Global Research

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“We think of Woodword and Bernstein, we think of Erin Brokovich, we think of plucky investigative reporters or other kinds of investigators bringing down corporate titans for poisoning people…but the fact is that over these last few years we have seen journalism has basically gone over to the enemy.”

– Mark Crispin Miller (July 2022) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

As was made clear in the previous episode of this series, independent media trying to investigate claims made about big issues, be it Syria or RussiaGate or now the War in Ukraine find themselves in the crosshairs of authorities determined to preserve certain narratives advancing a goal.

Either they seek to shut down what THEY call “disinformation” as directed by the official “enemy,” or else similarly remove naive individuals following “fake news” mistakenly but planted nonetheless by the same menacing individuals.

But one subject requiring further examination, at least in the opinion of this radio host, was the subject of the Corona virus outbreak. Told that it started in China and that it spread throughout the world, told that an outbreak of a relatively small number of outbreaks triggered the World Health Organization (WHO) to announce it was a pandemic, the death count mainly affecting the elderly triggering devastating lockdowns all across the globe, the panic partially incited by the media, and then the complicity in not only informing people about the vaccine approved only with an Emergency Use Authorization but actively encouraging people to get it, actively participating in an effort to downgrade ivermectin and other treatments compared to the vaccine, and finally refusing to consider the possibility that the world’s pharmaceutical corporations might have played a role in capturing the regulatory agencies in question – all these things left this host confused, frightened and even exasperated by the lack of what seems like legitimate inquiry! [2]

People lost jobs and livelihoods and lost the right to organize in large numbers on account of the lockdowns. People who chose not to take the vaccine faced other mechanisms including loss of employment, and segregation in the public sphere, and separation from family members as a result of practicing their right. [3]

And media no doubt played a critical role in setting the psychology of the public for the difficult – some might even say fascistic – measures adopted by the public.[4]

Journalists, as part of their function of aiming for accuracy must be skeptical of all authority and must ask questions when available realities don’t quite jibe. Instead, media were compliant. To put it another way, when journalists were told by medical and State authorities to jump, they didn’t ask “why.” They asked, “How high?”

So, while we have been looking at the deterioration of journalism’s role to keep information broadcast or printed factual, accurate and responsible, we this week on the Global Research News Hour are taking a special look at how media has covered the COVID-19 phenomenon and how it could have been covered differently.

In our first half hour, we speak to Alison Morrow, a fellow journalist formerly working in mainstream media about why she reacted negatively to COVID coverage by her network and her colleagues and tries to chase the roots of this impaired coverage. This is followed by David Kattenburg, a fellow journalist and also a science educator who takes the position that COVID coverage was by and large valid under the circumstances despite the “dissident doctors” and other people putting out their analysis.

Alison Morrow is a former award winning television journalist. She is currently a media analyst and free-speech advocate. Morrow left traditional television media to pursue a career as an online personality publishing content on multiple platforms. Her channels include YouTube, Rokfin, Odysee, and Rumble.

David Kattenburg is a science educator, journalist, web publisher, a podcaster and a human rights advocate formerly from Winnipeg Canada, now based in Breda in The Netherlands. He has appeared on CBC radio, Radio Netherlands, and DW Radio, as well as producing Green Planet Monitor Web magazine and contributing to The Real News Network. He is also a veteran of CKUW radio.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 365) 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW


Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

1. https://rumble.com/v1d3m6r-gj-7-mark-crispin-miller.html
2. Michel Chossudovsky (2022), “The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity”, published by  the Centre for Research on Globalization
3. https://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-virus-trigger-the-2020-worldwide-economic-crisis/5736566
4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-formation-not-even-wrong/5796245

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published on August 12, 2021

In most countries the Constitutional Amendment from “Democracy” to Dictatorship has happened clandestinely or at least semi-clandestinely. That’s what dictators do. Most of the people have no idea. Many of those who do know, don’t agree. They launch initiatives for new laws – that fall by the way side, because they have no teeth under a Martial Law-broken Constitution.

In Switzerland, the situation is slightly different, better of sorts. The Confederation Helvetica (CH) has a semi-direct Democracy. With 50,000 signatures, scrupulously verified for their validity, Swiss citizens can launch a referendum against a specific law. The referendum may eventually come to a popular vote – and a government/Parliament let law may be overruled. Though, this happens very rarely – the money lobby-propaganda is too strong – occasionally the people may have a chance. In these covid-times, it may actually happen. Within 18 months, from the beginning of 2020 to about mid-2021 citizens have basically no longer the very rights they could otherwise call as a human right. HRs have become worthless. In most cases police and military are under strict orders to obey. Those who don’t may lose their jobs, or worse.

Although, there are vivid and positive signs that the tides are turning. For example, at a London anti-covid-measures, anti-vaxx-certificates rally in London. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Corona Committee, spoke via a huge video screen to the crowd, on Trafalgar Square – tens of thousands of people – telling them that class actions suits are under way in the US, Canada, and that institutions and individuals, especially those responsible for the invalid PCR tests, particularly in Europe and the US, that are the basis for governments lying about “cases”, serving to manipulate up-and-down the “infection” figures – leading to false numbers on hospitalization and death, about a virus that is less deadly than the common flu. Yes, you read correctly, less deadly than the common flu. This is the onset to Nuremberg 2.0 – where justice will prevail, as much as light prevails over darkness.

Dr. Fuellmich closed his talk on a positive and encouraging note, “It is humanity, versus inhumanity. We are human. We can laugh cry, sing and hug. The other side can’t. The other side has no access to the spiritual side. Therefore, the other side, without any doubt, the inhuman side, will lose this inhuman battle for life….”  See this 10-min video.

The transformation is beginning to take place. This is the health side, the human side, the most immediately important side – where real science is overcoming “bought” science, in order to avoid a genocide of biblical proportions – which is the eugenists plan, probably developing over the past about 100 years. However, there are two other, complementary plans which also need to be stopped.

The first one of the two is the digitization of everything. It is already descending upon humanity, had actually started already decades ago – and is now in its final round – just so as to coincide with the massive population reduction.

It includes not only digitization of all forms of monetary transactions – which is rapidly pushing forward, through Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms and most importantly, the vehicle to drive it all, the worldwide installation of 5G and soon to come 6G. This is foreseen to turn the entire globe into an electromagnetic field. And humans, will be turned into “transhumans”, especially those that have survived the experimental, untested messenger spike protein injections, called mRNA inoculations, falsely called “vaccines”.

This is not a joke. This is actually, the plan already divulged in 2016 by Klaus Schwab, founder and for-ever CEO of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in an interview with Swiss French TV broadcast, see this 2-min video.

According to Klaus Schwab’s “The Great Reset”, algorithms, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots will soon rule the masses.

By 2025, give or take a year or two, about half of today’s jobs will be run by AI. This electronic technology will in turn be ruled by some dirty-rich individuals, who somehow have given themselves the liberty to “run the world”. And we, the people, have let them.

They – the Deep Dark Statlers – call them Satanists – have planned this for about the last century. With great precision and intensity at times – and – what’s worse, much worse, right in front of our eyes. We have ignored them. Anybody who dared to draw attention to their evil machinations, was dismissed with the convenient label “conspiracy theorist”.

Imagine, according to the Great Reset, half of our jobs will be taken over by AI, in just the next 5 years or so.

By 2030, only about 5% to 10% of the current jobs will be existing and carried out by humans – maybe “transhumans”— all the others may be gone. Massive unemployment? – Maybe.

But Schwab tries to tranquilize the world, saying that there will be new jobs for which newly unemployed people will be trained. They may be transhumans, because training is done by and in partnership with AI – and for the Epsilon People, the down-to-earth working class, robots will do the supervising.

This may sound depressing, despairing. It ain’t, if we think about the situation which we, pretty much on our own, have allowed to happen. It is not the end of the road, but only a stepping stone, onto which we too can step, when awakened – and not in anger, but with the bright spirit of light – a new world shaped by humans, shaped with the forces of light,

Leaving the devil behind. Not even mentioning the beast. No letting it bother our minds.

We are up to something much higher, much cleaner, clearer and much nobler. Our project is for humanity, for planet earth with all her sentient beings.

The simple model “Small is Beautiful” may be an appropriate vision forward. It may include another simple principle:

Local production for local consumption with local money, a local community run central bank working with a public banking system.

Trade will be practiced with like-minded mostly neighboring sister countries, benefiting from comparative advantages. The money supply will be a reflection of the local economy. It will be backed by the local economy. Quite different from the current globalist-run fiat money pyramid.

This appears like a perfect recipe for de-globalization. And deglobalize we must. We must become again individuals that can and want to bond, not separate, individuals for whom solidarity is no just a term from a rusty vocabulary – but means “we do it together”. This is the way to go, we will be satisfied with what we can achieve as a common, as a society with goals that serve the people – with values that do not depend on vertical growth, but rather reflect horizontal expansion of social infrastructure and well-being.

Let’s imagine a new type of economy with novel yardsticks – Happiness Indicators. Actually, not so novel, just not often talked about. In July 2011, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 65/309 Happiness: Towards a Holistic Definition of Development inviting member countries to measure the happiness of their people and to use the data to help guide public policy. The first Happiness report was issued by the UN in April 2012.

If we are able to abandon the magical concept of “growth”- and exchange it for happiness, we not only protect and preserve Mother Earth, but will also preserve our human health – our sanity. Our today’s society is sick. It strives for ever for more growth, for more possessions, for more affluence, for more control – but happiness that is the basis for a healthy life – is but an abstract term in today’s business-driven world. Happiness is more often than not confused with material wealth.

The no-growth, but social growth concept, is the basis for our escaping from the globalist agenda.

Human wealth comes from the heart. And it is through the heart that we may pass it on, replicate it. How does one define Happiness? – There surely is no blueprint for happiness, as we are moving away from the all-modelled sets of values, away from the “musts” and the “Must-nots”.

The website “LifeHack.org” offers a few definitions of Happiness. Among them, the following two:

“Happy people find balance in their lives. Folks who are happy have this in common: they’re content with what they have, and don’t waste a whole lot of time worrying and stressing over things they don’t. Unhappy people do the opposite: they spend too much time thinking about what they don’t have.”

and

According to the Dalai Lama, Happiness is not something readymade. It comes from your own actions. And let me add, from our actions driven by our heart and soul.

The General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 66/281 of 12 July 2012 proclaimed 20 March the International Day of Happiness recognizing the relevance of happiness and well-being as universal goals and aspirations in the lives of human beings around the world.

How does the UN define “Happiness”? – Happiness is not contained in GDP, and less in GDP growth.

To the contrary. It’s most important that we start detaching from material wealth, that we see the moral and friendship wealth in our society. That we see and strive for equality, inclusion, solidarity – that we learn to smile at each other, even in adverse situations. This requires an elevated spirit, a mentality of light that defeats satanic darkness.

Happy people abide by the golden rule: They let stuff go. Happy people realize this, are able to take things in stride, and move on – without fear.

That’s what we have to do – shed the fear – and move on, in a higher spiritual mode, floating out of the darkness into the light. It’s possible. Let’s give it a collective try. ‘They’ are blackmailing us into accepting the poisonous jab, they fraudulently call vaccine. They may go as far as blocking us from getting food, from entering supermarkets without the vaccine certificate – or getting the test, every time you need food. – No worries. They won’t succeed.

Is this ever-more encroaching human rights abuse-tyranny a malicious provocation? – See this.

Are they on purpose driving people to the edge? – To provoke a revolution? And bring in NATO and maybe even UN troops to subdue the upheavals, personal freedoms, national sovereignty – and even national borders – towards a globalist world, a One World Order, a One Government world, led by the WEF and the club of billionaires – directed by a satanic cult?

It is possible. But we are stronger. We will defeat this evil cult.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich et al, from the Corona Council, has already launched class actions suits in Canada and the US and is taking legal actions against EU institutions and individuals. The tide is turning. Of course, you will not read or hear about it in the mainstream media.

Think small. Think community – your community, think self-sufficiency as much as possible. Think local production for local consumption with local money and local banks for the wellbeing of all within the community. Think trading with friends and with think-alike nations, societies, people.

We shall overcome – and we will.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

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

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

Featured image is from City News Service

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 insane globalists at the World Economic Forum are pushing Germany and the rest of Europe into catastrophe. Germany just turned down cheap natural gas from Vladimir Putin with the fixing of the Nord Stream pipeline.

About Clayton Morris:

Clayton Morris is a former Fox News anchor. In Redacted, Clayton and his wife Natali take an in-depth look at the legal, social, financial, and personal issues that matter to you.

They want to set the record straight and bring you the stories nobody else is telling.

Along with the facts and the full picture, Redacted offers real-world analysis without an agency driven by corporate overloads. With Clayton’s extensive journalism experience, he isn’t afraid to demand the truth from authorities.

Redacted is an independent platform, unencumbered by external factors or restrictive policies on which Clayton and Natali Morris bring you quality information, balanced reporting, constructive debate, and thoughtful narratives.

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.

***

Lebanon and Israel have reached a deal concerning their maritime border dispute in the gas-rich Mediterranean Sea.

Israel’s current leader, Yarir Lapid, wants to get the Knesset’s approval before Israel’s elections on November 1, but there’s no guarantee that it will happen before then. The long-term life of this deal depends on the outcome of the Israeli election.

Lebanon’s deputy speaker Elias Bou Saab said yesterday that an agreement had been reached that satisfies both sides, and the US-brokered final draft has gone to President Michel Aoun. US mediator Amos Hochstein worked to close the gap between Israel and Lebanon on the issues surrounding the gas deal. The text of the deal was leaked to the press, and appears to give the Karish field to Israeli control, while the Qana field would remain with Lebanon. Aoun stressed previously that this deal does not create a partnership with Israel, as the two countries remain in a state of war.

Lebanon’s Energy Minister Walid Fayad has previously said they will take over Russian gas company Novatek’s 20 percent share in a consortium licensed to explore two offshore blocs after the Russian gas giant pulled out in August. The consortium is led by France’s TotalEnergies and includes Italy’s Eni. Yesterday, a delegation from Total was in Beirut meeting the caretaker Prime Minister Mikati, who told them to start immediately exploring and drilling the area once the maritime border deal comes into force.

The deal could solve the financial, social, and political problems that Lebanon has been facing which almost brought the small nation on the Mediterranean Sea to ‘failed-state’ status.

The two nations sense the urgency to come to an agreement amid Hezbollah’s threat to defend Lebanon’s offshore energy resources by force if necessary. The Lebanese army is incapable of militarily defending Lebanon, and Hezbollah is the only resistance force capable of deterring the encroachment of borders or territorial waters. Hezbollah officials have said they would endorse a deal reached between Lebanon’s government and Israel.  Offshore oil and gas production for Lebanon could spell the end of the worst economic crisis in the world in modern history, according to the World Bank.

Previously, Lapid said Israel would begin production in the Karish gas field in the Mediterranean “as soon as possible.” That decision threatened to raise tensions with Hezbollah, as the Karish gas field was contested. Israel set up a gas rig at Karish in June, saying the field was part of its UN-recognized exclusive economic zone; however, Lebanon insisted Karish was in disputed waters. Tensions between Lebanon and Israel increased since the arrival of a floating production and storage vessel to the Karish field in June, and in July the Israeli military shot down three unarmed Hezbollah drones flying over the Karish field.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Abbas Zalzali, news anchor, media instructor, talk show host and writer.  Mr. Zalzali explained how the deal might be effected by the Israeli election outcome, and also commented on the upcoming Presidential election in Lebanon.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): Previously, we heard that Israel and Lebanon were very close to signing a deal over the gas in the Mediterranean Sea, but that the negotiations had collapsed. As of now, the deal appears to have been made. In your opinion, who caused the previous negotiations to collapse?

Abbas Zalzali (AZ):  The previous Israeli statements regarding the border demarcation agreement with Lebanon, which has now been made, fall into the category of Israeli election rhetoric. That is why we saw Benjamin Netanyahu trying to use the border demarcation file against Yair Lapid as a pressure card by making clear that it is a concession to Lebanon and Hezbollah, but all indications indicate that the agreement has been accomplished, especially after US President Joe Biden called Lebanese President Michel Aoun and congratulated him on completing the agreement, as did the US Ambassador to Beirut Dorothy Shea and more than one Arab and international official.

SS: The Israeli officials are threatening to attack Lebanon and asked their settlers in northern occupied Palestine to get prepared for escalation with Lebanon. Netanyahu is against this new agreement between Lebanon and Israel, and in the coming election he might win. Do you think that the situation will go to a full scale war if he comes back to power?

AZ: If Netanyahu wins, things will get complicated.  I do not think that Israel is ready to launch a war against Lebanon, not because of the demarcation of the maritime borders, or for any other reason, because the regional and international conditions are not ready, and because Europe needs Mediterranean gas as a result of the repercussions of the Russian-Ukrainian war and the conflict over energy sources.  Let us not forget that in the war with Lebanon in July 2006 Israel gained nothing. Hezbollah has gained a great deal of fighting power through its participation in the wars in more than one country, in addition to doubling its missile force.

SS: The Lebanese Parliament should vote for a new president for Lebanon. In your opinion, are the Lebanese political parties ready to choose a president, or we will see Lebanon without a government and a president?

AZ: The elections of a new President in Lebanon has always been an internal connection with external and internal reasons, but there are some countries meddling in Baabda Palace, and some neighboring countries that changed the political map in the country.

So we may face a stage of a presidential vacancy under a resigned government. But if the positives continue in the file of demarcating the maritime borders with Israel, and the agreement is signed, this may reflect regional and international consensus, which will be reflected inside Lebanon as an agreement to elect a new president.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from the authors

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.

***

Science for Hire takes us on a journey through the most critical scientific issues that directly affect our health and well-being, shedding light on the hidden secrets of the scientific, pharmaceutical, and military industrial complexes. Following a long history of systemic corruption across medical organizations and schools, scientific publications and federal regulatory agencies, we enter a world where pseudo-science and misinformation rules. 

Billions of dollars are spent to manipulate and buy the allegiance of elected officials and the media. Those who speak up against modern science’s culture of corruption risk having their careers destroyed. Governments operate in lockstep with the pharmaceutical ambitions to erect an unregulated global regime, a “Great Reset,” that will dictate what we can eat, what medical interventions are permitted and banned, and the rewards and punishments that legislate our choices.

Science for Hire describes a broken system and offers hard hitting solutions to spark clarion calls to take heed of the realities facing humanity today.

Click here to watch the documentary.

*

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

Dr. Gary Null is host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Last Call to Tomorrow. 

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.

***

Newly elected Alberta Premier Danielle Smith talks about civil liberties, the importance of freedom of speech, being able to question ‘the science’, reaffirming Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the right to bodily autonomy (vaccination).

This video clip was extracted from “Real Talk Ryan Jespersen”.

*

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

Featured image: Danielle Smith (Photo by Manning Centre c/o: Jake Wright – Flickr, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

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

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

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

***

The European Union’s self-imposed energy crisis is taking a turn for the worse. The political elites in Brussels and their suicidal subservience to Washington DC is breaking records day by day. The latest energy hurdle the bloc is facing is a chronic lack of transport ships carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States to EU countries. According to Bloomberg, as the bloc is trying to prepare for a winter without Russian natural gas and other crucial commodities, LNG shipping rates are surging, but this will not be enough to meet the EU’s energy needs this season. The report states that European countries are now paying to keep the LNG transport ships loaded with natural gas in ports as onshore LNG storage facilities are full.

As companies are racing to charter entire fleets of LNG transport ships, there is a growing fear that there will not be enough vessels capable of transporting natural gas from the US. This problem is further exacerbated by those ready to pay for the already-loaded ships to stay in ports. Gas Market Report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on October 3, states that the demand for LNG in EU member states surged by 65% for the first three quarters of 2022 when compared to the same period last year.

In the aftermath of anti-Russian sanctions, the EU was forced to import less from Russia. According to OilPrice.com, in June, the bloc imported more natural gas from the US than from Russia for the first time in its history. A Reuters report claims that up to 70% of US LNG exports were sent to the EU in September, which was a 7% increase in comparison to August. In the meantime, countries in East Asia and South America are also trying to acquire more natural gas in preparation for the winter season, which is adding even more pressure on shipping companies. Worse yet, US states in New England, which are dependent on LNG imports, are now forced to compete with EU buyers, which further drives up prices, according to Seeking Alpha.

The October 11 report published by Bloomberg states that the cost to charter a transport ship loaded with LNG and set to sail across the Atlantic Ocean rose to $397,500 per day. This new record for Atlantic LNG shipping rates represents an increase of over 6% in less than a week, as the previous record of $374,000 per day was set on October 3. However, to better understand just how mind-boggling the shipping prices are now, it’s better to compare on a yearly basis. In 2021, the Atlantic LNG freight rate was $91,000 per day. With the newest record, which has very likely already been topped, this is an increase of over $306,500 per day, or 337%, and an approximately 500% increase since January 2022, according to Spark Commodities.

The LNG shipping price assessor reports that this broke the 2021 all-time record high for the Pacific Ocean freight rates which happened at the height of the supply chain crisis. The price is expected to surge further as traders are hoarding even more natural gas. The scramble to buy more LNG and charter additional transport ships to carry it is very likely to create the next big shortage in the energy market, experts and traders agree.

The shortage has become so severe as it is that LNG exporters in Asia are now selling natural gas directly from their ports instead of offering to ship it to buyers. However, many buyers lack LNG shipping vessels of their own and are forced to pay exorbitant prices to get natural gas to their own ports, while in some cases they can’t even find a way to transport the LNG they already paid for. According to LNG traders, there are very few transport ships left to charter for the rest of 2022 and they are charging astronomical rates.

The shipping issues for the LNG are a clear indicator that pipelines have no viable alternatives. However, with NATO countries and satellite states being involved in sabotage operations against Russia-EU pipelines, be it through sanctions or terrorist acts such as the Nord Stream 1 and 2 explosions, Brussels is now forced to contend with both US LNG producers and freight companies and their exorbitant prices.

There’s growing frustration in the EU as it is painfully obvious that the US is making astronomical profits thanks to the escalation of tensions between Brussels and Moscow. Global demand for LNG transport vessels is driving freight rates even higher, which will make pipelines even more important. The EU will have a clear choice – either come to an agreement with Russia and stop acts of sabotage or continue paying several times more for LNG and brace for certain shortages as storage space runs out.

*

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.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

It seems that our initial assessment that the post Sunday October 2 elections Orange Revolution unleashed in the Republic of Srpska was floundering was a bit premature, as much as was the opposition’s triumphant parade on election night, before the votes were even counted. Realistically, had it depended entirely on the political resources and acumen of the locals the affair very likely would indeed have fizzled out. The important component of the larger picture that we did not fully credit, however, was the crucial input of the foreign factor, to which the opposition is beholden. It seems that the aggrieved opposition parties’ leaders who presented themselves at the British Embassy in Sarajevo on Monday morning after the polls closed were not merely paying a courtesy call on their sponsors. They went there to talk orange revolution logistics, as subsequent events strongly suggest.

After a few days of inaction, the Western backed opposition organized two protest rallies in Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska’s largest city, announcing its intention to challenge alleged voting irregularities and demand a recount. Curiously, throughout most of the post-election week, Bosnia’s Central Electoral Commission [CIK] did not just maintain radio silence on the alleged fraud but was even issuing calming statements that vote counting was in progress and everything seemed regular. Then, on Monday October 10, it dropped a bombshell: it ordered a recount, the very step that throughout the previous week it was claiming was not a viable option.

Oddly, or perhaps not, the recount order affected only balloting for President and Vice-President of the Republic of Srpska, the voting for all other offices in CIK’s opinion presumably having been squeaky clean.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the target and the beneficiary of this selectively formulated remedial measure. The target is Milorad Dodik, whose public predilection for Russia has earned him over the years the furious enmity of the collective West and its regime change detachments, particularly now, in the context of the geopolitical exigencies generated by the Ukrainian conflict. The none too discretely designated beneficiary is Jelena Trivić, Dodik’s opponent in the race for President of the Republic of Srpska, the candidate of the Western-sponsored opposition.

Admittedly, in our previous analysis we erred in projecting Mrs. Trivić’s assigned role as that of the Bosnian Juan Guaido. As the Republic of Srpska operational script becomes more intelligible to us, it is clear that her assigned role model is not Guaido but Belorussia’s Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for all that may be worth, and probably not much.

Evidently, it had taken several days for the practical details of the 2022 orange revolution scenario to be worked out. If the initial bet was that electoral fraud allegations alone, without more, would motivate large numbers of angry protesters to pour into the streets and overthrow the government, that soon proved insufficient to provoke a major commotion. Opposition rallies turned out to be disappointingly anaemic. Emphasis therefore had to be shifted from rhetorical incitement in the streets to an attempt to obtain some formal and hopefully institutional backing for Mrs. Trivić’s electoral fraud case.

The initially reticent CIK, with its seat in Sarajevo – a venue notoriously unfavourable to anything to do with the Republic of Srpska –  was therefore activated to lend much needed credence to the fraud allegations.

The result, obtained with helpful pressure exerted by major Western embassies and the disputed High Representative Christian Schmidt, who had just recently meddled in Bosnia’s electoral regulations and intimated he might use his bogus “Bonn powers,” was the extraordinary order for the targeted vote recount. That was exactly what the Western-sponsored opposition thought it needed to give additional impetus to its faltering street agitation.

CIK’s abrupt and under the circumstances extremely politically charged decision to order a recount was sharply criticised by Banja Luka constitutional law professor Milan Blagojević in a recent legal analysis. Prof. Blagojević pointed out glaring anomalies in CIK’s accommodating decision. Contrary to what Bosnia’s law provides, it did not wait for the vote counting process to be completed before considering remedial measures. Nor did it, as the law also requires, wait to receive documented allegations of voting irregularities before presuming to act. In fact, the oddly worded electoral commission order makes no pretense of being based on any serious proof of alleged irregularities, relying rather on “media reports” that they might have occurred. This extraordinary approach to the gathering of probative evidence reproduces to a remarkable degree a technique frequently employed by the Hague Tribunal, which in several judgments similarly cited media sources as reliable proof in convicting various defendants.

We shall soon find out whether CIK’s hasty turn-around will suffice to galvanise the required level of outrage to make a real political difference.

But the larger picture must always be borne in mind. Regime change in the Republic of Srpska has been for the West a continuous political project for at least the last ten years. The immediate objective, of course, is simply to drive Dodik out of office, but the more essential goals are to eviscerate the pesky Serbian entity and then subsume it under a greatly strengthened but fully subservient central government in Sarajevo, in the process undermining clear provisions of the Dayton peace agreement which grant entities broad autonomy.

While there is nothing essentially novel in these machinations aimed against the Serb Bosnian entity, the Ukrainian conflict and the theoretical prospect of a direct clash involving NATO powers has given them additional urgency, and for roughly the same strategic reasons that animated Hitler immediately prior to the attack on the USSR in 1941. The aggressor must secure his rear if the plan to open an Eastern front is to have a reasonable chance of success. Viewed from that angle, it is difficult to imagine that Serbia’s turn will not come soon to also become fully integrated within the NATO axis. Not that it isn’t comparatively much further along that road than Bosnia, whose “progress” in this regard is impeded by the recalcitrant Republic of Srpska. But in a serious global conflict much more would be required of Serbia than what its current psychotic elite, more kleptomaniacal than maturely focused on reliably fulfilling its Western-assigned geopolitical tasks, is capable of delivering. That is why, just as in the Republic of Srpska, in Serbia also a reserve team of subservient toadies is waiting in the wings, virtue signalling its fealty by advocating the immediate imposition of sanctions on Russia, and chomping at the bit for their paymasters to install them.

After two rather spectacular failures, in 2014 and 2018, to successfully exploit favourable conditions and seize power, and still plagued by incompetence and total lack of charisma, the foreign-directed opposition in the Republic of Srpska is not a sure bet to triumph this time around. But while they may be comfortably underestimated, the determination of the collective West to settle Bosnian matters before moving on to the other side of the Drina River, to rearrange to its complete convenience matters in Serbia proper, should not be.

*

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.

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: Protest in Banja Luka, Republika Srpska, October 9. Photo: PDP via Balkan Insight

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.

***

Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been filtering and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths since April 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal

The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death

Uncontrollable turbo-charged cancers the medical establishment had never seen before only started to occur after the rollout of the COVID jabs

Before it was manipulated to eliminate the safety signal, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) showed cancer rates among military personnel and their families tripled after the rollout of the shots

After the rollout of the COVID jabs in 2021, cancer patients have gotten younger, with the largest increase occurring among 30- to 50-year-olds, tumor sizes are dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and recurrence and metastasis are increasing

*

In a series of Twitter posts, The Ethical Skeptic — self-described as a former intelligence officer and strategist — has laid out a series of charts illustrating how cancer deaths are being mislabeled as COVID deaths.

The suspicion is that this is an effort to hide the fact that the COVID shots have resulted in soaring cancer rates. The Ethical Skeptic also takes a deep dive into the data in “Houston, We Have a Problem, Part 1,” on TheEthicalSkeptic.com.¹

As noted in his article, seven out of the 11 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes tracked by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics — including cancer — saw sharp upticks starting in the first week of April 2021.

“This date of inception is no coincidence, in that it also happens to coincide with a key inflection point regarding a specific body-system intervention in most of the U.S. population,” The Ethical Skeptic notes.² In other words, April 2021 was when large swaths of the American population were getting their first COVID jabs.

Cancer Diagnoses on the Rise

The following graph, highlighted on Dr. Jennifer Brown’s Substack,³ illustrates the cyclical wave pattern of cancer diagnoses, from January 2015 and October 1, 2022. As noted in the top-right text box:

“We should be at or near a seasonal nadir. Instead we are at an all-time CA [cancer] excess, and heading up. Keep in mind there is substantial lag to CA reporting, so this likely under-represents true excess.”

At no point during the past seven years have we seen this rate of new cancer diagnoses.

Are the COVID shots to blame? Probably, unless we can identify another widespread environmental factor or exposure that was introduced to the population, en masse, in early 2021, that didn’t exist before.

CDC Fudging Death Records to Eliminate Cancer Signal

According to The Ethical Skeptic’s analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been filtering and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths since Week 14 of 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal.⁴

The following two charts, posted on Twitter October 1 and 2, 2022, illustrates how cancer mortality is being artificially suppressed. As explained by The Ethical Skeptic:^5,6

“The set dynamics are complex, but the principle is straightforward. When a death cert lists Cancer as the UCoD [underlying cause of death] and COVID as MCoD [main cause of death] — the UCoD & MCoD are being swapped, and COVID is being listed as the UCoD 100% (425/wk).

“This results in 20% of all COVID deaths each week, also happening to be persons dying of Cancer — which is egregiously higher than it should be. This is clear over-attribution = equates to exactly the difference between the Cancer and All Other ICD-10 code lag curves.”

The problem facing the CDC, is … What does one do when COVID Mortality is no longer substantial enough to conceal the excess Cancer Mortality?”

So, to rephrase, what The Ethical Skeptic is saying is that 20% of the weekly so-called COVID deaths are actually cancer deaths, which is rather astounding. But swapping the underlying and main causes of death, listing COVID as the main cause, hides (to some degree) the fact that cancer deaths are going through the roof.

According to his analysis, the COVID shot is killing 7,300 Americans per week. COVID, meanwhile, is killing 1,740 people.⁷ So, what will the CDC blame when COVID disappears and they can no longer swap the underlying and main cause of death designations?

Department of Defense Data Showed Massive Cancer Rise

Uncontrollable turbo-charged cancers the medical establishment had never seen before only started to occur after the rollout of the COVID jabs.⁸ Data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), exposed by attorney Tom Renz and Sen. Ron Johnson (above), showed cancer rates among military personnel and their families basically tripled after the rollout of the shots.⁹

As you may recall, within days of the DMED data being revealed, the database was taken offline, allegedly to “identify and correct” a supposed data corruption problem, and when it came back, the data had been altered to hide these glaringly obvious safety signals.¹⁰

‘Turbo-Cancers’ Emerged After COVID Jab Rollout

In the video above, Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Kruger, describes the changes she has personally observed in the wake of the COVID shots. For example, she’s noticed:^11,12

• Cancer patients are getting younger — The largest increase is among 30- to 50-year-olds
• Tumor sizes are dramatically larger — Historically, 3-centimeter tumors were commonly found at the time of cancer diagnosis. Now, the tumors they’re finding are regularly 4 to 12 centimeters, which suggests they’re growing at a much faster rate than normal
• Multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common
• Recurrence and metastasis are increasing — Kruger points out that many of the cancer patients she’s seeing have been in remission for years, only to suddenly be beset with uncontrollable cancer growth and metastasis shortly after their COVID jab

These “turbo-cancers,” as Kruger calls them, cannot be explained by delayed cancer screenings due to lockdowns and other COVID restrictions, as those days are long gone. Patients, despite having access to medical screenings as in years past, are showing up with grossly exacerbated tumor growths, and she believes this is because the cancers are being “turbo-charged” by the mRNA jabs.

Dr. Ryan Cole has also discussed the explosion of cancer (see video below). He believes the shots are primarily accelerating already existing cancers, by way of immune dysregulation.¹³ He noticed that cancers that could normally be controlled and kept in check, giving the patient several years of quality life, once they got the COVID jab, the cancer would suddenly grow out of control and rapidly lead to death.

Data Are so Corrupted, Will We Ever Get to the Truth?

The sad reality is that most data sources have at this point been so corrupted, it’s unlikely we’ll ever be able to get the whole truth. The CDC started manipulating the data in 2020 and hasn’t stopped. DMED, which has historically been one of the best and most pristine, has now been modified. Other data sources have suffered the same fate.

It’s beyond egregious, and data modelers like The Ethical Skeptic show just how bad the situation is. The idea that the CDC is massaging statistics to hide clear danger signals is appalling and unethical in the extreme, yet that’s what we’re seeing. The question is, why do they go to such lengths to protect such a lethal product? Your guess is as good as mine.

*

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.

Notes

^1, 2 The Ethical Skeptic August 20, 2022, Part 1

³ Doc Brown Substack September 24, 2022

⁴ Gettr The Ethical Skeptic July 16, 2022

⁵ Twitter The Ethical Skeptic October 2, 2022, Corrected chart

⁶ Twitter The Ethical Skeptic October 1, 2022

⁷ Twitter The Ethical Skeptic September 29, 2022

^8, 13 Steve Kirsch Substack February 5, 2022

⁹ Steve Kirsch Substack February 5, 2022 DMED

¹⁰ WISPolitics February 10, 2022

¹¹ Etana Substack August 4, 2022

¹² Doctors4CovidEthics.org July 26, 2022

Featured image is from Mercola

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)

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 2021, CDC director Rochelle Walensky had no problem going on national television and declaring to the world that if you took the covid-19 vaccine “you will not get or spread covid.” Within weeks, this was found to be entirely untrue.

Dr. Anthony Fauci also spread the exact same misinformation, telling Americans that they had nothing to worry about once they took the shots. Yet hundreds of thousands of people who took the shots, got sick and died.

Joe Biden, Bill Gates, and countless other Pfizer shills in the media waged a massive campaign to convince Americans and the world at large that taking the vaccine meant that you could not get or transmit COVID-19. And they were all dead wrong.

Instead of apologizing and admitting they were wrong, team Pfizer doubled down and claimed that getting “boosted” was the real protection. Again, this was proven wrong.

Now that tens of billions of taxpayer dollars have flowed into their coffers, Pfizer is admitting that they never even tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission before they released it. Read that again — Pfizer admitted that they never tested their vaccine’s ability to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 before its release.

During a hearing this week on the European Union’s COVID-19 response, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, made this bombshell admission.

Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Robert “Rob” Roos asked Small if Pfizer tested whether or not the vaccine prevented transmission. Her answer was a resounding “no.”

“Regarding the question around did we know about stopping immunization before it entered the market…No.,” Small said.

🚨 BREAKING:

In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.

"Get vaccinated for others" was always a lie.

The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.

The world needs to know. Share this video! ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/su1WqgB4dO

— Rob Roos MEP 🇳🇱 (@Rob_Roos) October 11, 2022

Given this telling admission that the vaccine was never tested in this manner, it raises the question as to where all the blowhards in the video above received this information. Who was telling them that the vaccine prevented transmission if the manufacturer never tested it?

Where did Walensky, Biden, Fauci, Gates, Maddow and others get this information from when they launched their concerted effort to spread this misinformation? This is a question we must all be demanding an answer to immediately.

We should also be asking why not a single mainstream outlet is reporting on this admission. Literally, no one in corporate media has touched this new information despite its bombshell nature. Americans would probably like to know that they were forced to take a vaccine that was never tested for prevention of transmission despite the entirety of the establishment telling them otherwise. Yet corporate media, largely funded by Pfizer, is silent.

Mainstream Media, Federal Government, and TheScience(TM):

"Brought to you by Pfizer!" pic.twitter.com/GgvxyHfRDY

— Matt Agorist (@MattAgorist) October 28, 2021

We must never forget that politicians — all claiming to “follow the science” — locked us down, destroyed the economy, decimated the middle class through inflation, forcibly medicated us, and muzzled our children over the last 2 years. All the while we were told that our only way out of this was to take the jab.

We have been constantly reminded that if you don’t follow “The Science,” you are a science-denying buffoon who wants grandma to die, doesn’t care about the children, were an alt-right Nazi, a white supremacist, extremist, and most likely a domestic terrorist.

Those who stood against unconstitutional vaccine mandates were scorned by the mainstream, labeled as “anti-vaxxers” and had people wishing for their deaths. Even people who took the jab but stood against mandates were labeled anti-vaxxers as definitions were altered to fit the narrative.

We the people were pitted against each other in one of the most divisive propaganda campaigns in human history. The middle ground was eliminated and logic and reason burned to the ground alongside the economy. And all of it was based on lies.

*

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

Featured image is from The Free Thought Project

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)

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.

***

Monday’s announcement by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko that both his country’s troops and Russia’s would form a joint regional group, comes at a time of increased tension amidst Russia’s ongoing military operation in Ukraine.

On Saturday morning, an explosion rocked the Kerch Bridge, linking Crimea to the Russian mainland, leaving 4 people dead. 48 hours later, on the same day as Lukashenko’s announcement, retaliatory Russian missiles strikes would rain down on Kiev and the rest of Ukraine, the largest escalation of the conflict since Moscow launched its intervention in February of this year.

With these events coming only two weeks after explosions destroyed the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, the increase in formal military ties between Belarus and Russia amidst current tensions will no doubt put Minsk in the sights of the regime change lobby yet again, a strategy with recent usage against the former Soviet Republic.

In August 2020, following Lukashenko’s Presidential Electoral victory over Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a CIA-orchestrated colour revolution would be launched against Belarus, a long time target for regime change owing to it being Moscow’s sole European ally, its numerous state-owned industries, and in what was perhaps the most pertinent factor at the time – Lukashenko’s refusal to implement the lockdown measures intended to implement the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset initiative.

Violent protests would sweep the eastern European nation in the aftermath of the election, before finally being quelled by Minsk after several months, a fate not shared by its southern neighbour Ukraine.

In November 2013, a similar regime change operation known as Euromaidan would be launched following then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to suspend an EU trade deal in order to pursue closer ties with Russia.

Unlike Belarus however, the violence in Ukraine would ultimately lead to the installation of a pro-Western government in early 2014, one that would then go on to wage an ethnic cleansing campaign against the predominantly ethnic Russian Donbass region in the east.

A situation that would lead to 14,000 deaths over the space of eight years until Moscow’s hand was finally forced in February of this year and a military intervention was launched, the world ultimately being brought to the brink of nuclear war as a result.

Indeed, just as the possibility of another regime change operation targeting Belarus now looks increasingly likely, another regime change operation targeting a Moscow ally is currently taking place.

On the 16^th of September, less than 24 hours after Iran had joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) – a group intended to foster political, economic and military development in Eurasia, including member-state Russia – violent protests would sweep the Islamic Republic, ostensibly in response to the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year old Iranian woman who had passed away suddenly following an interaction with police in Tehran.

The sudden, violent nature of these protests, as well as their coordinated coverage by Western media outlets, bear all the trademarks of a colour revolution orchestrated by the CIA.

Indeed, this was effectively confirmed as such by the involvement of Masih Alinejad, a US agent previously photographed with former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a long-time supporter of regime change in Iran.

Similar to Belarus, Iran has also been a long-time target of the regime-change lobby, following the overthrow of the Western-backed Shah Pahlavi in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Both countries have also increased ties with Russia amidst the war in Ukraine, with Russian President Vladimir Putin paying an official visit to Tehran in July, and with Belarus also seeking to join the SCO, the similarities may soon extend to Minsk experiencing a violent regime change attempt – intended to destabilise Russia’s borders – yet again.

*

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.

Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Support him on Patreon.

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.

***

Everything that matters in the complex process of Eurasia integration was once again at play in Astana, as the – renamed – Kazakh capital hosted the 6th Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA).

The roll call was a Eurasian thing of beauty – featuring the leaders of Russia and Belarus (EAEU), West Asia (Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Palestine) and Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan).

China and Vietnam (East and Southeast Asia) attended at the level of vice presidents.

CICA is a multinational forum focused on cooperation toward peace, security, and stability across Asia. Kazakh President Tokayev revealed that CICA has just adopted a declaration to turn the forum into an international organization.

CICA has already established a partnership with the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). So in practice, it will soon be working together side-by-side with the SCO, the EAEU and certainly BRICS+.

The Russia-Iran strategic partnership was prominently featured at CICA, especially after Iran being welcomed to the SCO as a full member.

President Raeisi, addressing the forum, stressed the crucial notion of an emerging  “new Asia”, where “convergence and security” are “not compatible with the interests of hegemonic countries and any attempt to destabilize independent nations has goals and consequences beyond national geographies, and in fact, aims to target the stability and prosperity of regional countries.”

For Tehran, being a partner in the integration of CICA, within a maze of pan-Asia institutions, is essential after all these decades of”maximum pressure” unleashed by the Hegemon.

Moreover, it opens an opportunity, as Raeisi noted, for Iran to profit from “Asia’s economic infrastructure.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, predictably, was the star of the show in Astana. It’s essential to note that Putin is supported by “all”nations represented at CICA.

High-level bilaterals with Putin included the Emir of Qatar: everyone that matters in West Asia wants to talk to “isolated” Russia.

Putin called for “compensation for the damage caused to the Afghans during the years of occupation” (we all know the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder will refuse it), and emphasized the key role of the SCO to develop Afghanistan.

He stated that Asia,

“where new centers of power are growing stronger, plays a big role in the transition to a multipolar world order”.

He warned,

“there is a real threat of famine and large-scale shocks against the backdrop of volatility in energy and food prices in the world.”

He further called for the end of a financial system that benefits the “Golden billion” – who “live at the expense of others” (there’s nothing “golden” about this “billion”: at best such definition of wealth applies to 10 million.)

And he stressed that Russia is doing everything to “form a system of equal and indivisible security”. Exactly what drives the hegemonic imperial elites completely berserk.

“Offer you can’t refuse” bites the dust

The imminent juxtaposition between CICA and the SCO and EAEU is yet another instance of how the pieces of the complex Eurasia jigsaw puzzle are coming together.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia – in theory, staunch imperial military allies – are itching to join the SCO, which has recently welcomed Iran as a full member.

That spells out Ankara and Riyadh’s geopolitical choice of forcefully eschewing the imperial Russophobia cum Sinophobia offensive.

Erdogan, as an observer at the recent SCO summit in Samarkand, sent out exactly this message. The SCO is fast reaching the point where we may have, sitting at the same table, and taking important consensual decisions, not only the “RICs” (Russia, India, China) in BRICS (soon to be expanded to BRICS+) but arguably the top players in Muslim countries: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Qatar.

This evolving process, not without its serious challenges, testifies to the concerted Russia-China drive to incorporate the lands of Islam as essential strategic partners in forging the post-Western multipolar world. Call it a soft Islamization of multipolarity.

No wonder the Anglo-American axis is absolutely petrified.

Now cut to a graphic illustration of all of the above – the way it’s being played in the energy markets: the already legendary Opec+ meeting in Vienna a week ago.

A tectonic geopolitical shift was inbuilt in the – collective – decision to slash oil production by 2 million barrels a day.

The Saudi Foreign Ministry issued a very diplomatic note with a stunning piece of information for those equipped to read between the lines.

For all practical purposes, the combo behind the teleprompter reader in Washington had issued a trademark Mafia threat to stop “protection” to Riyadh if the decision on the oil cuts was taken before the US mid-term elections.

Only this time the “offer you can’t refuse” didn’t bite. OPEC+ made a collective decision, led by Russia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Following Putin and MBS famously getting along, it was up to Putin to host UAE President Sheikh Zayed – or MBZ, MBS’s mentor – at the stunning Konstantinovsky Palace in St. Petersburg, which datesback to Peter the Great.

That was a sort of informal celebration of how OPEC+ had provoked, with a single move, a superpower strategic debacle when it comes to the geopolitics of oil, which the Empire had controlled for a century.

Everyone remembers, after the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, how US neo-cons bragged, “we are the new OPEC”.

Well, not anymore. And the move had to come from the Russians and US Persian Gulf “allies” when everyone expected that would happen the day a Chinese delegation lands in Riyadh and asks for payment of all the energy they need in yuan.

OPEC+ called the American bluff and left the superpower high’n dry. So what are they going to do to “punish” Riyadh and Abu Dhabi? Call CENTCOM in Qatar and Bahrain to mobilize their aircraft carriers and unleash regime change?

What’s certain is that the Straussian/neocon psychos in charge in Washington will double down on hybrid war.

The art of “spreading instability”

In St. Petersburg, as he addressed MBZ, Putin made it clear that it’s OPEC+ – led by Russia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – that is now setting the pace to “stabilize global energy markets” so consumers and suppliers would “feel calm, stable and confident” and supply and demand “would be balanced”.

On the gas front, at Russian Energy Week, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller made it clear that Russia may still “save” Europe from an energy black hole.

Nord Stream (NS) and Nord Stream 2 (NS2) may become operational: but all political roadblocks must be removed before any repairing work starts on the pipelines.

And on West Asia, Miller said additions to Turk Stream have already been planned, much to the delight of Ankara, keen to become a key energy hub.

In a parallel track, it’s absolutely clear that the G7’s desperate gambit of imposing an oil price cap – which translates as the weaponization of sanctions extended to the global energy market – is a losing proposition.

Slightly over a month before hosting the G20 in Bali, Indonesian Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati could not make it clearer: “When the United States is imposing sanctions using economic instruments, that creates a precedent for everything”, spreading instability “not only for Indonesia but for all other countries.”

Meanwhile, allMuslim-majority countries are paying very close attention to Russia. The Russia-Iran strategic partnership is now advancing in parallel to the Russia-Saudi-UAE entente as crucial vectors of multipolarity.

In the near future, all these vectors are bound to unite in what ideally should be a supra-organization capable of managing the top story of the 21^st century: Eurasia integration.

*

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.

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: Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi (L) and Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) attend the CICA summit in Astana, Kazakhstan on October 13, 2022. (Source: PressTV)

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.

***

Canada’s obsession with NATO is escalating the conflict in Ukraine and increasing the possibility of nuclear confrontation.

During a press conference with her US counterpart last week foreign affairs minister Melanie Joly said Canada supported fast tracking Ukraine into NATO. If that transpired alliance members would be treaty bound to invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter, which commits member states to consider an armed attack against one member an attack against all. It could lead to a formal declaration of war with Russia, which would greatly increase the odds of a nuclear exchange.

In response to Joly’s comment, John Ivison warned that Canada’s hawkish position increased the chance of nuclear apocalypse. On the front-page of the National Post Ivison pointed out that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had already placed its Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Fortunately, US officials expressed slightly more caution on NATO. In the same press conference Secretary of State Anthony Blinken refused to commit US support for fast tracking Ukraine’s NATO membership.

While it would ratchet up tension, Ukraine’s adhesion to NATO would largely just formalize its current de-facto status. Since 2015 Canadian forces have trained their Ukrainian counterparts to pave the way for the country to join NATO. “The objective was the modernization of their forces with the aim of one day becoming a member of NATO”, explained Jeffrey Toope, former commander of Canada’s training mission in Ukraine.

Similarly, invoking Article 5 would to some extent just formalize Canada’s de facto war footing. Canadian special forces are facilitating weapons deliveries and other supports on the ground in Ukraine. The federal government has encouraged former soldiers to travel to Ukraine and Canada has also provided significant amounts of arms and military intelligence. Canadian forces are also training Ukrainian soldiers in the UK.

The Canadians are operating alongside a larger contingent of US forces. The Intercept recently reported, “clandestine American operations inside Ukraine are now far more extensive than they were early in the war.” It added that there was “a much larger presence of both CIA and U.S. special operations personnel.”

Joly’s call to fast-track Ukraine’s NATO membership reflects Ottawa’s aggressive promotion of the nuclear weapons club. According to the Toronto Star, Canadian officials strongly advocated for Finland and Sweden’s recent bid to jointhe alliance. In early July Ottawa was also the first member of NATO to ratify the two Scandinavian countries membership into an alliance, which defines nuclear weapons as “a fundamental component” of its planning.

Canada’s decades old promotion of NATO has contributed to the current crisis. Ignoring US/European promises to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to not expand NATO eastward, soon after taking office in 1993 Prime Minister Jean Chretien began promoting Poland’s adhesion to NATO. Without so much as a debate in Parliament, Canada was the first NATO country to formally approve enlargement of the alliance and Ottawa pushed to double the size of the initial expansion.

Some say establishing NATO in 1949 was a Canadian idea and Canadian officials participated in the initial private meetings to launch the alliance with representatives of the US and UK. Canada has “participated and contributed to every NATO mission, operation and activity since NATO’s founding”, noted Canada’s Ambassador to the North Atlantic Council Kerry Buck in 2018. A decade earlier military historian Jack Granatstein pointed out that NATO is “the alliance to which Canada had devoted perhaps 90 percent of its military effort since 1949.”

Immediately after its creation Canada began sending billions of dollars in NATO mutual assistance weaponry to the colonial powers as they suppressed independence movements in Africa and Asia. From the early 1950s to the early 1990s thousands of Canadian troops were stationed in Western Europe on NATO assignments. In 1999 Canadian fighter jets dropped 530 bombs in NATO’s illegal 78-day bombing of Serbia. During the 2000s tens of thousands of Canadian troops fought in a NATO war in Afghanistan. In 2011 a Canadian general led NATO’s attack on Libya in which seven CF-18 fighter jets and two Canadian naval vessels participated. More recently Canadian troops have participated in NATO naval expeditions in Europe, Africa and the Mediterranean as well as missions in Iraq and Poland. For five years Canada has led a NATO battlegroup in Latvia, which borders Russia.

For Canada there’s never been a plausible defensive element to NATO. Does anyone believe Ukraine, Lithuania or Latvia would defend Canada if it were invaded? It’s ridiculous, as Dimitri Lascaris explains:

“Of course, the Article 5 obligation of collective defence is reciprocal, which means that, if Ukraine were admitted to NATO, Ukraine would have an obligation to defend Canada in the event that Canada is attacked. The geopolitical reality, however, is that Canada, which shares a border with only one country (the United States), and which is separated from Russia by the Arctic Ocean, is far less likely to come under attack than Ukraine.

Also, as the poorest country in Europe, does Ukraine actually have the capacity to come to Canada’s defence in any meaningful way if Canada were attacked?

Furthermore, would Canada even need Ukraine’s assistance if Russia (or some other hostile state) attacked Canada? The United States, which possesses the world’s most powerful military, would almost certainly act decisively to prevent the entry of hostile forces into Canadian territory. It would do so in its own interests, not in the interests of Canada.… The formidable deterrent of proximity to the United States would continue to exist even if Canada was not a member of NATO. The reality – which no one in the Canadian security establishment dares to acknowledge – is that, from a security perspective, Canada gains essentially nothing from NATO membership, and yet Canada has exposed itself to considerable risk by assuming an obligation of collective defence with respect to European states. For Canada’s security, there is essentially no upside from NATO, only downside, and Ukraine’s admission to NATO would constitute a particularly bad deal for Canadians.”

By pushing to fast-track Ukrainian membership in NATO Ottawa is escalating a conflict that may still draw in more countries. Anatol Lieven recently pointed out that China could respond to escalation by offering Russia weapons.

“If the Chinese government becomes convinced that America is in fact waging a war for the complete defeat of Russia and the overthrow of the Russian state, then fears for the effect on their own vital interests seem all too likely to lead them to give the kind of enormous military aid to Russia that America has been giving to Ukraine — at which point the balance of forces could swing back hard against Ukraine”, noted Lieven.

At the NATO summit in Spain three months ago the alliance released a new strategic concept that for the first-time listed China. It labeled Beijing a challenge to the alliance’s “interests, security and values” and NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg declared, “China is substantially building up its military forces, including nuclear weapons, bullying its neighbours, threatening Taiwan ….”

On Thursday the head of the Canadian military told the House of Commons standing committee on national security that Russia and China believed themselves to be at war with Canada. “Russia and China are not just looking at regime survival but regime expansion. They consider themselves to be at war with the West”, claimed Chief of Defence Staff Wayne Eyre.

While the militarist National Post warns against Canada’s position on Ukraine joining NATO, few social groups or unions are expressing concern about Ottawa’s role in increasing the odds of nuclear apocalypse. It’s time for peace and antiwar minded Canadians to start demanding restraint in Ottawa’s role of further escalating this conflict.

*

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

Featured image is from Yves Engler

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

Russia and NATO have never been so close to actual direct conflict, conventional or nuclear, than they are now, said the head of the General Staff of the Czech Army, Karel Řehka, at Monday’s conference on Russian power and influence against Central Europe.

The general said that a conflict between Russia and NATO would have a significant impact on Czechia. He described the situation as “serious,” saying that despite decades of animosity, the threat of an outright conflict between the two powers is now dire.

Řehka also said the “warning period” before a possible conflict on the European battlefield can be relatively short; however, he called it an advantage that NATO now has a clearly defined adversary in Europe.

“Another thing that has changed for me as a soldier is that I have a clearly defined adversary here in Europe,” he said. “We were ashamed to call Russia a threat or an adversary or something like that while they label us that way, treat us that way,” Řehka added.

“It must be said that as the chief of the General Staff, I am positive that if I am going to fight someone here on the European battlefield, I know who it is. Currently, most likely, it is the Russian Federation,” Řehka claimed.

Řehka said he believes it is impossible to hope for a quick end to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

“Anything can happen, but I don’t see it,” he said.

According to him, the conflict also has no good solution.

“Now, we’re talking about how bad — more or less — the solution will be going forward,” he said.

He emphasized that Czechia must be a steadfast ally in NATO.

“We, as the Army of the Czech Republic, defend ourselves and always will within the framework of the Alliance,” he said. With this in mind, Řehka drew attention to the need for a stable defense budget. He noted that the army does many things; it helped during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it helped during the floods that massively affected the Czech Republic in the summer of 2002.

“We should not forget why we have an army and armed forces,” he said. The army is there to fight, is supposed to prepare to fight, and is irreplaceable in that role.”

*

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.

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.

***

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., called Wednesday’s decision by U.S. public health officials to authorize the untested vaccines for young children “preposterous,” adding, “It is time to stop this criminal experiment on America’s children.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the new Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Omicron booster shots for children as young as 5 years old — despite having no direct data on the safety or effectiveness of the shots in children.

Within hours, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), signed off on the boosters — without a meeting of the CDC’s independent panel of vaccine experts.

“FDA’s authorization of updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines for this younger age group, and CDC’s recommendation for use, are critical next steps forward in our country’s vaccination program,” CDC officials said in a statement.

Commenting on the news, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., told The Defender,

“It is preposterous to vaccinate these children with untested boosters, especially when the risks of the COVID-19 virus are minimal in this population.”

Hooker, chief scientific officer at Children’s Health Defense, continued:

“Since the approval of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 in the U.S., there have been 162 reported deaths attributed to these vaccines in individuals age 17 and under.

“Yet the mortality associated with the COVID-19 virus in this age group is less than one in 100,000 cases.”

“It is time to stop this criminal experiment on America’s children,” he added.

No clinical trials complete yet, but vaccines ready to ship ‘immediately’

Clinical trials of the booster shot in children have yet to be completed, Pfizer admitted.

In an Oct. 12 press release, the company said it “started a clinical trial to evaluate the adapted vaccine based on the BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants in children six months through 11 years of age aiming to offer all age groups the opportunity to immunize against Omicron variants and subvariants.”

The Pfizer statement did not include information about the number of participants of the clinical trial or when the trial would be completed.

Pfizer told CNN doses will be shipped immediately.

“Pfizer has the capacity to ship up to 6 million pediatric doses in the first 7 calendar days following receipt of EUA approval, without any impact to distribution output of the doses for individuals 12 years and old,” a Pfizer spokesperson said.

The FDA said prior data on earlier versions of the vaccines — which targeted the original variant from Wuhan and the original Omicron variant BA.1 — sufficed for its decision to authorize the new boosters that target Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5.

In its announcement, the FDA said it relied on “immune response and safety data” using the original bivalent boosters in adults and data on the original bivalent boosters “in pediatric age groups.”

It did not specify the ages or numbers of children in those age groups.

But this presumption does not make scientific sense, according to Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccinologist who directs the Vaccine Education Center and is a member of the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel.

“The BA.1 strain is essentially gone,” Offit told MedPage Today in an Aug. 2 interview on why he voted against authorizing the fall boosters for adults.

“It’s been replaced by BA.5/BA.4 and now BA.2.12.1, which are just Omicron subvariants that are somewhat distant from BA.1,” he added.

Steve Kirsch, executive director of Vaccine Safety Research Foundation, pointed out the significance of Offit’s concerns about the fall booster shots.

“You will not find a bigger proponent of vaccines in general and the COVID vaccines specifically, in American medicine, than Dr. Paul Offit,” Kirsch wrote in an Oct. 12 Substack post. “He voted YES to give the COVID vaccines to all children, even babies as young as 6-months.”

Yet when the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel on June 28 voted on the new COVID-19 boosters, Kirsch said, “Dr. Offit voted no, because (in his own words) ‘HELL NO was not a choice!’”

Offit said he felt the panel was led to “vote yes” to reformulate boosters without critical data. In a July 6 interview with ZDoggMD, Offit described the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee’s (VRBPAC) meeting as “unusual.”

Offit said:

“I’ve seen nothing like this. I guess the thing that’s most upsetting to me is normally when you get something from the FDA when we have these meetings, you usually get it a few days before you meet. You usually get a couple of hundred pages.

“Here on the other hand, normally you get the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] submission from the company, which is 85 to 100 pages long, and then you get the FDA’s review of all those data. It’s a very thorough review. Not here though. Here, it was 22 pages from the FDA, which included a half-page on Pfizer’s data and a half-page on Moderna’s data.”

“You could get that from the press release,” Offit said. “In fact, it was no more detail than the press release provided.”

The question vaccine advisors are always asked to consider in the end is whether the benefits outweigh the risks — even if the risks are generally small and sometimes unknown, Offit said. “I didn’t see the benefits.”

Offit said he was surprised that out of 21 voting members, 19 voted “yes” because he “just didn’t see the evidence for that.”

“I think this was something that was desired by the Biden administration,” he added.

The risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination are real, according to the CDC’s own data.

The FDA on Wednesday authorized the Pfizer-BioNTech Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent COVID-19 vaccine for children as young as 5, and Moderna’s Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine for children as young as 6.

When the new bivalent boosters initially received EUA in September, the Pfizer booster was authorized only for individuals ages 12 and older, and the Moderna booster for people 18 and older.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from CHD

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

Vaccine Narrative Collapses as Harvard Study Shows Jab More Dangerous than COVID

Jonas Vesterberg, October 9, 2022

PfizerGate: Official Government Reports prove Hundreds of Thousands of People Are Dying Every Single Week Due to COVID-19 Vaccination

The Expose, October 9, 2022

Israeli Report: “The mRNA Experimental Vaccine from Pfizer Killed “About 40 Times More (Elderly) People Than the Disease Itself Would Have Killed” During a Recent Five-week Vaccination Period”

Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, October 7, 2022

Some of Us Don’t Think the Russian Invasion Was “Aggression.” Here’s Why.

Mike Whitney, October 11, 2022

Colossal Financial Pyramid: BlackRock and The WEF “Great Reset”

F. William Engdahl, October 9, 2022

Michael Hudson: A Roadmap to Escape the West’s Stranglehold

Prof Michael Hudson, October 7, 2022

Russia Damages EU “Mission” in Kyiv

Kurt Nimmo, October 11, 2022

The Gas Pipeline War: On the Day Nord Stream was Sabotaged, the “Alternative Pipeline” was Opened

Manlio Dinucci, October 10, 2022

“Pipeline Terror”: Nord Stream 2 Offers Germany a Date with Destiny

Pepe Escobar, October 7, 2022

Is the U.S. Blood Supply Tainted? Do COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Blood Abnormalities?

Children’s Health Defense, October 7, 2022

Health Risks Associated with 5G Exposure, Small Cell Densification and New Wireless Networks

Environmental Health Trust, October 11, 2022

What the Leaked EMA Emails and Docs Reveal: Major Concerns with Pfizer C-19 Vaccine Batch Integrity and the Race to Authorize

Sonia Elijah, July 12, 2022

The Treason of the Intellectuals

Emanuel Pastreich, October 10, 2022

The U.S. Is Leading the World Into the Abyss

Edward Curtin, October 10, 2022

Brazil: Neoliberalism with a “Human Face”. Lula Presidency = Extended Dollarization, Subservient to the Washington Consensus

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 8, 2022

The Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov: Black Sea Geopolitics and Russia’s Control of Strategic Waterways

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 12, 2022

Dr. Michael Yeadon: The Most Important Single Message I’ve Ever Written

Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 2, 2022

Dr. Mary O’Conner Faces Prison After Refusing to Turn Over Private Medical Records of COVID ‘Vaccine Exempt’ Patients

Amy Mek, October 10, 2022

Biden’s Broken Promise to Avoid War with Russia May Kill Us All

Medea Benjamin, October 11, 2022

Manipulated Ukraine

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, October 12, 2022

‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ Not Even Wrong. Millions of People Bought into the Establishment Corona Narrative

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, October 13, 2022

Wolfgang Pauli is reputed to have said that a physics paper shown to him was so poor that it was ‘not even wrong’.  I confess that when I first heard the phrase ‘mass formation psychosis’ I thought of Pauli’s witticism, because this particular concept was invoked to explain why millions of people bought into the Establishment Corona Narrative and its demands of masking, quarantining the healthy, distancing and ‘vaccination’ to manage a pathogen whose lethality was no greater than a bad seasonal flu.

Detroit City Council Expands “ShotSpotter” After Two More Are Gunned Down by Police

By Abayomi Azikiwe, October 14, 2022

The political marketing of the ShotSpotter technology by the corporate-imposed Mayor Mike Duggan and his appointed police Chief James White utilized deceptive tactics which falsely claimed that the tool will benefit the people of this majority African American municipality.

Media Disinformation and the Geopolitical Battle for the ‘Global South’. Alleged Russia-China Plot

By Dr. Mathew Maavak, October 13, 2022

There has been much chatter of late about an alleged Russian-Chinese plot to take over an artificial geopolitical construct called the Global South. These allegations are consistently churned out, with increasing alarm, by the ruling class in the antipodal Global North.

US Rejection of Moscow’s Offer for Peace Talks Is Utterly Inexcusable

By Caitlin Johnstone, October 13, 2022

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that Moscow was open to talks with the the US or with Turkey on ending the war in Ukraine, claiming that US officials are lying when they say Russia has been refusing peace talks.

EU Security Crisis: France About to Boost Military Interventionism in Eastern Europe

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, October 13, 2022

Contrary to all the recommendations by military experts to avoid further escalation in the European security crisis, France is apparently planning to expand its military presence in other regions of the continent, mainly in the eastern part. In a recent statement, the French Defense Minister said that an increase in his country’s military capability in Eastern Europe is currently being planned, which considerably tends to escalate tensions in the near future.

How Private Interests and the Banking Dynasties Control Washington

By Shane Quinn, October 13, 2022

The strongest branch of the Federal Reserve is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which fell under the control of 8 long-established banking families. Only 4 of these dynasties hail from largely American backgrounds, which are Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb. The other 4 are the Rothschilds in Paris and London, the Warburgs from Germany, the Lazards from France and Israel Moses Sieff from Britain.

Video: Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla Refused to Answer in Front of European Parliament

By Cristian Terhes, October 13, 2022

After Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla refused to show and answer questions in front of the special COVID committee of the European Parliament, Janine Small, president of Pfizer’s International Developed Markets, took his place in the hearing that took place on October 10, 2022.

Italy’s Giorgia Meloni: The Great Replacement Moves In

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, October 13, 2022

Giorgia Meloni speaks about being a “woman, mother [and] Christian” with messianic purpose: to defend “God, country and family”.  The stress is on mother virtue rather than female rights, the latter only being relevant when it comes to highlighting migrant violence in fits of what has come to be known as femonationalism.

Iran: The Road to Armageddon?

By Felicity Arbuthnot, October 13, 2022

They are at it again. Remember when Milosovic was labelled “the butcher of Belgrade”, the new Hitler? Then Saddam Hussein was “the butcher of Bagdad” and, of course the most dangerous man since Hitler – with weapons of mass destruction which could be unleashed on the world “in forty five minutes”.

‘Everyday Heroes’? Pfizer Taps Marvel’s Avengers to Push COVID Boosters to Kids

By Dr. Suzanne Burdick, October 13, 2022

Pfizer and Marvel this month released a customized Avengers comic book that urges people to become an “everyday hero” by staying up-to-date with the latest Pfizer COVID-19 booster shots.

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.

***

Commanders of the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF) have been authorized to use armed drones to kill Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, with the approval of Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kohavi.

Hamas called the order “a dangerous step” and urged Palestinians “to continue resisting the Israeli occupation with all means possible until they regain their legitimate rights.”

The authorization to expand the use of killer drones coincides with “a significant rise in shooting attacks and massive gunfire during arrest raids, specifically in the northern West Bank cities of Jenin and Nablus,” according to The Jerusalem Post. On September 28, the IOF killed four Palestinians and injured dozens more during protests in Jenin.

Since as early as 2008, the Israeli Air Force has been killing Palestinians in Gaza with drones. They have also been used to fire gas bombs and live rounds in occupied Jerusalem. Although drones have been employed for surveillance, this is the first time armed drones will be utilized in the occupied West Bank. Drones comprise 80 percent of the total flight hours in the Israeli Air Force.

Israel justifies targeting Hamas and Islamic Jihad “terrorists” with drones for “counter-terrorism” operations if armed gunmen are thought to pose an imminent threat to Israeli troops. But Israel has no right of self-defense against the people whose land it occupies. The Fourth Geneva Convention says that an occupying power has a legal duty to protect the occupied. As an occupying power, Israel cannot use military force against the occupied Palestinian people.

Under international law, the Palestinians have a lawful right to resist Israel’s occupation of their lands, including through armed struggle. In 1982, the UN General Assembly “reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”

Shireen Abu Akleh’s Family Files Complaint Against Israeli Leaders in ICC

In May, Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, known as the “voice of Palestine,” was reporting on an illegal IOF mass arrest raid on the Jenin refugee camp when she was assassinated by an Israeli sniper. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) classifies the targeting of war correspondents or journalists reporting from war zones or occupied territories by killing or physical assault as a war crime.

Although Israel initially denied that an Israeli shot Abu Akleh, it later said there was a “high possibility” that she was “accidentally hit by [Israel Defense Forces] gunfire.”

On September 20, Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq and London-based research group Forensic Architecture issued a report finding that Israeli forces repeatedly and deliberately targeted Abu Akleh with a “well aimed” bullet. Her vest that said “PRESS” was clearly visible to the IOF shooter, as shown by the detailed digital reconstruction from Al Jazeera footage.

The same day that Al-Haq and Forensic Architecture released their report, the International Federation of Journalists, the International Center of Justice for Palestinians and the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate filed a complaint in the ICC on behalf of the Abu Akleh family and journalist Ali Al Samoudi who was also shot by IOF forces at the same time as Abu Akleh.

Al-Haq is one of six Palestinian human rights groups that Israel baselessly designated “terrorist organizations” and one of seven raided by the IOF in August.

Israel’s assassination of Abu Akleh occurred just days after a coalition of Palestinian journalist organizations and leading human rights lawyers filed an initial complaint in the ICC, protesting the systematic targeting of Palestinian journalists.

“The killing of journalists is an attempt to cover up and prevent their work in documenting human rights abuse and fosters impunity for the injustices that they are seeking to cover,” said Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer for the Abu Akleh family.

The Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) “effectively legalizes almost every act committed by Israel’s security forces,” Ishai Menuchin, executive director of the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, wrote in my book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. “One can only conclude that Israel’s HCJ is one of the primary enablers of the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

Another enabler of Israel’s illegal occupation is the U.S. government, which provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in military assistance. The Biden administration has refused to condemn Israel for its illegal terrorist designations and raids on the Palestinian human rights groups or its unlawful assassination of Abu Akleh. U.S. President Joe Biden has twice refused to meet with Abu Akleh’s family face-to-face.

Those who speak out against Israel’s illegal occupation face serious consequences. Progressive journalist Katie Halper was “censored and fired” by The Hill for defending Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s description of Israel as an apartheid state. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem have all characterized the system in Israel as apartheid. The Hill is owned by Nexstar Media Group, which calls itself “America’s largest local television and media company.”

Journalists who report the truth about Israel’s crimes incur the risk of being fired or even assassinated. Neither Israel nor the U.S. government and its corporate media will tolerate any criticism of the illegal Israeli occupation.

*

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.

Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues. She is co-host of “Law and Disorder” radio. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

In a 5-4 decision on October 11, the Detroit City Council provided yet another example as to why there must be a major defunding of the police in urban areas.

The political marketing of the ShotSpotter technology by the corporate-imposed Mayor Mike Duggan and his appointed police Chief James White utilized deceptive tactics which falsely claimed that the tool will benefit the people of this majority African American municipality.

The decision came on the heels of the October 2 police killing of Porter Burkes, 20, an African American youth suffering from a mental health crisis. Reports indicate that Burkes’ brother called the police after the victim slashed his vehicle tires with a knife.

Burkes was carrying the knife when police arrived on the scene. In an edited police bodycam video issued by law-enforcement to the media, the voice of what is said to have been a crisis intervention specialist can be heard in an attempt to de-escalate the situation.

Nonetheless, Chief White told a press conference the day after the shooting that Burkes refused to put down the weapon and move closer to the crowd of police officers on the scene, making them feel threatened. At least five officers fired 38 rounds at Burkes within three seconds hitting him at least 15 times. There was no explanation by White as to what happened to the other 23 bullets fired from the weapons of the officers.

Source: ShotSpotter Inc./MCT and Dan Jacalone/The Saginaw News

Immediately members of Burkes’ family decried the shooting. They exclaimed to the television networks that they only called the police because their brother was having a psychological breakdown. Porter Burkes had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was prone to violent outbreaks.

Burkes was failed by both the inadequate mental health system in existence today in the United States, particularly in relations to the African American community, as well as law-enforcement, which has repeatedly been quick to utilize lethal force. Many in Detroit voiced the opinion that if Burkes had been a Caucasian, he would not have been subjected to such a deliberately brutal and deadly attack.

The Burkes family has retained well-known civil and defense Atty. Jeffrey Fieger to represent them in a wrongful death lawsuit against the City of Detroit and its police department. At a press conference on October 6 at Fieger’s Southfield office he accused the Detroit police of killing Burkes unjustifiably. Fieger described the shooting death of Burkes as totally avoidable, noting that Chief White is consciously misleading the public with comments which do not coincide with the facts.

Image: Detroit youth Porter Burkes killed by police (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

According to Fieger:

“We have what I consider to be an intolerable situation that occurred in the city of Detroit, in which a clearly mentally ill young man was executed by a Detroit Police Department firing squad of five officers. I hope that Chief White is listening — I have more questions today than answers. Why can’t you figure out a better way to deal with him than executing him by firing squad? You have all sorts of equipment, all that body armor that police have. They have helmets, they have arm and chest armor. They have bulletproof vests everywhere. Are you telling me that today, you don’t have sufficient equipment to send an officer toward somebody with a 3-inch knife and instead you have to execute him? If that’s crisis intervention, God help us all.”

After Burkes was shot down by the police with multiple wounds, he was handcuffed while lying on the ground. White during his hastily convened press conference claimed that Burkes was carrying an 8-inch knife. Fieger pointed out during his media briefing with the Burkes family, that the knife was only 3.5 inches, illustrating the disinformation being circulated by the police and the Duggan administration.

Another press conference and picket line were held by the Detroit chapter of the National Action Network (NAN) on October 10 outside police headquarters downtown. The community-based organization denounced the police killing of Burkes and demanded that the names of the officers involved be released to the public.

On October 12, the By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) organization also held a demonstration to demand justice for Porter Burkes and his family. The grouping said that there was no excuse for the law-enforcement execution of a mentally ill person carrying a knife.

Meanwhile, there was another police-involved shooting on the southwest side of the city where law enforcement officials claimed that a man suspected in an armed robbery was surveilled and later pursued. Of course, Chief White once again, criminalized the victim in the shooting. He asserted that the wounded person, said to be in critical condition, was armed with a 9mm handgun. The police did not release the name or nationality of the victim.

In the typical attempt to justify the shooting by officers, White alleged that the person shot by police was a “known gang member” who had participated in numerous violent crimes. White said to the media that:

“On Friday (Oct. 7), he did an armed robbery and home invasion, breaking into a house and robbing the occupants at gunpoint. Also Friday, he is suspected of firing shots into a house; the vehicle he was driving (Monday) was identified as the suspect vehicle; (and) at 9:50 p.m. (Friday) in the 10000 block of Flora, he fired shots into an occupied vehicle where no one was injured. The officers knew he was violent, so as a result, they put the Headquarters Surveillance Unit on him to track his whereabouts.”

ShotSpotter is Opposed by Many Organizations

On the morning prior to the Detroit City Council vote to expand ShotSpotter which has already been operational in some sections of the municipality, a group of community organizers held a press conference outside City Hall. Members of Michigan Liberation, the Michigan ACLU, Disability Power, Detroit Justice Center, We the People of Michigan, Pettypropolis and Moratorium NOW! Coalition stood in solidarity against this expansion of police surveillance and its potential to lead to even more violent encounters with law-enforcement.

ShotSpotter has a growing list of critics who insist that the technology is unreliable. Several cities including Chicago, have been pressured to discontinue its usage as an investigative tool citing several problems.

The ACLU in an August 24, 2021 report listed a series of issues with the surveillance mechanism, noting:

“A critical report on the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system issued today by the City of Chicago’s Inspector General (IG) is the latest indication of deep problems with the gunshot detection company and its technology, including its methodology, effectiveness, impact on communities of color, and relationship with law enforcement. The report questioned the ‘operational value’ of the technology and found that it increases the incidence of stop and frisk tactics by police officers in some neighborhoods. The IG’s report follows a similarly critical report and legal filing by the Northwestern School of Law’s MacArthur Justice Center and devastating investigative reporting by Vice News and the Associated Press. Last week, the AP profiled Michael Williams, a man who spent a year in jail on murder charges based on evidence from ShotSpotter before having his charges dismissed when prosecutors admitted they had insufficient evidence against him.”

In a study conducted by the MacArthur Justice Center revealed that the ShotSpotter technology has resulted in 40,000 unwarranted police interventions in mainly Black and Brown communities in Chicago where the rates of shooting by law-enforcement are exceptionally high. The sound signals sent to police dispatchers have an abnormally high rate of false alarms.

The MacArthur Justice Center in a May 3, 2021 press release noted:

“The City of Chicago has deployed ShotSpotter only in the police districts with the highest proportion of Black and Latinx residents. On an average day, there are more than 61 ShotSpotter-initiated police deployments that turn up no evidence of any crime, let alone gun crime. Neighborhoods that are surveilled by ShotSpotter are subject to thousands of additional, unfounded police deployments just because the ShotSpotter system is present. Every unfounded ShotSpotter deployment creates an extremely dangerous situation for residents in the area. ShotSpotter primes police to believe that they are heading to a dangerous location where a person has just fired a gun. Any resident who happens to be in the vicinity of a ShotSpotter alert will be a target of police suspicion or worse. These volatile deployments can go wrong in an instant. ‘Only residents in predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods have to contend with the burden of thousands of unnecessary and potentially dangerous police deployments,’ said (Jonathan Manes, staff atty. For MacArthur Justice Center). ‘Only their neighborhoods get saddled with inflated statistics about supposed gunfire. At the same time, there is no evidence that the ShotSpotter system makes communities safer or reduces crime.’”

A Continuing Legacy of Police Violence Against Civilians

Detroit has a long and sordid history of police misconduct and brutality directed towards the African American community. This history, dating back to at least 1957, is being documented by the University of Michigan’s Policing Lab. See this.

In the most recent annual City of Detroit budget, the police department is given the largest proportion of municipal resources. Over $400 million is spent on policing while the overall social situation in most Detroit neighborhoods continues to deteriorate.

The corporate-oriented Duggan administration along with City Council has allocated COVID relief funding to the police. Funds for ShotSpotter were taken from federal allocations ostensibly designed to assist people imperiled by the current economic and social crisis impacting municipalities across the country.

In addition, the Detroit Police Officers Association (DPOA) has recently reached an agreement with the City administration to raise the salaries of law-enforcement personnel. Earlier a $2,000 bonus was awarded to police officers as “incentives” to remain on the force in light of its high rates of attrition.

The vote by City Council on October 11 indicated that the funding for ShotSpotter would not be taken from the American Recovery Act passed by the U.S. Congress during 2021. Instead, the funding would come from money already in the police budget. However, all of these monies belong to the people of Detroit and their resources are used against them through false notions which suggest that there is a positive correlation between the number of police in a given community and the levels of security.

People in Detroit are in need of security from impoverishment, high rents, the lack of a viable public transportation system, environmental degradation, inadequate education, the misappropriation of funds taken from the impoverished and allocated to billionaires and the police, along with rising energy costs. These are the issues which matter to the majority impoverished, oppressed and exploited residents of the city. Police departments in Michigan and around the U.S. should be defunded in the quest to create a safe, just and equitable society.

*

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

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

Featured image: Detroit Justice Center spokeswoman at press conference opposing ShotSpotter, Oct. 11, 2022 (Source: 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.

***

There has been much chatter of late about an alleged Russian-Chinese plot to take over an artificial geopolitical construct called the Global South. These allegations are consistently churned out, with increasing alarm, by the ruling class in the antipodal Global North.

Frantic headlines such as “Putin and Xi’s Bet on the Global South” (WSJ);

• “China and Russia’s Lies Are Winning Over the Global South” (Bloomberg); and
• “How Russia is trying to win over the global south” (The Economist) from the mainstream Western media have only served to reinforce this apparent planetary dichotomy.
• Politico declared that the “West must seize on the Global South’s state of unease,” presumably before the unwashed citizens of this bloc become enslaved in some Sino-Russian geopolitical gulag. If this isn’t a case of neoliberal racism pumped up on neo-colonial steroids, pray tell me what is?

Furthermore, as a geopolitical observer living in the so-called Global South, I am not aware of any such “unease” in Southeast Asia. If such anxieties do exist, it will be limited to an influential class who were insinuated into the levers of power by Western governments and their manifold agencies. My recent opinion piece on the British Commonwealth and its abiding neo-colonial machinations provide a backdrop to how this racket works.

Nearly all the grandiose treatises on this hemispheric divide are written by pundits from the Global North. Installed puppets in the Global South, who are congenitally incapable of original thought, merely exist to parrot these fantasies — conveyed through the subtle neo-colonial chicaneries of a Western-led Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

The plan seems to be easy: subject the world to a daily dose of alarmism until nations surrender their sovereignty to an emerging supranational order. The pervasive “coronapsychosis” we just witnessed is just a stepping stone towards this end. Sound policies that may have otherwise ringfenced nations during the current VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity) era have been routinely suppressed by “experts” from the Global North and their agitprop jesters down South. It is a lucrative plan. The global sustainable development sector alone is worth $20 trillion per year – representing nearly one third of the global GDP – and the South represents a green field that can be pillaged by profiteers from the North. Couched, of course, under the banner of humane philanthropy!

A geographic construct?

Take a look at the map of the Global North-South divide today. It is a stark reminder of a legacy divide between modern-era colonisers (i.e., from 1500 AD) and the colonised.

Russia too was a colonising power right up to either 1917 or 1991 – depending on one’s historical bias – and was therefore placed within the Global North. Its actions since the breakup of the USSR however have not conformed to the rules of the new and improvised Great Game. Instead of spoliating its own citizens and the Global South, Moscow seems more concerned with NATO’s encroachment on its doorsteps.

World map showing a traditional definition of the North–South divide (red countries in this map are grouped as “Global South”, blue countries as “Global North”). ©  Wikipedia

There are also a few geographic incongruities in the Global North construct as it includes nations such as Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand. This anomaly can – on rare occasions – lead to brief diplomatic flare-ups. The former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, once warned that Australia could become the poor “white trash of Asia”, leaving Western pundits to conduct endless damage control exercises since the alleged outburst was recorded. It was Samuel P. Huntington who situated Lee’s polemic within the context of who gets to become the United States’ sheriff in Southeast Asia. (Relentless Australian police brutality, wrought by an incurably mass “coronapsychosis,” seems to have vindicated Lee).

Former US President George W. Bush settled matters over the choice of sheriff by picking Canberra in 2003. Around the same time, the Australian and New Zealand governments began accelerating an indigenized Morgenthau Plan (that was originally intended for post-WWII Germany) by systematically dismantling their manufacturing capabilities. If the reader needs a little shock here, consider the fact that there were millionaire enclaves, a mere 90-minute drive from Brisbane, that still lacked basic ADSL or fibre optic connections in 2017!

The Global North maintains a rigid pecking order that pre-empts any risk of technological challenges from its peripheries. To paraphrase Tolkien, there can only be one signet ring “to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.” 

That sums up the globalist plan but who wields that ring today?

Russian President Vladimir Putin coincidentally hinted at this darkness during a treaty signing ceremony over the incorporation of four new regions to Russia. Putin referenced the “dictatorship of the Western elites” which targeted “all societies,” including the “citizens of Western countries themselves.” This dictatorship entailed a “renunciation of traditional values” that amounted to “pure satanism.” He even quoted the Bible, specifically Matthew 7:16 which begins with “Ye shall know them by their fruits…”

But is there a biblical or historical basis to Putin’s tirade?

Fruits of a satanic tree?

Long before the North-South divide was dreamt up, there existed a real East-West bipolarity in the ancient global order. The East was primarily dominated by India and China, with both civilizations consistently cornering up to half of the global GDP until the late 1600s – the era of Western colonialism.

It isn’t unreasonable to treat Western colonialism as a revival of the ancient Roman empire. And for good reasons too. As Rome imposed its rule, its norms and its gods on conquered realms two millennia ago, its gold was however haemorrhaging to ancient India in exchange for spices, muslin and silk. It is quite telling that Roman learning, technology and military hardware hardly interested the Indians, only its gold. When Christianity and Judaism faced persecution in Rome, its adherents found refuge in the Indian subcontinent.

Faced with such recalcitrant centres of power, the seeds of a unified Western-led global order were sown, ultimately growing into a predatory colonial tree. European trade guilds began to don the cloak of mystery fraternities which promised enlightenment to its initiates. The Western nobility, which profited immensely from these guilds, ensured that their mystery mumbo-jumbo would co-exist with organised Catholicism.

The contradictions however were too great to be reconciled. Europe and its churches were eventually plunged into the Dark Ages. It only emerged out of a millennia of obscurantism when the German house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and the Saxon duchies began a new monarchical hierarchy in Europe. The Protestant Reformation acted as an irritant but not an impediment. The Saxon duchies later birthed the German house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which was conveniently renamed Windsor in the United Kingdom in 1917. The cuckolded genealogies of these dynasties are as legitimate as the mumbo-jumbo mysteries which bound them.

The Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox divides gradually mattered less and less to European monarchs who patronised their respective national churches. Casualties of religious wars were generally restricted to the rabble, much like today.

As colonialism, in particular Pax Britannica, reared its head, the concept of the global policeman was born. Giddy scientific rationalism also began to take root. Divinity, as defined by the Gospels, was viciously attacked. As Karl Marx declared: “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”

The offshoots of these contradictions continue to confuse, divide, and conquer societies. In the West, gender dysphoria has reached a point of no return. Men can supposedly give birth and breastfeed children. Children are incessantly subjected to Drag Queen shows in schools. Mentioning the colour white is like stepping onto a landmine. This new “science” – promoted by elitist Western institutions no less – should be called “wokology” for want of a better catch-all term.

Social divisions are festering worldwide at a pace that is unprecedented in history. The North-South divide is just a sideshow in the scheme of things. Relentless wealth fractionation is leading to a dystopian promise of “you’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” by 2030. If this isn’t a contradiction of the highest magnitude, pray tell me what is? Besides, isn’t the total loss of ownership tantamount to slavery?

There are no historical precedents to the epoch we are entering. However, there is a biblical mention of an entity of poisonous fruits which Putin had referenced in his speech. In the book of Revelations, this entity is called “Mystery Babylon” and it deceives all nations through rapacious mercantilism, colonialism, slavery and deception. As well as “sorceries” which in the original Greek spells out as “pharmakeia.”

Now, does that sound familiar?

*

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 RT News.

Dr. Mathew Maavak is a Malaysian expert on risk foresight and governance. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

Wolfgang Pauli is reputed to have said that a physics paper shown to him was so poor that it was ‘not even wrong’.  I confess that when I first heard the phrase ‘mass formation psychosis’ I thought of Pauli’s witticism, because this particular concept was invoked to explain why millions of people bought into the Establishment Corona Narrative and its demands of masking, quarantining the healthy, distancing and ‘vaccination’ to manage a pathogen whose lethality was no greater than a bad seasonal flu.

To my native English ear ‘mass formation’ rang awkwardly and meant little, and ‘psychosis’ explained nothing. I thought it was far more accurate to assume that people whose chief source of information was a corrupt mainstream media propaganda machine that promoted fear had simply been controlled.  One must keep in mind that the best propaganda operates by using a kernel of truth, and creates ‘rationales’ that are impervious to logical rebuttal. For example, despite the fact that face masks do nothing to stop the transmission of a small respiratory pathogen because the orifices of the mask are larger than the pathogen itself, the acknowledgement that a stray viral particle might be blocked becomes a sufficient justification.

Furthermore, when mainstream media and governmental authorities – who have for decades been perceived as benevolent and trustworthy – issue directives about matters outside the general public’s area of expertise – as, for example, in infectious disease – we should not be surprised when a trusting population follows them, no matter how contradictory or absurd.

That these authorities would exploit innate human tendencies towards gullibility, cruelty, vilification and sadism should also be no surprise, particularly when a pathogenic threat has been magnified to the point of colossal status and death looms as consequence of non-compliance.

People in power have manipulated crowds for millennia, and those in power have used whatever means at their disposal to further their particular ends. These means range from brute, blunt force to seductive persuasion, and truths are sprinkled carefully along the gamut. What makes the Corona War so exceptional is the scale of the assault on our lives and liberties. Never before has so much power been able to be deployed so vastly, and with such ease.

In addition to the most sophisticated psychological manipulations, honed for many years by a creative advertising industry and perfected in the mind-control experiments of clandestine military agencies, the Nouveau Puissant have, literally, at their fingertips, a concentration of technological power not even dreamed of by the prescient Stanley Kubrick who, in his landmark opus, 2001: A Space Odyssey, did not foresee the  condensation and miniaturization of computing power. Hal, after all, was a rather large and cumbersome computer that occupied far more space than would be necessary for its equivalent today.

All of which brings us to the concept of conspiracy.

‘To conspire’ means, etymologically, ‘to breathe with’. Conspirators are those who draw breath together.

If nothing else, the past two and a half years have shown those of us who are willing to see that the Covid so-called pandemic was a globally coordinated exercise of control, a determined assault by the Few over the Many, which resulted in hardship, impoverisment and murder.

It is ongoing, and in the coming years I fear that the culmination of widespread inoculation will result in sickness and death on a scale impossible to imagine by those who have ‘trusted the science’ shilled by our governments – but very much in keeping with the avowed and transparent goals of the Organizers within the World Economic Forum and its allies, as Chossudovsky demonstrates with clarity, those revered institutions and foundations who purport to promote idealistic agendas for the benefit of the planet.

It is, therefore, disturbing to read in Mattias Desmet’s The Psychology of Totalitarianism, a chapter on conspiracy that appears to inveigh against the assumption that the creation and imposition of the Covid phenomenon was the result of a group of people that conspired to enslave, control and to do us in. The invocation of a Sierpinski triangle to explain the destructive developments away as the inevitable outcome of an organic self-determining process is, actually, an enormous insult to those who have been fighting against the actual and very real perpetrators of this vast operation.

Conspiracies are the chief agents of history. This is not to say that conspirator groups themselves execute plans with perfect efficiency, or that they are not riven by factions and conflicts – the Roman triumvirates are excellent examples of conspiracies and battles among and between conspirators. Nor is it to say that members of a conspiracy are in the single-digits. Conspirators may  be relatively many, they may transcend national boundaries, and they will certainly be subject to the typical interferences that impede any human cooperation.  But they undoubtedly exist and we at this moment in history are all suffering the consequences of a uniquely murderous one.

In his book Desmet writes:

“There is a steering and organizing body, but it does not primarily consist of a conspiracy elite that manages the world in a planned and coordinated way, but rather of a typical way of thinking, an ideology.”

and

“Such steering, however, is primarily not a steering by individuals; the most fundamental steering is impersonal in nature. The steering is first and foremost driven by an ideology—a way of thinking.”

So what is Bill Gates’ role after all? What is his responsibility? Isn’t he steering his Foundation, and quite personally? And how does mass formation apply to those who have been harmed by the aggressive activities of his program of mass inoculation, inoculation that has been hawked and pushed upon us by mandates and threats to our jobs and our livelihoods?

In this fight for our lives and souls we do not need to be chastised as conspiracy theorists for believing there are people at the top – let’s call it the Globalist Bunch for now – who are and have been very actively attempting to do us harm.

And let’s retire the concept of mass formation, a concept that reveals and explains so little that it is truly ‘not even wrong’.

*

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

Dr. 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 Shutterstock

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.

***

September 26, 2022, massive “leaks” were detected in two Russian pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe underneath the Baltic Sea

It was quickly determined the leaks were the result of intentional sabotage. Germany will partner with Denmark and Sweden to investigate the explosions using navy, police and intelligence services from the three countries

One day after the Nord Stream sabotage, a new Polish natural gas pipeline was inaugurated. Israel has also been in negotiations with the EU to supply natural gas to Europe

Western officials and media blame Russia itself. The Washington Post suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin is “weaponizing the Nord Stream pipelines,” and Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations, accused Russia of “using pollution as an act of war.” Putin has dismissed such allegations as “stupid,” and is placing the blame on the U.S.

In a September 27, 2022, show, Fox News host Tucker Carlson laid the blame at the feet of the Biden administration. Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs, an economist and public policy analyst, also believes the pipelines were struck by the U.S. as a means of damaging the Russian economy, something that sanctions have failed to accomplish

*

September 26, 2022, massive “leaks” were detected in two Russian pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, which deliver natural gas from Russia to Europe underneath the Baltic Sea.

Within a couple of days, several countries, including Russia, agreed the leaks were the result of intentional sabotage or, to quote Fox News host Tucker Carlson (above), “an act of industrial terrorism.” Obvious questions include who did it? Why? And why now?

Incidentally, just one day after the Nord Stream sabotage, a new Polish pipeline was inaugurated. As reported by the Pipeline Technology Journal, the Baltic Pipe will “help Poland and Europe reduce their longstanding dependency on Russian natural gas” by transporting gas from Norway via Denmark to Poland and neighboring nations.¹

Military Readiness Escalates

According to Naval News, Nordic countries have heightened their military readiness in response to the sabotage:²

“The explosions took place in the Swedish and Danish exclusive economic zones, and the Danish Navy was quick to send both naval and airborne units to investigate, while on the Swedish side the Coast Guard is responsible with the Navy standing by to provide assistance if needed …

Closer to the other end of the pipeline, Finland has declined to comment on whether there is an increase in readiness following the Nordstream leaks in line with a longstanding policy of ambiguity …

A country that has been open with their heightened readiness is Norway. The European oil and gas powerhouse had already before the incidents reported on unidentified drone activity close to their energy infrastructure in the North Sea, and in the aftermath of the incident the Norwegian government has decided on heightened security at the Norwegian oil and gas infrastructure …

Germany has announced it will partner with Denmark and Sweden to investigate the sabotage using navy, police and intelligence services from the three countries.³

Who’s Being Blamed?

Several countries have officially condemned the brazen attack on civilian infrastructure, including the U.K. Ministry of Defense⁴ and the NATO alliance as a whole. In a September 29, 2022, statement, NATO said attacks on allies’ critical infrastructure will be met with “a united and determined response.”⁵

Fatih Birol, head of the Paris-based International Energy Agency — which provides energy policy recommendations, analysis and data for 42 countries — said it was “very obvious” who was behind the sabotage, but didn’t specify who that might be.⁶

Western officials and media have by and large blamed Russia itself. The Washington Post suggested Russian President Vladimir Putin is “fully weaponizing the Nord Stream pipelines.” Bob Rae, Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations, accused Russia of “using pollution as an act of war.”⁷

The Center for Strategic & International Studies admitted that Russia’s motives for attacking its own pipelines are unclear, but that it “may be warning and signaling to Europe and the West that it is willing to target civilian infrastructure.”⁸ Putin has dismissed such allegations as “stupid,” and is placing the blame on the West, the U.S. in particular.⁹ As reported by Yahoo News:¹⁰

“Russian officials have said Washington had a motive as it wants to sell more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe. President Vladimir Putin said … the United States and its allies blew up Nord Stream. ‘The sanctions were not enough for the Anglo-Saxons: they moved onto sabotage,’ he said … [The] White House has dismissed the accusation that it was responsible …

[If] it was an act of sabotage, it has damaged pipelines that were built by Kremlin-controlled Gazprom and its European partners at a cost that ran into billions of dollars.

The damage also means Russia loses an element of leverage it still had over Europe, which has been racing to find other gas supplies for winter, even if the Nord Stream pipelines where not pumping gas when the leaks were discovered, analysts say.

Whoever or whatever is to blame, Ukraine may also be a beneficiary. Kyiv has long called for Europe to halt all purchases of Russian fuel — even though some gas still runs to Europe across its territory. Disrupting Nord Stream brings Kyiv’s call for a full Russian fuel embargo closer to reality.”

European security officials claim Russian navy support ships and submarines were observed in the vicinity of the leaks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebutted saying “a much larger” NATO presence was also in the area.¹¹ As mentioned earlier, Norwegian authorities have also reported “unidentified drone activity” near other energy infrastructure in the North Sea.

Tucker Carlson: ‘Did the US Do It?’

In his September 27, 2022, show, Carlson laid the blame at the feet of the Biden administration. As noted by Carlson, Russia has no reasonable motive for blowing up its own multibillion-dollar pipelines. Those pipelines are part of Russia’s power, wealth and leverage against Europe, which needs Russian energy to survive, both economically and physically.

To quote Carlson, Putin would have to be “a suicidal moron” to waste that leverage, for any reason. If he wanted to cripple Europe by shutting off the gas, he could do that without destroying the equipment. Indeed, he’d already done just that.

Other countries, however, may gain from the destruction of those pipelines, and at least two U.S. officials have openly called for it.

Carlson showed footage from a February 2022 White House press conference in which President Biden warns that if Russia invades Ukraine, the U.S. will “bring an end” to Nord Stream 2. When asked, “But how will you do that, exactly, since the project is within Germany’s control?” Biden replied, “I promise you, we will be able to do it.”

Victoria Nuland, under secretary for political affairs at the U.S. State Department, made similar promises in January 2022, when she stated that “If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.”

Jeffrey Sachs: ‘The US Probably Did It’

Another person who believes the U.S. is responsible is Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs,¹² an economist, public policy analyst, director of the Center for Sustainable Development and chairman of the Lancet Commission, who, by the way, has also been outspoken about his suspicions that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a U.S.-backed research program in China.

In a recent Bloomberg interview, Sachs suggested the pipelines were struck by the U.S. as a means of damaging the Russian economy, something that sanctions have failed to accomplish. Bloomberg host Tom Keene quickly interjected saying, “Jeff, we’ve got to stop there … What evidence do you have of that?” Sachs responded:¹³

“Well, first, there is direct radar evidence that US military helicopters that are normally based in Gdansk were circling over this area. We also had the threat from … [Nuland] earlier this year that ‘one way or another we are going to end Nord Stream.’

We also had a remarkable statement from Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken last Friday in a press conference where he said ‘this is also a tremendous opportunity.’ It’s a strange way to talk if you’re worried about piracy on international infrastructure of vital significance.

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 U.S. did it. Even reporters on our papers that are involved tell me ‘of course’ (the U.S. did it), but it doesn’t show up in our media.”

An Act of Environmental Terrorism

Carlson also highlighted the environmental impacts of this sabotage. Enormous amounts of natural gas are streaming into the Baltic Sea, which may have a dire effect on marine mammals in the area.

Natural gas is also comprised of 90% methane, a key driver, allegedly, of manmade global warming, which climate change activists insist poses an acute and lethal threat to all mankind.

“So, if you’re worried about climate change, what just happened to the Nord Stream pipelines is as close to the apocalypse as we have ever come,” Carlson says.

Biden has declared climate change the most pressing emergency in the history of the world. If his administration is responsible for blowing up these pipelines, then they’re also responsible for massively worsening climate change, as the methane emitted from these pipelines far outweigh the methane released from cows, for example, which the Green Agenda is so intent on eliminating in order to “save the planet.” As noted by Carlson:

“The people lecturing you about your SUV may have blown up a natural gas pipeline and created one of the great catastrophes of our time in its effect on the environment. If they did this, it would be the craziest, most destructive things any American administration has EVER done.

But it would also be totally consistent with what they do … They destroy. These people build nothing. Not one thing. Instead, they tear down and they desecrate — from historic statues, to the Constitution, to energy infrastructure.

And no one in Congress is trying to stop any of it. They’re just preparing for the inevitable fallout. Tonight, the Senate just prepared a spending bill with $35 million for the Department of Energy to ‘prepare for and respond to potential radiological incidences in Ukraine.'”

That bill brings U.S. expenditure on Ukraine, for its war effort and funding of its government and energy, to $67 billion. According to Carlson, that’s more than Russia’s entire military budget for 2021.

What Will Happen Next?

Another obvious question that remains to be answered is, what next? As Carlson points out, if the U.S. is responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines, we have basically entered into direct war with Russia, one of the greatest nuclear powers on the planet.

And, certainly, it’s reasonable to suspect that this kind of industrial terrorism, this intentional sabotage, will have consequences. Aside from a nuclear response, Russia could conceivably respond by severing underwater power and data cables, which would immediately cripple Western nations.

In his Bloomberg interview, Sachs discussed his deep concerns about where we’re headed. He correctly highlighted that the world is in a period of unprecedented instability, with the potential for nuclear war looming, at the same time as we’re suffering hyperinflation, energy shortages and more.

What’s worse, there are no efforts to address any of these issues. Instead, world leaders are acting in a manner that escalates and worsens the situation. “So many provocations in the midst of huge instability!” Sachs said.

Cui Bono?

So, who would actually benefit from the destruction of the two Nord Stream pipelines, one of which, by the way, had not even opened yet (Nord Stream 2). The U.S. certainly appears to have both motive and intention. U.S. officials have publicly stated that they would “one way or another” eliminate Nord Stream 2 if Russia decided to invade Ukraine, which, of course, it did.

By sabotaging the pipelines, the U.S. stands to gain financially by increasing its own natural gas exports, and it gains by weakening Russia’s income potential and leverage over Europe. The loss of the pipelines also benefits the U.S. by putting Europe in a situation where it cannot be tempted to leave America’s side against Russia. As noted by The American Conservative:¹⁴

“Winter is soon arriving in Europe. If European peoples get tired of being cold, and/or paying a fortune for heating, they may take to the streets to demand that their governments push for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, so that the flow of Russian gas can start again. But now, with the Nord Stream pipelines badly damaged, that possibility has been foreclosed …”

Poland may also benefit, as it just opened its own pipeline, as might Israel,^15,16 which entered into negotiations with the European Union to supply natural gas when Russia started cutting off supplies (see video above).

Russia, meanwhile, just lost a multibillion-dollar investment, long-term wealth potential and hence geopolitical power, and present-day leverage against NATO sanctions.

Aside from “sending a message” that it’s willing to destroy civilian infrastructure, it gains nothing from sabotaging its own pipelines, and such a message would have been far clearer and more rational had they attacked someone else’s infrastructure and not its own.

For now, the answer to who blew up the Nord Stream pipelines remains elusive. It seems all we can do is wait for the results of the German-Nordic alliance’s investigation, and hope that cooler heads prevail.

*

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.

Notes

¹ PTJ October 5, 2022

^2, 4 Naval News October 4, 2022

^3, 13 NY Post October 4, 2022

^5, 8 CSIS September 29, 2022

^{6, 9, 10, 11} Yahoo News September 30, 2022

⁷ YouTube Tucker Carlson September 27, 2022

¹² Twitter Sarah Abdallah October 3, 2022

¹⁴ The American Conservative September 28, 2022

¹⁵ The Jerusalem Post March 8, 2022

¹⁶ Haaretz May 31, 2022

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation

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.

***

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Tuesday that Moscow was open to talks with the the US or with Turkey on ending the war in Ukraine, claiming that US officials are lying when they say Russia has been refusing peace talks.

Reuters reports:

Lavrov said officials, including White House national security spokesman John Kirby, had said the United States was open to talks but that Russia had refused.

“This is a lie,” Lavrov said. “We have not received any serious offers to make contact.”

Lavrov’s claim was given more weight when US State Department spokesman Ned Price dismissed the offer for peace talks shortly after it was extended, citing Russia’s recent missile strikes on Kyiv.

“We see this as posturing,” Price said at a Tuesday press briefing. “We do not see this as a constructive, legitimate offer to engage in the dialogue and diplomacy that is absolutely necessary to see an end to this brutal war of aggression against the people and the state, the Government of Ukraine.”

Lavrov Says Russia Open to Talks With the West, US Dismisses His Comments
Putin may discuss talks with the West in a meeting with Erdogan this week
by Dave DeCamp@DecampDave #Russia #Lavrov #Ukraine #diplomacy #G20 https://t.co/bRbdPj7muH pic.twitter.com/PESo4C2ioN

— Antiwar.com (@Antiwarcom) October 11, 2022

This is inexcusable. At a time when our world is at its most perilous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis according to many experts as well as the president of the United States, the US government has no business making the decision not to sit down with Russian officials and work toward de-escalation and peace. They have no business making that call on behalf of every terrestrial organism on this planet whose life is being risked in these games of nuclear brinkmanship. The fact that this war has escalated with missile strikes on the Ukrainian capital makes peace talks more necessary, not less.

This rejection is made all the more outrageous by new information from The Washington Post that the US government does not believe Ukraine can win this war and refuses to encourage it to negotiate with Moscow.

“Privately, U.S. officials say neither Russia nor Ukraine is capable of winning the war outright, but they have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table,” WaPo reports. “They say they do not know what the end of the war looks like, or how it might end or when, insisting that is up to Kyiv.”

These two points taken together lend even more credibility an argument I’ve been making from the very beginning of this war:

that the US does not want peace in Ukraine, but rather seeks to create a costly military quagmire for Moscow just as US officials have confessed to trying to do in Afghanistan and in Syria. Which would explain why US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the US goal in Ukraine is actually to “weaken” Russia, and also why the empire appears to have actively torpedoed a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia in the early days of the conflict.

This proxy war has no exit strategy. And that is entirely by design.

Many have been calling for the US to abandon its policy of actively sustaining this war while avoiding peace talks.

“President Biden’s language, we’re about at the top of the language scale, if you will,” former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen told ABC’s This Week on Sunday regarding the president’s recent remark that this conflict could lead to “Armageddon”.

“I think we need to back off that a little bit and do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing,” Mullen said, adding, “As is typical in any war, it has got to end and usually there are negotiations associated with that. The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.”

“One thing the United States can do is… drop the position, the official position, that the war must go on to weaken Russia severely, meaning no negotiations,” Noam Chomsky argued in a recent appearance on Democracy Now. “Would that open the way to negotiations, diplomacy? Can’t be sure. There’s only one way to find out. That’s to try. If you don’t try, of course it won’t happen.”

“It is time for the United States to supplement its military support for Ukraine with a diplomatic track to manage this crisis before it spirals out of control,” said the Quincy Institute’s George Beebe following the Monday missile strikes on Kyiv, calling it “a major escalation in the war” that was bound to “bring the world closer to a direct military collision between Russia and the United States.”

“The Americans have to come to an agreement with the Russians. And then the war will be over,” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said at an event on Tuesday, adding that “anyone who thinks that this war will be concluded through Russian-Ukrainian negotiations is not living in this world.”

US & allies "should be finding ways to open up communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin to try to end the fighting." @RStatecraft seems the only place it's now uncontroversial to make this basic commonsense point.https://t.co/QrGNoIx5Qg

— Branko Marcetic (@BMarchetich) October 3, 2022

It’s absolutely insane that the world’s two nuclear superpowers are accelerating toward direct military confrontation and they aren’t even talking to each other, and it’s even crazier that anyone who says they should be gets called a Kremlin agent and a Chamberlain-like appeaser. Responsible Statecraft’s Harry Kazianis discusses this freakish dynamic in a recent article titled “Talking is not appeasement — it’s avoiding a nuclear armageddon“:

I have fought more than thirty combat simulations in wargames under my own direction for a private defense contract over the last several months, looking at various aspects of the Russia-Ukraine war, and one thing is clear: the chances of a nuclear war increase significantly every day that passes.

In every scenario I tested, the Biden Administration slowly gives Ukraine ever more advanced weapons like ATACMS, F-16s, and other platforms that Russia has consistently warned pose a direct military threat. While each scenario has postulated a different point at which Moscow decides to use a tactical nuclear weapon in order to counter conventional platforms it can’t easily defeat, the chances that Russia uses nukes grow as new and more powerful military capabilities are introduced into the battlefield by the West.

In fact, in 28 of the thirty scenarios I have run since the war began, some sort of nuclear exchange occurs.

The good news is there is a way out of this crisis — however imperfect it may be. In the two scenarios where nuclear war was averted, direct negotiations led to a ceasefire.

I repeat again that it is absolutely pants-on-head gibbering insanity that these direct negotiations are not already presently underway. Let us petition any and all higher powers we have faith in that this changes very soon. Let us also petition the leaders of our individual nations around the world to exert whatever kind of pressure they can muster upon Washington for these talks to commence. This brinkmanship threatens us all, and the managers of the US empire have no business playing these games with our lives.

*

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

Featured image is from CaitlinJohnstone.com

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

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

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

***

Contrary to all the recommendations by military experts to avoid further escalation in the European security crisis, France is apparently planning to expand its military presence in other regions of the continent, mainly in the eastern part. In a recent statement, the French Defense Minister said that an increase in his country’s military capability in Eastern Europe is currently being planned, which considerably tends to escalate tensions in the near future.

On October 11, Sebastien Lecornu, French Defense Minister, revealed that France will cooperate with NATO to deploy more troops and military equipment in Eastern Europe, as a way of reacting to the current situation of instability in the region. According to him, armored vehicles will be sent to the East, mostly to be deployed in Romania, allegedly in an attempt to prevent foreign attacks and seek security stability.

At a meeting of the French Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defense and Armed Forces, Lecornu said:

“In view of the situation on the eastern flank of NATO due to the fighting that Russia is waging in Ukraine, the president of the republic decided to strengthen our defensive position in eastern Europe by sending a brigade of armored vehicles and tanks to Romania”.

The defense minister also made it clear that Paris plans to strengthen the NATO’s presence in the Baltic region. He said that France will soon be sending new Rafaele fighter jets to Lithuania. In addition, French troops are expected to be deployed to Estonia in the coming weeks. Lecornu stressed that such measures are likely to be implemented between October and early November.

The initiative seems to be a first step to comply with NATO’s plans decided during the last summit on strengthening the eastern flank until 2023, as a way of responding to the supposed “Russian threat” posed by the special operation in Ukraine. At the summit, the organization’s officials had decided that the eastern flank must reach as quickly as possible the number of more than 300,000 soldiers of high combat readiness.

Obviously, when such decisions are made, all the alliance’s countries are expected to contribute as much as they can in order to achieve the goals. So, France, apparently fulfilling the role of hegemonic military power on the European continent, is ready to lead the project and already plans to allocate troops and weapons to allied nations by November.

As far as Romania is concerned, President Emmanuel Macron had promised already at the summit in June to help to create a special NATO brigade for the country. Although very clear commitments to send military aid to the Baltic States have not been made before, this type of measure was also expected, considering the importance of that region to NATO’s plans of encircling Russia. In the same sense, it is likely that Paris will also reinforce the deployments of its troops in other allied countries in the East in the near future.

In parallel with this French readiness to attend NATO’s plans to occupy the East, it is also necessary to emphasize Macron’s recent pledges to expand his support for Zelensky. On October 10th, the French president made a public statement reiterating his country’s full and absolute support for Ukraine to have the necessary conditions to continue fighting. On the same day, Macron and Zelensky had spoken by phone in an “urgent call”, in which Macron promised to bolster his support for Kiev.

Zelensky commented on the call on his social media saying:

“Had an urgent call with Emmanuel Macron. We discussed the strengthening of our air defense, the need for a tough European and international reaction, as well as increased pressure on the Russian Federation. France stands with Ukraine”.

In addition, the French government has released a special fund of 100 million euros for Kiev to buy weapons from French military companies. Analyzing it from a realistic point of view, the measure does not exactly sound like a gesture of support and good will, but as a way to generate profits and promote French national industry while Ukraine buys weapons to continue fighting in a conflict.

In fact, there are two ways of interpreting the French attitude. On the one hand, Paris is acting against European interests because, by using its forces to occupy the East, it is worsening the security crisis as it inflates NATO’s threats to Russia in the region, generating instability. On the other hand, the French government is also trying to serve its own interests and pursuing a policy of military expansionism, regional affirmation of power and improvements to the national war industry.

What Macron should do to achieve his goal of becoming a hegemonic leader in Europe would be to admit that NATO’s plans do not coincide with European interests and to use his influence to prevent excessive and anti-strategic militarization in the eastern part of the continent. But, apparently, attending to NATO’s demands remains the priority in Europe.

*

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.

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

Featured image: A Romanian reaper

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.

***

Let’s start with Pipelineistan. Nearly seven years ago, I showed how Syria was the ultimate Pipelineistan war.

Damascus had rejected the – American – plan for a Qatar-Turkey gas pipeline, to the benefit of Iran-Iraq-Syria (for which a memorandum of understanding was signed).

What followed was a vicious, concerted “Assad must go” campaign: proxy war as the road to regime change. The toxic dial went exponentially up with the instrumentalization of ISIS – yet another chapter of the war of terror (italics mine). Russia blocked ISIS, thus preventing regime change in Damascus. The Empire of Chaos-favored pipeline bit the dust.

Now the Empire finally exacted payback, blowing up existing pipelines – Nord Stream (NS) and Nord Steam 2 (NS2) – carrying or about to carry Russian gas to a key imperial economic competitor: the EU.

We all know by now that Line B of NS2 has not been bombed, or even punctured, and it’s ready to go. Repairing the other three – punctured – lines would not be a problem: a matter of two months, according to naval engineers. Steel on the Nord Streams is thicker than on modern ships. Gazprom has offered to repair them – as long as Europeans behave like grown-ups and accept strict security conditions.

We all know that’s not going to happen. None of the above is discussed across NATOsan media. That means that Plan A by the usual suspects remains in place: creating a contrived natural gas shortage, leading to the de-industrialization of Europe, all part of the Great Reset, rebranded “The Great Narrative”.

Meanwhile, the EU Muppet Show is discussing the ninth sanction package against Russia. Sweden refuses to share with Russia the results of the dodgy intra-NATO “investigation” of itself on who blew up the Nord Streams.

At Russian Energy Week, President Putin summarized the stark facts.

Europe blames Russia for the reliability of its energy supplies even though it was receiving the entire volume it bought under fixed contracts.

The “orchestrators of the Nord Stream terrorist attacks are those who profit from them”.

Repairing Nord Stream strings “would only make sense in the event of continued operation and security”.

Buying gas on the spot market will cause a €300 billion loss for Europe.

The rise in energy prices is not due to the Special Military Operation (SMO), but to the West’s own policies.

Yet the Dead Can Dance show must go on. As the EU forbids itself to buy Russian energy, the Brussels Eurocracy skyrockets their debt to the financial casino. The imperial masters laugh all the way to the bank with this form of collectivism – as they continue to profit from using financial markets to pillage and plunder whole nations.

Which bring us to the clincher: the Straussian/neo-con psychos controlling Washington’s foreign policy eventually might – and the operative word is “might” – stop weaponizing Kiev and start negotiations with Moscow only after their main industrial competitors in Europe go bankrupt.

But even that would not be enough – because one of NATO’s key “invisible” mandates is to capitalize, whatever means necessary, on food resources across the Pontic-Caspian steppe: we’re talking about 1 million km2 of food production from Bulgaria all the way to Russia.

Judo in Kharkov

The SMO has swiftly transitioned into a “soft” CTO (Counter-Terrorist Operation) even without an official announcement. The no-nonsense approach of the new overall commander with full carte blanche from the Kremlin, General Surovikin, a.k.a. “Armageddon”, speaks for itself.

There are absolutely no indicators whatsoever pointing to a Russian defeat anywhere along the over 1,000 km-long frontline. The spun-to-death withdrawal from Kharkov may have been a masterstroke: the first stage of a judo move that, cloaked in legality, fully developed after the terrorist bombing of Krymskiy Most – the Crimea Bridge.

Let’s look at the retreat from Kharkov as a trap – as in Moscow graphically demonstrating “weakness”. That led the Kiev forces – actually their NATO handlers – to gloat about Russia “fleeing”, abandon all caution, and go for broke, even embarking on a terror spiral, from the assassination of Darya Dugina to the attempted destruction of Krymskiy Most.

In terms of Global South public opinion, it’s already established that General Armageddon’s Daily Morning Missile Show is a legal (italics mine) response to a terrorist state. Putin may have sacrificed, for a while, a piece on the chessboard – Kharkov: after all, the SMO mandate is not to hold terrain, but to demilitarize Ukraine.

Moscow even won post-Kharkov: all the Ukrainian military equipment accumulated in the area was thrown into offensives, just for the Russian Army to merrily engage in non-stop target practice.

And then there’s the real clincher: Kharkov set in motion a series of moves that allowed Putin to eventually go for checkmate, via the missile-heavy “soft” CTO, reducing the collective West to a bunch of headless chickens.

In parallel, the usual suspects continue to relentlessly spin their new nuclear “narrative”. Foreign Minister Lavrov has been forced to repeat ad nauseam that according to Russian nuclear doctrine, a strike may only happen in response to an attack “which endangers the entire existence of the Russian Federation.”

The aim of the D.C. psycho killers – in their wild wet dreams – is to provoke Moscow into using tactical nuclear weapons in the battlefield. That was another vector in rushing the timing of the Crimea Bridge terror attack: after all British intel plans had been swirling for months. That all came to nought.

The hysterical Straussian/neocon propaganda machine is frantically, pre-emptively, blaming Putin: he’s “cornered”, he’s “losing”, he’s “getting desperate” so he’ll launch a nuclear strike.

It’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock set up by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947 is now placed at only 100 seconds from midnight. Right on “Doom’s doorstep”.

This is where a bunch of American psychos is leading us.

Life at Doom’s doorstep

As the Empire of Chaos, Lies and Plunder is petrified by the startling Double Fail of a massive economic/military attack, Moscow is systematically preparing for the next military offensive. As it stands, it’s clear that the Anglo-American axis will not negotiate. It has not even tried for the past 8 years, and it’s not about to change course, even incited by an angelic chorus ranging from Elon Musk to Pope Francis.

Instead of going Full Timur, accumulating a pyramid of Ukrainian skulls, Putin has summoned eons of Taoist patience to avoid military solutions. Terror on the Crimea Bridge may have been a game-changer. But the velvet gloves are not totally off: General Armageddon’s daily aerial routine may still be seen as a – relatively polite – warning. Even in his latest landmark speech, which contained a savage indictment of the West, Putin made clear he’s always open for negotiations.

Yet by now, Putin and the Security Council know why the Americans simply can’t negotiate. Ukraine may be just a pawn in their game, but it’s still one of Eurasia’s key geopolitical nodes: whoever controls it, enjoys extra strategic depth.

The Russians are very much aware that the usual suspects are obsessed with blowing up the complex process of Eurasia integration – starting with China’s BRI. No wonder important instances of power in Beijing are “uneasy” with the war. Because that’s very bad for business between China and Europe via several trans-Eurasian corridors.

Putin and the Russian Security Council also know that NATO abandoned Afghanistan – an absolutely miserable failure – to place all their chips on Ukraine. So losing both Kabul and Kiev will be the ultimate mortal blow: that means abandoning the 21^st Eurasian Century to the Russia-China-Iran strategic partnership.

Sabotage – from the Nord Streams to Krymskiy Most – gives away the desperation game. NATO’s arsenals are virtually empty. What’s left is a war of terror: the Syrianization, actually ISIS-zation of the battlefield. Managed by braindead NATO, acted on the terrain by a cannon fodder horde sprinkled with mercenaries from at least 34 nations.

So Moscow may be forced to go all the way – as the Totally Unplugged Dmitry Medvedev revealed: now this is about eliminating a terrorist regime, totally dismantle its politico-security apparatus and then facilitate the emergence of a different entity. And if NATO still blocks it, direct clash will be inevitable.

NATO’s thin red line is they can’t afford to lose both Kabul and Kiev.

Yet it took two acts of terror – on Pipelineistan and on Crimea – to imprint a much starker, burning red line: Russia will not allow the Empire to control Ukraine, whatever it takes. That’s intrinsically linked to the future of the Greater Eurasia Partnership. Welcome to life at Doom’s doorstep.

*

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.

Originally published by the Strategic Culture Foundation

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 an original illustration by Mr. Fish

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 Maine state agency met Tuesday for the first of several hearings that will determine whether an Ellsworth doctor who was an outspoken critic of state and federal COVID-19 policies will ever be able to practice medicine in the state again.

The Board of Licensure in Medicine (BOLIM), a state agency that regulates medical licensing in Maine, suspended Dr. Meryl Nass’s medical license on January 12 following an investigation that started with an activist’s complaint that she was spreading misinformation in media interviews and on the Internet.

At the start of the pandemic in 2020, Nass, who practices internal medicine, began offering $60 consults with patients who had COVID-19 or feared they might contract the disease. None of Nass’s patients complained about the care they received from her during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, the BOLIM action against her originated from activists who flagged her public comments as “misinformation” in emails to BOLIM.

The BOLIM investigation into Nass that started with complaints over supposed misinformation eventually grew to include Nass’s disclosure that she lied to a pharmacist in order to obtain Hydroxychloroquine for a patient, along with allegations that she did not keep competent patient records while engaging in telemedicine consultations.

Nass and her counsel Gene Libby said Tuesday in an opening statement that Nass was targeted for punishment by BOLIM because she wasn’t willing to toe the government-approved line on COVID-19 treatments.

“Although Dr. Nass was targeted for her speech, the Board latched on to alleged deficiencies in Dr. Nass’s simple consultation with patients seeking treatment with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine,” Libby said in the statement.

“The BOLIM, a regulatory extension of policies enacted by Governor Mills, was intent on silencing her,” Libby said.

Nass attracted the ire of top Democrats and government officials with her comments to media and the legislature in late 2021. She irked Democratic Gov. Janet Mills and House Speaker Ryan Fecteau (D-Biddeford) when she spoke with lawmakers one month before her suspension on December 14, 2021. According to other emails included in Libby’s opening statement, Mills’ staff and Democratic lawmakers circulated negative talking points about Nass aimed at undermining her credibility.

At the time, BOLIM was already investigating Nass as the result of the complaints over her supposedly spreading misinformation. Nass’s [alleged] self-admission that she had lied to a pharmacist led to subpoenas for medical records involving three patients, records BOLIM and the Attorney General’s office later used as evidence against her.

Libby, Nass’s attorney, contends that his client is the victim of an overreaching state that tried to punish Nass for speaking out against state and federal pandemic policies. Lacking any legal authority to punish Nass for criticizing the government, BOLIM is instead targeting her other infractions — a medical version of Lavrentiy Beria‘s infamous comment: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

“The board is trying to bootstrap discipline against Dr. Nass for picayune record keeping violations only because she had the courage to speak out,” he said. “The board immediately suspended her license, demanded a neurophyschological examination and the Boards Executive Director encouraged media ‘hit pieces‘ in collaboration with reporters at Maine Public Radio and elsewhere.”

BOLIM Chair Maroulla Gleaton, reached by phone, declined to comment for this story and referred inquiries to BOLIM staffer Timothy Terranova.

Terranova did not respond to a message left on his work phone.

COVID Complaints and Criticism

From the beginning of the pandemic, Nass had been outspoken in her blog about COVID-19 treatments, the evolving medical news, and government pandemic policies. Nass advocated for prescribing Ivermectin as a prophylactic, and recommended hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with positive COVID-19 diagnoses. She criticized the controversial mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and other major pharmaceutical companies.

At the same time, Nass began consulting with patients across Maine, offering a $60, 30-minute telemedicine consultation and ongoing counseling thereafter via phone calls and texts. She was one of the few doctors in the state willing to prescribe Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to her patients.

All of the patients involved in the BOLIM complaint recovered from COVID-19 after receiving prescriptions for either Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine. None of them complained to BOLIM about the care they received from Nass. Rather than patient complaints, the case against Nass began began with emails from left-wing activist and retired truck driver Steven Demitriou and Katherine Moors, an Ellsworth therapist.

Demitriou complained to BOLIM on October 26, 2021 that Nass was spreading misinformation in online video interviews, later providing a transcript of an interview she’d done. Moors filed her complaint on November 7, 2021, telling BOLIM that Nass was “spreading COVID misinformation on Twitter.” As the result of the citizen complaints filed against Nass, BOLIM began corresponding with her, effectively warning her to stop publicly expressing criticism of COVID-19 treatments and policies.

On Jan. 11, Nass continued to criticize government COVID-19 policies. She submitted testimony to the State Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee in support of LD 867, a bill to limit state mandated vaccinations. The bill, which died in the House of Representatives in March, would have placed a 5-year moratorium on controversial mandates for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

“No matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not ‘safe and effective’,” Nass told lawmakers in her testimony.

“‘Safe and effective’ is an FDA ‘term of art’ that may only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines,” she said. “All currently available COVID vaccines in the United States are unlicensed and experimental.”

That same day, BOLIM decided to suspend her license, a decision which was formalized the following day on Jan. 12.

That same day, Gov. Mills’ sister Dora Mills, the Chief Improvement Officer at Maine Health, emailed Renee Fay LeBlanc, a BOLIM board member, regarding an interview Nass did on the Voice of Maine radio program, flagging Nass’s comments as misinformation. It’s unclear whether BOLIM’s decision was affected by Dora Mills’ email lobbying for action to be taken against Nass.

Click to read Dora Mills email lobbying for the suspension of Dr. Nass’s medical license.

BOLIM issued the following statement regarding its action against Dr. Nass:

On January 12, 2022, the Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine (“the Board”) issued an Immediate Suspension Order suspending Dr. Nass’s license to practice medicine in Maine for a thirty day period ending on February 11, 2022 based on preliminary findings that Dr. Nass engaged in the practice of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in connection with services rendered within the scope of the license issued, engaged in conduct that evidences a lack of ability or fitness to discharge the duty owed by the licensee to a patient or that evidences a lack of knowledge or ability to apply principles or skills to carry out the practice for which the licensee is licensed, engaged in unprofessional conduct, and violated Board rules which constituted an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical

The board further ordered Dr. Nass to submit to a neuropsychological evaluation by a psychologist of their choosing, an action typically reserved for doctors who are suspected of having substance abuse problems, which is not the case with Nass.

But Nass pushed back, questioning the board’s authority to investigate comments she had made as a private citizen and demanding that the board define what constituted “misinformation.” The board never informed Nass what statements it considered misinformation, but BOLIM statements regarding Nass shed some light on the offending material.

According to the initial complaint against Nass, BOLIM described as “misinformation” Nass stating that she would not comply with masking and vaccine orders, her complaint that the federal government was not allowing the public to know how many people are immune from less severe or asymptomatic COVID cases, and her belief that widespread vaccinations for COVID-19 “don’t make scientific or medical sense.”

In the complaint, BOLIM seemed especially concerned with Nass’s statements about mandatory vaccines and follow up “boosters” leading to universal vaccine passports, electronic IDs, and greater government surveillance. The board also cited as “misinformation” Nass expressing concern over mandated vaccinations for children and the effect of mRNA vaccines on pregnant women.

Click to read Nass-Meryl-Order-Directing-Evaluation.

In response to the suspension, Nass filed a lawsuit arguing that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affords her the fundamental right to speak her mind in public settings, such as before a committee of the Maine State Legislature or in an interview with a journalist. She further argued that her prescribing decisions were ethically sound, in the best interest of all her patients, and that her telephone consultations were in keeping with pandemic era rules around telemedicine.

“It was as if I was a country bumpkin who knew nothing,” Nass said in an interview with The Maine Wire.

“That was the story presented to the board,” she said. “I wrote the first review article on the anthrax vaccines in the medical literature. I’ve testified to six congressional committees and to seven state legislatures on these issues of bioterrorism, anthrax, small pox, vaccine injuries, and gulf war syndrome,” she said.

For Nass, the suspension of her license is the culmination of a nationwide campaign waged by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), a non-profit, to punish doctors who spoke out against state and federal COVID-19 policies. In the Fall 2021 BOLIM newsletter, Maroulla Gleaton, the BOLIM Chair, endorsed a position taken by FSMB that doctors who “spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation” ought to have their licenses revoked.

Nass maintains that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe drugs that are effective in treating COVID-19 when used correctly, but pharmacists in Maine were scared to prescribe the drugs because of statements from the Maine Board of Pharmacy and the fear that they might lose their licenses.

“This was basically government by innuendo,” she said.

Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine

At the Tuesday hearing, the only allegations against Nass involved her decision to prescribe either ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine to three patients, and her medical record keeping.

Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are both old drugs that were considered safe and non-controversial until the rise of COVID-19 and the acrimonious debates over vaccines and alternative treatments. Ivermectin, discovered in 1975 as a treatment for animal parasites, was approved for human use in 1987 and is one of the most common prescription drugs on the planet. Hydroxychloroquine became popular shortly before World War II to treat malaria in American soldiers facing the mosquito-borne illness in the South Pacific. After the war ended, doctors found the drug had benefits for those suffering from lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

When COVID-19 became an epidemic, both drugs were thrust into the public conversation by media personalities, some health officials, and politicians, including President Donald Trump. As a result, they became lightning rods for criticism by government health authorities, like the NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci. The drugs transformed quickly from time-tested, safe medicines into dangerous snake oil peddled by quacks using disinformation and misinformation.

Read Attorney Gene Libby’s opening statement in defense of Meryl Nass Below:

Read Gene-Libby-Opening-Statement-for-Nass-Defense.

October 11 Hearing

During the hearing on Tuesday, Assistant Attorney General Tim Steigelman grilled Nass for four hours over her communications with the three patients, regularly becoming combative with Nass and her attorney.

At one point, Steigelman asked whether Nass recorded vital signs during a telemedicine consult, seeming to misunderstand the nature of telemedicine. In another instance, the AAG questioned whether Nass got the proper HIPPA permissions to discuss the medical care of two elderly patients with their son who was living in the same house and also suffering from COVID-19.

None of the original claims about misinformation came up during the hearing, and the overwhelming thrust of the governments arguments orbited her communications with ailing Mainers during her $60 COVID-19 telemedicine consultations.

“In the end analysis,” Libby said in a phone interview, “the evidence will establish that it was really an abuse of the regulatory process against a doctor who the establishment decided wasn’t playing on the same team.”

*

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.

Steve Robinson is the Editor-in-Chief of The Maine Wire.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

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)

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.

***

Pfizer and Marvel this month released a customized Avengers comic book that urges people to become an “everyday hero” by staying up-to-date with the latest Pfizer COVID-19 booster shots.

Pfizer and Marvel’s “Avengers” are co-promoting Pfizer’s COVID-19 booster vaccines with the Oct. 4 release of a customized comic book.

Just as the “Avengers” repeatedly kept the world safe from the fictional supervillain Ultron, people need to protect themselves by updating their COVID-19 vaccination with the latest booster, according to the promotional comic.

Pfizer announced the new comic book in a tweet:

When Ultron wreaks havoc, the Avengers act as the first line of defense. People can help protect themselves by staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccinations. Head to https://t.co/PfNUYTZlkj to get a first look at Pfizer, BioNTech, and Marvel’s comic book! pic.twitter.com/hwhRateYIB

— Pfizer Inc. (@pfizer) October 4, 2022

The new comic, “Everyday Heroes,” shows Ultron — who represents COVID-19 as it keeps evolving — attacking and being successfully fended off by the Avengers — who represent the different Pfizer vaccinations — while a grandpa and his family are waiting at a nearby clinic to get a COVID-19 vaccine.

The story concludes with pictures of the Avengers and the family displaying bandages on their left arms, showing they got a Pfizer shot.

In addition to the superhero scenes, Pfizer added a page in the comic both before and after the story that shows people of different professions.

“What makes them everyday heroes?” one of the pages reads. “They know what to do to help defend against COVID-19.”

And the comic includes a banner — accompanied by a scannable QR code containing COVID-19 vaccination information provided by Pfizer — that reads, “Vaccinate and stay up-to-date with the latest recommended booster and be an everyday hero!”

The marketing collaboration comes amid sluggish uptake in the U.S. and Europe of Pfizer’s fall Omicron-specific booster shots, according to the Daily Mail, which on Oct. 6 reported that fewer than 1 in 20 eligible Americans had received the shot.

According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only 7.6 million Americans have opted to get the updated booster dose as of Sept. 28 — almost one month since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Aug. 31 granted Emergency Use Authorization for the new Pfizer and Moderna boosters and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Sept. 1 authorized the shots.

Citing data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Reuters on Oct. 7reported that in the EU, weekly vaccine doses administered were ranging from around 1 million to 1.4 million in September.

Pfizer’s enlistment of Marvel’s Avengers comes after the U.S. Congress opted to not pass additional COVID-19 funding, signaling that the U.S. government will no longer be the primary purchaser of its COVID-19 vaccines.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla downplayed the potential negative impact the government decision might have on his company’s bottom line, stating that Pfizer’s shift into the private market will allow the drugmaker to be “even more competitive” and that its commercial skills are “even better suited” in an open market than in a government-contracting model.

Last month, Pfizer and Moderna aired new direct-to-consumer (DTC) TV commercials promoting their products — but they had to “play with cool with the branding side of things” because neither company’s fall COVID-19 booster vaccine has full FDA approval.

On Sept. 8 the day before the NFL season kicked off, Pfizer launched its booster ad, known as “More,” which features a narrator, speaking in rhyme, about the “normal” things that happen in everyday life with the tagline, “the more you want to do, the more we want to do.”

Moderna also aired a booster ad in time for the NFL season.

Moderna’s 15-second ad, “Get Boosted this Fall,” features text on a colored background that states, “We’re sick of COVID, but we don’t want to get sick with COVID, either” and then urges people to get their boosters.

Moderna’s logo is visible at the bottom throughout the ad, and the company carries over part of its logo within the text as an extra layer of promotion.

In the second quarter of 2022, Moderna generated $4.7 billion in sales, a 9% increase over the same period last year.

Pfizer’s revenue grew by 47% compared to the second quarter last year, to $27.7 billion, and the company’s net income increased to $9.9 billion — a 78% increase over the same period during 2021.

So far in 2022, Pfizer has spent more than $100 million in advertising.

U.S. 1 of 2 countries that let Big Pharma advertise directly to consumers

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow DTC advertising of pharmaceuticals.

In both countries, people reportedly take 50% more pharmaceuticals than in other nations. Yet Americans are sicker and more economically disadvantaged when compared with people in 10 other wealthy countries, according to the latest Commonwealth Fund report.

The FDA first authorized Pharma advertising in 1938, following the passage of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1962, Congress formally granted the FDA statutory authority to regulate prescription drug labeling and advertising.

In 1969, the FDA issued final regulations for prescription drug advertising. The regulations state that ads must not be false or misleading, must present a “fair balance” of information describing both the risks and benefits of a drug, must include facts that are “material” to the drug’s promoted uses and must include a brief summary mentioning every risk described in the product’s labeling.

The FDA further relaxed its regulations, in 1995 and in 2004, leading to a boom in pharmaceutical advertising. As the FDA loosened regulations, the agency also took fewer enforcement actions.

In 2005, numerous physicians in the American Medical Association (AMA) drafted a proposal to ban DTC advertising, but the proposal failed.

A decade later, the AMA again called for a ban. Members drafted a new policy, convening a physician task force and launching an advocacy campaign to promote prescription drugaffordability and demand greater transparency in prescription drug prices and costs.

However, such efforts appear to have waned in recent years. The AMA’s current ethical code regarding DTC advertising is ambivalent about the marketing strategy and states physicians should “encourage and engage in studies that examine the impact of DTC advertising on patient health and medical care.”

Authors of a 2019 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association of U.S. pharmaceutical marketing trends over 20 years (1997-2016) found DTC advertising increased from $2.1 billion (11.9% of total spending) in 1997 to $9.6 billion (32.0% of total spending) in 2016.

The study’s other key findings included:

• DTC prescription drug advertising increased from $1.3 billion (79,000 ads) to $6 billion (4.6 million ads [including 663,000 TV commercials]), with a shift toward advertising high-cost biologics and cancer immunotherapies.
• Pharmaceutical companies increased DTC marketing about diseases treated by their drugs, with the number of disease awareness campaigns increasing from 44 to 401, and the amount of spending on such campaigns increasing from $177 million to $430 million.
• DTC advertising spending for health services increased from $542 million to $2.9 billion, with the largest spending increases by hospitals, dental centers, cancer centers, mental health and addiction clinics and medical services (e.g., home health).
• DTC spending on advertising for laboratory tests (such as genetic testing) increased from $75.4 million to $82.6 million — although the number of ads increased even more substantially (from 14,100 to 255,300), which the authors suspected reflected an increase in less expensive electronic media advertising.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from CHD

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

No
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.

***

Queen Elizabeth II has died, and there is immense public affection for the Queen for her dignified but warm conduct in 70 years of dedicated service as a constitutional  monarch. That affection is most marked among her British, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Subjects, as well as among some British Commonwealth loyalists. However resolutely ignored is the Royal heading of British imperialism, slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism, war and genocide for centuries up to the present.

It is no accident that the Royal parades for which Britain is famous heavily and prominently involve British regiments, and typically also the armed forces of countries for which the British Monarch is also the head of state, notably the White Anglosphere countries of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Indeed the sad passing of Queen Elizabeth II  and accession of King Charles III have been marked by huge military parades and the firing of massed artillery across the Anglosphere from Scotland  to remote New Zealand (Aotearoa). Indeed “Royal” is an appendage not just to numerous hospitals around the world  (e.g. the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne) but also to armed forces and security services from the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The English have invaded 193 of the world’s present-day countries over the last 1,000 years, as compared to Australia 85, France 82, the US 72 (52 after WW2), Germany 39, Japan 30, Russia 25, Canada 25, Apartheid Israel 12, China 2, North Korea arguably zero, Iran zero and indeed most Developing Countries, zero  [1-4].

These invasions, from the Normans invading England in  1066 to the UK-backed US devastation of the Muslim world in the 21st century, have often involved genocide that is defined by Article 2  of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” [5].

Thus the newly installed Norman English Establishment in 1066 commenced the violent removal of the Anglo-Saxon Establishment and genocidal removal of resistant peasantry (“the harrying of the north”), and the genocidal killing has continued for a thousand years.

Nearly every present-day country in the world has suffered British invasion and devastation. Indeed one notes that the magnificent venues and bejewelled crowns and other accoutrements of Queen Elizabeth II’s memorial arrangements and King Charles III’s accession variously reference that violent 1,000-year history of the English monarchy.

Space does not permit even a brief account of this millennium in which the British Establishment (read English Establishment) have invaded nearly every country on earth with inaccessible Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states being the notable exceptions.

For a summary see my article “British Have Invaded 193 Countries: Make 26 January (Australia Day, Invasion Day) British Invasion Day” [2], and also see my book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” that includes a brief but comprehensive summary of the avoidable mortality-related history of every present day country in the world from Neolithic times [3].

The most horrendously super-deadly, English-complicit  events (deaths in brackets) include

• the 16th – 19th century onwards Amerindian Genocide in North and South America  (90 million deaths)  the 17th – 19th century North American Indian Genocide (up to 18 million deaths),
• the  15th -19th century African Holocaust of the trans-Atlantic slave trade (6 million deaths),
• the 19th century Chinese Holocaust (20-100 million deaths),
• WW1 (1914-1918; 40 million deaths), the 1918-1920 Influenza epidemic (50-100 million deaths),
• WW2 (1939-1945, 90 million deaths) [3, 4, 6, 7],
• and the 2-century Indian Holocaust (1,800 million Indian deaths from violence and imposed deprivation under the British) that commenced with the 1769-1770 Great Bengal Famine (10 million deaths) and concluded just prior to Indian Independence with the British-imposed and Australia complicit but “forgotten” 1942-1945 WW2 Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Indian Holocaust, WW2 Bengal Famine; 6-7 million deaths)[8-14].
• While the 2-century British-imposed Indian Holocaust (1757-1947) was quantitatively the worst man-made atrocity in human history (1,800 million Indian deaths from violence and imposed deprivation) [13, 14], from a qualitative perspective the 1788 onwards Australian Aboriginal Genocide and Ethnocide was the worst such atrocity in human history. Of 350-700 Indigenous languages and dialects in 1788 only 120 survive today, and of these all but 25 are endangered [15].

Queen Elizabeth II was Queen for 70 years,  from 1952-2022, and during that time the UK was regularly involved in wars that were horrendously deadly for the Indigenous people that the UK and its allies were attacking.

There are presently 15 countries having the Queen as head of state (UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis [16]. Of these 14 countries only the 4 White Anglosphere countries (the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) have been involved in invading other countries during the Queen’s reign (1952-2022) [3].

In addition there have been a further 18 countries that for technical reasons connected with the independence and other processes had Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign for some time: South Africa, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Tanganyika (Tanzania), Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Kenya, Malawi, Malta, Gambia, White-ruled Rhodesia (officially unrecognized  by the Her Majesty’s UK Government and Her Majesty the Queen), Guyana, Barbados, Mauritius and Fiji [16]. Notwithstanding internal violence and/or brief conflicts and incursions with neighbours (South Africa, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Kenya, Rhodesia, Tanzania),  none of these countries were involved in the massive and genocidal invasion of other countries during the Queen’s reign (1952-2022) as carried out by the 4 White Anglosphere countries (the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) [3].

Of 33 countries that had the Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign (some for short periods) only the  4 White Anglosphere countries (the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand) were involved in egregious violence against distant countries in a continuation of the extraordinary genocidal violence of England over a millennium (193 countries invaded i.e. nearly every present-day country invaded).

In summary, countries  in the post-1950 era that were variously subjects of the UK Monarchy, or were attacked and occupied by the UK and other war-making Anglosphere countries having the Queen as head of state (the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) were as follows:

United Kingdom – Afghanistan, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei, China (Korean War), Cyprus, Diego Garcia (part of  Mauritius), Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Hong Kong, Indonesia (Confrontation), Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea (North & South), Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Nigeria, Oman, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen.

Australia – Afghanistan, China (Korean War), Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), Indonesia (Confrontation), Iraq, Korea, Malaysia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste.

Canada – Afghanistan, China (Korean War), Iraq, Korea.

New Zealand – China (Korean War), Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), Indonesia (Confrontation), Iraq, Korea, Malaysia, Samoa, Timor-Leste, Tokelau.

Below is a brief, alphabetically-ordered  summary of the last 70 years of egregious UK violence (with the overall historical period of British intervention, and deaths from violence and imposed deprivation given in brackets). One notes that at the end of WW2 (1945), a mere 7 years before the accession of Queen Elizabeth II in 1952,  the British Empire was at its peak. Most African colonies of the UK gained independence in the 1960s, and the key default reference for this list is [3] which contains a succinct history of every country.

Afghan forces attacking retreating British-Indian troops (Photo by Victor Surridge, Illustrations by A.D. Macromick, licensed under the Public Domain)

(1). Afghanistan (1838-2021): UK First Afghan War (1838); Second Afghan War (1878); UK control of Afghan foreign affairs (1907); Third Afghan War (1919); UK invaded and occupied Afghanistan with the US Alliance (2001-2021; Afghan Genocide and Afghan Holocaust deaths 6 million). Huge under-5 infant deaths (in 2020 77,000 in Afghanistan as compared to 3,100 in the UK ) will continue due to US seizure of Afghan assets, and sanctions by the US Alliance including the UK.

(2). Argentina (1806-1982): British invasion repelled (1806); US-backed UK seized the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) (1833); Great War in Uruguay involving UK, France, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil (1839-1852); horrendous genocide of Indigenous people in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay for the benefit of the British beef trade (19th century); genocidal Zionist psychopath Theodor Herzl contemplated Argentina as a “Jewish Homeland” (however the UK “gave” Palestine to the Zionists in 1917); Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and was expelled by the UK in the Falklands War (1982).

(3). Bahrain (1861-1971): British protectorate established (1861); independence (1971); used by US, UK and Coalition forces against Iraq (1991).

(4). China (18th century onwards): the genocidal British conquered Bengal and thence set up the lucrative opium trade to China (Bengali opium for Chinese silver and tea; 1757); British defeated China in the First Opium War with ports opened and Hong Kong acquired (1839-1842); anti-Western Tai Ping Rebellion put down by the UK and other European forces (20-100 million dead; 1850-1864); Anglo-French forces defeated China and captured Beijing ((1856-1860); Queen Victoria the greatest opiate drug pusher in history; anti-Western Boxer rebellion subdued by the British with Russian, German, French, Japanese and US forces (1898); 35-40 million Chinese died under the Japanese (1937-1945); the British lead by Churchill successfully brought the US into war against Japan, and thence secured victory in the WW2 (1941-1945); UK forces fought Chinese forces in the Korean War (1950-1953); Hong Kong returned to China (1997); 800 million Chinese brought out of poverty in the Chinese economic “miracle” (1990s onwards); UK joined the threatening US anti-China stance (2020s).

(5). Cyprus (1878-1960): British rule (1878); British annexation (1914); the armed Greek Cypriot independence movement of EOKA culminated in independence under Archbishop Makarios (1960); conflict over Greek union, Makarios overthrown and Turkey seized part of the island (1974).

(6). Egypt (1882-1956): British conquest (1882); independence but with retention of British forces (1923); British forces finally left after the coming to power of Colonel Abdul Gamal Nasser (1956); however this was immediately followed by  the collusive UK, France and Apartheid Israel invasion of the Sinai Peninsula and the Suez Canal that took place at the same time as the Russian invasion of Hungary (1956); nuclear-armed,  UK-backed Apartheid Israel invaded again, seizing the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula (1967); defeated by Apartheid Israel in the Yom Kippur War (1973); US-brokered peace with Apartheid Israel, and return of the Sinai Peninsula (1979).

Image: While operating in Borneo during the Indonesian Confrontation, a soldier is winched up to a Westland Wessex HAS3 of 845 Naval Air Squadron, during operations in the jungle. A soldier is kneeling on the edge of the extraction zone. (Photo by British Army official photographer, licensed under the Public Domain)

(7). Indonesia (1963-1965): armed conflict between Indonesia and the UK and its allies  over Malaysia and the future of Brunei and Borneo (Confrontation) (1963-1966); the UK was heavily involved in machinations to remove President Soekarno and eliminate the Indonesian communists, that were realized with the UK- , Australia- and US-backed military coup in 1965 that removed President Soekarno, and in which 1 million progressive Indonesians and many Chinese were murdered and hundreds of thousands imprisoned (1965). Corrupt and violent military rule for 34 years was associated with 33 million Indonesian excess deaths from deprivation (1965-1999).

(8). Iran (1914 onwards): Oil discovered (early 19th century); Iran was neutral but there was heavy Anglo-Russian involvement in WW1 (1914-1918);  WW1-related Iranian Famine (1917-1919, 2-10 million deaths);  Anglo-Russian occupation and installation of Mohammed Shah Pahlevi (1941-1979); economic blockade and UK MI6 and US CIA coup that removed elected PM Mossadegh who wanted to nationalize Anglo-Iranian oil, with thousands  killed (the CIA secretly invoked Queen Elizabeth II to stop a nervous and ambivalent Shah from quitting) (1953); UK- and US-backed authoritarian Shah regime with Anglo-American, French and Dutch oil interests dominant (1953-1979);  Iranian theocratic revolution (1979) and increasing hostility from the UK, US and Apartheid Israel (1 million Iranians died in the UK- and US-promoted, 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, and 3 million Iranians died from sanctions (1979 onwards) urged and applied by the nuclear powers US, UK and  Apartheid Israel against a non-nuclear weapons-possessing Iran [17]  .

(9). Iraq (1914 onwards): British invaded (1914); Kurdish and Arab revolts suppressed with use of the British Royal Air Force (RAF); Iraq made a British League of Nations Mandate ( 1920); first oil concession (1925); 25 year alliance with Britain (1930); British Mandate terminated and Iraq joined the League of Nations (1932); Iraqi Parliament rejected the UK demand for an extension of the of the 1930 alliance (1948); Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq formed the pro-US Baghdad Pact (1955); Kassem military coup ousted UK-backed King Faisal II who was killed (1958); US green-lighted the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein; sanctions imposed killing 1.7 million Iraqis; deadly US, UK and Israeli bombing devastated Iraqi infrastructure (1990-2003); US, UK and Coalition Gulf War (0.2 million Iraqis killed); prefaced by US and UK lies about actually non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction (notably by US President George W. Bush and UK PM Tony Blair), the US, UK, Australia and US lackey Coalition invaded and further devastated Iraq (2003-2011); rise of ISIS and subsequent defeat by the US, UK, Russia and the Syrian Government (2012-2017; half of Mosul, population 2 million, destroyed with 40,000 Iraqi residents killed by US, UK, and Australian bombing); notwithstanding demands  by the Iraqi Parliament that foreign forces leave, US, UK and Australian forces remained, and Trump threatened destruction of the Iraqi economy by freezing assets (2020); UK forces remain in Iraq, and NATO (including UK ) forces are planned to increase from 400 to 5,000 [18] (2021; I was alerted to this by the fact that some UK soldiers serving in Iraq were brought back to the UK especially for the Queen’s funeral). The ongoing UK-initiated and UK complicit Iraqi Genocide and Iraqi Holocaust has been associated with deaths from violence and imposed deprivation totalling 9 million (1914-2011), 4.6 million (1990-2011), and 2.7 million (2003-2011) [3, 4].

(10). Jordan (1918-1958): British defeated the Ottoman Empire (1918); Jordan was ruled from Damascus by UK-installed King Faisal I (1919); Faisal I removed by the French  and Jordan became part of a British Mandate (1920); Abdullah (son of Faisal) made emir with a British-trained army (1921); constitutional monarchy (1928); independent (1946); defeated by UK-backed Zionists (1948); changed name to  Jordan (1949); annexed West Bank of Palestine (1950); Jordan and Iraq formed the Arab Federation and British troops were sent to Jordan (1958); invasion and defeat by a now nuclear-armed Apartheid Israel of all its neighbours (the Naksa or Setback; 400,000 Arabs expelled in addition the  800,000 expelled in the UK-complicit 1948 Nakba) (1967); UK-backed and UK trained Jordan military took action against the huge Palestinian population (thousands killed) (1968); Jordan hosts over 2 million Palestinian refugees and over 1.5 million Syrian refugees.

(11). Kenya (1884-1960): Berlin Conference “gave” Uganda, Kenya, and Zanzibar to Britain and Tanzania (Tanganyika) to Germany (1884); Imperial British East Africa Company (1888); British East Africa Protectorate (1888); Mombasa-Lake Victoria Railway built with involvement of Indian workers (1895-1901); commencing in 1903 British settlement on most of the best land, with Kikuyu and Masai  people confined to the rest (20th century); the  “Uganda Plan” for Jewish Settlement was rejected by the genocidally racist Zionists, and the UK took back its offer of 13,000 square kilometres of Kenya (1903); interior Kenya colony and a coastal Protectorate of Kenya; European settlement of the temperate highlands, coffee plantations,  Indian labour and traders, and mounting Indigenous activism (20th century); Jomo Kenyatta started the independence movement (1944);  Kenyan Kikuyu Mau Mau uprising and the Mau Mau Emergency involving British atrocities and mass population incarcerations in concentration camps (1952-1960 excess mortality 1.1 million).

(12). Kiribati (1892 -1979): This low lying coral atoll archipelago of small islands was a UK colony (the Gilbert Islands part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands) (1892-1979). In WW2 it was invaded by the Japanese who were thence removed by US forces from Tuvalu. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Christmas Island was used by the US and UK for the testing of nuclear weapons, including hydrogen bombs.

(13). Korean War (1950-1953): 28% of the North Korean population was killed [19] and no buildings were left standing by US bombing; the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand were all involved in the Korean  War (1950-1953; 5 million Korean deaths) [9]; the conduct of the Korean War may have involved setting up an “excuse” for the nuclear destruction of China [20].

(14). Kuwait (1897-1961): British protectorate (1897); independent sheikdom but British and thence Arab League forces remained because of Iraqi claims (1961); Iraq recognized Kuwait (1963);  greenlighted by the US, Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait over an oil dispute (1990); US-led Gulf War freed Kuwait, with 80% of oil wells destroyed,  0.2 million Iraqi soldiers killed, and mass expulsion of Palestinians (1991); Kuwait was the launch site for the US, UK and Australian invasion of Iraq, and the UK-involved Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide associated with 2.7 million Iraqi deaths (2003-2011).

(15). Libya (1943-2012): UK and Allied forces prevailed over German and Italian forces with subsequent Anglo-French rule (1940-1943); UN jurisdiction (1949); independent as a monarchy under King Idris (1951); Anglo-Libyan treaty permitted presence of UK forces  (1953-1956); oil discovered (1958); most British forces left (1966); military coup with rule by Colonel Qaddafi under whom Libya became the richest country in Africa (1969-2012); terrorists destroyed US passenger plane over Lockerbie, Scotland (1988); France, UK and US (FUKUS) Coalition bombing destroyed Libya, and Qadaffi was captured and butchered (2011-2012; 0.1 million killed, 1 million refugees, and continued civil war  between US- , UK- and Turkey-backed Government in Tripoli and Egypt-backed forces based on Benghazi).

(16). Malaysia (1786-1960): British founded Georgetown on Penang (1786);  trade involved Chinese, Indians, Sumatrans and Malays (18th – 21st centuries); British under Raffles founded Singapore (1819); British-Dutch Treaty- Malaya and North Borneo to Britain and South Borneo and the rest of Indonesia to the Dutch (1824);  British protectorate agreements with sultanates, Chinese workers for tin mines and Tamil workers for rubber plantations (1870s onwards); federation of Malay Peninsular sultanates under British protection and similar arrangements for Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah (1896); political movements of Chinese (Sun  Yat Sen, Communism), Indians (Congress and Gandhi) and Malays (Islamic reform) (20th century); Japanese occupation (1941-1945); independence (1957); Communist revolt suppressed by the UK with Commonwealth allies (notably Australia) in the Malayan Emergency (1950-1960 excess mortality 1.0 million and 0.5 million Chinese compulsorily resettled).

(17). Mauritius (including the Chagos Archipelago, and Diego Garcia) (1810-onwards):Mauritius was a British colony (1810); Mauritius independent (1968); ruled by the UK, the Chagos Archipelago is part of Mauritius and home to the Chagossians, a Bourbonnais Creole-speaking people, it was completely ethnically cleansed by the British in 1967-1973 to make way for the obscene US Diego Garcia military base that threatens the Indo-Pacific with “conventional” or nuclear destruction. The UK and US  berate China with the “rules-based order” over its island-building on uninhabited coral reefs in the South China Sea, but effected the  genocide of the Chagossians (the Chagossian Genocide).

(18). Nigeria (16th century – 1970): Portuguese, British and French slave trade with millions transported and millions dying (16th-18th century); British abolished slavery within the UK (1807); UK took Lagos (1861); palm oil and capitalist exploitation replaced slavery (19th century); Goldie secured UK interests along the Niger (1880s); Britain invaded Oyo State (1883); Royal Niger Company dominated the Niger trade (1886); Berlin Conference “awarded” Nigeria to Britain (1894-1895); Benin taken by the British (1897); British colony (Lagos) and British protectorates (North and South) (1906); Nigerian independence (1960); Igbo (Biafra) military coup followed by massacres of Igbo people in the North (1966); Biafra in Eastern Nigeria declared independence (1967); Biafra backed by France and Apartheid Israel but the central Nigerian Government backed by the UK, USSR, Egypt and Zaire; UK Labor Government headed by Harold Wilson secretly armed the Nigerian Government; Biafra defeated; Biafran Genocide excess deaths totalled 2.5-3.0 million (1967-1970).

(19). Oman, 18th century-1971): British influence commenced (late 18th century); slave-trading  Zanzibar lost to British (1856); an interior revolt was suppressed by British forces (1957); UN demanded British withdrawal (1965); some royal concessions but rebellion continued in Dhofar (1970); Oman joined the UN and the Arab League (1971); bases given to US, UK and Coalition forces (1991); Oman bases were used by the US, UK and US Coalition in attacks on Afghanistan Alliance (2001-2021; Afghan Genocide and Afghan Holocaust deaths 6 million).

Image is from YourNewsWire

(20). Palestine (1917 onwards): the British promised Palestine as a Jewish Homeland by the despicable “stolen goods”  Balfour Declaration of 2 November 1917 (made 2 days after the Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) victory over the Turks at Beersheba (31 October 1917), this declaration actually being an inducement for Communist Russian Zionists to try to keep Russia in WW1); the UK War Cabinet under Churchill approved Partition of Palestine (1944); the British supplied and trained Zionist terrorists in the 1930s and 1940s and then withdrew (1948); The WW1 onwards Palestinian Genocide has been associated with 2.2 million Palestinian deaths from violence, 0.1 million, and imposed deprivation, 2.1 million. Genocidally racist Apartheid Israel gained nuclear weapons in the mid-1960s, enabled Apartheid South Africa do the same, and presently has 90 nuclear weapons and bomber, missile and German-supplied submarine delivery systems. Successive UK Conservative and Labour Governments and Oppositions have been  fervent supporters of nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist, grossly human rights-abusing, democracy-by-genocide Apartheid Israel (a notable exception was the outstandingly anti-racist UK Labour Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn who was falsely defamed and politically destroyed by the traitorous Zionists and the 34-member state International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) for supporting Palestinian human rights). Queen Elizabeth visited many countries in the Middle East but never visited Palestine/Apartheid Israel [21].

(21). Qatar (1868-1971): British installed Al-Thani clan and controlled foreign policy (1868); British protectorate (1916); oil discovered in Qatar (1939); UK left the Trucial Coast leaving 7 emirates as United Arab Emirates but with Bahrain and Qatar separate (1971); Qatar became a major US war base (2001); HQ for US, UK, Australian and Coalition invasion of Iraq (2003); Qatar withdrew from the Saudi-led and UK complicit war on Yemen (2017) and suffered intense Saudi Coalition hostility.

(22). Sierra Leone (16th century – 2000): exploited for timber, ivory and slaves (16th-20th century); British abolition of slavery and takeover of the Sierra Leone Company running Freetown (1807); 50,000 freed slaves settled but interior resistance to British rule (19th century); British protectorate over interior (1896); final British victory over Indigenous resistance (1897); autonomy with pro-British interim government (1960); independence under conservative Mende Sir Milton Margai as PM and representing Creole, British and Syrian-Lebanese merchant interests) (1961); 4 decades of coups and civil wars involving Guinea and Liberia; UN forces held hostage by rebels; British forces critically involved in defeating rebels; ban on rebel-funding sales of “blood diamonds” (2000); sanctions on Liberia; hundreds of thousands of refugees; rebel and pro-government militia disarmament (2001); 1991-2001 excess mortality 1.1 million.

(23). Somalia (1870- onwards): construction of the Suez Canal made the Horn of Africa strategically important to the British, French and Italians  (19th century); partial occupation by British-dominated Egypt (1870); Egyptians withdrew (1884); Italians defeated by Ethiopia (1896); Somali resistance to British eventually crushed using air power (1885-1920);  British forces from Kenya defeated the Italians (1941); Italian and thence British Somalia independence with union as United Republic of Somalia (1960); war by US- and Saudi-backed Somalia against USSR-backed Ethiopia over the Ogaden region (1976-1988; 840,000 refugees fled to Somalia); US gained formerly British Berbera base; Somalia-Ethiopia peace accord  (1976-1988 excess mortality 1.4 million); famine, US intervention and civil war (1990s onwards; 1991-2005 excess mortality  1.9 million); Indigenous Islamic Courts victory (2006-2007); US-backed Ethiopian invasion followed by African Union forces (notably from Kenya) (2007); continuing war of the Indigenous Al-Shabaab versus the US-backed foreign occupiers.

(24). South Africa (1795-1994): British occupation of the Cape during the Napoleonic Wars (1795); formal British “possession” by the Congress of Vienna (1814); British annexation of Natal (1843); Afrikaaner (Dutch origin) Boers enslaved and exterminated Indigenous Africans, and benefited from land, gold,  diamonds; British brought in  Indian and Chinese indentured labour (“5 year slaves”) (19th  century); British versus Afrikaaner Boer War , 50,000 Boer dead including  28,000 (mainly women and children) in British concentration camps (1899-1902); indignation in Europe over British crimes against the White Boers (20th century); Gandhi launched his non-violent Satyagraha message for human rights (Johannesburg, 11 September 1906);  many Afrikaaner nationalists were imprisoned as Nazi sympathizers in WW2 (1939-1945); Afrikaaner Nationalist victory (1948) and increasing racist Apartheid legislation legitimizing dispossession  confinement and control of the African, Asian and part-European majority; Apartheid policies led by Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, the “architect of Apartheid” (1948-1994); US, UK, Australia, Canada and Apartheid Israel support for Apartheid South Africa (1940s-1990s); Sharpeville Massacre (69 Africans killed; 1960) led to world-wide anti-Apartheid activism, Boycotts and Sanctions; the Queen was monarch of South Africa from 1910-1961); abolition of Apartheid, one-person-one-vote elections, and surrender of nuclear weapons acquired with Apartheid Israeli help  (1994);  Dr Verwoerd stated (1961): “Israel is an apartheid state” and leading heroes in the fight against Apartheid in South Africa (notably Nobel Laureates Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu) oppose Israeli Apartheid. Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel and all its supporters is strongly supported  worldwide but is fervently opposed by the pro-Apartheid US, and by the pro-Apartheid Israel and hence pro-Apartheid  monarchies, the UK, Australia and Canada, under Queen Elizabeth II as head of state (20th and 21st centuries) .

(25). Sri Lanka (Ceylon) (1798-1972): British defeated the Dutch (1798); final British defeat of Indigenous resistance (1815); introduction of tea, coffee, and rubber cash crops (19th century); independence from Britain (1948); Queen Elizabeth II was Queen of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) from 1952-1972; growing conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese that descended into armed conflict  (1971 onwards); critically supported by Apartheid Israel and the US, the Sri Lanka Government defeated the Tamils (2009); the Tamil Genocide was associated with  100,000 Tamils killed and 800,000 Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka (2009).

(26). Sudan (1881-1958): Mahdi revolt against British-ruled Egypt (1881); General Gordon killed (1885); General Herbert (later Lord Kitchener) defeated Mahdi followers at Obdurman (the British executed the Sudanese wounded) (1889); Anglo-Egyptian condominium over Sudan (1889-1952); Egyptian independence from Britain and moves for Sudan independence  (1952); southern revolt commenced (1955); independence  from UK (1958) followed by 50 years of North-South civil war (1955-2005 excess mortality 12.4 million);

(27). Syria (1916 onwards): UK-France Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the Arab world between the non-Arab and non-Muslim UK and France (1916); British and Free French invaded (1941); Syria independent (1944); UK-backed Apartheid Israel attacked, and seized the Golan Heights (1967); US-led Coalition of US, UK, France, Apartheid Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sought to remove the Assad Government under guise of defeating ISIS, but were opposed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah (from Lebanon); ISIS was eventually defeated but the ISIS-held city of Raqqa was destroyed (like Fallujah for the second time and Mosul in Iraq) (2012-2017); 0.5 million Syrians killed, massive human rights abuses, and 11 million refugees (2012-2017). The US, UK and France were unable to get UN “permission” to bomb Syria as they had bombed Libya, but Apartheid Israel, the US and Turkey still occupy parts of Syria and regularly  bomb targets in Syria. It appears that Russia backs an Iran to Europe gas pipeline via Syria whereas the US and UK back a gas pipeline from Qatar via Syria to Europe.

(28). Uganda (1890-1962): UK-Germany Treaty over East Africa (1890); British protectorate (1894); beginning of cotton production (1904); British personal ownership-based “land reform” (i.e. military-backed theft) and cash crops distorted society; Indian immigration and the rail system advanced the economy (20th century); the  “Uganda Plan” for Jewish Settlement was rejected by the genocidally racist Zionists and the UK took back its offer of 13,000 square kilometres of Kenya (1903); independence (1955); Queen Elizabeth II was Queen of Uganda in 1962-1963; General Idi Amin came to power in a coup but was opposed by the US and Apartheid Israel (1971); expulsion of Indians; of 80,000 Indians  over 27,000 found safety in the UK, with others going to Canada, Pakistan and India (1972); severe repression in Uganda (0.3-0.5 million killed) (1970s);

(29). United Arab Emirates (1892 – 1971): British protectorates established (1892); British withdrawal (1971); UAE used by US, UK and Coalition forces in the Gulf War (1991); UAE involved with the UK, US, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE  in the genocidal war on Yemen (2012 onwards).

(30). Yemen (1839- onwards): British East India Company seized Aden (1839); long and complicated North-South conflict variously involving  the UK, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia; North Yemen joined the UN (1947); independence of South Yemen from UK (1967); Yemen unified (1989); Houthi rebellion (2012) followed by UK- and US-backed intervention of a Saudi-led Coalition of Egypt, some Gulf States and some African countries. The UK is complicit in a worsening Yemeni Genocide (massive threat from famine; 66,000 avoidable deaths from deprivation in 2022 alone; so far 400,000 killed and 1.3 million dead predicted by 2030) [22].

 (31). Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) (1889-1980): Rudd Concession opened up invasion by Boers and the British (notably by Cecil Rhodes’ British South Africa Company) (1889); Company charter renewed (1914); self-governing White-ruled Rhodesia (1923); Federation  of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953); by 1960 the 5% European minority owned 70% of the land; African National Congress (ANC) struggle for independence and majority rule (1960s to 1990s); Northern Rhodesia became independent Zambia and Nyasaland became independent Malawi (1963); after Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) the UK refused to suppress the White rebellion (1965); UN embargo was violated by South Africa, Portugal, and the West (notably the UK and US); Rhodesian republic (Queen no longer the Queen of Rhodesia) (1970); 1970s, African guerrilla warfare involving Rhodesia, Mozambique and Zambia; the war made 1 million homeless; internal settlement (1978); peace with interim formal UK control and supervised elections);  Robert Mugabe was elected PM (1980) and he ruled until deposed in 2017. The 1965-1980 hostilities  killed 25,000 with an excess mortality from deprivation of 0.7 million).

How many people died avoidably from imposed deprivation in countries variously occupied impacted by the Queen-ruled UK, Australia and New Zealand  in the post-WW2 era?

Whether a child is killed violently (by bombs, bullets, and bashing) or non-violently through avoidable deaths from imposed deadly deprivation, the death is just as final and the perpetrators  just as guilty. Avoidable deaths (excess deaths, deaths that should not have happened)  can be readily estimated from UN Population Division demographic data that have been made available and continually revised since 1950 [3].

The summary data provided below are of 1950-2005  excess mortality/ 2005 population (both in millions, m) and expressed as a percentage (%); this ratio is given for each major Occupier, for each country occupied and as a total for all the countries subject to a particular Occupier. The asterisk (*) below indicates a major occupation by more than one country in the post-WW2 era.

Australia [0.587m/20.092m = 2.9%] – Papua New Guinea [2.091m/5.959m = 35.1%], Solomon Islands* [0.050m/0.504m = 9.9%], total = 2.141m/6.463m = 33.1%

New Zealand [0.143m/3.932m = 3.6%] – Samoa [0.039m/0.182m = 21.4%], total = 0.039m/0.182m = 21.4%

UK [4.411m/59.598m = 7.4%] – Afghanistan* [16.609m/25.971m = 64.0%], Bahamas [0.007m/0.321m = 2.3%], Bahrain [0.054m/0.754m = 7.2%], Bangladesh* [51.196m/152.593m = 33.6%], Barbados [0.015m/0.272m = 5.5%], Belize [0.014m/0.266m = 5.3%], Bhutan [0.908m/2.392m = 38.0%], Botswana [0.443m/1.801m = 24.6%], Brunei [0.020m/0.374m = 5.3%], Cameroon* [6.669m/16.564m = 40.3%], Cyprus [0.054m/0.813m = 6.6%]; Egypt* [19.818m/74.878m = 26.5%], Eritrea* [1.757m/4.456m = 39.4%], Ethiopia [36.133m/74.189m = 48.7%], Fiji [0.054m/0.854m = 6.3%], Gambia [0.606m/1.499m = 47.6%], Ghana [6.089m/21.833m = 27.9%], Greece* [0.027m/10.978m = 0.2%], Grenada* [0.018m/0.121m = 14.9%], Guyana [0.086m/0.768m = 11.2%], Hong Kong [0.125m/7.182m = 1.7%], India [351.900m/1096.917m = 32.1%], Iraq* [5.283m/26.555m = 19.9%], Israel [0.095m/6.685 = 1.4%], Jamaica [0.245m/2.701m =9.1%], Jordan* [0.630m/5.750m = 11.0%], Kenya [10.015m/32.849m = 30.5%], Korea* [7.958m/71.058m = 11.2%], Kuwait* [0.089m/2.671m = 3.3%], Lesotho [0.951m/1.797m =52.9%], Libya [0.785m/5.768m =13.6%], Malawi [6.976m/12.572m = 55.5%], Malaysia [2.344m/25.325m = 9.3%], Maldives [0.015m/0.338m = 4.4%], Malta [0.019m/0.397m = 4.8%], Myanmar [20.174m/50.696 = 39.8%], Nepal [10.650m/26.289m = 40.5%], Nigeria [49.737m/130.236m =38.2%], Occupied Palestinian Territories [0.677m/3.815m = 17.7%], Oman [0.359m/3.020m =11.9%], Pakistan [49.700m/161.151m = 30.8%], Qatar [0.029m/0.628m = 4.6%], Saint Lucia [0.012m/0.152m = 7.9%], Saint Vincent & Grenadines [0.018m/0.121m =14.9%], Sierra Leone [4.548m/5.340m = 85.2%], Singapore [0.113m/4.372m = 2.6%], Solomon Islands* [0.050m/0.504m = 48.5%], Somalia* [5.568m/10.742m =51.8%], Sri Lanka [0.951m/19.366m = 4.9%], Sudan [13.471m/35.040m = 38.4%], Swaziland [0.471m/1.087m = 43.3%], Tanzania [14.682m/38.365m =38.3%], Tonga [0.020m/0.106m = 18.9%], Trinidad & Tobago [0.052m/1.311m = 4.0%], Uganda [11.121m/27.623m = 40.3%], United Arab Emirates [0.087m/3.106m =2.8%], Vanuatu [0.037m/0.222m = 16.7%], Yemen [6.798m/21.480m = 31.6%], Zambia [5.463m/11.043m = 49.5%], Zimbabwe [4.653m/12.963m =35.9%], total= 727.448m/2247.711m = 32.4% [3].

The avoidable mortality (excess mortality) from deprivation for the whole world totalled 1.3 billion for the period 1950-2005, but that associated with countries variously occupied  by the UK in the post-WW2 era totalled 727 million or 56% of that in the whole world. The excess mortality for the whole world during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II (1952-2022) totalled about 1.5 billion with about 50% in countries variously  occupied by the UK. Under-5 infant deaths represent about 1.0 billion of these avoidable deaths.

Thus about half of this Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust of 1,500 million people (including 1,000 million under-5 year old children) during the reign of Elizabeth II can be attributed to British colonialism and neo-colonialism. That is the awful reality that is unspoken during the dozen days of massive public mourning between HM The Queen’s death on 8 September 2022 and her official funeral to be held in in Westminster Abbey on 19 September 2022 that will be seen on TV by billions of people around the world.

Elizabeth II was much loved by the hundreds of millions of her Subjects from the wilds of Wales and Highland Scotland to the desert Outback of Australia and loyalist Royalist Pacific Islands on the other side of the world. She provided an  example of calm, niceness and dedicated public service that was widely admired, even by Republicans.  However the harsh reality that will be scrupulously ignored is that she presided for 70 years over a highly militarized global British system that was linked to a Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust of 1,500 million people. Indeed the military play a key part in the Royal ceremonials for which Britain is famous.

Public dissent from the military pageantry of the fortnight’s massive public memorializing  has so far been minimal, and has not been tolerated (a few public dissenters in the UK have been swiftly arrested). Thus the timid new Australian Labor PM, Anthony Albanese (a Republican), has suspended Parliament and declared a public holiday in memory of the Queen’s death, ignoring the immense cost of his patriotic measure. Thus Australia has a GDP of US$1,450 billion in 2022 and thus 1 day’s lost production can be crudely estimated at $1,450 billion/365 days = $4 billion, or about 10% of the annual Australian defence budget.

The closest the hysterical and saturating Royalist public commentary and coverage has got to the actual historical has been glib talk of a New Elizabethan Era. However nobody has dared to go into specifics.

Thus Elizabeth I launched the East India Company in 1600 that was  to ravage China and India over 2 centuries (several hundred  million  Chinese  and nearly 1.8 billion Indians died), whereas Elizabeth II’s 70 year rule was associated with 750 million avoidable deaths in the British “share” of the Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust.

Elizabeth I’s rule was associated with invasion of the Americas (that would ultimately kill 90 million Indigenous people) and invasion of Gaelic Ireland that set the stage for horrendous British atrocities in coming centuries  (notably under Cromwell in the 17th century) and  culminating in the 1848-1850 Irish Famine (1 million starved to death and 1.5 million were forced into exile).

The much vaunted New Elizabethan  Era of Elizabeth II was associated with huge technical advances and attainment of peace in Northern Ireland. However the Mainstream resolutely ignores the atrocities  outlined in items # 1- #31 above,  and avoidable mortality from deprivation totalling about 750 million people in UK-impacted countries during the reign of HM Queen Elizabeth II.

Elizabeth II made her third and last visit to India in 1997, and much debate was provoked by her visit to the Jallianwala Bagh of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, Punjab, India.

On 13 April 1919 this site was bloodied by the actions of the British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer who ordered troops to fire upon a gathering of thousands of Indians that resulted in the deaths of some 379 men, women and children. The Queen made no apology for this notorious British atrocity but commented thus:

“It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our pasts – Jallianwala Bagh, which I shall visit tomorrow, is a distressing example. But history cannot be rewritten, however much we might sometimes wish otherwise. It has its moments of sadness, as well as gladness. We must learn from the sadness and build on the gladness” [23].

However not a word uttered about the 6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death by the British with Australian complicity in the WW2 Bengal Famine (WW2 Bengali Holocaust, WW2 Indian Holocaust) [8-14], nor indeed about 1,800 million Indians who died avoidably from imposed deprivation in 2 centuries of barbarous British rule [13, 14].

While the White Anglosphere is devoting nearly a fortnight to lavish public memorializing of HM Queen Elizabeth II, descendants of the victims of British imperialist  crimes have been less than enthusiastic. Thus Gwenda Stanley, Ambassador for the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra, commented: “She’s left a legacy of genocide and we’re the actual products of that, the result of that 232 years of genocide in this country” [24]. The ongoing Australian Aboriginal Genocide involved massive land dispossession, 0.1 million Indigenous people killed by violence, about 2 million deaths from imposed deprivation and disease, and about 0.1 million Indigenous children forcibly removed from their mothers and their cultures [15].

The Nigerian-born Uju Anya, an associate professor in the linguistics department at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, commented very angrily and unkindly: “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating”.  She refused to back down after the subsequent outcry, stating further: “If anyone expects me to express anything but disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome, you can keep wishing upon a star,” and  “I stand by my tweet and do not have any regrets … I am the child and sibling of survivors of genocide. From 1967-1970, more than 3 million civilians were massacred when the Igbo people of Nigeria tried to form the independent nation of Biafra. Those slaughtered included members of my family. I was born in the immediate aftermath of this genocide” [25].  British imperialism, under the Labour government headed by Harold Wilson, secretly supplied arms, and ammunition to the Nigerian government during the Biafran Genocide (1967-1970).

After their defeat in 1945 the Germans adopted a CAAAA (C4A) protocol of Cessation of  the crimes, Acknowledgment of the crimes, Apology for the crimes, Amends for the crimes, and Assertion “never again to anyone”. Unfortunately for the war criminal offences of Britain over the last 70 years (and let alone the last millennium), there has been no Cessation, Acknowledgement, Apology, Amends or Assertion “never again”.

Final conclusions

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II  has died after 70 years of warm, nice, and dignified public service, and is being mourned by hundreds of millions  people around the world. However  while ostensibly politically neutral and disempowered, Queen Elizabeth II was the Head of State of a power that has wreaked immense harm to the world through colonialism, war and neocolonialism in the last 70 years, and indeed over the past 1,000 years.

It cannot be ignored that the Queen’s office is inescapably linked to a millennium of invasions and colonial atrocities variously led or figure-headed by her predecessors. However they are ignored, and the closest the Western public is presently getting to see of this horrendous military power reality are the spears, swords, halbards, automatic weapons, bayonets, cannons, war horses,  and colourful uniforms associated with the pageantry of her memorial fortnight.

Lest we forget the martyred billions. History ignored yields history repeated. Presently 7.4 million people die avoidably from deprivation each year (5.3 million being under-5 infants) on Spaceship Earth with endlessly greedy First World One Percenters in charge of the flight deck [3]. However it is predicted that in the absence of requisite action a worsening Climate Genocide  may kill 10 billion people this century en route to a sustainable human population of only 1 billion by 2100 [26]. Please inform everyone you can. All people are created equal, and we must all adhere to the fundamental imperatives of Humanity, namely Kindness and Truth.

*

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

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia over 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, notably a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds”. He has also published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (2007, 2022) and “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (1998, 2008). He has recently published “US-imposed Post-9-11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide” (2020), and “Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions” (2020). For images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/.

Notes

[1]. “Stop state terrorism”: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterrorism/ .

[2]. Gideon Polya, “British Have Invaded 193 Countries: Make 26 January ( Australia Day, Invasion Day) British Invasion Day”, Countercurrents, 23 January, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya230115.htm .

[3]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, Korsgaard Publishing, Germany, 2021.

[4]. Gideon Polya, “US-imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust and Muslim Genocide”, Korsgaard Publishing, 2020.

[5]. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  : http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/convention.html .

[6]. Gideon Polya, “Racist Mainstream Ignores “US-imposed Post-9/11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide””, Countercurrents, 17 July 2020: https://countercurrents.org/2020/07/racist-mainstream-ignores-us-imposed-post-9-11-muslim-holocaust-muslim-genocide/ .

[7]. “Report genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/reportgenocide/ .

[8]. N.G. Jog, “”Churchill’s Blind-Spot: India”, New Book Company, Bombay, 1944.

[9]. “Bengali Holocaust (WW2 Bengal Famine) writings of Gideon Polya”: https://sites.google.com/site/drgideonpolya/bengali-holocaust .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, Korsgaard Publishing, 2021.

[11]. Gideon Polya, “Australia And Britain Killed 6-7 Million Indians In WW2 Bengal Famine”,  Countercurrents, 29 September 2011: https://countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm .

[12]. Gideon Polya, “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History. Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability”, 1998, 2008 (revised and updated 2022 edition in press).

[13]. Gideon Polya, “Economist Mahima Khanna, Cambridge Stevenson Prize And Dire Indian Poverty”,  Countercurrents, 20 November, 2011: https://countercurrents.org/polya201111.htm .

[14]. Gideon Polya, “Britain robbed India of $45 trillion & thence 1.8 billion Indians died from deprivation”, Countercurrents, 18 Decemebr 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/12/britain-robbed-india-of-45-trillion-thence-1-8-billion-indians-died-from-deprivation/ .

[15]. “Aboriginal Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/aboriginalgenocide/ .

[16]. “List of sovereign states headed by Elizabeth II”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_headed_by_Elizabeth_II .

[17]. Gideon Polya, “Apartheid Israel bombing Syria & Iraq – hotting up deadly 4-decade US war on Iran”, Countercurrents, 14 August 2019: https://countercurrents.org/2019/08/apartheid-israel-bombing-syria-iraq-hotting-up-deadly-4-decade-us-war-on-iran .

[18]. Mark Nichol, “UK troops surge as Iraq simmers: Hundreds of British soldiers will be sent to Iraq as part of a new NATO mission”, Daily Mail, 19 February 2021: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9276693/Hundreds-British-soldiers-sent-Iraq-new-NATO-mission.html .

[19].  Michel Chossudovsky, “Know the facts: North Korea lost close to 30% of its population as a result of US bombings in the 1950s”, Global Research, 27 November 2010: http://www.globalresearch.ca/know-the-facts-north-korea-lost-close-to-30-of-its-population-as-a-result-of-us-bombings-in-the-1950s/22131.

[20]. I.F. Stone, “The Hidden History of the Korean War”, Monthly Review Press, 1969.

[21]. “Palestinian newspapers announce the death of Queen Elizabeth II”,  UPI, 9 September 2022: https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/upi/d285fc29de46a32b181131fd1b178e29/ .

[22]. “Yemen war deaths will reach 377,000 by end of year: UN”, Al Jazeera, 23 November 2021: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/11/23/un-yemen-recovery-possible-in-one-generation-if-war-stops-now .

[23]. Binoy Kampmark, “The other side of Elizabeth II’s reign: How to profit from plunder while disclaiming responsibility”, Pearls & Irritations, 14 September 2022: https://johnmenadue.com/cool-subjects-the-other-side-of-elizabeth-iis-reign/ .

[24]. Dana Morse, “Queen Elizabeth II’s death shows we’re still uncomfortable with Australia’s colonial truth”, ABC News, 14 September 2022: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-14/queen-elizabeth-death-indigenous-australia-analysis/101434952 .

[25]. Fred Mazelis, “Attack on Carnegie Mellon professor over criticism of British imperialism”, WSWS, 13 September 2022: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/13/pwge-s13.html?pk_campaign=newsletter&pk_kwd=wsws .

[26]. Gideon Polya, “Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions”, Korsgaard Publishing, Germany, 2020.

Featured image: Joel Rouse/ Ministry of Defence, licensed under OGL3

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 goal of woke North American banking institutions is this: Crush truth-tellers while perpetuating an illusion of normalcy for those who mindlessly repeat the woke party line, no matter how egregious the affront to reality and morality.     

North American banking institutions continue to degrade themselves, spiraling downward from at first creating policies to shut down accounts of individuals and organizations deemed to be politically incorrect to now acting as major totalitarian state players: they are outright confiscating money from clients with whom they have political and moral differences.  

Remember back in 2014 when SunTrust Bank canceled the Benham Brothers’ accounts because of their pro-life and pro-conjugal marriage public support?   

Or in 2017 when VANCO, an online donation processor, at the behest of banking giant Wells Fargo, cut off services to the Ruth Institute, a global non-profit organization that seeks to create “a mass social movement to end family breakdown”? 

Or in 2018, when Visa and Mastercard cut off the donation processing services to the David Horowitz Freedom Center? 

The banking industry has now gone from “We refuse to do business with those whose pro-life, pro-family, pro-religious freedom, and pro-election integrity views we find abhorrent” to “We’ll steal your money” and “You don’t have the right to keep private property.” 

Their goal is this: Crush truth-tellers while perpetuating an illusion of normalcy for those who mindlessly repeat the woke party line, no matter how egregious the affront to reality and morality.

PayPal’s trial balloon 

After experiencing an enormous backlash on social media a couple of days ago, PayPal quickly walked back its outrageous plan to fine users up to $2,500 –– debited directly from their accounts –– for “misinformation.” The tech titan remained opaque on whether it will implement sanctions for what it perceives to be “intolerance” against homosexuals and gender-confused people.   

PayPal’s move went one step beyond GoFundMe’s canceling of donations to the Canadian Truckers who stood against the onerous vaccine mandates of the Trudeau Administration earlier this year. PayPal said it would actually raid its clients’ private accounts to punish their opinions. 

LifeSiteNews’ Raymond Wolfe explained that the new user agreement from PayPal would have updated the left-wing payment giant’s “list of prohibited activities” to include “sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation,” determined at PayPal’s “sole discretion.” 

The policy change would also have prohibited posting content that PayPal considers to “present a risk to user safety or wellbeing” and would have expanded the company’s ban on “discriminatory” content to cover specific “protected groups” and characteristics, including sexual orientation and “gender identity.” 

The policy, slated to take effect on November 3, five days before the U.S. midterm elections, would’ve had a chilling effect on forthright public discourse. But that was the goal.  

PayPal attempted to cover its tracks, claiming that the “misinformation” language in the new user agreement was sent out “in error.” It was not. It was a trial balloon. PayPal wanted to see how far they could go to punish those who seek to protect children and young people from monstrously dangerous medical practices.     

We have surely left Western civilization behind 

The trajectory of woke national and international corporations toward totalitarian treatment of their customers became abundantly evident around the time of the U.S. Supreme Court’s disastrous Obergefell decision.  

Before Obergefell, Christians were relentlessly lectured about how homosexuals just wanted “the right to get married and be left alone.”  But within hours of the Obergefell decision, organizations which had spent years focused like a laser on corrupting the immutable definition of marriage immediately shifted their energies toward normalizing transgenderism for adults, then for kids.  Now, even the once-respected American Medical Association (AMA) and other medical professional organizations are asserting that anyone who is against gender affirmation medical treatments for young children is a terrorist who ought to be prosecuted.   

Woke institutions and corporations, in lockstep with our woke government, judge conservatives – especially Christian conservatives – to be enemies of the state. Why?  To silence sublime truth in order to achieve their Neo-Marxist agenda. Woke leaders are utterly incapable of, and opposed to, conserving anything, including the timeless definitions affirmed by every culture around the globe for millennia: Marriage & family, man & woman, mother & father, boy & girl, and son & daughter.    

To their discredit and shame, their relativism – a willful untethering from and rejection of truth – knows no bounds, yet they claim to be the great protectors of democracy.  

Yoram Hazony, in his recently released book, Conservatism: A Rediscovery, explains: 

The relativist sees in politics and morals a realm in which an endless variety of perspectives compete with one another for power without striving to attain what is true, and without anything being right in God’s eyes. The conservative, on the other hand, sees in politics and morals a realm in which an endless variety of perspectives compete with one another for power, each of them striving to reach the one truth, which is what is right in God’s eyes.

“Postnational, rule-driven democracy is both bureaucratically heavy-handed and contemptuous of traditional or customary morality,” observed Daniel J. Mahoney in an article headlined The Specter of ‘Fascism.’

“Its ideology centers around imposing an imperial and imperious conception of human rights on all those institutions and associations of civil society that resist postmodern relativism, sentimental humanitarianism, and the ideology of unencumbered human rights.” 

Mahoney quotes Polish philosopher and statesman Ryszard Legutko. Legutko pointed out that “it is considered to be ‘reactionary’ or even ‘fascist,’ and certainly illiberal and ‘extremist’ to defend truth as a goal of education, beauty as an aim of art, fidelity as the goal of marriage, and love of country as an essential element of citizenship.”  

“Inclusion (understood perversely or ideologically), sexual liberation, and political correctness, in contrast, are at the heart of a new form of democratic ‘correctness,’” noted Mahoney, adding, “If ‘reproductive rights’ and gender ideology are truly thesine qua non of democracy, then we have surely left Western civilization behind.” 

*

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.

Doug Mainwaring is a journalist for LifeSiteNews, an author, and a marriage, family and children’s rights activist.  He has testified before the United States Congress and state legislative bodies, originated and co-authored amicus briefs for the United States Supreme Court, and has been a guest on numerous TV and radio programs.  Doug and his family live in the Washington, DC suburbs.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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 disappearance of the USSR in 1991, a strategic catastrophe for Russia, ensured that large numbers of Russian people were living outside of the Federation. Millions of Russians in fact found themselves residing in the newly independent Ukraine in the early 1990s, and many of them have lived there without adequate rights.

The Soviet Union’s existence had guaranteed a measure of security in the international arena, providing a bulwark against the expansionist forces of the United States, which was a considerably more powerful country than the USSR. A somewhat similar stability has been gradually re-emerging with the return of Russia in the 21st century as a world power, having overcome a period of significant decline in the 1990s.

This century the percentage of Russians living below the poverty line has been greatly reduced, to as low as 11%. In the US it was officially estimated that 15% of Americans were living below the poverty line in 2014, and the real percentage was most likely higher than that. These figures have not been reported widely in the Western media.

Political scientist Moniz Bandeira wrote that the US has relied “on two fundamental pillars, NATO and the FED: 

• NATO, consisting of the European countries subordinated to Washington’s guidelines;
• and the privilege of printing the dollar as fiat currency, the world’s single reserve currency. Only the Federal Reserve (FED), the central bank of the United States, could and can issue the dollar at will”.

Founded in 1913 the Federal Reserve, headquartered in Washington, is indeed very powerful. In 2012 for example the Federal Reserve, which is effectively controlled by some of the West’s most influential banks, amassed that year at least $9.5 trillion, which amounted to about 65% of America’s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Quite a number of Americans believe the Federal Reserve to be a government-controlled banking institution, but this view is mistaken. The Federal Reserve, as mentioned, is overseen by private interests and America’s largest banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.

These US banks are closely connected to their European counterparts such as Deutsche Bank, Barclays and BNP Paribas. Also intertwined with the Federal Reserve and the other banks are the energy multinationals ExxonMobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum (BP).

The strongest branch of the Federal Reserve is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which fell under the control of 8 long-established banking families. Only 4 of these dynasties hail from largely American backgrounds, which are Goldman Sachs, the Rockefellers, Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb. The other 4 are the Rothschilds in Paris and London, the Warburgs from Germany, the Lazards from France and Israel Moses Sieff from Britain.

These families were still privately controlling the Federal Reserve into the 21st century. They have continued to hold sway over the international financial system, and became even wealthier in the aftermath of the 2007-08 financial crisis, which the public was called upon to resolve by digging into their pockets. The above families have been performing a central role in the oil futures market, either directly or through subsidiaries, on the New York Mercantile Exchange and the London Petroleum Exchange.

The 19th century German-born banker Anselm Rothschild once said, “Give me the power to issue the nation’s money, then I do not care who makes the laws”. His family members and colleagues have had that power. Moniz Bandeira noted, “This is why the United States has no regard for and flouts international law. It enjoys the privilege of manufacturing dollars when and how it pleases, without any backing, and manipulating its value through the discount rate”.

The privately-owned banks dominating America’s central bank (Federal Reserve) require the military-industrial complex, and armed conflicts, to preserve its status as state creditors by funding the rearmament and production of war matériel. This is more profitable to the financial institutions, by comparison to granting credits for non-military industries like agriculture.

Huge profits have been accrued from the manufacturing of conventional and nuclear weapons. According to the Brookings Institution in Washington, from the World War II years until 2007 US governments spent a total of $22.8 trillion on conventional and nuclear weapons. From 2007 onward Washington has spent further trillions on military hardware, as the already massive US arms budget expands. This expenditure has been most welcome to the weapons manufacturers and banks.

In the third year of president Barack Obama’s tenure, in 2011 America’s GDP that year amounted to around $14.9 trillion. Washington owed approximately $14 trillion to the banks. The US Department of Treasury, and the Federal Reserve Board, estimated that Washington owed $4.4 trillion to foreign governments, who purchased US treasury bonds as investors would do when buying a stake in a company.

Republican Senator Barry Goldwater insisted that most people don’t understand, or are unaware of, the operations of the most influential banking dynasties. Goldwater said, “How they acquire this vast financial power and employ it is a mystery to most of us”. He was referring to those such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Warburgs and Lazards. Even today, it is likely that some of these names would be unfamiliar to many people on the street.

The national banks in Europe have also been owned and guided by private interests. The international bankers manufacture the money and provide the credit to governments, which assists in driving up the debt of the political state. This is especially so in the neoliberal era of rampant capitalism from the early 1980s, when the decision making was placed in the hands of corporations and taken away from government leaders.

America’s central bank operates outside the control of the US Congress. There is no scrutiny of its accounts; that is there are no audits, and the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors have manipulated the credit of the US, whose public debt had climbed to $17.9 trillion in October 2014.

Half a century ago Zbigniew Brzezinski, the well-known foreign policy adviser, suggested to the banker David Rockefeller that it would be wise to establish the Trilateral Commission, which was founded in 1973. This is an anti-democratic globalist organisation, which has helped Washington to maintain authority over its European and Asian allies. The Trilateral commission further allows commercial and financial interests to consolidate its hold in Washington, while handing over the means of force to the US military and NATO.

When George W. Bush succeeded Bill Clinton as president in January 2001, Bush sought to extend NATO’s jurisdiction at a faster pace than Clinton, which he proceeded to do, as 7 European nations joined NATO during the Bush presidency (2001-09). Bush, as with Clinton, chose to enlarge NATO not out of security reasons, but in order to increase US hegemony and to broaden the market for the war industry. Bush also planned to absorb the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, an ambition which had been expressed clearly in April 2008 at a NATO conference in Romania.

It came despite the warning of William J. Burns, at the time the US Ambassador to Russia, and who is the current CIA Director. In a memorandum of February 2008, Burns wrote that Russia would strongly resist US attempts to incorporate the Ukrainians and Georgians into NATO. Burns’ memo was dispatched to various US bodies including the National Security Council and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was sent to the Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice) and Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates).

In Washington’s attempt to negate Russia’s influence, the Bush administration had dispatched 200 US military advisers to Georgia, a Caucasus nation directly bordering Russia to the north. Aside from its strategic significance on the map, Georgia is an oil transport hub where infrastructure passes through like the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is managed by a consortium in which British Petroleum (BP) is the largest shareholder; it features other fossil fuel companies like Total from France and ExxonMobil from America. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is 1,099 miles long and originates in Azerbaijan, crossing through Georgia and finishing up in Turkey.

Four months after the NATO summit in Romania, during early August 2008 Russia launched a military intervention in Georgia. It was implemented, among other reasons, in order to safeguard Russia’s sovereignty and security along its borders, while protecting the ethnic Russians and pro-Russian elements living in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They were being bombarded by the air force of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, the US-educated puppet leader who was continuing to receive military aid from Washington.

The Russian military action was successful, strengthening Moscow’s position, and it drew much anger in the West. Shortly afterwards president Bush and his European allies, in an emergency meeting, deliberated on how to respond to the setback, from suspending relations with Russia to possible sanctions or boycotting the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held in Sochi, Russia in February 2014.

There was nothing the Western leaders could do, nor did they have any moral standing. In February 2008 America and the leading European nations recognised the independence of Kosovo, which had been part of Serbia for many decades. In addition, a significant number of people living in the Caucasus favourably viewed the Russian military campaign in Georgia.

Through agreement with the Bush administration, the Pentagon was formulating a neo-containment policy of Russia, and they recognised Georgia as a key pawn in this. The goal was to try and prevent Russia from becoming the dominant power again in the Caucasus. Further stoking unrest in Georgia were US-based organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, Freedom House, and the Open Society Institute bankrolled by billionaire George Soros. During a 3 month period in the autumn of 2003, Soros’ Open Society Institute funnelled $42 million into fomenting the so-called Rose revolution in Georgia of November 2003. Soros, and the above groups, performed a role in enabling the pro-Western Saakashvili to come to power in January 2004.

The Pentagon likewise invested millions of dollars in what were titled color revolutions, which had been instigated by the Western powers in other regions, such as the Ukrainian “Orange revolution” (Nov. 2004–Jan. 2005). Washington pursued these actions through the United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command (USACAPOC), the US State Department and non-governmental organisations like Freedom House and the NED. The roots of the Ukrainian crisis can be traced to US interference and imperialist expansion through NATO, as Washington refused to abandon its Cold War strategy of attempting to encircle Russia.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree and he writes primarily on foreign affairs and historical subjects. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

PBS, “Who counts as poor in America?” 8 January 2014

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed., 4 Feb. 2019)

Greg Bocquet, “Who Owns the U.S.?”

“Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines”, Ambassador William J. Burns

Congressional Bills 110th Congress, April 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-110sres523ats/html/BILLS-110sres523ats.htm

Richard W. Carlson, “Georgia on his mind – George Soros’s Potemkin Revolution”, The Weekly Standard, 24 May 2004

“Lavrov looks beyond army pull-out”, BBC News, 8 October 2008

France 24, “Independent Kosovo gains initial recognition”, 19 February 2008

Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer; 1st ed., 23 June 2017)

History of the 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.

Read the e-reader here.

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

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

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

***

On 7 October 2022, late in the evening, at around 11.30 pm, I was detained at Gatwick Airport in London by anti-terrorism police. I was not released until shortly before 1 am and my computer was taken from me. It has not yet been returned.

My passport and all my personal belongings – my wallet, my phone, my keys, everything – were removed.  I was taken to a room where I was questioned for an hour by two anti-terrorism police officers, acting under powers given to the police (as I learned for the first time) by Schedule 3 of the 2019 Counter-terrorism and Border Security Act.

The Act is supposedly designed to allow the police to detain ‘hostile actors’ who are travelling to the country to ‘plan, prepare or carry out their hostile acts’ (according to the leaflet the officers gave me).  But the Act itself says, ‘An examining officer may exercise the powers under this paragraph whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that a person is or has been engaged in hostile activity’ (my emphasis)^[1].  So an Act ostensibly designed to allow hostile actors to be stopped in fact applies indiscriminately to everyone, according to its own explicit terms.

It is certainly surprising that the powers were wielded, in my case, against a British national.  Nationals should not normally be questioned in this way about their reasons for entering the territory of their own country.

One of the officers opened the interrogation by saying that I was not being detained and that therefore I could not have access to a lawyer.  But of course I was being detained, since it was impossible for me to leave the interrogation room and, even more so, the airport, without my passport and personal effects. (I was kept on the ‘air side’, i.e. before passing through passport control.)  The word ‘detained’ has evidently been emptied of all meaning.

According to the leaflet, ‘Unlike most other Police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 3 does not require authority or any suspicion.’  So the special powers enjoyed by the Police at UK ports are a ‘regime of exception’ in which the normal safeguards of the rule of law have been tossed aside.

It goes on, ’You can be searched, and anything you have with you … this includes electronic devices … where searches are conducted, there is no requirement for a written notice of search to be provided to you.  Under certain circumstances, the officer can seize any property they find.’

What are these ‘certain circumstances’?  When I protested at the fact that my computer was being taken from me, which would prevent me from working until it is returned, and when I offered to bring it to a police station the following day, the officer replied that it was out of the question that it would not be taken.  In other words, there are no ‘certain circumstances.’ The seizure of such devices is, on the contrary, the rule.

In a state of law, the Police can search someone’s property only with a search warrant. This is a document signed by a judge which authorises private property to be searched and seized.  If you look up ‘search warrant’ in Wikipedia, it says, ‘In certain authoritarian nations, police officers may be allowed to search individuals and property without having to obtaincourt permission or provide justification for their actions.’  According to this standard, the UK is now an ‘authoritarian nation.’ 

It is precisely what separates a legal state from a dictatorship that the work of the police is not abused for political purposes, yet this is what occurred to me.

The officers questioned me about my work at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation in Paris from 2008 to 2018 and about my work at the European Parliament since then, and more recently for FVD.  All the information they wanted is available publicly, for instance on Wikipedia.  The questioning was polite but amateurish.

I was asked about my political views.  The officer said, ‘It is a free country, not everyone is so lucky.’  I believe this is what is called ‘the British sense of humour’.

The officers told me that they had had two or three hours to prepare.  This means that they were alerted in London to my imminent arrival at the moment when my boarding pass was scanned in Budapest. Everyone should know this.

They spent those hours looking things up on the Internet.  The officer questioning me seemed unsure of what he was really trying to find out.  The Internet, as everyone should know, is a veritable cesspit of false information and there are endless claims on it about me which are untrue.  Many of these have been repeated recently in the Dutch press, as journalists go online, find what they are looking for and repeat lies told earlier by others.  In my case, they never tire of telling the same fairy tale. 

It is bad enough when journalists do this but it is frightening to think that anti-terrorism police officers regard Google as a reliable source of information.  One dreads to think how many genuinely hostile actors pass through the net if this is the Police’s idea of investigation. Unfortunately that is the state of the world today.

It is particularly symbolic that this should happen to me.  Ever since I started to get interested in international criminal law over 20 years ago, I have criticised the way in which international tribunals toss aside the myriad rules and procedures which have accumulated over the centuries to ensure due process.  The British are traditionally proud of these procedures which have protected citizens against abusive state power for centuries.  I have repeatedly warned that these dictatorial practices would soon percolate down into national jurisdictions and destroy the precious inheritance known as the rule of law. This has now happened.

Ever since the EU announced its Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime in December 2020, moreover, I have also pointed out that the EU has given itself the power to punish individuals by executive order.  This is a very dangerous development.  Individuals are punished under this regime without any legal procedure (no trial) and without any means of defending themselves.  So much for human rights!  I have warned for two years now that citizens of Western states would themselves be the target of these sanctions.  This duly happened in July when a British blogger, Graham Philipps, was sanctioned by the United Kingdom which has the same system as the EU and the US.

In other words I, who have been warning that these procedures, introduced at international level, would soon corrupt the criminal law in domestic jurisdictions, have now been proved horribly right by an example of this abuse of which I have now personally been a victim.  It was a profoundly disturbing experience.

Shortly before it happened, FVD International tweeted its disapproval of the EU sanctions imposed on the philosopher, Alexander Dugin.  As we showed with a screen shot of the relevant EU document, the European Council (i.e. the executive) sanctioned Dugin purely for his views.  Nowhere it is alleged that he has actually participated in the invasion of Ukraine nor even that he is guilty of incitement.  Instead, he is sanctioned for thoughtcrime. 

Some people who do not like Dugin are pleased at this.  But they should understand that these are seriously abusive powers which can easily, as in my case, be directed against totally innocent people.  To such people I can find no better response that the famous remarks by Pastor Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me.  And there was no one left to speak out for me.

Europe is sliding into dictatorship.  In fact, it is already there.

*

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.

Note

^[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/schedule/3

Featured image is from Forum for Democracy International

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.

***

At 8:45 on the morning of October 16, 1962, President John F. Kennedy’s national security adviser McGeorge Bundy entered the White House residence with grave news for the president. Bundy, with a stack of photographs under his arm, informed the president that the CIA believed it had evidence the Soviets were constructing medium range ballistic missile bases near San Cristobal, Cuba.

The thirteen days of the Cuban Missile Crisis had begun.

It is frequently said (and it is no less true because of it) that the current crisis we now find ourselves in with nuclear armed Russia rivals the Cuban Missile Crisis. How and why that crisis came to a peaceful resolution owes itself to a number of factors that we believe are especially relevant today. Principally among those is the importance of strategic empathy in the formulation and practice of foreign affairs.

As the psychologist and former government official Ralph White has observed, “empathy is the great corrective for all forms of war promoting misperception. It means simply understanding the thoughts and feelings of others.” The ability of both Kennedy and Khrushchev to empathize with the position of the other enabled both countries, and the world, to weather the storm.

During the Cuban crisis, Kennedy was under intense pressure to act militarily, by striking the Soviet missile sites or invading Cuba, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff; members of the Executive Committee (ExComm) of the National Security Council (including, and especially, from his own vice president, Lyndon Johnson); and from congressional leaders, including Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Richard Russell. But time and again, to the consternation of his hardline civilian and military advisers, Kennedy pulled back from the brink.

One of President Kennedy’s most controversial decisions during the thirteen day crisis was to allow the Soviet tanker, the Bucharest, proceed past the U.S. naval blockade.

According to Robert Kennedy’s posthumously published memoir of the crisis:

“Against the advice of many of his advisers and of the military he had decided to give Khrushchev more time. ‘We don’t want to push him into a precipitous action-give him time to consider. I don’t want to push him into a corner from which he cannot escape.’”

President Kennedy also wisely resisted near unanimous pressure from the ExComm to launch a retaliatory strike against the Soviet surface-to-air missile  sites that were believed responsible for the downing and killing of American U2 pilot Rudolf Anderson, Jr. who was on a reconnaissance mission over Cuba on October 27.

Khrushchev likewise understood that Kennedy was under immense pressure to act by his military and national security apparatus. Thanks to a series of backchannel meetings between Robert Kennedy and the Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Dobrynin, Khrushchev became aware of the pressures acting on the U.S. president.

In his memoirs, Khrushchev recalls Robert Kennedy’s warning to the Soviet Ambassador: “The military is putting great pressure on him, insisting on military actions against Cuba…Even if he doesn’t want or desire a war, something irreversible could occur against his will. If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.”

According to Khrushchev’s son Sergei, the Soviet leader told his foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, that he saw Kennedy’s backchannel message as a call for “help.”

“Yes, help,” Khrushchev told Gromyko. “We have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.”

The crisis was ultimately resolved with an agreement that the United States would not invade Cuba in exchange for the removal of the offending Soviet missiles. A further understanding, kept secret at the time, was made that the United States would remove NATO’s Jupiter missiles in Turkey, which were viewed in the same way by the Soviet leadership as the Kennedy administration viewed the Soviet missiles in Cuba. The Soviets acquiescence in keeping the latter part of the agreement quiet, so as to allow the United States not to appear as though it was selling out a NATO ally, is another example of how strategic empathy played a role in ending the crisis.

Robert Kennedy noted in the years after the crisis, that the members of the ExComm who participated in the discussions, in his view, “were bright and energetic people. We had perhaps amongst the most able in the country, and if any one of half a dozen of them were President the world would have been very likely plunged in a catastrophic war.”

Taken together, the embrace of strategic empathy by Kennedy and Khrushchev paved the way for the peaceful resolution of the most dangerous crisis of the Cold War.

The lessons are clear. Yet worryingly, the question remains whether the current American and Russian leadership are inclined to learn from them.

*

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

Featured image: June 1961  President Kennedy meets with Chairman Khrushchev at the U. S. Embassy residence, Vienna. U. S. Dept. of State photograph in the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston.

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.

***

After Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla refused to show and answer questions in front of the special COVID committee of the European Parliament, Janine Small, president of Pfizer’s International Developed Markets, took his place in the hearing that took place on October 10, 2022.

She received many questions from the committee members, which, in majority, she did not specifically answer.

When asked about the “redacted” version of the contract, she said that they can’t disclose the whole contract because they have interests to protect.

When asked if they tested if their injections are stoping the transmission of the virus, she said that they did not.

I post the whole hearing with Pfizer’s representitive so everybody can see the context and everything that was asked and answered.

*

Six members of the European Parliament held a press conference on October 11, 2022, one day after Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, refused to participate in the Covid committeee and answer questions.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the first video above

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)

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.

***

Demographic angst is a terrifying thing, especially to leaders concerned about poor returns from horizontal folk dancing.  Viktor Orbán of Hungary is particularly apprehensive that precious Hungarian blood is not being propagated, facing dilution, if not disappearance, from hordes of swarthy immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.

In Italy, the country’s imminent first female prime minister is much of that same view.  Giorgia Meloni speaks about being a “woman, mother [and] Christian” with messianic purpose: to defend “God, country and family”.  The stress is on mother virtue rather than female rights, the latter only being relevant when it comes to highlighting migrant violence in fits of what has come to be known as femonationalism.

Unlike other conservatives and those of the Right in the Anglo-American tradition, welfare, in her political constellation, is not ill-fare.  People – provided they come from a certain traditional demographic and background – should be supported and encouraged by the state.  What matters is that they are the right sort of people.

To that end, Meloni insists on a pro-natalist platform to arrest Italy’s demographic decline, including reducing VAT rates on nappies, baby bottles and formula; increasing child benefits; and making childcare free.

The spectre she claims to combat is that of the Great Replacement, a view promoted by the French novelist and critic Renaud Camus.  In his essay, “Le Grand Remplacement”, he describes a process of colonisation in reverse, with native “white” Europeans deluged and eventually overcome by black and brown immigrants.  “You have one people, and in the space of a generation you have a different people,” he warns threateningly.

The corollary of such natalist welfare is a deep suspicion of the dark forces of the market and the sinister elements that operate beyond government control. In this, Meloni shares ground with those on other sides of the political aisle concerned about the more destructive effects of predatory capital and its handmaidens.

On such policies as unwanted refugees, she sounds awfully like her counterparts in other parts of the European Union and the EU-exited Britain.  While governments in Copenhagen and London have put forth programs to process asylum seekers in third countries, notably Rwanda, aping the grotesque Australian model of offshore processing, Meloni has repeatedly promoted much the same thing in the lead up to the 2022 elections.

She has even advocated the use of a “naval blockade” to halt illegal immigration, justifying it as a humanitarian gesture to prevent deaths at sea. In this, she could hardly improve on Australia’s own justifications for its Pacific concentration camps on Nauru and Manus Island.  We will bar you, detain you, and torture you in order to save you.

Meloni has managed to weave a number of themes in a populist narrative she delivers with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, claiming that Italy’s liberals have facilitated “the project of ethnic substitution of European citizens, desired by big capital and international speculators”.  Like her Hungarian counterpart, she has pointed the finger at the financing activities of George Soros, drawing heavily from the anti-Semitic trope of the Jewish usurer.

Allegations abound that the leader of the Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) is a fascist.  Given that the Italian constitution openly prohibits “the reorganisation in any form of the dissolved Fascist Party”, this would be a remarkable coup indeed.  That said, the party can be said to be the spiritual heir to Movimento Sociale Italiano (Italian Social Movement), a creation of Benito Mussolini’s supporters after the Second World War.

In an interview with Corriere Magazine, Meloni explained how she had a “serene relationship with fascism”. Mussolini, she conceded, had made “several mistakes”.  Despite producing “a lot”, this fact did not “save him.”

In 1995, MSI joined a larger agglomeration of parties to become the Alleanza Nazionale (National Alliance).  AN, in turn, joined Silvio Berlusconi’s centre-right People of Freedom party in 2009, where Meloni found herself Minister for Youth.  Three years later, she was part of a splinter group that ultimately became the Brothers of Italy.  Italian politics remains, as it has been for decades, populated by changelings.

It would be far from accurate to claim that Italian voters have somehow lost their marbles and lent dramatically rightwards in a fit of absentmindedness.  The formula is common to that of other elections witnessed since the election of Donald Trump in 2016: despair and disgust, tempered by considerable apathy.

The continued rule of Orbán, and Meloni’s victory, are also points of transatlantic celebration.  Former US Secretary of State was full of congratulation, claiming that, “Italy deserves and needs strong conservative leadership.”

Another former US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, forgot her political stripes in also cheering the prospect of a Meloni victory, showing that smashing glass ceilings is far more important than a sound reading of history.  “The election of the first woman prime minister in a country always represents a break with the past, and that is certainly a good thing.”

In forming a government, Meloni will have to keep a close eye on the antics of prospective coalition partner and perennial Eurosceptic Matteo Salvini of Lega, who is hankering for his old post at the interior ministry.  His message on decentralising power jars with the centralist sentiments of Meloni’s.  With 66 MPs and 29 senators, he is mischief-bound as, for that matter, will be others seeking a position in government.

The program of Italy’s new government will be troubling to immigrants, minorities, women, the LGBT community and all groups that do not hum the regressive tune of the Brothers.  But it is hard to see what those in Brussels will or can do.  The EU is as complicit as any in the undermining of rights when it comes to, for instance, irregular migrants, keeping up barriers as much as possible, repelling the unwanted (Ukrainians excepted).  An ugly continent, politically speaking, just got uglier.

*

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

Dr. 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: Meloni speaking at the 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida (Source: Vox España , licensed under CC0)

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.

***

Sweden is refusing to share the preliminary results of its official investigation into the Nord Stream pipeline explosions with Russia, asserting that the information is “confidential.”

Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said that the outcome of the inquiry into what severely damaged the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in late September would not be revealed to Moscow.

“In Sweden, our preliminary investigations are confidential, and that, of course, also applies in this case,” Andersson told reporters.

The investigation found that the blasts were an act of sabotage, although the culprit has not been named.

The Swedish leader said that Russia was free to conduct its own investigation into the incident, adding that Sweden had removed cordons from the area.

“The Swedish economic zone is not a territory that Sweden disposes of,” said Andersson.

President Vladimir Putin, who has accused the US and Britain of carrying out an “act of international terrorism” in targeting the pipelines, reacted to Sweden’s denial of access to the investigation by insisting,

“We all know well who the ultimate beneficiary of this crime is.”

As we previously highlighted, a former Pentagon advisor said the most likely culprits behind the Nord Stream pipeline blasts are the United States and Britain, and that the attack was carried out to prevent Germany from bailing on the war in Ukraine.

Douglas Macgregor suggested that the motive behind the attacks was to isolate Germany after Berlin began “to give the impression that they were no longer going to go along with this proxy war in Ukraine.”

According to a report by German magazine Der Spiegel, the CIA warned Berlin about a potential attack on gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea weeks before the explosions.

However, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin insisted that there was no evidence the US was behind the attack, but only because the Pentagon said so.

Both Joe Biden and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland asserted that Nord Stream 2 wouldn’t be allowed to operate if Russia attacked Ukraine.

After the attack, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed the development as a “tremendous opportunity” for Europe “to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy.”

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Last week, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. secretly reaffirmed his own self-willed authority to kill persons in other countries, so long as the CIA and its military counterparts have “near certainty” that the target of the homicide is a member of a terrorist organization. That standard was concocted by the Biden administration.

There is no “near certainty” standard in the law, as the phrase is oxymoronic and defies a rational definition; like nearly pregnant. One is either pregnant or not. One is either certain or not. There is no “near” there.

Yet, the creation of this standard underscores the lamentable absence of the rule of law in the Biden administration, and in the administrations of its three immediate predecessors, each of which deployed drones to kill persons who were not engaged in acts of violence at the time of their killing, irrespective of the near certainty of their membership in any organizations.

“Terrorist” cannot be a standard for murder because it is subjective. To King George III, George Washington was a terrorist. To the poor folks in Libya and Syria, to the popularly elected governments toppled by CIA-inspired violence, to the innocents tortured at black sites around the world, the CIA is a terrorist organization.

The presidential use of drones to kill persons overseas began in 2002 with targeted killings ordered by President George W. Bush. It continued under President Barack Obama — who even killed Americans overseas. The rules for killing were made up by each president. They were relaxed under President Donald Trump, who gave CIA senior personnel and military commanders the authority to kill without his express approval for each killing.

The Biden administration quietly took back the Trump grants of authority so that today only the president can authorize targeted killing. Yet, there is no moral, constitutional or legal authority for these killings. But presidents of both political parties do it anyway.

The laws of war — a phrase itself that is oxymoronic — which are generally codified in the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter, all of which were spearheaded and ratified by the United States, mandate essentially that lawful wars can only be defensive and proportional to the threat posed or the harm already caused. Stated differently, treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory restrain the president from killing persons in other countries with which the U.S. is not lawfully at war.

Under the Constitution, treaties sit alongside the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the land. The last four occupants of the White House have ignored this when it comes to secret killings. Each has claimed publicly or secretly that the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, or its cousin, the AUMF of 2002, somehow provide congressional authorizations for presidents to kill whomever they please; and somehow Congress can authorize killings.

Yet the AUMF of 2001 purported to authorize Bush to hunt down and kill the folks he failed to see coming on 9/11, whom he reasonably found caused 9/11. The AUMF of 2002 authorized Bush to invade Iraq in pursuit of the weapons of mass destruction that we now know Saddam Hussein never had.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war, not random killings. Neither of the AUMFs was or is a valid declaration of war, which the Constitution requires as a predicate for all extrajudicial presidential killing. A declaration of war defines the target and sets the end. It is not open-ended as the last four presidents have claimed with respect to these two Bush-era statutes.

If the presidents are right, and the AUMFs authorize them to kill whomever they wish — including Americans — then they are not presidents answerable to the law and the Constitution, but kings who can kill on a whim without transparency or legal consequence.

The whole purpose of confining the war-making power to Congress and the war-waging power to the president was to keep those powers separate. History is littered with examples of tyrants using the powers of the state to kill for no moral purpose. American presidents have given themselves the power to kill.

Abraham Lincoln was the first head of state in world history to target civilians militarily and the first to kill civilians of his own country. Franklin D. Roosevelt slaughtered thousands of innocent helpless German civilians at the end of World War II by carpet-bombing German cities, rather than targeting the German military. Harry Truman slaughtered many thousands of Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All these murders were met with popular approval, as the targets had been demonized by the machinery of government — just like the “terrorists” Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have killed.

But demonization of human targets and popular approval of their murders cannot make an immoral act a moral one. An act is moral when it is consistent with the Natural Law. According to the Declaration of Independence, under the Natural Law, all persons are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The right to live is the foremost natural right and the great divine gift to all persons — not just Americans.

No person may morally be targeted for death by government for any reason unless it is presently necessary to stop that person from actively killing another. In the cases cited above, the presidential killings were done to terrify political opponents, as the civilian targets were helpless. And the killers were lauded as heroes.

Today, American troops — special forces — are on the ground in Ukraine showing Ukrainian forces how to use American weapons to kill Russian troops. This was done by a secret presidential order that has never been publicly acknowledged. These bullied and terrified Russian conscripts pose no threat whatsoever to life, liberty or property in America. But presidents kill because they can get away with it.

*

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

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

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.

***

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday said that Moscow was open to talks with Western powers as Turkey is looking to broker negotiations.

Lavrov also said that Russia would consider a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Biden if one was proposed.

“We have repeatedly said that we never refuse meetings. If there is a proposal, then we will consider it,” he said.

A potential venue for talks between Biden and Putin could be the sidelines of the upcoming summit of G20 leaders that will be held in mid-November in Indonesia. But according to Lavrov, Russia has not received any serious proposals from the US to negotiate.

The US was quick to dismiss Lavrov’s comments, accusing him of “posturing” and calling for Russia to stop launching strikes across Ukraine. “We see this as posturing. We do not see this as a constructive, legitimate offer to engage in the dialogue and diplomacy that is absolutely necessary to see an end to this brutal war of aggression,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said.

Despite the US dismissal of potential talks, Turkey appears eager to broker negotiations between the two sides. The Kremlin said that Putin will meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Thursday, and it’s “possible” that the two leaders will discuss a Turkish proposal to host talks between the West and Russia.

Turkish Defence Minister Hulusi Akar spoke with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Shoigu, on Tuesday and noted a “common understanding” when it came to the need to reach a ceasefire, the Turkish Defense Ministry said.

“The importance of declaring a ceasefire urgently in order to prevent further loss of lives and to re-establish peace and stability in the region was emphasized, and it was gladly observed that there was a common understanding regarding the ceasefire,” the Turkish Defense Ministry said in a readout of the call.

While there are growing calls for peace talks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his position that he won’t hold talks with Russia as long as Putin is president during a virtual meeting with the G7. Zelensky recently signed a decree ruling out any dialogue with Putin’s government.

*

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.

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.

***

Once again I have the pleasure of recommending to my readership a live interview on Iran’s Press TV earlier today. Once again, I find their news presenter very well briefed on the subject at hand. Once again I find their political positioning remarkably friendly to the Russian side in the conflict with the West over Ukraine.

One might draw conclusions about a shift in Iranian state politics away from ‘kiss and make up’ with the United States and towards alignment with its regional neighbors and with the great powers Russia and China. It is these last two which are raising Iran’s image of stable and constructive contributor to the world order in forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Caspian Economic Forum, presently being held in Moscow.

*

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

Featured image: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seen earlier this year. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Service)

“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   

Reminder to the crusading Armageddonists …..  “Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20: 13
.

This incisive article by Felicity Arbuthnot was written 15 years ago on October 27, 2007.

Foreign policy lies prevail. The same neocons “are at it again”. ” We must bomb Iran”. Preemptive Nukes.

***
They are at it again. Remember when Milosovic was labelled “the butcher of Belgrade”, the new Hitler?

Then Saddam Hussein was “the butcher of Bagdad” and, of course the most dangerous man since Hitler – with weapons of mass destruction which could be unleashed on the world “in forty five minutes”.

Colin Powell lied to the U.N., about the danger Iraq posed to the planet; George Bush lied to anyone who would listen; Tony Blair lied to Parliament and aides concocted dossiers so dodgy they were laughable, yet in spite of the millions who marched, protested and knew the lies for what they were, there were millions who bought fiction as fact.

And here we go again. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (wait for “the tyrant of Tehran”) threatens the planet, is supplying weapons to Iraq’s resistance, is destabilising the region and the paradise that is occupied Iraq.

Whilst there are indeed plenty of Iranians or Iranian sympathisers in Iraq, they came in with the occupiers. Many in high places in Iraq’s corrupt, militia driven, American puppet government, speak Farsi, not Arabic.

The increasingly hysterical claims regarding Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it, is being brought to you by the very same warmongers who wrought the duplicity that resulted in Iraq’s murderous decimation, the hawks’ nest which is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and their friends.

A glance at the AEI website lists those including:

Paul Wolfowitz (“entrepreneurship and development”),
Michael Rubin (“Arab democracy”),
Richard Perle (“defence …intelligence”),
Joshua Muravchik (“global democracy”),
John Bolton (“foreign policy”),
Lynne Cheney, whose husband, as ever, is believed a driving force behind the attack plan (“culture and education”),
Michael Ledeen (latest book: “The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots Quest for Destruction”),
Daniell Pletka (“Vice President for foreign and defence policy studies”) who, writing in the “Wall Street Journal” (28th September 2007) referred to Iran’s “illegal nuclear weapons … Washington’s impotence” and “clear information of a link to a weapons of mass destruction programme”. This in spite of the International Atomic Energy Authority finding no indication of such programmes.

It all sounds chillingly familiar.

Interestingly, an item on the Institute’s list of “Research Projects” is “Global Investment in Iran”. Surely a matter for Iran – or does the AEI already regard Iran’s oil fields and assets as their fiscal frolic zone?

Orchestration is continuing apace:

“Even as we are succeeding in Iraq” (really?) “Iran is working against us … we will not achieve peace in the region if we ignore this threat”, writes Ledeen. Further, there are clear plans to liberate Iran’s women, Afghan style: “Since 1979, Iran has changed from a society where women could attend university and have careers, to one where they are second class citizens … sold as slaves …”. writes Diana Furchgott-Roth in the New York Sun (14th September 2007.)

There must be two Irans: “Literacy is well over ninety percent, even in the rural areas and in 2005, more than sixty five percent of students entering university were women. The voices that come through most strongly on the Iranian blogosphere are those of this educated, young generation.” Over sixty five percent of this country of seventy million are under thirty years old.

“I feel cold when I think about a possible war against my homeland”, wrote one blogger: “My picture of war hasn’t come from Hollywood movies, I have seen the pain, the kids tears, bloody streets …”  In a picture showing a meeting of the Tehran Photographers Association, the venue is packed with vibrantly dressed women – and one man. (See : Inside Iran, New Internationalist, March 2007: www.newint.org )

Iran is not perfect, but where is? Britain’s Prime Minister Brown “refuses to rule out” joining the US military intervention – to decimate for “democracy” and plunder resources. According to the Sunday Telegraph (1st October 2007), a dossier is being drawn up on Iran’s violations of International Law, as with Iraq. “Violations of International Law”? Two countries, Britain and America  have not alone violated, but torn up International Law. Yet again, who guards the guards?

Can a nation, which even invaded Grenada (which has no armed forces, main exports: bananas, nutmeg, mace; a war for nutmegs?) in 1983, totalling a psychiatric hospital (24th anniversary, 25th October) population 94.103 (1994) v. United States, population 260.713.000 (1994) because it was a “threat”, be trusted?

But the war drums are beating: “WE MUST bomb Iran”, is the header for Josua Muravchik’s Los Angeles Times article (19th June 2007.)

He begins with quotes straight from the Pentagon’s Iraq propaganda handbook: “…since the country’s secret nuclear programme was brought to light … the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.” Tehran has “spurned” a “string of concessions”; the UN Security Council was derelict in its duty toward the Iranian threat.

The completion of Iran’s nuclear arsenal grows closer daily, this “premier state sponsor of terrorism” could “slip nuclear material to terrorists”. The bomb Iran doesn’t have, would, of course “constitute a dire threat to Israel’s six million population”. No mention of Israel being the fifth largest nuclear power on earth, without a blink towards the non-proliferation treaty, or indeed even an admission of having such weapons.

However Iran’s non-weapons: “would spend finis to the entire non-proliferation system”. The “…global struggle” with Iran is “akin” to the forty year one with the Soviet Union and – wait for it – “a clash of civlisations”.

“The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force … by an air campaign against Tehran’s nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets…. What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy …’” is Murachik’s conclusion. “Deja vu, all over again.”

Not mentioned, anywhere, in the demented rhetoric regarding an attack on Iran, is the “A” word: Armageddon. “Likely targets for saturation bombing” (that look likely to involve tactical nuclear weapons) “are the Bushehr nuclear power plant” (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present) “a uranium mining site at Saghand” (near a major city, Yazd) “the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility at Arak, the Arkedan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Enrichment Facility and Nuclear Technology Centre in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Cnetree, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility …. a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant at Lashkar Abad and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak”.(Wayne Madsen: http://www.entimesreport.com/Attack_on_Iran.html )

These were facilities, many begun after the US/UK overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected, democratic Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, after he had nationalised the country’s oil. The coup was engineered by the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore. General Norman Schwartzkopf’s father then travelled to Iran, to help train Savak, the murderous, ruthless, secret police of America’s friend, the Shah.

However, modern history aside, forget global warming.

Consider the enormity of the seemingly proposed attack, apart from the unimaginable horror of those fried and irradiated in the immediate vicinity and surrounding countries (including “allied”, troops throughout the region.).

This is a succinct description of what the explosion of just one nuclear power plant generated, Chernobyl, in 1986:

“Irradiated human cells splinter into fragments called micronuclei … a definitive pre-cursor of cancer. During the nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl, the …radiation released was the equivalent of four hundred atomic bombs … Exposed Russians quickly developed blood cell micronuclei …” (The Radiation Poisoning of America, Amy Worthington, 9th October 2007: http://www.globalresearch.ca )

The plight of the children and the Chernobyl region’s cancers twenty one years on, have become an ongoing, tragic, global health study, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the residents of the Pacific islands, after the British and French nuclear tests. Chernobyl’s radiation traversed the globe within days. In the highlands of the U.K., Wales and Cumbria, livestock straying in affected areas are still inedible and unsaleable. Chernobyl was doused from the air with fire retardant, by crews, which, in spite of protection by heavily leaded cockpit floors, reportedly, not one has survived the ravaging resultant cancers. If Chernobyl was four hundred atomic bombs, see the above list and do the maths. Don’t forget to add the “coalition’s” democratic nuclear weapons dropped on them.

Norman Podhoretz, one of the founding fathers of neo-conservatism in the United States, is gung-ho, another one reportedly urging Bush to bomb Iran. He told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You are the only one with the guts to do it.”(Sunday Times, 1st October 2007.) A holocaust by any other name …

Mohammad Mossadegh and Saddam Hussein made fatal mistakes. They nationalised their countries’ oil. Saddam Hussein finally tied the noose around his neck, when he switched Iraq’s oil revenues out of US Dollars and into Euros in 2000.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has also vowed to switch from US Dollars and move to a currency “further east”.

As Iraq, is this really about a nuclear threat?

Will the millions who believed the last great lie, be fooled again? If they are not, will it make any difference, in the illegal space the US and UK Administrations inhabit?

On the ground in the Middle East (or in this case on the water) it seems not. Here is a communication from a Landing Signals Officer* (an LSO directs carrier aircraft whilst landing) on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically vital oil routes, which is controlled by Iran.

The LSO is convinced Iran will be attacked, commenting that “… all Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished (meaning) all targets have been chosen, prioritized and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers …” Further, the LSO comments, there is deep disquiet amongst senior officers about “staging a massive attack on Iran”. However, “I have seen more than one senior Commander disappear …”; it’s weird, because everyone who has “disappeared” has questioned this mission.

How limited would the attack be?

“I don’t think it’s limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every Tomahawk, we have an inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden (with) thousands of targets. I believe no American will know when it happens, until after it happens.”The LSO ponders that discussing a secret attack is “treason” but is so concerned “something tells me to tell it anyway.”

“Yes, we are going to hit Iran big time. Whatever political discussion that is going on is window dressing … a red herring. I see what’s going on here below deck, in the hangers and weapons bay – and I have a sick feeling about how it is going to turn out.’”

Would the US Administration really endanger the entire planet?

Here is a story told to me by Bernard Lown, one of co-founders of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) during the Reagan era. http://www.ippnw.org Lown worked closely with another eminent fellow cardiac surgeon, the (then) USSR’s Yevgeny Chazov. Since physicians know no borders, they had formed a friendship, then a movement, which bridged the cold war, the Reagan “Evil Empire” (re. the Soviet Union) nonsense and within two years, had doctors and surgeons from eighty two countries spreading the word, that even cardiac arrest paled against nuclear war.

In 1995, IPPNW collectively won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Since Lown travelled, lecturing, to the USSR frequently and had built trust over many years at all levels, the US State Department asked if he would engage in some unofficial diplomacy. Relations between the two countries were far worse than most realised. After one such visit to Moscow, I met Lown in Paris. We sat in dappled Spring sun, at a pavement breakfast café – fresh squeezed orange, coffee, croissants.

“I came back two days ago and went to talk (at the State Department) of the concerns in Moscow. Afterwards, a senior official – a household name (he declined to divulge) walked me to the exit. As we neared the exit, he put his arm round my shoulders:

‘Don’t worry, Professor Lown, if there is a nuclear war, we will be the first ones to rise up and meet Jesus in the sky.’” Lown, used to the vagaries of the unwell, responded: “Tell me, does anyone else in this building feel as you do?”

“Oh yes, many of us do.”

The swathe of “household names”, from the Reagan era, are now in the Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute.

The Armageddonists are back.

The world should be very afraid – or should the physicians in white coats move in?

Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited the Arab and Muslim world on numerous occasions. She has written and broadcast on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards. She was also senior researcher for John Pilger’s award-winning documentary,

“Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq”. http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partID=4

and author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of “Baghdad” in the “Great Cities” series, for World Almanac Books (2006.)

Note

*Regarding the LSO, this came from a second, but highly trusted source, who for obvious reasons, would not divulge the name or further details of the LSO.

Please also see:

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

Religious Extremists in America (Christian Zionists)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_UoHfCUBiEM

Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=220960

Military Religious Freedom Foundation http://militaryreligiousfreedom.org
Al-Bushra http://www.al-bushra.org

Christians be aware!
http://www.nwo101.com/2007/10/christians-be-aware.html

Europe’s Dark Winter Woes Worsen: Ukraine Stops Exporting Electricity to Europe

By Mac Slavo, October 12, 2022

Ukraine has announced that it will have to halt electricity exports to Europe. Russian missile strikes are said to be responsible for the forced suspension of power exports, Kyiv has announced.

Is the Death of an Innocent Woman Being Exploited to Advance the Goal of Regime Change in Iran?

By Elizabeth Sigrún, October 12, 2022

In an era increasingly awash with political instability, the latest protests in Iran are yet another manifestation of the plague of Western imperialism. The sudden death of Kurdish Iranian woman Mahsa Amini and the unclear circumstances surrounding her death have precipitated a remarkable global response condemning the Iranian government as well as purporting to champion the rights of Iranian women in defiance of Islamic fundamentalism.

Abnormal Blood-Clotting: The Trail of Blood from the COVID Jabs

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, October 12, 2022

Abnormal blood clotting was one of the first mysterious health effects to emerge in the COVID pandemic, first, as an effect of the natural infection, and later, as a side effect of the COVID jabs.

Manipulated Ukraine

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, October 12, 2022

Ukraine is not part of Saharan Africa, nor is it a country of illiterate or ill-educated people. How is it possible for Ukrainians to tolerate such a stumble, how is it possible that their tycoon and corrupt political elite so enchanted them and diverted them to the wrong side through manipulations?

Is Biden Getting Fed Up with Zelensky’s “Ungrateful Begging”?

By Andrew Korybko, October 12, 2022

It’s now no longer “Russian propaganda” to describe Zelensky as an ungrateful beggar, but the implied standard of “political correctness” after Biden himself just reportedly told the Ukrainian leader to cut it out and stop angering American taxpayers ahead of the midterms.

Did Latin America Gradually Turn Left? Or Neoliberal?

By Peter Koenig, October 12, 2022

To the superficial observer, it may be a blessing the despots and dictators, human rights abusers, like Argentina’s Mauricio Macri, Colombia’s Iván Duque; Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno; Chile’s Sebastián Piñera; to name just a few, are gone, have disappeared from the Latin American political arena, in what was presented to public opinion as the result of so-called “democratic elections”.

A Perfect Storm in US Foreign Policy

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, October 12, 2022

The old adage is that a good foreign policy is the reflection of the national policy. A perfect storm is brewing on the foreign policy front in America triggered by the OPEC decision on Thursday to cut oil production by 2 million barrels a day, which will on the one hand drive up the gas price for the domestic consumer and on the other hand expose the Biden Administration’s lop-sided foreign policy priorities. 

Video: Unable to Defend His Country, Zelensky Asks to Launch Nuclear War

By South Front, October 12, 2022

Ukrainian advance in all regions has stopped. In the south of the country, Ukrainian forces are preparing for further offensive deep in the region. Russian artillery and warplanes are heavily attacking the amassing forces of the enemy.

Britain Bounces Back, EU in Crisis, USA Attacks Europe

By Rodney Atkinson, October 12, 2022

Contrary to an original estimate the UK’s economy grew in the second quarter of this year by 0.2% revised up from -0.1% but there were 4 bank holidays in this period each probably costing about 0.16% of GDP (CEBR study 2012) so those 4 days would have added another 0.64%

Tulsi Gabbard Finally Departs Democrat War Party

By Kurt Nimmo, October 12, 2022

The upper echelon of the ruling Democrats is not for or against an individual based solely on his or her skin color. The only thing that matters is class and how much money and power an individual has. There is no real support for Black Lives Matter or less radical groups. It is simply a tool for diversion and control.

First published with foresight on August 18, 2020

***

Everything we were originally told about the Coronavirus has turned out to be wrong.

In fact, it’s not a “novel” one-of-a-kind infection at all, but a member of a larger family of which there have been many iterations in the recent past.

It’s also not the most contagious or most lethal virus we’ve ever seen, but a fairly-mild infection that has no impact on the majority of people and that only kills somewhere between 1 in every 200 to 1 in every 1,000 people. (CDC-IFR- 0.26%)

Also, there was no real danger that our public health system was going to collapse, because the projected number of potential deaths (1 to 2 million in the US) never approached the estimates of the flawed computer models that were used to decide the policy.

In short, just about everything we were told from the very beginning turned out to be demonstrably wrong. Why is that? Why do you think that the people who provided us with the information –many of them supposedly “experts” in their field– were so wrong about everything? And why haven’t they made any effort to publicly correct their mistakes when they realize how much confusion they’ve caused?

It’s politics, right? What other explanation could there be? Our leaders and their behind-the-scenes puppet-masters are using science as a vehicle for achieving their own narrow political objectives. In broader terms, COVID–19 or, should we say, CODENAME: Operation Virus Identification 2019, is the plan to manipulate virus-hysteria “to drastically and irrevocably” change the “fundamental structure of society” to establish a totalitarian world order. (Quote: from CJ Hopkins) That’s what’s happening, and the Democrats, the media and the many infectious disease experts are playing key roles in this operation that’s bound to continue until its objectives are achieved.

But let’s forgo the political analysis for now and review what we actually know about the virus itself. This, of course, would not be necessary if the media had been doing its job by providing accurate information rather than fueling public hysteria. Sadly, the majority of people are just as misinformed now as they were 6 months ago when the outbreak began. How could that be if the media was actually doing its job? It couldn’t.

What we know for certain is that the doomsday scenarios never materialized. 2 million Americans did not die and the world did not come to an abrupt end. We also know that the computer model predictions from the Imperial College were bogus just as we know that the countries that ignored those absurd models did better than the others. As Nobel prize winner Michael Levitt points out in an article at Haaretz:

“The same type of models predicted that in Sweden, the number of deaths from COVID-19 would reach about 100,000 by June, if the Swedish government continues to refuse to impose lockdown measures. Sweden rejected these models and bravely adopted… a democratic policy that broadly enabled normal life to continue. Despite the large nursing homes in Sweden...the number of deaths turned out to be 6% of the one predicted, about 6,000 people, at an average age of 81. Half of the victims were nursing home residents who, in Sweden, have a median life expectancy of 9 months after admission.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

Repeat: Sweden’s death toll turned out to be just 6% of the original estimate. By comparison, the US death toll (167,000) is not quite 10% of the original (Imperial College) estimate. Both estimates were catastrophically wrong, and yet, we shut down the economy, drove unemployment up to levels not seen since the Great Depression, and condemned the country to years of agonizing restructuring. And for what??

Well, to promote a ghastly, authoritarian political agenda, that’s why. And this just helps to underscore what Covid-19 is really all about. It’s politics masquerading as science.

The Haaretz article also sheds light on the issue of “herd immunity” which is routinely mischaracterized in the media as the point at which 60% (or more) of the population have been infected and therefore have developed antibodies to the virus. This is wrong, in fact, the threshold for herd immunity is much lower than that, perhaps 5 to 15% of the population.

But, how can that be, after all, we were told that this was an entirely new “novel” virus that our species had never before experienced and for which we had no built-up immunity?

That was another lie. Here’s Michael Levitt again:

“Widespread infection is not required for stopping the epidemic. The argument that 60% of the population must be infected and becomes immune before the infection spread is halted is based on an incorrect mathematical calculation….The most significant evidence – decidedly refuting the need for 60% infection rate – is pre-immunity. For example, COVID-19 has several relatives (other coronaviruses) to which the population had been exposed, and such prior exposure can provide immunity to a significant segment of the population. Back in April, two of us wrote an article about the postulated nature of this immunity and the statistical evidence that pointed to its existence. We noted that in several closed communities that underwent testing, the infection rate was always capped at 20%, which statistically aligns with maximal infection rate in these communities rather than recurring coincidences. About a month later, a group of researchers published corroborating evidence in Cell, one of the most prestigious journals in the life sciences. About 60% of people in California who had never been exposed to COVID-19, had immune memory cells that recognized the virus and are therefore likely to provide immunity.

Moreover, a study in Germany showed that such immunity could reach a level as high as 81% of the population. …This rate of pre-immunity to COVID-19 is also evident in the global rates of infection. The virus began infecting humans more than eight months ago, and the epidemic has already spread to most of the world. Yet in all countries, the infection rate remains below 20 percent of the general population. This limited rate of infection has remained unchanged regardless of social distancing measures (if any),such as quarantines, local or country-wide lockdown, mask-wearing, and so on. In Sweden, for example, the infection rate did not exceed 20% and the percentage of people who survived the epidemic exceeds 99.9% (!) of the population. Such is the case in Belgium as well, the country with the highest population mortality rate, where less than 20% were infected, and more than 99.9% of the population has survived the epidemic…The implications of these findings are of utmost importance. They call for immediate removal of most restrictions on the economy, immediate return to normal life of low-risk population while helping high-risk groups reduce the rate of social contacts.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

This is not some minor point. Our policy and the policies adopted by countries around the world are based on assumptions that are both unscientific and false. Do you really think the people responsible for implementing these policies don’t know the science or don’t know about “pre-immunity” or that that “prior exposure can provide immunity” or that ” the infection rate was always capped at 20% in all countries” (which means that only 1 in every 5 people will contract the infection regardless of their exposure.) or that in all cases and all countries “more than 99.9% of the population has survived the epidemic”?

Admit it, most readers don’t know anything about any of this because none of it has appeared in the MSM. Why is that? What malicious, evil forces are at work here? Why do our leaders and our media want to keep us in the dark about issues that are critical to our decision-making, critical to our livelihoods, and critical to our very survival? Why?

Again, do you really think our leaders and infectious disease experts– like the affable Anthony Fauci– are unaware of these facts? Do you think they have dismissed them as too trivial or too superficial to tell the public or do you think they are deliberately withholding any information that might mitigate the prevailing atmosphere of hysteria that is keeping the American people afraid, isolated and abjectly submissive to the manipulations of their paymasters?

That’s what you call a “no-brainer”. We have entered a period in which wealthy, globalist oligarchs are using fake science, amplified through their assets in the media and Democrat party, to fundamentally restructure society in a way that enhances their material interests while strengthening their grip on power. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

And there’s more too, because censorship, manipulation and politics have real costs, and the costs can be calculated in terms of the lives that are lost due to the imposition of a ruthless and thoroughly-counterproductive policy: Lockdown. Here’s Levitt again:

“The third argument – removing restrictions will result in a higher mortality than a policy of lockdowns and restrictions – is also incorrect. A virus spreads in the population until enough people become infected and immune, or until a vaccine is found. Lockdowns and restrictions may only slow down its spread (“flatten the curve”) but they do not lower the total number of infections or overall mortality. If there is a risk of overwhelming hospitals, there might be a need to slow the spread of the infection. Otherwise, flattening the curve can only be harmful since the infection returns once the restrictions are removed. Moreover, efficient protection of high-risk groups is possible only for a limited period of time: The longer the time, the harder it is to prevent their exposure to the virus. Therefore, paradoxically, it is precisely lockdowns and restrictions that slow the building of herd immunity, which in turn is needed to stop the epidemic and protect high-risk groups. In the long run, such policy can lead to excessive mortality.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

In other words, lockdowns can postpone infections but cannot prevent them. A virus is going to do what a virus does. Period. Imposing lockdowns is as bound to fail as standing at the water’s edge and ordering the tide to stop coming in. It’s empty posturing that achieves nothing. As Levitt says, lockdowns are, in fact, a threat to older and vulnerable people because the longer they are in place, “the harder it is to prevent their exposure to the virus.” In short, the lockdowns actually kill the people they are supposed to save.

Do you think our leaders know this? Of course, they know it. Levitt is not the only scientist who’s able to think clearly and rationally. The others have merely shaped thier approach to the demands of their employers. Does the name “Bill Gates” ring a bell?

Here’s Levitt again:

“In Sweden…there is no “second wave” because there was no lockdown. Thus, the policy of imposing and easing restrictions only prolongs the crisis, destroys the economy, and eventually leads to a larger number of victims. It may even continue for years as long as a vaccine is not available. The alternative to lockdowns and restrictions must be seriously considered.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

Indeed, lockdowns cost lives, lockdowns cost money, and lockdowns are the wrong policy. Here’s Levitt one last time:

“It can be assumed that the handling of the COVID-19 crisis will be scrutinized – both in terms of health aspects, but also in light of public outrage over the state of the economy. So many people all over the world have lost their sources of income, livelihood, dignity and future. Poverty is a much more severe mortality risk factor than COVID-19, and it affects children as much as adults. One of the key questions that will surely be asked is whether the leadership in each country has ever seriously considered a worthy alternative to resolving the crisis, which will not cost so many human lives or destroy the economy. Countries such as Norway, Ireland, and Belgium have already declared that they will not impose further lockdowns as the obvious damage outweighs the doubtful benefit by a wide margin.” (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz)

By any measure, the United States is in worse condition than ever before. We have destroyed our economy, closed our schools, obliterated our small and medium-sized businesses, increased suicides, depression, domestic abuse, poverty, homelessness, alienation and destitution. The American people have been plunged into a strange world of persistent fear and relentless manipulation by scheming elites who are resolutely committed to remaking society from the ground-up. COVID-19 is merely the vehicle they have chosen to achieve their nefarious objectives.

Author’s Note: All excerpts taken from (“Countering the Second Wave with Facts, not Misconceptions” Haaretz) Udi Qimron, Uri Gavish, Eyal Shahar, Michael Levitt” See this

1– Prof. Udi Qimron is the (elected) Head of Department of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University

2– Dr. Uri Gavish is a Physicist, an expert in Algorithm Analysis and a Bio-medical consultant

3– Prof. (Emeritus) Eyal Shahar is an Epidemiologist, University of Arizona

4– Prof. Michael Levitt is a Nobel Prize-winning (Chemistry, 2013) Structural Biology professor, Stanford UniversityThe original article was published in Ha’aretz in Hebrew on July 20, 2020. The English text contains minor revisions.

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

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.

***

In an era increasingly awash with political instability, the latest protests in Iran are yet another manifestation of the plague of Western imperialism. The sudden death of Kurdish Iranian woman Mahsa Amini and the unclear circumstances surrounding her death have precipitated a remarkable global response condemning the Iranian government as well as purporting to champion the rights of Iranian women in defiance of Islamic fundamentalism.

Contrary to the narrative dominating Western headlines that a democratic and grassroots revolution is under way in Iran following Amini’s death, the author maintains that Amini’s death is being exploited by Western-backed forces to hasten a color revolution and create the conditions for greater destabilization and regime change in the region.

The Iran protests did not achieve worldwide attention because of some spontaneous and organic mobilization of women across the country, nor are they representative of some monolithic goal seeking to liberate all Iranian women from the alleged (and supposedly equally felt) brutal dictates of their Islamic Republic government.

One need not dig too far back into United States history to see a repeated pattern of allegations of human rights abuses being levied against adversarial governments as the raison d’être for Western intervention.

One of the most infamous in recent memory post-9/11 was George W. Bush’s disingenuous embrace of the cause of women’s rights to further justify his administration’s decision to invade Afghanistan in the disastrous War on Terror. In the first Gulf War, the false testimony of “Nurse Nayirah” al-Sabah to the Congressional Human Rights caucus—during which she accused Iraqi troops of invading a Kuwait City hospital and removing 312 babies from incubators to perish on the cold floor—was instrumental in tipping the scale for the U.S. Senate and the American public to overwhelmingly support military force in Iraq in its quest to “save Kuwait.”

“Nurse Nayirah” al-Sabah testifying before the Congressional Human Rights Commission on the eve of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. [Source: youtube.com]

And who can forget the disturbing accusation by Western leaders of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad supposedly “gassing his own people” via a chemical attack on civilians in Douma in 2017. That the U.S. government had covertly backed rebel groups (including al-Nusra and ISIS) in the region against the Syrian government is as troubling as it is inconvenient.

Nevertheless, the chemical attack narrative struck an emotional chord with concerned Westerners who across the board (save for a few anti-imperialist voices) insisted that “Assad must go” to save the Syrian people!

A sobering analysis of U.S Empire and its legacy of defectors, color revolutions, and flat-out lies to justify militarism and war efforts begs the question: Are the Iran protests a legitimate call to action for women’s rights, or are they largely smoke and mirrors—a familiar yet questionable narrative of human rights violations once again being deployed to advance U.S. regime-change efforts in Iran?

Let’s first consider what prompted the latest (fleeting?) global moral outrage against Iran and supposed pursuit for the rights of women in the country. The unexpected death of a civilian woman, Mahsa Amini, on September 16, 2022, sparked sharp disdain for the Iranian government and their state apparatuses, most notably of their “morality police.”

The circumstances of her death have not yet been conclusively determined; all the while rage continues to fester within parts of Iran and in the international community. When alleged eyewitnesses and other “trusted voices” (like Iranian expatriate Masih Alinejad—a CIA asset who has worked alongside Mike Pompeo, Madeleine Albright, and other warmongers) claimed that Amini was beaten by Iranian police for incorrectly wearing her hijab, the Iranian government was quick to release CCTV footage that—contrary to what was being echoed at the time—showed Amini unexpectedly collapsing on her own inside Tehran’s police station.

Refuting the claim of the Iranian government that she had a previous medical condition propelling a heart attack and subsequent coma, Amini’s family maintains that their daughter was beaten to death.

Of course, the death of this young woman is undeniably upsetting, and if evidence comes forward suggesting the morality police are to blame, then the reasonable demand is to put those officers on trial for policy brutality and demand accountability of the country’s state officials.

But one ought to cast a critical lens on how this singular event amidst a sea of human rights catastrophes so shamefully rampant in our current global milieu has caused a global uprising while the suffering of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemenis at the hands of Saudi Arabia, and Armenians under Azerbaijan forces have gone largely ignored in the eyes of supposed justice-oriented Westerners.

It is also peculiar how U.S.-imposed sanctions against Iran for decades (principally and deleteriously felt by Iranian civilians including women and children) have managed to slip under the radar of demands by the masses for justice and democracy for Iranian women, conveniently eschewing any moral outrage for the myriad ways the imperial core has directly caused the suffering and deaths of Iranian civilians.

It also seems odd how quickly narrative management and new demands have been achieved as this story swept across the mainstream Western press and Meta’s social media. While Amini’s death initially sparked liberal demands to remove the mandatory hijab laws, it appears to have seamlessly shifted into manufacturing consent for regime change of the Iranian government.

It is all too convenient how the demands advanced by concerned Westerners and a specific faction of Iranian protesters for “justice and democracy” seem to fall perfectly in line with the imperialist ambitions of Iran’s principal adversaries, namely the United States and Israel. It makes you wonder if people’s moral outrage over Mahsa Amini’s death and disdain for Iran’s Islamic Republic comes from a genuine and lasting concern for Iranians, or because the latest war propaganda told them to.

Casting suspicion on the demands of these protests and expressing concern for its possible future outcomes are reasonable given the myriad angles on why these protests do not really make a lot of sense upon closer inspection.

First, protests of this size and sustained duration do not commonly erupt suddenly and organically. The success of these ongoing protests to capture the undivided attention of international audiences with such gusto involves very skilled organization with a history of strategic planning, resources, and sustained leadership—without which the protest(s) would inevitably lose steam.

While boots-on-the-ground military operations and coup d’états were once the primary strategy by which imperialist nations destabilized their enemies, embracing more covert strategies including astroturfing organic social movements or outright creating the conditions for political unrest within a country has become more normative and arguably more successful.

Under the deceptive exterior of functioning as a neutral non-profit organization, the primary function of CIA cut-outs like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is to foist regime-change operations in countries adversarial to U.S. interests by arming and training rebel groups, defectors, agent provocateurs, and/or separatists to infiltrate protests and social movements in order to swiftly advance the imperialist ambitions of the United States.

While Westerners were seemingly out-of-nowhere captured by the call to support democracy for citizens in Hong Kong 2019/20 under the alleged brutal dictates of the Chinese government, critical investigative journalism has since revealed these uprisings were but the latest covert escalation in the United States’s cold war with China.

Many of the Hong Kong “pro-democracy” protesters openly courted U.S. military intervention. [Source: thegrayzone.com]

Anyone who does not think Iran’s political adversaries are somehow involved tacitly or directly with these mass protests is certainly naïve to the sly tactics of these color revolutions. It is also no accident that certain so-called movements for “social justice,” “democracy,” or “women’s rights” are embraced and promoted by the U.S. Empire, while truly revolutionary movements such as the Sandinistas, the Bolivarian Revolution, and the Palestinian Resistance Movement do not get anywhere near the same global attention and are actively repressed in the Western press.

The fact that these protests in Iran have received wall-to-wall coverage should raise a few eyebrows.

The moral condemnation people express over the practices embedded in certain Islamic republics but not others is also quite curious. Why, for instance, do Westerners (in the last two weeks especially) deem the Iranian Islamic Republic so morally aghast for women’s rights, but the same disdain (as demonstrated in global uprisings for example) is not reserved for the Saudi government and its strict adherence to extremist Wahhabism?

While it can certainly be argued that Iran ought to modernize some of its laws pertaining to the rights of women, Saudi Arabian authorities have enacted far harsher repressive tactics upon the women in their own country, all the while directly engaging in the ethnic cleansing of the citizens of Yemen. I have yet to see a call to action from Western liberals to demand justice for Saudi (and Yemeni) women living under the dictates of this repressive regime.

Finally, make no mistake, we are living in a time of grossly hostile geopolitics led predominantly by the United States and its junior partners, and causing numerous political quagmires worldwide—so many that we can’t keep up. Masses of people are swallowing war propaganda like it is kool-aid, and sadly it is only become more sophisticated and covert through the advancement of private and corporate-run social media companies.

It is no coincidence that, within this milieu of disastrous geopolitical conflicts, the imperial core continuously sows disdain for Iran (of varying degrees depending on the current political climate) in its quest to manufacture consent for eventual war with them. Just two years ago, we were caught in the throes of a possible war with Iran after the Trump administration ordered the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020.

The U.S. Empire does not care about Mahsa Amini, but they do care about exploiting her death to achieve their own political ends. These ends of course are to successfully reinstall a Western puppet to lead Iran (like the West did in 1953, overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh and installing the Shah in its place until the 1979 Islamic Revolution) and have it become a subservient neo-colony of the United States.

As one of the members of the Axis of Resistance against Western-led imperialism, however, Iran continues to be a thorn in the side of the United States and makes their intended goals very difficult to achieve.

The Iran Nuclear Deal is at a standstill since Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in 2018. More recently, Iran supported Russia’s military operation in Ukraine with the assistance of combat drones and also joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) supplying oil to China in exchange for China’s investments in Iran’s infrastructure.

Iran also has a history of supporting other U.S. adversaries and fellow members of the Axis of Resistance, including Hezbollah; the Houthi movement; Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation and Zionism; and the Assad government in Syria. A nuanced understanding of this context certainly illuminates why global outrage against Iran was never only about the death of a single civilian but, instead, was a global reaction to a cleverly orchestrated destabilization effort by the imperial West.

The question then lingers: What is an appropriate response by concerned citizens globally (but especially those residing in the imperial core) as a show of true solidarity with the women of Iran during these contentious times?

As a concerned observer in Canada, I have been sorely disappointed by several factions of the so-called socialist Left which have failed to support one obvious measure that would alleviate women’s suffering and death in Iran: the lifting of crippling economic sanctions by Western nations.

Decades of sanctions in Iran have prevented the regular flow of food, medicine and other essential supplies into the country, the negative effects of which are predominantly felt by the most vulnerable people in society.

Protest led by CodePink demanding lifting of sanctions on Iran—something that would genuinely ease the plight of Iran’s women. [Source: theowp.org]

Somehow though, at the height of the trending concern for Mahsa Amini, the United States deemed it necessary to temporarily adjust just one type of sanction—the country’s access to the internet—allegedly in order for civilians to evade surveillance and censorship by the Iranian government in the wake of the Amini protests.

The United States swiftly activated Elon Musk’s Starlink internet services to assist in this effort.

Any claim by the United States to suddenly embrace the noble pursuit of Iranians’ fight against censorship is laughably hypocritical as the U.S. Empire engages in the slow assassination of Julian Assange and the complete annihilation of press freedoms.

Further, if the U.S. can lift internet sanctions with the snap of the finger (to “help Iranian women”), what is stopping them from lifting sanctions on food, medicine, and life-saving medical devices? This is precisely because sanctions are a covert act of war designed to destabilize the living conditions of citizens in hopes that they will eventually seek to overturn their own government.

While the Western left has been quite eager to organize symbolic rallies of supposed solidarity for #MahsaAmini, and to publicly condemn the “repressive and reactionary” Iranian government, most of these groups subtly maintain that their calls for justice do not advocate for Western intervention in Iran or regime change. From an outsider looking in though, it is difficult to distinguish how the messaging relayed in these left-leaning protests differ meaningfully from those echoing State Department talking points.

Vulnerable groups of people, oftentimes women in Middle-Eastern countries, are routinely used as pawns to advance the imperial ambitions of the West. The blowback of foreign governments inserting themselves into the internal politics of other sovereign countries, mostly for nefarious reasons, cannot be ignored.

If Western observers of these protests truly want to help, the most meaningful thing they can do is to challenge the dictates of their own imperialist governments and demand an end to the brutalizing sanctions that have directly caused immeasurable suffering and death of Iranians. It is, indeed, the most meaningful show of solidarity one can do in pursuit of Iranian prosperity.

*

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.

Elizabeth Sigrún is a writer, editor, and community organizer/activist. Elizabeth holds a Master’s degree in Critical Sociology from Brock University. She has participated in a variety of campaigns for social change over the last 15 years, and is committed to the pursuit of justice through an anti-imperialist and socialist lens. Elizabeth can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

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.

***

Abnormal blood clotting was one of the first mysterious health effects to emerge in the COVID pandemic, first, as an effect of the natural infection, and later, as a side effect of the COVID jabs. By mid-March 2021, 20 countries had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID shot, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots

In December 2021, a team of international scientists detailed the mechanism behind the AstraZeneca jab’s propensity to trigger blood clots. The shell of the vector — a weakened chimpanzee cold virus — in some people acts like a magnet and attracts platelets. Your body mistakes these platelets as a threat and produces antibodies to fight them, resulting in dangerous blood clots

Israeli researchers have also linked the Pfizer jab with a rare blood clotting disorder

A Swedish study found two doses of the COVID jab were 43% protective against Omicron infection at week 4. By week 14, protection had dropped to zero. Effectiveness against COVID-related hospitalization remained around 80% until week 25, but dropped to 40% by week 40. Using one statistical analysis method, COVID jabbed Swedes had a higher risk of death or hospitalization from COVID roughly a year after receiving their second dose

A recent case report links the COVID shots to lethal myocarditis (heart inflammation) and encephalitis (brain inflammation)

*

Abnormal blood clotting was one of the first mysterious health effects to emerge in the COVID pandemic, first, as an effect of the natural infection, and later, as a side effect of the COVID jabs.

By mid-March 2021, barely four months after the rollout of the COVID injections, 19 European countries plus Thailand1 had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s injection, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.2 3

Contrary to the Moderna and Pfizer shots, the AstraZeneca jab uses a viral vector — a genetically modified and supposedly noninfectious chimpanzee cold virus — to deliver double-stranded DNA for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into your cells.4

Earlier that month, The Defender had reported5 U.K. data showing the AstraZeneca jab was responsible for 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer shot. Around that same time, doctors at Oslo University Hospital also announced that the blood clotting disorders experienced by some recipients of the AstraZeneca shot were in fact caused by the injection.6 A March 18, 2021, article in Science Norway read, in part:7

“‘Our theory that this is a powerful immune response most likely triggered by the vaccine, has been confirmed,’ says professor and chief physician Pål Andre Holme … ‘In collaboration with experts in the field from the University Hospital of North Norway HF, we have found specific antibodies against blood platelets that can cause these reactions … the chief physician explains …

When asked to clarify why he says ‘most likely’ in the quote, Holme confidently responds that the reason for these rare cases of blood clots has been found.

‘We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response,’ he states. [Norwegian national newspaper] VG also asks how Holme can know that the immune response is not caused by something other than the vaccine.

‘There is nothing in the patient history of these individuals that can give such a powerful immune response. I am confident that the antibodies that we have found are the cause, and I see no other explanation than it being the vaccine which triggers it,’ he responds.”

Study Details Mechanism of Action 

In early December 2021, a team of international scientists published a paper8 detailing the mechanism behind the AstraZeneca jab’s propensity to trigger blood clots. As reported by the Daily Mail at the time:9

“A team of international experts, involving researchers from AstraZeneca, say that in a very small number of cases — about one in 100,000 in the UK — the vaccine can set off a chain reaction which leads to the body confusing its own blood platelets for fragments of virus …

They found that the shell of the vector vaccine — the weakened cold virus used to teach cells how to neutralize COVID — sometimes acts like a magnet and attracts platelets, a protein found in the blood.

For reasons the scientists are still probing, the body then mistakes these platelets as a threat and produces antibodies to fight them. The combination of the platelets and the antibodies clumping together leads to the formation of dangerous blood clots …

Essentially, after being delivered into the body adenovirus binds with a specific protein in the blood, known as platelet factor 4 (PF4), which is normally used by the body to promote coagulation in case of injury.

Using incredibly detailed images of the adenovirus in the vaccine the scientists demonstrated the adenovirus in the Oxford-AstraZeneca is negatively charged, and could attract positively charged proteins like a magnet.

The researchers believe that in a case of ‘mistaken identity’ the body’s immune system considers this platelet cluster as threat and releases antibodies to attack it, clumping together to it and triggering potentially life threatening blood clots. This condition is called vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).”

The following graphic was published in the Daily Mail to illustrate the potentially deadly chain reaction.

How Long Does Risk Remain?

As for how long the risk of blood clotting remains is unknown. In mid-September 2022, the American Heart Association reported that the risk of abnormal blood clotting remains elevated nearly a year after natural infection:10

“People who got COVID-19 had a higher risk of dangerous blood clots for close to a year later, according to a large new study11 on the aftereffects of a SARS-CoV-2 infection …

COVID-19 was linked to a sharply increased risk of blood clot-related issues — including heart attack and stroke — immediately after diagnosis compared to people who never had COVID-19 [and] … that risk remained higher for some problems up to 49 weeks later …

Researchers found that the first week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of an arterial blood clot — the kind that could cause a heart attack or ischemic stroke by blocking blood flow to the heart or brain — was nearly 22 times higher than in someone without COVID-19. That risk dropped sharply, to less than four times higher, in the second week.

‘Between 27 and 49 weeks, there is an approximately 30% increased risk for arterial clots,’ [senior author, professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at the University of Bristol, Jonathan] Sterne said. ‘But the elevation is greater for longer’ for clots in veins, which include deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, when a clot travels to the lungs.

In the first week after a COVID-19 diagnosis, the risk of such venous problems was 33 times higher. By the third and fourth weeks after diagnosis, the risk was still about eight times higher. And between 27 and 49 weeks later, the risk was still 1.8 times higher than in somebody who had never had COVID-19.”

If the risk of blood clotting remains high for nearly a year after natural infection, it seems reasonable to suspect the risk is dramatically elevated far longer in those who got one or more COVID shots, as their bodies are now producing the toxic spike protein internally, and there’s no known off-switch.

We still do not know how long the human body continues to produce spike protein after a COVID jab. And, while AstraZeneca was singled out as the main culprit of blood clots, Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA jabs are no safer in this regard.

Pfizer’s COVID Jab Linked to Blood Clotting Disorder

As early as June 2021, Israeli research suggested there was a link between the Pfizer shot and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), which is very similar to vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia or VITT. A list of distinguishing features between the syndromes can be found on UpToDate.com.12 As reported by The Defender:13

“Scientists with the Institute of Hematology at Shamir Medical Center said they began researching the possible link after reports of a sudden increase in TTP across Israel — four cases detected in one month compared to two or three cases per year. TTP is an autoimmune disorder that causes blood clots to form in small blood vessels throughout the body …

The medical team said they found a ‘chronological connection’ between vaccination and the onset of TTP symptoms. They stressed this occurred in both new patients and in patients with pre-existing TTP whose disease had been in remission but flared up soon after getting the vaccine …

As The Defender reported in April, U.S. regulatory officials were alerted as far back as December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines — like AstraZeneca and J&J COVID vaccine — could pose similar risks of blood clots.”

Even before the rollout of the shots, experts warned that blood clots and cardiovascular problems were predictable. Among them were Dr. Patrick Whelan, a pediatric specialist, who in a letter14 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that the shots could “cause microvascular injury and blood clots throughout the body including the brain, heart, liver and kidneys, in ways that were not assessed in the safety trials.”

He pointed out that studies looking at the natural infection had found that “viral proteins appear to cause tissue damage without actively replicating virus,” and if that was true, he suspected the spike protein produced in response to the jabs might also cause the same kind of damage. Today, ample evidence points to Whelan’s suspicions being correct.

Jabs May Raise Risk of COVID Death Over Time 

Studies are now also coming out with evidence that the shots may be causing antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), and that they kill heart and brain cells. Starting with the ADE evidence, a Swedish study,15 using data from the entire Swedish population over the age of 12, a total of 9,153,456 people, found that two doses were 43% protective against Omicron infection at week 4. By week 14, protection had dropped to zero.

Effectiveness against COVID-related hospitalization remained around 80% until week 25, but dropped to 40% by week 40. While these data are highlighted in the abstract, a more intriguing finding remains buried in the text that few take the time to read. As reported by investigative journalist Alex Berenson:16

“Based on one statistical analysis [cubic spline method] vaccinated people had a HIGHER risk of death or hospitalization from COVID roughly a year after receiving their second dose. The charts — b and d below — show that vaccine protection against death and hospitalization begins to decline slowly after about five months and then plunges about nine months …

This data provides real-world evidence of possible vaccine-caused ‘antibody dependent enhancement.’ In ADE, vaccines cause our immune systems to produce antibodies that help a virus or other pathogen to attack us …

(The top chart shows the relative risk of infection, hospitalization, intensive care, and death by week after two vaccine doses. The red line marks zero effectiveness; when the blue line falls below it, it is suggesting vaccinated people are at higher risk of infection.)”

When they used another statistical method called standard polynomial regression, the shots remained moderately effective against hospitalization and death over time, falling to 45% protection against death around nine months, after which the effectiveness mysteriously started trending upward again.

According to Berenson, the lead author of the paper did not endorse either method as superior to the other. When asked for comment, Dr. Yiyi Xu told Berenson they “need more data to know which finding might be correct,” and that, at present, “the estimation is quite uncertain for both analyses.”

COVID Shots Kill Brain and Heart Cells 

Another recent paper17 links the COVID shots to lethal myocarditis (heart inflammation) and encephalitis (brain inflammation). As reported by Steve Kirsch:18

“The paper is entitled: ‘A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19.’ It was published yesterday, Oct 1, and … already has over 100,000 views of the abstract and over 6,000 views of the full text.”

The report details the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID shot. His first injection was the AstraZeneca jab, received in May 2021, which was followed by two doses of Pfizer in July and December 2021 respectively.

Autopsy confirmed his Parkinson’s diagnosis, but it also revealed several unexpected conditions contributing to his death, including:

• Aspiration pneumonia
• Systemic arteriosclerosis
• Acute vasculitis (vascular inflammation) in both the brain and the heart
• Multifocal necrotizing encephalitis (meaning tissue death all over the brain)
• Chronic cardiomyopathy (heart disease), and
• Mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis (a rare form of myocarditis that occurs wen lymphocytes, white blood cells, enter and inflame the heart muscle)

Testing for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) revealed the inflammation was in response to spike protein only, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. As noted by the authors:19

“Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.”

Irrefutable Evidence the COVID Shots Can Kill

Kirsch goes on to cite other evidence showing the COVID shots can kill, including a report20 titled “On COVID Vaccines: Why They Cannot Work, and Irrefutable Evidence of Their Causative Role in the Deaths After Vaccination,” written by Drs. Sucharit Bhakdi and Arne Burkhardt.

Bhakdi and Burkhardt claim to have developed a way to test for spike protein in human tissue, and say they’ve found spike protein in the tissues of people who have been injured and/or killed by the jabs.

Of the 15 bodies their team examined for this report — all of whom had died seven days to six months post-jab — 14 (93%) were found to have been killed by the COVID shot.21 The video above reviews their findings. All 14 had clear evidence of the body attacking itself, including the heart, with fatal consequences.

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jabs

If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system. The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and has had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects.

Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots. When it comes to treatment, there are still more questions than answers, but many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also seem to ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

Two doctors who have started tackling the treatment of COVID jab injuries in earnest include Dr. Michelle Perro (DrMichellePerro.com), whom I’ve interviewed on this topic, and Dr. Pierre Kory (DrPierreKory.com).

Both agree that eliminating the spike protein your body is now continuously producing is a primary task. Perro’s preferred remedy for this is hydroxychloroquine, while Kory typically uses ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein.

As a founding member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Kory helped develop the FLCCC’s post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com22 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).

Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies

In previous articles, I’ve also covered a number of treatments and remedies that can be helpful for COVID jab injuries, such as:

• Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, especially in cases involving stroke, heart attack, autoimmune diseases and/or neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”
• Time-restricted eating — Kory believes there may be ways to boost the immune system to allow it to degrade and eventually remove the spike from your cells naturally, over time. One of the strategies he recommends for this is TRE (time restricted eating), which stimulates autophagy, a natural cleaning process that eliminates damaged, misfolded and toxic proteins. Another strategy that can do the same thing would be sauna therapy.

  Most people eat more than 12 hours a day, which is a recipe for metabolic disaster. The ideal window for most everyone is 16 to 18 hours of continuous fasting with the least meal at least three hours before bed. If you are overweight, shoot for 18 hours of fasting each day; if you’re of normal weight, 16 hours.

• Lower your omega-6 intake — Linoleic acid is consumed in amounts 10 times above the ideal in well over 95% of the population, and contributes to massive oxidative stress that impairs your immune response. Seed oils and processed foods need to be diligently avoided. You can review this previous post for more information.
• Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. At 15 to 80 milligrams a day for those suffering from long-haul COVID could go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab. Methylene blue is actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine and has been used to treat malaria since 1890.

  It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”

• Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria23 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,24 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”

*

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.

Notes

1 The Sun March 15, 2021, Updated March 16, 2021

2 The Defender March 16, 2021 Countries Suspend AstraZeneca Vaccine

3 The Defender March 11, 2021

4 New York Times February 3, 2021 (Archived)

5 The Defender March 2, 2021

6 Science Norway March 18, 2021

7 Science Norway March 18, 2021

8 Science Advances December 1, 2021; 7(49)

9 Daily Mail December 2, 2021

10 American Heart Association September 19, 2022

11 Circulation 2022; 146: 892-906

12 UpToDate VITT vs ITP vs TTP

13 The Defender June 23, 2021

14 Regulations.gov Comment from Patrick Whelan December 9, 2020

15 Lancet Preprint September 20, 2022

16 Alex Berenson Substack October 3, 2022

17 Vaccines 2022; 10(10): 1651

18 Steve Kirsch Substack October 2, 2022

19 Vaccines 2022; 10(10): 1651

20 On COVID Vaccines: Why They Cannot Work, and Irrefutable Evidence of Their Causative Role in the Deaths After Vaccination

21 Steve Kirsch Substack December 28, 2021

22 Covid19criticalcare.com

23 Physiology February 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019

24 Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology February 2016; 155: 78-85

Featured image is from Mercola

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)

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.

***

Official all-cause mortality statistic that get released to the public are often delayed 6-12 months after year end, and even then they can be designated interim – subject to change. So if you want to identify a spike in deaths within a population how would you get an early warning signal?

Boots-on-the-ground organisations notice up ticks and spikes in sales or staffing numbers. When this happens in industries that deal with deaths, alarm bells should be going off, especially when these deaths are in healthy working age groups, children and near births, and where COVID-19 has not been attributed to their death!

Some whistleblowers have been speaking out about anomalies in their work space since mid 2021, but when in late 2021 the data came out from an insurance company that they had experienced a 40% increase in life insurance payouts in the working age group in 2021, equivalent to 4 times a 200 year catastrophic event, that got Wall Street’s attention.

The unprecedented death numbers were not COVID-19, but happened to coincide with the timing of the roll-out of the experimental, brand new technology, emergency use COVID-19 vaccines. The catastrophic effect of the draconian “mitigation” rules imposed on the healthy population of the world had already been in place for a year, it may be a contributing factor, but doesn’t necessarily explain the timing. And if that was the explanation, then the “cure” is excessively worse than the burden of the disease.

Using other means to identify excess mortality

Particular industries that work with death statistic, there is both anecdotal information, and hard statistics, that expose alarming death numbers, which sadly is now showing up in little children, and expected to get worse.

• Life Insurance companies
• Funeral directors
• Embalmers
• Coffin manufactures and suppliers
• Florists – baby wreath demand
• Airline pilots
• Military database
• Disability data

Below I try to focus on links to Excess Mortality information. Visit other post on this site to find out the types of vaccine adverse events that can lead to death – blood clotting and heart inflammation seem to be highest on the list.

Sudden deaths and deaths of unknown causes will be captured on another page coming soon.

Also check out these pages for more information:

• Insurance companies, Death & Disability payouts – Edward Dowd – HERE
• Embalmer whistleblowers – HERE
• Funeral Director – John O’Looney – HERE
• Information on Pilots and the Jab – HERE
• Miscarriage and Infertility – HERE

Excess Mortality articles in reverse chronological order

2022

September 26, 2022 – Good Sciencing: 1354 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 922 of Them Dead, Since COVID Injection (website is continuously updated) – READ, ARCHIVE

ARCHIVE

September 25, 2022 – Expose News: Europe suffers horrifying 755% increase in Excess Deaths among Children since EMA approved COVID Vaccine for Kids – READ

September 21, 2022 – Sydney Morning Herald: COVID complications push Australian deaths to highest numbers in 40 years – ABS new data shows that the highest number of people have died in the March quarter of 2022 than in any of the past 41 years an 18% increase! – READ

September 20, 2022 – Sky News: More people have been dying this year due to irregular heartbeat, official figures suggest – Excess deaths, or extra deaths, are the number of deaths that are above the long-term average for a particular week or month of the year. – “The total number of deaths due to an irregular heartbeat was 37.1% above average in March and 23.1% in April – a sharp jump from 13.7% in January and 9.2% in February.” – READ

September 20, 2022 – Bannons War Room: Edward Dowd Shares Data Findings By Team Showing Harmful Effects Of COVID Jabs – WATCH1, WATCH2, links to graphs – HERE

September 20, 2022 – Sky News: More people have been dying this year due to irregular heartbeat, official figures suggest – READ

September 18, 2022 -Expose News: EU forced to begin Europe-wide Investigationinto 700% to 1600% increase in Excess Deaths among Children since EMA approved COVID Vaccine for Kids thanks to Exclusive Investigation carried out by The Exposé – READ

September 18, 2022 – Daily Mail: Undertakers are run off their feet with abnormally high numbers of Australians dying – and it’s not just because of Covid – READ

• Melbourne undertaker Martin Masson sees and increase in 40-60 aged deaths,
• Doctors not sure why more are dying but are concerned it mirrors the UK
• Possible factor is that people have avoided going to the doctor for check-ups
• [If doctors even suggest the vaccine their licence is threatened – CONTEXT]

September 17, 2022 – Dr Marian Laderoute: Surprisingly…Plain & Simple – Risk-Benefits of COVID-19 Interventions – All-Cause Mortality – READ

• “The gold standard for assessing risk versus benefit: “the all-cause mortality rate ratio of ever vaccinated (i.e., with at least one dose of vaccine) over the unvaccinated” reveal for the 17 months from January 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022 the average ratio was 6.90 (p=0.0001). This means the ever vaccinated were at almost a 7-fold increased risk of death from any cause over the unvaccinated.” – GETTR

September 16, 2022 – Eurostat: Excess mortality hits +16%, highest 2022 value so far – “This was the highest value on record so far in 2022, amounting to around 53 000 additional deaths in July this year compared with the monthly averages for 2016-2019.” – READ, ARCHIVE

source, ARCHIVE, ENLARGE

September 15, 2022? – Towards the Light: GB News: Why are birth rates falling and excess deaths rising? | Jamie Jenkins – facts behind the stats – WATCH

September 9, 2022 – Zero Hedge (Epoch Times): Adults Aged 35–44 Died At Twice The Expected Rate Last Summer, Life Insurance Data Suggests – READ

September 8, 2022 – Trust the Evidence Substack: Australian Excess Deaths – Australia is seeing significant excess mortality, and it’s not all down to COVID – READ

• Early lockdowns and strict border measures meant Australia was largely covid-free until the end of 2021 when they opened up.

September 2, 2022 – GB New: German study into the phenomenon of excess deaths | Kathy Gygnell and Mark Steyn discuss – Editor of The Conservative Woman Kathy Gygnell discusses the rise in excess deaths and a new German study examining the phenomenon – WATCH, BACKUP, GETTR

• Excess mortality in Germany 2020-2022 – PRE-PRINT STUDY
• In April 2021 an extensive vaccination campaign started in Germany.

source

source

The figure shows that the strong increase in mortality in April 2021 and the further development of the excess deaths covaries with the strong increase of the number of  vaccinations. source

August 31, 2022 – Igor Chudov Substack: PROVEN RELATIONSHIP: COVID Boosters and Excess Mortality in 2022 –
There is a very strong statistically significant association between excess mortality in 2022, and uptake of COVID boosters – 29 countries. – READ

“It shows that booster uptake was extremely strongly (and positively) related to excess mortality, with P value being 0.0002. Mind you, anything with P below 0.05 is considered statistically significant — so P=0.0002 is ironclad” – source

“What is the proper interpretation is that there is an EXTREMELY PROMINENT RELATIONSHIP between boosters and deaths in 2022. This is an alarm signal and food for thought that needs to be analyzed further. We need to search further to understand causality better.”

*

August 29, 2022 – Dr John Campbell: Excess deaths, the data – WATCH

August 29, 2022 – Epoch Times: High Percentage of COVID Deaths Had 3rd Shot, More Excess Deaths After 4th Shot – Once people catch on to the correlation, governments stop updating the data – READ

August 29, 2022 – Tasmanian funeral director is concerned about the 50% rise in funerals he is undertaking in the last 7 mths. This has been a rapid rise in the last 6 to 7 months, and it’s not just the elderly. There’s something that’s not quite right. – TWEET, BACKUP

August 29, 2022 – Expose News: Europe officially records a shocking 691% increase in Excess Deaths among Children since EMA first approved COVID Vaccine for Children – READ

August 28, 2022 – Fox News | Dan Bongino UNFILTERED: Rising all cause mortality since the advent of the COVID-19 vaccines which failed to stop the virus and have caused record injuries, disabilities, and deaths – Dr McCullough – EXCERPT, FULL

August 28, 2022 – Edward Dowd: UK ONS Excess Deaths for ages 1-14 corresponding the the jab introduction. The acceleration in excess deaths at the end of 2021 and 2022 seems to coincide with the introduction of the different vaccine doses for age groups 12-15 and 5-11. 2022 is proving to be a year with substantial excess mortality for these age groups. – GETTR

source

August 28, 2022 – Arkmedic – Dr Ah Kahn Syed Substack: Australia’s excess death toll just keeps getting worse – ABS released new statistics – READ“80% of the adult population of Australia had received their COVID vaccine by the 5th October 2021. Then something happened as can be seen by the graphic. The all-cause mortality rate went up – and never came down again. It continues at 10% over baseline which is equivalent to about 15,000 deaths a year.”

source

Interactive chart of the ABS Provisional Mortality Stats- HERE, TWEET

*

August 27, 2022 – Peter Imanuelsen Substack: Something weird is happening with the excess death rate (and it’s nowhere to be found on the news!) – There is a higher mortality rate than normal, what is going on here? – READ

August 27, 2022 – The Expose: How a small Scientific Elite dictates Government Policy – Excess deaths actually 35% higher than average, but that is not how this New Zealand University public health department scientists reported it – The correct interpretation of the 2022 figures in the graph is as follows: All six countries which have followed vaccination policies very similar to New Zealand now have rapidly rising all-cause death rates – READ

• “…we are not recording the vaccination status of people on death certificates. As a result, we don’t know what is causing the excess deaths in New Zealand. In the UK, such figures are kept and they show that excess deaths are disproportionately affecting the vaccinated, especially the boosted. Data from other countries indicate the causes might include high cancer rates, blood clots, and cardiovascular illness. Crucially, death rates are unusually affecting working-age people and the young. Have our experts informed our government? Apparently not.”

*

August 26, 2022 – Independent Sentinel: ‘Unknown Cause’ is the Top Cause of Death in Canada! – READ

• A study looking at excess deaths in Alberta was quietly released in March 2022 in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases – Excess Deaths during COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta, Canada – STUDY
• Concluding: “There was statistically significant increase in all-cause mortality. Although older adults are more likely to die of COVID-19, there was massive increase in non-COVID-19 related mortality among the youth.”

*

August 26, 2022 – The Expose: John Campbell Shares Some Truth, YouTube Deletes His Video – On Saturday 20th August on his channel with 2.43 million subscribers, he discussed the recent increase in excess deaths “More people are dying in the UK than we would expect” he said – READ, WATCH CHANNEL

August 25, 2022 – GB News: Mark Steyn questions why young healthy people are dying across the UK – cause unknown – WATCH, TWEET, ARTICLE, ARTICLE2

source

August 24, 2022 – Edward Dowd: Weekly UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) cumulativeexcess death data for 2021 and 2022 broken down by age group. – GETTR

Chart shows the cumulative percentage of weekly excess deaths for 2022 relative to 2010-2019 average, for three different aged groups (1-14) red dotted line, (15-44) black line, & (45-64) blue line. Vaccination rollout began week 13 of 2021 for age 45-64, later for other age.

In 2022, for each age group there is a positive RISE in EXCESS DEATHS. Data stopped being reported week 28.

August 21, 2022 – The Ethical Skeptic: Houston, We Have a Problem (Part 1 of 3) – How to boost Covid mortality while hiding rising Cancer deaths – PART 1, THREAD, WEBSITE,
[note: Death Certificate guidance changed in 2020 for COVID-19 see TIMELINE – US, AUST, UK]

source

August 20, 2022 – The Expose: Covid-19 Vaccination is Depopulating the Planet according to Official Data & the Pfizer Documents – The evidence – READ

August 18, 2022 – Bannons War Room: Edward Dowd Discusses 20% Increase In Excess Deaths In Working Age Adults After Vaccine Mandates (referencing SOA below) – WATCH, Ed Dowd – HERE

August 2022 – Society of Actuaries (SOA) Research: Group Life Covid-19 Mortality Survey Report:
Table 5.7 “Excess Mortality By Detailed Age Band” – REPORT, SOURCE

A spike in Q3-2021 (timing of vaccine mandates). The excess continues in the working age groups through Q1-2022. Notice that half of excess deaths in ages 25-44 are non-Covid deaths. – source, WATCH

Reports for additional trend research:

• SOA: Insurance company COVID-19 Mortality Study – 2021 Q1: Actual and Expected Relative Mortality Ratios – includes list of participating insurance companies – PDF
• U.S. Individual Life COVID-19 Reported Claims Analysis – 4Q 2021 Update – PDF
• Group Life COVID-19 Mortality Survey – Dec 2020 [Baseline]- PDF
• May 2021 – Society of Actuaries – U.S. Population Mortality Observations – Preview of 2020 Experience – [Baseline] – PDF

*

August 15, 2022 – Tim Truth: Germany Excess Deaths Soar, Latest Week +16% Excess Deaths, Stillbirths in ’21 +11.1% Over Avg – WATCH

August 13, 2022- Daily Sceptic: Large German Insurer Reports Staggering Rise in Adverse Effects from COVID-19 Vaccines – READ, OTHER
According to FOIA of German Techniker Krankenkasse insurer, the number of billed cases of vaccine-related adverse effects needing medical treatment skyrocketed in 2021 compared with 2019 and 2020.

source

August 11, 2022 – The Highwire Ep 280: ICAN-OBTAINED DATA REVEALS MORE EVIDENCE OF DEATH SPIKE – WATCH

On July 12, 2022, ICAN, through its attorneys, submitted freedom of information requests [FOIA EXAMPLE] to five of the largest US life insurance companies to access their annual statements (2017 to 2021). Ordinary Death Benefit payouts (non-COVID-related deaths) appear to have significantly risen in 2021 when compared with 2017-2020 for four out of five of these companies.

ICAN FOIA documents – Life insurance company annual statements:

• New York Life Group – PDF
• Northwestern Mutual Group – PDF
• Mass. Mutual – PDF
• Prudential of America Group – PDF
• Metropolitan Group – PDF

source

source: ICAN FOIA documents

August 6, 2022 – Alex Berenson substack: The funeral business is doing great! – And not because of Covid – READ

• “Service Corporation International, “North America’s leading provider of funeral, cremation, and cemetery services” – handling 450,000 corpses* a year. (*not their word)”
• “pull-forward isn’t turning out to be a problem. Americans are still dying at rates well above normal, even as Covid becomes a minimal part of business this year.”
• [SCI Investor Day Presentations contain graphs, they can’t be archived, so if they get deleted >> WARNING LARGE ZIP FILE]

*

August 6, 2022 – Rebel News: New study finds COVID-19 vaccines did not reduce mortality in the U.S. – READ

August 4, 2022 – Expose News: While you were distracted by Boris resigning the UK Government published indisputable evidence that the COVID-19 Vaccines are deadly and are killing people in the Thousands: Mortality Rates are lowest among the Unvaccinated in all Age Groups (many graphs) – READ

Click here to continue reading…

*

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

Featured image: Covid-19 mortality. Photo credit: Isaac Quesada

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)

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.

***

Ukraine is not part of Saharan Africa, nor is it a country of illiterate or ill-educated people. How is it possible for Ukrainians to tolerate such a stumble, how is it possible that their tycoon and corrupt political elite so enchanted them and diverted them to the wrong side through manipulations?

Instead of confronting their political scum, the Ukrainians, again with a lot of help from the Western friends, estimated that the snake is not in the bowels, but on the other side of the eastern border – in Russia, so they need NATO’s protection. And the focal illusion is that when Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, the country will prosper just as, for example, North Macedonia prospered in the same organization. 

Ukraine has thus decided that those who are further away from it are closer to it – not only geographically, but also spiritually and culturally, those who despise Ukrainians just as much as Russians, if not more. That contempt is hidden for only a moment in the name of strategic reasons, and it will last for a few more days after the end of the war, regardless of its outcome. And then everything will return to normal. Solidarity with Ukrainians who remain in the West will be replaced by intolerance towards foreigners who burden the social system, take jobs, raise the crime rate and lower the salaries of domestic workers. Ukrainians will again be the others – those who are not “us”. Even if Ukraine one day joins the European Union or/and NATO, that contempt will not disappear nor will the status of Ukrainians as second-class citizens change.

And then when you renounce yourself and try to become something that you are not and that you have been convinced is more civilized and better, you will not become that other – you are more likely to become nothing. This is true not only for Ukrainians but also for “enlightened” Russians, Serbs, and others, for all those who would like to be what they are not, in the hope that they will be acceptable to those who will never accept them. Bulgarians, Romanians, and even Poles, and to exchange experiences with them related to acceptance, respect, integration and “Europeanization”. And they can pour oil into the water quite scientifically and to see how it mixes.

The questions arose:

1) Why do the citizens of West Europe support the insane policy of NATO’s expansion to the east, which is already hitting them on the head, due to the large increase in the cost of living?

2) What kind of rush into a war as it can become atomic? If geostrategy is left aside, the Ukrainian war is just an excuse for hidden Russophobia to explode uncontrollably.

3) What kind of hatred is it that obscures the view and suppresses even the instinct of self-preservation?

That hatred gave itself the appearance of humanism and hid behind a mask of compassion for Ukrainians … except those from East Ukraine. Western humanity (which is honest in some parts of society) has clear boundaries and is guided by the media. Remember, no Ukrainian refugees in the UK! At the same time, ordinary Russians and Russian culture are persecuted across the Western countries!

Those who sincerely and wholeheartedly cared about the suffering of Iraqis, Libyans, and Syrians are shedding tears over the fate of Ukraine, just as they care about the hell of Yemen today. Those who today, in the name of humanism, sincerely participate in the tragedy of Ukrainian refugees and their children, will harass Russians and Russian children tomorrow when they recognize them in their environment. Perhaps Russophobia is strongest in the most educated parts of Western societies, which are not bothered by pathological outbursts of Russophobia related to Russian culture or the humiliation of its employees. Are we on the way to erasing Russian culture from European culture and maybe banning it?

No one is saying that Russia is totally innocent in this tragic story about Ukraine? No, but Russian guilt is on the other side – on the side of incompetence, on the side of delay, and indecision. Russia is guilty as she has not been able to control the Russophobic processes in Ukraine since 2014 by soft power, nor to use the advantage of the Russian language, historical, family, or economic ties.

Unfortunately, corrupted top authorities of Russia (like in the West), Russia full of oligarchs and tycoons (as in the West), Russia of huge property inequalities (lesser than in the USA), could not even offer itself as an attractive alternative social model for others (but the Western models as well cannot do that). Therefore, there is no Russophile person who can or should ignore these sad facts (but all Russophobes are ignoring these facts in the West).

However, an even bigger, and fatal mistake is that Russia, with its sluggish and indecisive foreign policy, persistently sent the wrong, defeatist signals to the Western gangsters. It has done almost nothing to make the world aware of the decades-long humiliation of the Russian minorities in the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) since 1991 and Ukraine since 2014, nor has it done anything more serious to protect them except using the formal language of diplomacy. Russia also reacted lukewarmly to the constant strengthening of Nazi movements in its neighborhood, even though the Russians and Russia were the main targets of that madness. Russia allowed the processes of Nazification of Ukraine since 2014 to go too far, without setting clear red lines much, much earlier but not just now in 2022. That is why no one took Russia seriously until February 24^th, 2022.

Consequently, there is a great, global shock about the current Russian military action in East Ukraine. Only now, with a huge delay of 30 years and for the first time after the Cold War 1.0, the West started to take Russia seriously. The price of the delay is high, much higher than it had to be, the risks are huge and the outcomes for the global security and economy are uncertain. The only certain thing is the suffering of Ukrainian citizens and the death of soldiers on both sides.

*

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

Dr. 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

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.

***

It’s now no longer “Russian propaganda” to describe Zelensky as an ungrateful beggar, but the implied standard of “political correctness” after Biden himself just reportedly told the Ukrainian leader to cut it out and stop angering American taxpayers ahead of the midterms.

Criticizing Zelensky as ungrateful for his incessant begging in spite of his side already receiving literally tens of billions of dollars of support from US taxpayers was smeared by the Mainstream Media (MSM) as so-called “Russian propaganda”, that is, up until Tuesday. The Washington Post (WaPo) – which can’t by any stretch of the imagination be described as “Russian propaganda”, “Russian-friendly”, or against the US’ ruling Democrat elite – just reported that none other than Biden himself is getting fed up with the Ukrainian leader for precisely that.

In their piece about how “Biden scrambles to avert cracks in pro-Ukraine coalition”, they wrote that:

“Early in the war, Zelensky called repeatedly and publicly on the United States and other Western countries to do more — to send additional weapons and impose harsher sanctions on Russia — even as Biden and Congress were already sending unprecedented amounts of aid and advanced weapons to Kyiv.

Biden understood as a fellow politician that Zelensky had to advocate forcefully for his people, but he also told the Ukrainian leader privately that it would be hard for him to keep asking Congress for money if Zelensky appeared ungrateful and kept saying it was not enough, according to a former White House official.”

This is yet another piece of evidence proving the existence of rifts between the US and Ukraine.

As I explained in my latest analysis about how “Zelensky’s Plan For NATO Troops Under The Cover Of G7 Peacekeepers Probably Won’t Happen”, America has twice rejected Kiev’s demand for direct NATO involvement in the conflict, both through his crumbling former Soviet Republic’s official membership in that bloc and then indirectly under the guise that he suggested on Tuesday. I added that Washington’s reluctance to comply with its proxy’s demand proves that it won’t proverbially let the “tail wag the dog” and is also concerned about the impact of more direct involvement ahead of the midterms.

Regarding Zelensky’s ungrateful begging, the Biden Administration has hitherto complied because the US’ military-industrial complex and those members of the elite that invest in related companies have profited from this unprecedented money laundering operation. Even so, his team got carried away and now many Americans are enraged at the thought that a foreign country halfway across the world that was condemned by Transparency International as one of the most corrupt in the world is receiving more money than their own impoverished compatriots and those suffering from environmental disasters.

Finally cognizant of the domestic political consequences of this scheme, Biden reportedly told Zelensky that he needs to stop being so ungrateful and instead start showing that he appreciates everything that the American taxpayers have given his side thus far. The ruling party is apparently concerned that voters might turn against them even more fiercely than previously expected due to their fury over how much Ukraine is getting at the expense of their own fellow citizens. All of this was foreseeable and warned about long ago by objective observers, yet it wasn’t until now that their words were heeded.

The “official narrative” towards the Ukrainian Conflict, which is actually a US-led NATO proxy war on Russia through that neighboring country, is therefore evolving. It’s now no longer “Russian propaganda” to describe Zelensky as an ungrateful beggar, but the implied standard of “political correctness” after Biden himself just reportedly told the Ukrainian leader to cut it out and stop angering American taxpayers. This just goes to show that the rifts between the US and Ukraine are widening beyond the latter’s demands for direct NATO intervention, which few have yet to publicly acknowledge.

*

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 OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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.

***

On October 10 alone, around 200 Russian air- and sea-based cruise missiles as well as a number of suicide drones struck Ukraine. In total, 70 targets were hit by Russian forces, including military and energy infrastructure facilities, as well as decision making centers in the capital.

This was the first such destructive attack on Ukraine since February. The high-precision strikes all around the country resulted in deaths of 12 people, including at least one high-ranking Ukrainian official involved in operations against Russia and persecution of pro-Russian citizens. The number of victims is comparable to daily deaths of civilians in Donetsk alone.

In one day, about 20 thermal power plants and substations in Ukraine were damaged. So far, some regions of the country remain cut off from electricity supply.

However, not a single blow was inflicted on strategic facilities with a high voltage of 750 kV neither nuclear nor hydro power plants. Thus, the attack was not aimed at the destruction of the Ukrainian energy system, but at causing limited damage to it.

In turn, Ukraine will stop exporting electricity to Europe in order to stabilize its own energy system.

On October 11, Russian strikes continued. Russian long-range missiles and suicide drones hit targeted facilities in different regions on Ukraine, including Vinnytsa, Rovno, Zaporozhie, Odessa, Nikolaev and others. The eastern part of the country was mainly affected. Russian forces are targeting military and railway facilities in the Ukrainian rear in order to disrupt the supply to Ukrainian troops on the front line.

According to the Office of Ukrainian President, US President Biden has promised to transfer modern air defense systems to Kiev. Washington risks suffering significant reputational losses in the global arms trade market if Russian missiles hit modern air defense systems in Ukraine. It is supposed that the US may provide Kiev with outdated NATO-made systems. So far, Washington is yet to officially announce this new gift to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the Armed Forces of Ukraine did not stop shelling the regions that have recently entered into the Russian Federation, including with foreign weapons.

Over the past day, more than 250 shells hit the settlements in the DPR, killing at least one woman and wounding dozens of other civilians. The town of Stakhanov in the LPR was again shelled with US-made HIMARS MLRS.

Dozens of Ukrainian missiles were intercepted by air defense means in the southern regions. Ukrainian forces again struck the Antonovsky Bridge with HIMARS but failed to damage it.

Three villages in the Russian Belgorod region and one in the Kursk region also came under fire. At least one woman was killed. On the evening of October 11, Ukrainians targeted Crimea with an UAV. It was intercepted by the Russian air defense forces over the town of Dzhankoy but the wreckage fell in the residential area and wounded an 11-year old girl.

*

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

Featured image is from SF

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.

***

To the superficial observer, it may be a blessing the despots and dictators, human rights abusers, like Argentina’s Mauricio Macri, Colombia’s Iván Duque; Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno; Chile’s Sebastián Piñera; to name just a few, are gone, have disappeared from the Latin American political arena, in what was presented to public opinion as the result of so-called “democratic elections”.

Good, you may think. These countries have a better future ahead.

So, who are the new “leaders” of just these four “demo-countries”?

• Argentina: Alberto Fernández; label “center-left”;
• Colombia: Gustavo Petro; label “left”;
• Ecuador: Guillermo Lasso; officially described as “the country’s first center-right president in nearly two decades”. What a lie! Moreno was so right-wing; he could easily be dubbed a fascist.
• Chile: Gabriel Boric; label “left”.

The WEF’s Young Global Leaders

There are many more of these “new left” leaders throughout Latin America. Those who were not recently replaced by “democratic elections”, had to bend to methods of coercion and “obedience” to stay in place or alive. Nicaragua may be a case in point.

They all have in common being graduates or scholars of Klaus Schwab’s (WEF) Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL). Schwab himself boasted earlier this year, how “we were able to infiltrate countries’ governments [with YGLs’] around the world.”

” But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now… (Klaus Schwab)

Click here or image to access Video 

So, think again. Are these countries now better off with their new “left” or “socialist” governments? Hardly. But they carry the very confusing label of being “left”- meaning for the good of the people. That, in today’s world is a total lie, outright BS.

You must know – left and right have seized to exist already 20 to 30 years ago, when globalism entered center-stage. Now there are only Globalists and the others. The others “are too many”,

Klaus Schwab’s closest adviser has repeatedly said, out of arrogance, or out of sheer stupidity, is immaterial, that We, the People, are “useless eaters”. In other words, we can be done away with – neutralized – and the world would be a better place. (See Peter Koenig)

What we are currently experiencing are:

• fake and coerced “vaxxes” which have an impact on mortality and morbidity (destruction of natural immunity, infertility),
• coupled with endless wars, possibly nuclear wars and most certainly weather wars – all under the pretense that wars bring peace.

What is even more disturbing than this dystopia, is that today still the majority of people buy all these propaganda slogans and lies. Even if they know, something is not quite right, they still go along. Their conscience doesn’t want to infringe on their comfort zone. They are suffering from cognitive dissonance. They are the perfect citizens for the globalists. If they survive, they will become digitized slaves, owning nothing but being happy.

All the new progressive LAC (Latin America and Caribbeans) leaders – and many others around the world (Schwab’s pride, the YGLs) — have been put into their positions to defend the anti-human Globalist Agenda. Of course, they were all “democratically elected”.

Cyber-targeted, AI-steered, election propaganda and outright election fraud have become so sophisticated that most people can’t see it, or even if they would see it, they wouldn’t want to believe in so much evil. Good old cognitive dissonance is an integral part of the Globalists take-over formula.

Is President Biden — a “democrat”, the US equivalent of “left-leaning” – good for the people?

Absolutely not. He, and his vassalic European counterparts, are abject globalists, destroying the US and Europe to the detriment of the people, following the Financial-IT complex’s mandate of artificial energy crises, food shortages, and, of course, “climate change and / or global warming” – which will lead to water shortages, to privatization of the remaining pristine water resources and eventually to water wars.

And remember – all will be the Russians’ fault, and by extension that of the Chinese. A fake emperor always needs a fake enemy to survive. But the fakery is shining through the ever thinner veil of an imploding pyramid of lies and deceptions.

Man-made climate change, also called “geoengineering” or weather warfare, is part of the Reset / Agenda 2030 program, all supported by Biden, and, by scholarly obedience, also by the new LAC leaders – and all those submissive puppets of the 193 UN members – plus the entire UN leadership. All are bought, coerced, or blackmailed. See this.

It’s the end-phase. Only we, the awakened, can stop this treacherous approach to a new world governance.

*

First you should know that worldwide – including in Europe and even in the United States — no President or Prime Minister is being “elected” without the approval of “Washington”, which is the front and the face for the behind the scene reigning giant digital-financial interests that rule not only Washington, but the world.

Yes, all 193 UN member countries and the UN itself and all its specialized technical “sub-organization” are controlled and directed by this digital-financial complex.

To refresh our memories – they include on top of the financial empire pyramid, BlackRock, Vanguard and StateStreet. The first two are interlinked, able to act as one asset manager, if convenient. Further down the road, follow minor giants, like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, UBS and more.

The first three control literally all western production, including food manufacturing processes, by direct or indirect majority stock owners. They are majority shareholders in everything. This just as a background to better understand their power and leverage over the world.

If by “miscalculation” the wrong PM or President is “elected”, he or she will be ousted. Of course, even that will be done, so that people think, the coup was carried out internally.

Take Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan was democratically elected in 2018 by a two-thirds majority of Pakistanis. He was a leader of the people and for the people. He wanted his country to regain political sovereignty, be free to choose Pakistan’s alliances, for example China and Russia, to the detriment of the United States.    

Imran Khan was ousted as PM on 10 April 2022 by a Washington-instigated Pakistani parliamentary no-confidence motion. He was immediately succeeded by his Washington-friendly opponent, Shehbaz Sharif.
See this and this.

Any leader who doesn’t dance to the tune of Washington, or rather – doesn’t follow the orders of the WEF, backed and directed by the Cult, the IT-Financial complex, will simply be removed.

Regime change may come in different shades of Color Revolutions. Presidents Putin and Xi are certainly in the Cult’s crosshairs. Endless lie-campaigns and war propaganda, may eventually convince the public at large that nothing less than a nuclear attack on Russia can bring peace to the world. War is Peace and Peace is War (“1984” George Orwell).

The spirit of Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, the acknowledged father of public relations and war propagandist par excellence, is alive and well.

Latin America is just being highjacked by the worldwide phenomenon of selling neoliberal Globalism as people-friendly socialism.

People, wake up. Your leaders (sic) are not for you but against you. The same as is the case throughout the west. We, the People, have to fend for ourselves. Consciously and vehemently. Otherwise, we will be doomed.

*

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.

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

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

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.

***

Ukraine has announced that it will have to halt electricity exports to Europe. Russian missile strikes are said to be responsible for the forced suspension of power exports, Kyiv has announced.

Damage to energy infrastructure caused by Moscow’s air strikes in retaliation for the “terrorist attack” on the Crimean bridge has forced Ukraine’s government to cut off electricity exports to the European Union. The strikes removed a supply source that Kyiv claims helped its partners reduce their reliance on power generated with Russian natural gas.

Russia has already said that the missile strikes on Ukraine were a response to the damages done t the Crimean bridge. President Vladimir Putin said Monday’s air strikes on Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities (targeting military, energy, and communications infrastructure) came in response to Ukraine’s attack on the strategic Crimean Bridge on Saturday.

“If there are further attempts to conduct terrorist attacks on our soil, Russia will respond firmly and on a scale corresponding to the threats created against Russia,” Putin announced.

Now that the Nord Stream pipelines are destroyed, Europe has no choice but to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas. There is so far been no retaliation for the destruction of the pipelines, however, no ruling class had yet to take responsibility for the attack either.

“Today’s missile strikes, which hit the thermal generation and electrical substations, forced Ukraine to suspend electricity exports from October 11, 2022, to stabilize its own energy system,” the Ukrainian Energy Ministry said on Monday in a statement, according to a report by RT. “The cynicism is that the entire supply chain has been hit,” Energy Minister German Galushchenko said. “It’s both electricity distribution systems and generation. The enemy’s goal is to make it difficult to reconnect electricity supplies from other sources.”

Ukrenergo, the national power grid operator, claimed its specialists have been “engaging backup supply schemes” and repaired some of the damage by Monday night.

In the meantime, the ministry urged “all citizens of Ukraine to unite” and minimize their energy use during the peak demand hours, arguing that not only Ukraine is implementing measures to reduce power consumption, but the “whole of Europe is doing this now.”

*

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

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

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.

***

Wars don’t begin on a single day by a single military action — even though history portrays things this way at times.

Hostile actions escalate over time to full-blown conflicts — the pattern unfolding in Ukraine since hegemon USA’s so-called 2004 Orange Revolution in former nation-state.

It’s now a territory controlled by the empire of lies and forever wars, a platform for waging war on Russia.

Things escalated since the Obama/Biden regime’s 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev.

Vladimir Putin authorized Russia’s SMO last February because over 100,000 US-controlled Ukrainian troops were mobilized in preparation to invade Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as the Russian Republic of Crimea — preceded by weeks of heavy cross-border shelling.

Since then, Russian forces liberated the LPR entirely, most of the DPR, and most Kherson and Zaporozhye areas.

Following open, free and fair referendum voting last month, they joined the Russian Federation — exercising their UN Charter right of self-determination.

At the same time, hegemon USA — perhaps jointly with one or more vassal states — detonated explosives to render 3 of 4 Nord Stream gas lines to Germany inoperable, an act of state-sponsored terrorism against the Russian Federation.

Then on October 8, Ukrainian Nazis damaged a portion of the Crimean Bridge across the Kerch Strait — another terrorist act against what connects Russia’s Republic of Crimea to the mainland.

What was a symbolic, not a strategic, action was authorized by dominant Biden regime hardliners.

At war on Russia by use of Ukrainian foot soldiers, hegemon USA is fully in charge of their operations.

On Sunday in response to Crimean Bridge sabotage, Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, minced no words as follows, saying:

“Russia can only respond to this crime by directly killing terrorists, as is the custom elsewhere in the world.”

“This is what Russian citizens expect.”

What happened “was a terrorist act and sabotage committed by the criminal Kiev regime.”

“There never was any doubt about that.”

“All reports were presented and conclusions made.”

On Sunday, Vladimir Putin met with Russia’s Investigative Committee Chairman, Alexander Bastrykin.

He explained the following, saying:

“(O)ur investigative team of the Main Directorate of Investigations and crime and forensic experts promptly arrived at the site of the incident.”

“They carried out a detailed examination of the site together with explosives experts and forensic team and reached well-grounded tentative conclusions.”

“We opened an investigation in accordance with part 2 of Article 205 “Terrorism,” and this is confirmed by the preliminary stage of the investigation.”

“We interrogated numerous witnesses and eyewitnesses.”

“Special expert studies have been launched and largely completed – explosives expertise, DNA testing and a forensic analysis.”

“Respective instructions were issued to the Federal Security Service and the Interior Ministry of Russia regarding investigative activities.”

“We have already established the route of the lorry which exploded.”

“It drove through Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, North Ossetia, and the Krasnodar Territory.”

“In addition, we have also identified the carriers – the persons who took part in arranging the movements of that lorry.”

“The FSS field agents helped to identify suspects from among those who could have arranged the terrorist act and those who are active within the Russian Federation.”

Mincing no words, Vladimir Putin said the following on Sunday:

Crimean Bridge sabotage “was a (state-sponsored) terrorist attack aimed at destroying critical Russian civilian infrastructure.”

Kiev regime “special services were the authors, perpetrators and customers” of what happened — as authorized by their US master.

Separately on Sunday, Belarusian State Border Committee Chairman, Anatoly Lappo, accused Ukrainian Nazis of planning imminent strikes on the nation’s territory, saying:

“Today, almost all border bridges have been blown up.”

“Automobile and railway border routes are completely mined.”

Ukrainian Nazis “put anti-tank mines in three rows on roads” along border areas.

“We are under pressure.”

“They are aiming at our border guards.”

“Sometimes they shoot in the air.

“Constant aerial reconnaissance is being carried out.”

“Ukraine is planning to conduct a strike on the territory of Belarus.”

Last week, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko accused Kiev of massing tens of thousands of troops along the nation’s 1,000 km border.

According to Belarusian Defense Minister, General Viktor Khrenin, the nation’s military is able to deploy around 500,000 forces to defend its territory against foreign aggression.

Separately on Monday, Russia responded to state-sponsored terrorism by Kiev regime Nazis against the Crimean Bridge.

According to eyewitnesses, multiple explosions rocked Kiev, Odessa and other Ukrainian cities.

Reportedly, the regime’s Security Service (SBU) and key infrastructure targets were struck.

Its so-called prime minister, Denis Shmygal, said the following:

“As of 11:00 AM Monday, 11 crucial infrastructure facilities were damaged in eight regions and in Kiev.”

“Some regions are currently without power.”

“We need to brace for temporary disruptions in electricity and water supplies and communication services.”

Occupied Kharkov areas lost power and water.

More on Russian retaliation against regime state terror as additional information becomes available.

Months earlier, Belarusian President Lukashenko warned that hegemon USA, its NATO vassals and Nazified Kiev are “push(ing) toward a third world war” against Russia, adding:

The empire of lies and forever wars “is the sole beneficiary of what is happening here.”

“In this way, Europe can be shown its place and (US) competitors eliminated.”

A new “iron curtain” emerged.

The risk of US-dominated NATO global war with nukes is ominously higher today than ever before.

Based on recent events discussed above, has it already begun unannounced?

*

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

Featured image is from Ultimate-Survival

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate 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.

***

The old adage is that a good foreign policy is the reflection of the national policy. A perfect storm is brewing on the foreign policy front in America triggered by the OPEC decision on Thursday to cut oil production by 2 million barrels a day, which will on the one hand drive up the gas price for the domestic consumer and on the other hand expose the Biden Administration’s lop-sided foreign policy priorities. 

At its most obvious level, the OPEC decision confirms the belief that Washington has lost its leverage with the cartel of oil-producing countries. This is being attributed to the deterioration of the US’ relations with Saudi Arabia during the Biden presidency. But, fundamentally, a contradiction has arisen between the US interests and the interests of the oil producing countries. 

Contradictions are nothing new to the geopolitics of oil. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed two major “oil crises.” One was man-made while the other was an interplay of historical forces — the Yom-Kippur War of 1973 and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. 

In the downstream of the Yom-Kippur War, the Arab nations weaponised oil and proclaimed an oil embargo on western nations which were perceived to have supported Israel in the war. The result was that the price of oil rose nearly 300% in less than 6 months, crippling the world’s economy. 

President Nixon asked petrol stations not to sell gasoline from Saturday night through until Monday morning. The crisis affected industry more than the average consumer. 

In 1979, the Iranian Revolution hit oil production rates and the world’s oil supply shrunk by 4%. Panic set in, demand for crude oil shot up and price more than doubled. 

The Biden Administration tempted Fate by underestimating the importance of oil in modern economic and political terms and ignoring that oil will remain the dominant energy source across the world for the foreseeable future, powering everything from cars and domestic heating to huge industry titans and manufacturing plants. 

A smooth transition to green energy over time is largely dependent on the continued availability of plentiful, cheap fossil fuel. But the Biden Administration ignored that those who have oil reserves wield a huge amount of power over our oil-centred energy systems, and those who buy oil are on the contrary, cripplingly dependent on the market and the diplomatic relations which drive it. 

The Western powers are far too naive to think that an energy superpower like Russia can be simply “erased” from the ecosystem. In an “energy war” with Russia, they are doomed to end up as losers.  

Historically, Western nations understood the imperative to maintain good diplomatic relations with oil-producing countries. But Biden threw caution into the wind by insulting Saudi Arabia calling it a “Pariah” state. Any improvement in the US-Saudi relations is not to be expected under Biden’s watch. The Saudis distrust American intentions. 

The congruence of interests on the part of the OPEC to keep the prices high is essentially because they need the extra income for their expenditure budget and to maintain a healthy investment level in the oil industry. The International Monetary Fund in April projected Saudi Arabia’s breakeven oil price — the oil price at which it would balance its budget — at $79.20 a barrel. 

The Saudi government does not disclose its assumed breakeven oil price. But a Reuters report suggested that a preferred price level would be around $90 to $100 a barrel for Brent crude — at which level, it won’t have a huge impact on the global economy. Of course, over $100 will be a windfall. 

Meanwhile, a “systemic” crisis is brewing. It is only natural that the OPEC views with scepticism the recent moves by the US and the EU to push back Russia’s oil exports. The West rationalises these moves as aimed at drastically reducing Russia’s income from oil exports (which translates as its resilience to fight the war in Ukraine.) The latest G7 move to put a cap on the prices at which Russia can sell its oil is taking matters to an extreme. 

The OPEC regards it as a paradigm shift, as it implicitly challenges the cartel’s assumed prerogative to ensure that global oil supply matches demand, where one of the key measures of supply-demand balance is price. Arguably, the West is de facto setting up a rival cartel of oil-consuming countries to regulate the oil market. 

No doubt, the West’s move is precedent-setting — namely, to prescribe for geopolitical reasons the price at which an oil-producing country is entitled to export its oil. If it is Russia today, it can as well be Saudi Arabia or Iraq tomorrow. The G7 decision, if it gets implemented, will erode OPEC’s key role regulating the global oil market. 

Therefore, the OPEC is proactively pushing back. Its decision to cut down oil production by 2 million barrels per day and keep the oil price above $90 per barrel makes a mockery of the G7 decision. The OPEC estimates that Washington’s options to counter OPEC+ are limited. Unlike in the past energy history, the US does not have a single ally today inside the OPEC+ group. 

Due to rising domestic demands for oil and gas, it is entirely conceivable that the US exports of both items may be curtailed. If that happens, Europe will be the worst sufferer. In an interview with FT last week, Belgium’s prime minister Alexander De Croo has warned that as winter approaches, if energy prices are not brought down,

“we are risking a massive deindustrialisation of the European continent and the long-term consequences of that might actually be very deep.” 

He added these chilling words:

“Our populations are getting invoices which are completely insane. At some point, it will snap. I understand that people are angry . . . people don’t have the means to pay it.”

De Croo was warning about the likelihood of social unrest and political turmoil in European countries. 

Without doubt, this is a tectonic shift in geopolitics which may probably turn out to be more important than the conflict in Ukraine in the making of the multipolar world order. 

This perfect storm in Biden’s foreign policy can also impact the midterms in November and deliver a Republican majority in the Senate, which could set the tempo for the 2024 US presidential election.  

The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said that by turning away from Russian energy, Europe has become a captive market for the US oil companies which are now making “crazy money,” but the high cost of it is draining away the competitiveness of the European economy.   

“Production is collapsing. Deindustrialization is coming. All this will have very, very deplorable consequences for the European continent over probably, at least, the next 10-20 years,” Peskov said. 

Russia could be the biggest “gainer” of OPEC+cuts. The expert opinion is that oil prices will move higher from current levels through year-end and next year. That is to say, Russia will not cut any output while the price of oil is set to rise in the coming months! As oil price rises, Russia will not have to cut even a barrel of its production so long as it has a big enough market after December to sell the crude now going to Europe. Again, Russia, for its part, reiterates that it will not supply oil to countries that would join the G7 price cap. It is matching the Biden Administration’s non-market instruments. 

*

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.

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.

***

Ukrainian advance in all regions has stopped. In the south of the country, Ukrainian forces are preparing for further offensive deep in the region. Russian artillery and warplanes are heavily attacking the amassing forces of the enemy.

The Ukrainian command is regrouping forces along the entire front line in the region before the upcoming offensives on Kherson and Novaya Kakhovka.

On the left bank of the Ingulets River, Russian precise strikes destroyed three Ukrainian pontoon crossings — in Velike Artakovo, Belaya Krynitsa, Novogrigorivka. Clashes continue in the area of Davidov Brod.

On the morning of October 7, Ukrainian militants struck a residential quarter in Kherson with HIMARS MLRS. Five civilians were killed after a precision-guided missile hit a bus.

In the north-eastern front, Ukrainian forces have not managed to advance in the recent days.

The Ukrainian military is regrouping forces preparing to further attack Svatovo and Kremennaya. Reconnaissance groups and foreign UAVs are active in the region. Russian units are preparing for the defense. Most of civilians were evacuated.

In turn, Russian-led forces continue their slow advance in the DPR. In the Bakhmut region, they took control of the villages of Otradovka and Veselaya Dolyna. Ukrainian forces are still fighting on the western outskirts of Zaitsevo. In the town of Bakhmut, Wagner fighters took control of the Asphalt Plant.

In the Zaporozhie region, the Ukrainian military command is reinforcing positions apparently preparing for large-scaled offensive. The attacks are expected to come in the directions Melitopol and Berdyansk. Offensive operations could be carried out in the area of the Zaporozhie NPP as well. The Ukrainian maneuvres could be also aimed at distraction of the Russian military from other regions.

After the four former regions of Ukraine entered the Russian Federation, Moscow clarified that it can use all means to protect its territories, including nuclear weapons. At the same time, it was noted that their deployment is only possible in accordance to the Russian military doctrine and the fundamental laws of state policy in the field of nuclear deterrence. Thus, their deployment is possible in the case of aggression against Russia or its allies with the use of weapons of mass destruction, or aggression with the use of conventional weapons, when the existence of the state itself is threatened.

Blaming Russia, the Kiev regime called on NATO to launch “preventive” strikes against Russia, and not “wait for Russia’s nuclear strikes.”

“What should NATO do? Exclude the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons…. Preemptive strikes so that they know what will happen to them if they do use. That’s what NATO should do: review the order of use,” said Zelensky.

Moscow assesses his demands as call for the outbreak of World War. The West is inflaming a nuclear war, and the puppet unstable Zelensky has turned into a monster whose hands can destroy the planet, the Russian Foreign ministry responded.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is from SF

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate 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.

***

The pound – at 1.11 cents to the dollar and 1.14 to the Euro is back at the levels it was before the Kwarteng budget. 

Contrary to an original estimate the UK’s economy grew in the second quarter of this year by 0.2% revised up from -0.1% but there were 4 bank holidays in this period each probably costing about 0.16% of GDP (CEBR study 2012) so those 4 days would have added another 0.64%

The UK has the second lowest debt to GDP ration in the G7 countries:

Japan 266%, Italy 151%, Canada 118%, France 113%, UK 96%, Germany 70%

While the crisis in Germany and the Eurozone has been due to the boomerang effects of anti Russian sanctions, particularly in the gas market, The United Kingdom has proven natural gas reserves of 200 billion cubic meters, reserves have stayed at the same level since 2015 and it amounts to about 5 years of UK gas consumption.

Euro in Trouble

While in the last year the pound is down 17% against the US dollar the Euro is down 15%.

Two European banks Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank are in crisis. The latter was fined $14bn in the USA and they manage respectively $1.45 trillion and $1.3 trillion of assets. France’s 3 biggest banks have set aside $1.4bn for losses.

The European Systemic Risk Board has flagged “severe risks to financial stability” and Christine Lagarde, the President of the European Central Bank has warned that the risks to financial stability are “severe”.

32  French reactors out of service. EDF is forced to buy on the open market at extortionate rates. And that at a time of critical gas shortages due to western sanctions against Russia which supplies 40% of Europe’s gas. European gas prices are about 10 times what they are in the USA so the incentive for European (and especially German) industry to move to the USA is growing.

The USA is shipping record amounts of LNG to Europe to counter the loss of Russian gas but as Natural gas prices rise in the USA those exports could be cut off with even more catastrophic results for European industry.

While the Bank of England has been buying Government bonds to reduce interest levels the ECB has been buying Italian bonds (yields rose to 4.9%) in order to save the Euro. The more they buy the more inflationary it is and the more interest rates in Italy come under pressure – and the more they have to buy Italian bonds! The prospect of contaminating all Euro bonds is high – and EU pension funds hold Euros 800bn in bonds. If bonds collapse so do pensions!

If Gas for the giant German company BASF drops by 50% it will shut down completely with possible permanent damage. BASF produces fertilizer, petroleum refining, medicines, plastics, consumer products and critical  industrial materials for the rest of German industry. 40% of BASF production is direct from gas 60% is used for energy.

At the moment Germany is running on stored gas. Ammonia production is down 70% in Western Europe (spring planting crisis no fertiliser) with a threat to diesel exhaust fluid and engine oil additives (ie the entire transport sector).

Metals smelting is down 50% with Eurometaux warning of permanent de-industrialistion. 50% of EU aluminium and zinc capacity has been forced offline and many companies have closed indefinitely.

Germany has nationalised its biggest gas importer Uniper and given domestic households priority over industry. Domestic vegetable production is threatened due to energy costs (up 10 times since 2021)

If, as is virtually certain unless the USA and Europe can make peace in Ukraine, Russia’s permanent redirection of energy eastwards means long lasting gas shortages and higher prices for European industry.

USA Destroys Russia-Germany Pipeline

There is no serious doubt about the fact that it was the USA which sabotaged the two pipelines Nordstream 1 and Nordstream 2 bringing gas from Russia to Germany not least because President Joe Biden, Russophobic State Department official Victoria Nuland and Republican Senator Ron Johnson are all on the record demanding the Nord Stream pipelines be taken out.

As Sea Power Magazine reported on June 14th, the US Navy’s 6th Fleet Task Force 68 was running underwater explosives removal drills in the exact area where these sabotage explosions took place.

Der Spiegel reported that the CIA had warned of an attack and a former Polish foreign minister Mr Sikorski said the US did it.

Jim Geraghty, senior political correspondent for the American political journal National Review, has also praised the attacks in a brief piece called Who Will Rid Me of This Meddlesome Pipeline? He is proud that he has been arguing about the importance of taking Nord Stream 2 offline since February and suggests that the attacks reflected his influence.

Having already described the mad nature of the Ukraine war we now have the madness of NATO allies attacking each other, threatening economic catastrophe and breaking a critical taboo that international infrastructure like pipelines should not be attacked in war.

Of course it is Europe with its massive network of internal and international oil, gas and electricity pipelines which is vulnerable – not the United States. If, as George Friedman of Geopolitical Futures says:

“The EU was created to ensure peace and prosperity, as its motto proclaims. Peace is shaky, and prosperity is slipping away. The Italian election signals a crisis.”

Then it is predominantly the USA which has been responsible for this collapse making a mockery of its vaunted gift to the world of its “rules based order”!

As if the lack of gas itself were not crucifying European industry the financial losses of the destruction of the pipelines will severely affect the corporations which needed them for supplies and cannot deliver and those which invested in them.

Wintershall Dea AG and PEG/ E.ON; the Dutch N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and the French ENGIE.

Then there are those which financed NS2: Wintershall Dea and Uniper; Austrian OMV and British-Dutch Shell.

The Biden mad house has made as many enemies among its friends as it has world wide for its war on Russia through Ukraine. No wonder some 150 countries in the UN cannot be brought on board.

*

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

Featured image is from Freenations

And Into The Fire

Fascist elements in post war Europe and the development of the European Union

By Rodney Atkinson

With contributions from William Dorich and Edward Spalton

Publisher: ‎ GM Books; 1st edition (July 25, 2013)
Publication date: ‎ July 25, 2013
Print length: ‎ 164 pages

Click here to view this and other titles by Rodney Atkinson.

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.

***

The secret British intelligence plot to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge is revealed in internal documents and correspondence obtained exclusively by The Grayzone.

The Grayzone has obtained an April 2022 presentation drawn up for senior British intelligence officers hashing out an elaborate scheme to blow up Crimea’s Kerch Bridge with the involvement of specially trained Ukrainian soldiers. Almost six months after the plan was circulated, Kerch Bridge was attacked in an October 8th suicide bombing apparently overseen by Ukraine’s SBU intelligence services.

Detailed proposals for providing “audacious” support to Kiev’s “maritime raiding operations” were drafted at the request of Chris Donnelly, a senior British Army intelligence operative and veteran high ranking NATO advisor. The wide-ranging plan’s core component was “destruction of the bridge over the Kerch Strait.”

Documents and correspondence plotting the operation were provided to The Grayzone by an anonymous source.

The truck bombing of the Kerch Bridge differed operationally from the plot sketched therein. Yet, Britain’s evident interest in planning such an attack underscores the deep involvement of NATO powers in the Ukraine proxy war. At almost precisely the time that London reportedly sabotaged peace talks between Kiev and Moscow in April this year, British military intelligence operatives were drawing up blueprints to destroy a major Russian bridge crossed by thousands of civilians per day.

The roadmap was produced by Hugh Ward, a British military veteran. A number of strategies for helping Ukraine “pose a threat to Russian naval forces” in the Black Sea are outlined. The overriding objectives are stated as aiming to “degrade” Russia’s ability to blockade Kiev, “erode” Moscow’s “warfighting capability”,  and isolate Russian land and maritime forces in Crimea by “denying resupply by sea and overland via Kerch bridge.”

In an email, Ward asked Donnelly to “please protect this document,” and it’s easy to see why. Of these assorted plans, only the “Kerch Bridge Raid CONOPS [concept of operation]” is subject to a dedicated annex at the conclusion of Ward’s report, underlining its significance.

The content amounts to direct, detailed advocacy for the commission of what could constitute a grave war crime. Markedly, in plotting ways to destroy a major passenger bridge, there is no reference to avoiding civilian casualties.

Across three separate pages, alongside diagrams, the author spells out the terms of the “mission” – “[disabling] the Kerch Bridge in a way that is audacious, disrupts road and rail access to Crimea and maritime access to the Sea of Azov.”

Ward suggests that destroying the bridge “would require a cruise missile battery to hit the two concrete pillars either side of the central steel arch, which will cause a complete structural failure,” and “prevent any road re-supply from the Russian mainland to Crimea and temporally [sic] disrupt the shipping lane.”

An alternative “scheme” entails a “team of attack divers or UUVs [unmanned underwater vehicles] equipped with limpet mines and linear cutting charges” targeting a “key weakness” and “design flaw” in the bridge’s pillars.

This “flaw” is “several thin pylons used to support the main span,” which were intended to allow strong currents to flow underneath the Bridge with minimal friction. Ward pinpoints a particular area in which the depth of water around a set of pillars was just 10 meters, making it the “weakest part” of the structure.

In related emails obtained by The Grayzone, Chris Donnelly, the senior British army intelligence operative and former NATO advisor, declared the proposals to be “very impressive indeed.”

Reached by phone, Hugh Ward did not deny that he had prepared the Kerch Bridge destruction blueprint for Chris Donnelly.

“I’m going to have a chat with Chris [Donnelly] and confirm with him what he’s prepared for me to release,” Ward told The Grayzone, when asked directly if he drafted the “audacious” plan.

Asked again to confirm his role in the blueprint, Ward paused, then said: “I can not confirm that. I’ll have a chat with Chris first.”

A suicide attack on a $4 billion transportation artery 

At dawn on October 8th, an incendiary attack damaged the Kerch Bridge. A truck exploded, setting two oil tankers ablaze, causing two Crimea-bound spans of the roadway to collapse into the sea below, and killing three.

While the affected section was quickly repaired and traffic resumed the next day, Western media has celebrated the incident as the latest Russian embarrassment and failure in the conflict with Ukraine. In some cases, journalists openly cheered and joked about what could plausibly be categorized as a war crime that claimed civilian lives.

The suicide strike targeted a connecting structure between Crimea and mainland Russia constructed at a cost of $4 billion, and whose opening provided a major public relations victory for the Kremlin, reinforcing Moscow’s renewed control of the majority Russian-speaking territory.

Upon its unveiling in May 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked:

“In different historical epochs, even under the tsar priests, people dreamed of building this bridge. Then they returned to this in the 1930s, the 40s, the 50s. And finally, thanks to your work and your talent, the miracle has happened.”

The Bridge has been heavily defended since February 24th, not least because it serves as a major transport route for military equipment to Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Russia has previously promised major reprisals in response to any strike on the structure.

Following the attack, widespread euphoria erupted among Ukrainians, Ukrainian authorities, and Ukraine supporters on social media. Oleksiy Danilov, head of Ukraine’s national security and defense council, posted a video of the burning bridge alongside a black-and-white clip of Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday, Mr. President — a reference to Putin turning 70 the same day.

Furthermore, Ukrainian media has reported via an anonymous source “in law enforcement agencies” that the attack was carried out by the Security Service of Ukraine. Yet, high-ranking Ukrainian officials, including chief presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak, are now backtracking, claiming instead that the incident was a Russian false flag.

Such allegations have become commonplace in the wake of incidents in which Ukrainian – or Western – culpability seems likely or indeed certain, such as the Nord Stream pipeline explosions.

Laying the foundations of World War III

While the attack on Kerch Bridge did not involve specialist divers, underwater drones or cruise missiles, there are indications that Ward’s plans were shared with the Ukrainian government at the highest levels. In fact, Chris Donnelly forwarded them to former Lithuanian Minister of Defense Audrius Butkevičius, before introducing the pair by email.

A leading figure in Lithuania’s anti-Communist movement, Butkevičius has admitted to deliberately leading pro-independence fighters into Soviet snipers’ line of fire on January 13th 1991. This incident is sometimes referred to as Vilnius’ “Bloody Sunday,” and is officially observed as the Day of the Defenders of Freedom. Butkevičius and his confederates knew the maneuver would provoke mass casualties, further inflaming the local population against Soviet leadership and encourage regime change, which is why they orchestrated it.

More recently, Butkevičius co-owned Bulcommerce KS, a company that servedas “the main intermediary in the supply of Bulgarian weapons and ammunition to Ukraine through third countries,” for use in the civil war in Donbas.

Butkevičius has been credibly accused of working for British intelligence. Email exchanges with Donnelly confirm he is in contact with Guy Spindler, a long-time MI6 officer who was posted in London’s Moscow Embassy concurrently with the infamous Trump-Russia “dossier” author Christopher Steele.

Reached by phone and asked if he reviewed the “Audacious” plan to destroy Kerch Bridge, Spindler told The Grayzone: “I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.”

Contemporary accounts suggest Spindler directly coordinated with Boris Yeltsin at the time of a failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in August 1991.

Butkevičius was also for many years a “senior fellow” at the Institute for Statecraft, a shadowy “charity” founded by Donnelly that manages a number of arm’s length military and intelligence operations on behalf of the British state and NATO, including the now notorious Foreign Office black propaganda unit, the Integrity Initiative.

Leaked Initiative files name Butkevičius as the organization’s key contact in Ukraine at the time of the country’s 2019 election. Three years earlier, he was one of the “escorting personnel” for five Ukrainian intelligence operatives whisked to London by the Institute for Statecraft in order to brief the British military on Russian “hybrid warfare” techniques. Alongside him was Vidmantas Eitutis, who at the time trained Ukraine’s army to conduct “active counterintelligence operations” in Luhansk.

In the Kerch Bridge sabotage proposal commissioned by Donnelly, Ward asks whether the Russian military knew how vulnerable the bridge supposedly was, and “what countermeasures could be expected” in response to its destruction (see image above).

The blitz of retaliatory missile strikes on Ukraine on October 10th provides a likely answer. It is also probable that if Ward’s outline was followed, Moscow’s reprisal would have been even more deadly, putting the lives of countless Ukrainians – and Russians – at significant risk.

Donnelly was clearly unmoved by such concerns, declaring the plans to be “very impressive indeed.”

A similar disregard for catastrophic consequences was evident in a private memo authored by Donnelly in March 2014, outlining “military measures” that Ukraine should take following Moscow’s seizure of Crimea.

Stating that, “if I were in charge I would get the following implemented,” Donnelly advocated mining Sevastopol harbor using a “car ferry,” destroying fighter jets on Crimean airfields “as a gesture that they are serious,” using a “big microwave anti-satellite weapon” to take down Russian space installations, and turning to the West for oil and gas supplies.

“I am trying to get this message across,” he concluded. These prescriptions have yet to be implemented, perhaps because they risk triggering an apocalyptic situation. Indeed, such “gestures” would amount to brazen provocations against a nuclear power, from which Ukraine’s oil and gas network was and remains exclusively designed to receive energy.

Yet it appears Donnelly and those around him would be content to see World War III erupt over Crimea. In fact, as the leaked documents obtained by The Grayzone will continue to demonstrate, provoking conflict between the West and Russia has long-been one of his ultimate objectives.

*

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.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

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.

***

“You know, when police start becoming their own executioners, where’s it gonna end? Pretty soon, you’ll start executing people for jaywalking, and executing people for traffic violations. Then you end up executing your neighbor ‘cause his dog pisses on your lawn.”—“Dirty Harry” Callahan, Magnum Force

When I say that warrior cops—hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge—have not made America any safer or freer, I am not disrespecting any of the fine, decent, lawful police officers who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace.

My concern rests with the cops who feel empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner.

These death squads believe they can kill, shoot, taser, abuse and steal from American citizens in the so-called name of law and order.

Just recently, in fact, a rookie cop opened fire on the occupants of a parked car in a McDonald’s parking loton a Sunday night in San Antonio, Texas.

Image: An officer opens the driver’s door and orders Erik Cantu out of the vehicle in San Antonio, Texas, on Oct. 2, 2022.San Antonio Police Dept.

The driver, 17-year-old Erik Cantu and his girlfriend, were eating burgers inside the car when the police officer—suspecting the car might have been one that fled an attempted traffic stop the night before—abruptly opened the driver side door, ordered the teenager to get out, and when he did not comply, shot tentimes at the car, hitting Cantu multiple times.

Mind you, this wasn’t a life-or-death situation.

It was two teenagers eating burgers in a parking lot, and a cop fresh out of the police academy taking justice into his own hands.

This wasn’t an isolated incident, either.

In Hugo, Oklahoma, plain clothes police officers opened fire on a pickup truck parked in front of a food bank, heedless of the damage such a hail of bullets—26 shots were fired—could have on those in the vicinity. Three of the four children inside the parked vehicle were shot: a 4-year-old girl was shot in the head and ended up with a bullet in the brain; a 5-year-old boy received a skull fracture; and a 1-year-old girl had deep cuts on her face from gunfire or shattered window glass. The reason for the use of such excessive force? Police were searching for a suspect in a weeks-old robbery of a pizza parlor that netted $400.

In Minnesota, a 4-year-old girl watched from the backseat of a car as cops shot and killed her mother’s boyfriend, Philando Castile, a school cafeteria supervisor, during a routine traffic stop merely because Castile disclosed that he had a gun in his possession, for which he had a lawful conceal-and-carry permit. That’s all it took for police to shoot Castile four times as he was reaching for his license and registration.

Image: Philando Castile (Courtesy Of Castile Family)

In Arizona, a 7-year-old girl watched panic-stricken as a state trooper pointed his gun at her and her father during a traffic stop and reportedly threated to shoot her father in the back (twice) based on the mistakenbelief that they were driving a stolen rental car.

This is how we have gone from a nation of laws—where the least among us had just as much right to be treated with dignity and respect as the next person (in principle, at least)—to a nation of law enforcers (revenue collectors with weapons) who treat the citizenry like suspects and criminals.

The lesson for all of us: at a time when police have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect”—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct—“we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

Of the roughly 1,100 people killed by police each year, 10% of those involve traffic stops.

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

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

Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Walter Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

That police are choosing 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.”

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. Yet it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

Unfortunately, in the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police state make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings.  However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible, but it is also deluded.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the danger arises when the burden of proof is reversed, “we the people” are assumed guilty, and we have to exercise our rights while simultaneously attempting to prove our innocence to trigger-happy cops with no understanding of the Bill of Rights.

*

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

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 Silent Crow News

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.

***

Gabbard should have done this years ago, but it is better late than never.

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, are… pic.twitter.com/oAuTnxZldf

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 11, 2022

Thank you for speaking the truth, Tulsi.

Now, let’s take a look at a Newsweek write-up on Gabbard’s decision.

Gabbard, who unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in the 2020 election, made the announcement in a video posted on Twitter, in which she accused the Democrats of stoking “anti-white racism,” and “dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.”

The upper echelon of the ruling Democrats is not for or against an individual based solely on his or her skin color. The only thing that matters is class and how much money and power an individual has. There is no real support for Black Lives Matter or less radical groups. It is simply a tool for diversion and control.

The same principle applies to Republicans, including so-called MAGA Republicans. Each group or rather faction of the ruling political class has its own social, political, and economic schtick to attract different elements of a culturally diverse nation. Overall effectiveness hinges on slightly different approaches pushing the same basic neoliberal doctrine.

The vast majority of Congress and the political class can be said to be almost exclusively upper middle class to mega-wealthy.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of America has slipped into the lower middle class, what used to be called the working class. Millions more are living in poverty where there is growing childhood malnutrition and widespread violence. The Democrat elite lies when they say they are champions of the poor and downtrodden. Both Democrats and Republicans—essentially a uni-party representing corporate and banking interests—pay lip service and deliver crumbs to the vast majority of America as it is pushed deeper into poverty.

On the topic of war, Democrats have shown, especially in regard to Ukraine, they are quite frankly dangerously insane.

Historians and high school history teachers say liberal Democrats are traditionally antiwar, citing the countercultural values of the 1960s resistance to the Vietnam War.

All of that is nonsense. Democrat Truman used two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians. Democrat Kennedy sent advisers to Vietnam (following the failures of French colonialism in SE Asia). Johnson escalated Vietnam. Carter set the stage for Afghanistan and the Mujahideen that would splinter into al-Qaeda. All these Democrats were staunch “anti-communists,” especially JFK.

Clinton and NATO bombed an Eastern European country for over seventy days. Clinton also killed civilians with cruise missiles in Iraq and bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Obama and Clinton’s wife along with NATO bombed Libya, where 30,000 died, and fueled horrific violence in Syria in an attempt to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.

Now comes the Democrat Biden and the war in Ukraine.

This is not to say political class Republicans are peaceniks. Nixon escalated Johnson’s escalation in Vietnam and spread the bloodshed and horror into Laos and Cambodia, the latter so destabilized it ended up with Pol Pot and around a third of the population butchered.

Reagan illegally supported a terrorist group in violation of the Bolan Act. He sent warships to flatten villages in the mountains of Lebanon. His warplanes killed the adopted daughter of Moammar Gadaffi, a fate Moammar would later suffer himself for the mistake of taking the USG at its word.

And, finally, the George Bushes, father, and son, instigators of two wars on one country, Iraq, with a long and inhumanely punishing sanctions regime in between, enforced by Clinton.

The corporate media is rife with lies about Russia and nuclear war. Russia has said it will resort to nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened. Vladimir Putin did not say he will use nukes in what’s left of Ukraine.

Now that Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk have voted to join the Russian Federation, any attacks on the Donbas will be considered an attack on Russia proper.

It really was the only way to stop the mass murder of ethnic Russians in Ukraine committed by Nazi-leaning ultranationalists. They have bombed and attacked fellow Ukrainians of Russian ethnicity since 2014 and the illegal USG coup that deposed the elected leader of the country. The people of Donetsk have pleaded for help for years, only to be ignored by the “democratic” “international community” of neoliberal captured governments.

Yes, Democrats should be outraged about war. Short of self-defense, it is never acceptable. But the problem here is that they are only selectively outraged, as directed by the elders of the Democrat faction of the USG Uniparty. Loyal Democrats did not complain when their hero Obama ramped up the illegal drone war (extrajudicially killing Americans, in addition to foreigners) and put together the unwarranted war that turned Libya from the most advanced country in Africa into a violent slave market.

As you may have noticed, I am not linking anything here. I have done that hundreds of times since nine eleven.

Most of what I said above is historical fact. It can be researched. If you believe I am a “conspiracy theorist,” I dare you to check out the facts, that is if you can get an accurate read with the new search engine ranking algorithms that require a deep drill, extra work, creative search criteria, and often dead ends where there was not before. I count the loss of a stellar research database, the History Commons, in the “misinformation” reshuffle of reality.

It is difficult not to be cynical. There is literally next to no opposition to this war, only angry rhetoric and cartoonish representations of Putin, and half-ass prayers for the victims of Ukraine on social media where the most outrageous and transparent lies become memes with grade school level insults hurled about, thus keeping the division alive as the world economy begins to take on water and a nuclear WWIII seems all but inevitable.

Newsweek knows there are murderous Nazi goons in Ukraine. It has reported as much. The liberal alternative press has posted a long list of articles on the Nazi problem in Ukraine. Do you hear about that now? How it just might have something to do with what is now going on?

No, you hear crickets.

Tulsi:

I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms, hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

All very true—and will get her forever marked as a “conservative Republican,” and thus easily tossed around in the divisive political game that has gone into hyperspace since covid.

Finally, Gabbard is calling for Democrats with any shred of human dignity left—there are sadly few—to leave the party. This can be ignored—especially if it does not pick up any traction.

It just might. I hope it does.

I think the German psychologist and socialist Wilhelm Reich was correct when he observed in his largely unknown little book, “Listen, Little Man,” that the average person would rather leave the dirty work to the political psychopaths and remain blissfully unaware of the crimes committed in their names.

“I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people,” she said. “Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite. I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me in leaving the Democratic Party.”

I hope you can, Tulsi. But again, I am by nature a cynic, especially in regard to the state and war.

*

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

Kurt Nimmo writes on Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

Featured image: U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard speaking with attendees at the 2019 California Democratic Party State Convention at the George R. Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, California. Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr) 

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.

***

The seven-month-old war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine escalated Monday, after Russia carried out a series of attacks against largely civilian infrastructures throughout Ukraine.

Some 14 people were killed and 97 injured in the strikes, according to Ukrainian officials, and power was disrupted in more than half the country’s regions. The Wall Street Journal reported that most strikes were “hitting electricity substations and other targets outside city centers, away from civilian homes.”

On Friday, the Ukrainian Special Forces orchestrated a terrorist suicide bombing on the Kerch Bridge, which connects Russia to Crimea. The move came after the former commanding general of the US Army in Europe, General Ben Hodges, urged Ukraine to “drop” the bridge, and current US officials publicly gave a green light to attack it.

Days after the attack, the aim of the Kerch Bridge bombing comes into sharper view. Its purpose was to provoke a military response by Russia against civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, which could then be used to justify a massive increase in US-NATO involvement in the conflict.

For months, US officials had been expressing concern that Russia had not been “provoked” into expanding the war into western Ukraine, which had been largely spared in recent months.

Last month, former US Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor complained to The Hill that, despite the fact that the White House had provided “larger, more capable, longer-distance, heavier weapons to the Ukrainians,” the “Russians have not reacted.” Up to this point, Taylor said, the “Russians have kind of bluffed and blustered, but they haven’t been provoked.”

With Tuesday’s attack, Russian authorities had, in fact, allowed themselves to be “provoked,” setting the stage for an even more massive escalation of US-NATO involvement in the war.

The attack on the Kerch Bridge was timed to take place just days before the NATO defense ministers’ meeting on October 12 and 13, which is expected to expand the level of direct NATO involvement in the conflict.

A senior Biden administration official interviewed by the Washington Post called the escalation of the war a “turning point.”

The attacks, in the words of the Washington Post, raise the question of “whether the United States and its partners may have to move beyond the concept of helping Ukraine defend itself, and instead more forcefully facilitate a Ukrainian victory.”

The Post wrote:

“So far, the US supply effort has been deliberative and process-oriented in the kinds of weapons it provides, and the speed at which it provides them, so as not to undercut its highest priority of avoiding a direct clash between Russia and the West. That strategy is likely to be part of the agenda at Tuesday’s emergency meeting of G7 leaders and a gathering of NATO defense ministers later in the week.”

In other words, dominant sections of the US political establishment will use the attacks as a pretext to carry out a long-planned escalation of the war.

In this way, the attacks on civilian infrastructure ordered by Putin play right into the hands of the US and NATO, which had hoped that by provoking Russia, they would be given a pretext to intervene more directly in the war and ensure Russia’s military defeat.

Ahead of the meeting, US officials are demanding an expansion of arms shipments to Ukraine.

“I pledge to use all means at my disposal to accelerate support for the people of Ukraine and to starve Russia’s war machine,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez.

CIA Democrat Representative Elissa Slotkin tweeted that the dispatch of more air defense systems for Ukraine was “urgent,” adding,

“Providing these systems is a defensive—not escalatory—step, and our European friends need to step up along with us to get the Ukrainians what they need.”

The Wall Street Journal in an editorial demanded that the United States “provide Ukraine with more weapons, including better air defenses,” declaring, “Mr. Putin won’t end his war until it becomes clear the cost of continuing it is too high.”

Speaking to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday, Biden “pledged to continue providing Ukraine with the support needed to defend itself, including advanced air defense systems,” according to a summary of the call from the White House.

On Tuesday, Zelensky will address a meeting of the G7, which is likewise expected to pledge more military support to the conflict. Zelensky will, according to the Guardian, “emphasize anti-aircraft systems, and repeat the longstanding demand for longer-range missiles.”

Ukrainian officials claimed that Russia conducted missile attacks against more than 20 cities, including the capital, Kiev. According to the Ukrainian General Staff, Russian forces launched more than 84 cruise missiles and 24 drone attacks.

The Institute for the Study of War reported that

“Russian forces launched missiles from 10 strategic bombers operating in the Caspian Sea and from Nizhny Novgorod, Iskander short-range ballistic missile systems, and 6 missile carriers in the Black Sea.”

In a sober assessment of the military consequences of Monday’s strikes, the Institute for the Study of War wrote,

“Ukrainian and Western intelligence have previously reported that Russia has spent a significant portion of its high-precision missiles, and Putin likely knows better than Medvedev or the milbloggers that he cannot sustain attacks of this intensity for very long.”

It continued,

“The October 10 Russian attacks wasted some of Russia’s dwindling precision weapons against civilian targets, as opposed to militarily significant targets.”

It added that

“Ukrainian air defenses also shot down half of the Russian drones and cruise missiles,” and noted that “Russia’s use of its limited supply of precision weapons in this role may deprive Putin of options to disrupt ongoing Ukrainian counter-offensives in Kherson and Luhansk Oblasts.”

“Throughout the war, the Russian military has had problems with target selection and the accuracy of their missiles,” Michael Kofman, director of Russia studies at CNA, told the New York Times. “As the war goes on, their supply of precision-guided weapons has dwindled, and they are using weapons that are not suited to land targets or that are old and unreliable.”

Meanwhile, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said he had ordered troops to deploy together with Russian forces near the Ukrainian border. Lukashenko declared that

“Strikes on the territory of Belarus are not just being discussed in Ukraine today, but are also being planned.”

Poland urged its citizens to leave Belarus “with available commercial and private means.”

*

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

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

Biden’s Broken Promise to Avoid War with Russia May Kill Us All

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, October 11, 2022

On March 11, 2022, President Biden reassured the American public and the world that the United States and its NATO allies were not at war with Russia. “We will not fight a war with Russia in Ukraine,” said Biden. “Direct conflict between NATO and Russia is World War III, something we must strive to prevent.”

Free Speech and the Tyranny of ‘Kindness’. Jacinda Ardern in the Global Limelight

By Colin Todhunter, October 11, 2022

Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, grabbed the global limelight a few years ago, making headlines by stating she wanted to put “kindness” into politics. In 2019, Foreign Policy, a publication closely associated with the Atlantic Council and the US State Department, published the article ‘The Kindness Quotient’, a glowing promotion of Ardern.

Destroying Europe? Is Washington Behind the OPEC Decision to Cut Petrol Output? Sabotaging the E.U. Economy

By Peter Koenig and Press TV, October 11, 2022

US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, says the government is working closely with Congress to review alternatives regarding ties with Saudi Arabia. That’s a day after the 23 countries, together known as OPEC+ agreed to reduce the output by 2 million barrels per day from November.

Resistance to British Colonial Brutality: Bhadshah Khan’s Afghan Peace Movement

By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, October 11, 2022

In 1929, a Pashtun tribal leader in nearby Afghanistan named Bhadshah Khan – a peer of Gandhi – became an important ally by inaugurating Afghanistan’s indigenous non-violent movement known as the Khudai-Khidmatgar – the servants of God.

Nicaragua Facing a “Satanic West”

By Stephen Sefton, October 11, 2022

In November 2010, when now President Vladimir Putin was Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, he proposed “the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.” The European Union never accepted that vision. Three years later, the United States staged a coup d’état in Ukraine with the complicity of the European Union and its member countries.

The Rule of Power. Paypal Penalties for “Those Guilty of Misinformation”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 11, 2022

Last week PayPal, an online service for making and receiving payments, announced that at PayPal’s “sole discretion” $2,500 would be seized from accounts of those PayPal decided were guilty of spreading misinformation.  “Misinformation” is whatever some speech control office at PayPal doesn’t like or dissent from official narratives. 

Fighting the Corona War and Beyond

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, October 11, 2022

In less than three years the Group – call it what you will – that engineered this phoney pandemic, shut down the entire world within weeks, and pushed a campaign of fear and control that had the best and brightest shilling for masks, lockdown, universal ‘vaccination’ and quarantines – this Cabal has managed to inoculate, at the time of writing, 68.2 percent of the world’s population.

It’s Time to Tell Biden We Say ‘No!’ to Nuclear War!

By Rep. Ron Paul, October 11, 2022

Last week the New York Times ran a shocking article claiming that the US intelligence community believes the Ukrainian government to be responsible for the August attack that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian philosopher.

Terror on Crimea Bridge Incites Russia to Unleash “Shock and Awe”?

By Pepe Escobar, October 11, 2022

At least 450 kg of explosives were employed in the blast. Not on the truck, but mounted inside the Crimea Bridge span itself. The white truck was just a decoy by the terrorists “to create a mirage of cause and effect.” When the truck reached the point on the bridge where the explosives were mounted, the explosion took place.

Health Risks Associated with 5G Exposure, Small Cell Densification and New Wireless Networks

By Environmental Health Trust, October 11, 2022

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

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.

***

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

Cell towers, 5G Networks and 4G Small Cells Emit Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation 

Studies find RF exposure elevated in buildings located close to cell antennas. 

Baltrėnas et al 2012 investigated RF power density levels from cell phone antennas located 35 meters away from a 10-story apartment building. The transmitting antennas were approximately at the same height as the 6th floor of the building. The researchers found the highest RF at floors 5–7. The RF at the 6th floor balcony was three times higher than the 3rd floor balcony. The RF power density at the 6th floor  was about 15 times the RF measures at the first floor.

The study “Radiofrequency radiation from nearby mobile phone base stations-a case comparison of one low and one high exposure apartment “ published in Oncology Letters (Koppel et al 2019) found that the apartment with high RF exposure had outdoor areas as close as 6 meters (about 19.6 feet) from the cell antenna array. In contrast, the low exposure apartment’s balcony had cell antennas at 40 meters (about 131 feet) away. The researchers also found that both apartments had good mobile phone reception and “Therefore, installation of base stations to risky places cannot be justified using the good reception requirement argument.”

A 2017 case report of RF levels in an apartment close to two groups of rooftop cellular antennas used an exposimeter to measure levels of different types of RF in the apartment and balconies including TV,  FM, TETRA emergency services, 2G GSM, 3G UMTS, 4G LTE, DECT cordless, Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz  and WiMAX. The closest transmitting antennas were at a base station 6 meters from the balcony. The researchers documented a number of important findings. First, 97.9% of the mean RF radiation was caused by downlink from the 2G, 3G and 4G base stations. (Downlink means  frequencies emitted “down” from the base station cellular antennas.)  The researchers found that if the base station RF emissions were excluded, the RF radiation in the children’s bedrooms was reduced ~99%. The researchers conclude that, “due to the current high RF radiation, the apartment is not suitable for long‑term living, particularly for children who may be more sensitive than adults.”

Outdoor levels of RF are increasing from the densification of wireless networks

A study measuring RF EMF exposure in the European cities of Basel, Ghent and Brussels found total RF exposure levels in all investigated outdoor locations had increased up to 57.1% in one year (April 2011 to March 2012). The RF increase was most notably observed in outdoor locations due to mobile phone base stations. Urbinello et al., 2014

A 2018 study published in Oncology Letters documented measurements of “unnecessarily high” radiofrequency (RF) radiation levels in several locations in Stockholm, Sweden.  The authors conclude “Using high-power levels causes an excess health risk to many people. Even higher RF radiation is expected when 5G is implemented.”

A 2018 study by Hardell et al published in the World Academy of Sciences Journal found the RF levels at Järntorget square in Stockholm Old Town Sweden (measured in April, 2016) were only one order of magnitude lower than the RF levels associated with an increased incidence of tumors in the Ramazzini radiofrequency animal study (Falcioni et al 2018) which exposed rats to a lifetime of RF mimicking cell tower base station exposures.  The authors concluded that, “These results indicate that an increased cancer risk may be the situation for individuals staying at the square, primarily for those working in shops and cafés around the square. We have not measured RF radiation emissions in apartments around the square. It cannot be excluded that at certain places, the radiation may even be higher…”

A 2017 study of Royal Castle, Supreme Court, three major squares and the Swedish Parliament found despite the hidden architecturally camouflaged antennas, the passive exposure to RF radiation from cell antennas can be higher than RF levels associated with non thermal biological effects. Some of the highest levels  were from antennas closer to the ground and targeted towards the square. The researchers note that the heaviest RF load falls on people working or living near hotspots, compared to people that are walking by and briefly exposed. RF measurements from earlier published studies were compared to the 2017 measurements indicating that “it is clear from our present and previous studies that the level of ambient RF radiation exposure is increasing.”

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.

A 2022 study “Very high radiofrequency radiation at Skeppsbron in Stockholm, Sweden from mobile phone base station antennas positioned close to pedestrians’ heads” created an RF heat map of RF measurements finding that the highest RF measurements were  in areas of close proximity to the base station antennas. The researchers concluded with recommendations to reduce close proximity placements such as positioning antennas “as far as possible from the general public”  like in high elevation locations  or remote areas.

A 2022 study in the World Academy of Sciences Journal measured levels of radiofrequency radiation (RFR), from wireless networks including 5G, in the city of Columbia, South Carolina and found the highest RFR levels in areas where the cell phone base station antennas were placed on top of utility poles, street lamps, traffic lights or other posts near to the street. When the scientists compared their 2022 findings to a 2019 published review on the mean outdoor exposure level of European cities, they found the Columbia, South Carolina  measurements to be the highest. The Columbia, S.C. study concluded that the highest exposure areas were due to two reasons:  cell phone base antennas on top of high-rise buildings provide “good cell coverage reaching far away, but creating elevated exposure to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields at the immediate vicinity; and cell phone base station antennas installed on top of utility poles have placed the radiation source closer to humans walking on street level.”

Image from Koppel T and Koppel T: Measurements of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including 5G, in the city of Columbia, SC, USA. World Acad Sci J 4: 22, 2022

Published Reviews That Recommend Cell Towers Be Distanced Away From Homes and Schools  

• A 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 home and 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 ~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 m from base station antennas had an increased adverse neuro-behavioral symptoms and cancer in eight of the ten epidemiological studies (Khurana 2011).
• A paper by human rights experts 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)
• A review entitled “Evidence for a health risk by RF on humans living around mobile phone base stations: From radiofrequency sickness to cancer  reviewed  the existing scientific literature and found radiofrequency sickness,  cancer and  changes in biochemical parameters. (Balmori 2022)

Cell Towers  Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer 

In 2011, radiofrequency radiation was classified as a Class 2B possible carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO/IARC). The WHO/IARC scientists clarified that this determination was for RFR from any source be it cell phones,  wireless devices or cell towers. Since 2011, the published peer-reviewed scientific evidence associating RFR to cancer and other adverse effects has significantly increased.

In 2019, the WHO/IARC advisory committee recommended that radiofrequency radiation be re-evaluated as a “high” priority in light of the new research. The date of the re-evaluation has not been set.

Currently, several scientists conclude that the weight of current peer-reviewed evidence supports the conclusion that radiofrequency radiation is a proven human carcinogen (Hardell and Carlberg 2017, Peleg et al, 2018, Miller et al 2018).

Research Studies to Know

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

• A large-scale animal study published in Environmental Research found rats exposed to cell tower emission RF levels had elevated cancers, the very same cancers also found in the US National Toxicology Program animal study of cell phone RF. Falcioni 2018
• A study published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine found changes in blood considered biomarkers predictive of cancer in people living closer to cell antenna arrays (Zothansiama 2017).
• A study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found higher exposure to cell arrays linked to higher mortality from all cancer and specifically lung and breast cancer (Rodrigues 2021).
• A 10 year study published in Science of the Total Environment on cell phone antennas by the local Municipal Health Department and several universities in Brazil found a clearly elevated relative risk of cancer mortality at residential distances of 500 meters or less from cell phone towers (Dode 2011).
• A study commissioned by the Government of Styria, Austria found a significant cancer incidence in the area around the transmitter as well as significant exposure-effect relationships between radiofrequency radiation exposure and the incidence of breast cancers and brain tumors (Oberfeld 2008).
• A review published in Experimental Oncology found “alarming epidemiological and experimental data on possible carcinogenic effects of long term exposure to low intensity microwave (MW) radiation.”  Even a year of operation of a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among the population living nearby (Yakymenko 2011).

*

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

Featured image is from Environmental Health Trust