreds of individuals who donated to or participated in the Freedom Convoy.^25,26

This stunning display of authoritarian tyranny shocked many into waking up to the reality that government now views its own citizens as the enemy, and is willing to use any means to control us. Realizing they’d pushed too far too fast, at least one bank apologized for freezing bank accounts,²⁷ but the damage to trust was already done.

Most recently, PayPal sent out a revised terms of service notice announcing it would begin to fine users $2,500 for the spread of misinformation, starting November 3, 2022.²⁸ The updated terms of service resulted in thousands of users swiftly closing their accounts and taking their outrage to social media. Even its own former president, David Marcus, called the new terms “Insanity.”

The backlash was so great, PayPal quickly apologized for causing “confusion,” claiming the new terms of service had been sent out in error. However, this is rather impossible when you consider the many steps a company like PayPal has to go through before a terms of service update actually gets authorized and sent out.

Interestingly, Fortune magazine reported this story October 10, 2022, and within two days, deleted the article. Fortunately, someone archived it.²⁹

We’ve Been Deceived and Sold Out

When you add these and other revelations together, it’s quite clear that we are being “herded” into The Great Reset, and that a wide range of industries have been weaponized against us for this purpose, most notably the medical industry, the financial industry and Big Tech.

Government, which was set up to be “of the people and for the people,” has been infiltrated and turned against us as well, and it’s now using every power at its disposal to suppress and control the population while simultaneously allowing the systems we depend on for life to be dismantled and destroyed, such as the food, energy and financial systems.

There can be only one reason for this, and that is that government (not just the U.S. government but also others around the world) are onboard with The Great Reset, which will result in a totalitarian dystopia.

Stand Up, Speak Out, Turn the Tables

The good news is that we still outnumber these megalomaniacs by tens of millions to one, if not more. And, believe it or not, they need our cooperation. If enough of us withhold our cooperation, their plans start falling apart.

Two of the most important things everyone can do right now is 1) prepare ourselves and our families for hard times (if you were not a prepper before, now’s the time); and 2) start building parallel structures and systems to replace the ones that are being dismantled.

The idea is to survive and rebuild a world of our own choosing rather than being forced to accept theirs out of sheer desperation. Strategies that can strengthen individual and local resilience to the stresses facing us include the creation of local food systems and the strengthening of neighborhood and community connections.

Prepare for the inevitable financial catastrophe and become as independent and resilient as possible. Shore up supplies and figure out how to live in an “off grid” scenario, in case daily conveniences suddenly vanish. This year I have offered many articles on how you can prepare for food, water and other crises, which you can find in my Substack library.

Aside from “investing” in storable food, a water catchment system and other essentials that will only go up in price or become unobtainable, you may also consider buying physical precious metals, which can help protect against currency devaluation. Investing in real assets, such as land could be another.

It’s also essential to become as healthy as possible. A recent study showed that 93% of U.S. adults are metabolically unhealthy, and those stats were four years old. It’s likely that number is now over 95%. You want to be the 1 person in 20 who is healthy. So, make it your goal to be in that group and start getting metabolically fit now.

Also prepare yourself mentally, emotionally and spiritually for what could be stressful and challenging times as the globalist cabal continues to push The Great Reset forward, which will require more “emergencies.”

Lastly, remember professor Mattias Desmet’s instruction that limiting the social harm inflicted by a totalitarian regime requires nonviolent resistance and outspokenness. Continue to speak out against the narrative in clear, rational and nonabusive ways. Dissenting voices keep totalitarian systems from deteriorating into abject inhumanity where people are willing to commit heinous atrocities.

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, ^2, ³ BG News October 10, 2022

^4, ⁷ Florida Health October 7, 2022

⁵ WFLA.com October 10, 2022, Updated October 11, 2022

⁶ Twitter Joseph Ladapo October 7, 2022

^8, ¹⁰ Florida Health Self-Controlled Case Series Study

⁹ The BMJ 2016; 354:i4515

¹¹ Steve Kirsch Substack October 5, 2022

¹² ICANdecide.org V-Safe Database

¹³ The Vaccine Reaction October 9, 2022

¹⁴ Steve Kirsch Substack October 3, 2022

¹⁵ CDC VAERS Standard Operating Procedures January 29, 2021

¹⁶ Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 1

¹⁷ Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 2

¹⁸ Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 3

^19, ²¹ Twitter Rob Roos October 11, 2022

²⁰ News.com.au October 12, 2022

²² Tablet September 21, 2022

²³ Yahoo News February 26, 2022

²⁴ WOA News June 29, 2022

²⁵ Newsweek February 18, 2022

²⁶ Bloomberg February 22, 2022

²⁷ YouTube GB News June 13, 2022

^28, ²⁹ Fortune magazine October 10, 2022 (Archived)

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

Posted in English
Comments Off on COVID Reset: The Day of Reckoning Is Coming
Tags: COVID vaccines

Putin: ‘The Situation Is, to a Certain Extent, Revolutionary’

October 31st, 2022 by Pepe Escobar

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 an all-encompassing address to the plenary session of the 19^th annual meeting of the Valdai Club, President Putin delivered no less than a devastating, multi-layered critique of unipolarity.

From Shakespeare to the assassination of Gen Soleimani;

from musings on spirituality to the structure of the UN;

from Eurasia as the cradle of human civilization to the interconnection of BRI, SCO and the INSTC;

from nuclear dangers to that peripheral peninsula of Eurasia “blinded by the idea that Europeans are better than others”, the address painted a Brueghel-esque canvas of the “historical milestone” facing us, in the middle of “the most dangerous decade since the end of WWII.”

Putin even ventured that, in the words of the classics, “the situation is, to a certain extent, revolutionary” as “the upper classes cannot, and the lower classes do not want to live like this anymore”. So everything is in play, as “the future of the new world order is being shaped before our eyes.”

Way beyond a catchy slogan about the game the West is playing, “bloody, dangerous and dirty”, the address and Putin’s interventions at the subsequent Q&A should be analyzed as a coherent vision of past, present and future. Here we offer just a few of the highlights:

“The world is witnessing the degradation of world institutions, the erosion of the principle of collective security, the substitution of international law for ‘rules’”.

“Even at the height of the Cold War, nobody denied the existence of the culture and art of the Other. In the West, any alternative point of view is declared subversive.”

“The Nazis burned books. Now the Western fathers of ‘liberalism’ are banning Dostoevsky.”

“There are at least two ‘Wests’. The first is traditional, with a rich culture. The second is aggressive and colonial.”

“Russia has not and does not consider itself an enemy of the West.

Russia tried to build relations with the West and NATO – to live together in peace and harmony. Their response to all cooperation was simply ‘no’.”

“We do not need a nuclear strike on Ukraine, there is no point – neither political nor military.”

“In part” the situation between Russia and Ukraine can be considered a civil war: “When creating Ukraine, the Bolsheviks endowed it with primordially Russian territories – they gave it all of Little Russia, the entire Black Sea region, the entire Donbass. Ukraine evolved as an artificial state.”

“Ukrainians and Russians are one people – this is a historical fact. Ukraine has evolved as an artificial state. The only country that can guarantee its sovereignty is the country which created it – Russia.”

“The unipolar world is coming to an end. The West is incapable of single-handedly ruling the world. The world stands at a historical milestone ahead of the most dangerous and important decade since World War II.”

“Humanity has two options – either we continue accumulating the burden of problems that is certain to crush all of us, or we can work together to find solutions.”

What do we do after the orgy?

Amidst a series of absorbing discussions, the heart of the matter at Valdai is its 2022 report, “A World Without Superpowers”.

The report’s central thesis – eminently correct – is that “the United States and its allies, in fact, no longer enjoy the status of dominant superpower, but the global infrastructure that serves it is still in place.”

Of course all major interconnected issues at the current crossroads were precipitated because” Russia became the first major power which, guided by its own ideas of security and fairness, chose to discard the benefits of ‘global peace’ created by the only superpower.”

Well, not exactly “global peace”; rather a Mafia-enforced ethos of “our way or the highway”. The report quite diplomatically characterizes the freezing of Russia’s gold and foreign currency reserves and the “mop up” of Russia’s property abroad as “Western jurisdictions”, “if necessary”, being “guided by political expediency rather than the law”.

That’s in fact outright theft, under the shadow of the “rules-based international order”.

The report – optimistically – foresees the advent of a sort of normalized “cold peace” as “the best available solution today” – acknowledging at least this is far from guaranteed, and “will not halt the fundamental rebuilding of the international system on new foundations.”

The foundation for evolving multipolarity has in fact been presented by the Russia-China strategic partnership only three weeks before imperially-ordered provocations forced Russia to launch the Special Military Operation (SMO).

In parallel, the financial lineaments of multipolarity had been proposed since at least July 2021, in a paper co-written by Professor Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai.

On the Big Picture across the chessboard, the analysis tends to get more realistic when it considers that “the triumph of ‘the only true idea’ makes effective dialogue and agreement with supporters of different views and values impossible by definition.”

Putin alluded to it several times in his address. There’s no evidence whatsoever the Empire and its vassals will be deviating from their normative, imposed, value-laden unilateralism.

As for world politics beginning to “rapidly return to a state of anarchy built on force”, that’s self-evident: only the Empire of Chaos wants to impose anarchy, as it completely ran out of geopolitical and geoeconomic tools to control rebel nations, apart from the sanctions tsunami.

So the report is correct when it identifies that the childish neo-Hegelian “end of history” wet dream in the end hit the wall of History: we’re back to the pattern of large scale conflicts between centers of power.

And it’s also a fact that “simply changing the ‘operator’ as it happened in earlier centuries” (as in the U.S. taking over from Britain) “just won’t work.”

China might harbor a desire to become the new sheriff, but the Beijing leadership definitely is not interested. And even if that happened the Hegemon would fiercely prevented it, as “the entire system” remains “under its control (primarily finance and the economy).”

So the only way out, once again, is multipolarity – which the report characterizes, rather vaguely, as “a world without superpowers”, still in need of “a system of self-regulation, which implies much greater freedom of action and responsibility for such actions.”

Stranger things have happened in History. As it stands, we are plunged deep into the maelstrom of complete collapse. Putin in fact did nail where we are: on the edge of a Revolution.

This article was first published by Strategic Culture Foundation

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.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is licensed under the Public Domain

Posted in English
Comments Off on Putin: ‘The Situation Is, to a Certain Extent, Revolutionary’
Tags: putin

How the Media Quarantined Evidence on Nord Stream Sabotage

October 31st, 2022 by Media Lens

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

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

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

***

Last week, Alex Nunns, author of ‘The Candidate – Jeremy Corbyn’s Improbable Path To Power’ and former Corbyn speechwriter, described the current assault on democracy within the Labour Party:

‘What’s happening in the Labour Party is new. The Labour right, having had the shock of their lives in 2015, are now intent on eradicating the left entirely. This isn’t how their predecessors thought. It’s a new departure in Labour history that’ll have long term consequences.’

So why the change?

‘Previous generations of Labour right bureaucrats accommodated the left not because they were nicer than the current lot but because 1) the left was part of a power bloc which they needed to advance their own ends & 2) they were confident in containing the left within that bloc.

‘This generation of Labour right bureaucrats acts differently because 2) has changed, but 1) hasn’t. Their predecessors weren’t all stupid, so there will be a long-term cost.’

In other words, the Labour right is ‘eradicating the left entirely’ because, as the Corbyn near-miss in 2017 showed, the level of public support for left policies is now so high that it threatens to surge uncontrollably through any window of opportunity.

This rings true, and not just for the Labour Party. What we have often called the ‘corporate media’, but which in truth is a state-corporate media system, has followed essentially the same path for the same reasons.

Where once the likes of John Pilger, Robert Fisk and Peter Oborne were granted regular columns in national newspapers and magazines, and even space for prime-time documentaries, their brand of rational, compassionate dissent has been all but banished. Pilger commented recently:

‘In recent years, some of the best journalists have been eased out of the mainstream. “Defenestrated” is the word used. The spaces once open to mavericks, to journalists who went against the grain, truth-tellers, have closed.’

In October 2019, Peter Oborne published an article on ‘the way Boris Johnson was debauching Downing Street by using the power of his office to spread propaganda and fake news’. (Peter Oborne, ‘The Assault on Truth,’ Simon & Schuster, 2021, p.130). The media response:

‘This article marked the end of my thirty-year-long career as a writer and broadcaster in the mainstream British press and media. I had been a regular presenter on Radio 4’s The Week in Westminster for more than two decades. It ceased to use me, without explanation. I parted company on reasonably friendly terms with the Daily Mail after our disagreement…

‘The mainstream British press and media is to all intents and purposes barred to me.’ (p.132 and p.133)

As with the Labour Party, the reason is that the game – and it always was a game – has changed. In the age of internet-based citizen journalism – heavily filtered by algorithms and ‘shadow-banning’ though it is – elite interests can no longer be sure that the truth can be contained by the ‘free press’ and its obedient ranks of ‘client journalists’.

In our media alert of 26 July 2002, we wrote:

‘This does not mean that there is no dissent in the mainstream; on the contrary the system strongly requires the appearance of openness. In an ostensibly democratic society, a propaganda system must incorporate occasional instances of dissent. Like vaccines, these small doses of truth inoculate the public against awareness of the rigid limits of media freedom.’

That was true two decades ago when we started Media Lens. But, now, the state-corporate media system relies less on inoculation and more on quarantine: inconvenient facts, indeed whole issues, are simply kept from public awareness. We have moved far closer to a totalitarian system depending on outright censorship.

An example was provided by a remarkable leading article in the Observer, titled, ‘The Observer view on the global escalation of Russia’s war on Ukraine’. The title notwithstanding, this October 9 article made no mention at all of the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines just two weeks earlier, on September 26. But why?

The pipelines are multi-national projects operated by Swiss-based Nord Stream AG, with each intended to supply around 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually from Russia to Europe through pipelines laid beneath the Baltic Sea connecting to a German hub. Completed a decade ago, Russian gas giant, Gazprom, has a 51 percent stake in the project that cost around $15 billion to build. US media watch site, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), made the key point:

‘Any serious coverage of the Nord Stream attack should acknowledge that opposition to the pipeline has been a centerpiece of the US grand strategy in Europe. The long-term goal has been to keep Russia isolated and disjointed from Europe, and to keep the countries of Europe tied to US markets. Ever since German and Russian energy companies signed a deal to begin development on Nord Stream 2, the entire machinery of Washington has been working overtime to scuttle it.’

The evidence for this is simply overwhelming. For example, FAIR noted that during his confirmation hearings in 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told Congress he was ‘determined to do whatever I can to prevent’ Nord Stream 2 from being completed. Months later, the US State Department reiterated that ‘any entity involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline risks US sanctions and should immediately abandon work on the pipeline’.

If that doesn’t make US hostility to the pipelines clear enough, President Joe Biden told reporters in February:

‘If Russia invades…then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.’

Asked by a reporter how the US intended to end a project that was, after all, under German control, Biden responded:

‘I promise you, we will be able to do that.’

No surprise, then, that, following the attack, Blinken described the destruction of the pipelines as a ‘tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy,’ adding that this ‘offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come’.

Former UN weapons inspector and political analyst Scott Ritter commented:

‘Intent, motive and means: People serving life sentences in U.S. prisons have been convicted on weaker grounds than the circumstantial evidence against Washington for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines.’

In a rare moment of ‘mainstream’ dissent echoing Ritter’s conclusion, Columbia University economist, Jeffrey Sachs, surprised his interviewer by saying:

‘I know it runs counter to our narrative, you’re not allowed to say these things in the West, but the fact of the matter is, all over the world when I talk to people, they think the US did it. Even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me, “Of course [the US is responsible],” but it doesn’t show up in our media.’

Sachs added: ‘there’s direct radar evidence that US helicopters, military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area’.

Despite all of this, FAIR reported of US corporate media coverage:

‘Much of the media cast their suspicions towards Russia, including Bloomberg (9/27/22), Vox (9/29/22), Associated Press (9/30/22) and much of cable news. With few exceptions, speculation on US involvement has seemingly been deemed an intellectual no-fly-zone.’

Thus, the possibility of US involvement has been intellectually quarantined. Instead, US media have been tying themselves in knots trying to find alternative explanations. The New York Times wrote:

‘It is unclear why Moscow would seek to damage installations that cost Gazprom billions of dollars to build and maintain. The leaks are expected to delay any possibility of receiving revenue from fuel going through the pipes.’

In Britain, the Guardian affected similar confusion:

‘Nord Stream has been at the heart of a standoff between Russia and Europe over energy supplies since the start of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, but it is not immediately clear who stands to benefit from the destruction of the gas infrastructure.’

If not ‘immediately clear’, it surely becomes clear after a moment’s honest reflection. Another Guardian report commented:

‘Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and the US – including its former president Donald Trump – have been fierce critics of the Nord Stream pipeline, and Germany has announced its intention to wean itself off Russian gas completely and Gazprom has wound down deliveries to almost zero.

‘For a Nato ally to have carried out an act of sabotage on a piece of infrastructure part-owned by European companies would have meant much political risk for little gain, but for Russia to destroy its own material and political asset would also seem to defy logic.’

The risk is not, in fact, that great in a world where politicians and media like the Guardian refuse to point the finger of blame at the world’s sole superpower. As we have seen, the assertion that an attack by a Nato ally would be ‘for little gain’ was publicly contradicted by Blinken’s own comment that the destruction of the pipelines ‘offers tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come.’

The Guardian added:

‘Some European politicians suggested Russia could have carried out the blasts with the aim of causing further havoc with gas prices or demonstrating its ability to damage Europe’s energy infrastructure.’

But as the Guardian acknowledged, this ‘logic’ seemed ‘to defy logic’ and suggested journalists were burying their heads in the sand at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. A further Guardian report noted:

‘A senior Ukrainian official also called it a Russian attack to destabilise Europe, without giving proof.’

Or any reasoning. The report continued:

‘British sources said they believed it may not be possible to determine what occurred with certainty.’

How convenient. The Telegraph reported:

‘Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said that if it was confirmed it was an act of sabotage by Russia it would be “in nobody’s interest”.’

Again, a statement directly contradicted by Blinken himself. His ‘in nobody’s interest’ comment was the main focus of most media coverage.

FAIR discussed a tweet from a Polish member of the European Parliament, Radek Sikorski – a one-time Polish defence minister as well as a former American Enterprise Institute fellow, who was named one of the ‘Top 100 Global Thinkers’ in 2012 by Foreign Policy. FAIR reported:

‘Sikorski tweeted a picture of the methane leak in the ocean, along with the caption, “As we say in Polish, a small thing, but so much joy.” He later tweeted, “Thank you, USA,” with the same picture.’

These comments were occasionally reported in the UK press, but Sikorski later tweeted against the pipeline, noting:

‘Nord Stream’s only logic was for Putin to be able to blackmail or wage war on Eastern Europe with impunity.’

He added:

‘Now $20 billion of scrap metal lies at the bottom of the sea, another cost to Russia of its criminal decision to invade Ukraine. Someone…did a special maintenance operation.’

This was clearly an ironic reference to the term ‘special military operation’ used by Russia to describe its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Significantly, the Telegraph reported some but not all of this:

‘Sikorski posted a photo of the Nord Stream methane bubbling to the Baltic’s surface, with the brief message: “Thank you, USA.”

‘Sikorski has since deleted his tweet, and has not since elaborated on it… [but] it was widely seized upon by pro-Russian media seeking to make the case for American sabotage.’

But as we have seen, Sikorski certainly had elaborated on it; and media didn’t need to be ‘pro-Russian’ to believe the comments pointed towards Western sabotage.

The Daily Mail also struggled to understand:

‘On Twitter Radoslaw Sikorski posted a picture of a massive methane gas spill on the surface of the Baltic Sea with the comment: “Thank You USA”. The hawkish MEP later tweeted that if Russia wants to continue supplying gas to Europe it must “talk to the countries controlling the gas pipelines”.

‘Whatever did he mean?’

In fact, Sikorski had been very clear about what he meant.

In a single, casual comment in the Mail on Sunday, Peter Hitchens may be the only ‘mainstream’ journalist to actually affirm the likely significance of Sikorski’s comments:

‘Radek Sikorski may have given the game away. First, he tweeted “Thank you, USA” with a picture of the gas bubbling up into the Baltic. Then, when lots of people noticed, he deleted it. That made me think he was on to something.’ (Hitchens, ‘How could I know…’ Mail on Sunday, 2 October 2022)

Curiously, non-corporate journalists like Jonathan Cook, Caitlin Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, Bryce Green, even hippy Russell Brand, were able to find all the evidence and arguments omitted by ‘mainstream’ journalists supported by far greater resources.

And this makes the point with which we began this alert: there is now so much high-quality journalism exposing the establishment outside the state-corporate ‘mainstream’, that the task of the ‘mainstream’ now is to protect the establishment by acting as a buffer blocking citizen journalism from public awareness.

‘In this developing confrontation, much more is at stake than Ukraine’s sovereignty. On life support, it seems, is the entire postwar consensus underpinning global security, nuclear non-proliferation, free trade and international law.’

It is easy to understand why the Observer would prefer to quarantine the possibility of US involvement in a terror attack that would make a nonsense of the editors’ lofty rhetoric about a ‘postwar consensus’ based on ‘international law’.

Also no surprise, the Observer once again found answers in the favoured, fix-all solution beloved of the Western press – regime change:

‘If the Putin plague is ever to be eradicated, if the war is ever to end, such developments inside Russia, presaging a change of leadership, full military withdrawal from Ukraine and a fresh start, represent the best hope of a cure.’

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 Media Lens

Posted in English
Comments Off on How the Media Quarantined Evidence on Nord Stream Sabotage
Tags: Nord Stream, Nord Stream sabotage

Selected Articles: COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

October 31st, 2022 by Global Research News

COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

By Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake, October 31, 2022

There are over 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the preprint server system and or in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED) describing side effects after mRNA or adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccination. One of the most dreaded complications is vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

Video: No Patient Complaints, Yet Alleged “Charges of Incompetence”. Dr. Meryl Nass Hearing

By Kristina Borjesson, October 31, 2022

In this first hour of the second day of hearings held by the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine in the matter of their suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’s medical license, Dr. Nass, under questioning by her lawyer, describes a Kafkaesque series of events that led to her being charged with incompetence, fraud and various other unethical activities related to her treatment of three covid patients, and to the suspension of her license.

Fake News at the University: In Defence of Dr. Oz

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, October 31, 2022

Today I received a copy of an article published in The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper for the University of Pennsylvania, about Dr. Mehmet Oz.

Indian Government Restricts Use of Glyphosate in Massive Blow to Agrichemical Lobby

By Sustainable Pulse, October 31, 2022

The Indian government has restricted the use of glyphosate-based herbicides due to the risks to human and animal health. On Tuesday the Agricultural Ministry stated in a notification that “the use of glyphosate is prohibited and no person, except Pest Control Operators (PCOs), shall use glyphosate.”

House Progressives Float Diplomatic Path Toward Ending War in Ukraine, Get Annihilated, Quickly “Clarify”

By Ryan Grim, October 31, 2022

That the letter was met with fierce opposition is a measure of the space available for debate among congressional Democrats when it comes to support for the war and how it might be stopped before it turns nuclear: roughly zero.

Neo-Colonialism, International Finance Capital and the Necessity of Pan-African Sovereignty

By Abayomi Azikiwe, October 31, 2022

Since 1965, many African states have gained their independence while others have engaged in projects aimed at national revolutionary and socialist orientations. Nonetheless, the role of the United States and its European Union (EU) allies is still designed to dominate the world including the African continent while eradicating any semblance of non-capitalist development in Europe and other geo-political regions of the globe.

The Economic War “Bombing” Italy and Europe. The Political Mandate of Goldman Sachs and Rothschild Appointees

By Manlio Dinucci, October 31, 2022

As the crisis worsens, the ” Goldman Sachs government “, the powerful US investment bank, is strengthening in Europe: that is, the appointment of politicians belonging to the financial elite to high government positions.

Judgment Day Is Fast Approaching

By Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, October 31, 2022

I watched the news digest program Sixty Minutes yesterday on Russian state television’s smotrim.ru platform. Before turning the microphone over to the panelists in talk show format, the first 30 minutes of the show presented a hair-raising video montage of excerpts from US, German, European, British news reporting about dirty bomb accusations, about the current exercises of the aircraft carrier George Bush Sr. in the Eastern Med and its loud message to Mr Putin about nuclear attack capabilities, about the 2400 American ground assault troops just delivered to Romania and placed at the border with Moldova, ready to move in there and, one may safely assume, to continue up into Ukraine to face off with Russians around Odessa – Nikolaev at a moment’s notice.

Stop World War III — Now!

By Eric Margolis, October 31, 2022

Putin wanted a limited ‘military action,’ not a full-scale war against what was not so long ago an integral part of Russia. Hence the once formidable Red Army was kept on a leash, deprived of Russia’s most modern weapons, and ordered to go easy on the rebellious Ukrainians.

The 5G Roll Out: EMF Radiation, Devastating Health Impacts, Social and Economic Implications. Crimes Against Humanity?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, October 31, 2022

The roll out of the new C-Band 5G service by AT&T and Verizon scheduled for January 19, has raised alarms for major airline executives who have warned that it will create “catastrophic” interference with flight navigation systems and pilot safety during take off and landing.

Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

Biden Surrenders First Use Nuke Policy to Pentagon Neocons

October 31st, 2022 by Kurt Nimmo

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.

***

It’s not unusual, in fact is typical, for presidents to ditch campaign promises. One such promise Joe Biden made on the campaign trail was a “no first use” of nuclear weapons.

That was then, this is now.

“The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy rejected limits on using nuclear weapons long championed by arms control advocates and in the past by President Joe Biden,” Bloomberg reports.

Citing burgeoning threats from China and Russia, the Defense Department said in the document released Thursday that “by the 2030s the United States will, for the first time in its history face two major nuclear powers as strategic competitors and potential adversaries.” In response, the US will “maintain a very high bar for nuclear employment” without ruling out using the weapons in retaliation to a non-nuclear strategic threat to the homeland, US forces abroad or allies. (Emphasis added.)

In short, the neocons in the Pentagon have overruled Biden, who is too weak and cognitively impaired to argue in defense of his campaign promise.

Biden appears to have concluded that it is too costly in political terms to fight for his views. He has let the Pentagon dictate his strategy rather than challenge a bureaucracy resisting any alteration of current programs and doctrine. https://t.co/kTpUbRruOc

— Joe Cirincione (@Cirincione) October 27, 2022

This take is interesting because Joe Cirincione is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and bills himself, on his blue check Twitter profile, as a national security expert. In the past, the CFR warned against nuclear proliferation, although blame for expanding the number of nukes was placed on Russia, China, and North Korea.

In 2017, as Obama’s Vice President, Biden said: “In our 2010 Nuclear Posture Review—we made a commitment to create the conditions by which the sole purpose of nuclear weapons would be to deter others from launching a nuclear attack.”

Accordingly, over the course of our Administration, we have steadily reduced the primacy nuclear weapons have held in our national security policies since World War II—while improving our ability to deter and defeat any adversaries—and reassure our Allies—without reliance on nuclear weapons.

Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today’s threats—it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary. Or make sense. (Emphasis added.)

Sense and non-psychotic behavior have nothing to do with it. Nukes are required, in the warped minds of neocons, to maintain a different “primacy”—that of making certain the violence and thievery of neoliberalism remain firmly entrenched.

So what should @POTUS have put in his NPR? For starters, President Biden should start by declaring that the US will never be the first nation to use nuclear weapons in any conflict, a change that would reduce the nuclear threat. https://t.co/1m9CsGaYAx

— Union of Concerned Scientists (@UCSUSA) October 27, 2022

Now that no-first-use commitment is in the trash and the neocons, infamous for their eagerness to engage in violent behavior that has thus far killed well over a million people (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria), are in control of the nukes and will decide when to use them.

The lies spread by Biden and the corporate war propaganda media—that Russia will use “tactical” nukes in Ukraine—have provided an excuse for the national security state to finally move life-terminating nukes into the category of usable weapons.

US President Biden says the world risks nuclear "Armageddon" for the first time since the Cold War.

Russian President Putin is "not joking" when he threatens to use nuclear weapons to pursue his invasion of Ukraine, Biden sayshttps://t.co/yZGrsDBPIN pic.twitter.com/GydlyGoqDn

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) October 7, 2022

I believe the latest Biden NPR will move the Doomsday Clock ever closer to midnight.

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Struggle-La Lucha

“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!)

Reviews

Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Biden Surrenders First Use Nuke Policy to Pentagon Neocons
Tags: Joe Biden, nuclear war, Nuclear weapons, pentagon, Russia, Ukraine war, United States

Haiti: An Inconvenient History, an Uncomfortable Truth. “Until Haiti spoke, no Christian nation had abolished slavery”

October 31st, 2022 by Cameron Brohman

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.

***

Frederick Douglas, a former slave and the U.S. President’s special envoy to Haiti, said this at the opening of the Haitian Pavillion, Chicago World’s Fair, in 1893. The speech probed the soul of Christendom to judge itself in front of the world. Is today’s world, once again, asking for this?

When Haiti defeated France, the country was declared the first Black Republic in 1804 and destroyed the slave trade. Haiti became a beacon of freedom for humanity. The Haitian constitution was an iconic example of the first bill of human rights. Haiti was a hero nation, in the nineteenth-century world.

The nation of Haiti should be a global pilgrimage site for generations of human beings born free, thanks to Haiti’s courageous spirit, and heroic sacrifice. But when people think of Haiti today, they think of hunger, not heroism. How did the Haitian brand of David beating Goliath come to this?

By standing against all those who would oppress or exploit humanity, Haiti had sealed its fate. The new country stumbled into a different type of warfare with an enemy who possesses weapons that can alter people’s perception of reality. Haiti became a target of military grade psychological operations.

“Christians believe. Vodou knows”

This is a Creole proverb for Vodou’s claim to supernatural contact. Does a spiritual technology, known as Vodou, put humanity in direct contact with higher beings? If so, this threatens big religions who want to control what human beings are allowed to believe. Does the Vatican good cop play Vodou as bad cop? Do they need an official devil and Vodou is it? The question that must be answered is, Why is Vodou promoted as evil and who benefits from it?

Hollywood has a profitable genre of movie products that uses Voodoo as the vessel for stories of evil entities who take possession of the human soul to create zombies. “White Zombie” made in 1932 was the first feature length template for this enduringly lucrative theme. In it a young white woman comes to Haiti to reunite with her fiancée. They meet an evil Voodoo adept, Bella Lugosi, who owns a sugar mill full of zombies. A drum beat of fear and terror then assaults our senses. We tell ourselves it’s just a movie but, note to self, “Praise Jesus for white Christianity.”

The strategic ‘demonization’ of African spiritual systems actually started with slavery, centuries before Hollywood reinvented the business model as films for white audiences. In his 1938 master work, The Ancient Kingdom of Dahomey, Melville Herskovits showed us an African civilization of high spiritual development with millennia of cultural continuum. A scholar’s response to Hollywood’s salacious portrayal of Haiti as host for black magic sex rituals, in “White Zombie.” But even massive evidence of a University of Chicago superstar professor’s research, loses to Hollywood ‘Voodoo’. Why this preference for an evil version of Vodou?

Is it irrational to speculate that most people believe Haiti is a backward mess due to Voodou? Is it conspiratorial madness to suggest that this message, repeated in regular cinematic rituals, is designed to zombify the minds of Western citizens to see Vodou as evil and the sole cause of the Haitian tragedy. Is it a shameless plot to blame the victims for our brutally criminal history?

Good versus Evil

This paradigm is the engine of ideological subversion since ancient times. Populations must be convinced that there’s a threat, evil barbarians who must be eliminated. The Africans weren’t threatening anyone in Europe and their spears were no match for European firepower. So, how do you demonize an enemy who doesn’t threaten you but also doesn’t want to be enslaved somewhere across the ocean, never to see home again? The slavery business had to be sold to European Christians as a net positive, with nothing that might incriminate us during the exit interview that awaits all Christians. A marketing challenge!

European slave traders and governments who sponsored them created an African brand for the calming of any European guilt. Their version of the African male is a dangerous savage, an uncivilized sorcerer with mysterious access to demons, the sworn enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church. Slavery became a sacred obligation, a mission that should reap rewards in eternity.

This vile propaganda worked because Europe was a Christian civilization and needed a Christian motive to justify slavery. Enslavement would be God’s platform for the conversion of all Africans to Christianity. Slavery was marketed as a consecrated duty to the white man’s burden and a kind of imperial benevolence to exorcise these ‘black devils’ and get them worshipping the white gods. The strategic chutzpah cancelled the sin of profiting from the slave’s lifelong free labor to his owner.

African slavery stands as an early iteration of the, “It’s for their own good!” school of foreign policy.

“Men made fortunes and were esteemed as good Christians. Until Haiti spoke the church was silent, the pulpit dumb.” — Frederick Douglas

Slavery was an untouchable issue because it was a gold rush, an official policy to plunder the wealth of others under the cover of virtue signaling. Not much has changed. Haiti is exploding again. The International Community calls it a humanitarian crisis and will send soldiers to pacify the population.

The Haitian national character of a violent people incapable of self-government will be reconfirmed. Haiti’s noble birth as a champion of human rights is long forgotten. Noble Haiti has been replaced by a Haiti of black thugs killing each other in an open-air penal colony. What caused this tragic transformation? The imperial playbook prescribes cultural demoralization of the targeted country, as preparation for the stage of resource plunder, cultural genocide and state capture. Haiti is a text book example of this process.

What is there in Haiti to plunder?

Why is the third largest U.S. Embassy on the planet in Port au Prince?

Is Haiti a threat?

Is there something Haiti isn’t telling us?

Why is Haiti always in decline while surrounded by successful island nations of the Caribbean Community?

Why hasn’t Hollywood ever made any movies about Haiti’s history-changing and world-improving achievements in the liberation of the human soul from bondage?

Why are we told Haitian Voodou is evil when it was Christian nations who got rich from slavery? What’s wrong with all of this?

“Slave traders lived and died, funeral sermons preached over them, they went to heaven among the just.” — Frederick Douglas

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.

Cameron Brohman has managed international development projects in Haiti and other developing countries for forty years. His decades in Haiti encompass the fall of the Duvalier dictatorship to the 2010 earthquake. He is “hounsi canzo.”

Posted in English
Comments Off on Haiti: An Inconvenient History, an Uncomfortable Truth. “Until Haiti spoke, no Christian nation had abolished slavery”
Tags: Haiti, Vodou

Video: No Patient Complaints, Yet Alleged “Charges of Incompetence”. Dr. Meryl Nass Hearing

October 31st, 2022 by Kristina Borjesson

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 this first hour of the second day of hearings held by the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine in the matter of their suspension of Dr. Meryl Nass’s medical license, Dr. Nass, under questioning by her lawyer, describes a Kafkaesque series of events that led to her being charged with incompetence, fraud and various other unethical activities related to her treatment of three covid patients, and to the suspension of her license.

During her testimony, Dr. Nass reveals that the three patients had no complaints about their treatment and will be testifying on her behalf before the Board. This and other information revealed in this hour raises serious questions about the integrity of both the Board of Licensure in Medicine and the hearings.

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: Dr. Meryl Nass [Source: Cildrenshealthdefense.org]

Posted in English
Comments Off on Video: No Patient Complaints, Yet Alleged “Charges of Incompetence”. Dr. Meryl Nass Hearing

Fake News at the University: In Defence of Dr. Oz

October 31st, 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.

***

Today I received a copy of an article published in The Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper for the University of Pennsylvania, about Dr. Mehmet Oz.

I had been contacted by the article’s author and spent about 30 minutes on the phone with him answering questions about Dr. Oz, who was a classmate at Penn Med. I told him a number of things about Mehmet: that we had played some basketball together, that we had participated in a study group for final exams (in which he was a highly intelligent contributor), that we had also joined a loosely-formed group known as “The Granolas”, whose focus was nutrition, lifestyle and other subjects not generally covered in our curriculum. I mentioned too that our diverging interests – his in surgery and mine in psychoanalysis and psychiatry – had us moving along different educational and social lines at Penn.

I said that Mehmet was very smart, very accomplished and well-liked, and that he was always, in my interactions with him, straight up, a “what you see is what you get” kinda guy. I told Mr. Mitovich, the article’s author, that I had never watched Dr. Oz’s TV show and had not been in touch with Oz since graduation in 1986.

Most important, however, was what I related when asked about Oz’s run for the Senate in Pennsylvania: that he would be a breath of fresh air in a corrupt political system, and that I would vote for him because he was a Constitutionalist. I know that politics is a rough business and I have no illusions about politicians of any stripe, but I took pains to make this point.

One would think that this particular declaration should have been included in an article on “the Senate candidate’s career trajectory”. It was not.

So here is, I think, yet another example of how journalism – even at the University level – is corrupted by bias. An honest journalist would have mentioned this honest positive comment from someone who has had no personal interest or connection with Oz after medical school. I’m not Mehmet’s friend and I daresay Oz, if he remembers me, remembers me only vaguely.

This of course calls attention to one major aspect of biased news reporting that has spread out over our world like a real, and not phoney, pandemic: the act of exclusion. The CDC and the NIAID and Big Pharma have made an art form of it, given the information they failed to tell us about the lethal Corona inoculations.

It is a pity that Fake News has infested even the University. Then again, what else would one expect these days?

However, I’ve made the effort to let Mr. Mitovich know my concerns and perhaps he will do the honorable thing and make a small but telling revision to the post in his newspaper, and give us all a little bit of much-needed hope in journalists of the future.

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Activist Post

Posted in English
Comments Off on Fake News at the University: In Defence of Dr. Oz

“Judicial Negligence” and Constitutional Rights: COVID Restrictions Imposed by Trudeau Government, Violating the Rights of Canadians

October 31st, 2022 by Prof. Anthony J. Hall

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 manufactured COVID crisis is changing gears with the addition of many more manufactured crises delivered largely by the same predatory protagonists that brought us the WHO-declared pandemic. Since our slide into the abyss created by mandatory masking, lockdowns and gene-modifying injections, many of our major institutions have been suffering similar destructive descents in their operational competence, decency, and effectiveness.

These institutional breakdowns have been similar to those that continue to devastate the physical, psychological, economic, social, familial, and professional wellbeing of billions of human victims. Many lives have been lost as a result of the range of human-created pathologies imposed on many people largely by skilled spin doctors presenting a theatrically staged TV drama of a heroic fight to conquer COVID-19.

The institutions that have been largely disfigured and discredited in the eyes of the discerning, include governments, most major media venues, most churches, schools, universities, professional organizations, unions, as well as corporate conglomerates especially in Big Pharma, Big Tech and banking. The law enforcement sector, including police, prosecutors, and judges, also have much incompetence as well as purposeful malfeasance to answer for.

The time has come to mount a major counteroffensive away from the reign of excess and madness that invaded us under the deceptive banner of fighting COVID-19. This mobilization is to save the largest part of humanity from further manufactured disasters that benefit a tiny minority at great cost to the many.

Effective mobilization in the cause of self-defence will require comprehensive campaigns of coordinated resistance. Without such coordinated activity we can anticipate that the COVID restrictions and mandates will continue to be extended under the banner of defeating other heavily-hyped boogeymen such as climate change, manufactured food shortages, and the artificially-inflated threat of armed “White supremacists.”

The success of this strategy of self-defence from more fabricated emergencies designed to harm us, will depend on the resort to deep and comprehensive investigations, effective disciplinary procedures, and some highly-visible criminal prosecutions of the top culprits in the planning and execution of the coronavirus con job.

Right now there is no sign that the prosecutors and judges are up to the job of dealing with the criminality that seems to be running rife in their own sector, let in other institutional domains of our commercial, social and political lives. Without some major interventions to restore the decency and logistical viability to our core institutions in many sectors, our descent into further catastrophic subordination to malevolent authorities will continue to accelerate.

This essay deals with what might be considered a possible judicial crime involving a group of closely-related cases put before the Federal Court of Canada. The evidence suggests that the Associate Chief Justice of this Court came to a dubious understanding with the Attorney General and Prime Minister of Canada. This understanding may have found expression in the judge’s decision to sideline the cases in question. All of them held the capacity to call into question the legality of the full array of COVID restrictions and mandates.

An ignominious Abandonment of Professional Responsibility by a High-Ranking Judge

The Honourable Jocelyne Gagné is the Associate Chief Justice of Canada’s Federal Court. In spite of her sparse CV, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau elevated Justice Gagné to her current position in 2018. See this.

In mid-October Justice Gagné pulled back from hearing more evidence concerning a group of cases involving a COVID-related travel ban directed specifically at impeding the movement of the so-called “unvaccinated.”

Justice Gagné shut down the cases and thereby freed herself from the responsibility of making judgments on matters that go to the very heart of the legal character of government-citizen relations. Rather than hold her ground in bearing conscientiously the enormous responsibility of addressing the very consequential legal questions entrusted to her court, the judge opted to make a fast exit. She opted to let herself off the hook by invoking the seemingly magical powers unleashed by the invocation of the single legal word, “moot.”

There is ample reason to stop and carefully reflect on the ignominious desertion of a high-ranking judge who abandoned the scene of one of the most significant convergences of legal arguments in the history of Canadian jurisprudence.

The dishonourable exit of Justice Gagné from the call of professional duty highlights a growing pattern of negligence among the heavily politicized judiciary of Canada. The episode calls attention to the systematic failure of many Canadian judges to deal competently and fairly with the proliferation of legal disputes concerning COVID restrictions and mandates imposed by the federal and provincial governments.

Justice Gagné has decided not to hand down a ruling on cases alleging that the Trudeau government violated Canada’s constitution with its prohibition on air and rail travel for the unvaccinated. The cases were put before the courts by litigants who accused the government of violating the mobility rights of Canadians as recognized and affirmed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Honorable Brian Peckford, former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, has been the most visible and outspoken public proponent of the core principles that have now been denied their day in court by Associate Chief Justice Gagné. In 1981 Premier Peckford helped draft the Charter. He was one of the ten provincial and federal First Ministers who led their governments in ratifying the Charter as part of a larger package of constitutional amendments known as Constitution Act 1982.

In his public explanation to Canadians of his decision to use the courts as a means of trying to nudge the Trudeau government to respect the rights and freedoms of Canadians as articulated in the Charter, he described the document at issue as Canada’s “National Law.” According to Peckford, the dismissive treatment of the Charter, first by the Trudeau government and now by the Federal Court, is reflective of Canada’s sorry “state of acquiescence and servitude unworthy of our history.” See this.

Justice Gagné based her decision on her acceptance of the Trudeau government’s argument that the matter was “moot.” She adopted the core arguments in the submission of the Canadian Attorney General, David Lametti, the current chief law officer of the federal Crown. The federal submission argued that since federal travel restrictions have been “suspended” since June, there are no longer any pressing issues to be addressed. See this.

David Lametti has the dubious distinction of having been chosen by Justin Trudeau to replace Jody Wilson-Raybould. Wilson Raybould-Wilson is the former Attorney General who left her position as Canada’s chief law officer because the Prime Minister reportedly tried to intervene politically into the independence of her legal decision to press criminal charges against the federal Liberal Party’s primary corporate ally and backer, SNC Lavalin. See this.

As a new round of Liberal Party scandals gets underway, a spotlight is once again being placed on the Office of the Attorney General. In representing the Crown, the chief law office of Canada is supposed to put his responsibility to represent the legal rights and public interests of Canadians above partisan politics. It seems Trudeau learned from the Wilson-Raybould episode to protect himself by appointing an Attorney-General who would have no qualms about allowing politics to overcome his duty of non-partisanship when it comes to his duties as the Queen of Canada’s lead representative in the realm of the courts.

In response to Justice Gagné’s decision, Alison Pejovic, a legal council for the applicants that brought the cases against the Canadian government, commented, “the travel mandate represents one of the most egregious infringements of Canadians’ mobility rights in Canadian history, and in our view, striking the law suit out before it is heard– and while the Canadian Prime Minister continues to threaten Canadians with further COVID restrictions, is a grave injustice.” See this.

Karl Harrison, a businessman who was one of the applicants in the cases put before the Federal Court, commented,

“Six million Canadians, deprived unconstitutionally of protected rights for nearly a year and subjected to discrimination, will be as offended as we are that this judge felt that their concerns were not worth the cost of a 5 day hearing in the Federal Court,” he said.

“The issues here are no more moot than is the behaviour of an abusive spouse who beats their partner for a year, and demands absolution for doing no more than temporarily stopping whilst threatening to start all over again some time in the future.” See this.

The Stark Contradiction between the Charter’s Protection of Rights and Freedoms and the Imposition by Governments of COVID Restrictions and Mandates

We are now almost three years into the manufactured COVID crisis. Throughout this period the judiciary in Canada has neglected to do due diligence by clarifying for us citizens how to navigate the stark legal contradiction that has engulfed the Canadian polity since the celebrity virus began to be featured as the primary subject in world news.

This contradiction sets the Charter of Rights and Freedom adopted in 1982 against the COVID restrictions and mandates imposed by the federal and provincial governments. The Charter was meant to protect mobility rights as well as the full array of other individual rights including those of freedom of expression, assembly, religion, and bodily autonomy.

As in many countries, the individuals’ rights once proclaimed as sacrosanct were made to sink beneath the weight of the COVID restrictions and mandates. For instance, many have faced all manner of discriminatory recriminations, including loss of employment and access to education, for opting not to receive government-mandated jabs that we now know to be killing and injuring many millions worldwide.

This state of affairs in the ill-defined twilight zone between Canadians’ Charter of rights and the coercive impositions of government dictates extending even into the very bodies of the Canadian people, remains shrouded in uncertainty. Our governments have been pushing us coercively in one direction while the apparent force of Canada’s “supreme law”– including the Charter– attracts many of us in the opposite direction.

The creation of such tension, confusion and uncertainty in determining what conduct lies inside or outside the rule of law is not conducive to social stability, sound economic interactions, or personal wellbeing. Many police officers throughout Canada have been put in especially stressful and difficult positions.

The higher conscience and sense of personal duty of many law enforcement officials have drawn them to want to use their professional discretion on the job to uphold the Charter. Concurrently, their sense of responsibility as, for instance, the primary breadwinners of their families might cause police officers simply to follow orders emanating from chains of command that are most often very politicized. One such chain leads upwards to the anti-Charter zealots presently inhabiting the Office of the Canadian Prime Minister.

The dilemma facing police officers is representative of many variations of similar conflicts experienced not only between groups but within individuals. Since 2020 countless variations of the widespread phenomena of conflicting loyalties have permeated human interactions across many realms of personal and collective activity.

The courts are the only institutions in a position to legally resolve the widespread conflict of interest, loyalties, perceptions, and actions. But for some cruel and unexplained reason, the judiciary right up to the Supreme Court of Canada has denied the Canadian people the sole remedy that would have injected a degree of certainty into the unfolding fiasco that since 2020 has destabilized the world in such deep, pervasive and proliferating ways.

The judiciary has been playing fast and loose with the rule of law during the duration of this WHO-declared pandemic. This judicial folly is now highlighted and symbolized by Justice Gagné’s atrocious non-decision decision. From her judicial podium Justice Gagné has declared that the issues raised by an intrusive and far-reaching government attack on individuals’ rights, freedoms and liberties have simply become “moot.” Unfortunately this kind of low-end thinking at the high-end of power is all-too-typical of the sad state of Canada after seven years of Justin Trudeau’s reign of increasingly inept, irresponsible and sometimes criminal governance.

The Violated Charter Rights of Canadians Have Now Become “Moot”

The Federal Court’s refusal to address the elephant in the room is thoughtfully described in an article by Alexander Brighton entitled “Justice Delayed, Justice Denied.” Brighton asserts, “The entire handling of these challenges [concerning government travel prohibitions for the “unvaccinated”] is a grave miscarriage of justice, a part of a deeply concerning trend occurring in Canada, both generally, and in particular concerning any attempt to hold the provincial or federal governments accountable for their pandemic policies.”

The author goes on to make a striking comparison. He writes, “Imagine the court ruling on the government’s use of residential schools as ‘moot.’ Stop living in the past! The schools are closed! It was a different government.”

Brighton sums up his argument, writing, “In short, to Justice Gagne, the most unprecedented government restrictions of civil liberties since the FLQ crisis in the 1970s are moot now. Harms from government policies are hypothetical or abstract.”

See this.

Justice Gagné’s finding that problems with medical restrictions and mandates are now over and done with constitutes a grave misapprehension that calls into question professional acumen of Canada’s Federal Court. The Federal Court presumably holds many of the keys that can unlock access to the proceedings of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Instead of pushing along a major constitutional challenge to the highest court in the land, however, the Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court is doing her best to incarcerate a core Canadian controversy in permanent quarantine.

Who benefits from her decision to evade the most conspicuous area of legal uncertainty in Canada these days? Certainly it is not the Canadian people. For almost three years now the Canadian judiciary has denied us a sound legal explanation from a high court on how to be law abiding in navigating new kinds of government mandates and restrictions.

The continuing nature of the manufactured COVID crisis was underlined when, in mid-October, Justin Trudeau resumed his imperious issuing of implied threats to promote the continuing booster shots along with flu shots for Canadians. On October 17 it was reported that the Prime Minister said, “If we are able to get a high enough level of vaccination, we can reduce the danger of having to take other health measures to make sure that we’re all safe and not overloading our hospitals.”

See this.

What “other health measures” is Trudeau contemplating if Canadians fail to comply in large numbers with his prime ministerial instructions? What is to be said of yet another attempt by a public official to threaten and scare us into compliance by recycling yet again unfounded prophecies of “overloaded hospitals” to come? Do you remember the flood of dance videos filmed by COVID nurses with time on their hands in empty hospitals?

When will the regime media stop disgracing itself by reproducing Trudeau’s retrogressive pronouncements without putting his lies-based fear mongering in context?

In spite of the zealousness of the ongoing cover up, the news has now become inescapable even in the dark enclaves of government health departments that the COVID jabs are sometimes deadly and often injurious. Justin Trudeau is doing himself no favours by appearing on television to flaunt either his utter dishonesty or his ignorance in totally denying what is widely known to be going on.

Sooner or later Trudeau will have to face some reckoning with his own prominent role in the genesis of the massive health care disaster currently unfolding in Canada and around the world. With his ongoing repetitions of the unscientific mantra that the mRNA gene insertion injections are totally “safe,” is the Prime Minister drawing citizens towards unnecessary injuries or worse? Will Trudeau ever face trials himself as the accused in major criminal proceedings for his nation-destroying mode of handling of the COVID files?

Many other signals are being sent that more invasive restrictions are on their way, restrictions now starting to turn the corner from COVID towards a probable onslaught of ill-considered “Green” restrictions and mandates. Did the illegal COVID Lockdowns prepare the way for Climate Change Lockdowns to come? Who is pushing this agenda? By now it is well established that Trudeau is one of the most notorious political puppets of the Big Money corporatists who base their globalist enterprises at the WHO, at the other Bill Gates “philanthropies,” as well as at BlackRock Corp. and the World Economic Forum. This list is far from complete.

We may or may or may not be moving away from yet another phase of the COVID crisis. Nevertheless, the protagonists in what I have described as the COVID-19 power grab have made it clear they are not done with us yet, far from it. Unfortunately it seems the protagonists can anticipate that the Canadian judiciary will remain compliant with their agenda of the “Great Reset” that serves the few by further eliminating, genetically modifying, and subjugating the many.

See this, this and this.

Liberal Party Judges on the Make

Independent research points quickly to evidence that the Liberal Party minority government of Canada is politically manipulating some members of the judiciary. As noted above, some of the background and context of the story outlined here involves Prime Minister Justin Trudeau elevation of Justice Gagné in 2018 to her current role as Associate Chief Justice of the Federal Court. See this.

The Trudeau government also appointed another known Liberal Party judge, Paul Rouleau, to the job of chairing the parliamentary inquiry into the Liberal-NDP decision to invoke the Emergency Act in February of 2022. Of Rouleau the Edmonton Sun reported that he is “a member of the Liberal party, supporter of the Liberal party, worked for the Liberal party and was appointed to the bench by a past Liberal prime minister, Paul Martin.” See this.

Moreover, Rouleau was for a time a partner at Heenan Blaike, the Montreal law firm that employed Justin’s father, the former Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Julie Bourgeois embodies the most obvious case of a Liberal Party judge jumping in to assist the Liberal Party leader in carrying out an aspect of his very personal political vendetta against a key leader of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy. With great effectiveness this Convoy and its supporters famously embarrassed the inept Canadian Prime Minister in front of a global audience.

The Truckers and their supporters brought to wide public attention in North America and across the world the intellectual and ethical poverty of the COVID policies promoted by the Canadian government and by other WEF puppet governments such as those in the Netherlands, New Zealand, California, Australia and France.

Before opting to help her friend. Justin Trudeau, in his attempt to criminalize the imagery of the Canadian Truckers, Judge Bourgeois was an unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the federal election of 2011. Justin Trudeau personally endorsed the Bourgeois campaign. See this.

On February 22 Judge Bourgeois denied bail to Tamara Lich, the very amiable founder of the Freedom Convoy movement. Lich was jailed in Ottawa for the alleged crime of “counselling mischief.”

Having been convicted of nothing, Ms Lich faced harsh condemnations in her first court hearing before Judge Bourgeois. Reports show that the presiding judge found the Convoy leader was “obstinate and disingenuous” in answering questions. On this basis Judge Bourgeois ordered that the alleged counsellor of mischief must stay in jail because her continued detention without conviction was “necessary for the protection and safety of the public.” See this.

When she discovered later that the judge who had decided to deny her bail had been a Liberal candidate endorsed by Justin Trudeau, Ms Lich signed an affidavit. In it Ms Lich stated that if she had had the relevant information, she would have asked that Judge Bourgeois recuse herself from the case.

The infatuation of some Canadian judges with denying bail to members of the Canadian Truckers movement, in four cases in Alberta for at least a year and a half, makes mincemeat of habeas corpus principles. These principles evolved in more recent times into the widespread principle that respect for universal human rights requires that innocence must be assumed until guilt is proven in court.

This pattern of Liberal infiltration of the judiciary extends also to Liberal infiltration of the RCMP and other branches of the criminal justice system. As I have explained elsewhere, the propensity seems especially evident in the apparent efforts of some Crown officials to criminally entrap some individuals involved in the Truckers’ demonstration at Coutts Alberta. See this and this.

If there had been a timely and fair judicial process to assess the legal role of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in government responses to the appearance of the new coronavirus, perhaps much trouble could have been headed off. Perhaps there would have been no need for a Canadian Truckers’ movement to give expression to the response of many that there was something truly rotten going on in Canada as a result of the manufactured hysteria leading to the restrictions and mandates imposed in the name of fighting COVID-19.

**The History of the Constitution Act 1982 including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms**

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms emerged from an era of Canadian history of avid competition between the forces of Canadian federalism and the forces of Québécois independence. Justin’s father, former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, led the federalist forces. Premier Rene Levesque led a provincial party devoted to realizing the formation of an independent Quebec.

Trudeau beat Levesque in 1980 in a referendum asking Quebec citizens to vote yes or no on a plan to bring about Quebec independence. Energized and empowered from this major political win, Pierre Trudeau initiated a process aimed at realizing his vision of a rejuvenated Canada. He sought to legally remove Canada from its remaining constitutional ties to Great Britain. The British Armed Forces had seized control of Canada from imperial France in 1759.

Trudeau’s initiative led in 1981 to the formulation of a number of new constitutional instruments including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the way to this outcome the Trudeau government decided to call on the imperial Parliament in Great Britain one last time to make laws for Canada. The British role in creating an institutional foundation for Canada’s governance should not be underestimated. It was, for instance, the British Imperial Parliament that ratified the British North America Act of 1867. The BNA Act included a provision for a new National Parliament to be based in the new capital city of Ottawa.

Pierre Trudeau’s goal was to put in place a new legal framework that would enable the Canadian people and governments to develop our own made-in-Canada structures of governance. In other parts of the world this same process of colonial secession from the British Empire was frequently described as “decolonization.”

As a so-called “White Dominion,” more recently described as a “settler colony, Canada’s constitutional evolution within the British Empire and the British Commonwealth has been somewhat different from the British colonial structures developed in Africa and Asia. There Indigenous peoples never were marginalized to the same extent as happened in the colonization of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The British government treated its South African colony also as a “White Dominion” even though the Indigenous peoples there remained a sizeable majority population.

All of the new constitutional provisions, including the Charter plus new provisions “recognizing and affirming existing Aboriginal and treaty rights,” were sanctioned by the Legislatures of 9 out of 10 Canadian provinces. Ratification also took place in the Canadian Parliament, the British Parliament and in a signing ceremony by Queen Elizabeth.

The Levesque-led government of the province of Quebec did not take part in the process, including the process of drafting and ratifying the Charter. This placement of the province of Quebec outside the process of constitutional ratification continues to this day. The National Assembly of Quebec has not sanctioned through a vote in the Legislature the adoption of the Constitution Act 1982 including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Former Premier Brian Peckford took centre stage in the public education campaign leading up to Justice Gagné’s recent snubbing of the Charter cases challenging the legality of the federal government’s COVID restrictions and mandates. Peckford contributed significantly to the circuit of live and social media presentations that also included the widely webcast information sessions hosted in Ottawa by Tamara Lich and the other members, allies and supporters of the Truckers’ Freedom Convoy.

In explaining the genesis and attributes of the Charter, Brian Peckford made frequent reference to his own role in drafting the Charter and in ushering it as well as the rest of the Constitution Act 1982 through the Legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Charter as a Platform of Political Lobbying to Advance the “Rights” of Some Interests Over the “Rights” of Other Interests

Section 1 of the Charter presents an important qualification that potentially limits the scope of all the rights and freedoms of individual Canadian citizens. Section 1 asserts,

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

This seemingly innocuous phrase has proven to be hugely controversial. Some see the Charter controversies as the basis of a huge make-work project that has greatly enriched the Canadian legal profession including its judicial branch. The Charter has faced significant criticism because of the considerable discretion it creates for appointed judges to sometimes overrule the decision-making authority of elected officials.
Section 1 of the Charter must be read in relation to Section 52 of the Constitution Act 1982. Section 52 (1) asserts

“The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

This provision empowers members of the Canadian judiciary to affirm the existence and extent of Charter rights and freedoms, subject only to enactments that can be demonstrably justified as consistent with the attributes of free and democratic society. This “subject to” qualification has created a very large space for judges to exercise personal discretion in altering the shaping of Canada’s legal landscape.

The process of giving legal interpretation to the provisions of the Charter has been instrumental in helping to create the basis of a large and lucrative juridical industry in Canada. The elaborate procedures to interpret the Charter in ways that can be translated into real world applications have generally been good to lawyers and well as to the judges that emerge from the practice of the law.

The jurists have enjoyed significant and well-remunerated opportunities to advocate for the rights of some interests over the “rights” of others. To the winners go the spoils.

A good example of the role of judges in the process of Charter interpretation took place in 1990 when the Supreme Court decided to see whether the “Hate Propaganda” laws in Canada’s Criminal Code should be retained in light of the Free Speech provisions in Section 2 (b) of the Charter.

The “Hate Propaganda” sections were retained on the basis of a bare majority vote by four of the seven Supreme Court Justices. Three Justices articulated the position that the “Hate Propaganda” laws in Canada’s Criminal Code should be eliminated in light of the institution of Canada’s then-recent “supreme law.” Judge Beverly McLaughlin drafted the position of the three dissenting Justices who agreed that the retention of the “Hate Propaganda” laws would have a “crippling effect” on the vitality and boldness of public discourse in Canada.

In discussing the lower court’s finding on the guilt of the defendant in the Keegstra case, Judge McLaughlin explained why the Hate Propaganda and Hate Speech provisions of the Criminal Code should be eliminated. She argued that the definition of Hate Speech in the Criminal Code was so vague as to be “virtually unlimited.”

Moreover, the retention of the Hate Speech instrument as Canadian law would have a “chilling effect.” It would impose sharp constraints on the “vital values” of the Free Speech provisions now articulated in the Charter. These values favour the “fostering a vibrant and creative society through the marketplace of ideas; the value of the vigorous and open debate essential to democratic government and preservation of our rights and freedoms; and the value of a society which fosters the self‑actualization and freedom of its members. See this.

The Charter has established a framework to create and energize well-funded lobbies organized to influence public opinion, politicians and especially the judiciary as the lead officers of the courts. The judges have it in their power to determine how far certain rights can be pushed before they become so demonstrably unreasonable that they become unjustifiable in “free and democratic society.” This combination of judicial and lobbying functions can easily produce slippage from legitimate legal interpretation into the realm of political advocacy veiled behind the guise of jurisprudence.

This consideration sets the background and context for Justice Gagne’s decision to not decide the supposedly “moot” matter of how the Charter does or does not apply to the COVID restrictions and mandates of governments.

Justice Gagne’s evasion of judicial responsibility to assess the dysfunction of the Charter and its advocates during the COVID crisis would not seem so conspicuous if it had not been for the huge resources of time and money poured into Charter-related activities.

Under these circumstances it is difficult to accept the argument of the Trudeau government as mirrored by Justice Gagné. The PM, Attorney-General Lametti and Justice Gagné apparently agree that there is no pressing need to arbitrate the federal COVID restrictions and mandates in light of the Charter’s promise to recognize and affirm the mobility rights of Canadians. Such issues are said to have become too abstract and ephemeral to justify a significant apportionment of expensive and scarce court time.

In the days following Justice Gagné’s decision to not render a decision on the constitutional controversies put before her court, the Associate Chief Justice issued her “reasons.” She ruled,

“There is no important public interest or inconsistency in the law that would justify allocating significant judicial resources to hear these moot applications.” See this.

What utter dribble! The manufactured crisis that began in 2020 and continues yet is jam packed with “inconsistencies in the law,” inconsistencies that are the source ” that are a great source of frustration for millions of Canadians regularly. Thus there is a huge “public interest” in putting an end to the most disruptive of these inconsistencies by taking a case to completion in the courts, a case that would shed light on how it is that section 2 of the Charter has been rendered inoperative when we needed it most. Section 2 asserts

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(d) freedom of association.

Doesn’t Justice Gagne’s decision to produce no ruling at all imply that the political branch of government is entirely within its constitutional rights to switch on or off the Charter, selectively or in full, without any necessity of including the judicial branch of government. With that kind of logic, why do we need any further expenditure of “significant judicial resources” at all? If the courts continue to just watch on as totalitarian tyranny takes hold of Canada, why allow the judiciary to keep their perks while they let themselves become mere props in the fairy tale we continue to have a vibrant democracy.

It seems there are powerful interests with significant stakes in retaining the precedents set throughout the WHO-declared pandemic, precedents like those that support future medical experiments on human subjects without their informed consent. How much more clear could it be that these powerful interests do not want certain questions asked let alone answered, but especially within the extremely influential forum of judicial arbitration.

A Real Emergency Growing from a Manufactured Emergency

With some few exceptions, judges in Canada have been mostly unwilling to demonstrate their judicial independence from the government policies and actions that have taken centre stage during the COVID crisis. In case after case involving COVID-related legal disputes, the Canadian judiciary seems to be caught in the headlights of a festering constitutional crisis largely of its own making.

Generally speaking members of the judiciary have adjudicated COVID cases simply by assuming the veracity of statistical and other evidence put forward by governments. In other words, Canadian judges have by and large accepted as “fact” the government side of adversarial cases. Such “facts” are often no such thing. Such “facts” often emerge from secret and flawed processes of governments that are often subject to all kinds of political pressure to produce certain outcomes such as increasing the profitability of favoured drug companies and privatized health care providers.

Judicial overdependence on government interpretations as well as the judicial tendency in COVID-related matters to downgrade or disregard the evidence brought forward by individuals or by non-governmental organizations is proving to have injurious and sometimes even lethal outcomes for members of the public. Too often government mistakes and even lies are translated by lazy or corrupt judges directly into legal “facts”.

Competent judicial determination of legal “facts” requires diligent and open-minded evaluation of the evidence brought forward by the litigants on all sides of the legal contentions at issue.

The unwillingness of Justice Gagné to even hear the Peckford approach to the constitutional crisis created largely by the judicial disregard of the Canadian Charter is one indication of the nature of much larger patterns of criminal malfeasance pushing forward the COVID-19 power grab.

Canadian judges have been overly inclined to make themselves agents and facilitators of government COVID policies. Increasingly these policies are showing themselves to be more the product of politics than science. This dependence on politics over science seems to have taken hold of the judiciary as well. It is the political deeds of major power brokers that have been most responsible for causing economic and social devastation as well as the rise in injuries and deaths. The increase of deaths has been showing up in the form of huge increases in all-cause mortalities in 2021 and early 2022.

Alternatively the Canadian judges have, like the regime media, been much too quick to disregard the evidence of many learned analysts whose diagnoses, interpretations and predictions have proven to be much more accurate than the prognostications produced by bought-and-paid-for government experts.

By and large most of our judges in Canada have simply bypassed their professional duty to dig down deep into the nitty gritty of competing collections of evidence and interpretations in order to identify the genuine truths and weed out mistakes, fabrications, distortions and lies. Such open-minded yet skeptical assessment of all sides of the legal contentions in COVID-related cases is the only way to determine genuine “facts.” Anything else is judicial dependence on mere assumptions disguised as “facts” often put forward to advance the agendas of powerful interests working behind the scenes.

The unwillingness of most judges to give fair consideration to all sides of COVID contentions has not gone unnoticed. Over time the increased awareness of judicial bias is generating growing public hostility towards the courts and the judges that preside over them. This hostility shows similarities to the popular frustration that accompanied the decision of the US Supreme Court not to address the evidence of what seemed like massive fraud in the US presidential election of 2020. See this.

The US Supreme Court lost much respect and credibility in the eyes of many Americans when the country’s top judges refused to even look at the mass of evidence that seemed to show that vote rigging had occurred on a massive scale. The same trajectory of soured public opinion is starting to emanate from the fact that Canadian judges are apparently attached to the large perks of their office but not to the heavy responsibilities they bear towards a society that depends on them to offer checks, especially when overzealous governments resort to coercive authoritarianism.

Just as citizens have been betrayed by our self-interested judiciary, so too have we been portrayed by the universities and most media venues who traditionally have also been expected to provide strategic checks on excesses of government authoritarianism.

COVID and Alberta Independence

The failure of Canada’s federal courts combined with the failures of many other national institutions, including Parliament, is stimulating much propensity in Albertans, including in me, to seek significant alternatives that break out of the Confederation paradigm enacted in the British Parliament enacted 1867. The antagonism towards the national government is becoming so marked that there is growing popular agitation for provincial assertions of Albertan sovereignty or maybe even outright Albertan secession and independence.

This mood is beginning to permeate the Office of the new Alberta Premier, Danielle Smith. Smith will face off next May in a provincial election with former NDP Premier Rachel Notley. The Smith government in Alberta is already drafting what the new Premier is describing as an “Alberta Sovereignty Act.”

Premier Smith recently made it clear she has lost patience with the subordination of Alberta health care institutions to the Trudeau government’s approach to medical restrictions and mandates. As Klaus Schwab regularly boasts, much of the cabinet in the Trudeau government take their lead from the Davos-based World Economic Forum. See this.

The veering away of many Albertans from Justin Trudeau’s and Jagmeet Singh’s favourite international organization is reflective of a province that has sent exactly one Liberal Party MP to Ottawa in the last two elections. In the growing Canada-Alberta divide, the COVID restrictions and mandates are becoming clear centres of gravity in federal-provincial relations. To back up this contention I conclude with a short video where Danielle Smith acknowledges serious discrimination inflicted especially by government on the so-called “unvaccinated.”

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Democracy, Authoritarianism and Canada’s Truckers Movement

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English, Mobile View, NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on “Judicial Negligence” and Constitutional Rights: COVID Restrictions Imposed by Trudeau Government, Violating the Rights of Canadians
Tags: Canada

‘Ukraine Plans to Use a Nuclear Weapon’ Says Russian Minister of Defense

October 31st, 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.

***

“There is serious concern that the West is trying to concoct a false flag that can be used to rally a reluctant public to go to war with Russia…The current scheme reportedly involves detonating a dirty nuke in territory ostensibly under the control of Russia. The Ukrainian military is suffering catastrophic casualties and… will have great difficulty sustaining any offensive. The United States and its NATO allies realize this and are searching for a pretext to send NATO forces to the rescue. It appears that the West is considering using the threat of defeating a nuclear attack as the justification for sending its own forces into the Ukrainian maelstrom.” Larry C. Johnson, former CIA analyst and A Son of the New American Revolution

Due to a rapidly-emerging crisis in the $24 trillion US Treasury market, the Biden White House and their foreign policy advisors may have approved a plan for detonating a nuclear device in Ukraine. And while we have no evidence yet that such a plan exists, the devastating impact of a full-blown financial meltdown goes a long way to explaining why US powerbrokers might engage in such risky and potentially catastrophic behavior. In any event, the extraordinary claim that the Ukrainian government intends to use a “dirty bomb” or “low-yield” nuclear weapon first appeared in Russian news outlets on Sunday night. Here’s an excerpt from an article at Tass News Agency:

The Kiev regime plans to explode a low-yield nuclear device in order to blame Russia for using weapons of mass destruction in the Ukrainian theater of combat operations, the chief of the Russian army’s radiation, chemical and biological protection force, Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov, said on Monday.

“The Defense Ministry has evidence that the Kiev regime is planning a provocation involving the detonation of a so-called dirty bomb or a low-yield nuclear device. The purpose of the provocation is to accuse Russia of using weapons of mass destruction in the Ukrainian theater of operations, thus launching a major anti-Russian campaign around the world aimed at undermining trust towards Moscow,” he said.

Kirillov…recalled that on October 22, in an interview with Canadian television channels Zelensky urged the world to deal strikes at the Kremlin if Russia hit the “decision-making center” on Bankovaya Street, where the office of the Ukrainian president is located.

Earlier, on October 23, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu held telephone conversations with his counterparts in Britain, France, Turkey and the United States to bring to their attention Moscow’s concerns about possible provocations by Ukraine involving a “dirty bomb”.”

“The Defense Ministry has evidence that the Kiev regime is planning a provocation involving the detonation of a so-called dirty bomb or a low-yield nuclear device,” Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov said.” (“Kiev plans to explode low-yield nuclear device, blame Moscow — Russian Defense Ministry”, Tass)

Let’s take a minute and summarize what Lieutenant-General Igor Kirillov said. He said that Russian intelligence has collected “evidence” that Ukraine has acquired sufficient material to create a nuclear weapon. He is also saying that Kiev plans to detonate the device to further vilify Russia in order to garner more support for the war on Russia. It’s worth noting that a provocation involving WMD could easily be used as a justification for the deployment of NATO troops on the ground in Ukraine. In my opinion, this dramatic escalation—that could drag all of Europe into a civilization-ending conflagration—fits seamlessly with the neocon dream of widening the conflict in order to reduce Europe to rubble, thus, preserving Washington’s exalted role as the undisputed leader of the “Rules-based Order”. US foreign policy elites undoubtedly realize that the Chinese economy is on-track to overtake the US within the decade. The US no longer has the manufacturing or infrastructure wherewithal to compete with China head-to-head. Instead, Washington has decided that the only way to preserve its loosening grip on global power is to reduce the rest of the world to its abysmal post-WW2 condition. Here’s more from Tass:

“On Sunday, the US Department of State released a statement by the foreign ministries of Britain, the United States and France, saying that these countries did not consider Russian warnings about the possibility of Kiev using a so-called dirty bomb reasonable enough.” (Tass)

“Not reasonable enough?” The State Department thinks Russia’s claims were “not reasonable enough??”

That’s simply not the response that any normal official would make. The response a normal person would make is, “Show me the proof”. Right? But the State Dept didn’t do that, instead, they denied the credibility of the allegation altogether. Why? Here’s more:

Moscow will raise the issue of Kiev’s preparation of a dirty bomb provocation in international forums, including the UN, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Monday at a news conference…

“We have also taken the necessary steps to raise this issue in international structures, first of all in the UN in New York, and today our representatives will do this hoping for an informed and professional discussion of the problems that we will touch upon,” he said, answering a question from TASS.

The Russian top diplomat stressed that the Russian side had specific information about Ukrainian scientific institutions that possessed technologies capable of creating a dirty bomb. “We have information, which we have double-checked through the appropriate channels, that this is not a groundless suspicion, that there are serious reasons to believe that such things could be planned. Sergey Shoigu [Russian Defense Minister] has agreed with some of his interlocutors to hold additional consultations on this topic at a professional level,” Lavrov said.” (Tass)

Okay, so Russia intends to raise the issue at the United Nations (immediately) where we can expect that some of the proof will be publicly disclosed.

Also, the Russian Defense chief Shoigu has notified the US, the UK, France and Turkey. They’ve all been informed and brought up-to-date. It is very likely that Shoigu shared some of the evidence with these officials in order to convince them that the allegations are credible.

So, the question arises: Would the Russians really go through all this trouble if they had nothing? Would they really contact all the heads of state and media and the United Nations just to pull the wool over their eyes? Or do they actually have hard evidence (“specific information”) of a plot to detonate a nuclear device?

Any rational person would wait to see the evidence and judge accordingly. But not the US or its pathetic EU-lapdogs. Here is their response according to the official state mouthpiece, the NY Times:

The top diplomats in France, Britain and the United States, three of Ukraine’s strongest allies, issued a rare joint statement that rejected Russia’s allegation that Kyiv is preparing to use a so-called dirty bomb on its own territory, calling it a pretext Moscow has concocted for escalating the war.

In the statement, the three governments confirmed that their defense ministers had each spoken with the Russian defense minister, Sergei K. Shoigu, and rejected “Russia’s transparently false allegations” about a dirty bomb.

“The world would see through any attempt to use this allegation as a pretext for escalation,” the statement said.

A so-called dirty bomb uses traditional explosives to spray radioactive material. Russia has not publicly offered evidence to back up the accusations and Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, has called the statements “lies.”

In a separate statement, the British defense secretary, Ben Wallace, said Mr. Shoigu had accused Ukraine’s allies, including Britain, of planning “to escalate the conflict in Ukraine.” Mr. Wallace refuted those claims, the statement said, and “cautioned that such allegations should not be used as pretext for greater escalation.” (“Top allies warn Russia against using ‘dirty bomb’ accusations to escalate the war” New York Times)

So, the foreign ministers of France, Britain and the United States all rejected “Russia’s transparently false allegations” about Ukraine’s alleged access to a dirty bomb.

But on what basis do they “reject” those allegations? Do they have any facts to back up their claims or is it all just speculation?

It seems to me, that in order to dismiss Russia’s allegations out-of-hand, the US must explain why they think the claims are false. Instead, the Biden team merely blusters that Russia is planning a military escalation. This reaction is deeply suspicious. Why? Because the United States invaded Iraq and killed a million Iraqis based on the false claim that Saddam had WMD. Well, if WMD was a good enough excuse to kill a million Iraqis, than it should be good enough to withhold judgement until the evidence is produced. Right?

Unless there’s some reason why the US doesn’t want to see the evidence. Is that it? Is the US hiding something?

We don’t know, but the overall reaction of the allies only feeds our suspicions. Here’s a clip from the official Russian Ministry of Defense briefing:

The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation has information about Kiev regime’s planning to commit a provocation by exploding the so-called ‘dirty bomb’ or low-power nuclear warhead. The provocation is aimed at accusing Russia of using mass destruction weapon at the Ukrainian theatre of operations that would launch a powerful anti-Russian campaign in order to undermine the confidence in Moscow…..

According to the available information, two organizations of Ukraine have been directly ordered to create the so-called ‘dirty bomb’. The works are at their concluding stage.

Moreover, we have information about contacts between the Office of the President of Ukraine and representatives of the United Kingdom regarding the possible reception of technologies to create nuclear weapons. With this purpose, Ukraine has got relevant production and scientific capacities.

There are enterprises of nuclear industry in Ukraine that possess stockpiles of radioactive substances that can be used for creating the ‘dirty bomb’…

The Kiev regime plans to camouflage the explosion of this kind of ordnance under an extraordinary effect of Russian low-power nuclear warhead that contains highly enriched uranium in its charge. The presence of radioactive isotopes in the air will be recorded by the sensors of the International Monitoring System installed in Europe with further accusation of the Russian Federation of using tactical nuclear weapons…. Detonation of a radiological explosive device will inevitably lead to radiological contamination covering up to several thousands of square metres.

To summarize, Ukraine has got a motive to use the ‘dirty bomb’, as well as scientific, technical and production capacities to create it.

Ukraine expects ‘dirty-bomb’ provocation to intimidate the population, increase the flow of refugees, and accuse the Russian Federation of nuclear terrorism.

The Ministry of Defence has arranged for countering possible provocations of Ukraine: the means and forces are alerted to operate amid radioactive contamination.” (“Briefing on radiation security threats by the chief of nuclear, biological and chemical protection troops Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov”, Telegraph)

What would prompt the neocon-controlled White House to collaborate on a plan to detonate a nuclear device in Ukraine?

We think it would have to be a real emergency, something that rises to the level of an existential crisis. We think that crisis is already rearing its ugly head in the financial markets but the media is trying to conceal the magnitude and gravity of the situation. You can be sure, however, that powerbrokers in Washington are well-aware of the erratic ructions the financial markets which are emerging signs of a devastating financial meltdown. It’s abundantly clear, that 14 years of rate-suppression, cheap money and exotic debt-instruments have put the financial system into an irreversible downward death-spiral which has been patched over by regular trillion-dollar infusions of digital currency created out-of-thin-air by the Central Bank.

But the recent turbulence in the UK sovereign debt markets indicate that the day of reckoning is not far off. All of the earlier manipulations that supposedly saved the system from repricing assets according to their true value, were deliberately short-circuited to save the TBTF banks and their voracious owners. Now the combined weigh from those mistakes has come crashing down on the $24 trillion US Treasury market pushing the world’s most reliable “risk free” asset to the very edge of the cliff. If liquidity dries up in the sovereign bond market, the dollar will plummet, banks will fail, and the system will suffer a massive heart attack. Regrettably, all the signs indicate that this outcome is already unfolding. This is from Nick Beams at the World Socialist Web Site:

Over the past month, the eyes of the financial world have been focused on the turmoil in the UK. But there is growing recognition that a potentially bigger crisis is building up in the US. It centers on the $24 trillion US Treasury market, where government bonds are bought and sold daily and which forms the basis of the global financial system.

There are warnings that the conditions that led it to freeze in March 2020, when for several days there were virtually no buyers for US bonds, supposedly the safest financial asset in the world, are returning. This is reflected in the tightening of liquidity. Liquidity refers to the ease with which deals can be made.

An article by Financial Times columnist Gillian Tett, published at the end of last week, noted that while surface conditions in the market for US Treasury bonds appeared calm, in contrast to the turmoil in the UK, beneath this “surface veneer, some nasty currents are swirling in the Treasuries world.”

An index of Treasury market liquidity compiled by JPMorgan has deteriorated to levels not seen since the March 2020 crisis.

The extent of the problems was highlighted in an article published earlier this month by the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion, Robert Burgess, in which he pointed to “what is rapidly becoming a potential crisis in the world’s most important market—US Treasuries.”

“The word ‘crisis’ is not hyperbole,” he wrote. “Liquidity is quickly evaporating. Volatility is soaring. Once unthinkable, even demand at the government’s debt auctions is becoming a concern.”…

One of the main factors at work in the worsening liquidity situation is interest rate hikes by the Fed. Another is so-called quantitative tightening (QT) in which, rather than buying up government debt, the Fed is now running down its holdings to the tune of $95 billion a month. Whereas the Fed’s bond buying program under quantitative easing (QE) increased liquidity, QT is decreasing it….

The Bank of America has warned that strains in the Treasury market could be “one of the greatest threats to global financial stability today,” potentially worse than the housing market bubble of 2004-2007 which sparked the 2008 crisis…. “The risk of a financial crisis has grown as central banks have sharply raised interest rates.”…(“Trouble brewing in $24 trillion US Treasury market”, World Socialist Web Site)

The Fed’s higher interest rates help to curb inflation, but they also dampen growth, curtail credit expansion and trigger a daisy-chain of defaults when over stretched businesses and financial institutions find it impossible to service their debts and slip into bankruptcy. Central Bank tightening is the proximate cause of financial crises the likes which is presently descending on the country like the four horsemen of the apocalypse.

These cataclysmic events in the financial markets portend a fundamental change in the global order, a change in which the dollar –which is the cornerstone upon which US hegemony rests– would no longer serve as the world’s reserve currency. Would the Biden administration approve a plan to detonate a nuclear device in Ukraine in order to preserve the primacy of the almighty dollar and the continuing global dominance of the United States?

We think we can answer that question, but we’ll wait for the evidence.

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.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from OneWorld

Posted in English
Comments Off on ‘Ukraine Plans to Use a Nuclear Weapon’ Says Russian Minister of Defense
Tags: dirty bomb, NATO, nuclear war, Russia, Ukraine war, United States

US Hopes to Find Third Country to Lead UN Mission to Haiti

October 31st, 2022 by Kyle Anzalone

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.

***

Officials in Washington say the United States has not abandoned its effort to find a country to lead a United Nations rapid response force to quell unrest in Haiti. The White House has proposed a multilateral security deployment to the Caribbean nation, with the State Department saying it expects to have a country prepared to lead the mission by early November.

On October 18, the US and Mexico announced an upcoming UN resolution to authorize a military deployment to Haiti, where chaotic protests have blocked major ports and disrupted the flow of goods and sorely needed humanitarian aid. According to a report in the Miami Herald earlier this week, the initiative was likely to fail as no country wanted to lead the force.

On Wednesday, however, Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols said Washington is still seeking a country willing to take the reins, and suggested Canada was a top candidate.

“I’ve talked to dozens of partner nations around the world about the situation in Haiti, and there is strong support for a multinational force. The desire to contribute in whatever ways that nations feel that they can be helpful I think is very widespread in our hemisphere and beyond,” he told reporters, noting that Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to discuss the issue with Canadian officials later this week.

“Canada is an incredibly capable partner across a whole host of areas. Canada has incredible development skills, and has a very capable armed forces as well as a national police force. Those are important skills in the international community, and more broadly, it is a respected nation and leader on the full range of issues,” Nichols added.

Washington and Mexico City proposed the security mission following a request for foreign intervention by Haitian Prime Minister and President Ariel Henry. The leader previously called upon other nations to help restore order amid wide-scale protests and gang violence, sparked by a recent cut to government fuel subsidies – a decision urged by the IMF. Armed groups have sized control of several key trade and distribution hubs in Haiti, creating dire shortages in basic necessities, such as water, and even forcing a significant number of hospitals, businesses and other institutions to close their doors.

Haiti’s descent into chaos accelerated in July 2021 after the assassination of President Jovenel Moise. In the weeks following his death, then-acting PM Claude Joseph briefly took over as president, but was soon forced from power under international pressure after a bloc of countries led by the United States declared their support for Henry. The new leader reportedly has close ties to a suspect in Moise’s assassination, and even continued contact with him after the murder.

Should the White House find a suitable nation to lead a UN security mission, Beijing and Moscow could ultimately stifle the effort. Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council – meaning they hold veto power over any resolution that might authorize action in Haiti – and have each questioned the wisdom of such a deployment.

Some Haitians have also voiced objections to any Western military presence in their country, likely given a long and often violent history of foreign intervention there – including a US invasion and military occupation between 1915 and 1934 following a previous presidential assassination.

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

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

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

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

Featured image: FILE PHOTO: United Nations peacekeepers conduct a patrol in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, April 2004. (Credit: UN / Sophia Paris)

Posted in English
Comments Off on US Hopes to Find Third Country to Lead UN Mission to Haiti
Tags: Haiti, United Nations, United States

Indian Government Restricts Use of Glyphosate in Massive Blow to Agrichemical Lobby

October 31st, 2022 by Sustainable Pulse

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 government statement added that all agrichemical companies have been asked to return the certificate of registration granted for glyphosate and its derivatives to the registration committee so that the warning in capital letters can be incorporated on labels and leaflets. Permission will only be given for glyphosate formulations through PCOs. The companies have been given three months to return the certificate, otherwise strict action will be taken as per the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

The final notification restricting the use of glyphosate across India comes two years after the Agricultural Ministry issued a draft notification on July 2, 2020. The draft was released following a decision by the Kerala government to ban the distribution, sale and use of the world’s most used weed killer.

Kerala, Punjab, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are among the major agriculturally important states that have banned the use of glyphosate citing its adverse impact on human health, according to Business Standard.

The main points of the Indian government notification are:

No person shall use Glyphosate except through Pest Control Operators.
All the holders of certificate of registration granted for Glyphosate and its derivatives shall return the certificate of registration to the Registration Committee for incorporation of the warning in bold letters “THE USE OF GLYPHOSATE FORMULATION TO BE ALLOWED THROUGH PEST CONTROL OPERATORS (PCOs)” on the label and leaflets.
If any person who holds the certificate of registration fails to return the certificate to the Registration Committee, referred to in clause (3), within a period of three months, action shall be taken under the provisions contained in the said Act.
Every State Government shall take all such steps under the provisions of the said Act and the rules framed thereunder, as it considers necessary for the execution of this Order in the State.

The move to restrict glyphosate is likely partly aimed at controlling the spread of illegal herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton, which more farmers in some regions of India have been caught planting in the past few years.

There are very few Pest Control Operators in rural areas of India, so the draft order is seen as an attempt by the Indian government to stop the use of glyphosate using a regulation that makes it almost impossible for farmers to spray glyphosate.

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 Sustainable Pulse

Posted in English
Comments Off on Indian Government Restricts Use of Glyphosate in Massive Blow to Agrichemical Lobby
Tags: agrichemical, glyphosate, herbicide, India

45 Deaths, 5,000+ Adverse Events Following Updated Booster Shots Reported to VAERS, CDC Data Show

October 31st, 2022 by Megan Redshaw

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 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,447,520 reports of adverse events following COVID-19 vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Oct. 21, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 31,696 reports of deaths and 263,462 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period.

There were a total of 5,435 reports of adverse events following the new COVID-19 bivalent booster as of Oct. 21, 2022. The data included a total of 45 deaths and 280 serious injuries. As of Oct. 27, 22.8 million people have received the updated bivalent booster dose.

Of the 31,696 reported deaths, 20,252 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 8,599 cases to Moderna, 2,752 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 31,696 reports of deaths and 263,462 serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period.

Of the 31,696 reported deaths, 20,252 cases are attributed to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, 8,599 cases to Moderna, 2,752 cases to Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and no cases yet reported for Novavax.

vaers data vaccine injury 102822

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for 6-month-olds to 5-year-olds show:

4,482 adverse events, including 187 cases rated as serious and 8 reported deaths.
5 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
The CDC uses a narrowed case definition of “myocarditis,” which excludes cases of cardiac arrest, ischemic strokes and deaths due to heart problems that occur before one has the chance to go to the emergency department.
27 reports of blood clotting disorders.
46 reports of seizures.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

14,938 adverse events, including 701 rated as serious and 29 reported deaths.
47 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis.
71 reports of blood clotting disorders.
183 reports of seizures.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

40,045 adverse events, including 4,358 rated as serious and 129 reported deaths.

According to the CDC, “VAERS data available to the public include only the initial report data to VAERS. Updated data which contains data from medical records and corrections reported during follow up are used by the government for analysis. However, for numerous reasons including data consistency, these amended data are not available to the public.”

269 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
1,336 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 1,167 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
301 reports of blood clotting disorders with 278 cases attributed to Pfizer.
27 cases of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with all cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.

VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Oct. 21, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

16% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
53% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased.
The average age of death was 72.
As of Oct. 21, 8,608 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID-19 vaccines, including 5,027 reports of miscarriage or premature birth.
Of the 16,555 cases of Bell’s Palsy reported, 73% were attributed to Pfizer vaccinations, 22% to Moderna and 5% to J&J.
3,040 reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
10,100 reports of anaphylaxis where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death.
4,844 reports of myocardial infarction.
43,699 reports of blood-clotting disorders. Of those, 29,940 reports were attributed to Pfizer, 9,849 reports to Moderna and 3,820 reports to J&J.
24,438 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis with 18,514 cases attributed to Pfizer, 5,459 casesto Moderna and 417 cases to J&J.
70 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease with 57 cases attributed to Pfizer, 12 cases to Moderna and 1 case to J&J.
564 cases of POTS with 418 cases attributed to Pfizer, 125 cases to Moderna and 21 cases to J&J.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

CDC pressured FDA to authorize COVID boosters without clinical trials

The CDC pressured U.S. regulators to clear COVID-19 boosters without clinical trial data, according to emails obtained by Judicial Watch.

CDC officials relayed to counterparts at the FDA in early August 2021 that they wanted authorization for Moderna and Pfizer boosters, as data began showing that the vaccines weren’t working as well as initially promoted.

The conversation took place on a call that was described by Dr. Phil Krause, a top FDA official, to several other FDA workers. On that call, the CDC “evidently stated” they would assemble all the data they were aware of on third dosing in the immunocompromised setting and send it to the FDA in hopes they would authorize a third dose for those with compromised immune systems under Emergency Use Authorization.

All COVID-19 vaccines were authorized only for emergency use at that time. No boosters had been authorized and no clinical data were available for a third vaccine dose. Less than two weeks later, the FDA authorized boosters for certain people, including immunocompromised persons.

The agency said “a thorough review of the available data” concluded the group “may benefit” from a third dose. The only data cited on efficacy were from two studies, one conducted by French researchers and another by Canadian researchers. Pfizer and Moderna hadn’t completed any clinical trials.

FDA slow-walked studies on COVID vaccine safety signals in elderly

The FDA took more than a year to follow up on a potential increase in serious adverse events in elderly people who received Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to an investigative report published Tuesday by The BMJ.

According to The BMJ, in July 2021, the FDA “quietly disclosed” the findings of a potential increase in four types of serious adverse events in elderly people who had received a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine: acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, immune thrombocytopenia, and pulmonary embolism.

The FDA disclosure lacked specific details, such as the magnitude of the increased potential risk, and the agency said it would “share further updates and information with the public as they become available.”

The FDA did not alert physicians or the public, via a press release or any other means, The BMJ investigator said.

Eighteen days later, the FDA published a study planning document that outlined a protocol for a follow-up epidemiological study for investigating the matter more thoroughly.

According to the BMJ, the recondite technical document disclosed the unadjusted risk ratio estimates originally found for the four serious adverse events, which ranged from 42% to 91% increased risk.

More than a year later, the status and results of the follow-up study are unknown. The BMJ report also alleged the FDA has not “publicly acknowledged other published observational studies or clinical trial reanalyses reporting compatible results.”

CDC knew COVID shots could cause myocarditis in young males months before telling the public

Two months after COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out to the U.S. public, a statistically significant vaccine safety signal for myocarditis in males ages 8 to 21 appeared in the CDC’s VAERS database, but CDC officials waited another three months before alerting the public, according to a new study.

The study, “Delayed Vigilance: A Comment on Myocarditis in Association with the COVID-19 Injections,” by Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., was published on Oct. 17 in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research.

In their study, Jablonowski and Hooker recorded and analyzed the increasing incidence of myocarditis as it progressively became a statistically significant “signal” in VAERS.

In an interview with The Defender, Hooker said the paper shows a “strong, statistically significant vaccine adverse event ‘signal’ for myocarditis in males 8 to 21 years of age was seen on the VAERS database as early as Feb. 19, 2021, just two months after the release of the COVID-19 vaccine to the U.S. public.”

Yet, instead of sounding the alarm, “CDC officials buried the connection between COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis until May 27, 2021,” Hooker added. “By this date, over 50% of the eligible U.S. population had received at least one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.”

All age groups at higher risk of myocarditis death after COVID vaccines

People of all ages are at higher risk of death from heart inflammation after COVID-19 vaccination compared with the typical occurrence of myocarditis death, according to a new preprint study.

Researchers in Japan analyzed deaths caused by myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, where the myocarditis set in within 28 days of vaccination. Thirty-eight deaths fit the definition, about half of which were diagnosed by autopsy and or biopsy, with the others being determined through tools such as blood tests and electrocardiograms.

Researchers then took the vaccinated mortality rate and compared it with the death from myocarditis rate from the general population before the pandemic, in the years 2017 to 2019.

Using data provided by the Japanese government, the researchers observed an increased myocarditis mortality rate ratio in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated population compared with the general population during the three years pre-COVID-19 pandemic era, especially in young adults.

An increased risk was also observed in the middle-aged (40s) and elderly vaccinated populations.

Even estimating the lowest level of the effect, the risk of COVID-19 vaccination on myocarditis death would be at least four times higher than the unadjusted mortality risk, the researchers said. There are also signs that some post-vaccination deaths aren’t reported properly, they added.

Recent studies identify new concerns related to COVID vaccines and organ transplants

Recent studies identified a new concern related to the failure of transplanted kidneys and other organs: COVID-19 vaccination.

In one study, published in September in Transplant Infectious Disease, researchers cataloged acute organ rejection within a week or two of COVID-19 vaccination in five individuals who had received kidney, liver or heart transplants six to 18 months earlier.

In August, Japanese researchers reported rejection of corneal grafts — which ordinarily have a high success rate — in COVID-19 vaccine recipients, occurring from one day to six weeks post-vaccination.

Noting literature that documents transplant rejection in association with other vaccines such as influenza, hepatitis B, tetanus and yellow fever, the Japanese authors expressed worry about what “the projected societal shift towards a more frequent vaccination schedule” portends for transplant recipients.

Concerns about the impact of COVID-19 jabs on people with existing transplants are important, but another pressing-yet-unaddressed issue is what happens when an unvaccinated person receives a transplanted organ from someone who received a COVID-19 vaccination.

Woman injured by Gardasil vaccine shares how COVID shots injured her mother and ended the life of her grandmother

In 2012, when she was 20 years old, Rochelle was so injured by Merck’s Gardasil vaccine that she had to give up her pre-med studies.

Ten years later, her mother was injured by Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, and shortly after, her grandmother died just a few weeks after getting her second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine.

In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Rochelle, now 30, shared her story, and her mother and grandmother’s stories. Rochelle told The Defender that her father, grandfather and brother all became doctors, and her mother, Marcia, was a nurse.

Rochelle’s mother received both doses of the Moderna vaccine in the spring of 2021. Adverse events followed soon after the first dose and she was diagnosed with polymyalgia rheumatica(PMR), which her doctor said was induced by the vaccine.

Marcia’s PMR “caused severe inflammation throughout her body,” leading to “spontaneous tendon ruptures and a lower back disc herniation,” said Rochelle. In addition, “she tore her thumb tendon just by moving her hand normally and required urgent surgery to repair it.”

Rochelle said her mother will need several surgeries for complete tendon tears in her shoulder, and may potentially need spine surgery to repair her herniated disc. She is also on medication and for a long time, could not perform basic tasks.

What happened to Rochelle after getting the Gardasil human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine, and her mother, Marcia, after getting the COVID-19 vaccine was bad enough — but not as bad as what happened to Rochelle’s grandmother. After receiving her second Pfizer vaccine, Jean lost her ability to communicate, her health declined severely and within a few weeks, she was dead.

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.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on 45 Deaths, 5,000+ Adverse Events Following Updated Booster Shots Reported to VAERS, CDC Data Show
Tags: CDC, COVID injuries, COVID vaccines, FDA, vaccine adverse events, VAERS

Israel Elections: Shock the Victims to Save the Coloniser

October 31st, 2022 by Ameer Makhoul

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.

***

Just three weeks before the Israeli elections due on 1 November, a prominent Israeli academic has published a Hebrew-language piece in Ha’aretz titled “400 Buses and a Tent City: This is How 200,000 Israeli Arabs Will Be Expelled in Two Days”.

Yoram Yovell, who is known in the fields of psychiatry and neuroscience, is considered an expert on shaping public opinion.

As a member of Israel’s “left”, he has generally sided with the opponents of the occupation.

However, in his piece, Yovell paints a horrific scenario led by far-right politicians Itamar Ben-Gvir as Minister of Judiciary, Bezalel Smotrich as Minister of Security, and General Zvi Fogel in the role of Minister of Public Security.

Stoking fear

Yovell details a sequence of events that could begin in November – immediately following the election – and extend over two months, during which, in a sudden military operation, 200,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel would be rounded up and transported in 400 buses to a tent city set up in the occupied West Bank.

He continues that they would be exiled, never allowed to return, and the operation completed by intimidating the rest of the Palestinians in the 1948 territories. Their citizenship would descend into a state of permanent horror.

The writer ends the scene by noting that it is one that may or may not happen, but could be applicable in light of current political trends in Israel and the dominant mentality in Israeli society.

But this raises an important question: why would Yovell write such an article?

In politics, Yovell is not considered as prominent a figure as in his own academic and medical career. He does not belong to any anti-Zionist or anti-occupation Jewish groups that clash weekly with the occupying soldiers alongside the Palestinian popular resistance in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Is it Yovell’s goal to frighten the vulnerable Palestinian citizens of Israel into rushing to the polls? Is he posing an equation of displacement buses or of buses to transport voters to the Knesset polls to coerce Palestinians in Israel into voting for Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz and Gideon Saar to reform what they called ‘the government of change’, or ‘the government of dreams’?

Or is it to make the Palestinian citizens of Israel suffer shock and despair and not go out to vote? Does Yovell want them to bear the burden of the rise of Itamar Ben-Gvir and his fascist party, the heir to the historical Kach movement led by Meir Kahane, and the possibility of his future control over the reins of Israeli rule?

Yovell does not seek to intimidate the voters of the Labour Party, Meretz Party, or Lapid’s party, but rather the Palestinian voters. He does not seek to “shock” the residents of Tel Aviv’s north neighbourhoods that support the secular Zionist parties of the centre, nor does he speak to what they call the Jewish conscience.

Burdening the victim

Yovell is not the prophet of anger his grandfather Yeshayahu Leibowitz established himself to be among Israelis due to his critical commentary of the country’s military, religious and political practices – including the 1967 occupation.

Rather, Yovell aspires to change the victims of Zionist colonisation and their behaviour. He even sees his state as a refuge for political protection. He does not call, for instance, for an anti-fascist front, fighting fascism on the ground and bringing it down through demonstrations, protests and clashes.

Yovell’s article appears to be part of a push to get the Palestinians living under the 1948 occupation to vote as part of a campaign funded by both Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who wish to prevent former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to power.

Regretfully, however, there is a silent consensus on this issue among the Arab political parties which periodically participate in the electoral race, on an approach that dates back to the late 1990s and is still deepening, to encourage the integration of Palestinian Arabs into the Israeli game rules and to create elites moving in this direction, for the long term.

Products of Israel

Ben-Gvir and his fascist party are one hundred percent the product of Israel, its racism, its occupation and its system. They are also the product of the profound transformations taking place in the Haredi community, which has been gradually Zionised.

What the secular Zionist movement, led by Lapid, is striving for today is the Zionisation of the Haredi movement and its conscription for military service. That is politically herding them, on a silver platter, to Ben-Gvir, who addresses their Jewishness. For the Haridim traditional leaders, Ben-Gvir constitutes the greatest threat.

No one from either the Palestinian communities in Israel or from the far-right could claim that the rise of Ben-Gvir, especially among the Israeli youth from all its circles, is the product of the Arab Palestinian political behaviour at home, similar to that claimed by Shimon Peres: that the role of the Arabs is to overthrow the right-wing Likud and inaugurate him as prime minister of Israel.

When Peres lost the 1996 elections to Netanyahu, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Peres blamed the victims of his occupation, and held the Palestinian Arab masses responsible for his downfall and the rise of Netanyahu.

Yet he did not show any regret towards the school massacre in Qana, Lebanon, which was committed during the Israeli aggression known as the “Clusters of Wrath” in the same year.

Yovell does not subject his Israeli Jewish audience to the potential shock of the elections, but does so to the Palestinian victims of Zionist colonisation. He does not say to his fellow Israelis: do not be racist and do not allow ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and implement genocidal policies and commit crimes against humanity.

Rather, he calls on Arabs to participate and follow the rules of the game of the extinct Zionist “left” represented by the Labor Party and Meretz.

The Labor Party and the United Workers’ Party, Mapam – which merged with Meretz – are the central perpetrator in creating the Nakba, the population transfer and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

But they did not use “400 buses” as much as they used ships to expel the people of coastal cities or for mass expulsion in the north, centre and south; since then, the expelled had to manage their affairs towards the perpetuation of uprooting and displacement.

Fighting for their rights

Palestinian Arabs were eventually liberated from tutelage and the “reserve” box that the Labor Party sought to impose on them in the year of the Nakba, through their national and civil struggles to abolish the military rule, to confront Judaisation of the Galilee and Negev and to refuse the Israeli-imposed educational curricula until today.

It is possible to consider the “Land Day” and the elections that followed it in 1977 as a pivotal event in this regard as the newly established “Democratic Front for Peace and Equality” obtained for the first time a majority of Arab votes, whereas the Zionist parties retreated.

These are the elections in which the Labor Party lost and the Likud took over the reins of power. However, even as the Labor Party fades in Israel, it has a strong passion for revenge against Arabs whom it saw as no more than followers, inferiors and porters of rescue kits to save it from drowning.

Perhaps Yovell’s article implies his recognition that there is no hope in Israeli society and its ability to change or stop the rising fascist, racist tide.

It is an implicit acknowledgement that the Palestinian Arab masses are the true and weighty democratic force capable of changing Israeli society and establishing their weight, while in reality this excessive betting on the Palestinians under the 1948 occupation to bear the responsibility of preventing the return of the Netanyahu government is a disadvantage for this public.

Deepening the occupation

On the most fundamental issues, Netanyahu, Lapid and Gantz agree on the continuation and deepening of the occupation, aggression, and the legitimisation of Israel’s apartheid, and are supported in this by the Supreme Court, the media and public opinion.

At the partisan level, the chance that Gantz and his party will join a coalition led by Netanyahu is also possible as an alternative to the Ben-Gvir-Smotrich alliance, because some international and American circles – both for their own interests and for Israel’s legitimacy – are interested in such a coalition in order to prevent Israel from deepening its profile as a racist regime.

The Palestinian citizens of Israel are fighting for their rights and for the rights of all Palestinians confronting the aggression and the inherent structural racism of Israel.

They are seeking development and to enhance their status, but they are not a reserve force for the Zionist “left”. Rather, they are a vital part of and a fighting force for their people and homeland.

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.

Ameer Makhoul is a leading Palestinian activist and writer in the 48 Palestinians community. He is the former director of Ittijah, a Palestinian NGO in Israel. He was detained by Israel for ten years.

Featured image: Itamar Ben-Gvir (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Posted in English
Comments Off on Israel Elections: Shock the Victims to Save the Coloniser
Tags: israel, Palestine, Yoram Yovell, Zionism

Judgment Day Is Fast Approaching

October 31st, 2022 by Dr. Gilbert Doctorow

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

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

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

***

I am once again duty bound to walk the streets bearing the sign ‘The End of the World is Nigh’.

On a less dramatic note but one from the same musical composition, I have just felt obliged to add a Postscript to my last essay on Rushi Sunak, noting that I was wrong about the kind of marching orders he has from the City of London: while he replaced most of the Truss cabinet ministers, he has retained Ben Wallace at Defense. Note that Wallace is calling for large increases in defense spending to support Britain’s contribution to the Ukrainian armed forces at the same time that Sunak is about to wield the knife on social services in the name of a balanced budget and austerity in times of inflation. The Sunak premiership will not last a year, assuming we have a year ahead of us before all hell breaks loose. He shares with Macron a background in working for US international bankers and the fact of being the youngest head of government in his respective country in two centuries. He also apparently shares the status of political lightweight, but unlike Macron, his position is very fragile because of British constitutional practices. I say that these developments fall in line with the general musical composition, because they show that the marching orders he had received from those who installed him in power, the City of London, are as ideologically driven as the newspaper they all read daily, the viciously anti-Russian Financial Times. And so I conclude that in the U.K., too, Capital is as removed from the real world as the lightweight and incompetent politicians who rule over us on the Continent.

What I cannot understand is how India, China and other big, serious players on the world stage do not take note that the rising escalation in the Russia-NATO confrontation and the lurch towards nuclear exchange will mean the end of life on the planet, their lives as well as ours. Why are they all silent? And where is the United Nations before the looming Armageddon? When General Assembly votes are dictated by one global hegemon and its lackeys, the U.N.’s relevance to keeping the peace is vitiated.

The avoidable tragedy of WWI is something that is foremost in my thoughts every time I stay in my Pushkin apartment outside Petersburg. We live 200 meters away from an entrance to the Catherine Palace park and less than a kilometer from the separate palace which Nicholas II used as a family home. Each time there I wonder to myself how they could have been so foolish as to throw European civilization to the winds, and, as regards the tsarist family, to throw away their own lives. Now I see similar foolishness daily watching the news, whether it is Russian news or Western mainstream broadcasters. I see the growing likelihood of our collective suicide in the weeks if not months before us.

Among patriotic Russians, there has long been a lot of criticism about the way the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine has been waged. People say that Putin has been too soft on the Ukrainians, that he should have destroyed the energy infrastructure in the first days of March, without waiting seven months and allowing the escalation to reach its present critical point. However, that is to ignore the political dimension of war making. And it is to ignore the reality that public opinion is a major restraint on what its President can or cannot do, irrespective of constitutional provisions and supposed authoritarianism at the top.

The Russian public was not ready to accept an all-out war on Ukraine in February. The personal, familial and historic ties binding the Russian and Ukrainian peoples together were simply too strong. Russians, including those in power, could hold out the hope that once the campaign ended, the sides would kiss and make up. It took all this time, it took the crossing of all Russian red lines in terms of attacks on the Russian homeland by artillery and rockets from across the border with Ukraine, it took the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and the terrorist attack on the Kerch bridge for the Russian people to be psychologically prepared to murder Ukrainians by the tens of thousands of soldiers on the battlefield as you do in any normal war and to inflict great hardships on the civilian population.

However, the Kremlin cannot be let off so easily for its share of the blame as the world teeters towards nuclear war. I find it incredible that the professional intelligence analyst Vladimir Putin, whom all of our biographers describe only in relation to his KGB career, could have allowed himself to be so misled by his own intelligence advisers about Ukrainian capabilities and intentions before he decided to go in and denazify, demilitarize Ukraine on 24 February. That was a miscalculation of colossal proportions that resulted in serious military setbacks in the opening weeks of the war, which in turn emboldened United States and NATO decision-makers to go for the jugular and finally ‘take out’ Russia. I will say no more.

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 ABC Science

Posted in English
Comments Off on Judgment Day Is Fast Approaching
Tags: dirty bomb, NATO, nuclear war, Russia, Ukraine war

House Progressives Float Diplomatic Path Toward Ending War in Ukraine, Get Annihilated, Quickly “Clarify”

October 31st, 2022 by Ryan Grim

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 Monday morning, 30 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to the White House that attempted to gingerly open a conversation about a potential diplomatic end to Russia’s war on Ukraine. The door was slammed shut by the evening, met with enough fury to elicit a “clarification” in the form of a statement from caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal.

“Let me be clear,” Jayapal said in a statement issued just before 7 p.m., “We are united as Democrats in our unequivocal commitment to supporting Ukraine in their fight for their democracy and freedom in the face of the illegal and outrageous Russian invasion, and nothing in the letter advocates for a change in that support.”

Statement from @RepJayapal reaffirming support for Ukraine and clarifying the position of a letter to President Biden ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/ddcoyHu94H

— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) October 24, 2022

On Tuesday afternoon, Jayapal followed the clarification by fully withdrawing the letter, saying it was “released by staff without vetting.”

Jayapal throws staff under the bus for the gentle suggestion of diplomacy to end a war, then pleads guilty to the greatest crime in Washington today: giving the appearance of agreeing with the other party.

Letter suggesting diplomacy is "withdrawn." pic.twitter.com/gaYEbSZV4X

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) October 25, 2022

That Monday morning, the Washington Post reported, CPC members were “urging President [Joe] Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia, the first time prominent members of his own party have pushed him to change his approach to Ukraine.” Such diplomacy could ultimately end with Russia gaining territory by force, even as it is faltering on the battlefield.

“I have voted for every defense package to Ukraine and stand firmly for Ukraine’s sovereignty,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., a letter signer, told The Intercept. “It should not be controversial to say we need to explore every diplomatic avenue to seek a just peace and to end the war, including the engagement of our allies to help with that.”

The CPC letter took every pain to account for the argument against U.S. negotiations with Russia over the war — the most common being that Ukraine is the one at war, therefore only Ukraine can open the door to diplomacy. “We agree with the Administration’s perspective that it is not America’s place to pressure Ukraine’s government regarding sovereign decisions, and with the principle you have enunciated that there should be ‘nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,’” the letter read.

“We are under no illusions regarding the difficulties involved in engaging Russia given its outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine and its decision to make additional illegal annexations of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and independent Ukraine, it is America’s responsibility to pursue every diplomatic avenue to support such a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine.”

It added that any ultimate framework would need to be approved by all parties, “particularly Ukrainians.”

“The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks,” the letter read. It had been endorsed by the nonprofit groups Campaign For Peace, Disarmament, and Common Security; Just Foreign Policy; Friends Committee on National Legislation; MoveOn; Peace Action; Physicians for Social Responsibility; the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft; and Win Without War.

Late on Monday, Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., also issued a clarifying statement. “Only Ukrainians have a right to determine the terms by which this war ends,” he said.

My statement regarding my continued support for President Biden’s policies towards Ukraine: pic.twitter.com/P5kHbjVJ1X

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) October 25, 2022

That notion that Ukraine is fully guiding the policy is undermined by NATO’s intervention against peace talks last spring. And the idea that only Ukraine has an interest in the war ignores not just the fact of U.S. funding for it, but also the obvious point that global nuclear war — or any global war — is a concern not just for Russia and Ukraine. That reality was referenced in the initial statement accompanying the letter. “As the risk of nuclear war increases, fighting in Ukraine escalates, and global economic insecurity deepens, 30 members of Congress urged President Biden to pursue direct diplomacy for a negotiated settlement to end Russia’s war in Ukraine,” the press release read.

But the constraints of the debate have made discussing what it could take to stop it off-limits. “Diplomacy is an important tool that can save lives — but it is just one tool,” Jayapal’s “clarification” read. “As we also made explicitly clear in our letter and will continue to make clear, we support President Biden and his administration’s commitment to nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., was among those to criticize the letter obliquely, writing on Twitter,

“There is moral and strategic peril in sitting down with Putin too early. It risks legitimizing his crimes and handing over parts of Ukraine to Russia in an agreement that Putin won’t even honor.”

The letter also ran into an electoral buzzsaw. House Speaker-in-waiting Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., recently told Punchbowl News that with Republicans in charge, Ukraine policy could change. “I think people are gonna be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank check to Ukraine,” he said. Democrats have pounded McCarthy for the suggestion.

Others came at it directly.

DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas deployed a rhetorical device increasingly used to build guardrails around debate: If you’re not fully supportive of the party position, you are effectively aligned with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. “These 30 House progressives are now making common cause with Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, JD Vance, and the rest of the MAGA crowd. You’d think that would give them *some* pause,” Moulitsas wrote on Twitter. “Which Ukrainians do these ‘progressives’ want abandoned to mass murder and rape, in their attempt to prop up a flailing Russia? The only way to end this war is to help deliver a decisive Ukrainians victory.”

This, by @RepRashida, @RepRoKhanna and other progressives is unbelievably naive and stupid, asking for “diplomacy” with a murderous terrorist regime literally raping and pillaging through Ukraine. Biden tried diplomacy to prevent the war. Only overwhelming force will now end it https://t.co/Nm1Yrp35B6

— Markos Moulitsas (@markos) October 24, 2022

Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, which endorsed the letter, cast the extreme opposition to it as a sign of the fragility of the anti-diplomacy consensus.

“The shrill response to this utterly moderate letter exposes that war proponents are scared of an open debate about the range of potential approaches to address this escalating conflict,” Sperling said. “As happened with the war in Iraq and many others throughout human history, war proponents attempt to silence debate in large part because they aren’t confident in their arguments and are afraid that pro-diplomacy views will appeal to average Americans. With polls already showing growing opposition to U.S. military involvement in Ukraine, increasing concern from progressives will only make it harder for war proponents to cast conventional pro-diplomacy views as ‘far-right’ or ‘pro-Putin.’”

Meanwhile, Biden himself has said repeatedly that only negotiations can ultimately end the conflict, as the letter noted — and that nuclear war is more imminent now than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis.

“We urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire,” the letter offered. “This is consistent with your recognition that ‘there’s going to have to be a negotiated settlement here,’ and your concern that Vladimir Putin ‘doesn’t have a way out right now, and I’m trying to figure out what we do about that.’”

Among congressional Democrats, however, the process of figuring that out is apparently not allowed to include discussion of how to get to a negotiated settlement.

Update: October 25, 2022, 1:15 p.m.

The article has been updated to include further development following publication. In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon by CPC Chair Jayapal, the letter was completely withdrawn. Earlier, former CPC Co-Chair Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., had claimed the letter was initially drafted in July and “I have no idea why it went out now.” The full capitulation:

The Congressional Progressive Caucus hereby withdraws its recent letter to the White House regarding Ukraine.

The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. As Chair of the Caucus, I accept responsibility for this. Because of the timing, our message is being conflated by some as being equivalent to the recent statement by Republican Leader McCarthy threatening an end to aid to Ukraine if Republicans take over. The proximity of these statements created the unfortunate appearance that Democrats, who have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every package of military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people, are somehow aligned with Republicans who seek to pull the plug on American support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian forces.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Ukrainian victory. The letter sent yesterday, although restating that basic principle, has been conflated with GOP opposition to support for the Ukrainians’ just defense of their national sovereignty. As such, it is a distraction at this time and we withdraw the letter.

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: Biden and Jayapal at a negotiating table in October 2021 – Photo credit: The White House

Posted in English
Comments Off on House Progressives Float Diplomatic Path Toward Ending War in Ukraine, Get Annihilated, Quickly “Clarify”
Tags: Ukraine war, Ukrainian peace, United States

Stop World War III — Now!

October 31st, 2022 by Eric Margolis

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 1799, Marshall Alexander Suvorov led a Russian army and all its cannons across the Alps in the dead of winter. A plaque near Gotthard still commemorates this epic military feat.

In March 1814, Russia’s emperor Alexander I entered Paris at the head of his Imperial Guard, ending Napoleon’s rule.

In 1945, Russian forces under Marshalls Zhukov and Konev fought their way into Berlin. The Red Army destroyed 75% of all German and Axis forces.

Russians are great warriors. They are courageous, often heedless of death, and masters of the art of war.

So, what has happened to the Russian Army in Ukraine? It has fought poorly, moved at the speed of ox carts, blundered around and suffered heavy casualties and heavy loss of armored and air forces.

Start with Russia’s military hierarchy. It’s led by a civilian, Sergei Shoigu, a crony of Putin and a man without any military training or experience. But he’s loyal to Putin.

He reminds me of poor, old Egyptian field marshal, Abdel Hakim Amer, Nasser’s buddy, who misled his nation’s armed forces into the 1967 catastrophe. When Israeli warplanes attacked, using US satellite data, Amer was smoking dope in his airplane.

Putin was a KGB officer. He had no military background beyond ruthlessly crushing the second Chechen uprising – with US help. Chechen chief Ramzan Kadyrov has blasted Shoigu and called for his head. There has been far too much political interference with Russia’s military.

Russia’s artillery, the Queen of battle, ran out of ammunition. The Red Air Force was ordered not to risk its expensive Sukhoi fighter-bombers. Its space-based targeting was jammed or degraded by the US and NATO.

Equally important, the conflict in Ukraine has already turned into a mini-World War Three as the US and its key allies struggle to deliver the coup de grace to the Russian federation.

This war is not about freedom for Ukraine – as potent western propaganda incessantly tells us. It’s about crushing the last remnants of former Soviet power and turning the fragments into docile mini states dominated by Washington and London.

Since CIA overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian regime in 2014 – which cost an estimated $50 billion – Moscow and Kiev have been at daggers drawn. Putin’s Russia refuses to recognize Ukraine as an independent state. Kiev, backed by tens of billions of dollars and a massive arsenal of arms from the west, rejects Russian hegemony.

The US wants to see the Balkanization of Mother Russia. The next targets may be Russia’s Far East or the Russian Urals. The war party in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, appears determined to crush the life out of what’s left of Russia and achieve the strategic goal of America’s neocons of eradicating any potential military opponent of absolute worldwide US power. Once Russia is laid low, China will be the next target – in fact, it likely already is.

The Biden administration has already poured close to $100 billion of aid and huge amounts of arms into Ukraine, a staggering and risky sum for a nation with a $31 trillion deficit. Add billions more from Canada and US allies in Europe who would prefer to see this war end.

The current wave of high inflation has been ignited in large part by Washington’s reckless spending over Ukraine. This is money the US Treasury does not have, and must borrow, fueling roaring inflation.

A decade ago, President Putin proclaimed that Russia would cut conventional military spending and increasingly rely on nuclear arms.

Yet we are surprised now that the Kremlin is rattling its nuclear weapons. We should not forget that before the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held and produced substantial numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. These were supposedly all junked, but Ukraine probably holds a few nukes in secret.

Meanwhile, western forces are openly operating in Ukraine against Russian forces. The full panoply of US power is witnessed there: space intelligence and air-born intelligence; naval operations blocking the Russian Black Sea Fleet; vast amounts of artillery, electronic warfare, conventional land warfare conducted by special units from Poland, the US, Britain and Germany.

As this column has been saying for years, the prime duty of the United States, the world’s premier power, is to avert any possible nuclear confrontation in Eastern Europe. Diplomacy, not more arms, is the answer.

The answer is clear: stop trying to draw Ukraine into NATO, stop trying to fragment Russia. Let the rebellious Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine join Russia if they so desire. Pull western forces out of the region and resume quiet diplomacy. Let France lead this sensible effort.

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 Tech Viral

Posted in English
Comments Off on Stop World War III — Now!

Neo-Colonialism, International Finance Capital and the Necessity of Pan-African Sovereignty

October 31st, 2022 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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.

***

Note: These remarks were prepared and delivered in part to a webinar entitled “AFRICOM, Corporate Dominance, Neo-Colonialism: How Do People Assert Their Humanity and Choices.” The event was sponsored by the Pan-Afrikan Society Community Forum (PASCF) based in London, England. The other two panelists were Mahlet Ayele Beyecha, an independent Pan-African researcher and creator of Connect Africa media platform as well as the Pan-African wing coordinator of the Defend Ethiopia Task Force in Europe. Also, Tunde Osazua spoke representing the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) U.S. Out of Africa Network. He is the coordinator of the October month of action demanding the dismantling of AFRICOM. This webinar was moderated by Jackie Lewis and Ola Balagun of PASCF.

“The neo-colonialism of today represents imperialism in its final and perhaps its most dangerous stage. In the past it was possible to convert a country upon which a neo-colonial regime had been imposed — Egypt in the nineteenth century is an example — into a colonial territory. Today this process is no longer feasible. Old-fashioned colonialism is by no means entirely abolished. It still constitutes an African problem, but it is everywhere on the retreat. Once a territory has become nominally independent it is no longer possible, as it was in the last century, to reverse the process. Existing colonies may linger on, but no new colonies will be created. In place of colonialism as the main instrument of imperialism we have today neo-colonialism. The essence of neo-colonialism is that the State which is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside.” (Taken from the Introduction to “Neo-Colonialism: The Last State of Imperialism”, by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, 1965)

Over the last 57 years when these words were published by the-then First President of the Republic of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the situation in Africa has not changed fundamentally as it relates to the overall international division of labor and economic power.

The purpose of this presentation is to objectively review some of the critical issues facing African people internationally. There is the tendency among journalists and scholars to view the clear and present dangers within the context of western imperialist narratives where the capitalist states of North America and Europe are viewed as the norm while the vast majority of governments and populations are characterized as somehow lacking or even inferior in regard to societal values and governance strategies.

However, events over the last decade have clearly illustrated the fragility of bourgeois democracy as it is practiced in the EU, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) states and most importantly, the U.S. and Canada. Although the collapse of classical colonialism has resulted in the revision of exploitative and oppressed mechanism which allow for the façade of diplomatic representation and recognition by the imperialist states and their ruling class, the loosening of the grip by the western capitalists has been noteworthy with the emergence of economic and political blocs which at least in theory are seeking to operate in their own national and regional interests.

For example, the recent meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC+) agreed to take two million barrels of oil per day off the global energy markets causing further pressures on the world capitalist system. The Russian Federation collaborated with the Saudi Arabian monarchy to engineer this latest rejection of U.S. hegemonic policy implementation. U.S. President Joe Biden had travelled to Saudi Arabia in contravention to his own 2020 campaign pledges to isolate the monarchy in a failed attempt to secure a lowering of the price of oil under conditions which would benefit Washington and Wall Street.

The only response from Biden to the announcement by OPEC+ was to suggest a review of his administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia. Yet the people who live and work in the U.S. are facing inflationary pressures not experienced since the 1970s. The costs for gasoline, heating, electricity, food, public transportation and other consumer goods and services are increasing. This leading capitalist state has refused to even suggest the enactment of price controls and penalties against multinational corporations which are earning mega-profits while impoverishment is increasing among working people.

What the Biden administration has done in response to the global capitalist crisis is to intensify its war drive in Europe, Asia and the African continent. The administration has pledged at least $US80 billion to Ukraine in their proxy war against the Russian Federation. Any effort to abide by the Minsk Agreements signed after negotiations which spanned several years. The talks which led to these agreements were designed to prevent a full-blown war over the status of Ukraine and particularly the Donbass region where large sections of people are of Russian ancestry. (See this)

Many people in 2022 who would argue vehemently against the position of Moscow in the current U.S.-provoked proxy war have never even heard of the Minsk Agreements. Information conveyed over the corporate and government-controlled media in the U.S. and Western Europe are only presenting distorted and one-sided narratives which justify the failed domestic and foreign policies of the Biden administration and their EU-NATO cohorts.

These untruths are not only incorrect, they have created a tense international situation where claims of first strike nuclear capability have entered the mainstream of dialogue taking place among world powers. The Biden administration’s refusal to allow a negotiated settlement to the proxy war in Ukraine is being reflected in the current crisis gripping the African continent and other geo-political regions of the globe.

In fear of its waning influence within Europe and the Global South, the current administration in Washington has set out to establish new ground rules for their political engagement with the AU member-states. A recently released document from the State Department suggests a new partnership between U.S. imperialism and the AU. Since when has the unequal nature of economic, military and political power between two distinct geo-political regions resulted in a genuine partnership based upon mutual interests? The Biden administration has abused its electoral mandate which was spelled out during the 2020 campaign which drew enormous support from African Americans, Latin Americans, women and working people of all nationalities. (See this)

The more than 80 million people who cast their ballots in 2020 to remove the former President Donald Trump from office did not do so in order to witness a worsening security situation in Europe and the efforts to reinforce neo-colonial domination on the African continent. As Nkrumah noted in seminal work Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism cited at the beginning of this work that:

“Foremost among the neo-colonialists is the United States, which has long exercised its power in Latin America. Fumblingly at first she turned towards Europe, and then with more certainty after world war two when most countries of that continent were indebted to her. Since then, with methodical thoroughness and touching attention to detail, the Pentagon set about consolidating its ascendancy, evidence of which can be seen all around the world.

Who really rules in such places as Great Britain, West Germany, Japan, Spain, Portugal or Italy? If General de Gaulle is ‘defecting’ from U.S. monopoly control, what interpretation can be placed on his ‘experiments’ in the Sahara Desert, his paratroopers in Gabon, or his trips to Cambodia and Latin America?

Lurking behind such questions are the extended tentacles of the Wall Street octopus. And its suction cups and muscular strength are provided by a phenomenon dubbed ‘The Invisible Government’, arising from Wall Street’s connection with the Pentagon and various intelligence services.” (See this)

In 2022, this Wall Street octopus is doing everything in its power to not choke or suffocate on its own inability to properly devour the resistance which is continuing to emerge in opposition to unilateralism and hegemony. Since taking office less than two years ago the Biden administration has managed to widen an already existing low-intensity conflict in eastern Ukraine; raise the level of tensions between Beijing and Washington through consistent provocations surrounding the status of Taiwan; facilitate massive food deficits in Africa and Asia through its draconian sanctions against Russia related to its destabilization of the entire United Kingdom and EU geo-political region; while concurrently ignoring the burgeoning domestic crises of the economy, national, class and gender oppression.

Our principal focus in this webinar is the African continent and its 1.4 billion people. However, Africa has never existed in a vacuum. Its history is one of origination, triumph and tragedy. Since the era of enslavement, colonialism and neo-colonialism an ongoing struggle has been waged which takes on different forms although in its essence is aimed at total emancipation and unification.

Lessons from the Sudanese Struggle for Democratic Transition

A profound testament to the character of neo-colonialism in Africa is the present social and economic crisis in the Republic of Sudan. This state which is strategically located is not only well-endowed with petroleum and natural gas, the country is a nexus between the northern, central and eastern regions of the continent.

Since January 1956, Sudan has been independent from British colonialism which ruled the country starting in the late 19th century. Many of the unresolved questions emanating from the post-colonial African situation are present in modern day Sudan. There is the partitioning of the country which stemmed directly from the divisive character of colonial rule. In addition, there has been periodic conflicts between the military and security apparatus against the civilian political parties, trade unions and mass organizations. Despite its vast energy resources, the majority of the population remains mired in poverty and underdevelopment.

Former President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was a career military officer who seized power from a civilian government in 1989. The administration which was overthrown in 1989 grew out of social unrest which unfolded during the early months of 1985 when another U.S.-supported military regime was overthrown through mass civil disobedience, strikes and rebellions. Even though multi-party elections were held in the aftermath of the 1985 uprising, similar contradictions among the political parties which emerged during the struggle for national independence were soon to resurface.

After taking power, former President al-Bashir switched his military uniform for civilian clothing and later formed a political party which was based heavily among the armed forces and Islamic institutions. The National Congress Party (NCP) ruled in conjunction with the military until April 2019 when al-Bashir was removed as head-of-state by top ranking soldiers. This seizure of power by what was later labelled as the Transitional Military Council (TMC) could by no means resolve the crisis which was spawned by the legacy of colonialism which manifested in the 2011 partitioning of the Sudanese state. Prior to the division of the country into two separate states, Sudan was the largest geographic nation-state on the continent.

This geographic fact of the post-colonial territorial configurations imposed by European imperialism placed Sudan in an advantageous position. Prior to the partition, Sudan was emerging as a significant oil producing state with substantial reserves. Even after the creation of the Republic of South Sudan in 2011, one source reported on the oil reserves saying:

“Sudan holds 5,000,000,000 barrels of proven oil reserves as of 2016, ranking 23rd in the world and accounting for about 0.3% of the world’s total oil reserves of 1,650,585,140,000 barrels. Sudan has proven reserves equivalent to 97.8 times its annual consumption. This means that, without Net Exports, there would be about 98 years of oil left (at current consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves). (See this)

Yet due to political and sectional conflicts, the wealth generated by oil reserves and their exploitation are not benefiting the majority of the Sudanese people in both the North and South. The United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA) concluded after assessing the contemporary crisis in the country that:

“Sudan has had two civil wars since it gained independence in 1956. The second civil war ended in 2005 and led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Sudanese government and the rebel factions in the southern region. The CPA established guidelines for oil revenue sharing and a timeframe to hold a referendum for independence of the South. The southern region overwhelmingly voted for secession, and in July 2011, South Sudan became an independent nation, separate from Sudan. The secession of South Sudan significantly affected Sudan’s economy because Sudan lost 75% of its oil reserve fields to South Sudan. Sudan and South Sudan’s oil sectors play a vital role in both economies and are closely linked; most of the oil producing assets are near or extend across their shared border. Since the split, oil production in Sudan and South Sudan declined because of continued domestic political instability in both countries.” (See this)

Therefore, the division of the country has grave economic and consequent political ramifications. Rather than convene a national assembly aimed at resolving the internal conflicts in Sudan, the military leadership of General Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan continues to meet all opposition demonstrations with the brutality meted out by the security forces. There can be no genuine development in Sudan or any other African state without peace and stability.

Consequently, those policy imperatives being forced on to the Sudanese people should be rejected categorically. Since the assumption of power by the TMC in April 2019, the Republic of Sudan has agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation to U.S. residents whose relatives were killed in a series of terrorist attacks. This conditionality of readmission into the club of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other financial institutions for Sudan remains the same as other states since the advent of independence.

No concrete evidence has ever been presented remotely suggesting that the origins of the bomb attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 along with the damage done to the USS Cole in 2000 are a direct result of the machinations of the former Sudanese government of President al-Bashir. However, a completely different regime is required to pay large sums of money to people who reside in the leading capitalist country in the world.

In addition, the previous U.S. administration of President Donald Trump demanded that the former interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok disavow the Israeli Boycott Act of 1958. Sudan historically has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and statehood and such an act could be viewed internationally as a betrayal of the actual founding documents of the AU and its predecessor the Organization of African Unity (OAU). This abdication to the influences of U.S. imperialism and Israeli settler colonialism sends the wrong message to the people of Sudan, the African continent and indeed the entirety of progressive humanity.

Moreover, the horrendous legacy of the IMF, World Bank and other financial institutions based in the imperialist states should be proof enough for any existing African government operating in the 21st century. The people’s aspirations cannot be met with these policies being dictated by international finance capital. If the military cannot control the popular and working class struggles of the Sudanese people, their effectiveness as an intermediary class operating on behalf of Washington and Wall Street will be seriously compromised.

Regional Instability and the Continuing Libyan Counter-revolution

U.S. imperialism under the former administration of President Barack Obama destroyed the North African state of Libya in 2011, then the most prosperous country on the continent. Libya as a modern state emerged after the September 1, 1969 Revolution which brought the youthful Col. Muammar Gaddafi to power.

Image: Libya stamp of the Revolution

Before the 1969 Revolution, Libya had been controlled by a monarchy under the leadership of King Idris I. Prior to this the Libyan people waged an anti-colonial war of liberation against Italian imperialism between 1911-1931. After the ascendancy of the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in 1922, a policy of settler colonialism was introduced which encouraged more than 150,000 Italians to take up residence in the North African state. Thousands of Libyans were forcibly conscripted into the Italian colonial and later fascist armed forces to fight against the interests of their own people.

The battles between Italy, Britain and the U.S for the control of North Africa during the early 1940s were important historical developments which shaped the post-World War II colonial and neo-colonial political constructs. A military base was built by the British and later taken control of by the U.S. after 1943. After the decisive defeat of Italy and their German fascist partners under Adolph Hitler by the Allied Forces in 1943 in North Africa, the country became an outpost for the now dominant forces of U.S. imperialism.

King Idris I was a supplicant of this post-WWII arrangement where after the discovery of oil in the late 1950s, there was huge profits to be earned by the multi-national corporations. The Wheelus Air Base served as a military monitoring and launching station aimed at assuring U.S.-dominance in North Africa and West Asia.

According to one historical interpretation of these events:

“A constitution creating a federal state with a separate parliament for each province was drawn up, and the pro-British head of the Sanūsiyyah, Sīdī Muḥammad Idrīs al-Mahdī al-Sanūsī, was chosen king by a national assembly in 1950. On December 24, 1951, King Idris I declared the country independent. Political parties were prohibited, and the king’s authority was sovereign. Though not themselves Sanūsīs, the Tripolitanians accepted the monarchy largely in order to profit from the British promise that the Sanūsīs would not again be subjected to Italian rule. King Idris, however, showed a marked preference for living in Cyrenaica, where he built a new capital on the site of the Sanūsī zāwiyah at Al-Bayḍāʾ. Though Libya joined the Arab League in 1953 and in 1956 refused British troops permission to land during the Suez Crisis, the government in general adopted a pro-Western position in international affairs.” (See this)

Despite its affiliation with the Arab League, Libya is located on the African continent and was a participate in the First Conference of Independent African States held in Accra, Ghana in April 1958 under the leadership of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, then the founding prime minister of the former British colony of the Gold Coast. Later in May 1963, the monarchical-dominated regime in Libya joined the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the forerunner of the African Union formed in 2002 in the Republic of South Africa.

Ghana and Ethiopia leader Nkrumah and HIM Haile Selassie

After the initial phase of the African liberation movements between the early 1950s until the 1990s, it was widely recognized that a revised continental body was necessary to address the concerns of the governments and their people. During the time of President Kwame Nkrumah, his government and political organization, the Convention People’s Party (CPP), placed the total liberation and unification of Africa as the cornerstone of its foreign policy.

Nkrumah’s government was overthrown at the aegis of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and State Department in February 1966 when the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson viewed the CPP as pursuing policies which seriously conflicted with Washington and Wall Street’s economic and political interests. In fact, Nkrumah’s study on Neo-Colonialism was published just four months prior to the coup which removed the Pan-Africanist and Socialist leader. Nkrumah was invited to take up residence in the Republic of Guinea after the coup and was appointed co-president by President Ahmed Sekou Toure, the co-founder of the Democratic Party of Guinea (PDG).

Although the CPP government of Nkrumah was removed from office in Ghana, the ideas they advanced continued to gain ground across the continent and the world. The armed phase of the African Revolution united various national liberation movements in the struggle to end direct colonial domination by Portugal, France, Britain and the settler colonial states of Southern Africa located at the time in Zimbabwe (then known as Rhodesia), Namibia (formerly South West Africa) and the Republic of South Africa. The emergence of the Frontline States during the late 1970s and 1980s helped facilitate along with the OAU Liberation Committee the material and political assistance required to end white-minority rule.

By the conclusion of the 1990s, it was decided that the OAU needed to advance its mission geared towards the restructuring of the continental grouping. A summit was convened in 1999 where a renewed set of priorities were enacted. This gathering in Sirte, Libya put forward a declaration which mandated the strengthening of continental structures in the areas of economic integration, military affairs, health and social welfare among other issues.

Experts from the Sirte Declaration read as follows:

“We, the Heads Of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), met at the fourth Extraordinary Session of our Assembly in Sirte, in the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from 8 – 9 September 1999, at the invitation of the Leader of the Al Fatah Revolution, Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi, and as agreed upon during the Thirty-fifth Ordinary Session of our Summit in Algiers, Algeria from 12 – 14 July 1999.

2. We deliberated extensively on the ways and means of strengthening our continental Organization to make it more effective so as to keep pace with the political, economic and social developments taking place within and outside our continent.

3. In this endeavor, we were inspired by the ideals which guided the Founding Fathers of our Organization and Generations of Pan-Africanists in their resolve to forge unity, solidarity and cohesion, as well as co-operation between African peoples and among African States.

4. We recall the heroic struggles waged by our peoples and our countries during the last century of this millennium for political independence, human dignity and economic emancipation. We take pride in the achievements made to promote and consolidate African unity and we salute the heroism and the sacrifices of our peoples, particularly during the liberation struggles.

5. As we prepare to enter the 21st century and cognizant of the challenges that will confront our continent and peoples, we emphasize the imperative need and a high sense of urgency to rekindle the aspirations of our peoples for stronger unity, solidarity and cohesion in a larger community of peoples transcending cultural, ideological, ethnic and national differences.” (See this)

A decade after this historic summit which laid the groundwork for the creation of the AU, Gaddafi was serving as the Chairman of the continental organization. In 2009, Gaddafi would travel to the U.S. to represent the AU at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) held in New York City. The AU Chair was subjected to an intense propaganda campaign which denied him the normal courtesy of a diplomat participating in the UNGA.

U.S. President Obama, a strong proponent of imperialist militarism in Africa, Asia and Latin America, refused to even address Gaddafi while at the UNGA. Obama was ushered out of the Assembly Hall so he would not have any direct contact with the AU Chair. These actions by the Obama administration represented its hostility towards genuine African unity and development. Just 17 months later, Obama would deploy hundreds of CIA operatives to Libya aimed at setting the stage for the war of regime change and genocide carried out against the North Africa state beginning in February 2011.

When the U.S.-NATO-CIA rebels ran into difficulties in their campaign to overthrow the Jamahiriya in Libya, two United Nations Security Council Resolutions, 1970 and 1973, were engineered through the elite body which served to provide a pseudo-rationale for the blanket bombing of the country after March 19, 2011. During the course of the imperialist war against Libya from March through late October 2011, tens of thousands of Libyans and foreign nationals were killed including members of the Gaddafi family. Gaddafi himself was captured and brutally murdered at the aegis the White House and the State Department headed then by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who laughed at the execution of an African leader.

Since October 2011, neo-colonial dominated Libya has not only failed to establish a unitary state, the territory still serves as a major source of instability throughout North and West Africa. In 2012, the rebel insurgencies in neighboring Mali began. The surfacing of armed Islamic jihadists has wreaked havoc on Mali and Burkina Faso prompting more military coups by Pentagon-trained officers. These imperialist war crimes remain as a major cause of dislocation resulting in the so-called migration crisis in North and West Africa extending across the Mediterranean Sea into Southern, Central and Western Europe.

The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was formed under the administration of former President George W. Bush, Jr. during 2008. However, the Obama government expanded and enhanced AFRICOM which has now created numerous bases across the continent.

AFRICOM, although claiming to be working to stabilize the AU region, has done just the opposite. Africa is far more unstable politically and economically since the formation of this Pentagon Command structure designed to further stifle development and unity on the continent. The anti-U.S. and anti-French sentiments burgeoning in several areas of the Sahel in West Africa are a direct outcome of the imperialist policies of Washington, Paris, London and Brussels.

Africa and the Ukraine War

These events over the previous decade-and-a-half involving U.S., EU and NATO military operations within the AU member-states can easily shed further light on the current proxy war against the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The Biden administration could have easily avoided a war in Ukraine through the utilization of diplomatic initiatives.

However, the worsening crisis within U.S. imperialism has driven the world’s leading capitalist state into a spiral of destructive desperation. During the second term of the Obama administration, the Ukrainian government led by President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014 by the machinations of the State Department and the CIA. Yanukovych sought to balance relations between the U.S.-EU on the one side and the Russian Federation on the other. This change of government was secured through the participation of ultra-right fascist elements which have played an historic role in Ukraine, particularly in regard to their alliance with the Nazi regime during WWII.

Why would a Democratic administration led by Obama and Biden engineer an undemocratic putsch while claiming that the source of instability is to be found among the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine in conjunction with Moscow? As mentioned before, the Minsk I and II Agreements have been routinely ignored by the White House and the State Department since 2014-2015. Obviously, the war policy of the U.S. ruling interests transcends both political parties which dominate the electoral landscape. Neither of these political parties, which while having differing constituencies based upon race, social class, gender and geography, are tolerant of ideological positions which uphold the notions of world peace and mutual cooperation on a global scale.

This same viewpoint has been extended once again to the African continent. A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representative is a clear manifestation of 21st century neo-colonialism. The legislation seeks to punish AU member-states which maintain diplomatic and economic relations with the Russian Federation. When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa paid a state visit to Washington, D.C. in September, he spoke out vehemently against this measure which provides additional rationalizations for the blatant interference into the affairs of African people.

An article published by Business Standard reported on this disagreement between the Democratic administration of Biden and the majority of states on the continent. The report says:

“A U.S. Bill that seeks to act against African countries that support Russian activities on the continent has been described by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa as having the potential of punishing these countries. Addressing a meeting with the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus and anti-apartheid veterans on Friday (Sept. 16), Ramaphosa said that the bill if passed could have unintended consequences on the African continent. He strongly condemned the United States proposed Russian Malicious Acts Bill as harmful to Africa’s development. The bill would oblige Washington to punish any governments in Africa that helps Russian malign activities, SA people News, a South African news portal reported. (If passed) the law could have the unintended consequence of punishing the continent for efforts to advance development and growth, Ramaphosa said. In terms of the Bill, the U.S. will assess the influence that Russia has on African countries, especially those which it believes undermines the interests of those nations. Analysts have long said that both Russia and China are having strong impacts on the continent with their investments in infrastructure, potentially creating obligations on the part of the African continent. ‘I think (the Act) will harm Africa and marginalize the continent. We should not be told by anyone who we can associate with, Ramaphosa told the media after his meeting.’” (See this)

On the eve of the midterm elections, it does not appear as if the bill will be voted on by the Senate. Depending upon the outcomes in regard to which party will dominate both the House and Senate could determine the future status of this legislation.

It is important that the anti-imperialist organizations say no to neo-colonial legislation which further encourages military involvement on the African continent. AFRICOM must be abolished along with all the other Pentagon and intelligence centers in existence around the world. Until this disarmament is achieved there can be no peace in Africa or anywhere else on the planet.

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on Neo-Colonialism, International Finance Capital and the Necessity of Pan-African Sovereignty
Tags: Imperialism, Pan-African

COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia

October 31st, 2022 by Dr. Peter McCullough

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

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

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

***

There are over 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the preprint server system and or in the National Library of Medicine (PUBMED) describing side effects after mRNA or adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccination. One of the most dreaded complications is vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).

Because the Spike protein produced in response to the vaccine genetic code causes hemagglutination and micro blood clotting, there is excessive antigenic presentation of platelets to the spleen and reticuloendothelial system. As a result, the body produces auto-antibodies directed against a platelet receptor (PF4) which has homology with an endothelial protein.

This causes autoantibody “pinning” of platelets to the lining of blood vessel cells resulting in consumption of platelets, blood clotting and bleeding at the same time. Unfortunate victims are fine for a few weeks after vaccination. Then bleeding from the oral and nasal mucosa associated with bruising under the skin occurs commonly with serious blood clotting within the brain and elsewhere in the body.

Most patients are hospitalized in critical condition as doctors try a variety of medical and interventional maneuvers to combat simultaneous clotting and bleeding. As you can imagine, in some individuals the process is overwhelming and no matter how much critical care support is given, the patient dies.[i] The obituary of Mrs. Jessica Berg, age 37, a previously healthy vibrant mother is given in the figure.[ii] It indicates she died as a result of VITT.

Jessica Berg Wilson, Oct. 29, 1983 – Sept. 7, 2021, died of COVID-19 VITT

To her left is a paper by Tsilingiris et al, titled “Vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: The shady side of a success story.[iii]”

The authors never state what “success” meant in the title but it is clear that schools, employers, and the military are “shady” when they don’t fairly warn people what can happen when forcing mass vaccination.

Television commercials, internet promotions, and consent forms do not describe VITT. Ms. Berg and her family had no way of getting an informed consent. To her right is a treatment pathway described that doctors commonly take to treat patients in the hospital. As in her case, many patients (~39%) succumb to this premature and bloody death which leaves more questions than answers. How could this have been anticipated? Is VITT associated with prior heparin induced thrombocytopenia (a similar syndrome)? What is the best initial blood thinner? Why aren’t patients with prior blood disorders given prompt exemption from such a horrific threat? Ask your doctor next time about VITT and how would they advise to avoid it. If you get a blank look or a queasy uncomfortable expression, show a copy of Ms. Berg’s obituary and start a critical conversation.

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

[i] Sharifian-Dorche M, Bahmanyar M, Sharifian-Dorche A, Mohammadi P, Nomovi M, Mowla A. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis post COVID-19 vaccination; a systematic review. J Neurol Sci. 2021 Sep 15;428:117607. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2021.117607. Epub 2021 Aug 3. PMID: 34365148; PMCID: PMC8330139.

[ii] Obituary, Jessica Berg Wilson age 37

[iii] Tsilingiris D, Vallianou NG, Karampela I, Dalamaga M. Vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia: The shady chapter of a success story. Metabol Open. 2021 Sep;11:100101. doi: 10.1016/j.metop.2021.100101. Epub 2021 Jun 18. PMID: 34179744; PMCID: PMC8217988.

Featured image is from FiercePharma

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia
Tags: COVID vaccines, COVID-19, mRNA vaccines, thrombocytopenia

Regime Change in Pakistan: “Liberal Fundamentalists” against Imran Khan

October 31st, 2022 by Dr SherAli Tareen

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on GR in April 2022. Updated on October 31, 2022 with Junaid Ahmad’s brief commentary.

I was fortunate enough to just now receive the reflections of one of the leading young and outstanding scholars of his generation of Pakistanis, Prof. SherAli Tareen – author of the widely acclaimed work, “Defending Muhammad in Modernity.”

The entire interview is a treasure trove in the most sober analysis one can get of Imran Khan and contemporary Pakistan – free from the narratives of both Pakistani secular liberal elites and Western pundits’ gibberish. It stems from Prof. Tareen’s very original and innovative essay, “Liberal Fundamentalists and Imranophobia”:

–Junaid S. Ahmad, October 31, 2022

Among his many achievements, Imran Khan can also boast the unique honor of attracting detractors of remarkably varied stripes and persuasions. While some consider him a ‘Jewish Agent’ (an outright anti-Semitic framing), for others, he is an insidious sympathizer if not a banner-bearer of militant Islam.

But although religious fundamentalists who hold the first view and liberal fundamentalists who espouse the second might seem like opposites, they in fact have much more in common than is often recognized. In this essay, I wish to briefly reflect on the second category of Imran’s antagonists, what I am calling liberal fundamentalists, and explore some of the conceptual problems and failures that saturate their “Imranophobia.” My main argument is that their abhorrence of Imran is more reflective of their own intellectual incompetence and myopia than about him.

What defines a “liberal fundamentalist” in the Pakistani context? Liberal fundamentalists are certainly not monolithic; they come in varied shades and sizes, and populate different segments and sectors of life including the media, politics, law, and academia. Nonetheless there are three overarching characteristics or qualities that define and lend coherence to this category. These are:

1) a blind faith in the textbook doctrines and virtues of liberal secular democracy, with no regard to context or interest in wrestling with its contradictions,

2) the secular embrace of an avowedly suspicious attitude towards religion as a foundational barrier to progress, and

3) the inability to recognize the intimacy of indigenous forms of violence with the violence of British colonialism and American neo-imperialism.

Liberal fundamentalists detest Imran because he does not fit the bill regarding these core values and dispositions. He is the beardless internal ‘other’ who is not quite as easily dismissible as the body of the bearded religious brown man. Liberal fundamentalists want Imran to be like them but he is not, hence the visceral reactions of contempt. But even a cursory examination of some of their signature indictments frequently leveled against Imran reveals the flawed assumptions that sustain them.

Take for instance some of the liberal reactions of despair and alarm to the recent disqualification of Nawaz Sharif. Certainly, the question of precedent set by a landmark legal judgment is an important one. And no doubt, any judicial or political interference of the deep state must be thoroughly condemned. But, granting these qualifiers, one would have hoped for at least some gesture of disappointment on the tragedy involved in a sitting Prime Minister and his family’s stunning exhibition of lies, forgeries, obfuscations, and financial malfeasance.

One would have hoped for at least some note of celebration at the sight of the accountability of a powerful symbol of corruption, even if that accountability were partial and incomprehensive. But to the liberal fundamentalist, any hint of justice targeted at accounting for the corruption of the political elite must entail a threat and conspiracy against democracy. Moreover, that threat is invariably enfolded in a narrative of the establishment’s empowerment. According to this warped inverse logic, a glaringly corrupt Prime Minister should be left untouched because otherwise, the military will march to power. Imagining a political order that has no place for corrupt monsters from either the civilian or the military elite is a task too creative and difficult for the liberal fundamentalist to conceive. All this is a prelude to point out the shallowness of the incessant diatribe against Imran that he is too occupied with a politics of agitation. Or that him and his supporters are too harsh and uncivilized in their protest against the corrupt elite (note the colonial overtone of this patronizing accusation, as though coaxing the irrational enraged native to fall in line with the civilized habits of the rational colonizer). Turns out that it is precisely agitation that actualized the hope for some semblance of accountability. Turns out that given his stunts during the Panama hearings and egregious shenanigans since, the former premiere deserves some choice words far more scathing and incriminating than anything Imran has ever uttered.

Let me now turn to the other most common accusation lodged against Imran: his alleged sympathy for religious extremism and militancy, best encapsulated by the mocking appellation of ‘Taliban Khan.’ The label ‘Taliban Khan’ says more about the intellectual incompetence and inferior reading list of those who use it than about Imran. A less polemical engagement with his position offers the promise of a more nuanced understanding of the interaction of power, politics, and violence. At the heart of Imran’s position is the contention that the metastasis of militancy in Pakistan is intimately entangled with the conditions and havoc generated by the US led war on terror. His point is conceptually very sound. He is pushing us to think more carefully about relations of power: how certain forms of power generate conditions conducive to the production of particular forms of discourse and practice. Surely, the story of so-called ‘Muslim religious extremism’ cannot be divorced from the US war on terror, from the unjust US occupations of Muslim countries, and from the mayhem and catastrophe they have unleashed.

Note, lest careless readers rush to the refuge of predictable rejoinders, this is not an argument of cause and effect. It is not an argument for blaming everything on the US. Yes, everything cannot be blamed on the US, just like everything could not have been blamed on the British Empire in the 19th century. But to say that colonialism then and US imperialism now are not integral to the violent disruptions that have historically and contemporaneously wrecked the global South, including Pakistan, is at once untenable and uncouth. One may quarrel with specific aspects of Imran’s views, like the effectiveness of negotiations with the Taliban or the call for the opening of their headquarters. One could also reasonably critique him for not speaking out against the persecution of oppressed minority communities like the Ahmadis more frequently and more forcefully. But his underlying push for a power sensitive understanding of violence and militancy that takes the injustices of empire to task is historically grounded, conceptually nuanced, and politically productive. The critical analysis of a problem is a much wiser path to its resolution than applying the comforting balm of knee jerk condemnations. At any rate, only an imbecile, with a particularly insidious penchant for interpretive ineptitude, would read his position as an endorsement of violence or as a drive to “mainstream extremism.”

Let me make one last point in closing. The label ‘Taliban Khan’ speaks to a much deeper discomfort that haunts the liberal fundamentalist: his discomfort with Muslim religious scholars and their institutions of learning (madrasas). Imranophobia and Madrasaphobia are intimately entwined, as seen most revealingly in the visceral reactions of outrage that followed the KP government’s assignment of funds for curricular reform to Madrasa Haqaniyya last summer. I am neither privy to nor wish to endorse the political calculations that went in to that decision. But the reactions of horror it espoused stem from, I would argue, a caricatured view of madrasas as outdated relics of the past at best or worse, as explosive (pun intended) bastions of terror. Imran does not participate in such a dehumanizing view of the madrasas and its inhabitants, and that does not sit well with the liberal fundamentalists. Now the point is not to glorify or romanticize the madrasas either. There are many aspects of Madrasa education and activities that one could and should be critical of, as many scholars and students attached to them will be the first to admit. Moreover, no doubt, there are more than a few religious scholars who fulfill every liberal caricature that exists about them, as the recent Faizabad dharna amply demonstrated.

But just like generalizing about Islam from the violent actions of some individuals marked as Muslim represents Islamophobia, stereotyping madrasas because of the behavior of some religious scholars constitutes Madrasaphobia. The broader point is this: a dismissive and sensationalized view of madrasas as dangerous and jaundiced institutions crying out for the prophylactic of liberal reform can hardly attend to the dynamic and often complex conversations and debates among Muslim religious scholars, in Pakistan and beyond, on pressing problems such as violence, gender justice, and minority rights. These conversations do not make the headlines of leading English dailies, but one can find them abundantly in such venues as the monthly online Urdu journal “al-Shari‘a.” Readers more comfortable with English can see the splendid recent book Modern Islamic Thought in a Radical Age: Religious Authority and Internal Criticism (Cambridge University Press, 2012) by prominent religion scholar Muhammad Qasim Zaman for a close reading of some of these debates in Pakistan.

Among the most debilitating factors that prevent a more nuanced and sympathetic consideration of Muslim religious discourses and debates is the curse of the tripartite education system that further reinforces the hierarchical polarization of society. Again, more than any other political figure, it is Imran who has most piercingly diagnosed the catastrophic sociological and psychological effects of this cleavage of the country’s education system into the elite private/lower and middle-class public/lowest class madrasa schema.

This hierarchy is not only unjust. It also thwarts the possibility of a more confident and richly textured negotiation between the heritage of the Islamic tradition and the conundrums and promises of modernity. Thus, one cannot help but laud Imran for taking initiatives such as facilitating exchange visits between students from public and private universities and madrasa students. Such experiments in listening sympathetically to the internal ‘other’ are critical to curating a less polarized and ultimately a less violent society. Indeed, in a country increasingly sandwiched between suffocating varieties of religious and liberal secular fundamentalisms, Imran brings some necessary nuance and complexity to the national conversation. But nuance and complexity are qualities that are often a bit much for the liberal fundamentalist to handle.

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

Dr SherAli Tareen is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Franklin and Marshall College. His book Defending Muhammad in Modernity (University of Notre Dame Press, 2020) received the American Institute of Pakistan Studies 2020 Book Prize and was selected as a finalist for the 2021 American Academy of ReligionBook Award. This essay also appeared in Global Village Space.

Featured image is from IRF

Posted in English
Comments Off on Regime Change in Pakistan: “Liberal Fundamentalists” against Imran Khan
Tags: Imran Khan, pakistan

The History and Geopolitics of U.S. Expansionism in the Heart of Eurasia

October 31st, 2022 by Shane Quinn

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on May 19, 2022

***

In 1994 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) calculated that there are colossal oil and natural gas reserves in the Caspian region. The Caspian Sea, the world’s largest inland body of water, is bordered by Russia and Iran along with the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

It was expected in Washington that the Caspian’s fossil fuel sources would reduce US dependence on the Middle East, an area which Western elites have traditionally been fixated on, because of its unparalleled oil and gas deposits; but a region which had become volatile and unstable this century, largely as a result of the US-led wars in the Middle East.

Ensuring control of the Caspian area would further assist Washington, by allowing the US government to diversify sources of import and give it more options and control. Such goals guided Washington in expanding its influence over Central Asia, which is situated not far from the Caspian Sea. Central Asia spans about 1.5 million square miles and comprises of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. These countries contain significant natural resources and are surrounded by Russia, China, South Asia and the Middle East.

The Soviet Union’s collapse, in 1991, enabled Washington to proceed with its aim of extending US hegemony, by penetrating into the heart of Eurasia. In doing so, the Americans hoped their imperialist policies would leave Russia and Iran in a weakened condition. Yet Russia, Iran and the Central Asian states combined contain 15% or more of global oil reserves, and as much as 50% of all known gas sources.

In the 1990s especially, the Americans under president Bill Clinton were acting internationally as the single hegemonic superpower, the centre of world influence; dictating its virulent neoliberal brand of capitalism as the path to “economic development”. A chief geopolitical priority of the US in the post-Soviet era, was to lure the Central Asia/Caucasus space under NATO’s umbrella, through military involvement and regime change; installing or supporting regimes that would acquiesce to the free-market economy; open trade to American and European investment, while allowing the West supremacy over Eurasia’s mineral deposits.

The US through military and economic persuasion particularly targeted Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, countries which had seceded from the Soviet Union. These states had yet to be integrated into the American-led globalist system. They were once among the least affluent of the Soviet republics. Regardless, they boast impressive quantities of crude oil, and together hold an equal or greater amount of petroleum than Saudi Arabia, which contains the world’s 2nd largest oil reserves.

With Azerbaijan, 3 out of the 5 Central Asian countries combined (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan) possess among the richest natural gas reserves found anywhere. Kazakhstan has the 2nd largest oil reserves among the countries of the former Soviet Union, and the 12th biggest on earth. Kazakhstan further contains considerable quantities of gas and its hydrocarbon reserves (oil and gas) are valued at $8.7 trillion.

The Energy Task Force headed by Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s vice-president from 2001 to 2009, calculated that the proven oil sources in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, along with sectors of the Caspian Sea, amounts to 20 billion barrels. This equates to more petroleum than is present in the North Sea.

The entire oil reserves of the Central Asian/Caspian regions could total more than 60 billion barrels, and even reach as high as 200 billion barrels of oil, according to John J. Maresca, an ex-US government official with connections to the fossil fuel industry. Western energy corporations were lining up. They had the means to increase petroleum production in the centre of Eurasia by over 500% – from a modest 870,000 barrels in 1995 to 4.5 million by 2010, the equivalent of 5% of global crude oil manufacturing.

The Clinton administration estimated in 1999, through its National Security Strategy, that in the Caspian Sea basin there are oil deposits totalling 160 billion barrels, a greater amount of oil than is present in Iraq. These reserves would perform a central role in satisfying the growing demand for energy. It was not surprising therefore that Cheney said, “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian”.

To increase its control and secure the oil and gas transportation routes, Washington started militarising a land area from the eastern Mediterranean to the fringes of China’s western frontiers. They stationed around 100,000 American troops across these expanses.

In December 1999 the White House expounded,

“A stable and prosperous Caucasus and Central Asia will facilitate rapid development and transport to international markets of large Caspian oil and gas resources, with substantial US commercial participations. Resolution of regional conflicts such as Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia [both in the south Caucasus] is important for creating the stability necessary for development and transport of Caspian resources”.

The US Congress approved the Silk Road Strategy in 1999: measures to promote Washington’s influence in the southern Caucasus and Central Asia, while opposing the political clout of China, Russia and Iran. This was easier said than done. Russia, for example, has been steadily re-emerging as a global power this century under president Vladimir Putin, who assumed office on 7 May 2000.

In 1998 more than 35% of the Russian population had been living below the poverty line, but by 2013 Putin’s government reduced that figure to 11%, a remarkable achievement. In comparison, 15.1% of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2010, the year after Barack Obama became president. Brazilian historian Moniz Bandeira praised president Putin for being “a patriot with a strong personality” who “reformed and modernized” Russia, while “raising the morale and pride as well as the spirits and sense of grandeur of his people”.

Washington was advancing its aims in Caucasus countries through its “freedom agenda” and “war on terror”. The strategists in Washington demonstrated little respect to the legitimate concerns of Russia regarding Eurasia. US expansionism was threatening Russia’s geostrategic and territorial integrity. The Americans quite clearly wanted to thwart Russia’s return as a great power, by preventing Moscow from restoring its influence in the Eurasian sphere.

Bandeira wrote,

“At the heart of the problem, therefore, lay the United States’ blatant ambition to build a bridge from Ukraine for its strategic expansion through Eurasia, a pivotal area of global equilibrium, and prevent Russia from regaining its dominant position in the Black Sea, where Odessa served as its main trading port with the Mediterranean and other regions around the Atlantic”.

Washington had established NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program (PfP), in order to draw in the ex-Soviet republics to the American realm. The US Armed Forces conducted military exercises in areas like Central Asia since 1997. The Central Asian countries joined NATO’s North Atlantic Co-operation Council. As an initial step on the path to potentially joining NATO, in 1999 the US integrated into a military structure (GUAM) Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

Some estimations in America, suggested that Central Asia could supply over 80% of the oil imported to the US by around 2050. Bill Richardson, formerly the US Secretary of Energy, admitted that the one-time Soviet republics “are all about America’s energy security. We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political investment in the Caspian, and it’s very important to us that the pipeline map and the politics come out right”.

This explains the desire to control the region’s natural resources, and to safeguard pipelines passing through Afghanistan and Turkey. The Americans made every effort to divert infrastructure away from Russia, such as relating to the Nabucco pipeline that was to supply gas to Europe, a plan which later collapsed.

George W. Bush had effectively been installed as president in January 2001, not elected. He was the favoured choice of the neoconservatives, the radical right of the Republican Party, who had taken it upon themselves to guide American foreign policy. Among their objectives was to bolster military spending, and to challenge by force if necessary those “regimes hostile to the interests and values” of America while promoting “political freedom”, that is subordination to US interests.

The Bush administration wanted to increase the flow of natural resources from abroad. President Bush and vice-president Cheney had ties to the US fossil fuel industry stretching back years. America’s oil and gas reserves by the start of this century had decreased substantially. The Americans became dependent on imports for 50% or more of the country’s oil. Cynical though it might sound, the 9/11 atrocities against America served as a pretext for the US government to justify the waging of war (casus belli); firstly in Afghanistan which the Americans started bombing on 7 October 2001, less than 4 weeks after 9/11.

With the invasion of Afghanistan underway the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, promised that Washington would furnish “tens of millions of dollars” to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, two nations which share extensive frontiers with Afghanistan. US military advisers were stationed in Tajikistan during the summer of 2001, weeks before 9/11, where they were planning an attack on Afghanistan from American-controlled bases in Tajikistan.

The US invasion of Afghanistan was partly concerned with protecting pipeline corridors. Moreover, there is Afghanistan’s strategic importance. The Bush administration was initiating its campaign to secure the energy deposits and supply routes of the Hindu Kush mountains, ranging from Afghanistan and north-western Pakistan to the Bosphorus. The significance of such areas was previously outlined by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Adviser.

Eliminating Taliban rule in Afghanistan would enable Washington, in conjunction with UNOCAL (Union Oil Company of California), to construct two oil pipelines – one through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean; and the other, the Central Asia Oil Pipeline Project (CAOPP), stretching for 1,050 miles from Chardzhou in Turkmenistan. The latter pipeline would prevent Azerbaijani oil from passing through Russia.

Almost immediately following 9/11, the American military presence in Central Asia was growing. Under the war on terror pretext, US troops were actually engaged primarily in making an environment sustainable for UNOCAL to build pipelines, including another one funnelling oil from Uzbekistan to the Indian Ocean without crossing Russian land.

To safeguard the passage of US troops en route to Afghanistan, Washington was granted authorisation to use bases across Central Asia at the beginning of this century. By 2014, however, the American armed presence in the region had been greatly reduced; in June 2014, the US military was forcibly evicted from its sole remaining Central Asian base at Manas, northern Kyrgyzstan. The airbase was returned to the control of the Kyrgyz government, which had chosen to align itself to Russia.

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

Shane Quinn, Journalist and renowned Historian, focussing on geopolitics and the history of World War II, based in Ireland. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed., 4 Feb. 2019)

“Kazakhstan natural gas industry overview and features. About Kazakhstan”

Elena Chernenko and Alexander Gabuev, Translation: Paul R. Grenier, “’In Ukraine, U.S interests are incompatible with the interests of the Russian Federation’”, Stratfor chief George Friedman on the roots of the Ukraine crisis”, US-Russia.org, 17 January 2015

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981 (‎Farrar Straus & Giroux; 1st Edition, 1 Mar. 1983)

George Arney, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’”, BBC, 18 September 2001

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017)

Akhilesh Pillalamarri, “The United States Just Closed Its Last Base in Central Asia”, The Diplomat, 10 June 2014

John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 February 2003)

Jeremy Scahill, Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army (Serpent’s Tail; Main edition, 17 July 2008)

Featured image is from Adam Garrie

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.

Click here to read the e-Book.

Posted in English
Comments Off on The History and Geopolitics of U.S. Expansionism in the Heart of Eurasia
Tags: Eurasia, United States

Is the mRNA Vaccine-Induced Immunity Inheritable? A Preprint Study Shows It Is.

October 31st, 2022 by Dr. Monica Giannelli

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.

***

Summary

Some traits acquired via the mRNA-LNP injections are passed genetically from parents to their offspring. The implications of this new finding are profound. Because of this inheritability, mRNA gene therapies – including mRNA “vaccines” – must be prohibited, at least until more is known, for expecting mothers as well as for parents who are planning to conceive children. As it becomes undeniable that mRNA treatments expose the general population to severe risks, no chances should be taken with unborn babies whose immune systems might be altered in irreversible ways.

Introduction

A preprint study by scientists with the Jefferson University in Philadelphia [Zhen Qi et al. (2022)] received significant attention, as it provides answers to a question many people have had since the roll out of the mRNA COVID vaccine: do the mRNA vaccines change the immune system?

After hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccines have been administered globally, fears of altered immune systems have proven justified and supported by recent studies. Zhen Qi et al. reference several articles, such as an important paper awaiting peer review, [Föhse et al. (2021)], which show the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine reprograms both adaptive and immune responses. Another study [Arunachalam et al. (2021)] indicates significant changes in the immune system after receiving the Pfizer mRNA Covid vaccine.

Zhen Qi et al. shed light on some mechanisms of how mRNA vaccines change the immune system, by presenting experimental evidence that pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs (Liquid Nanoparticles), or LNPs only, affects innate and adaptive immune system responses. The study indicates that LNPs, a critical component of mRNA vaccines, are responsible for modifying and weakening the immune system. Contrary to initial assessments, LNPs are not inert carriers or protectors of the mRNA. On the contrary, they are a highly inflammatory platform. Yet, they are critical in triggering adaptive immune responses [Ndeupen et al. (2021)]. In fact, the altered immune responses appear to be caused by the inflammatory LNPs. This is consistent with earlier studies that linked inflammation to a poor responsiveness to vaccination, such as [Trzonkowski et al. (2003)].

The study also contains a revelation. The authors discovered that some acquired immune traits via the mRNA-LNP injections can be inherited by offspring. Even though the results are obtained for mice, it is conceivable humans might experience similar effects. The study raises urgent questions about the safety of mRNA vaccines and should motivate further research to determine the true impact of the mRNA-LNP vaccines on the human immune system.

Experimental results

The first aim of Zhen Qi et al. study was to assess if a previous exposure to mRNA-LNPs influences the immune response to secondary vaccination. To prove this, they conducted several experiments on mice. The basic setup has three groups of mice: 1) the control group with mice injected with a placebo (i.e., a saline solution), 2) one group with mice injected with mRNA-LNPs coding for a harmless protein, and 3) one group injected with LNPs only.

The mice in the three groups were subsequently inoculated with mRNA-LNPs coding for influenza, and the mice immune responses were studied. The idea was that the mice were going to develop antibodies following the mRNA-LNP influenza shot (i.e., the mRNA-LNP coded for influenza is an mRNA flu vaccine).

The experimental results showed that adaptive immune responses of the mice injected either with mRNA-LNPs, or LNPs only, were inhibited compared to the mice injected with the placebo, showing reduced antibody, B-cell and T-cell responses. B and T-cells are part of the adaptive immune system and attack pathogens in a powerful and targeted way. There was no significant difference between the mice pre-exposed to mRNA-LNPs and those exposed to LNPs only, implying that LNPs play a significant role in the inhibition of the immune response. The authors found, “This inhibition of the adaptive immune responses was relatively long lasting, with effects seen for at least 4 weeks, while starting to wane after 8 weeks.” Zhen Qi et al. observe this finding is in agreement with several studies that show mRNA vaccines have an improved antibody response if there is a longer time interval between subsequent injections.

There is some good news. The results in this study show that adjuvants – i.e., substances added to the vaccines for improvement – might remedy the immune-suppression induced by pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs. However, to the best of these authors’ knowledge, it is not clear if adjuvants have been considered or if they are at all viable for human mRNA vaccines.

The second aim of this research was to investigate the interaction between pre-exposure to mRNA-LNPs and subsequent infections. The authors found that mice pre-exposed to mRNA-LNPs have improved resistance if infected with influenza, but decreased resistance to Candida Albicans, a yeast infection. The resistance to influenza is surprising, since the mice injected with mRNA-LNPs showed a weak immune response after receiving the mRNA influenza shot. The stronger reaction to influenza is not due to an improvement of immune system but likely is induced by the inflammatory LNPs. The increased vulnerability to Candida Albicans is an indication of impairment of the innate immune system. The authors experimentally confirmed that mice pre-exposed to mRNA-LNPs had a significantly lower percentage of neutrophils, the first line of innate defense for bacterial and fungal infections, which explained the vulnerability to Candida Albicans.

A third important result is that immune changes induced by pre-exposure to mRNA-LNP can be inherited. In mice injected with mRNA-LNP coding for influenza, the protection against influenza was successfully passed down to the offspring, with both male and female parent playing an important role. Zhen Qi et al. write “the highly inflammatory properties of the mRNA-LNP platform might have induced the inherited changes,” as opposed to a strengthened immune system. Questions left unanswered in this study should prompt future research. The mechanism of inheritance is not understood, it is unknown how long after the exposure to mRNA-LNP that the parents can still pass down the immune traits, if the offspring’s resistance to bacterial and fungal infections decreases, if the inherited immune changes alter the adaptive immune responses, and most importantly if humans are going to experience a similar genetic transmission.

Implications for humans

The results in this study give an indication of what humans are going to experience, since mice are routinely used in experiments to gain a preliminary understanding of how pathogens or drugs might affect humans. Inhibition of the immune responses following mRNA-LNP injections does not appear to be limited to mice. Zhen Qi et al. provide reference to several articles that show the resurgence of viral infections following a COVID-19 vaccination. A recent retrospective study found that vaccinated people might show a higher risk of infection than unvaccinated individual nine months post-vaccination [Nordstrom et al. (2022)]. A potential sign of immune suppression comes from reports of viral reactivation after the COVID-19 vaccination, such as Zoster Meningitis [Daouk et al. (2022)], Ramsay Hunt Syndrome [Woo et al. (2022)], Epstein Barr virus [Herzum et al. (2022)] and Hepatitis C [Lensen et al. (2021)]. There is also increased risk for bacterial infections in open heart surgeries that could not be controlled with long-term antibiotic treatments, resulting in several deaths [Yamomoto, K (2022)].

Repeated mRNA-LNP shots inhibited mice immune system responses. It will be important to fully understand if this result can be applied to humans, especially with the deployment of Omicron boosters. (Some people will receive their fifth shot this fall.)

Recent data from the vaccine surveillance report from the United Kingdom appear to be in agreement with the experimental results for mice. In his September 7, 2022, Substack post, Alex Berenson writes, “The HSA (Health Security Agency) survey shows that almost everyone who is hospitalized with Covid in Britain has had at least two vaccine shots, including 87 percent of people 40-64, close to 95 percent of those 65 and over. The vast majority of those have had three shots. Data this ugly explains why the White House is now proposing Americans get mRNA shots only once a year, a significant easing of previous pressure to get jabbed twice or even three times a year .” A significant takeaway of the report is that receiving multiple boosters has a negative effect on health, not unlike what was observed for the mice. Despite this worrisome data, Pfizer and Moderna do not show signs of slowing down; on the contrary they are racing to introduce new mRNA flu vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer start Phase 3 trial for flu mRNA vaccines).

The most important finding of Zhen Qi et al. study is the genetic transmission of some traits acquired via the mRNA-LNP injections. The implications of this result for humans are profound if substantiated. Until then, it is these authors’ opinion that mRNA vaccines should be prohibited for expecting mothers and for parents who are planning to have a child. It is becoming clear mRNA vaccines expose the general population to unnecessary and severe risks, and no chances should be taken with unborn babies, whose immune systems might be in danger of being altered in a potentially irreversible way.

Featured image is from Daily Clout

Posted in English
Comments Off on Is the mRNA Vaccine-Induced Immunity Inheritable? A Preprint Study Shows It Is.
Tags: gene therapy, mRNA vaccines, mRNA-LNP injections

Engineered Food Crisis: Agri Biotech Motivated by Monopoly Control and “Sacred GMO Cash Cow”

October 31st, 2022 by Colin Todhunter

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

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

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

First published on October 15. 2022

***

We are currently seeing rising food prices due to a combination of an engineered food crisis for geopolitical reasons, financial speculation by hedge funds, pension funds and investment banks and profiteering by global grain trade conglomerates like Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, ADM and Bunge.

In addition, agri firms like Bayer, Syngenta (ChemChina) and Corteva cynically regard current circumstances as an opportunity to promote their agenda and seek commercialisation of unregulated and improperly tested genetically engineered (GE) technologies.

These companies have long promoted the false narrative that their hybrid seeds and their GE seeds, along with their agrichemicals, are essential for feeding a growing global population. This agenda is orchestrated by vested interests and career scientists – many of whom long ago sold their objectivity for biotech money – lobby groups and disgraced politicians and journalists.

Meanwhile, in an attempt to deflect and sway opinion, these industry shills also try to depict their critics as being Luddites and ideologically driven and for depriving the poor of (GE) food and farmers of technology.

This type of bombast disintegrates when confronted with the evidence of a failing GE project.

As well as this kind of emotional blackmail, prominent lobbyists like Mark Lynas – unable or unwilling to acknowledge that genuine food security and food sovereignty can be achieved without proprietary products – trot out other baseless and absurd claims that industry critics are Kremlin stooges, while displaying their ignorance of geopolitics.

Indeed, who would you turn to for an analysis of current US-Russia relations? An advocate for GE foods and pesticides who makes inaccurate claims from his perch at the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science. Or a renowned academic like Professor Michael Hudson whose specialist field covers geopolitics.

But it would not be the first time that an industry activist like Lynas has ventured beyond his field of claimed expertise to try to score points.

However, dirty tricks and smears are par for the course because the agri biotech emperor has been shown to have no clothes time and again – GE is a failing, often detrimental technology in search of a problem. And if the problem does not exist, the reality of food insecurity will be twisted to serve the industry agenda, and regulatory bodies and institutions supposedly set up to serve the public interest will be placed under intense pressure or subverted.

The performance of GE crops has been a hotly contested issue and, as highlighted in a 2018 piece by PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan in the journal Current Science, there is sufficiently strong evidence to question their efficacy and the devastating impacts on the environment, human health and food security, not least in places like Latin America.

A new report by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Europe shows that big global biotech corporations like Bayer and Corteva, which together already control 40% of the global commercial seed market, are now trying to cement complete dominance. Industry watchdog GMWatch notes these companies are seeking to increase their control over the future of food and farming by extensively patenting plants and developing a new generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

These companies are moving to patent plant genetic information that can occur naturally or as a result of genetic modification. They claim all plants with those genetic traits as their “invention”. Such patents on plants would restrict farmers’ access to seeds and impede breeders from developing new plants as both would have to ask for consent and pay fees to the biotech companies.

Corteva has applied for some 1,430 patents on new GMOs, while Bayer has applications for 119 patents.

Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, says:

“Big biotech’s strategy is to apply for wide patents that would also cover plants which naturally present the same genetic characteristics as the GMOs they engineered. They will be lining their pockets from farmers and plant breeders, who in turn will have a restricted access to what they can grow and work with.”

For instance, GMWatch notes that Corteva holds a patent for a process modifying the genome of a cell using the CRISPR technique and claims the intellectual property rights to any cells, seeds and plants that include the same genetic information, whether in broccoli, maize, soy, rice, wheat, cotton, barley or sunflower.

The agri biotech sector is engaged in a corporate hijack of agriculture while attempting to portray itself as being involved in some kind of service to humanity.

And this is a global endeavour, which is also currently being played out in India.

GM mustard

A recent report on the Down to Earth website stated that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), India’s apex regulatory body, might approve the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. In response, concerned citizens have written to the government, objecting to the potential approval of unsafe, unneeded and unwanted GMOs.

The decision whether to allow the commercialisation of what would be the first GE food crop in India has been dragging on for years. COVID delayed the process, but a decision on GM mustard now appears to be close.

However, serious conflicts of interest, sleight of hand and regulatory delinquency – not to mention outright fraud – could mean the decision coming down in favour of commercialisation.

The bottom line is government collusion with global agribusiness, which is trying to hide in the background, despite much talk of Professor Pental and his team at Delhi University being independent developers of GM mustard (DMH 11).

GM mustard presents an opportunity to make various herbicide tolerant (HT) mustard hybrids using India’s best germ plasm, which would be an irresistible money spinner for the seed and chemical manufacturers.

In 2016, campaigner Aruna Rodrigues petitioned India’s Supreme Court seeking a moratorium on the release of any GMOs into the environment pending a comprehensive, transparent and rigorous biosafety protocol in the public domain conducted by agencies of independent expert bodies, the results of which are made public.

In her writ, Rodrigues stated:

“In 2002, Proagro Seed Company (now Bayer), applied for commercial approval for exactly the same construct that Prof Pental and his team are now promoting as HT Mustard DMH 11. The reason today matches Bayer’s claim then of 20% better yield increase (than conventional mustard). Bayer was turned down because the ICAR [Indian Council of Agricultural Research] said that their field trials did not give evidence of superior yield.”

The petition says that 14 years later invalid field trials and unremittingly fraudulent data now supposedly provide evidence of a superior yield of 25%.

Rodrigues continues:

“HT DMH 11 is the same Bayer HT GMO construct – a herbicide tolerant GMO of three alien genes. It employs, like the Bayer construct, pollen sterilisation technology BARNASE, with the fertility restorer gene BARSTAR (B & B system) (modified from the original genes sourced from a soil bacterium) and the herbicidal bar gene in each GMO parental line. The employment of the B & B system is to facilitate the making of hybrids as mustard is largely a self-pollinating crop (but outcrosses at rates of up to 20%). There is no trait for yield. HT DMH 11 is straightforwardly an herbicide tolerant (HT) crop, though this aspect has been consistently marginalised by the developers over the last several years.”

In order to produce a hybrid, two parent lines had to be genetically modified. Barnase and barstar technology was used in the parent lines. And the outcome is three GMOs: the two parents and the offspring, DMH 11, which will be ideal for working with glufosinate (Bayer’s ‘Liberty’ and ‘Basta’).

According to Rodrigues:

“… the plan is that the official route for the first-time release of a HT crop and a food crop will be through HT DMH 11 and/or its two HT parental lines by stealth. Since the claimed YIELD superiority of HT DMH 11 through the B & B system over non-GMO varieties and hybrids is quite simply NOT TRUE…”

In her numerous affidavits submitted to India’s Supreme Court, Rodrigues has set out in some detail why GE crops are a threat to human health and the environment and are unsuitable for India. She briefly communicated some of her concerns in a 2020 interview titled GMO Issue Reaches Boiling Point in India: Interview with Aruna Rodrigues.

Moreover, various high-level reports have advised against introducing GM food crops to India: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal; The ‘Sopory Committee Report’ (August 2012); The ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012); and The ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (June-July 2013).

These reports conclude that GM crops are unsuitable for India and that existing biosafety and regulatory procedures are inadequate. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the TEC was scathing about the regulatory system prevailing in India, highlighting its inadequacies and inherent serious conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on commercial release of GM crops. The PSC also arrived at similar conclusions.

According to eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, these official reports attest to just how negligent India’s regulators are and to a serious lack of expertise on GM issues within official circles.

Aruna Rodrigues long ago noted the abysmal state of GMO regulatory oversight in the country and the need for the precautionary principle to be applied without delay. But not much has changed and the regulatory position basically remains the same.

Rodrigues asserts that the two parent lines and the hybrid DMH-11 require full independent testing, which has not occurred. And it has not occurred because of a conflict of interest and regulatory delinquency.

Rodrigues notes:

“India is suddenly faced with the deregulation of GMOs. This is disastrous and alarming, without ethics and a scientific rationale.”

GM mustard is said to out-yield India’s best cultivars by 25-30%. The choice of the correct ‘comparators’ is an absolute requirement for the testing of any GMO to establish whether it is required in the first place. But Rodrigues argues that the choice of deliberately poor ‘comparators’ is at the heart of the fraud.

In the absence of adequate and proper testing and sufficient data, no statistically valid conclusions of mean seed yield (MSY) of DMH 11 could be drawn anyhow. Yet they were drawn by both the regulators and developers who furthermore self-conducted and supervised the trials. Without valid data to justify it, DMH 11 was allowed in pre-commercial large scale field trials in 2014-15.

For an adequate basis for a comparative assessment of MSY, Rodrigues argues it was absolutely necessary for the comparison to include the cross (hybrid) between the non-modified parental lines (nearest isogenic line), at the very start of the risk assessment process and throughout the subsequent stages of field testing, in addition to other recommended ‘comparators’. None of this was done.

Deliberately poor non-GMO mustard varieties were chosen to promote prospects for DMH 11 as a superior yielding GMO hybrid, which then passed through ‘the system’ and was allowed by the regulators, a classic non-sequitur by both the regulators and Dr Pental.

The fraud continued, according to Rodrigues, by actively fudging yield data of DMH 11 by 15.2% to show higher MSY. In her various Supreme Court petitions, she has offered a good deal of evidence to show how it was done.

Rodrigues says:

“It matters not a jot if HT DMH 11 is not approved. What does matter is that its two HT (GMO) parental lines are: HT Varuna-barnase and HT EH 2-barstar will be used ‘for introgressing the bar-barnase and bar- barstar genes into new set of parental line to develop next generation of hybrids with higher yields” (according to the developer and regulator).”

She says this extraordinary admission confirms that the route to any number of ‘versions’ of HT mustard DMH 11 is invested in these two GMOs as parents – India will have hundreds of low-yielding HT mustard hybrids, using India’s best mustard cultivars at great harm to farmers and contaminating the country’s seeds and mustard germ plasm irreversibly.

In effect, according to Rodrigues, India faces a three-in-one regulatory jugglery in a brazen display of collusion to fraud the nation by regulatory institutions of governance.

Moreover, HT mustard DMH 11 will make no impact on the domestic production of mustard oil, which was a major reason why it was being pushed in the first place. The argument was that GM mustard would increase productivity and this would help reduce imports of edible oils.

Until the mid-1990s, India was virtually self-sufficient in edible oils. Then import tariffs were reduced, leading to an influx of cheap (subsidised) edible oil imports that domestic farmers could not compete with. This effectively devastated the home-grown edible oils sector and served the interests of palm oil growers and US grain and agriculture commodity company Cargill.

It came as little surprise that in 2013 India’s then Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accused US companies of derailing the nation’s oil seeds production programme.

Whether in India, Europe or elsewhere, the industry’s agenda is to use GE technology to secure intellectual property rights over all seeds (and chemical inputs) and thus gain total control over food and farming. And given what has been set out here – they seek to achieve this by all means necessary.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) in Montreal.

Featured image is from AdobeStock

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

Posted in English, Mobile, NO READ MORE LINK
Comments Off on Engineered Food Crisis: Agri Biotech Motivated by Monopoly Control and “Sacred GMO Cash Cow”
Tags: agribusiness, food crisis, GMO

All Students Required to Receive New Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccine Booster: Wellesley Student Speaks Out

October 30th, 2022 by Anon Wellesley student

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

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

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

***

I was appalled, but not surprised, when on Saturday, September 24, the Dean of Students at Wellesley College, where I am a student, buried at the end of an email to the student body that all students at Wellesley would be required to receive a shot of the new bivalent Covid-19 booster. Then on October 11, we were informed this mandate would take effect on December 1, nearly three weeks before the end of the semester.

This announcement follows similar decisions from Tufts University, Harvard University, and the University of California, among others. It also follows a growing body of evidence that there are, for a non-trivial percentage of the vaccinated—especially the young—serious, potentially lifelong, and potentially fatal side effects—such as myocarditis and autoimmune disease—to the vaccine, which CDC director Rochelle Walensky acknowledges does not stop transmission of the coronavirus.

Moreover, this newest bivalent vaccine, designed to protect against the now-defunct Omicron variant, was approved without any trials confirming safety or efficacy. And regarding the latter, at least, the slim evidence we do have is not promising. So why is Wellesley—and why are all these other colleges—mandating their disproportionately young, disproportionately healthy students partake in a human trial for a vaccine that does not stop the transmission of a variant that became almost entirely obsolete months ago?

The message from Wellesley could not be more clear: the education of students here, or at least our ability to complete it, is contingent on our willingness to take a medical treatment that did not exist when I enrolled here. There is no consent, only coercion, with participation in a human trial joining physical education and foreign language proficiency as a prerequisite for graduation.

Administrators, rather than trusting the students whom they admitted to make our own risk-return analyses, have chosen to override basic bodily autonomy in favor of pushing vaccines that seem increasingly concerning for the young, a fact which is now being recognized around the world: in Denmark for instance, public health officials halted vaccines entirely for low-risk people under 50; Norway is not even doing first shots anymore for those under 45 years of age. At some point, the question must be asked whether colleges which ask students to play immunization-card Russian roulette are colleges whose credentials signal anything more than willingness to comply.

What risk to safety are colleges such as mine asking students such as myself to assume? When the administrators of Wellesley, a women’s college, mandate a fourth shot of a vaccine that is now known to cause menstrual irregularities, a fact confirmed by study after study and acknowledged by even the strongest proponents of vaccination, what they are saying is not only that we have to choose between immunization against a months-old variant and our educations, but that we have to choose between disruptions to our menstrual and ovulatory cycles and our educations.

To be blunt, this has the potential not just to disrupt overall health, but fertility, too, so colleges are not just telling us they get to control and disrupt our bodies, but also, potentially, our families; not just our presents, but also, potentially, our futures.

This is not even mentioning heart or autoimmune health that covid vaccination is known to take a toll on, and the host of conditions vaccination has been proven to cause. Will colleges—and college administrators—be footing medical bills for any health-related problems their mandates cost? Will administrators experience the physical and emotional burden?

Because administrators seem to have decided that there is no overreach too personal to commit against students: this is despite the fact that the risk-return analysis that these same administrators conducted last year now appears dubious at best, outright dangerous at worst.

If their compulsion to impose more mandates is not about health or efficacy, it must be about something else. The simplest explanation is that this compulsion is about the mandate itself—about the appearance of progressivism and elite stature, given that progressive and elite institutions now define themselves by their willingness to look like they are “taking Covid-19 seriously” at the expense of essentially every other consideration.

Here is a question no administrators seem to be asking: what does it mean when a college tells its students that their bodies belong to the whims of bureaucrats rather than to themselves? It means that students are being groomed to believe that being an educated person means keeping one’s head down and submitting to every top-down order uncritically.

While a place like Wellesley prides itself on the atmosphere of intellectualism it claims to foster and while it claims to value academic freedom—which formed the basis of President Paula Johnson’s speech at convocation in September—all of Wellesley’s commitments to autonomy of speech are utterly meaningless when its community is denied autonomy of body, which is also autonomy of mind.

On some level, then, ongoing vaccine mandates like Wellesley’s represent the decay of American academia and show where its real loyalties lie. Educating and forming students is, for college administrators, secondary to being part of the “right” ideological crowd (whether or not that ideological crowd is right). Not all institutions have caved to this pressure: in July, the University of Chicago rescinded its booster mandate and is no longer requiring exemptions from vaccination, and Williams College (which, like Wellesley, is an elite liberal arts college in Massachusetts) at least appears to have walked back its booster mandate.

But seeing other institutional policies almost makes the reality at a place like Wellesley worse. Despite all available evidence, and despite other institutions reversing course, many administrators across the nation who are supposed to concern themselves with the well-being of their students are making decisions not on scientific evidence nor on the safety of their students, but instead on politics. This should scare everyone.

Rumblings of anger can be heard at Wellesley, but the constant cycles of cancellation and gaslighting from the College and within the community have rendered many would-be dissenters too emotionally wounded to say a word about college vaccination policies. (There is a reason I am writing this anonymously.) But this silencing cannot possibly last forever.

If Wellesley—or if any one of the other institutions with remaining vaccine mandates—thinks it faces no consequences, it is sorely mistaken: as students, as well as faculty and staff, trace their own adverse medical events back to college mandates, the buck for the physical damage will stop with colleges, morally, legally, and financially. The mandates will fade, but the memory of the mandates will not; colleges like mine have all but ensured they are dead men walking.

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.

Anon Wellesley student remains that way because she would like to continue as a student.

Featured image is from Brownstone Institute

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Price: $11.50

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Posted in English
Comments Off on All Students Required to Receive New Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccine Booster: Wellesley Student Speaks Out

Megyn Kelly Interviews RFK, Jr.: How Pfizer Killed the Vaccine Safety Commission + More

October 30th, 2022 by Dr. Suzanne Burdick

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 a two-hour conversation last week, Megyn Kelly, a journalist, lawyer and political commentator, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., discussed a wide range of topics including censorship and how Pfizer’s $1 million donation to former President Trump killed Trump’s vaccine safety commission.

One of the topics they hit on was censorship — specifically, how Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official who is a director at Pfizer — was likely instrumental in getting Twitter to censor Alex Berenson for questioning the government’s official COVID-19 narrative.

Berenson, a former New York Times journalist and author, recently revealed that Scott Gottlieb “secretly pressed” Twitter to censor him days before Twitter suspended his account last year.

“So here you have a Pfizer director running cover for [Dr. Anthony] Fauci,” Kelly said, adding that Gottlieb is “just one example” of former government regulators who “miraculously wind up at Big Pharma getting big paychecks right after they leave” their government jobs.

“This system is corrupt and it leads to disinformation,” she added.

Kennedy, chairman of the board and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense, agreed — and then he told Kelly a larger part of the story about Gottlieb’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry’s attempts to prevent cogent information from reaching the public about vaccines.

In January 2017, Kennedy was asked by then-president Trump to run a vaccine safety commission, he said.

Kennedy agreed to head the commission to “make sure the right studies were being done to make sure that each vaccine was actually working” by conducting control studies — “the same studies that are required for every other medication.”

But when it was announced that Kennedy would lead the vaccine safety commission, “there was panic throughout the industry and the public health regulatory agencies,” he said.

Next, came a financial power play.

Pfizer made a $1 million contribution to Trump, Kennedy told Kelly, after which Trump appointed two people “hand-picked by Pfizer” as top officials for the government’s health regulatory agencies.

Those two people were Alex Azar, to run the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Gottlieb to run the FDA.

Both Azar and Gottlieb had executive ties to Big Pharma. That signaled the premature death of the control studies on vaccines.

“They killed the vaccine safety commission,” Kennedy said. “I don’t know exactly how it happened, but as soon as those guys got in there they stopped answering our calls or communicating with us.”

Kelly said Gottlieb dodged tough questions when she interviewed him earlier on her show about COVID-19 masking policies for children, telling her team after the interview, “I’m a respected authority, you know.”

“It’s like, ‘oh, okay … but that doesn’t give you a pass on tough questions,’” Kelly said.

Kennedy and Kelly covered a host of other topics relating to public policy, politics and children’s health.

Here are some of the highlights:

6:25: U.S. founders thought that “the free flow of information annealedin the furnace of debate would yield the most beneficial public policies.”
7:31: The U.S. Bill of Rights was “plowed under” during the COVID-19 pandemic.
10:54: COVID-19 countermeasures “were a war on the poor” as Kennedy explained in his latest book, “A Letter to Liberals.”
11:26: Children lost 22 IQ points during the pandemic.
22:07: Injuries related to COVID-19 vaccination are real, with a particular risk of myocarditis in men ages 16-24.
25:40: Pfizer and Moderna don’t want to release data on the comorbidities and ages of participants in their clinical trials. “It’s troubling that the FDA has intervened on behalf of Pfizer to say ‘we don’t want anybody to see this data for 75 years,’” Kennedy said.
42:01: “It’s hard to come up with exact numbers” regarding COVID-19 because of the U.S. government’s obfuscation of vaccine-related data.
43:52: Other countries, such as Singapore, Japan and the U.K., are producing quality COVID-19 data.
44:16: Recent studies are showing “antibody-dependent enhancement” in individuals who received COVID-19 vaccines.
45:53: The official data do not count individuals as “vaccinated” until two weeks after the second shot, so deaths that occur prior to that are attributed as “unvaccinated.”
51:31: Fauci’s agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, owns 50% of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine and gets royalties from its sales.
57:32: Alex Berenson revealed Scott Gottlieb was instrumental in getting him banned from Twitter.
1:03:58: Dr. Joseph Ladapo, surgeon general of Florida, is “frustrated with the lack of honesty coming from the vaccine companies,” and was also censored by Twitter.
1:06:10: Ladapo is a “problem” for Democrats because he’s “very courageous and he’s very credible.”
1:09:52: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, is broken.
1:10:42: A Harvard three-year study concluded that VAERS collected fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries.
1:12:11: The CDC “ran away” when presented with a new, effective solution for tracking vaccine-related injuries.
1:15:25: Opinions of the American Academy of Pediatrics “have nothing to do with public health but have to do with pharmaceutical profits and promoting the pharmaceutical paradigm.”
1:23:00: It took many years for Kennedy to “get a more expansive view” about what’s happening with Big Pharma’s impact on children’s health, so he doesn’t expect members of his own family “who don’t have the time to make this kind of exploration” to believe him.
1:24:02: Kennedy does not hold it against them but invites a “congenial, respectful debate” that focuses on the science and stays away from ad hominem attacks.
1:24:45: He said he is not hard-headed about his worldview and is open to changing his opinions based on “new factual inputs” and someone showing him where he was mistaken.
1:25:09: They discussed Kennedy’s opinions of Trump and how Trump’s approach to politics differed from that of Kennedy’s father.
1:37:51: The war in Ukraine is a complicated issue that Kennedy’s family debates at the dinner table.
1:38:11: Kennedy’s 26-year-old son joined the Foreign Legion and has been fighting in Ukraine.
1:42:38: President Eisenhower gave “probably the most important speech in American history” warning the American public about the rise of the military-industrial complex and how it would subdue and destroy American democracy.

Kelly and Kennedy concluded their conversation by discussing past U.S. political figures and global politics.

Watch the full interview here:

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

Featured image is from CHD

Posted in English
Comments Off on Megyn Kelly Interviews RFK, Jr.: How Pfizer Killed the Vaccine Safety Commission + More
Tags: COVID vaccines, COVID-19, Pfizer, rfk, United States

Massacre of the Innocents: CDC Inflicts Biowar Vax on Children

October 30th, 2022 by Kevin Barrett

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.

***

Video link links to stories discussed.

RFK Jr. called it “an act of child abuse on a massive scale.” Thursday’s CDC decision to add COVID mRNA vaccines to the childhood schedule was certainly abusive. But it could be argued that it wasn’t just child abuse, but also an avatar of the ancient ritual of child sacrifice.

Before diving deeper into the human sacrifice angle, let’s clarify what just happened: Children are being injected with a potentially dangerous substance that brings them essentially no health benefits whatsoever.

COVID mRNA vaccines are still classified as experimental. That means the CDC is trying to force American children to participate in a scientific experiment—a blatant violation of the Nuremburg Code.

The ostensible justification for forcing entire populations to participate in medical experiments is the “emergency” of the COVID pandemic. MRNA vaccines are only permitted under an Emergency Use Authorization. But not only is the emergency phase of the pandemic obviously over, there never was any children’s health emergency to begin with. A Nature Medicine study using the British National Health Service National Child Mortality Data Base found that the COVID mortality rate in children is .0002%, or approximately two in a million. And of that vanishingly small number of deaths, three-quarters involved chronic health conditions, two-thirds had multiple co-morbidities, and 60% had life-limiting conditions.

So why on earth would anyone mRNA-vaccinate their child? Presumably for the same reason that elders deliberately devastated American children’s educational and emotional-psychological development by closing schools and forcing children as young as two years to wear masks: They believe the damage to children’s health and well-being is worth it (just as Madeleine Albright thought murdering half a million Iraqi children was worth it) because by abusing the children “we are saving grandma” (and to a lesser extent teachers, parents, and other adults).*

Madeleine Albright’s enthusiastic approval of the murder of half a million children, like America’s deliberate devastation of its children during and after the COVID pandemic, appears at first glance to be an oversight. Surely Albright cannot have meant that! Certainly Americans wouldn’t intentionally inflict debilitating handicaps and dangerous experiments on their own kids!

It depends what you mean by words like “deliberately” and “intentionally.” Poets and storytellers have always known what Freud claimed to have discovered in the late 19th century: Much human motivation is unconscious, especially when it involves the darker, atavistic aspects of our psyches.

With that in mind, let’s consider the possibility that something is driving Americans to sacrifice their young. Evidence for that thesis abounds: Not just the way kids have been thrown to the COVID Moloch, but also:

The fact that Americans are killing almost a million of their unborn children every year;
The ongoing scandal of ever-expanding routine vaccinations (currently 72 injections of 91 antigens), the probable cause of the explosion of chronic illnesses that has crippled younger generations;
The way babies and young childen are ripped from their mothers’ arms at ever-earlier ages and consigned to the not-so-tender mercies of commercial day care facilities;
The way the welfare system and degenerating social mores have conspired to ensure that ever-greater numbers of American children grow up in emotionally-, culturally-, and economically-impoverished single-parent families;
And finally, the existence of widespread child trafficking and sex slavery, in which the highest level of American political, economic, and journalistic elites are deeply implicated.

Let’s face it: As George Clinton said, America eats its young.

But how is that “sacrifice”? Where does Moloch come in? To answer those questions, we need to review the seminal work of anthropologist-philosopher René Girard, who argued that all cultures are grounded in human sacrifice. As Stanford News noted in its November 2015 obituary:

“Girard was interested in the causes of conflict and violence and the role of imitation in human behavior. Our desires, he wrote, are not our own; we want what others want. These duplicated desires lead to rivalry and violence. He argued that human conflict was not caused by our differences, but rather by our sameness. Individuals and societies offload blame and culpability onto an outsider, a scapegoat, whose elimination reconciles antagonists and restores unity.”

The scapegoat onto which blame is offloaded is typically a powerless, marginalized individual or community. The scapegoat’s innocence, paradoxically, may make them even more of a target: Think of the virgins thrown to volcanos, or the blameless goat laden with the community’s sins and driven into the wilderness. And who is more innocent, powerless, and marginalized than childen? No wonder children are the preferred victims of so many sacrificial societies, from the Moloch-worshipping Canaanites, to the pre-colonial Ibo described in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, to the satanic cultists of America’s power elite who gather at places like Bohemian Grove (and, some believe, certain Washington DC restaurants).

Girard’s notion of sacrifice was a momentous intellectual breakthrough in the human sciences. But it misses two important aspects of the phenomenon, what we might call the pragmatic and the spiritual dimensions of sacrifice. Pragmatically, there have been times and places in the course of human history when sacrificing certain people just seemed like the sensible and realistic thing to do. It happens all the time, in military affairs, to this day. And it has happened in non-military contexts quite regularly among widely diverse peoples. Among the nomadic Khoi-San of Africa, when elders became an intolerable burden, or the food supply wouldn’t support the current crop of babies, the non-productive elders or youngers were simply killed. In pre-Islamic Arabia, baby girls were regularly buried alive, which limited the population in a hostile environment, and rectified the male-female ratio in a culture where men typically died young from incessant raiding and feuding. Today, as the global population is expanding toward eight billion, perhaps there is a subliminal feeling among the masses, and a fully-conscious awareness among elites, that every new child makes the terrifying population-resources equation a little bit worse.

And then there is the all-important spiritual dimension. Our spiritual state is largely determined by our capacity to sacrifice the self (especially its base desires) for the Other (both human and divine). Those who succeed most magnificently in this sacrifice or surrender (islam) of the lower self become prophets/saints/mystics, while those who fail most spectacularly by sacrificing the Other to the self rather than the other way around become monstrous egotists, sybarites, and power-hungry greedheads, narcissists, and sociopaths.

Americans, many of them anyway, once immolated their egos for something bigger than themselves. A concrete expression of that spiritual state was the way they sacrificed themselves for their children, working hard at unpleasant low-status jobs so their childrens’ lives could be better. This was genuinely done for the children, not for the parents’ ego-satisfaction.

Today, some upwardly-striving middle- and upper-middle class Americans do seem to make extraordinary sacrifices for their children by hiring them tutors, chauffering them to soccer practice, and trying every trick in the book and then some to get their kids admitted to high-status universities. But none of this is really about the kids. It’s about the parents’ egos. They want to be able to brag about “my son the Harvard student” or “my daughter the doctor.” This narcissistic aspect of American culture in general and parenting in particular has accelerated in the era of social media, when people’s overweening concern with their image and perceived status seems to dominate the national conversation.

If you need more proof that America is sacrificing its children, just look at the economic statistics. Young married people with children have been getting a shrinking slice of the national pie for decades, while pre-boomer and now boomer retirees and other older non-parents and post-parents hoard the proverbial lion’s share of the wealth. All sorts of frivolous luxury goods and services proliferate, mostly servicing older wealthier folks, while one in seven children live in poverty, housing becomes increasingly unaffordable, and most young parents need two incomes to stay afloat—depriving their children of the parental care they would enjoy in a one-income two-parent family.

So spiritually, we are in a decadent, narcissistic phase, a steep downturn in the graph of civilizational rises and falls; and pragmatically, we sense that children, at such a bleak and precarious historical moment, are not such a good thing. The result is a culture capable of choosing leaders who tell us to line our children up and inject them with dangerous experimental compounds for no apparent reason. And if it turns out, as some evidence suggests (see HERE, HERE, and HERE) that the real purpose of MRNA COVID vaccines is to damage fertility and thereby prevent the birth of children, the enormous scope of that monstrously mendacious erasure of the unborn could conceivably echo down through the generations and supplant Madeleine Albright’s as the biggest mass child sacrifice in human history.

Will parents rebel against this new ritual of technocratic child sacrifice? By rejecting the MRNA vaccines and joining the wave of school board rebellions against the transhumanist technocrats’ war on humanity in general and children in particular, will American parents not only save their children, but their civilization as well?

Yes, I know the COVID vaccines aren’t effective against transmission, so the people who think vaccinating their kids will save grandma are wrong. But still, that is what they 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.

Featured image is from Mercola

Posted in English
Comments Off on Massacre of the Innocents: CDC Inflicts Biowar Vax on Children
Tags: CDC, child vaccination, COVID vaccines, COVID-19, mRNA vaccines

Top Five Habits for a Healthier Life

October 30th, 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 my interview on “The Joe Cohen Show,” I discussed several fundamental health principles that virtually everyone can integrate into their lives to achieve better health

Even small changes add up to meaningful health improvements over time, especially when you know where to focus your energy

Eliminating vegetable/seed oils from your diet and getting more sun exposure top my list of healthy habits

Embracing time restricted eating, which means limiting your eating window to six to eight hours per day, is also important

Exercise and protecting yourself from electromagnetic fields round out my five top habits for a healthier life

Looking for straightforward advice to set your health on a path toward wellness instead of disease? My recent interview featured on “The Joe Cohen Show” is for you. I discussed several fundamental health principles that virtually everyone can integrate into their lives to achieve better health.

It can feel overwhelming to make positive lifestyle changes, but when you make them one step at a time it’s much more manageable. The secret is that even small changes add up to meaningful health improvements over time, especially when you know where to focus your energy. Here, I’ve detailed several examples where a relatively small “investment” in terms of lifestyle changes will lead to major health rewards.

Five Tips for a Healthier Life

1. Stop eating vegetable oils — Linoleic acid is the primary fat found in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), including vegetable/seed oils. It accounts for about 90% of dietary omega-6 intake.¹ Examples of seed oils high in omega-6 include soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), corn and safflower.²

Omega-6 is considered to be proinflammatory because of the linoleic acid, which will radically increase oxidative free radicals and cause mitochondrial dysfunction.³ While omega-6 fats must be balanced with omega-3 fats to not be harmful, most Americans consume far more omega-6 than omega-3.

Most of the omega-6 people eat, including seed oils, has been damaged and oxidized through processing. The oxidized omega-6 develops lipid hydroperoxides,⁴ which rapidly degenerate into oxidized linoleic acid metabolites (OXLAMs). OXLAMs can cause a host of problems in your body.^5,6

Cytotoxic and genotoxic
Mutagenic
Carcinogenic
Atherogenic
Thrombogenic

Metabolic dysfunction can also occur, while OXLAMs are also toxic to the liver and are associated with inflammation, fibrosis and fatty liver disease in humans.⁷ As researchers further noted in the journal Nutrients, “In addition, a few studies suggested that omega-6 PUFA is related to chronic inflammatory diseases such as obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.”⁸

Linoleic acid is found in virtually every processed food, including restaurant foods, sauces and salad dressings, so to eliminate it you’ll need to eliminate most processed foods and restaurant foods from your diet — unless you can confirm that the chef only cooks with butter.

However, because animals are fed grains that are high in linoleic acid,⁹ it’s also hidden in many ostensibly “healthy” foods like chicken and pork, which makes these meats a major source as well. Olive oil is another health food that can be a hidden source of linoleic acid, as it’s often cut with cheaper seed oils.

2. Get more sun exposure — You’re probably aware of the many health benefits of optimized vitamin D levels. But an important caveat is that vitamin D should ideally be obtained from healthy sun exposure, not an oral supplement. Not only will adequate sun exposure naturally raise your vitamin D levels to healthy levels, but it will provide a wide variety of other benefits, many of which are only beginning to be understood.

Many people are not aware that only 5% of your body’s melatonin — a potent anticancer agent — is produced in your pineal gland. The other 95% is produced inside your mitochondria — provided you get proper sun exposure. In fact, vitamin D is more than likely a biomarker or surrogate for sun exposure, which is so intricately involved in melatonin production.

During the day, if you get enough sun exposure, near-infrared rays from the sun penetrate deep into your body and activate cytochrome c oxidase, which in turn stimulates the production of melatonin inside your mitochondria. Your mitochondria produce ATP, the energy currency of your body. A byproduct of this ATP production is the creation of reactive oxidative species (ROS), which are responsible for oxidative stress and free radicals.

Excessive amounts of ROS will damage the mitochondria, contributing to suboptimal health, inflammation and chronic health conditions such as diabetes, obesity and thrombosis (blood clots). But melatonin essentially mops up ROS that damage your mitochondria. So by getting plenty of sun exposure during the day, your mitochondria will be bathed in melatonin, thereby reducing oxidative stress.^10,11

Getting more sun exposure also goes hand in hand with eliminating seed oils from your diet. The latter will dramatically reduce your risk of sunburn and skin cancer, as susceptibility to UV radiation damage is controlled by the level of PUFAs in your diet, almost like a dial. The PUFAs control how rapidly your skin burns and how rapidly you develop skin cancer.

3. Embrace time restricted eating (TRE)

If you’re still eating three meals a day — morning, noon and night — you’re missing out on one of the most powerful, free health interventions available. TRE involves limiting your eating window to six to eight hours per day instead of the more than 12-hour window most people use.

When you eat throughout the day and never skip a meal your body adapts to burning sugar as its primary fuel, resulting in the downregulation of enzymes that utilize and burn stored fat.^12,13As a result, you become progressively more insulin resistant and start gaining weight. When you’re metabolically unfit, your body primarily relies on glucose, or sugar, as fuel, instead of using fat as a primary fuel.

Even though the fat is there in abundance, your body doesn’t have the metabolic capacity to access it. For most people, surplus fuel stored in your body is stored in the form of fat. However, no one has more than about two days’ worth of sugar stored in their tissues. This is why when you first start fasting, and you’re unable to access your fat stores, you’ll quickly exhaust your sugar stores and can experience low blood sugar.

It’s not that you don’t have the fuel to generate, because your body can make sugar itself, but that process takes a while to ramp up and, as a result, most people get relatively hypoglycemic when they first start using TRE. You may experience dizziness and fatigue as a result, which are signs that you’re not metabolically flexible. If you were, your body would have more than enough capacity to produce all the fuel you need to keep your brain happy and healthy.¹⁴

TRE promotes insulin sensitivity and improves blood sugar management by increasing insulin-mediated glucose uptake rates,¹⁵ which is important for resolving Type 2 diabetes. Another study revealed that eating all meals between 8 a.m. and 2 p.m. — instead of between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. — resulted in greater metabolic flexibility, reduced hunger and increased sense of fullness, resulting in weight loss.¹⁶

Ideally, you’ll want to stop eating for three to five hours before bedtime, then start your eating window in mid- to late morning after you wake up. Most people reading this can benefit from embracing TRE; however, it isn’t recommended for people who are underweight, pregnant or breastfeeding. You also need to use caution if you’re taking certain medications, such as those for blood pressure or blood sugar.¹⁷

Interestingly, when you’re metabolically inflexible and unable to use fat for fuel, your body generates a molecule called acetyl-CoA when it’s breaking down fats — and that happens to be one of the cofactors for your body making melatonin.

So when you’re metabolically inflexible, your body produces far less melatonin in the mitochondria where you need it, because that’s where almost all the damage that causes cancer is caused — due to oxidative stress from the process of generating energy within the mitochondria.¹⁸

4. Exercise often — Exercise is probably the single most important “drug” we know of, and it’s a powerful intervention to prevent Alzheimer’s, among other chronic diseases. One of the most comprehensive studies to date of the molecular changes that occur in your body due to exercise provided an unprecedented glimpse into the details of the body’s physiological response.

It demonstrated that “an orchestrated choreography of biological processes” occur, including those related to:¹⁹

Energy metabolism
Oxidative stress
Inflammation
Tissue repair
Growth factor response

In all, 17,662 molecules were measured, 9,815 of which changed in response to exercise, with some going up and others going down. Certain molecules also spiked immediately after exercise then quickly dropped, while others remained heightened for an hour.

“It was like a symphony,” study author Michael Snyder, Ph.D., professor and chair of genetics at Stanford University, told The New York Times. “First you have the brass section coming in, then the strings, then all the sections joining in.”²⁰

Even weekend warriors who pack 150 minutes of exercise into two days enjoy lower all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates,²¹ although I encourage you to make exercise a priority on most days of the week instead. Along with the well-known benefits to your heart, exercise is protective for your brain.

If you know you’re at increased risk of dementia, for instance if a close family member has been diagnosed, it’s even more important to adhere to a regular exercise program. In seniors who are at high risk of dementia, cognitive decline can be reduced with a comprehensive program addressing diet, exercise, brain training, and managing metabolic and vascular risk factors.²²

Exercise initially stimulates the production of a protein called FNDC5, which in turn triggers the production of BDNF, or brain-derived neurotrophic factor. In your brain, BDNF not only preserves existing brain cells,²³ but also activates brain stem cells to convert into new neurons and effectively makes your brain grow.

Research confirming this includes a study in which seniors aged 60 to 80 who walked 30 to 45 minutes, three days per week, for one year and increased the volume of their hippocampus by 2%.²⁴ Higher fitness levels were also associated with a larger prefrontal cortex.

5. Protect yourself from EMFs — Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are the cigarettes of the 21st century — and most people are being exposed 24 hours a day. Most of the radiation emits from cellphones, cell towers, computers, smart meters and Wi-Fi, to name just a few of the culprits. Exposure causes serious mitochondrial dysfunction due to free radical damage. Among the most common consequences of chronic EMF exposure to your brain are:²⁵

Alzheimer’s
Anxiety
Autism — One of my longtime mentors, Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, has linked autism in children to excessive EMF exposure during pregnancy²⁶
Depression

EMFs may also play a role in heart issues and infertility.²⁷ Research conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP)²⁸ also found “clear evidence” that exposure to cellphone radiation led to heart tumors in the male rates, along with “some evidence” that it caused brain and adrenal gland tumors in the rats.²⁹

While it’s nearly impossible to avoid EMF exposure completely, there are practical ways to limit it. Given the number of EMFs that bombard you all day long, getting educated about the negative effects of EMFs is imperative to your well-being. Particularly if you are dealing with a serious illness, it is well worth your time to reduce your EMF exposure as much as possible.

One strategy is to connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired connection and put your desktop — and cellphone — in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and house phones. Opt for the wired versions. If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you’re sleeping. Shutting off the electricity to your bedroom at night will also help reduce your exposure.

I encourage you to embrace all of these protective strategies that support optimal health. These are just a start, as there are many others, such as use of a near-infrared sauna, that will also protect your health and lower all-cause mortality.

But remember, you don’t have to implement them all overnight. With each small step you take to reduce a toxic exposure or add a health-protective element — like more sun exposure — to your day, the better your health will become.

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 Oregon State University Essential Fatty Acids

² Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Feb; 21(3): 741

³ BMJ Open Heart 2018;5:e000946. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000946

⁴ BMJ Open Heart Volume 5, Issue 2. 2018

⁵ NIH. Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid and Nutrition in Human Aging

⁶ Biomed Chromatogr. 2013 Apr; 27(4): 422–432. October 5, 2012

⁷ J Lipid Res. 2018 Sep; 59(9): 1597–1609

⁸ Nutrients 2020, 12(11), 3365

⁹ Journal of Dairy Science January 2018; 101(1): 222-232

¹⁰ Physiology February 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019

¹¹ YouTube, MedCram, Sunlight: Optimize Health and Immunity January 21, 2022

¹² Cell February 8, 2018; 172(4): 731-743.E12

¹³ Medical News Today February 8, 2018

¹⁴ Rumble, Children’s Health Defense, Good Morning CHD, Episode 82 July 22, 2022, 17:32

¹⁵ Science November 16, 2018; 362(6416): 770-775

¹⁶ Obesity July 24, 2019; 27(8), Abstract

¹⁷ Rumble, Children’s Health Defense, Good Morning CHD, Episode 82 July 22, 2022, 39:40

¹⁸ Rumble, Children’s Health Defense, Good Morning CHD, Episode 82 July 22, 2022, 20:14

¹⁹ Cell. 2020 May 28;181(5):1112-1130.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.043

²⁰ The New York Times June 10, 2020

²¹ JAMA Internal Medicine, July 5, 2022; doi.org/1001/jamainternmed.2022.2488

²² The Lancet, 2015; DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60461-5

²³ Forbes Magazine October 13, 2013

²⁴ PNAS February 15, 2011: 108(7)

²⁵ Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy September 2016; 75(Pt B): 43-51

²⁶ Klinghardt Institute 2018

²⁷ Environment International September 2014; 70C: 106-112

^28, ²⁹ National Toxicology Program November 1, 2018

Posted in English
Comments Off on Top Five Habits for a Healthier Life
Tags: health

5G and Cell Tower Radiation: Caught in a Regulatory Gap

October 30th, 2022 by Environmental Health Trust

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

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

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

***

There is no U.S. government agency with oversight for cell tower radiation health effects:

no research reviews, no reports, no environmental monitoring, no risk mitigation and no post market health surveillance for the daily, full body radio-frequency (RF) radiation exposure from cell towers. Cell tower radiation exemplifies the concept of a regulatory gap.

The FDA

“The FDA does not regulate cell towers or cell tower radiation. Therefore, the FDA has no studies or information on cell towers to provide in response to your questions.” –Ellen Flannery, Director, FDA Policy Center for Devices and Radiological Health to a California mother with a cell tower on her street who asked the FDA about safety, July 11, 2022

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)

“As a Federal research agency, the NCI is not involved in the regulation of radio frequency telecommunications infrastructure and devices, nor do we make recommendations for policies related to this technology”

–National Cancer Institute letter to Denise Ricciardi, member of the New Hampshire State Commission on 5G, July 30, 2020

The American Cancer Society (ACS)

The ACS does “not have any official position or statement on whether or not radiofrequency radiation from cell phones, cell phones towers, or other sources is a cause of cancer.” –American Cancer Society Website

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

“EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.” -Lee Ann B. Veal Director, EPA Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, July 8, 2020 Letter to Theodora Scarato

The Center for Disease Control (CDC)

Fact: There are no scientific reports by the CDC on cell tower radiation safety, nor does the agency have staff with expertise monitoring the science and evaluating risk. Public information requests found thatseveral CDC website pages on radio frequency were found to be drafted with a wireless industry consultant.

The Department of the Interior

“The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” – U.S. Department of Interior Letter to FCC, 2014

The World Health Organization

Fact: The World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project has not reviewed the science since 1993. The WHO webpages on cell phones and cell towers are not based on a published scientific review. The WHO EMF Project webpages were written by a scientist who used wireless industry money to start the WHO EMF Project and who is now a consultant to industry.

In contrast, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (a separate WHO entity vetted for conflicts of interest) determined RF radiation to be a Class 2 B “possible” carcinogen in 2011. Many scientists now state the evidence showing cancer has increased.

255 scientists who have published in the field signed the EMF Scientists Appeal which states “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

419 scientists and doctors have signed the European Union 5G Appeal which states “5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [RF-EMF] on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”

Over 3,500 medical doctors signed onto a 2020 Consensus statement that wireless RF has been proven to damage biological systems at intensities below government limits (See signatures here, PDF of Consensus Statement).

Examples of Numerous Appeals by Medical Professionals: International Society of Doctors for Environment, Cyprus Medical Association, the Vienna Austrian Medical Chamber and the Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Belgium Doctors Appeal, Canadian Doctors, Cyprus Medical Association, Physicians of Turin, Italy, the German Doctors Appeal, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and Space, Letter to President Trump, Letter to President Biden and Chilean Doctors.

There have been appeals and position statements for decades, read a full list here.

The New Hampshire State Commission 5G Report has 15 recommendations to protect the public.

The Pittsburgh Law Review: The FCC Keeps Letting Me Be: Why Radiofrequency Radiation Standards Have Failed to Keep Up With Technology explains how the FCC and FDA have failed to develop adequate safety limits.
The Harvard Press Book “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates” details how wireless companies are using the Big Tobacco playbook and how the FCC is a captured agency.

Research on 5G and Small Cell Radiation Exposure

American Academy of Pediatrics

Website Electromagnetic Fields: A Hazard to Your Health?

“In recent years, concern has increased about exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones and phone station antennas. An Egyptian study confirmed concerns that living nearby mobile phone base stations increased the risk for developing:

Headaches
Memory problems
Dizziness
Depression
Sleep problems

Short-term exposure to these fields in experimental studies have not always shown negative effects, but this does not rule out cumulative damage from these fields, so larger studies over longer periods are needed to help understand who is at risk. In large studies, an association has been observed between symptoms and exposure to these fields in the everyday environment.” –American Academy of Pediatrics

Outdoor levels of RF are increasing due to the densification of wireless networks

Research documents increasing RF levels outdoors. An article published in The Lancet Planetary Healthdocuments the increasing RF exposures and scientific research linking exposure to adverse effects (Bandara and Carpenter 2018).

“It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century…”

A 2021 report by the French government on 5G analyzed more than 3,000 measurements and found that RF levels had not yet significantly increased, but this was due to the lack of 5G traffic. So the researchers did additional measurements specific to 5G in the 3500 MHz band with artificially generated traffic and concluded, “initial results suggest an eventual increase of about 20% in overall exposure.”

A 2018 multi-country study published in Environment International measured RF in several countries and found cell tower/base station radiation to be the dominant contributor to RF exposure in most outdoor areas (Sagar et al. 2018). Urban areas had higher RF.

A study measuring RF exposure in the European cities of Basel, Ghent and Brussels found the total RF exposure levels in outdoor locations had increased up to 57.1% in one year (April 2011 to March 2012) and most notably due to mobile phone base stations.

A 2018 study published in Oncology Letters documented “unnecessarily high” RF levels in several locations in Stockholm, Sweden. The authors conclude, “Using high-power levels causes an excess health risk to many people.”

A 2017 Swedish study of Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament found, despite the hidden, architecturally camouflaged RF-emitting antennas, passive exposure to RF radiation from cell antennas that was higher than RF levels associated with non-thermal biological effects in studies. The researchers note that the heaviest RF load falls on people working or living near hotspots.

A 2016 study at Stockholm Central Railway Station in Sweden documented higher RF levels in areas where base station antennas were located closest to people. Importantly, the RF from the downlink of UMTS, LTE, GSM base station antennas contributed to most of the radiation levels.

Published Reviews Recommend Cell Towers Be Distanced Away From Homes and Schools

The review paper entitled “Limiting liability with positioning to minimize negative health effects of cellular phone towers” reviewed the “large and growing body of evidence that human exposure to RFR from cellular phone base stations causes negative health effects.” The authors recommend restricting antennas near homes, and restricting antennas within 500 meters of schools and hospitals to protect companies from future liability (Pearce 2020).
An analysis of 100 studies published in Environmental Reviews found approximately 80% showed biological effects near towers. “As a general guideline, cell base stations should not be located less than 1500 ft from the population, and at a height of about 150 ft” (Levitt 2010).
A review published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health found people living less than 500 meters from base station antennas had increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2011).

A paper by human rights experts published in Environment Science and Policy documented the accumulating science indicating safety is not assured, and considered the issue within a human rights framework to protect vulnerable populations from environmental pollution. “We conclude that, because scientific knowledge is incomplete, a precautionary approach is better suited to State obligations under international human rights law” (Roda and Perry 2014, PDF).

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

Posted in English
Comments Off on 5G and Cell Tower Radiation: Caught in a Regulatory Gap