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

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

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

***

We call on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian government to protect Dr. Hassan Diab from unjust prosecution and an unfair trial in France for a crime he did not commit.

In 2014, Hassan was wrongfully extradited from Canada to France. After spending more than three years in a French prison, French investigative judges found strong evidence that he was not in France at the time of the 1980 crime. He was released in 2018 and cleared of all allegations.

In a politically motivated appeal by French prosecutors, and despite no evidence against him, Hassan was ordered to stand trial in France; the date of the trial has been set for April 2023. This shocking disregard for facts raises fears that a show trial will lead to a wrongful conviction based on unreliable material and unsourced intelligence.

Thus, Dr. Diab’s nightmare is not over. He and his family continue to suffer injustice and uncertainty after more than 14 years fighting unfounded allegations. The threat of a second extradition to France and an unfair trial hangs over their lives.

Following the return of Dr. Diab to Canada in 2018, PM Trudeau said: “I think for Hassan Diab we have to recognise first of all that what happened to him never should have happened […] and make sure it never happens again.”

Mr. Trudeau must honor his own words and protect Hassan. The unfair political trial of an innocent Canadian citizen cannot be tolerated. PM Trudeau and the Canadian government must:

(a) Put an end to this continuing miscarriage of justice, and

(b) Refuse any future request for Hassan Diab’s extradition.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

Why is this important?

Background

Dr. Hassan Diab is a Canadian citizen and university professor, who until 2008 was living a productive and peaceful life in Ottawa, Canada. In 2008, he was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) at the request of France for alleged involvement in a bombing outside a Paris synagogue on 3 October 1980, which killed four people and wounded more than 40. Hassan has always denied any involvement in the crime, pointing out that this is a case of mistaken identity, and that he was a student in Lebanon at the time writing his exams.

After being held for almost five months in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, Hassan was released under onerous bail conditions, including virtual house arrest, and an electronic monitoring device for which he was required to pay $2,000 per month.

The extradition hearing in Canada ran from late 2009 until June of 2011. The hearing laid bare just how flimsy and baseless the case against Hassan is. Two handwriting analysis reports presented by France relied on samples that were not written by Hassan, and had to be replaced by a third handwriting analysis. Five world-renowned handwriting experts from Britain, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States testified that this third handwriting analysis report is biased, totally flawed, and utterly unreliable, and that an objective analysis points away from Hassan.

There is a complete lack of forensic evidence to support the case. The suspect had left finger and palm prints behind, none of which matched Hassan’s. Witness descriptions were also riddled with contradictions.

Moreover, the case against Hassan relies on secret, unsourced intelligence that may be the product of torture. The intelligence was withdrawn from the extradition hearing in Canada in recognition of its extremely problematic nature. However, the intelligence remains in the French dossier. Human Rights Watch has documented the use of secret intelligence and unfair trials under France’s anti-terrorism laws.

In committing Hassan to extradition, the Canadian extradition judge, Justice Robert Maranger, noted that the handwriting evidence (which was heavily criticized by the international handwriting experts) — and only this evidence — is grounds for committal. The judge described the handwriting evidence as “convoluted”, “very confusing”, and “with conclusions that are suspect”, but stated that Canada’s extradition law left him no choice but to commit Hassan. In his committal decision on 6 July 2011, Justice Maranger, wrote:

  • “the evidence that tips the scale in favor of committal is the handwriting comparison evidence.” (para. 189)
  • “the case presented by the Republic of France against Mr. Diab is a weak case; the prospects of conviction in the context of a fair trial, seem unlikely.” (para. 191)
  • “It is presupposed, based on our treaty with France, that they will conduct a fair trial, and that justice will be done.” (para. 195)

Hassan’s search for justice continued for three more years, including appeals in the Canadian court system. After the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear his final appeal, he was swiftly extradited to France in November 2014. He was not given the opportunity to say goodbye to his wife (who was expecting their second child) and his 2-year old daughter.

Hassan was incarcerated in the Fleury-Mérogis maximum security prison on the outskirts of Paris. He spent the next 38 months there, in near solitary confinement. (International standards have determined that solitary confinement beyond 15 days constitutes cruel treatment and quite likely amounts to torture.)

Contrary to standard principles of extradition, no formal charges were laid by the French authorities prior to Hassan’s extradition. While he was in prison in France, the French investigative judges (“juges d’instruction”), Jean-Marc Herbaut and Richard Foltzer, continued the investigation of the decades-long case. On eight occasions the investigative judges ordered Dr. Diab’s release on bail. Eight times the state prosecutor (“procureur”) was successful in blocking his release.

Finally, in January 2018, the two investigative judges, having completed their investigation which included travel to Lebanon to interview witnesses, concluded that there were no grounds for pursuing a trial and ordered that Dr. Diab be immediately released. Two days later, Dr. Diab returned to Ottawa and rejoined his family, including his 3-year old son who was born soon after his extradition.

Meanwhile, the French prosecutors, urged on by political pressure and the victims’ lobby, appealed against the dismissal order (“ordonnance de non-lieu”) of the investigative judges. The French Court of Appeal ordered a new handwriting analysis which determined that the previous handwriting analysis, which was accepted by Justice Maranger, was inconclusive, used the wrong methodology, and was completely unreliable. The analysts indicated that they were in full agreement with Dr. Diab’s international handwriting experts. In spite of this and in a decision that shocks the conscience, the French judiciary set an April 2023 date for the trial of Hassan, more than five years after he was cleared of all accusations and freed without conditions by the French investigative judges.

If Hassan goes on trial in France, Hassan would be tried on unreliable and flawed evidence that he is not allowed to effectively challenge. The discredited handwriting analysis reports and unsourced intelligence remain in the dossier. Evidence introduced by his lawyers would not receive fair consideration because expert witnesses for the defence are viewed with suspicion by the court.

Hassan Diab is facing an unfair trial, a wrongful conviction, and yet another extradition. We urge the Canadian government to take all necessary steps to save him from any further miscarriage of justice.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION

*

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 author

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

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

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

***

Guest: Dr. Hedley Rees – Managing Director of Pharmaflow, author and advocate for modernisation of the pharmaceutical industry. He held senior positions at Bayer UK, British Biotech, Vernalis and others. He is also author of Taming The Big Pharma Monster: by Speaking Truth to Power (2019).

In this session, the panel discusses that there is evidence that the drugs were rushed to market, taking significant shortcuts to make money rather than offering the safest and most effective product possible. Further in the discussion are:

  • How MHRA/EMA did not follow its own rules and guidelines described in its Orange Guide. They did not meet
    their very own terms for conditional approval of the injections.
  • How -70°C (ultra-frozen) injections were a gross contravention of GMP, as they were not fully finished as unit doses on leaving the factory, and they had to circumvent pharmaceutical wholesalers (licensed to comply with GDP) because they were not equipped to handle those temperatures.

*

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 video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: “Taming The Big Pharma Monster”. Corona Investigative Committee. Dr. Hedley Rees
  • Tags: ,

Former Pfizer Exec Believes Leaky Vaccine Was Intentional: Dr. Michael Yeadon

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 05, 2022

Yeadon is uniquely positioned to speak on this topic, as he has degrees in biochemistry and toxicology, and studied respiratory pharmacology. You have likely seen Yeadon being interviewed many times previously, but I strongly encourage you to watch this one as he explains items I have never heard him previously discuss. He is one of the sharpest guys out there in this area and you will be glad you took the time to listen.

AUKUS Submarines: Beasts of Nuclear Proliferation

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 06, 2022

Members of the nuclear club engage in an elaborate ceremonial in claiming that their nuclear weapons inventory will eventually be emptied.  Non-nuclear weapons states allied to such powers go along with appearances, taking comfort that nuclear weapons states will offer them an umbrella of security.

The COVID Lockdown, “Controlled Demolition” of the Air Travel Industry. The Derogation of the “Right to Travel”

By Joachim Hagopian, July 05, 2022

This presentation will focus on the apparent controlled demolition of just one highly important, critical industry slated allegedly for sacrificial destruction – the airline industry as part of the elites’ lockdown control agenda potentially even forbidding our right to travel.

Pentagon Agency Wants to Send Weapons Inspectors to Monitor Arms Transfers to Ukraine

By Marcus Weisgerber, July 05, 2022

Pentagon leaders should consider sending weapons inspectors to Ukraine to monitor the billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. arms flowing to the country, a top Defense Department official said.

“Religious Precepts” Sustained by the COVID Crisis: The UN “Sustainable Development” Project Serves the Interests the Financial Elites

By Dr. T. P. Wilkinson, July 05, 2022

I am skeptical about what sustainability really means. I am also skeptical about the knowledge claims underlying the so-called Global Sustainable Development Goals (GSDG or simply SDG). I especially do not believe that we should rely on models— at least not the models that have been used to justify the seriously misguided and destructive policies asserted to support those goals.

The Federal Reserve’s Policy Is Mistaken: Supply Disruptions Lead to Inflation

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 05, 2022

The likely cause of the current inflation in US consumer prices is supply disruption.  The Covid lockdowns and mandatory closing of businesses disrupted and destroyed supply chains. Shipping disruptions, which certainly reduce the supply of goods in an economy such as the United States, a country that has offshored so much of its manufacturing for internal markets, further reduced supply.

Saudis Unwilling to Upset Putin as Biden Begs for More Crude

By Tsvetana Paraskova, July 05, 2022

The world’s largest crude oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, continues to keep close ties with Russia while the top oil consumer, the United States, pleads with major producers—including the Kingdom—to boost supply to the market and help ease consumers’ pain at the pump.

Game Changer: Russian MoD Confirms Luhansk ‘Fully Liberated’ – Here’s What It Means

By Patrick Henningsen, July 05, 2022

Make no mistake: this latest development is a major blow to the Zelensky regime, but it will be even more devastating for the geographically-challenged boffins in Washington and London, who are still determined to paint every resounding defeat for Kiev as a ‘strategic pause’.

$3.2 Billon Taxpayer-Funded Deal with Pfizer Will ‘Enrich Shareholders of Most Profitable Industry in History’

By Megan Redshaw, July 05, 2022

The Biden administration on Wednesday announced a $3.2 billion deal to purchase 105 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for a fall vaccination campaign, with options to buy up to 300 million doses.

Regime Change Comes to Uzbekistan. Part of a Broader Agenda of Political Destabilization of the Russian Federation?

By Gavin OReilly, July 05, 2022

On Saturday, a month-long state of emergency was declared in the former Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan, to address the violent protests in response to government plans to revoke the autonomy of the north-eastern republic of Karakalpakstan, a decision which Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev would later drop following a visit to the region.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Former Pfizer Exec Believes Leaky Vaccine Was Intentional: Dr. Michael Yeadon

AUKUS Submarines: Beasts of Nuclear Proliferation

July 6th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

***

When faced with the option of acquiring nuclear technology, states have rarely refused.  Since the splitting of the atom and the deployment of atomic weapons in war, the acquisition of a nuclear capacity has been a dream.  Those who did acquire it, in turn, tried to restrict others from joining what has become, over the years, an exclusive club guarded by self-justified psychosis.

Members of the nuclear club engage in an elaborate ceremonial in claiming that their nuclear weapons inventory will eventually be emptied.  Non-nuclear weapons states allied to such powers go along with appearances, taking comfort that nuclear weapons states will offer them an umbrella of security.

This insane hypocrisy underlines such arrangements as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  Central to the document is the discouragement of non-nuclear weapons states from weaponizing nuclear technology as long as members of the nuclear club pursue “good-faith” disarmament negotiations. While it is true to say that the NPT probably prevented a speedier, less infectious spread of the nuclear virus, it remains a constipated regime of imperfections that has merely delayed proliferation.

Most tellingly of all, most non-nuclear weapon states have complied with their undertakings.  Nuclear weapons states have not, disregarding serious multilateral nuclear disarmament.  Nor do they have an incentive to alter current arrangements, given that any changes to the NPT can only take place with the unanimous support of the three treaty depositories: Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The NPT supporters pour scorn at alternative approaches to nuclear weapons, such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which had its first meeting of state parties in Vienna from June 21 to 23.  While the Albanese government did send Susan Templeman MP to the meeting as an observer, Canberra has remained consistently opposed to the TPNW as a threat to the accepted disarmament and NPT framework.  Dated and spurious concepts such as extended nuclear deterrence and the interoperability of Australian and US military systems tend to be common justifications.

The AUKUS security partnership that was announced in September 2021 by Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, has muddied the pool of non-proliferation.  A central component of the agreement is a promise to share nuclear propulsion technology with Australia, enabling it to acquire eight nuclear submarines to be supposedly built in Adelaide, South Australia.  While much of this is wishful thinking (Australia has no expertise in the field, and will have to rely wholeheartedly on expertise from the other two), the glaring problem in the arrangement is what it does to non-proliferation arrangements.

While the previous Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison was ignorantly confident that the agreement would comply with Australia’s own non-proliferation commitments, such confidence is misplaced.  For one thing, Article III of the NPT exempts naval reactors from nuclear safeguards, which threatens a pillar of the regime, namely, limiting the production and use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) which can be used, in turn, to make nuclear weapons.

Non-proliferation experts have not been enthusiastic with these promised new beasts for the Royal Australian Navy. Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, notes the salient difference between deepening defence cooperation on the one hand with allies and proliferating “sensitive HEU nuclear propulsion tech in contravention of US and global nonpro principles.”

Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, greeted AUKUS with much gloom when it was announced.  Its provisions on nuclear technology would “further intensify the arms race in the region and the dynamics that fuel military competition.”

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi is visiting Australia to discuss the issue of safeguards regarding nuclear material used for naval propulsion.  This is nothing short of problematic, given that IAEA inspectors are unable to inspect such material for extended periods of time when the vessel is at sea.

Grossi, in mild understatement, calls this “quite complex”, though is keen to accommodate Australian commitments to non-proliferation alongside the acquisition of nuclear technology.  “There is a period of 18 months which was given by the three partners – the United States, United Kingdom and Australia – to define how the project is going to be implemented but, already we have started this interaction, this joint work of technical levels so that we can reconcile both things.”

In a statement made prior to Grossi’s visit, Foreign Minister Penny Wong reiterated Australia’s “longstanding” support of the “IAEA’s mission to harness the peaceful use of nuclear technology in areas like medicine, industrial processes and environmental monitoring, as well as upholding the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.”

This world as described by Senator Wong is distinctly pre-AUKUS.  Despite promises of “open and transparent engagement with the IAEA on nuclear safeguards”, the whinnying horse of proliferation has bolted from the stable.  Assurances to avoid the future development of an Australian nuclear weapons capability or a national nuclear fuel cycle also ring hollow.

The precedent of permitting Australia to be the only non-nuclear weapons state with HEU-propelled technology is also seismic on another level.  There will be nothing stopping China and Russia doing what the United States and the UK promise to do: proliferate naval reactor technology and long-range missiles with a nuclear capability.

*

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 is from Wikimedia Commons


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

This presentation will focus on the apparent controlled demolition of just one highly important, critical industry slated allegedly for sacrificial destruction – the airline industry as part of the elites’ lockdown control agenda potentially even forbidding our right to travel.

With the COVID pandemic outbreak in early 2020, by mid-April 2020, the US government committed a $25 billion bailout to the air travel industry after the pandemic banned virtually all international travel. Despite the compensation package, the airline industry has been floundering ever since. In February 2022, the World Economic Forum reported the industry suffered its “worst year in history”:

International passenger demand dropped 75.6 percent and domestic demand fell 48.8 percent below 2019 levels.

Just as declared pandemics facilitate elites’ centralized authoritarian lockdown control keeping the human population literally isolated, largely cut off inside their homes, unable to assemble in groups, preventing crucial face-to-face contact with friends and loved ones in a devastating assault to destroy our basic human need for social bonding and regular social interaction, the elimination of our capacity for air travel constitutes a derogation of freedom of movement and “mobility rights”.

With the manipulative, pathological manufacturing of mass fear and assorted dangers of sheer nonstop crises designed for societal collapse, social impoverishment and life-threatening globalized poverty on an immobilized, traumatized human population, already fully beta tested from the elites’ globally orchestrated COVID pandemic, national governments are allegedly planning to limit, if not totally prohibit, human travel both near and far altogether.

A July 2nd ZeroHedge article written by Alex Kramer entitled “The Coming Collapse of the Air Travel Industry” addresses the very real probability that planetary controllers are not only engineering the collapse of both the food production and fossil fuel industries, but also the airline industry as well.

Based on the author’s recent Zoom conversation with German member of European Parliament Christine Anderson and three insiders working in the air travel industry (one a pilot), Alex Kramer’s shocking takeaway was that the globalists are very likely planning to soon eliminate the commercial airline industry entirely for public use and access. According to every person on this conference call “in no uncertain terms, the industry is now being systematically and deliberately demolished.”

MEP Christine Anderson shared her disgust after her European Parliament piggybacking off the European Commission voted on June 23rd to renew the EU Digital Covid Certificate for another year, despite 99%+ of their constituents strongly opposing it. The 453 in favor versus only 119 against (with 19 abstentions) only confirms what we already pathetically know. Members of governments today are merely following the orders dictated by their powerful puppet masters.

Amidst government mandates illegally coercing citizens to take their kill shot, in June 2021 the EU’s digital certificate originally adopted for “safe” travel amongst the EU nation-states, quickly morphed into the illegal digital ID and worldwide digital passport granting the vaxxed easy unobstructed access to the otherwise restricted venues to enter food stores, shopping malls, restaurants, concert halls, all deemed off limits to the lowly vexed and forsaken unvaccinated crowd.

This illegal apartheid, divide and conquer form of governance, promoted by three out of four European Parliament members in their June 23rd plenary session without as much as a debate, signed off on the digital passport in direct obedience to their bloodline masters for at least another year, if not permanently.

With the Hegelian dialectic “problem, reaction, solution,” the elites’ proven winning formula repeatedly uses their fake carrot stick illusion of “security” to galvanize their endgame of social subordination. When the European Commission disingenuously launched its “Have Your Say” constituent feedback loop from February 3rd to April 8th, asking whether to renew the certificate, going through the “democratic” pretense of offering choice, virtually the entire public feedback voted resoundingly against renewing the certificate. French Parliament member Virginie Joron posted on Twitter:

I read hundreds of responses at random with my team. I did not find any in favor of extending the QR code [i.e. the digital certificate]. Based on this large survey, it seems obvious that virtually all the responses were negative.

Despite the Commission unanimously receiving virtually all 385,000 no votes from the public reacting so vociferously against renewal, did this overwhelming response to their fake feedback gesture in any way alter or change the final outcome renewing the “vere-ah-yoe-paypurs?” prison planet policy? Hell no.

Today, governments merely pay lip service falsely pretending to value or care about your opinion, your vote, your well-being, while busily slitting your throat. After all, actions speak louder than empty words, false promises and fake pretenses.

Be it the US federal government or the EU or the European Parliament, all these supposed Western democratic governmental bodies in name only as defined by their overt actions are bonafide oligarchies, not representing the interests of citizens they ostensibly serve, but strictly the special interests of the globalist elite controlling them. The actual truth that does “follow the science,” thoroughly debunks the COVID threat and “safe and effective vaccines” as complete criminal fraud. Therefore, voting to continue to endorse this totally fraudulent hoax in order to justify continual despotic restrictions, clearly signifies that the centralist cabal agenda that defies both science and our well-being, is misusing its irrefutably exposed health dictatorship to push yet more authoritarian, draconian measures to come, in lockstep with the pandemic architects Gates and Fauci continuously sounding the alarm of yet more pandemics arriving.

Citing “the wave of dysfunction” within the “energy industry, oil production, supply chains and healthcare,” Alex Kramer questions all the sudden chaos at airports reported around the globe as odd if not downright suspicious, after listing links to a half dozen articles from May 31 through June 27, he summarily observes:

All of a sudden, we have thousands of flights cancelled or delayed, luggage handling process stalling, hours’ wasted in check-in and security checks, and all this happening pretty much everywhere? Coincidence theorists will swallow the official explanations with a shrug of acceptance, but I do find all this extremely strange.

Alex then points out that one of the conference call participants claiming to have closely scrutinized “the WEF documents and all of UN’s Agenda 2020/30/50,” insisted that the systemic chaos and dysfunction we are now witnessing in today’s air travel is the elites’ specific, explicit objective, in so many words, concluding:

The ultimate intent is to do away with travelling and to establish a feudal arrangement where people remain fixed in place and all travel is banned. 

The official explanation reported by the same scripted mainstream media headlines is that the airline industry after two straight years of layoffs and downsizing due to the severe pandemic impact, the commercial airlines were caught off guard with the lifting of restrictions and as a result, are severely understaffed to keep up with the sudden public demand to fly this summer. Again, as always, this is complete nonsensical BS. A June 19th USA Today with the “Travel Armageddon” headline specified:

Travel issues continued piling up for fliers on Sunday as weekend flight delays and cancellations topped 10,000 — a tumultuous weekend for holiday travel blamed on staffing shortages, packed planes and the ripple effects from previous bad weather. 

These are sorry ass, ultra-minor, insignificant excuses designed to obscure the blatant truth, dictated to the monopolizing MSM corporate giants to all claim the same false narrative reasons.

Yet simple logic sees the deceptive fallacy in this lame argument. The airline industry clearly foresaw the Covid-19 health threat finally winding down by late last year, leaving many, many months in advance of this summer’s busiest flying season to adequately prepare.

Yet having had such ample opportunity to reasonably rehire or hire and train thousands of new industry employees to meet the expected demand, all the major airlines chose not to. Why?

Partially because of the insanely malicious industry-wide mandates imposed on staff last year to retain employment, they were forced to submit to receiving death jabs against their free will that no doubt did injure and kill thousands, placing the safety and well-being of both their enormous number of employees and even larger public in harm’s way. Of course, many of the more prudent employees that did their due diligence and checked out the medical facts, chose to quit their jobs before risking injury and/or death. Among those numbers, many would undoubtedly return to the aviation workforce in a heartbeat if given the chance to (minus any more insane criminal mandates).

Like all the large sized population of workers throughout the healthcare, governments from local, state to federal, the US armed forces and larger companies with over 100 employees (illegally shot mandated by Biden), virtually all the highest management leaders in all major critical infrastructure industries had plenty of access to the explicit scientific information conveying the dire warning of life and death danger associated with the poisonous vaccines.

The airline CEOs, the imposter US president, his Secretary of Defense and virtually the entire leadership of all the major industries had to know full well that the experimental “Warp Speed” Covid-19 vaccinations carried high risk that was detrimental to human health. (hundreds of thousands of victims (morbidity and mortality) within the public and private sectors).

 Few within top leadership positions could honestly pretend ignorance. If nothing else but for the sake of corporate profit, it’s their job and responsibility to ensure their employees are healthy, safe and productive.

Therefore, the elephant in the room explanation as absolutely the biggest glaring reason to account for today’s air travel industry’s widespread chaos and dysfunction has to be by willfull, malicious design to destroy the airline industry. No doubt a sizeable segment of those having received the lethal jab is indeed too unhealthy now to work, but if by June top heymanagement failed to hire and train replacement staff, especially by the end of last year when the proverbial writing had already been clearly on the wall for months, today’s airline industry implosion breakdown has to be have been both preplanned and clearly avoidable…

*

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.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down,” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from BigPharmaNews.com

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

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

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

***

Introduction

How does one measure the health of a society?  

When scholars from across the world are given the same society to analyze, they often come up with discordant, even diametrical conclusions. Why is that? Although a rare occurrence in natural science, such discordance is, unfortunately, a common scene in social science. The main reason is that those scholars often use different metrics. Social scientists have yet to come up with a unified set of metrics to objectively evaluate societal health—one that is independent of their individual ideologies. Our world has many versions of ideology metrics, which are all based on peoples’ belief systems, such as religious preferences and social-political predispositions. These are biased, by nature. The social sciences desperately need a set of metrics with objective qualities similar to those in natural science. 

The social sciences include disciplines like sociology, politics, and anthropology. The natural sciences include physics, chemistry, and biology. By and large, those in the latter group have universally accepted principles (such as gravity, chemical reactions, microorganisms) that can be objectively and repeatedly demonstrated. These are known as proven truths. Where such demonstrations cannot be done, there are usually working theories that are constantly being refined. If natural scientists happen to disagree, they are confident that through perseverance in experimentations, truth will in due time emerge and dissolve the disagreement.

On the contrary, social scientists are in constant disagreement. This is because they do not have any universally accepted principles. No social science theories can be put to objective and repeated testing; therefore, proven truths cannot be developed. “Truth” becomes a matter of opinion, and different scholars often hold different opinions. Thus, says Canadian sociology professor Kenneth Westhues of the University of Waterloo, “Different sociologists have different principles—assumptions, predispositions, basic ideas underlying what they say and write on specific subjects.”

Since social science has no unified principles, does that mean there is no way to objectively evaluate how well a society is doing? This article would argue that there is a way. Embedded in every modern society are four basic human conditions that originate from natural science, which can serve as objective metrics of societal health. Primarily, these metrics arise from the natural science disciplines of psychology and biology.

Knowledge arisen in any given discipline must be compliant with that of a more fundamental discipline. For a theory (a proposed new knowledge) in a discipline to be considered credible, it has to be compliant with the already established principles (or working theories) of a more fundamental discipline. For example, it would be difficult to consider a physics theory credible, if it disobeys algebra (a principle of mathematics, a discipline more fundamental than physics). By the same token, one would more likely consider the discovery of a new virus (a biology theory) credible when it comes supported by a corresponding new RNA sequence (a principle of biochemistry, a discipline more fundamental than biology).

Here, our topic is about how best to evaluate society.

Since sociology is all about how human beings behave in communities, we should start by exploring the principles and theories of human behavior, namely psychology (a branch of natural science and a discipline that is more fundamental than sociology).

Using the above premise, we are now ready to derive a natural-science based method to objectively evaluate society. In this method, four human conditions (wealth, population, health, education) will be identified as manifestations of established principles/theories of human psychology and biology, which function effectively like the guts and backbones of society. If just one of them falters, the entire society can potentially collapse. How well each of them is functioning reveals clues about which “organs” of the society are thriving and which are failing.  Effectively, we can consider them as the society’s vital signs.

By focusing on these vital signs, we should be able to assess the health of our society more accurately, thereby developing public policies more effectively, as well as conducting cross-cultural dialogues more meaningfully.

Knowledge hierarchy and compliance with fundamentals 

As mentioned above, there is a hierarchy among the knowledge disciplines, each ranking according to its predecessor, with the predecessor always being the one that is more fundamental.  Here, a picture is worth a thousand words. The graph depicted below (top graph) is from the 19th century French philosopher, Auguste Comte, and that below is from the 21st century Australian communications scholar, JT Velikovsky, PhD.

Aside from the addition of a few modern terminologies (such as psychology, anthropology), the overall structure of this hierarchy has not changed significantly in two hundred years, with mathematics still being the most fundamental discipline. Note that the discipline that is next to but more fundamental than sociology is psychology, followed by biology.

As alluded to in Introduction, the knowledge obtained from each discipline depends on that of its predecessor, though the reverse is not needed. For example, in order for a physics theory to be credible, it must obey the principles of mathematics. But, those mathematical principles will remain, irrespective of the validity of the physics theory. Therefore, it is always the discipline that is less fundamental that needs to be compliant with the one that is more fundamental. Every credible biology theory must obey the principles of biochemistry; every credible psychology theory must obey biology; and so forth. Hence, for our proposed sociology theory to be credible, it must obey psychology and biology.

Psychology 

Psychology has few established principles, and there is none regarding what motivates human beings to behave the way they do. However, there is a resounding theory. First introduced by American psychologist Clark Hull in the 1930s, the Drive-Reduction Theory remained the dominant theory of human behavior for three decades. By the mid 1970s, proponents of the theory became somewhat disappointed that it could not fully explain all human behaviors. The zeal of many psychologists who thought they had found an all-encompassing human behavior theory started to cool. Yet, to this day, psychologists still have not developed a theory with enough all-encompassing qualities to replace it. Although seemingly fallen out of favor, Hull’s theory has had a primordial influence on later theories all through the remaining 20th century and into the early 21th. For example, the prominent 20th century Discrimination of Learning Theory by Spence and Hierarchy of Learning Theory by Marslow both have roots in Hull’s theory. By the same token, the 21th century Homeostasis Reinforcement Theory by Keramati and Gutkin, as well as the artificial intelligence theory of Self-Referential Model-Building Control Systems by Schneider and Adamy are both based significantly on the theory of Hull. Therefore, the Drive-Reduction Theory is still very much alive and is the topic of our following discussion.

Drive-reduction theory 

Drives are the internal forces that motivate people to maintain homeostasis (stable physiological-mental state), which are categorized as primary and secondary.

Primary drives aim to maintain physiologic balance. Essentially, primary drives comprise thirst, hunger, and sex. The first two are for sustenance, and the third is for procreation.  Overall, these drives ensure species survival.

Secondary drives come into play once primary drives are satisfied. These are learned behaviors that human beings believe will bring about mental satisfactions in life. Their propensity to fulfill such satisfactions is so strong that it has become a “necessity,” in order to maintain a mental form of homeostasis, analogous to the physiological homeostasis in primary drives. However, as learned behaviors, these can vary considerably, influenced by factors such as tradition and religion.

This theory has many finer details, such as behavior prediction by motivation computations. However, we shall not belabor with these. Our aim here is only about how to apply the theory’s most basic concepts to better understand society. In a nutshell, primary drives are about what we humans need, while secondary drives are about what we want.

What we need (primary drives)

As alluded to above, in order to maintain sustenance homeostasis, each human being (as a terrestrial mammal) is constantly trying to ensure enough supplies of fresh water and food, motivated by the drives of thirst and hunger.  Furthermore, to be fit for survival, he must also be successful in procreation. Thus, in order to maintain procreation homeostasis, he is constantly engaging in activities leading to offspring, motivated by sex drive. It is on the basis of primary drives that the first two metrics are derived: wealth as a measure of sustenance and resources, as well as population as a measure of procreation.

1. Wealth

In the cave dwelling days of our early history, the drives of thirst and hunger motivated us to be constantly finding fresh water and food. When we evolved to living in early societies, finding fresh water and food transformed into securing territories with such natural resources. By the time we started to live in complex societies (including most modern societies), territorial control further transformed into acquisition of money. Therefore, through the evolution of societal complexity, securing wealth has become today’s manifestation of the primary drives of thirst and hunger. Hence, the wealthier the people in a society, the closer that society is to sustenance homeostasis. By the same token, the poorer the people in a society, the more distant that society is from such homeostasis. In terms of societal health, the former is thriving and the latter is stressed.

2. Population

Unlike the drives of thirst and hunger, sex drive for procreation has not significantly changed through the evolution of societal complexity. For the individual, procreation homeostasis is measured by one’s offspring and his capacity to generate more offspring. For society, it is measured not just by the society’s population size, but also its collective capacity to maintain and potentially increase it. For example, while comparing two societies with the same population size, the one with an optimal childbearing demographic is thriving, whereas that with an aging demographic is stressed.

Here, we can see that our social-science compliance with the fundamentals goes beyond psychology, reaching one level further to biology. In the biologic laws of survival and natural selection, a population whose genetic representation in the world is increasing is biologically more fit, whereas one whose such representation is decreasing is less fit. If the latter is allowed to persist for too long, that population will risk being extinct. For this reason, population is the most important of the four vital signs of societal health (this will be elaborated on later).

What we want (secondary drives)

When our needs (primary drives) are met, we turn our attention to what we want, which is by and large guided by pleasure. However, pleasure can be learned, and the list of pleasures we can learn is endless. Consider food seeking as a behavior. On the surface, it seems to be a matter belonging to primary drive; however, seeking food that is cooked in certain ways would elevate the matter to secondary drive. A person who used to like bread baked one way can learn to enjoy it baked in several other ways. Through learning, people have greatly expanded the scope of their pleasurable wants to encompass vast areas, such as cooking, clothing, music, sports, religions, social systems, concepts of heroism, and many more.

Because people are by nature very different across the world, so are their wants. These wants can vary tremendously not only from person to person, but also from society to society, as well as from time to time in a given person or society. A persona adored at one time could become abhorred two decades later. A religion loved by one society could be loathed by another. A political system valued by one country could be despised by another. There are so many different wants, coming from so many different societies, as well as from different peoples within each society, that finding a common denominator among them to objectively measure secondary drives might be an impossible task.

Health and education

Fortunately, this vast commotion of human wants is only confined to the surface. Below that surface, anchored deep in the human psyche, are two common denominators that have remained unperturbed through time and across cultures. What we humans want the most in life are health and education. This is evident in modern-day polls as well as ancient scrolls.

1. Modern-day polls: 

In a 2017 PEW research, when Americans were asked what factors they considered to give life most satisfaction, they named four and ranked health at the very top. Ranking second was spousal partnership, which in our discussion belongs to the primary drive of sex. Ranking third was job/career.

In a separate PEW report in 2016, Americans expressed how much they value the college diploma, as it often results in higher earnings and lower unemployment, suggesting that they consider education to be essential to ensuring job satisfaction.

That modern-day human beings highly value health and education should come as no surprise. These have been the forefront of what people want across the world for thousands of years.

2. Ancient cultures of Asia:

Although our world has many ancient cultures, only some of them have developed literature (an effective means to pass on knowledge to future generations).  Among those, many have suffered significant interruptions (such as Egypt, Greece and Persia), mainly due to having been conquered by other powers. Fortunately, two of them have survived to this day more or less intact. The most well preserved is China. Although India had been colonized by the British for some 200 years, Hinduism as a religion and philosophy has survived essentially unscratched.

China

What Chinese people have been wanting for centuries can be seen overtly displayed in their homes, as well as at the front doors of businesses and shops in Chinese societies across the world. They are the symbols of the triad gods.

According to Mary H. Fong, art history professor of the University of California, Davis: “Of all the popular gods in Ming-Qing China, Fu Lu Shou were among the greatest favourites of the people. Although they first appeared as a triad in art and literature produced for the upper echelons of society, they were soon accepted by all social classes, the literary elite as well as the working masses.”

In the picture above from left to right are the gods of Fu, Lu, and Shou. Fu grants happiness/joy, who is often depicted carrying offspring (secondary drive bridging over to primary drive). Lu grants social prestige (the kind that is attained through knowledge). The scepter on his right hand symbolizes high social status. The scroll on his left hand symbolizes the esteemed level of education he has acquired to achieve that status. Shou grants longevity/good health. His right hand holds the peach of immortality, while his left holds a staff on which is tied a gourd containing the elixir of life.

Interestingly, these three desires (Joy, Knowledge, Longevity) of the Chinese are similarly reflected in Hindu philosophy (the essence of Indian culture for thousands of years).

India

Among the seven major religions of the world, Hinduism stands out as the only one that confronts the question: “What do people want in life?” While searching for what they want, it describes, people are initially guided by The Path of Desire and then by the Path of Renunciation, eventually coming to realize that what they really want in life are:

  1. Being–we don’t want to die; we want life.
  2. Awareness–existence is not enough; curiosity and knowledge is more important.
  3. Joy–the feeling of well-being

The embodiment of good health, Being here represents our desire to live on. According to Huston Smith, professor of religion: “ Everyone wants to be rather than not to be…None of us take happily the thought of a future in which we shall have no part.”  As for Awareness, continues the professor: “Whether it be scientists probing the secrets of nature, a typical family watching the nightly news, or neighbors catching up on local gossip, we are insatiably curious. Experiments have shown that even monkeys will work longer and harder to discover what is on the other side of a trapdoor than they will for either food or sex. ” Joy is simply the feeling described above.

Now, let us analyze the three elements of Joy/Happiness, Being/Longevity, Awareness/Knowledge closely to see how to properly incorporate them into our metrics to evaluate societal health, the kind of metrics with standards of objectivity similar to those in natural science. Although Joy/Happiness is truly part of what people want, it is also intangible and thus not quantifiable; therefore, we cannot objectively include it in our metrics.

Furthermore, as hinted by professor Smith, Awareness/Knowledge can come in various forms, ranging from neighborhood gossip to the daily news, to laboratory scientific research. Because many of these are not quantifiable, for the most part, they should also not be incorporated into our metrics. However, peoples’ educational statuses are quantifiable in most societies; therefore we shall choose Education to be the metrics for Awareness/Knowledge.

Being/Longevity is best represented by the metrics of Health. In most societies, information about their peoples’ state of health is regularly measured and reported.

In concluding our analysis of what we want (secondary drives), the metrics we have derived are Health and Education. When the people in a society are healthy and well educated, the society is thriving. When the people are not healthy and/or deficient in education, the society is stressed.

Metrics

In compliance with the principles and theories of psychology and biology, we now have a natural-science based methodology to better understand society through the four metrics of Wealth, Population, Health, Education.  Next, we need to compile the actual data needed to compute these metrics.

In all developed and most developing countries, the following data are reasonably obtainable.

Wealth: various measurements of the economy, which are recognized by most economists, such as GDP, GDP per capita, NNDI, DINA, and PPP GDP

Population: size, age and gender demographics at national, provincial, and local levels

Health: life expectancy, infant mortality, successful births from desired pregnancies

Education: literacy rate, high-school-student rank in international competitions, percentage of population with university degrees or higher, Nobel Prizes received

The above measurements are examples only. They do not represent all or the only measurements that can or should be used. Different societies in different circumstances may wish to modify such measurements according to their specific needs. For example, in a society with a low literacy rate, measurements of Nobel Prizes and PhD degrees might not be meaningful, whereas measurements of pre-university education might be more useful.

Government, attitude, and social priority

Since wealth, population, health, and education are four human conditions that can reliably serve as metrics of societal health, we can consider them as the society’s vital signs. When these conditions are thriving (not stressed), it can be said that the vital signs are normal—the society is homeostatic. When a sign deviates from normal, the society veers from homeostasis and is feeling stressed in the corresponding condition. By attentively monitoring these signs, the government can efficiently identify areas where the society is not homeostatic and promptly institute remedies to resolve the corresponding stress.

Furthermore, since it is clear that we can evaluate societal health objectively, it would be unfruitful (probably also unwise) for us to insist on evaluating it subjectively. When criticizing societies, we should refrain from using language with ideology overtones, such as conservative, liberal, secular, fanatic, authoritarian, oppressive, and so forth.  As mentioned in Introduction, because such criticisms are construed based on ideologies (not based on objective metrics), they are inherently biased.

It is not to say that ideologies do no matter in society. The point is that every modern society has certain basic issues that matter a lot more.

Consider the treatment of a patient in the emergency room. From first glance, the evaluating physician has already noticed that the patient is obese and has a large black mole on her left forearm. However, he would not allow these observations to distract him. He must prioritize his attention to reviewing her vital signs. In this case, her blood pressure is abnormally low and rapidly dropping, which he must treat immediately; otherwise, she could go into shock and potentially die. Concerns regarding her obesity and mole, while important in their own rights, can wait to be addressed later.

Likewise, in managing societal health, we should keep our priorities straight and always focus first on the four vitals. Only when every one of them is normal, do we have the luxury to consider venturing into some other social interests (ideology-based or otherwise). Furthermore, we must safeguard ourselves from overindulgence in these “luxury” interests, constantly making sure that such ventures do not end up costing us our vitals.

Example societies

Now, we shall assess the health of some existing societies. We will always begin by analyzing the vital signs, followed by noting any significant luxuries (nonessential social programs), ending with suggestions regarding how to help the society decrease stress and become more homeostatic.

This is simply a conceptual exercise to illustrate how the proposed methodology can be applied. The exercise is not intended to be all-inclusive, accounting for all the relevant variables that exist in these societies.  Of course, in real-life situations, the more inclusive the better. By the same token, the way the four vitals are applied here is also not the only applicable way.  Different societies may wish to fine tune the methodology to suit their specific needs according to circumstances.

The United States

  1. Wealth:  Because its GDP has been the highest in the world since 1871, one might think that it has been thriving. However, the income of the lower half of the nation has been stagnant for half a century; at least half of people are stressed.
  2. Population: Given its geography, its population is relatively sparse and can afford to significantly increase. Indeed, it has been growing and is therefore thriving.
  3. Health: For a rich country, its infant mortality record is appalling. According to the 2017 CIA report, it ranks behind 55 countries, including over ten positions behind Poland and Cuba. Its adults are not faring any better. Among thirteen comparable countries, the US life expectancy ranks the lowest and is still decreasing. Stress level is high.
  4. Education: It has won more Nobel Prizes than any other in the past 100 years. However, its high school students are not up to par, often scoring poorly in international competitions. Some aspects here are thriving, while others stressed.
  5. Luxuries: It has the largest military in the world and is still trying to grow it. In fact, the US spends more on its military than the next ten countries combined.
  6. Suggestions: If all four vitals were normal and the Americans chose to spend more money in the military, that would be fine. In reality, the vitals are far from normal. There is severe stress in Health, as well as moderate stress in Wealth and Education. Therefore, some of the military budget should be diverted to help boost K-12 education, elevate the living standards for the poorer half of the country, and overhaul the healthcare system.

 

It is absurd that when it comes to healthcare for children, wealthy Americans are losing out to needy Poles and Cubans.

Japan

  1. Wealth: In the past two decades, its GDP has ranked among the top three in the world, indicating a steady long period of thrive. However, its economy has contracted in the past few months. If this contraction continues, it will likely generate stress.
  2. Population: The Japanese have been aging for half a century, with its population in steady decline for the past decade. By 2013, diapers for adults already started to outsell those for babies. The stress level is high.
  3. Health: The life expectancy of its people has ranked among the top for decades. Its infant mortality rate ranks among the lowest in the world. This has been thriving.
  4. Education: Japan’s high school students score among the highest in the PISA competitions, and the country ranks number six in the world in the number of Nobel Prizes won, testifying that its entire education system is of good quality. Like that in Health, this is also thriving.
  5. Luxuries: If Population were thriving, immigration (as a social program) might be less important.  In reality, Population is severely stressed, where immigration can be a game changer. Unfortunately, Japan has been reluctant to accept immigrants.
  6. Suggestions: An all out effort is needed to halt (preferably reverse) the population decline. As mentioned above, Population is the most important of the four vitals. As long as a society still has enough people, it can in due time improve the inadequacies of any or all of the other three vitals. However, no matter how well it is thriving in these three, if it does not have enough people, the society will soon die. Given the best available in-vitro fertilization technology of date, no country in the world can technologically (or ethically) mass produce human babies. Unless Japan can open its doors to rapidly and massively attract immigrants, the advancing age of its population could soon reach a critical point after which race extinction would become unavoidable.

 

Population decline is a serious (potentially fatal) societal stress, and Japan is not experiencing it alone. Many countries in the world, notably those in eastern Europe, have been experiencing similar stress. According to the 2019 World Population Prospects published by the United Nations, Ukraine, Lithuania, Bulgaria are each projected to lose more than 20% of its population by 2050.

Conclusion

The above discussion illustrates that Wealth, Population, Health, and Education are objective and reliable natural-science based metrics that can and should be used to evaluate societal health. Effectively, they serve as the four vital signs of society. When these signs are normal, the society is in homeostasis, meaning that it is thriving and experiencing no significant stress. If any of them deviates from normal, the society is stressed because it is no longer homeostatic. The more severe a sign is deviated, or the more number of signs that are deviated, the more stressed is the society. As the society’s guardian, the government should proactively monitor these signs and keep them as normal as possible. It should also alert its people about any undue indulgence in (or prejudice toward) nonessential social programs. As we have seen in the above examples, even societies with supreme wealth and esteemed level of education can neglect some of their most basic needs. Therefore, the use of national resources should be prioritized to safeguard the country’s most vital interests.

*

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 E. Ling, MD is an internist from Santa Clara, California. Visit his website: www.forestgrace.net

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

Guest: Margaret Anna Alice – Writer/Blogger, Substack: Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass. “Examining media narratives, propaganda, mass control, politics, psychology, history, philosophy & health with a focus on COVID to unmask totalitarianism.”

She is an author of books and articles (selection):

  • The Vapor, the Hot Hat, & the Witches’ Potion (2021): is a COVID/New Normal/Great Reset fairy
    tale [Book]
  • A Mostly Peaceful Depopulation (2022) [P1 of an article series]

This session is about:

  • Introduction: Synopsis of the past 2 years formulated as why questions, the answers to which can only be 1) profit; 2) power; and 3) democide
  • The definition and nature of a philanthropath (like Bill Gates): a socio/psychopath masquerading as a philanthropist.
  • The reality of the unfolding democide and progression to one-world dictatorship: Evidence documenting the depopulation agenda dating back to the Club of Rome 1971 Predicament of Mankind Project and 1974 Kissinger Report and up through the present-day “prophecies” of Yuval Noah Harari.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Covid Propaganda and Social Engineering. Massive Transfers of Wealth. Towards A “One-world Dictatorship”. Margaret Anna Alice.
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This informative Defense One report confirms the Pentagon’s involvement in monitoring the massive transfer of U.S. weapons to Ukraine.

***

Pentagon leaders should consider sending weapons inspectors to Ukraine to monitor the billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. arms flowing to the country, a top Defense Department official said.

All U.S. officials can do now is review receipts of the arms transfers from other locations in Europe and take Ukrainian officials’ word that the weapons are being properly used and stored.

“Over time, we would like to be able to extend our insights with greater presence on the ground,” said Jed Royal, deputy director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arm of the Pentagon that oversees U.S. arms sales.

Royal spoke as U.S. lawmakers push to create a new U.S. government watchdog to oversee the more than $6 billion in security assistance sent in the wake of Russia’s February invasion.

Royal said senior administration officials, outside of DSCA, will decide if and when weapon inspectors enter Ukraine.

If such teams are sent in, they would not be “some kind of operational detachment or anything along those lines,” he told reporters on a Thursday conference call.

Read Complete article

*

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

Featured image: US Department of Defense photo

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser for the drug company Pfizer, shares why he believes that the narratives around COVID-19 are false and were put into place deliberately to exert control over society

Yeadon says you’ve been lied to about the magnitude of the threat represented by this entity called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19

The 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic was a “dress rehearsal” for the COVID-19 pandemic

The use of the spike protein in the shot was a diabolical mistake, as 90% of the immune response mounted after natural COVID-19 exposure is not to the spike protein

Spike protein is also toxic and mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides shortly after it’s given

The fact that virtually every country worldwide followed suit in imposing ineffective lockdowns and other COVID-19 mandates suggests a coordinated, supranational effort was underway

*

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser for the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, has become one of the most prominent critics of COVID mandates and COVID-19 shots.

In this riveting interview with British radio presenter Maajid Nawaz, he shares why he believes that the narratives around COVID-19 are false and were put into place deliberately to exert control over society.

Yeadon is uniquely positioned to speak on this topic, as he has degrees in biochemistry and toxicology, and studied respiratory pharmacology. You have likely seen Yeadon being interviewed many times previously, but I strongly encourage you to watch this one as he explains items I have never heard him previously discuss. He is one of the sharpest guys out there in this area and you will be glad you took the time to listen.

In the film, he says: “So, I understand … inside of cells and how cells and tissues talk to each other, and how dangerous chemicals can affect and injure humans and others.”1 Not only does Yeadon explain why COVID-19 shots aren’t effective, but he details why using spike protein in the vaccine was one of the most diabolical mistakes made.

“First,” Yeadon says, “you’ve been lied to about the magnitude of the threat represented by this entity called SARS-CoV-2 and the disease COVID-19. Been lied to about that, in every way, shape and form … the bottom line is, we’ve been lied to and it’s deliberate, and they knew it, and no action was needed whatsoever, other than if you’re sick, stay home.”2 Further, the wheel may have been set into motion in 2009, during the swine flu pandemic.

The 2009 Swine Flu Was the Final Dress Rehearsal for COVID

During the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic, secret agreements were made between Germany, Great Britain, Italy and France with the pharmaceutical industry before the H1N1 pandemic began, which stated that they would purchase H1N1 flu vaccinations — but only if a pandemic level 6 was declared by the World Health Organization.

Six weeks before the pandemic was declared, no one at WHO was worried about the virus, but the media were nonetheless exaggerating the dangers.3 Then, in the month leading up to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, the WHO changed the official definition of pandemic, removing the severity and high mortality criteria and leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”4

This switch in definition allowed WHO to declare swine flu a pandemic after only 144 people had died from the infection worldwide. In 2010, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, then head of health at the Council of Europe, accused pharmaceutical companies of influencing WHO’s pandemic declaration, calling swine flu a “false pandemic” that was driven by Big Pharma, which cashed in on the health scare.5

According to Wodarg, the swine flu pandemic was “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century,”6 — and it shares many similarities with the COVID-19 pandemic. Yeadon explained:7

“He [Wodarg] was public health officer and a politician during the swine flu pandemic in 2009. And some very similar things that happened in COVID were happening in 2009. There’s a very interesting experience here and I think 2009 was the final dress rehearsal for COVID.

They misused PCR, they overdiagnosed cases, they twisted the arms of governments all around the world to pay for billions of dollars’ worth of vaccines, and not very good antivirals.

And then they all ran off. And Wodarg was the one that managed to point out in the second season that it was a false positive pseudo epidemic. It was all bad PCR testing. And as soon as they fix the PCR, it all went away. All went away.”

PCR Tests Labeled Healthy People Sick

For the first time in history, during the COVID-19 pandemic the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests were used to dictate whether someone was healthy or sick. If the test was positive, then you’d be labeled as sick and counted as a case, even if you had no symptoms.

The PCR tests used for COVID-19 use a powerful amplification process that makes them so sensitive they can even detect the remains of a dead virus, long after infection.8

Wodarg said COVID-19 “was a ‘test’ pandemic. It was not a virus pandemic,”9 because PCR tests may give a positive result when it detects coronaviruses that have been around for 20 years.10 PCR tests weren’t meant to be used for clinical diagnoses, according to their inventor, the late Kary Mullis, Ph.D. Yeadon explained:11

“And the reason is … that the PCR test has a theoretical lower limit, that is, what’s the smallest amount it might detect and give a positive result, the smallest amount is one, one virus, one piece of a virus.

… And then basically, every time you run a cycle of this polymerase chain reaction, like cranking a handle, it gets hot and cold, hot and cold, and it goes through basically a doubling, every cycle is a doubling …

So basically, if there’s an infinitesimally tiny amount of a piece of a virus, or the sequence you allege is a virus, in the sample, and then you run it 40 cycles, you could get a positive result even though there’s only one piece of one virus — not enough to make you ill, not enough to make you infectious.”

The same strategy was used in COVID as deaths characterized as being COVID related, but only because they had been falsely lumped into that category due to a positive test being recorded within 28 days of death. “If you die from something entirely unrelated but you’ve tested positive by a PCR test, and you die within that 28 days that’s counted as a COVID death,” Nawaz noted.12

90% of COVID Immune Response Is Not to Spike Protein

Yeadon stresses that there are “design errors” in COVID-19 shots. “The main problem with them is there’s no dose where you can get obvious signs of benefit without attendant harms, that are much greater at a population level than any possible benefit.” Further, the use of the spike protein was a mistake, as it’s been known for more than 10 years that it causes adverse effects in humans:13

“There are no gene based vaccines on the market for very good reasons. And that’s one of the problems. But let’s see, you could like pull it pull it apart, you can pull the spike off, you could pull the ball in the middle of this virus, which bit would you give to people? … what you would do is ask, what’s the toxicity of the bit I’m going to give to a person?

So if I told you that the spike protein, like a floating landmine in … the sea with the spikes sticking out, I told you that we’ve known for more than a decade that the spike bits from related viruses had unwanted biology that could cause blood to coagulate and activate platelets and make blood clots. That’s true.

And if you knew those things, you’d think well, probably a bad idea then to give them the spike to train on … So the fact that they chose spike protein, gene for spike protein, make your body become a manufacturing center briefly to make that virus spike protein — that’s the first mistake.”

Further, according to Yeadon, the human body mounts its best immune responses after natural COVID-19 infection, not exposure to the spike protein in the shots. He states, “90% of the immune response to COVID are two bits of the virus that are not spike protein. So I think I am right that that was not the best bit to give, because it’s not the thing your body likes to respond to.”14

Spike Protein Mutates Rapidly, Destroying Shots’ Protection

By choosing the spike protein on which to base COVID-19 shots, scientists picked a protein that was known to be toxic to humans and that was not the part of the virus that prompted the best immune response. On top of that, spike protein mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that the shot provides shortly after it’s given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of annual shots and boosters.

COVID-19 shots have been found to have dismally low effectiveness rates of 12% in children, according to research conducted by the New York State Department of Health.15 Among adults, within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits due to COVID-19 decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.16 Yeadon explained:17

“What you should do is pick the bits of the virus that’s genetically most stable. Now, I don’t know that we knew it at the beginning, but it’s certainly true now that the thing that undergoes variation most quickly is the spike protein … now you’ve picked something that’s going to rapidly go out of focus to rapidly evolve to a different variant, new vaccine won’t work anymore.”

Further, because the spike protein is similar to “lots of bits in humans,” it can prompt your body to make an immune response to human proteins — “that’s called an autoimmune response,” Yeadon says. Yet, scientists chose the spike protein anyway — even though it violated all of the “rules” when it comes to creating a safe and effective product. Yeadon believes this wasn’t a mistake at all; it was intentional:18

“So just to say, again, you deselect things that are toxic in their own right, you pick things that are genetically stable, and you pick things that are most different from humans, all three of those, in the words of patents, they teach away, they will teach you away from picking spike protein.

But guess what? Moderna picks spike protein and so does Pfizer, and AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson. So I put it to you, colleagues, any scientists out there or just logical people. How the hell would they pick?

No team I was ever part of would ever have picked bloody spike protein for this vaccine. And you know, what, if we did, and we have competing groups, we would not, all four of us, make the same mistake. Not possible. It’s collusion and malfeasance. The did it on purpose, knowing it would hurt you.”

For the Next Pandemic Understand Vaccines Are Not the Answer’

Bill Gates has made it plain the next pandemic is inevitable, by stating publicly that COVID-19 was “pandemic one” and “pandemic two” is coming. “We’ll have to prepare for the next one. That will get attention this time,” he said — while smiling.19 The implication is that “next time” another experimental mRNA shot will be available much quicker with which to inject the population. But Yeadon wants the public to learn from COVID-19 and understand that the shots aren’t the answer:20

“It’s really important that you listen to me here, that if there’s another respiratory virus, you must know this time that whatever however they design, the damn vaccine is the wrong answer. It’s the wrong answer for loads of reasons. One is, you will generate an immune response in your blood that cannot possibly affect infection, it doesn’t matter what it is, it won’t affect infection.

Secondly, if you if you design it using spike protein from some other virus, then if it has that same property of causing toxicity, it will cause toxicity because when you inject these gene based vaccines, it’s like launching a go kart that has an accelerator, no steering wheel and no brakes … there’s nothing in the design of these vaccines that limits where they go.

Some of it will go into your brain, the back of your eyes, your ovaries or testes, your blood vessels or your heart … you can’t develop rapid vaccines, and then give them to billions of people, because you will never have enough safety data to allow you to know whether that was a good bet or not. And without that data, it’s reckless. Don’t do it.”

What else can be learned from the COVID-19 fiasco, Yeadon says, is that the nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) — things like masks, lockdowns, border closures and mass testing of the population — were also useless in curbing the spread of the disease, and world leaders knew this in 2019, when a paper by WHO scientists showed that most NPIs were ineffective in stopping the spread of respiratory viruses.

“Of course, many of them have really serious side effects on the economy, psychology, social relationships and so on,” he noted.21

Evidence of Supranational Coordination

“Public health officials knew perfectly well those things didn’t work,” Yeadon said, but the fact that virtually every country worldwide followed suit nonetheless suggests a coordinated effort was underway. “I think it’s the strongest evidence of supranational coordination, something happening above the level of country,” Yeadon said, and he wants to get the word out:22

“They were doing it because there was pressure to do it … They did not oppose what was happening. That’s the most disappointing and frightening thing that why, why none of the scientists from Germany, Holland, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Britain, why none of them, said, ‘You know, this is absurd.

I’m not doing this. And if you’re going to do it, I’m resigning, and then I shall go to the media.’ Either that didn’t happen or they tried to try this and BBC … said, ‘Well, we’re not interviewing you.’ That’s possible.

… There was a supranational agreement or pressure to do it. I don’t know whether that pressure was instantiated in spring of 2020, or whether they had already agreed to do it a few months ago, but either way, nobody spoke up. And as far as I know, nobody resigned even though what was being imposed on all of those countries was … ineffective and would damage their economies. That’s the kindest thing you can possibly say.”

*

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

Notes

1 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 7:24

2 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 33:30

3 BitChute, TrustWHO

4 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)

5 Daily Mail January 17, 2010

6 The Times of Israel May 14, 2020

7 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 1:08

8 The Fat Emperor, Podcast, December 11, 2020

9 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 14:02

10 Rumble, Planet Lockdown, Wolfgang Wodarg, Full Interview, October 18, 2021, 9:40

11 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 55:29

12 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 44:05

13 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 1:05

14, 17, 18 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 1:09

15 medRxiv February 28, 2022

16 The New York Times February 11, 2022

19 Rumble, The Plan May 4, 2022, 0:37

20 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 1:17

21 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 1:22

22 Odysee, Radical w/Maajid Nawaz June 12, 2022, 1:33

Featured image is from Arshad Ebrahim / YouTube

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on El “Ministerio de la Verdad 2022”: Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Microsoft y Google puestos a disposición de la Unión Europea “para combatir la desinformación”

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

Thirty years ago I organized an International Congress on Environmental Consciousness and Mass Media, held in Dresden at the Deutsche Hygiene Museum.[i] The central concern of that conference attended by journalists, PR and advertising experts, corporate communications officers and artists from more than 23 countries, was what does the mass media do to shape our awareness of issues and the importance we assign to them? (It took several years after the 1991 Gulf War for people to realize that what they thought was live combat reporting was in mainly televised “video game” footage.) The question was also asked what is the relationship between consciousness and action? Does the awareness of something always motivate and define action? After some thirty years of observing the way environmentalism has been transformed from a marginal fetish of opposition politics to a central dogma of multinational corporations and government policy.[ii] I believe the past thirty years and especially the past three years have provided me the experience to justify an empirical skepticism regarding the sincerity of this transformation.

Empirical Skepticism

The title expresses that skepticism. I am skeptical about what sustainability really means. I am also skeptical about the knowledge claims underlying the so-called Global Sustainable Development Goals (GSDG or simply SDG). I especially do not believe that we should rely on models— at least not the models that have been used to justify the seriously misguided and destructive policies asserted to support those goals. I believe much of our present misery— not yet fully appreciated in its scope— is due to a superstitious belief in ”Science” and its models and a refusal or at least a severe hesitance to observe and act on the basis of what we can find at the empirical frontier.

The most recent UN report on sustainability is the 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, entitled The Future is Now: Science for achieving sustainable development. Written by the “independent group of scientists appointed by the Secretary General (UN)”, the report focuses on “how science can best accelerate the achievement of the sustainable development goals”.  The authors call for “sustainability science”. The authors add that, “science and technology are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda, included as one of the means of implementation under Goal 17.”[iii]

This raises the question “what is science?” I believe most people would answer this question with the admission that “science is what scientists do”. There are sciences, like physics, chemistry, biology, that are called the natural sciences, sometimes the “hard” sciences.

Then there are those relatively new fields like psychology and sociology or economics, which are frequently called human, or social, or “soft” sciences. The distinction implies that physical or natural sciences are somehow more scientific—by which people generally mean experimentally based, tested, fact-oriented while social sciences are not really experimental, not very accurate or lacking in universally accepted methods. I do not want to open this debate here. However I think it is very important to recognize that even under normal conditions there is no universal answer to the question what constitutes science.

What is meant by sustainable, especially sustainable development? The UN definition says this is development that “meets then needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” So if we accept this definition—at least for the sake of argument—then what does science tell us about sustainable development and how best to accelerate its achievement?

I want to argue here that “science” actually does two things. One, it provides models for interpreting reality. Two, it provides the rhetorical foundation for what must be believed, that is what we call Truth.

At the end of the 19th century there was a change in economic theory and in the structure of the sciences as a whole. In what has been called the Marginal Revolution, led by economists like Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger, Léon Walras and Alfred Marshall, economics ceased to be the study of the allocation of surplus and became the study of scarcity.[iv] At the same time economists shifted their attention from the real economy and industrial development to mathematical models of the economy. This was the time when mathematics became the language of science. Science defined reality in mathematical terms and therefore reality was supposed to be the most logical, coherent and efficient mathematical formula. Today that mathematical modeling is also computer-based modeling. We are supposed to assume that the model is not just a selection or a hypothesis about reality—but that it is identical with reality.

In the 1970s there was a series of high-level international meetings at which the human environment was debated.[v] All of these meetings focused on the claim that the world was overpopulated and that this overpopulation was causing all the social and economic disruption that had been increasing since the end of the Second World War. Then as now, supposed overpopulation and scarcity of resources was made the central policy issue to be governed by global action. However the only way one could possibly claim that population was excessive was to build a mathematical model. Any such model requires assumptions—which cannot be proven—and a choice of parameters from a potentially infinite number of factors. The main assumption, better said concern, by those attending these international meetings was: after the world war and the independence of many European and American colonies, population was growing again. These people would want to live at least at the same level as their former colonial masters did. This problem was defined as overpopulation. A cottage industry emerged producing mathematical models to show that such development would lead to disaster—leaving it rather vague as for whom.

Already at the 1972 Stockholm conference the People’s Republic of China objected to the population model proposed. China was justified in its objection at least because, like the Soviet Union, it had lost about 20 per cent of its population due to World War II and the subsequent civil war (fought also to prevent re-colonisation of the country as had occurred in Korea and Indochina after 1945). While world population has grown since 1945, this growth has not been uniform. While consumption has expanded, that too has not been distributed uniformly. US diplomat and “Cold Warrior” George Kennan advised the US government in the immediate post-war era that it would take military and economic coercion to assure that the US – with approximately 20 per cent of the world’s population—could continue to consume about 60 per cent of the world’s resources. In short, the main assumption of the overpopulation model was the equilibrium needed to preserve the status quo for now and “for future generations”. The model for population growth treated the non-while (including China and the Soviet Union) like a rabbit infestation. It assumed that such rabbits would naturally consume more resources and reduce that 60 per cent claim. Just as the marginal revolution seems to have coincided with the abolition of slavery in the 19th century, the basis of population science and its peculiar form of environmentalism emerged with the end of European colonialism.

Moreover the insistence that a necessarily finite series of factors were isomorphic with the earth’s environment requires a political decision and the power to impose it. The choice to eliminate all natural phenomena, e.g. solar or lunar influences or the movement of the Earth in the solar system (or universe) from any calculations is based on limited and in part erroneous assumptions—foremost of which is that the model is identical with reality. Add to this some of the factual absurdities like “zero carbon” or “net zero carbon dioxide emissions”. All aerobic animals—of which humans are just the most conspicuous—produce carbon dioxide by metabolizing oxygen from the atmosphere. At the same time nearly all plant life depends on the absorption of carbon dioxide. Carbon is not the foundation of fossil fuels but the foundation of life itself on this planet. Hence “carbon neutral” is just another euphemism for an equilibrium in which the status quo—for the ownership/ ruling class—is preserved at the expense of respiration for the rest of the planet and osmosis for the Earth’s plant life. Systems theories also emerged together with cybernetics at the same time as these population reduction models. Why was that? It was surely no coincidence that the leading edge systems theory acolytes joined the military-industrial complex. Probably the most notorious system developed was the counter-insurgency program in Vietnam known as Phoenix. Systems theory together with CIA –funded social anthropology were developed to manage emerging populations that had previously been managed by missionaries and the colonial services. Cybernetics as well as artificial intelligence (AI) continued where Taylorism finished in the reorganization of factory labour. Despite extravagant scientific assertions and miraculous claims for improvement of work processes, the real scientific value produced by “compulsive calculators” is not beyond dispute.[vi]

All these models purport to predict the future (because they claim to represent the real world) but are in fact only tools for social management, like Tarot cards. Fortune reading can influence behavior and perceptions but that is not the same as predicting the future. That should be obvious once we ask what our particular future would mean for someone on another continent whom we do not even know. Scientists respond with statistics and measurements but these too are only structured guesses. One can only measure something one already assumes exists. We do not know therefore the possible importance of all the things we are not measuring!

The universe or the planet might be treated as a system but there is absolutely no way to know whether it is a system or whether the description of such a system in mathematical or computer simulation is accurate. The only thing that a model can do is provide instructions for people to behave in certain ways. Thus a policy based on a model is no different from a policy based on arbitrary command or fantasy.

The next problem we have is “the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. If these needs are truly—their own—how can we know what they are or how they could be met? What we really mean is – assuming that the future will be like the present, preserving the ability to meet needs perceived today in some unknowable future will lend ability to those who actually live in the future. That is if they are like us. That is what “the science” tells us.

Essentially since 1945, when the largest industrial science project in the world (at that time) the Manhattan Project, established the US as the world’s single biggest funder of all scientific activity, Science has been transformed into a new religion, complete with priests and an ecclesiastical hierarchy.[vii]

This was possible not only because of the enormous amounts of money spent to produce the atomic bombs but because everyone involved at any level of scientific management was sworn to secrecy and loyalty. These priests in this religion of science also claim to know the Truth.

That is they claim the right to tell us what must be believed– even if it contradicts lived experience. The church of Science is based on that access to power first obtained by the ability to make terrible weapons of mass destruction. The flows of money and privilege to universities, research centres, publications, hospitals, schools, in short everywhere where knowledge is produced or transmitted, also mean the capacity to control access to those resources and institutions.[viii] We are talking in other words not about the science that tells us how to build a house or a car but the Science that tells us what we have to believe about the world and about ourselves.

Sustainability is not a rational question, nor is it a scientific question. It is a political question.

It is a question we have to ask ourselves in real time in real space. If we use a model we must remember that it is just a model. The CAD/CAM image is just an image and not the product. The ingredients on the package are not identical with what you eat or drink. Science cannot tell us what we need, let alone what future generations will need. These are political decisions and not scientific ones. Of course if one abandons political criteria using real data in real time and space for whatever some authority claims is “the science” then it should be clear that any decisions that result are based on what we are told to believe not on what we know.

The GSDGs claim to be based on Science because that has become our universal faith. Science has changed from the techniques of knowing, e.g. experimental feedback, trial and error, into the model for Truth, as religious dogma.[ix] Science has become just another way of saying “the word of god”. This does not mean that everything discussed or proposed under the Sustainable Development Goals lacks empirical sense. However the goals can really only make sense if they are subject to empirical testing and reflect the real living conditions of the people in the places where action is contemplated. In fact careful reading of the UN documents shows a plan to convert people to a vision and persuade them to apply this vision just the way the missionaries did since exploration and colonial expansion began some 500 years ago. The stakeholder is either a financial beneficiary or someone who will be burned at the stake for the benefit of the former.

The central premise of the official version of sustainable development—as promoted by the UN—has always been that nothing could be modified in the surviving system that could jeopardize the survival and growth of the victors in the Great War against socialism. To put it in a vulgar but more sincere form, sustainability meant (and means) sustainable profits and growth of the victors‘ system, the capitalist system, in particular finance capitalism— concentrated in the US and EU, but dominated by the tandem financial hubs, Wall Street and the City of London. Since 2000 and again 2008 and again 2020, the rhetoric of the Sustainable Development Goals, although attributed to the UN, is really verbatim the language of the World Economic Forum, the ecumenical council of finance capitalism.

The SDG and the repeated proposals for their implementation are religious precepts. As such they lack both historical and empirical perspectives. They are dogmatic assertions. The policies and eventual laws, rules and regulations proposed or already adopted do not rely on life experience, history or local reality. While lip service is paid to participation and admissions that there is no “one size fits all” policy, the actual imposition of these dogmas has no basis in the observed empirical frontier. It is like so many other clerical dogmas, a top down regime. There is no real feedback loop or interest in what happens in daily life.

To illustrate my point: in 2020 almost the entirety of small and medium-sized business was ordered to halt. Computer models were used to produce absurdly exaggerated projections of mortality and healthcare system risk. At the highest international level, so-called scientific experts claimed that they knew what would happen to the health and survival of the world‘s population. In fact the historical record shows that these models were rehearsed repeatedly over the past 20 years.[x]

Yet these experts at no time were able to construct a model for the survival of the SME sector. There was no risk management plan to preserve the critical employers and producers. In fact these issues were never substantive elements of the tabletop exercises of which there were more than 20 held since 2001. We know here in Portugal how important the SME sector is for employment and survival of many families. This was not a discovery of 2020. If we are honest we know that many people had to work covertly for fear of incurring serious financial penalties. We know that under such conditions another “illness” is promoted, corruption. The SME sector is vulnerable to the corruption regime by which one has to find favors from the local police or administration— just to work or do business. We can only guess how much it cost or would cost when people who need to work for survival are forced to pay protection to do jobs that are completely lawful.

Although global systems planning anticipated the use of the mass media and other centrally controlled facilities in the event of a “health emergency”, none of the models and none of the policies derived from them in any way addressed the local economic conditions. Moreover while there were constant reports of alleged cases, there were no details available for how many people were unemployed (sacked) or businesses that closed permanently. There was enormous concern for the supply of medical products. However the obvious disruption of supply chains— attenuated by virtue of years of “just in time” (JIT) downsizing and outsourcing— were disregarded— at least for the SME sector. What was clear — no later than the end of 2020– is that the global online distribution cartel had no such problems moving goods or money.[xi]

On the SDG website one can watch the short video introducing the 2019 GSGD Report. The narrator explains what an opportunity was created by the 2020 “pandemic”. It is praised as an opportunity to destroy much of the economy to “build it back better”.[xii]  So if you think that the SDG are a United Nations project, supported by an international consensus of people who want to sustain a decent quality of life for humans wherever they live, then you will find you are mistaken. The SDG are a project of the most powerful business corporations in the world: it is a project to manage their risks by transferring them entirely to you.

*

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

Notes

[i] See Gerhard de Haan, (Ed.) Umweltbewußtsein und Massenmedien: Perspektiven ökologische Kommunikation, Berlin, 1995.

[ii] T.P. Wilkinson, “The Temperature Movement: The Reincarnation of a Perennial Anglo-American Obsession”, www.dissidentvoice.org  29 October 2019

[iii] In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: “Science for sustainable development is the focus of Chapter 32 of Agenda 21. It calls for: strengthening the scientific basis for sustainable management; enhancing scientific understanding; improving long-term scientific assessment; and building up scientific capacity and capability. (www.sdgs.un.org)

[iv] See Nuno Ornelas Martins, „Interpreting the capitalist order before and after the marginalist revolution“ in Cambridge Journal of Economics(2015), 39, 1109-1127.

[v] The 1970s were an era of great unrest, the US war against Vietnam, independence wars in Africa, domestic protests, the first “oil shocks”. In 1972, the Club of Rome issued its report The Limits to Growth. Based on the World 3 computer model the authors insisted that the world’s resources would be exhausted by continued population growth.

[vi] See Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Power and Human Reason, New York, 1976.

[vii] The Manhattan Project started in 1939. By the time the atomic bombs were deployed the project was employing more than 130,000 people and spending the equivalent of approximately USD 23 billion. The project’s secrecy was so great that long after the project had formally ended the US government executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953 for allegedly supplying the Soviet Union information about the atomic bombs. One of the project’s leading scientists, Robert Oppenheimer, was purged and deprived of his security clearances for opposing the development of the hydrogen bomb. Already “Big Science” had emerged as a combination of huge research budgets and political power.

[viii] Another example is the US National Institutes of Health, originally part oft he US military. The subunit National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases, headed by Dr Anthony Fauci since 1984, has a budget of more than USD 8 billion per year to dispense as research grants, making it one of the world’s largest single funders of scientific research. A substantial portion of that money comes from the US military budget, too.

[ix] See Morse Peckham, Explanation and Power, New York, 1979 and Stanley Aronowitz, Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society, Minneapolis, 1988.

[x] See Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, New York, 2021.

[xi] “The 13 top consumer-focused e-commerce businesses increased their revenues sharply during the pandemic. In 2019, these companies made sales worth USD 2.4 trillion. Following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, this rose sharply to USD 2.9 trillion, and a further increase followed in 2021, taking total sales to USD 3.9 trillion … Alibaba, Amazon, JD.com and Pinduoduo increased their revenues by 70% between 2019 and 2021 and their share of total sales through all these 13 platforms rose from around 75% in 2018 to over 80% in 2020 and 2021.“ www.unctad.org This does not take profits into account.

[xii] See Klaus Schwab (World Economic Forum), Covid-19 The Great Reset, 2020. “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world.” For a critical discussion of the real economics behind the past thirty years, in particular the fallout from the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis which is irradiating the world economy to this day, see the work of economist Michael Hudson, starting with Superimperialism (first published in 1968) and subsequent work: www.Michael-Hudson.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Religious Precepts” Sustained by the Covid Crisis: The UN “Sustainable Development” Project Serves the Interests the Financial Elites
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

On June 18 the government of Lithuania acted on a decision by the European Commission that goods and cargo subject to European Union sanctions could be prohibited from transiting between one part of Russia to another, so long as they passed through E.U. territory.

Almost immediately Lithuania moved to block Russia from shipping certain categories of goods and materials by rail to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, encompassing the former East Prussian Baltic port city of Konigsberg and its surrounding environs. They were absorbed into Russia proper as a form of war reparations at the end of the Second World War.

Lithuania cited its legal obligation as an E.U. member to enforce E.U. sanctions targeting Russia. Russia, citing a 2002 treaty with Lithuania which ostensibly prohibits such an action, has called the Lithuanian move a blockade and has threatened a military response.

Lithuania, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, is afforded the collective security guarantees spelled out in Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which stipulate that an attack against one member is an attack against all. Through its actions, Lithuania risked bringing Russia and NATO to the brink of armed conflict, the consequences of which could be dire for the entire world given the respective nuclear arsenals of the two sides.

From the moment Russia initiated its so-called “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine, the nations that comprise NATO have been engaged in a delicate dance around the issue of how to support Ukraine and punish Russia without crossing the line of committing an overt act of war that could prompt Russia to respond militarily, thereby triggering a series of cause-effect actions that could lead to a general European conflict, and perhaps World War III.

A formation of NATO fighter jets flying over Lithuania in 2015. (NATO)

In retrospect, the early debates in the European halls of power about whether to provide Ukraine with heavy weaponry seem almost innocent when compared to the massive infusion of weaponry that is taking place today.

Even Russia has softened its hardline stance going in, where it had threatened unimaginable consequences for any nation that interfered with its military operation in Ukraine.

Today the situation has evolved to the point where NATO is engaged in a de facto proxy conflict with Russia on Ukrainian soil which is designed, frankly speaking, to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible.

Russian Objectives  

Russia, for its part, has adapted its posture into one that is designed to absorb these NATO-linked blows while pursuing its stated military and political objectives in Ukraine with a single-minded purpose.

Ukraine has used NATO-provided weapons and NATO-provided intelligence to lethal effect on the battlefield, killing several Russian generals, sinking the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet and killing and wounding thousands of Russian soldiers while destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles and pieces of military equipment.

The relative restraint of the Russian approach is evident when contrasted with the hysteria of the United States during its two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Qassem Suleimani, an Iranian general who oversaw an Iraqi resistance against the U.S. occupation of Iraq in the mid-2000’s that was purportedly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. servicemen, was assassinated by the U.S. government more than a decade after his alleged activities. And it was only a year ago that the U.S. media was in an uproar over allegations (subsequently proven false) that Russia was offering bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers stationed in Afghanistan.

The latter claim best illustrates the hypocrisy of the U.S. today. The “bounty” claim was premised on a single attack that left three U.S. servicemen dead. The U.S. today openly brags about killing hundreds of Russians in Ukraine.

Red Lines

Russia’s red lines in Ukraine have evolved to encompass two basic principles — no direct military intervention by NATO forces on Ukrainian soil/airspace and no attack against Russia proper.

Even here, Russia has displayed great patience, tolerating the presence of U.S. special operations forces in Ukraine and holding back when Ukrainian forces, most likely supported by NATO-provided intelligence, engage in limited attacks on targets inside Russia.

Rather than respond by attacking the “decision making centers” outside Ukraine responsible for supporting these actions, Russia has engaged in a graduated campaign of escalation inside Ukraine, striking the very weapons being delivered under the oversight of U.S. commandos and the Ukrainian forces who use them.

It is in this context that the Lithuanian decision to impose a rail blockade on Russia seems to be a stark departure from current NATO and E.U. policy.

Russia immediately made its ire known, indicating that it viewed the Lithuanian actions as an overt act of war which, if not reversed, would result in “practical” measures outside the realm of diplomacy to rectify the situation.

The rhetoric was ratcheted up to high, however, when Andrey Klimov, a Russian senator who chairs the Commission for the Defense of State Sovereignty, called the Lithuanian action “an act of aggression” which would result in Russia seeking to “solve the problem of the Kaliningrad transit created by Lithuania by ANY means chosen by us.”

The Suwalki Gap

Close-up at the Suwalki Gap. (Jakub Luczak, Wikimedia Commons)

For years, NATO has worried about the possibility of a war with Russia in the Baltics. Much of NATO’s attention has been focused on defending the “Suwalki Gap,” a 60-mile-long stretch of border between Poland and Lithuania that separates Belarus from Kaliningrad. Western military experts have long speculated that, in the event of any conflict between Russia and NATO, Russian forces would seek to advance on the Suwalki Gap, joining Kaliningrad with Belarus and severing the three Baltic nations from the rest of Europe.

But while NATO has focused on defending the Sulwaki Gap, a Russian lawmaker has suggested that any Russian military attack in the Baltics would avoid involving Belarus. Instead, it would focus on securing a land bridge between Kaliningrad and Russia by driving north, along the Baltic coastline, to Saint Petersburg.

A series of wargames conducted by RAND around 2014 showed that NATO was, at the time, not able to adequately defend the Baltics from a concerted Russian attack. According to the wargame results, Russian forces were able to overrun the Baltics in about 60 hours.

Similar projections of Russian offensive prowess against Ukraine — where some military officials, including U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Miley, predicted that Russian forces would take Kiev within 72 hours — proved wrong. But the reality is that the militaries of the three Baltic nations are not on par with those of Ukraine, either in quality or quantity, and there is little doubt Russia, even distracted in Ukraine, could deliver a fatal blow to the militaries of the three Baltic nations.

Escalating Rhetoric

The rhetoric out of Russia continues to escalate. Vladimir Dzhabarov, a deputy head of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the lower house of Russia’s Parliament, has threatened that any continued blockade of Kaliningrad “could lead to an armed conflict,” noting that “the Russian state must protect its territory and ensure its security. If we see that a threat to our security that is fraught with a loss of territory, we will certainly take extreme measures, and nothing will stop us.”

If there is one take away from the Russian military operation in Ukraine, it is that Russia doesn’t bluff. NATO and the rest of Europe can rest assured that unless a solution is found that brings an end to Lithuania’s blockade of Kaliningrad, there will be a war between NATO and Russia.

With this reality in mind, the E.U. is working on a compromise arrangement with Lithuania that seeks to have the Russian rail connection  with Kaliningrad returned to normal in the near future. This deal, however, must work to Russia’s satisfaction, an outcome which is yet uncertain.

Unlike the Ukrainian conflict, a war in the Baltics will have existential aspects for both sides which brings the possibility — indeed probability — of nuclear weapons being used. This is an outcome that benefits no one and threatens everyone.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

Featured image: Lithuanian government building in Vilnius. (Pofka, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

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

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

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

***

Normally, recessions are the result of a reduction in liquidity by the Federal Reserve, the central bank, which is signaled by a rise in interest rates.  Normally, recessions are short-run affairs of 6 to 9 months. Unemployment, which is as costly in its way as inflation, causes the Federal Reserve to relent and to increase liquidity, which is signaled by a reduction in interest rates.

This approach assumes that inflation is a monetary phenomenon–too much money chasing too few goods.  But is the current inflation a monetary inflation?  The Federal Reserve’s response to the financial crisis of 2008-2009, itself caused by the deregulation of the banking system, was to create $8.2 trillion in new money with which to purchase troubled bank investments that threatened the large  banks’ balance sheets and transfer the troubled instruments to the Federal Reserve.  This money did not go into consumer prices. Instead it drove up stock, bond, and real estate prices.  The Fed stayed with this policy, which drove up the prices of financial assets, for over a decade, concentrating wealth in few hands.  

The likely cause of the current inflation in US consumer prices is supply disruption.  The Covid lockdowns and mandatory closing of businesses disrupted and destroyed supply chains. Shipping disruptions, which certainly reduce the supply of goods in an economy such as the United States, a country that has offshored so much of its manufacturing for internal markets, further reduced supply. Economic sanctions against Russia have destroyed business relationships.  When too much money chasing too few goods is the consequence of supply reductions, not monetary growth, the problem needs to be addressed from the supply-side.  Higher interest rates actually raise costs and further restrict supply.  

According to the Atlanta Federal Reserve bank, the US economy is in a second quarter of negative economic growth, that is, the economy is declining, not growing. Deutsche Bank supports this view.  Other large banks forecast a decline in growth.  Recession will worsen supply shortages if it is accompanied by the normal reduction in domestic spending and layoffs of employees.  In other words, the problem the US and associated economies face is not recession per se, but the Fed’s misunderstanding of the cause and utilization of a mistaken policy. 

Even in its own terms, the Federal Reserve’s policy of restricting aggregate demand through higher interest rates will fail if it is offset by federal deficit spending, such as to finance Ukraine’s ability to wage war.

The Federal Reserve’s policy not only worsens supply aspects, but also threatens the accumulated wealth from years of high liquidity, as evidenced by the recent decline in stock and bond prices.  If these reductions in the prices of financial assets threaten the banking, insurance, pension, and real estate sectors, the Federal Reserve will be forced to abandon its program of raising interest rates.  If the supply issues are not addressed, fear that the Federal Reserve has lost control of inflation could result in financial panic that would be self-intensifying.

*

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. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to 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).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), 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 easy to see why, according to a new Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans said they do not want Joe Biden to run for re-election. As Americans face record gas prices and the highest inflation in 40 years, President Biden admits he could not care less. His Administration is committed to fight a proxy war with Russia through Ukraine and Americans just need to suck it up.

Last week a New York Times reporter asked Biden how long he expects Americans to pay record gasoline prices over his Administration’s Ukraine policy. “As long as it takes,” replied the president without hesitation.

“Russia cannot defeat Ukraine,” added Biden as justification for his Administration’s pro-pain policy toward Americans. The president has repeatedly tried to deflect blame for the growing economic crisis by claiming Russia is solely behind recent inflation. “The reason why gas prices are up is because of Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia,” he said in the same press conference.

But Biden has a big problem: Americans do not believe him. According to a Rasmussen poll earlier this month, only eleven percent of Americans believe Biden’s claim that Russian president Vladimir Putin is to blame for high prices.

When it comes to disdain for the average American hurt by higher prices, there is more than enough in the Biden Administration to go around.

Brian Deese, Director of President Biden’s National Economic Council, was asked in a recent CNN interview, “What do you say to those families that say, listen, we can’t afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for months, if not years?”

His answer? “This is about the future of the Liberal World Order and we have to stand firm.”

Has there ever been an Administration more out of touch with the American people? If you asked working Americans whether they’d be happy to suffer poverty for the “liberal world order,” how many would say “that sounds like a great idea”?

President Biden’s attempts to bring down gasoline prices are bound to fail because he does not understand the problem. He can beg the Saudis to pump more oil, he can even threaten the US oil companies as he did in a Tweet yesterday. He can buy and sell from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in attempt to give the impression that prices are lowing. None of it will work.

The strangest part of this idea that Americans must suffer to hurt the Russians is that these policies aren’t even hurting Russia! On the contrary: Russia has been seen record profits from its oil and gas exports since the beginning of the Ukraine war.

According to a recent New York Times article, increasing global oil and gas prices have enabled Russia to finance its war on Ukraine. US sanctions did not bring the Russian economy to its knees, as Biden promised. They actually brought the American economy to its knees while Russian profits soared.

As Newsweek noted last week, Russian television pundits are joking that with the financial windfall Russia has seen since sanctions were imposed, “Biden is of course our agent.”

Washington’s bi-partisan foreign policy of wasting trillions on endless wars overseas has finally come home. Biden is clearly out of touch, but there is plenty of blame to go around. The only question is whether we will see an extended recession…or worse.

*

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.

Belarusian President Claims Kiev Attacked Belarus

July 5th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

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

***

 

On July 3, Aleksandr Lukashenko claimed that Ukraine had tried to attack his country, with the missiles launched being neutralized in time by the Minsk’s defense forces. The case would be another of Kiev’s repeated attempts to internationalize the conflict in order to obtain more Western support. Minsk has already made it clear that if it is attacked it will be forced to enter the conflict and declare war on Kiev, but the Ukrainian government still prefers this scenario to accepting the peace terms requested by the Russians.

“They are still trying to drag us into the war in Ukraine. The goal is the same – to deal with both Russia and Belarus in one fell swoop. […] Ukrainian politicians and the president have one policy: the more Ukrainians die, the more they will cry out about the atrocities of ‘fascists’ from Russia and Belarus”, said President Lukashenko during a statement last Sunday. In the same speech, Lukashenko reported that the Minsk military had detected and neutralized several Ukrainian missiles in the previous week. The interception was made by the Pantsir S-1 air defense system and prevented Belarusian targets from being hit.

As can be seen, according to Lukashenko, there is a clear objective with these attacks, which is to provoke military reactions on the part of Minsk, in order to strengthen the discourse that Ukrainians are “victims of Russian and Belarusian violence”, thus increasing the Kiev’s chances of getting more Western support in the conflict. It is not by chance that the Ukrainian attacks are not announced, being carried out in a secret way, so that possible reactions from Minsk sound like “unjustified aggression” in the face of a Western public opinion that is not aware of what is actually happening in the region.

The Belarusian president emphasized in his words that Minsk has no interest in participating in the conflict and that so far no Belarusian soldiers have been sent to the Ukrainian territory, with the country maintaining absolute military neutrality. However, he reaffirmed what he had said on other occasions: if it continues to be attacked, Belarus will have no choice but to enter the conflict in order to defend its citizens. According to him, Moscow and Minsk must be ready for this type of situation, considering that the Western-backed Ukrainian aggressiveness could generate victims in both countries at any moment.

Lukashenko also said that the Belarusian military forces are already maintaining in its crosshairs Ukrainian targets considered decision-making centers. The country’s intention is still to avoid responses, which demonstrates a real diplomatic willingness. According to what had been previously stated, Minsk would reserve the right to respond militarily to any attack. The Ukrainian attack has already taken place, but the Belarusian government is not considering responding immediately, as it managed to intercept the missiles and avoid casualties. So, in other words, one more chance is being given to Ukraine to avoid involving Belarus in the conflict.

In fact, given the current situation in the conflict, the West is interested in prolonging the fighting as long as possible, as it is a way of delaying the inevitable Russian victory and the consequent reconfiguration of the European geopolitical map. In addition, it is a way of generating profits for the Western military-industrial complex, which will continue to send money and weapons to Kiev, to be charged with interest in the coming years. Obviously, this is not in the benefit of the Ukrainian people, who are suffering more and more in this the conflict, but, on the other hand, it interests the government of the Maidan Junta, which acts in the service of the West and not of the Ukrainian citizens.

And there is no simpler way to prolong the current situation than by attracting new agents, which is why Kiev is constantly trying to promote the internationalization of the war. Despite Belarusian neutrality, Zelensky repeatedly and unjustifiably accused Minsk of “aggression” simply because the country is a strategic ally of Russia – and there are many intelligence reports by Minsk’s forces saying that Kiev plans an invasion against the country based on this fallacious allegation of “aggression”. It is also necessary to remember that previously Kiev had already directed attacks against Transnistria, which is an autonomous region in Moldova where Moscow maintains peacekeeper troops. All these measures are desperate attempts to internationalize the conflict and garner international support.

The Western media obviously omits reporting on the Ukrainian aggressions but would be quick to inform on the responses of the attacked nations, speaking of “new unjustified invasions”. This would encourage the public opinion – which is already tired of this scenario of war and crisis – to support the sending of new billion-dollars military packages to Kiev, maintaining the strategy of prolonging the 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.

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.

Polish Dissident Anti-War Voices on the Rise

July 5th, 2022 by Michał Krupa

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

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

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

***

There is no doubt that Poland is and has been the leading voice in NATO and in the European Union advocating for a more aggressive approach to Russia in the context of the war in Ukraine. Apart from the daily reproaches of the Polish government and president against Moscow and in its perversely subservient line of support for Kiev, two recent developments are a clear testimony that Warsaw’s Eastern policy is becoming more and more of an aberration.

On May 9th, the ambassador of the Russian Federation in Poland, Sergey Andreev, was doused with red paint while on a visit to a Soviet war cemetery in Warsaw by Ukrainian activists. Iryna Zemlana, who was personally responsible for the attack, was not apprehended by the police, and what is more, was able to escape Warsaw.

This egregious act, which should have been prosecuted, was even mildly praised by the Polish Minister of the Interior, Mariusz Kamiński, on Twitter. Worth mentioning here is that active assault or insult of a representative of a foreign state is regulated in Article 136 of the Polish Criminal Code. This provision states in the first paragraph that “whoever, on the territory of the Republic of Poland, commits an active assault on a head of a foreign state or an accredited head of diplomatic representation of such a state or a person enjoying similar protection under laws, agreements or generally recognized international customs, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of between 3 months and 5 years.”

Paragraph two states the following:

“Whoever, on the territory of the Republic of Poland, commits an active assault on a person who is a member of the diplomatic staff of a foreign representation or a consular official of a foreign state, in connection with the performance of their official duties, shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to 3 years.”

In light of this, to say Zemlana abused her status as a guest in Poland is an understatement. The total lack of any interest on the part of the Polish authorities to prosecute is in itself a criminal act.

A few days later, on May 10th, Britain’s The Telegraph published an article by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, the opening lines of which declare: “Russia’s monstrous ideology must be defeated. It is the equivalent of 20th-century communism and Nazism—and it poses a deadly threat to Europe.” It’s hard to imagine Morawiecki actually saying this with a straight face and yet, here we are. Leave it to the current Polish Prime Minister to try and out-neocon the neocons!

To an outside observer it would seem that Poland wants nothing more than to enter the fray in Ukraine, while at the same time explaining away the economic woes already being experienced by the great majority of Poles, due to the radical nature of the anti-Russian sanctions, as something insignificant. Thankfully, dissident voices are growing louder by the day. I decided to reach out to three representatives of the diplomatic, academic and media worlds respectively to demonstrate to the international reader, to paraphrase the opening lines of the Polish national anthem, that “Poland is not yet lost!”

The Polish Authorities should pursue Polish Interests

Dr. Jacek Izydorczyk served as Poland’s ambassador to Japan from 2017 to 2019, and he currently teaches law at the University of Łódź. The esteemed professor was one of the first former diplomats to openly criticize the Polish government’s pro-war agenda after hostilities began in Ukraine.

Izydorczyk is blunt and to the point:

“It is in the interest of Poland to end the war as soon as possible, because whether it is a full-scale World War III or just a local war with Polish participation, it means the destruction of our country and the death of thousands, if not millions of our citizens.”

The former diplomat believes that Polish and U.S. interests are not identical in Ukraine, despite the massive media propaganda campaign claiming the contrary. And while not advocating for totally abandoning the formal alliance with the United States, Izydorczyk does see the need for an immediate rebalancing towards “a minimum of assertiveness and defense of one’s position.” The Polish citizenry, Izydorczyk points out, should not hesitate to put pressure on the current government of the Law and Justice party, whose members “have been brought up on blind hatred of Russia and such absurdities as the cult of Napoleon and his expedition to Moscow.”

The Academic Community in Poland has its Freedom of Speech severely Limited

The conservative political scientist, Professor Adam Wielomski, in our exchange expanded on the themes raised by Ambassador Izydorczyk. When asked about the evident unanimity among the Polish academic elite regarding the situation in Ukraine, Wielomski pointed to two main factors responsible for such a state of affairs. “One part of the academic community repeats what they hear on television, and the other part is afraid to speak out. The academic community in Poland has its freedom of speech severely limited because a habit has developed of writing letters of complaint against professors for expressing views in the media that differ from the banal ones. Professors are afraid of being summoned by the rector’s office and having to explain themselves. The community prefers not to speak out on any controversial issue, unless it is in line with the media. Paradoxically, those who are knowledgeable about the political situation remain silent, and the main ‘experts’ are the undereducated journalists.” In essence this means that “professors have limited civil rights in Poland in relation to ordinary people. They have been terrorized by the liberal media, and the university is no longer a place of free debate.”

Wielomski believes that in the current geopolitical situation, Poland has two options: either to be a transmission and trade-belt on the Beijing-Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis and benefit from it, given its geographical location, or become nothing more than “a spoiler of the United States in Eurasia.” The Polish elites chose the second option. “They may be right; but I, for one, was not convinced. To be frank, they didn’t even try to convince anyone, because after 1989 there was no debate on this issue in Poland. The government was taken over by people who had been in opposition until 1989 and who took money from the CIA for their activities, pacifying not only opposing views but even calls for a debate on this issue.”

This lack of a serious debate on such critical issues as Poland’s geopolitical orientation “enforces unanimity on every issue of importance.” Warsaw should strive to emulate the moderately cautious approach of Paris and Berlin and possibly even the openly anti-war position of Poland’s supposed ally in Budapest.

When asked to assess the chances for the emergence of political forces focused on realism in Eastern policy and more assertive formulation of Polish national interests, without interference from Washington or Berlin, Wielomski is pessimistic. “In Poland, there is little chance of this happening. Even the ‘populist’ right-wing Confederation party, which holds anti-systemic views, as they say in the U.S., practically collapsed because of the dispute whether Poland gets to define its own raison d’être, or whether it is defined by the American embassy. Most of Confederation’s members, as it turned out, entered the Sejm under anti-system slogans only to knock on the System’s door and report their readiness to serve it.” This is all attributable to what Wielomski calls a peculiar “disease of the Polish soul,” which manifests itself predominantly not only in the lack of realism in foreign policy, “but also in some irrational pride in not pursuing such a policy.” Wielomski frames the choice facing Warsaw in the following words: “In politics you either defend your own interests or act in the interests of others.”

No Nuance Allowed

Dr. Wojciech Golonka is a Catholic philosopher and a regular columnist at Poland’s premium center-right weekly Do Rzeczy (DR). DR has remained one of the very few mainstream venues where dissent from the politically correct line on Ukraine is tolerated. This no doubt is due to Paweł Lisicki’s, impeccable free speech credentials, and who manages the editorial side of the publication.

Thanks to such a praise worthy modus operandi, Golonka was able to publish an interview with retired colonel Douglas Macgregor, an American voice which needed to be heard in Poland. “Adopting a zero-sum narrative, which is unopposed, is very conducive to internal politics and also allows for a temporary cover-up of current problems—the grilling of Poland by Brussels, galloping inflation, the refugee crisis, social discontent. Any criticism of the government can therefore now be shouted down with the imperative to fight Putin, and in Polish conditions no major political party will allow itself to put reason above the aforementioned atmosphere of systemic Russophobia”—says Golonka. He believes attempts to censor in Poland Russian outlets, which present a different perspective on the war in Ukraine, are “ridiculous.”

The banning of Russia Today in the early days of the conflict was a clear example of government overreach. According to Golonka, “solutions that seek to restrict civil liberties should, on the one hand, be under the control of the courts, and on the other, be appropriate for emergency situations, the framework of which is defined by the Polish Constitution. Every arbitrary decision of the executive power using purely rhetorical justification corrupts the rule of law and creates precedents for government arbitrariness that is dangerous to citizens.”

Golonka points out that “people who feel hunger for diverse information or analysis already use the so-called alternative media.” However, these venues still remain relatively marginal in Poland in terms of impact and influence. In his view, this dire situation stems from the fact that “Polish society did not have an appropriate period in its contemporary history, in which it could mature to the mechanisms of democracy, without being an object of foreign external factors and internal factional struggles for power.”

“Television lies” used to be the famous slogan in the halcyon days of the Solidarity movement. No more, seems to be the view of the young columnist.

The late professor Andrzej Walicki, one of Poland’s greatest scholars of Russia and Russian political thought, in one of his last interviews defined the grand logic animating Warsaw’s hubris in foreign policy, in the following words: “Mainly an inferiority complex towards the West, offset by a superiority complex towards the East.”

In the current circumstances, the voices of dissent quoted above, among many others (thankfully!), give courage to ordinary Poles, who prefer not to succumb to either of the complexes.

*

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.

Michał Krupa is a Polish historian and commentator. He has published in various Polish and American media outlets, including The American Conservative, Consortium News, Chronicles Magazine and the Imaginative Conservative. His Twitter handle is: @MGKrupa.

Featured image:  “Polish Hamlet. Portrait of Aleksander Wielopolski,” by Jacek Malczewski; painted in 1903.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Polish Dissident Anti-War Voices on the Rise
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

The world’s largest crude oil exporter, Saudi Arabia, continues to keep close ties with Russia while the top oil consumer, the United States, pleads with major producers—including the Kingdom—to boost supply to the market and help ease consumers’ pain at the pump.  While the U.S. and its Western allies are sanctioning Moscow and banning oil imports from Russia, U.S. President Joe Biden is also turning to Saudi Arabia to ask it to pump more oil as Americans pay on average $5 a gallon for gasoline.  

The Saudis prefer to keep close ties with Russia in oil policy as the OPEC+ pact and the control over a large portion of global oil supply has benefited both OPEC+ leaders—the Kingdom and Russia—over the past half a decade. Saudi Arabia, however, could use a little thaw in Saudi-U.S. relations under President Biden, who is no longer talking about the world’s top crude exporter as a “pariah” state.

The Saudis are carefully maneuvering to keep Russia as an ally in the OPEC+ group and possibly improve relations with the United States.

President Biden—desperate to see relief for American drivers ahead of the midterm elections—has made a U-turn on Saudi Arabia and is expected this month to visit the Kingdom, which he said on the campaign trail would be treated as a “pariah” state during his presidency. But U.S. gasoline prices at $5 a gallon and the loss of part of the Russian supply have made President Biden reconsider and meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Saudi Arabia has publicly reiterated its “warm” ties with Russia on several occasions since Putin invaded Ukraine, and considers keeping Russia in the OPEC+ alliance an important part of its oil policy. With Russia leading a dozen non-OPEC producers in the pact, Saudi Arabia has more sway over global oil markets with the larger OPEC+ group than with OPEC alone.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have discussed their countries’ cooperation in the OPEC+ oil production pact in a few telephone conversations since February, and have vowed to continue their cooperation.

Last month, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said that Russia could continue its participation in the OPEC+ agreement even after it officially expires at the end of this year. Novak was speaking after a meeting in St Petersburg with Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, who made a surprise appearance at a Russian economic forum.

During that meeting, the Saudi minister said that Saudi-Russian relations were “as warm as the weather in Riyadh.”

Two weeks before that meeting, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Riyadh and met with his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud. The two ministers said that the OPEC+ alliance is solid, with the level of cooperation within it strong.

The recent OPEC+ decision to accelerate the production increase and roll back all cuts in August, a month earlier than initially planned, was pushed by Saudi Arabia amid U.S. pressure. But the Kingdom had to check with Russia first before proposing the redistribution of the September increase in July and August, sources with knowledge of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy told Reuters this week.

Both the Saudis and Russia benefit from the OPEC+ deal, so Riyadh wants to keep Russia on board, the sources say.

“The Saudis are enjoying high prices while the Russians need guaranteed support from OPEC+ in the current circumstances,” a source familiar with Russian thinking told Reuters.

“No one is interested in a market collapse,” added the source.

After the production cuts are completely rolled back next month, a more difficult decision for OPEC+ looms: what to do next as Russia is more than 1 million bpd behind target and could lose more supply as the EU embargo on its oil begins at the end of this year.

Neither is OPEC+ as a group anywhere close to reaching its target production, nor has Saudi Arabia much spare capacity left to boost production further, as the U.S. and other major consumers want. Per the OPEC+ deal, the Saudi target (as well as Russia’s) is at 11.004 million bpd for August. The Kingdom has rarely reached this level, and not for a sustained period of time. So, it’s not certain that the Saudis have the ability to pump 11 million bpd or more on a sustainable basis. It’s even less certain that the Kingdom can quickly tap—if it wanted to—into the 12.2 million bpd production capacity it claims it has.

*

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.

Tsvetana is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

Nazification of Poland?

July 5th, 2022 by Konrad Rękas

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

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

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

***

In Gdańsk one of the squares was officially named in honour of “heroic Mariupol”. Well, although it is hard to believe, there are circles in Poland that can raise toasts to the SS-men killed during attack on the Reich Chancellery in 1945 as “defenders of European civilization”. The worship of the “heroes of Mariupol”, i.e. bandits from Azov, cowardly hiding behind the backs of civilians imprisoned in Azovstal, is another example of the progressive Nazification of political consciousness in contemporary Poland.

Deniers of the Polish Genocide

Along with the destruction of the monuments of the Polish-Russian brotherhood in arms, cases of fights against the liberating Red Army are exposed.  Books expressing regret that Poland did not become Hitler’s close ally are published on a mass scale.  The one and only case of cooperation between the Polish anti-communist underground and the UPA (Ukrainian Insurgence Army, nazi, Banderist terrorist organisation) against the Polish army, in present propaganda grows to the size of a great alliance with Ukrainian Nazism.

The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not properly reacted to the scandalous Ambassador Andrij Melnyk interview, in which he had questioned and even praised the Volhynia Massacre, in which nearly 200,000 Poles were killed by the Banderites.  The state authorities order this year to refrain from organising the celebration of the anniversary of the culmination of these events, when on the night only, Bloody Sunday of 11th July 1943, 99 Polish villages in Volhynia were attacked with the slogan “Death to Poles!”.  The monument commemorating the victims of the Banderite genocide, which the local government wanted to set up in a small village in Podkarpacie, near the border with Ukraine, was arrested and censored, when elements as a figure of a boy pierced by a Banderites’ pitchfork and the heads of children punched on fences were removed. “In the current geopolitical situation, should not go back to those events” – repeats the Polish Government, but the crimes of the UPA looked exactly so extremely cruel.

All remainders of fight of Polish partisans against Ukrainian Hitler’s collaborators are fiercely removed from the public space. Not only the Ukrainian minority in Poland and new immigrants, but many Polish politicians demand, for example, a change of street named in honour of the legendary Major Stanisław Basaj, “Lynx”, during the Second World War a hero of the fights against German and Ukrainian Nazis, in 1945 murdered by the UPA. So, many Poles ask: is it still Poland, or already Nazi Ukraine?

Lipniki massacre.jpg

Polish civilian victims of March 26, 1943 massacre committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) assisted by ordinary Ukrainian peasantry (so called “chern”, pol. czerń) in the village of Lipniki (Kostopol County), Reichskommissariat Ukraine. (Licensed under the public domain)

Polonisation or Banderisation

These are not random events.  We are dealing with the acceleration of preparations for the establishment of Polish-Western Ukrainian federation. Thus, Poles are being prepared for a compromise, which would be the acceptance of the Stepan Bandera’s[1] cult.  In order to return to Lviv – Poland must therefore become at least a bit Banderish, it is explained to the Poles. The problem is that in such a scenario there are not the former eastern lands that would return to Poland, but Poland would join the Nazi-Banderite Reich

It sounds scary, but we, Poles seem to accept it. After all, there is no harm to those willing…. However, organising ourselves, we could even turn the strategy used against us towards our national benefits.  And when we come back to Wołyń, to Stanisławów, Równe, Tarnopol – we can always replace the heads of Bandera’s monuments and transform them into Marechal Piłsudski’s ones. Or even Jeremy Wiśniowiecki (the conqueror of the Chmielnicki’s Kozaks Uprising in the 17th century). As long as we do not let to Nazificate us.

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

[1] Stepan Bandera (1909 – 1959) – leader of Ukrainian Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, Hitler’s collaborator, responsible for genocide and mass murders of Jews, Poles and Ukrainian opponents. After the WW2 agent of the British Intelligence. Assassinated by KGB agent.

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

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

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

***

Make no mistake: this latest development is a major blow to the Zelensky regime, but it will be even more devastating for the geographically-challenged boffins in Washington and London, who are still determined to paint every resounding defeat for Kiev as a ‘strategic pause’. 

Over the weekend, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu spoke to President Vladimir Putin, informing the leader that Luhansk region has been “liberated.”

Yes, that means all of Luhansk.

This is true game changer on many fronts. Firstly, it brings Russia one step closer to securing one of its primary strategical objectives: securing the administrative borders of the newly independent Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). Militarily, the significance of this is self-evident – breaking a protracted stalemate which saw many thousands killed and maimed in an eight-year long civil war between residents and Kiev’s radical nationalist battalions. Western politicos and punditry can invoke ‘international law’ ad nauseam, but the path ahead for Russia and its allies is now clear; the legal and political implications of securing these regions will ballast any future negotiations, especially in regard to any aspirations for statehood, or in holding a referendum to join the Russian Federation.

This shouldn’t come as any surprise to those observers who’ve been actually following the daily bulletins and reports coming out of Moscow, along with a number of Russian bloggers and Telegram channels which have established a near unblemished record in terms of accuracy since this conflict began.

Still, despite all this, spinmeisters in Kiev have not yet confirmed Moscow’s claim of the liberation of Luhansk. In the last 48 hours, the shuddering propaganda shop in Kiev (much of their ‘information operations’ are being micromanaged by Uncle Sam’s Disinfo HQ in Stuttgart and Langley) has been busy throwing up sunbursts claiming that Russia is actually losing in the town of Lysychansk.

It’s almost surreal seeing the stark difference in coverage between the two sides in this conflict. You can almost hear the infighting going on behind the scenes between Kiev’s version of Terry Gilliam’s two super bureaucrats played by Michael Palin and Jonathan Pryce, arguing between the departments of ‘information retrieval’ and ‘information dispersal.’ Lost amid the reams of cables and ‘intel’. So much Intel knocking around at the moment, especially on US cable news.

Relax says the BBC, ‘Do not listen to the Kremlin – we’re winning!’ 

Putting aside for a moment President Zelensky’s daily celebrity photo-ops, it’s become apparent that Kiev’s information operations have descended into a complete farce. Everyone can see it, except for hopelessly loyal western media operatives who still hang on their every word. Hence, western MSM reporting will remain 48 to 72 hours late on pretty much everything.

So Allied forces of Russia, DPR, and LPR have taken control of the entire Luhansk region, in what is fast becoming former eastern Ukraine (as painful as that may sound, it’s true). This key milestone was declared after capturing the final Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) holdout in the town of Lysychansk.

“After successful military operations, Russian forces and the Luhansk People’s Militia established full control over the city of Lysychansk and a number of nearby settlements,” said Shoigu.

The other reason this is a game changer is that Allied forces can now shift their battlefield focus to the neighbouring Donetsk region, making the encirclement of any remaining entrenched AFU positions a practical fait accompli.

This also means that Kiev’s tenuous hold over Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city, is now in jeopardy. For the most part, this is largely a Russian city, although currently controlled by radical Ukrainian nationalist military units. However, as soon as residents there sense that their city is becoming a focal point of the conflict, you could see a rejection of radical militants’ governing authority in much the same way that the people in Mariupol began rejecting the Nazi Azov battalion occupation of that city, resulting in a pitch battle between Ukrainian militants and a vastly superior Russian-led coalition. It’s just a question of time now – time which the Allied forces fortunately have, but which a flagging regime in Kiev and its NATO controllers unfortunately do not.

By now, it would be hard not to underscore what an epic failure the western propaganda effort has been. It’s becoming embarrassing to watch, and it comes with some very real consequences. While it’s understandable why a US-UK dominated NATO would want to brainwash its own populations about how ‘the war’ is going (that’s what governments normally do anyway, especially with proxy wars), the real problem arises when western politicians, ministers and military experts – all start to repeat and believe the fanciful propaganda that’s being churned out by their own official sources. History shows that this is a surefire recipe for defeat. We’ve entered that warped phase in the conflict now, where western policy vis-à-vis Ukraine is being based upon overly optimistic and completely false reporting, both of which is further contorting the West’s military, economic and political positions, not to mention Ukraine’s own increasingly precarious predicament.

For instance, the following script line has been dutifully inserted in nearly every single western news release on the Ukraine war; you can always locate it halfway down any article, something along the lines of, “Russia was driven back from the Ukrainian capital Kiev following its Feb. 24 invasion…”, by now a mandatory caveat for every Ukraine report, specifically designed to hammer home the impression that Russia was somehow caught by surprise and beaten back by a “brave Ukrainian resistance,” and thus finds itself in a state of perpetual retreat. Victory for Zelensky must be right around the corner then. Goebbels always said, “Repeat, repeat, repeat,” although today it’s more like “copy, paste, copy, paste, copy, paste.”

That’s what our mainstream press and government do incessantly. The reality is something completely different: Russia’s initial feint of encircling Kiev early on effectively tied most of Ukraine’s primary military forces which were moved to fortify the capital while Russian and DPR forces swiftly took control of key strategic nodes around the country, including the port city of Mariupol, and begun the encirclement of AFU divisions in Donbass. After pulling back from Kiev, the Allied forces have systematically routed NATO-backed AFU regiments in what looks like one of the most decisive military movements of the modern era. You can see the results of this by looking at any of the up-to-date battle maps. That’s the reality of the situation, and no amount of creative wordsmithing by the battery of professional propagandists embedded in western media outlets can change that.

One has to wonder though: do western journalists and the legion of TV ‘military experts’ even read the daily Russian battle maps? Judging by the lack of quality and accuracy in western reportage and punditry, it doesn’t seem like they do. But who really knows. Perhaps they’re afraid of succumbing to the nefarious influence of “dangerous Russian disinformation,” or worse yet – maybe they are being blocked by their own government censors, who decided to ban the likes of RT International, Sputnik, and Southfront from their airwaves and ISPs. We’re told this is because we need to protect vulnerable western minds from undue influence abroad.

Indeed, any student of history will tell you that at various junctures in history, depending on which side of the iron curtain you find yourself on, facts can be very dangerous.

When it comes to geopolitical commentary, this shouldn’t be a question of favoring one side or the other. It’s about calling balls and strikes. If the Braves are beating the Astros 8-1 in the bottom of the eight, it shouldn’t be a faux pas to report that you’re watching an epic blow-out in the making.

Our media and government officials refuse to call it as it is, but they do so at everyone’s peril. Not least of all the poor Ukrainians who are presently losing circa 300 soldiers per day, and with many more injured. Hardly Slava Ukraini! (Glory to Ukraine!), but more likely they’re needlessly dying for the sake of this latest NATO vanity project. It’s hard to see the glory in that, something the people of Libya can certainly attest to.

How many more of its young men, and how much more territory will Ukraine have to lose before NATO’s brain trust finally says ‘enough’?

That’s to say nothing about the western economy, battered by western sanctions that were supposed to cripple Russia. We’re still trying to work that one out.

None of it makes sense anymore, unless you’re in the defense industry. Then it all makes perfect sense.

 

*

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

This article was originally published on 21st Century Wire.

Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq. See his archive here.

Featured image: Russian President Putin meets with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu. (Source: 21st CW)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Game Changer: Russian MoD Confirms Luhansk ‘Fully Liberated’ – Here’s What It Means
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

The Biden administration on Wednesday announced a $3.2 billion deal to purchase 105 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for a fall vaccination campaign, with options to buy up to 300 million doses.

The contract includes a combination of adult and pediatric doses, and supplies of a re-formulated booster shot that will contain the original Wuhan variant and BA.4 and BA.5 Omicron subvariants.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Thursday advised COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to produce the updated booster vaccine — which has not yet undergone human clinical trials — for this fall.

“This agreement will provide additional doses for U.S. residents and help cope with the next COVID-19 wave,” Sean Marett, chief business and chief commercial officer of BioNTech, said in a statement. “Pending regulatory authorization, it will also include an Omicron-adapted vaccine, which we believe is important to address the rapidly spreading Omicron variant.”

The announcement followed Tuesday’s meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, which recommended including an Omicron component in future COVID-19 booster vaccines.

“Vaccines have been a game-changer in our fight against COVID-19, allowing people to return to normal activities knowing that vaccines protect from severe illness,” said Xavier Becerra, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

“The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to doing everything we can to continue to make vaccines free and widely available to Americans — and this is an important first step to preparing us for the fall.”

However, U.S. taxpayers will fund the $3.2 billion campaign, just as they also paid $1.95 billion for the original 100 million doses obtained under Operation Warp Speed, and $19.50 per dose for 500 million more doses obtained through the government’s option contract.

“Earlier this month, in the absence of additional COVID-19 funding from Congress, the Administration was forced to reallocate $10 billion in existing funding, pulling billions of dollars from COVID-19 response efforts in order to pay for additional vaccines and treatments,” HHS said in a statement. “The funding for this new Pfizer contract is being paid for with a portion of that reallocated funding.”

“The White House has dropped all pretense that this is about protecting public health,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel for Children’s Health Defense. “This is an unsheathed, corporate welfare project to further enrich the shareholders of the most profitable industry in history.”

“It’s almost as if these states — and their citizens — are paying for these vaccines twice over: once to bankroll much, or nearly all, of the research itself, then again to buy back the products of this public-funded research,” Quartz reported last month. “Pharma corporations benefit hugely from this model.”

Pfizer said in May it expects about $32 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales for 2022, but the figure was based on agreements signed before the new contract announced this week.

Pfizer on June 23 approved a quarterly cash dividend of $0.40 per share.

Under the new Pfizer deal, the U.S. government is set to pay more than $30 per dose on average, which is significantly higher than the $19.50 it paid in its initial Pfizer contract.

As early as Feb. 26, 2021, Pfizer was planning for a “potential rapid adoption” of its COVID-19 vaccine to allow for the development of booster vaccines within weeks. This “regulatory pathway” is already established for other infectious diseases, such as  influenza, Pfizer said in a statement.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said the company was “making the right investments and engaging in the appropriate conversations with regulators” to help position the company to “potentially develop and seek authorization for an updated mRNA vaccine or booster if needed.”

During a February 2021 earnings call, Bourla told analysts, big banks and investors the company could make significant profits as demand for its COVID-19 vaccine subsidies by charging higher prices and implementing routine booster doses for new variants of the virus.

During the Barclays’ Global Health Conference in March 2021, former Pfizer CFO Frank D’Amelio said the company doesn’t see this as a one-time event, but “as something that’s going to continue for the foreseeable future.”

“Every year, you need to go to get your flu vaccine,” Pfizer CEO Bourla said. “It’s going to be the same with COVID. In a year, you will have to go and get your annual shot for COVID to be protected.”

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a staff attorney for Children’s Health Defense and a reporter for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

On Saturday, a month-long state of emergency was declared in the former Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan, to address the violent protests in response to government plans to revoke the autonomy of the north-eastern republic of Karakalpakstan, a decision which Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev would later drop following a visit to the region.

Despite the current disturbances only starting several days ago, their sudden escalation to extreme violence, as well as the coordinated coverage of the situation by corporate media outlets, including the US government-funded Radio Free Europe, already bears all the hallmarks of a CIA regime change operation.

Indeed, such a situation was predicted by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko in January of this year, when a similar regime change attempt was taking place in Uzbekistan’s larger northern neighbour Kazakhstan.

This attempt, carried out in line with a May 2020 document published by neoconservative think tank the RAND Corporation, sought to destabilise the central Asian Republic in order for the after-effects to spill over into neighbouring Russia, with the 7,000km land border shared between both nations being the second largest in the world after Canada and the US.

Following the deployment of the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) to Kazakhstan however, at the request of Nur-Sultan, the Western-backed colour revolution attempt was quelled in the space of two weeks, with the military alliance withdrawing from the central Asian country soon after.

Belarus itself had experienced a colour revolution attempt in August 2020, when following Lukashenko’s Presidential electoral victory over opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a Euromaidan-style colour revolution was launched against Minsk, the former Soviet Republic being a long-time target for the regime change lobby owing to it being Moscow’s sole European ally, having highly-nationalised state industries, and the instalment of a pro-Western government resulting in Russia’s entire Western border being composed solely of NATO-members and allies.

Indeed, the encirclement of Russia was a motivating factor in the aforementioned Euromaidan colour revolution launched in response to then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych’s November 2013 decision to suspend an EU trade deal in order to pursue closer ties with Moscow.

Violent protests would rock the eastern European nation in the aftermath, centring on Kiev’s Maidan Square, where neoconservative US Senator John McCain would infamously address demonstrators.

This violence would eventually culminate in the predominantly ethnic Russian Donbass region in the east of the country breaking away to form the independent Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in April 2014, the catalyst for which being the anti-Russian far-right sympathisers who would take part in the Maidan movement, and who would also play a key role in the post-coup Western-backed coalition government of Petro Poroshenko.

An eight-year long war on both Republic s would follow, involving the use of neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as Right Sector and Azov Battalion, and leading to an estimated 14,000 deaths.

Despite attempts by the Kremlin to diplomatically resolve the situation via the Minsk Agreements, which would see both Republics granted a degree of autonomy whilst still remaining under the rule of Kiev, Moscow’s hand would ultimately be forced in February of this year when a military intervention was launched into Ukraine.

Almost five months of global condemnation and sanctions towards Russia have since followed, however this has done little to hinder Moscow’s goals of removing the neo-Nazi elements involved in the ethnic cleansing campaign in Donbass, and destroying any Ukrainian military infrastructure that would ultimately have been used by NATO had Kiev gone on to become a member, the alliance having failed to honour a post-Cold War agreement not to expand eastwards.

Indeed, less than 24 hours after Uzbekistan’s state of emergency announcement, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu announced that the Luhansk People’s Republic had come fully under Russian control, highly coincidental timing that suggests that the current strife in Uzbekistan has been orchestrated as a means to eventually lead to further destabilisation along Russia’s southern border, just as Lukashenko predicted.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook 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.

Featured image is from Caspian News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Regime Change Comes to Uzbekistan. Part of a Broader Agenda of Political Destabilization of the Russian Federation?
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

Pfizer classified almost all severe adverse events that occurred during its Phase 3 trials as unrelated to the injection. A 2,566-page document catalogues serious adverse events and six deaths during the trial. These events were all classified as “toxicity level 4,” which is the most serious, yet none of them was deemed related to the injection

Examples of Level 4 adverse events — all of which were written off as “not related” to the mRNA injection — include acute respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, brain abscess, adrenal carcinoma (adrenal cancer) and chronic myeloid leukemia (blood and bone marrow cancer)

Most Level 3 adverse events were also dismissed as unrelated to the shot. Only a small number were listed as related. Examples of Level 3 side effects include tachycardia (disruption of the normal electrical impulses that control your heart rate — the very problem that underlies most cases of “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS) and ventricular arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm that makes the lower chambers twitch rather than pump — another underlying cause of SADS)

A reanalysis of data from the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccine trials found that, combined, Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 jabs were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated. Meanwhile, the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization was only 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna

Whether intentional or not, mounting evidence now indicate the COVID-19 injections will result in depopulation through premature death and adverse effects on fertility in women and men alike. Research from Israel reveals the shot deteriorates sperm count and sperm motility in men for about three months post-jab

*

As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to release Pfizer’s clinical trial documentation,we’re finding more and more evidence that very little has been done on the up-and-up, and the COVID jab trials may be among the most fraudulent in medical history.

Can All Serious Adverse Effects Be Written Off?

Importantly, Pfizer classified almost all severe adverse events that occurred during its Phase 3 trials as unrelated to the injection. As reported by The Defender, June 21, 2022:2

“The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents reveals numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials. Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died.

The 80,000-page document cache includes an extensive set of Case Report Forms (CRFs) from Pfizer Phase 3 trials conducted at various locations in the U.S., in addition to other documentation pertaining to participants in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine trials in the U.S. and worldwide …

The CRFs included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants. They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine.”

The Defender article includes 11 examples3 of trial participants who experienced severe adverse effects that were classified as “unrelated” to the experimental gene transfer technology they’d received just days or weeks earlier.

A 2,566-page document4 catalogues the serious adverse events and six deaths that occurred during the trial. These events were all classified as “toxicity level 4,” which is the most serious, yet none of them were deemed related to the injection.

This simply isn’t believable. It’s completely unrealistic, especially when serious events occur in multiple participants. A handful of examples of Level 4 adverse events listed in this document — all of which were written off as “not related” to the mRNA injection — include:5

  • Acute respiratory failure
  • Cardiac arrest
  • Brain abscess
  • Adrenal carcinoma (adrenal cancer)
  • Chronic myeloid leukemia (blood and bone marrow cancer)

The six deaths reported were listed as being caused by arteriosclerosis, cardiac arrest, hemorrhagic stroke and myocardial infarction.6 Many participants also dropped out or were excluded from the trial due to serious side effects involving the heart, cardiovascular system, cancer, stroke, hemorrhage and neurological impacts.

Examples of Level 3 Adverse Events

Most Level 3 adverse events were also dismissed as unrelated to the shot. As reported by The Defender, only a “small number” were listed as being related to the injection. Examples of Level 3 side effects include:7

  • Deafness/hearing loss
  • Tachycardia (disruption of the normal electrical impulses that control your heart rate — the very problem that underlies most cases of “sudden adult death syndrome” or SADS)
  • Ventricular arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm that makes the lower chambers twitch rather than pump — another underlying cause of SADS)
  • Neutropenia (low neutrophil level in your blood; neutrophils are a type of white blood cell made by your bone marrow that fight infections by destroying viruses and bacteria)
  • Vertigo

45% Experienced One or More Adverse Events

Another document8 that raises suspicions of bias is one admitting that “40% to 45% of participants who received BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 across age groups and across dose levels reported one or more AEs [adverse events] from Dose 1 through 28 days (i.e., 1 month) after Dose 2.”

BNT162b2 was the candidate injection that went on to receive Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Among those who got the highest dose (30 micrograms) of BNT162b2, 50% of younger participants 25% in the older age group reported one or more adverse events.

The most common adverse events were nervous system disorders, followed by musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders. Yet despite high rates of side effects across dose levels, this document also insists that “most AEs were considered by the investigator as not related to study intervention.”

During the open-label period of the study, 12,006 participants were followed for a minimum of six months, and among those, 28.8% reported at least one adverse event at some point during that follow-up, and 2.1% reported one or more severe adverse events.

Incidence Rate in Treatment Group FAR Higher Than Placebo

As reported by The Defender:9

“The review provides data for participants from dose 3 … to the data cutoff date. The severe adverse event incidence rate (IR) was 6.0 per 100 PY (patient-years), with specific conditions reported including pulmonary embolisms, thrombosis, urticaria, a cerebrovascular accident and COVID-19 pneumonia.

Here, the review adds that the IR for original placebo participants who had at least 1 life-threatening AE from Dose 3 to the data cutoff date was 0.5 per 100 PY.

Only one such life-threatening event, an instance of anaphylactoid reaction, was considered to be related to the vaccination. Other life-threatening, serious adverse events included cardio-respiratory arrest, gastrointestinal necrosis, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism …

Notably, according to the review, ‘all … events of facial paralysis were considered by the investigator as related to study intervention.” [Editor’s note: these specifically refer to events that occurred during the open-label follow-up period when BNT162b2 Dose 3 or Dose 4 was offered to both placebo and initial treatment groups.]

Young Children Have Extremely Low Risk of Death From COVID

In the end, we all know what happened. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Pfizer concluded the shot was safe and effective for everyone and the FDA went along with it. The vaccine manufacturers and the FDA have decided it isn’t even worth invoking the precautionary principle for the very youngest of children, which is nothing short of reprehensible, criminal maleficence.

In mid-June 2022, against strong objections from physicians, scientists and researchers, the FDA’s vaccine advisory panel — the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — unanimously agreed to grant EUA to both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID shots for infants and young children.10,11

Pfizer’s EUA is for a three-dose regimen (3-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 5 years old, while Moderna’s EUA is for a two-dose regimen (25-microgram shots) for children 6 months to 6 years.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,12 an estimated 75% of American children ages birth to 11 already have some level of immunity, having been exposed to one of the several variants that have come into circulation over the past two-plus years.

This immunity level alone makes EUA for COVID shots questionable. CDC data also prove young children have a very low risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, which makes the EUAs even more questionable.

Data13 published in mid-March 2022 suggest babies and young children under the age of 4 have had a peak hospitalization rate for COVID of 14.5 per 100,000. That peak occurred after Omicron became predominant. The hospitalization rate for the Delta variant in this age group was 2.9 per 100,000.

In all, since March 2020, a total of 2,562 infants and young children (6 months to 4 years) have been hospitalized WITH COVID. Of those, 2,068 had COVID listed as the primary reason for admission (84.7% of the total), and only 624 required ICU admission.

The median length of hospital stay was 1.5 days (range: one to three days). Of the 2,562 children with suspected COVID infection, 16 of them (0.6%) died in the hospital. Death certificate data push that number a bit higher. The Vaccine Reaction notes,14 “According to death certificate data,15 202 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 among children 6 months to 4 years of age through May 11, 2022.”

While any death is tragic, it’s worth noting that 923 (35.8%) of the children hospitalized with suspected COVID also had one or more underlying medical conditions.16 We don’t know for sure, but it’s quite possible that those who died with a COVID diagnosis actually died from whatever underlying condition was present or had brought them to the hospital in the first place.

What I’m trying to say is that 16 to 202 deaths over two-plus years aren’t cause for panic, and that’s true even if COVID was the primary cause of those deaths. The likelihood of your child getting injured by the mRNA shot is undoubtedly significantly greater than their risk of dying from COVID.

Jab More Likely to Put You in the Hospital Than Keep You Out

The same is true for adults, by the way. A June 2022 analysis17,18 of Pfizer and Moderna trial data found the shots are more likely to put you in the hospital than keep you out of it. As reported by The Daily Sceptic:19

“A new paper20 by BMJ Editor Dr. Peter Doshi and colleagues has analyzed data from the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccine trials and found that the vaccines are more likely to put you in hospital with a serious adverse event than keep you out by protecting you from COVID.

The pre-print (not yet peer-reviewed) focuses on serious adverse events highlighted in a WHO-endorsed ‘priority list21 of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines.’ The authors evaluated these serious adverse events of special interest as observed in ‘phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ …

Dr. Doshi and colleagues found that the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Pfizer and 15.1 events per 10,000 vaccinated for Moderna …

When combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with a risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated … The authors note that this level of increased risk post-vaccine is greater than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, which was 2.3 per 10,000 participants for Pfizer and 6.4 per 10,000 for Moderna.

This means that on this measure, the Pfizer vaccine results in a net increase in serious adverse events of 7.8 per 10,000 vaccinated and the Moderna vaccine of 8.7 per 10,000 vaccinated.”

Doshi’s team wasn’t the first to reanalyze Pfizer’s trial data. The Canadian COVID Care Alliance has also published a clear and easy-to-read summary22 of the Pfizer trial results, and the many questions raised by it. As noted by Dr. Robert Malone:23

“The bottom line is that the Pfizer Phase 3 trial which was used by NIAID [the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases], FDA and CDC to justify the emergency use authorization is pretty much a junk clinical trial which was inappropriately halted long before it even got close to meeting the intended follow up period, did not provide a sufficiently long follow up analysis of vaccination-associated adverse events, and in which the control group was intentionally eliminated.

This resulted in basically erasing any opportunity to ever get to the bottom of what the major true risks of the Pfizer mRNA inoculations were. In terms of more minor risks, the study was not powered (not big enough) to evaluate those.”

FDA and CDC Have Neglected Important Duties

Doshi and his coauthors also note the FDA also watered down results by including “thousands of additional participants with very little follow-up, of which the large majority had only received one dose.”

They then further diluted the appearance of risk by counting only the number of people affected rather than counting the total number of individual adverse events. This makes a big difference, as twice as many people in the treatment group reported multiple serious adverse events, as compared to the placebo group.

The FDA and CDC have both also failed to produce promised follow-up investigations. In July 2021, now a full year ago, the FDA said it would investigate four “potential adverse events of interest following Pfizer vaccination,” namely pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, immune thrombocytopenia and disseminated intravascular coagulation, but to date, no update has been issued.

Similarly, in early 2021, the CDC published a protocol on how to use proportional reporting ratios to detect signals in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but no study or report showing what that protocol might have found has ever been published.

As it turns out, the CDC hasn’t been looking for safety signals in VAERS — not with the proportional ratios protocol or any other. So, while they’ve publicly claimed they haven’t seen any signals of concern, the reason they haven’t seen any signals is very simple: They never looked at the data!24

That’s how ridiculous things are now. When a drug company or health agency claims they haven’t found a problem, you actually have to ask them, “where, when, how and how often did you look?” But of course, virtually no one would ever ask such questions because they would assume these agencies are competent, which of course is a false assumption.

Their Fraudulent Behavior Could Be Their Undoing

As you probably know, the makers of the COVID shots are indemnified against legal liability for any injuries and all deaths stemming from their products. No one is able to sue them for damages.

The only way to hold them responsible is to prove they’ve committed fraud. This would remove their liability immunity. As detailed at the beginning of the article, their consciously choosing to miscategorize adverse events during the initial trials and concealing the harms should be a slam dunk to convict them of fraud.

But there is also another fact they concealed: There’s evidence showing they knew the mRNA doesn’t stay in the injection site but, rather, distributes throughout the body,25 and this too could be a smoking gun that proves fraud. If convicted of fraud, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen would likely face liabilities in the trillions of dollars in damages.

When I exposed Merck’s Vioxx scandal in 1999 in this newsletter, before they even released their drug on the market, I thought that was huge. Their drug killed more than 60,000 people, and they could have been liable for $25 billion in damages, but their clever lawyers reduced it to $5 billion.

Well, that catastrophe is a drop in the bucket compared to the COVID scam, which has likely killed between 600,000 and 750,000 Americans, disabled as many as 5 million, and injured an estimated 30 million Americans in one way or another.26,27 That’s just the estimated toll in the U.S., so you can imagine what the global numbers might be. It’s a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. A June 2022 survey by Steve Kirsch also found:28

  • 6.6% of COVID jabbed respondents suffered heart injury (about 10 million Americans, based on the national vaccination rate)
  • 6.3% had to be hospitalized for their side effects (another 10 million Americans)
  • 9.2% of those who took the jab had to seek medical help for their injury, which translated over the whole country would be about 18 million doctor’s visits
  • People who got the shot were more likely to die from COVID than the unvaccinated
  • 2.63% of the responders had lost someone in their household to COVID infection, and 2.03% had lost someone in their household to the COVID jab

Expect Depopulation

Whether intentional or not, mounting evidence now indicates the COVID-19 injections will result in depopulation through premature death and adverse effects on fertility in women and men alike. I’ve previously discussed the risk of pregnancy loss and infertility in women who get the shot, as the mRNA has an affinity for accumulating in the ovaries29 (as well as the adrenals, liver and bone marrow).

Research30,31 from Israel now also reveals the shot deteriorates sperm count and sperm motility in men for about three months. Considering the multidose mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals, you can see how this can really decimate a man’s prospects of fathering a child.

Fertility has been on a steady decline for decades in most parts of the world,32 but the worldwide COVID jab campaign may massively speed that up. Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.33

Germany - First Quarter births by year 2011-2022

Source: Mercola

Other countries are also seeing a drop in birth rate, nine months after the start of the mass vaccination campaign against COVID. Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 20%.34

What punishment could possibly be appropriate for company heads and health agency leaders responsible for causing massive depopulation worldwide through products that were based on fraudulent science and fictional claims? I doubt if there’s enough money in the world to set that right.

Future Trials To Be Skipped Altogether

As if matters weren’t already beyond horrible, the FDA is considering allowing manufacturers to reformulate their COVID injections in perpetuity without conducting any additional clinical trials!35 In other words, they’d allow drug companies to change the mRNA and/or other ingredients without any safety or efficacy testing whatsoever. As reported by Toby Rogers, Ph.D., in a June 27, 2022, article in The Defender:36

“FDA released a briefing document37 in connection with this scheme to end science as we know it in connection with future COVID-19 shots … The briefing document is 18 pages of text, 1.5 line spacing, with just 19 references — 9 of which are pre-prints or from the CDC’s in-house newsletter Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) which means they are not peer-reviewed.

Any true believer in The Narrative(TM) could have written this in a few hours. To base the entire future of COVID-19 shots on this glorified undergrad term paper is madness …

The core argument of the briefing document is hilarious (or rather, it would be hilarious if it was not a plan to permanently institutionalize genocide and hide the evidence). In several places the FDA argues (colloquialisms mine):

1. These COVID-19 shots work great … Boosters too, total home run, the Israelis even have 10-weeks of data showing that they might help old people. What more evidence could you want?

2. Okay, well, it depends on what you mean by ‘work.’ These shots do not stop infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death, even though that’s why we licensed them. Any protection wears off fairly quickly, but It’s Not Our Fault(TM) because This Wily Virus(TM) mutates too fast and no one told us that it would ever mutate.

3. So these shots must be reformulated but we cannot possibly ask Lord Pharma to do proper clinical trials ever again because we already know that these shots work great (see point #1)!”

In short, the FDA argues that since there are time constraints, evaluation of effectiveness must rely on “measures other than actual health outcomes.” In other words, whether the shots actually lower your risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death will have no bearing.

The only measure they’ll take into account is whether or not the jab triggers a rise in antibody levels, which has never been proven to be beneficial. If anything, the increase in COVID antibodies actually increases your risk of infection. This also means that as long as antibody levels are through the roof, the death rate could be just about anything, because it’s not part of the safety equation.

Faith in Magic Has Officially Replaced Science

As noted by Rogers,38 “The ‘Future Framework’ is a plan to base the entire COVID-19 vaccine program on magical thinking rather than science.” Indeed, Dr. Deborah Birx recently confirmed that the whole vaccine push has been based in faith in magic.39

June 23, 2022, Birx answered questions from the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked whether the government was lying or guessing when they stated that vaccinated individuals couldn’t catch or spread COVID. At first, she claimed she didn’t know, but when pressed, she replied, “I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way.”40

So, the government issued mandates and made unequivocal, absolute statements that were not allowed to be questioned because they HOPED the shots would work a certain way — all while insisting they were the ones following and trusting the science and anyone who questioned their logic was a dangerous nut job. Let that sink in. Hope is literally the diametrical opposite of science.

It’s an Insiders’ Plot

As explained by Rogers, the same old players are behind this brazen attempt to eliminate the need for clinical trials: CDC staffers, academics who are in the pockets of Bill Gates and the NIAID, the drug companies themselves and the World Health Organization. Rogers writes:41

“I did not understand until just yesterday (as I started to write this article) that this entire ‘Future Framework’ is actually coming from the WHO. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest voluntary contributor to the WHO. So Gates is likely directing the play.

Gates requires that WHO use the McKinsey consulting firm so this is probably a McKinsey operation (and McKinsey also works for Pharma so this is a huge conflict of interest). As Naomi Wolf points out, the involvement of the WHO also raises troubling questions about the influence of the Chinese Communist Party over this process.

As far back as January, the WHO/Gates/McKinsey junta realized that these shots were terrible and so they decided to use that as an opportunity to seize even more power and control.

The WHO set up a Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC) to implement these Orwellian ‘Future Frameworks’ across the developed world to lower manufacturing costs for Pharma and avoid bothersome health data that might hurt profits. All the messaging we have seen from the FDA and leaked to the press was initially developed and released by TAG-CO-VAC.”

No doubt, we live in unprecedented, precarious times. Logic, reason, science and sanity itself has been tossed aside by those who claim the right to make decisions for all mankind. If the FDA goes forward with this “Future Framework” scheme, the only safe assumption is that COVID shots will become more and more dangerous.

Worse, we can expect other vaccines and drugs to be allowed on the market without clinical trials as well. It truly could change the science of medicine as we know it.

Of course the WHO also wants to seize control over health care worldwide, which would eliminate medical rights everywhere. It’s a nightmare scenario with no end in sight as of yet. All we can do is continue to push back, to inform ourselves, to speak out, share facts and data, and refuse to comply with unscientific recommendations based on little more than hope in fabricated conclusions.

*

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 PHMPT.org Pfizer Documents Released by FDA

2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 The Defender June 21, 2022

4 PHMPT.org 16.2.7.1 Adverse Events Legend

8 PHMPT.org 2.5 Clinical Overview for BNT162b2

10 The Defender June 15, 2022

11, 14 The Vaccine Reaction June 21, 2022

12 CDC MMWR April 29, 2022; 71(17): 606-608

13, 16 CDC MMWR March 18, 2022; 71(11): 429-436

15 FDA. Briefing Document on EUA amendment request for Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use in children 6 months […]. VRBPAC Meeting June 15, 2022

17, 20 SSRN June 23, 2022

18, 23 Robert Malone Substack June 22, 2022

19 The Daily Sceptic June 22, 2022

21 SPEAC October 26, 2021

22 Canadian COVID Care Alliance, More Harm Than Good

24 Jackanapes Substack June 16, 2022

25, 29 Paul Alexander Substack June 27, 2022

26 the New American June 27, 2022

27, 28 Steve Kirsch Substack June 25, 2022

30 Andrology June 17, 2022 DOI: 10.111/andr.13209

31 Expose June 26, 2022

32 Bloomberg June 21, 2022

33 Twitter Jikkyleaks June 26, 2022

34 SWPRS June 2022

35, 36, 38, 41 The Defender June 27, 2022

37 FDA Briefing Document June 28, 2022

39, 40 Daily Caller June 23, 2022

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

An open letter to the MHRA:

Below is a letter signed by 76 doctors in the UK, to the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and other U.K. Government officials. This letter lays out comprehensive reasons why the recent U.S. FDA decision authorizing COVID vaccinations in infants and young children must not happen in the UK. The letter is well-sourced and accurate. Let us hope that main-stream media here in the USA and in the UK report on this letter in an unbiased fashion.

(the letter continues)

We are writing to you urgently concerning the announcement that the FDA has granted an Emergency Use Authorization for both Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in preschool children.

We would urge you to consider very carefully the move to vaccinate ever younger children against SARS-CoV-2, despite the gradual but significant reducing virulence of successive variants, the increasing evidence of rapidly waning vaccine efficacy, the increasing concerns over long-term vaccine harms, and the knowledge that the vast majority of this young age group have already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly and have demonstrably effective immunity. Thus, the balance of benefit and risk which supported the rollout of mRNA vaccines to the elderly and vulnerable in 2021 is totally inappropriate for small children in 2022.

We also strongly challenge the addition of COVID-19 vaccination into the routine child immunization program despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks (see below) and the fact that these vaccines still have only conditional marketing authorization.

It is noteworthy that the Pfizer documentation presented to the FDA has huge gaps in the evidence provided:

  • The protocol was changed mid-trial. The original two-dose schedule exhibited poor immunogenicity with efficacy far below the required standard. A third dose was added by which time many of the original placebo recipients had been vaccinated.
  • There was no statistically significant difference between the placebo and vaccinated groups in either the 6–23-month age group or the 2-4-year-olds, even after the third dose. Astonishingly, the results were based on just three participants in the younger age group (one vaccinated and two placebo) and just seven participants in the older 2–4-year-olds (two vaccinated and five placebo). Indeed, for the younger age group the confidence intervals ranged from minus-367% to plus-99%. The manufacturer stated that the numbers were too low to draw any confident conclusions. Moreover, these limited numbers come only from children infected more than seven days after the third dose.
  • Over the whole time period from the first dose onwards (see page 39 Tables 19 and 20), there were a total of 225 infected children in the vaccinated arm and 150 in the placebo arm, giving a calculated vaccine efficacy of only 25% (14% for the 6-23 months, and 33% for 2-4s).
  • The additional immunogenicity studies against Omicron, requested by the FDA, only involved a total of 66 children tested one month after the third dose (see page 35).

It is incomprehensible that the FDA considered that this represents sufficient evidence on which to base a decision to vaccinate healthy children. When it comes to safety, the data are even thinner: only 1,057 children, some already unblinded, were followed for just two months. It is noteworthy that Sweden and Norway are not recommending the vaccine for 5-11s and Holland is not recommending it for children who have already had COVID-19. The director of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority stated recently that with what is now known, the decision to vaccinate children was a mistake.

We summarize below the overwhelming arguments against this vaccination.

A.  Extremely low risk from COVID-19 to young children

  • In the whole of 2020 and 2021, not a single child aged 1-9 died where COVID-19 was the sole diagnosis on the death certificate, according to ONS data.
  • A detailed study in England from March 1st 2020 to March 1st 2021 found only six children under 18 years died with no co-morbidities. There were no deaths aged 1-4 years.
  • Children clear the virus more easily than adults.
  • Children mount effective, robust, and sustained immune responses.
  • Since the arrival of the Omicron variant, infections have been generally much milder. That is also true for unvaccinated under-5s.
  • By June 2022 it is now estimated that 89% of 1-4-year-olds had already had SARS-CoV-2 infection.
  • Recent data from Israel show excellent long-lasting immunity following infection in children, especially in 5-11s.

B.  Poor vaccine efficacy 

  • In adults, it has become apparent that vaccine efficacy wanes steadily over time, necessitating boosters at regular intervals. Specifically, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly against the latest Omicron variants.
  • In children, vaccine efficacy has waned more rapidly in 5-11s than in 12-17s, possibly related to the lower dose used in the pediatric formulation. One studyfrom New York showed efficacy against Omicron falling to only 12% by 4-5 weeks and to negative values by 5-6 weeks post second dose.
  • In the Pfizer 0-4s trial, the efficacy after two doses fell to negative values, necessitating a change to the trial protocol. After a third dose there was a suggestion of efficacy from 7-30 days but there is no data beyond 30 days to see how quickly this will wane.

C. Potential harms of COVID-19 vaccines for children

  • There has been great concern about myocarditis in adolescents and young adults, especially in males after the second dose, estimated at one per 2,600 in active post-marketing surveillance in Hong Kong. The emerging evidenceof persistent cardiac abnormalities in adolescents with post-mRNA vaccine myopericarditis, as demonstrated by cardiac MRI at 3-8 months follow up, suggests this is far from ‘mild and short-lived’. The potential for longer term effects requires further study and calls for the strictest application of the precautionary principle in respect of the youngest and most vulnerable children.
  • Although post-vaccination myocarditis appears to be less common in 5-11-year-olds than older children, it is, nonetheless, increased over baseline.
  • In the Pfizer study, 50% of vaccinated children had systemic adverse events, including irritability and fever. Diagnosis of myocarditis is much more difficult in younger children. No troponin levels or ECG studies were documented. Even a vaccinated child in the trial, hospitalized with fever, calf pain and a raised CPK, had no report of D-dimers, anti-platelet antibodies or troponin levels.
  • In Pfizer’s 5-11s post-authorization conditions, it is required to conduct studies looking for myocarditis and is not due to report results until 2027.
  • Of equal concern are, as yet unknown, negative effects on the immune system. In the 0-4s trial, only seven children were described as having “severe” COVID-19 – six vaccinated and one given placebo. Similarly, for the 12 children with recurrent episodes of infection, 10 were vaccinated against only two who received placebo. These are all tiny figures and much too small to rule out any adverse impact such as antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) and other impacts on the immune system.
  • Also unanswered is the question of Original Antigenic Sin. It is of note that in a large Israeli study, those infected after vaccination had poorer cover than those vaccinated after infection. In the Moderna trial, N-antibodies were seen in only 40% of those infected after vaccination, compared with 93% of those infected after placebo.
  • There is evidence of vaccine-induced disruption of both innate and adaptive immune responses. The possibility of developing an impaired immune function would be disastrous for children, who have the most competent innate immunity, which by now has been effectively trained by the circulating virus.
  • Totally unknown is whether there will be any adverse effect on T-cell function leading to an increase in cancers.
  • Also, in terms of reproductive function, limited animal bio-distribution studiesshowed lipid nanoparticles concentrate in ovaries and testes. Adult sperm donors have showed a reduction in sperm counts particularly of motile sperm, falling by three months post-vaccination and remaining depressed at four to five months.
  • Even for adults, concerns are rising that serious adverse events are in excess of hospitalizations from COVID-19.

D. Informed consent

  • For 5-11s, the JCVI, in recommending a “non-urgent offer” of vaccination, specifically noted the importance of fully informed consent with no coercion.
  • With the low uptake in this age group, the presence of ‘therapy dogs’, advertisements including superhero images and information about child vaccination protecting friends and family all clearly run contrary to the concept of consent, fully informed and freely given.
  • The complete omission of information explaining to the public the different and novel technology used in COVID-19 vaccines compared to standard vaccines, and the failure to inform of the lack of any long-term safety data, borders on misinformation.

E. Effect on public confidence 

  • Vaccines against much more serious diseases, such as polio and measles, need to be prioritized. Pushing an unnecessary and novel, gene-based vaccine on to young children risks seriously undermining parental confidence in the whole immunization program.
  • The poor quality of the data presented by Pfizer risks bringing the pharmaceutical industry into disrepute and the regulators if this product is authorized.

In summary, young healthy children are at minimal risk from COVID-19, especially since the arrival of the Omicron variant. Most have been repeatedly exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus, yet have remained well, or have had short, mild illness. As detailed above, the vaccines are of brief efficacy, have known short- to medium-term risks and unknown long-term safety. Data for clinically useful efficacy in small children are scant or absent. In older children, for whom the vaccines are already licensed, they have been promoted via ethically dubious schemes to the potential detriment of other, and vital, parts of the childhood vaccination program.

For a tiny minority of children for whom the potential for benefit clearly and unequivocally outweighed the potential for harm, vaccination could have been facilitated by restrictive licenses. Whether following the precautionary principle or the instruction to First Do No Harm, such vaccines have no place in a routine childhood immunization program.

(Signed):

Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Principal, Institute for Cancer Vaccines & Immunotherapy (ICVI)

Professor Anthony Fryer, PhD, FRCPath, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry, Keele University

Professor David Livermore, BSc, PhD, Retired Professor of Medical Microbiology, UEA

Professor John Fairclough FRCS FFSEM retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon

Lord Moonie,  MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, House of Lords, former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State 2001-2003, formerCconsultant in Public Health Medicine

Dr Abby Astle, MA(Cantab), MBBChir, GP Principal, GP Trainer, GP Examiner

Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, retired General Practitioner

Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, Retired Pharmaceutical Physician

Dr David Bramble, MBChB, MRCPsych, MD, Consultant Psychiatrist

Dr Emma Brierly, MBBS, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr David Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, General practitioner

Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional medicine practitioner

Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, BA, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner

Julie Coffey, MBChB, General Practitioner

John Collis, RN, Specialist Nurse Practitioner, retired

Mr Ian F Comaish, MA, BM BCh, FRCOphth, FRANZCO, Consultant Ophthalmologist

James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nursing (Hons), Master of Public Health

Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist

Dr David Critchley, BSc, PhD in Pharmacology, 32 years’ experience in Pharmaceutical R&D

Dr Jonathan Engler, MBChB, LlB (hons), DipPharmMedDr Elizabeth Evans, MA (Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Retired Doctor

Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD, retired Director of Safety Evaluation at Beecham Pharmaceuticals and retired Senior Vice president for Drug Discovery SmithKline Beecham

Dr Simon Fox, BSc, BMBCh, FRCP, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine

Dr Ali Haggett, Mental health community work, 3rd sector, former lecturer in the history of medicine

David Halpin, MB BS FRCS, Orthopaedic and trauma surgeon (retired)

Dr Renée Hoenderkampf, General Practitioner

Dr Andrew Isaac, MB BCh, Physician, retired

Dr Steve James, Consultant Intensive Care

Dr Keith Johnson, BA, DPhil (Oxon), IP Consultant for Diagnostic Testing

Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, MD, FRCPCH, retired consultant paediatrician

Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences

Dr Charles Lane, MA, DPhil, Molecular Biologist

Dr Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Molecular Biologist

Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD DHS PhD ANP, Doctor, Urgent Care, Research Fellow

Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bath

Katherine MacGilchrist, BSc (Hons), MSc, CEO/Systematic Review Director, Epidemica Ltd.

Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, MD, FRCP, Consultant physician, retired

Ahmad K Malik FRCS (Tr & Orth) Dip Med Sport, Consultant Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Kulvinder Singh Manik, MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr Fiona Martindale, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr S McBride, BSc (Hons) Medical Microbiology & Immunobiology, MBBCh BAO, MSc in Clinical Gerontology, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, FRCP (Edinburgh). NHS Emergency Medicine & Geriatrics

Mr Ian McDermott, MBBS, MS, FRCS(Tr&Orth), FFSEM(UK), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Nutritional, Environmental and Integrated Medicine

Dr Scott Mitchell, MBChB, MRCS, Emergency Medicine Physician

Dr Alan Mordue, MBChB, FFPH. Retired Consultant in Public Health Medicine & Epidemiology

Dr David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner

Margaret Moss, MA (Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition and Allergy Clinic, Cheshire

Dr Alice Murkies, MD FRACGP MBBS, General Practitioner

Dr Greta Mushet, MBChB, MRCPsych, retired Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy

Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, retired GP and Naturopathic Physician

Dr Rachel Nicholl, PhD, Medical researcher

Dr Christina Peers, MBBS, DRCOG, DFSRH, FFSRH, Menopause specialist

Rev Dr William J U Philip MB ChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly physician specialising in cardiology

Dr Angharad Powell, MBChB, BSc (hons), DFRSH, DCP (Ireland), DRCOG, DipOccMed, MRCGP, General Practitioner

Dr Gerry Quinn, PhD. Postdoctoral researcher in microbiology and immunology

Dr Johanna Reilly, MBBS, General Practitioner

Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Senior Critical Care Scientist

Mr Angus Robertson, BSc, MB ChB, FRCSEd (Tr & Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr Jessica Robinson, BSc(Hons), MBBS, MRCPsych, MFHom, Psychiatrist and Integrative Medicine Doctor

Dr Jon Rogers, MB ChB (Bristol), Retired General Practitioner

Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal surgeon

Dr Roland Salmon, MB BS, MRCGP, FFPH, Former Director, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales

Sorrel Scott, Grad Dip Phys, Specialist Physiotherapist in Neurology, 30 years in NHS

Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, Retired General Practitioner

Dr Gary Sidley, retired NHS Consultant Clinical Psychologist

Dr Annabel Smart, MBBS, retired General Practitioner

Natalie Stephenson, BSc (Hons) Paediatric Audiologist

Dr Zenobia Storah,MA (Oxon), Dip Psych, DClinPsy, Senior Clinical Psychologist (Child and Adolescent)

Dr Julian Tompkinson, MBChB MRCGP, General Practitioner GP trainer PCME

Dr Noel Thomas, MA, MBChB, DCH, DObsRCOG, DTM&H, MFHom, retired doctor

Dr Stephen Ting, MB CHB, MRCP, PhD, Consultant Physician

Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, Clinical Scientist

Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology

Dr Helen Westwood MBChB MRCGP DCH DRCOG, General Practitioner

Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant Vascular Surgeon

Dr Damian Wilde, PhD, (Chartered) Specialist Clinical Psychologist

Dr Ruth Wilde, MB BCh, MRCEM, AFMCP, Integrative & Functional Medicine Doctor

*

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 author

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

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

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

***

Ever since Operation Warp Speed was launched by Donald Trump, rates of disability across America have skyrocketed.

A shocking number of people who were previously healthy are now permanently damaged, the only thing that changed in their lives being that they took the “clot shots,” also known as Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines.”

From 2016 to 2020, the disability rate among people 16 years of age and older living in the United States remained stable. Then, right after Fauci Flu shots were unleashed, there was a sharp uptick in serious injuries that have left millions unable to work and live as normal.

A Twitter page that monitors all-cause mortality across the U.S. posted a graph recently showing a direct correlation between increased jab compliance and rising disability rates. In early 2021, the disability rate soared from 30 million Americans to nearly 33 million Americans, it showed.

Within hours of posting this graph, the Twitter account in question was flagged for spreading “disinformation,” even though it was backed by data. The same account was also locked and comments on and sharing of the post were disabled.

Officially, there were 14,181 people with permanent disabilities stemming from Chinese Virus injections as of May 27, 2022. But the true number, since only a tiny fraction of vaccine injuries ever gets reported, is likely far higher. (Related: Covid injections are also linked to the destruction of men’s sperm.)

After each vaccination spike, there was a subsequent disability spike

The aforementioned Twitter account flat-out asked the question: Are covid injections responsible for the nearly three million-case increase in disabilities post-Operation Warp Speed? The answer to this question seems obvious.

Even just insinuating it, though, is a prohibited offense on social media because it calls into question the “safety and effectiveness” of the jabs. This is never supposed to happen, we now know.

Going by the metric that suggests only about one percent of vaccine injuries ever make it into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the official 14,181 figure makes sense.

“Seeing this … without a rise in disability reports would be surprising,” reported el gato malo. “[W]e see 14k permanently disabled in VAERS. [A]nd we see a rise in the disabled rolls of 1.8 million.”

“[T]hat’s pretty close to the 1-2% capture rate (more like 1%, but also likely capturing other categories as well, so hard to be precise) for reporting we’ve seen around other VAERS issues (besides death which seems to get better counted) so it feels like we’re in a ballpark here.”

Additional data collected from FRED and OWID (Our World in Data) suggests that disability rates really started spiking around April 21 of last year, right as Trump’s Operation Warp Speed mass jab campaign really started coming into full force for the first time.

When vaccination uptake first peaked around May, it was followed by a massive disability peak in June. When vaccination uptake peaked once again in August, disability rates spiked once again come October.

As 2021 came to a close, vaccination started to flatten out, followed by a flatting in rates of disability come March. Each time, there was a direct correlation between the shots and permanent injuries.

“2 month lag, 1 month lag, 2 month lag, 2 month lag. 4 separate inflections all tracked in near identical and highly plausible timeframes for vaccine injury. [W]e’re starting to get past ‘suggestive’ here,” el gato malo added.

“[T]his zigs, zags, then zigs again, then zags again all as predicted if it were causal and all with the sort of lag you’d associate with reporting, 1-2 months. (all 2 mo save may – jun 21).”

*

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 NaturalNews.com

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

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

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

***

Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx revealed that the federal government was relying on “hope” that COVID-19 vaccines would prevent infection when officials publicly stated that Americans who received the jab would become immune to the virus.

The admission came during a line of questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, who inquired to the former Trump administration official: “When the government told us that the vaccinated couldn’t transmit it, was that a lie or is it a guess?”

“I think it was hope that the vaccine would work in that way,” she replied.

Dr. Birx’s comments follow a host of studies determining that the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t confer protection as comprehensively as natural immunity. Data during the Omicron surge also showed that vaccinated people in Germany comprised the overwhelming majority of individuals contracting the variant.

“You were part of this effort when you were in the previous administration. And you’re saying in this administration that you can’t rule out the fact that our government was lying to us when they told us the vaccinated could not get the virus,” Rep. Jordan continued.

“I don’t know about their discussions that they had in the task force. So I can’t tell you that,” she began, adding “I can tell you as a family member who had individuals that were susceptible, of course, we got everybody vaccinated. But we still used layered protection during surges.”

Despite being vaccinated, Dr. Birx took additional precautions “because I knew potentially vaccine immunity would wane like natural immunity waned.”

“There was evidence that every four months, reinfection was occurring in South Africa.”

Revelations about the questionable efficacy of the vaccine come amidst the White House, Democratic governors, and left-wing companies attempting to mandate the jab for employees and customers. Users sharing data highlighting the weakness of the vaccine on social media platforms such as Facebook have also been hastily censored by left-wing “fact-checking” organizations.

*

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.

Natalie Winters is the Lead Investigative Reporter at the National Pulse and co-host of The National Pulse podcast.

Canada’s National Police Force Admits Use of Spyware to Hack Phones

By Maura Forrest, July 04, 2022

In a “remarkable” disclosure, Canada’s national police force has described for the first time how it uses spyware to infiltrate mobile devices and collect data, including by remotely turning on the camera and microphone of a suspect’s phone or laptop.

Ukraine in the EU and NATO? The Two Europes

By Konrad Rękas, July 04, 2022

Does Ukraine have any chance to join European structures, and if so… which ones and how? Well, the simplest is the situation of Western Ukraine (i.e. the former Polish Borderlands).  That area can become a part of EU simply in effect of loudly proposed union with Poland.

Geopolitical Bombshell: Saudi Arabia in Discussion with China to Join BRICS+ Coalition. What Impacts on the Energy Market and the Global Economy?

By Sundance, July 04, 2022

We have been closely monitoring the signs of a global split around the energy sector taking place.  Essentially, western governments’ following the “Build Back Better” climate change agenda which stops using coal, oil and gas to power their economic engine, while the rest of the growing economic world continues using the more efficient and traditional forms of energy to power their economies.

A Chaotic Upside Down World: Endless Wars, Food Shortages, Eugenics and the “Digitization of Everything”: The WEF Agenda 2030

By Peter Koenig, July 04, 2022

A chaotic upside-down world, where injustice is justice, war is peace and good and bad are reversible at will, has been emerging over the last decades. Gradually. But ever more severely, to the point where most everyone is confused, preferring holding on to his / her comfort zone, also called cognitive dissonance.

America’s “Holy War” to Conquer Russia and China Declared by Mike Pompeo

By Eric Zuesse, July 04, 2022

On June 24th, at the think tank, the Hudson Institute, U.S. President Trump’s CIA chief and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, delivered a 5,000+-word speech, suggesting that America has an essentially God-assigned mission to control the world, so as to preserve freedom and democracy for everybody, and that victory against Russia and China is therefore obligatory for the United States and its allies, not only to serve God but also to serve God’s People, because “central to the economic wellbeing of American families is a United States that leads.

What the Flag Means to Me. Brian Willson

By Brian S. Willson, July 04, 2022

It wasn’t until many years later, while reading an issue of the armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes in Vietnam, that I began thinking and feeling differently about the flag and what it represents. There was a story about an arrest for flag burning somewhere in the United States.

Ukraine Is Losing the War. What Is the Next Phase? The Planning of a Covert “Insurgent War” Against the Russians

By Kurt Nimmo, July 04, 2022

As of Sunday, the Russian armed forces captured Lysychansk, a large city in the Luhansk region of the Donbas. The Russian objective is to prevent the Ukrainian military and its ultranationalist component from ethnically cleansing the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.

West Closes Ranks for Battle with Russia: US-NATO, G7 “Deploys All Its Weapons” to Maintain World Dominance

By Manlio Dinucci, July 04, 2022

Two summits in a row, those of the G7 and NATO, show that the West is deploying all its weapons – military, political, economic – to maintain the dominance it is losing in a world that is becoming increasingly multipolar, as evidenced by the growing development of the BRICS: the economic organization that brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, which Iran, Argentina and other countries want to join.

Something to Think About on the Fourth of July: “The Nazification of America”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, July 04, 2022

July 4th flag waving cannot restore our liberty.  Americans, of course, will stick their heads in the sand and go into denial, as they always do when faced with uncomfortable facts about their country.  Consequently, nothing will be done to stop the Nazification of America.

Bill Gates Granted Authority to Buy 2100 More Acres of North Dakota Farmland

By Steve Watson, July 04, 2022

Bill Gates, who already owns close to 270,000 acres of land in the U.S., has been granted the legal authority to buy another 2100 acres in North Dakota despite protests by local residents. Gates, already the largest farmland owner in the country, has secured the go ahead to buy the land for $13.5 million under his ‘Red River Trust’ company.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Canada’s National Police Force Admits Use of Spyware to Hack Phones

Ukraine in the EU and NATO? The Two Europes

July 4th, 2022 by Konrad Rękas

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The status of a candidate for membership in the European Union is currently maybe not the greatest of Ukraine’s problems, but it is also certainly not a reason for joy for ordinary Ukrainians.  In practice, the association with the EU, and then the candidate period are sometimes more important – and destructive – than the final accession.  This is a time when the most important changes in the economy of the aspiring country take place, and usually after the final absorption there is nothing left to protect or to participate with in the so-called common economic policy.  This is confirmed by the experience of the Central European members of the EU doomed to peripherality.

Two Europes

However, does Ukraine have any chance to join European structures, and if so… which ones and how?

Well, the simplest is situation of the Western Ukraine (i.e. the former Polish Borderlands).  That area can become a part of EU simply in effect of loudly proposed union with Poland.  How be it this part is economically underdeveloped, less attractive for the West.

Therefore, the point is to get more time to grab Central Ukraine agricultural and energy resources.  Especially the Anglo-Saxons order Kiev to prolong the fight so that Ukrainian potential, energy sector and land can be exploited longer.

Although finally Ukrainians must be aware that the issue of further European integration, also with their participation, is more than doubtful when Europe is increasingly divided into two blocs.  Countries of the former Coal and Steel Community, then the EEC, and now mainly the euro-zone – under the aegis of Germany and France accelerate and deepen creation of a single federal European state.  At the same time, under British leadership there are visible attempts to withdraw from the EU at least some of the Central European countries, including Poland and Baltic States.  Of course this operation is provided not in economic, by only military and political purpose.  After all, no one would allow Ukrainians to join the developed zone of close integration, so they can only count on a Brit-Union with Poland, Lithuania and Romania, which means permanent sharing of common poverty and eternal war.

Russian-European cooperation

Importantly, granting of the candidate status to Ukraine was quite calm, and even … kindly received in Moscow, emphasising that the EU is a political and economic, not a military alliance.  In fact, there are no conflicting interests between Russia and Europe (the European Union).  Especially in the field of economy and energy policy, cooperation turned out to be mutually beneficial.  Paradoxically, getting rid of the Atlantis Trojan Horses from the EU could only facilitate a return to cooperation, because its necessity is obvious to Western economic circles.

Regardless of what energy technologies are to be developed in the EU and how ambitious climate targets are set – none of them can be achieved in the real perspective without the full resumption of gas import from Russia.  Neither France, nor Germany, nor Italy are willing and able to support mindless sanctions and an endless trade war sustainably and sincerely. Europe can and should become one of the full-fledged centres of the multipolar World, but that status could be achieved only by doing business with natural Eurasian hinterland.  If Ukraine, sovereignly, i.e. without the oligarchs, Nazis, the comprador class and neo-colonialism, would see itself in such an environment, then this should not be a problem for Russia.  Obviously, Russian-European relations will always sooner or later turn to cooperation again, even the hard one.  Only Anglo-Saxon Atlantism / Imperialism would prefer war and aggression, but hopefully the Ukrainians have already noticed that their country does not lie on the Atlantic Ocean …

Vilnius like Sarajevo?

This does not mean, however, that the risk of the Ukrainian war spilling over to other countries no longer exists.  Unfortunately, we can still hear not only Kiev (increasingly quieter), but also Polish and Baltic calls to arm race and continuing fight against Russia.  And yet no one in our countries, especially after the Ukrainian experience, should have any illusions about the “guarantees of help and defence” given by the Westerners.  For the sake of clarity, if anything happens – Poles and Lithuanians will fight and die for the Americans and the English, not opposite. As the Ukrainians do today.  The Anglo-Saxons bravely encourage them to resist, declaring their support, but these are the Ukrainians who are to perish.  This has always been the case in history and geopolitics.  Our nations are needed as cannon fodder and cheap labour force, but no one has ever intended to defend us.

Meanwhile, the greatest war risk is slowly shifting from Ukraine to Lithuania.  Vilnius declaration of the Kaliningrad Oblast blockade seems to be coordinated with increasing British Army presence in Estonia to 3,000 soldiers and sending HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales carrier strike groups to the Baltic Sea.  In turn, in Poland war-propaganda focuses on the alleged Russian-Belarusian threat to the so-called “Suwałki Corridor”, that is the territory separating Kaliningrad from Belarus.  Under the pretext of defending this area, there is more than probable action against Belarus, in order to draw it into a conflict with the participation of NATO countries.  The fact that neither Poland, nor Lithuania are now in any way ready for such a clash would obviously have no meaning, because decisions would most likely be taken in London, and not in Warsaw or Vilnius.

Summit for peace or globalism?

Stabilization in Ukraine?

First of all, more and more Kiev soldiers are fed up and decide to surrender.

Secondly there is almost nothing left to fight with, when all the advanced military equipment that is handed over (in fact sold) to Ukraine in front of the cameras actually ends up in US terrorist camps in Albania and Syria.

Thirdly, the Zelensky’s gang itself is withdrawing from NATO aspirations so far.  Even officially reported public support for joining the Pact is falling in Ukraine.  Well, better late than never, but Ukrainians could have been spared a lot of trouble by taking such a course a few months ago…

At the same time, however, London is not giving up, and the English, not the Americans, are now the main opponents of peace in Ukraine.

The United Kingdom clearly raises its voice, as we could hear when General Sir Patrick Sanders, Chief of the British Army General Staff, explicitly announced the British participation in the war, calling for intensified preparations for the full-size conflict.

Boris Johnson at the G7 summit unexpectedly toned down this jingoistic outburst, but it confirms the continued increase of influence of the military-industrial complex in Anglo-Saxon politics.  When the acting high general announces that the army will “defend a threatened democracy” – it always smells like an escalation of fascism and militarism…

Even if the majority of NATO countries maintained the vision of the Pact’s Strategic Concept which would not exclude a return to partnership relations with Russia – we can be sure that the British, Canadians and Americans will torpedo every such possibility, of course bringing to the fore the noisy anti-Russian protests of Poles, Balts and Romanians.  NATO has never been a defence pact, but now it is openly acting as an organ of the Anglo-Saxon military complex interested in the Third World War.

That became real, so to speak, when the Anglo-Saxons brought their Far Eastern domains to the Madrid summit.

Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Korea fit into NATO like Israel for the Eurovision Song Contest, but Washington and London want to keep all leashes together.

The anti-Russian and anti-Chinese policy are to be coordinated jointly.

The only question is whether the Western European members of the Pact, who are keenly interested in peace, will be able to draw conclusions.

If not, Anglo-Saxon tyranny, militarism and imperialism could lead to a global catastrophe.

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from orientalreview.org

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It is very curious timing in this article from Newsweek, containing massive geopolitical implications, using identified Saudi Arabia sources, would come in advance of Joe Biden’s visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Is this strategic geopolitical pressure from Saudi leader Mohamed Bin Salman (MbS) ahead of the meeting with Biden; or is this a genuine possibility that looms as likely?  If the former, then Joe Biden is being geopolitically slow roasted by Saudi Arabia for his previous disparagements and ideological hypocrisy in his visit.  If it is the latter, well, then the tectonic plates of international trade, banking and economics are about to shift directly under our American feet.

We have been closely monitoring the signs of a global split around the energy sector taking place.  Essentially, western governments’ following the “Build Back Better” climate change agenda which stops using coal, oil and gas to power their economic engine, while the rest of the growing economic world continues using the more efficient and traditional forms of energy to power their economies.

This article from Newsweek is exactly about this dynamic with Saudi Arabia now potentially joining the BRICS team.

NEWSWEEK – Finland and Sweden’s green light to join NATO is set to bring about the U.S.-led Western military alliance’s largest expansion in decades. Meanwhile, the G7, consisting of NATO states and fellow U.S. ally Japan, has adopted a tougher line against Russia and China.

In the East, however, security and economy-focused blocs led by Beijing and Moscow are looking to take on new members of their own, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, two influential Middle Eastern rivals whose interest in shoring up cooperation on this new front could have a significant impact on global geopolitical balance.

The two bodies in question are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. The former was established in 2001 as a six-member political, economic and military coalition including China, Russia and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan before recruiting South Asian nemeses India and Pakistan in 2017, while the latter is a grouping of emerging economic powers originally consisting of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) upon its inception 2006, and including South Africa in 2010.

Here is the money quote:

[…] “China’s invitation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to join the ‘BRICS’ confirms that the Kingdom has a major role in building the new world and became an important and essential player in global trade and economics,” Mohammed al-Hamed, president of the Saudi Elite group in Riyadh, told Newsweek. “Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 is moving forward at a confident and global pace in all fields and sectors.”

[…] “This accession, if Saudi joins it, will balance the world economic system, especially since the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil in the world, and it’s in the G20,” Hamed said. “If it happens, this will support any economic movement and development in the world trade and economy, and record remarkable progress in social and economic aspects as Saudi Arabia should have partnerships with every country in the world.” (read more)

That would essentially be the end of the petrodollar, and -in even more consequential terms- the end of the United States ability to use the weight of the international trade currency to manipulate foreign government.  The global economic system would have an alternative.  The fracturing of the world, created as an outcome of energy development, would be guaranteed.

Keep in mind, in early June Federal reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated, “rapid changes are taking place in the global monetary system that may affect the international role of the dollar.”  {LINK}

The western alliance (yellow) would be chasing climate change energy policy to power their economies.  The rest of the world (grey) would be using traditional and more efficient energy development.  The global cleaving around energy use would be complete.

This is not some grand conspiracy, ‘out there‘ deep geopolitical possibility, or foreboding likelihood as an outcome of short-sighted western emotion.  No, this is just a predictable outcome from western created events that pushed specific countries to a natural conclusion based on their best interests.

You can debate the motives of the western leaders who structured the sanctions against Russia, and whether they knew the outcome would happen as a consequence of their effort, but the outcome was never really in doubt.  Personally, I believe this outcome is what the west intended. The people inside the World Economic Forum are not stupid – ideological, yes, but not stupid. They knew this global cleaving would happen.

For a deep dive on BRICS, as predicted by CTH, {SEE HERE}.  The bottom line is – the 2022 punitive economic and financial sanctions by the western nations’ alliance against Russia was exactly the reason why BRICS assembled in the first place.

Multinational corporations in control of government are what the BRICS assembly foresaw when they first assembled during the Obama administration.  When multinational corporations run the policy of western government, there is going to be a problem.

In the bigger picture, the BRICS assembly are essentially leaders who do not want corporations and multinational banks running their government. BRICS leaders want their government running their government; and yes, that means whatever form of government that exists in their nation, even if it is communist.

BRICS leaders are aligned as anti-corporatist.  That doesn’t necessarily make those government leaders better stewards, it simply means they want to make the decisions, and they do not want corporations to become more powerful than they are.  As a result, if you really boil it down to the common denominator, what you find is the BRICS group are the opposing element to the World Economic Forum assembly.

The BRICS team intend to create an alternative option for all the other nations. An alternative to the current western trade and financial platforms operated on the use of the dollar as a currency.  Perhaps many nations will use both financial mechanisms depending on their need.

The objective of the BRICS group is simply to present an alternative trade mechanism that permits them to conduct business regardless of the opinion of the multinational corporations in the ‘western alliance.’

The BRICS team, especially if Saudi Arabia, Iran and Argentina are added creating BRICS+, would indeed be a counterbalance to the control of western trade and finance.  This global cleaving is moving from a possibility to a likelihood.  If Saudi Arabia joins BRICS the fracture becomes almost certain.

*

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

All images in this article are from TLR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Geopolitical Bombshell: Saudi Arabia in Discussion with China to Join BRICS+ Coalition. What Impacts on the Energy Market and the Global Economy?
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In the wake of the COVID jab rollout and additional boosters, a number of health conditions are on the rise, including cancer, most notably cancers of the uterus, endometrial cancers, and very aggressive blood and brain cancers

Cancer has been on the rise for decades, thanks to dietary factors, but the COVID jabs appear to dramatically accelerate the disease process. Many doctors report cancer patients with stable disease, and those who have been in remission for years, will suddenly and rapidly develop Stage 4 disease

A military whistleblower has come forward with data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) database showing dramatic increases in medical visits for cancers and other conditions, post-jab

For neurological side effects of the shot, four remedies that can be very helpful are fluvoxamine (an antidepressant that blocks cytokine production in neural tissues), pharmaceutical grade methylene blue (improves mitochondrial respiration and repair), near-infrared light (triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria) and hyperbaric oxygen therapy (boosts mitochondrial function, decreases inflammation and much more)

The COVID jabs also downregulate toll-like receptors 7 and 8, which allows latent viruses such as herpes EBV4 — Epstein-Barr, aka, mononucleosis — to flourish that would otherwise have been kept in check

*

Dr. Ryan Cole, an anatomic clinical pathologist with a subspecialty in skin pathology and postgraduate Ph.D. training in immunology, has been on the frontlines exposing the fraudulent COVID narrative.

Since 2004, he’s been operating his own business, a pathology laboratory, which gives him rare freedom and flexibility to comment on what he’s seeing. Most others would lose their jobs for speaking out the way Cole has.

Truth Telling Is a Risky Business

That doesn’t mean he hasn’t paid a price for speaking out about and defending real science though. He’s triple board certified and has 12 state licenses, and because of his stance against COVID recommendations, some of the credentialing organizations have taken action against him.

“I’ve seen 500,000 patients diagnostically in my career through the microscope. So, I have a long track record of diagnostics. I have not had a patient care complaint against me in 26 years of being a physician,” he says. “I still don’t, and this is what’s fascinating.

Of those 12 licenses, four were under attack, three are still under attack — in Washington, Arizona and Minnesota — [yet there’s] not a single patient care complaint. All the attacks against me have been political complaints to boards of medicine, which is not legal for them to do. Not a single one of those complaints is from a patient.

And then — really the most egregious thing — was ex parte, without me being present, without even sending a certified letter, the College of American Pathologists removed my fellowship status, which is defamatory.

I went back and found their complaint and looked at what they did, and I actually have a wonderful defamation lawsuit against them, because everything they did was anti-scientific. So, they can either restore [my fellowship] now, or just pay me a big check down the road. One or the other.”

He’s also lost about half of his business, as two insurance companies canceled him for “unprofessional behavior,” i.e., for sharing and discussing the science of COVID, and one of his best friends, whom he’s worked with for 12 years, canceled their business relationship as he didn’t want Cole’s outspokenness to affect his business. “All because of the defamation by the media, so to tell the truth in this day and age is a dangerous thing,” he says.

Suspicions Arose Early On

From his Ph.D. work in immunology, Cole was very aware of SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, having studied both, so when the warp speed program to develop a pandemic SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was announced, he became immediately suspicious.

“I thought, wait a minute, you can’t vaccinate against corona viruses!” he says. “This family of viruses is not amenable to vaccination, based on mutation rates. So, my concern was very high, early on.”

Cole’s lab ramped up PCR testing, using a cycle threshold (CT) of 35, rather than the recommended 40 to 45, as he knew that high a CT would result in 98% false positives. On a side note, pathologists not only assess tissue samples and biopsies, they’re also in charge of testing. The head of every major clinical lab is a pathologist. They’re basically in charge of quality control.

“As pathologist, we’re constantly looking at patterns, be it under the microscope or be it in lab data. We’re looking at blood reports. We’re looking at what’s out of range on blood reports. We’re looking at microbiology. We’re looking at molecular biology. We’re looking at cultures. We’re looking at pap smears. We’re looking, across the board, at those clinical parameters in addition to tissue biopsies,” he explains.

“I have 70 employees, and if there’s a blood smear that looks unusual, they bring it to me. If there are parameters on a test that look widely out of range, they bring it to me. And I call and talk to the clinician — [I’m the] doctor to the doctor. We have a consultation practice with the clinicians so I can help them understand what’s happening with their patient, and then they can make clinical decisions going forward.”

Post-Jab Cancer Explosion

One of the apparent side effects of the COVID jab that Cole has been warning and talking about is cancer. He explains:

“Obviously, during COVID, we saw some parameters change in blood tests. There was a concern about clotting. We saw elevated clotting factors. We know that the early variants were pretty severe in terms of inducing clotting, which was a shame because the whole world should have been simply using anti-inflammatories, steroids and anti-clotting agents, and so many more people would’ve lived.

My colleague, Dr. [Shankara] Chetty in South Africa, was having phenomenal success with antihistamine steroids and anti-clotting agents. So anyway, that first year, we saw drops in white blood cell counts, we saw decreases in certain subsets of T-cells. But when the shots rolled out, things changed.

At first I noticed kind of an innocuous little bump that we see usually in children. It’s a little virus called molluscum contagiosum [that causes] a little white bump.

Usually, by the time you’re a tween or early teen, you’ve built immunity to that and you never get them again, or rarely get them again. But after the shots rolled out, all of a sudden, in 80-year-olds, 70-year-olds, 60-year-olds, 50-year-olds, I started seeing literally a 20-fold increase in this little innocuous viral bump. And I thought, ‘Uh oh, this means they’ve lost immune memory’ …

Those subsets of T-cells that keep viruses in check are very important for keeping cancer in check. And this is where immunology jumps into the picture. All of us have some atypical cells, and we have the ‘Marines’ of our immune system, our natural killer (NK) cells. They’re on the frontline circulating. We have about 30 billion T-cells circulating in our blood, many of which are killer cells and NK cells.

Our other innate cells are our macrophages, monocytes and dendritic cells. They’re on that frontline. They’re shaking hands with every cell in your body all day long saying, ‘Friend or foe? Friend or foe? Oh gosh, this one has some mutations, it’s now a foe.’ They’ll poke a little hole in it, throw in a little enzyme called a grandzyme — a ‘hand grenade’ — blow up that cell, and we’re good.

But what happened after these shots rolled out is that many of those cell subsets started decreasing in number. The first cancer I saw uptick was cancers of the uterus, endometrial cancers. Usually, I would see maybe two endometrial cancers a month. All of a sudden, a few months after the rollout of the shots, I was seeing two or three a week.

Another subspecialty area of focus for me is melanoma. And I started seeing melanomas, not only in younger patients, as the shots dropped down in age cohort, but they were thicker. The other fascinating thing was they’re more aggressive in terms of how many dividing cells was present in each tumor. I’m still seeing this.

Beyond that … I’ve been traveling the country and the world quite a bit … and wherever I go now, I have doctors and nurses approach me saying, ‘What you’re saying, we’ve been seeing.’

I was having a conversation with a chair of a large oncology department in Tallahassee, and he said, ‘I usually see an aggressive brain cancer in a young patient maybe every decade.’ After the boosters rolled out, he saw five astrocytomas, five aggressive brain cancers, in one month.

Then, I’m in Jacksonville the next day, having a conversation with a family doctor. He said, ‘Gosh, it’s strange, I usually see a kidney cancer in a young patient every decade or so. I’ve seen five in the last month.’

Then I was in the UK a couple weeks ago. I had a doctor from Ireland who’s been a practicing family doc, GP, for 36 years, and he said, ‘I have seen more cancer in my young patients ever since the shots rolled out, and the booster, than I have ever seen in my entire career.’

Same thing, a nurse that works emergency department in the UK, [said she’s seen] not only the heart inflammation in young children, but cancers in young patients and aggressive leukemias. So everywhere I go, I have doctors confirming my observations … I’ve had many of them approach me and say, ‘Hey look, I’m seeing what you’re saying, but I can’t say it because I’ll get fired.'”

Cancer Spike Is Being Covered Up

Aside from what Cole has seen in his own lab, a military whistleblower has also come forward with data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) database showing dramatic increases in medical visits for cancer, neurological diseases, infertility, autoimmune diseases and several other conditions, post-jab.1

The DMED is one of the best databases in the world, as the Department of Defense keeps very close tabs on what’s happening with our troops. This DMED data was presented during a hearing led by Sen. Ron Johnson. A week after that hearing, the DoD froze access to the DMED, and when it reopened a week later, the data were all changed to eliminate the data spikes.

“That’s what was really shocking,” Cole says. “I think this is basically fraud to the level of Watergate, in terms of [there being] somebody behind the scenes, and then the private company that actually manages that database … manipulated it.”

The DoD has tried to explain this suspicious activity claiming a “bug” in the system had resulted in underreporting of medical conditions in the five years prior to 2021. The number of cancers and other health problems were actually higher in 2015 through 2020 than initially indicated, they said.

However, how can a program error cause data corruption for five consecutive years and then self-correct, resulting in perfect numbers for 2021? And how did they not notice the error earlier? Again, this is one of the best-kept databases in the world. And how come this “bug” only affected conditions that also just so happen to be known and/or suspected side effects of the jab?

Future Prognostication

Clearly, cancer has been on the rise for decades, thanks to dietary factors, but the COVID jabs appear to dramatically accelerate the disease process. There are no published studies to help us foretell the future, but based on what Cole has found so far, how long does he think it’ll be before conditions like cancer spiral out of control?

“That’s a great question,” he says. “One of the important findings I’ve heard from many of these clinicians is that many of their patients who have been cancer-free for three, four, five years, their PET scan looks great, no detectable disease, and after that second or third shot, all of a sudden there’s Stage 4 disease. It’s like wildfire.

And this goes back to immune suppressive mechanisms, the damage that the persistent spike protein and the persistent modified RNA (mRNA) cause. So, aggressive cancers arising very quickly are one thing we’re seeing. Because it’s a dose-dependent poisoning curve — in terms of the more spike you have circulating, the worse your immune system seems to be doing — the No. 1 thing is, don’t get another shot.

Because it is causing that immune suppression that’s allowing those cancer mechanisms. Over time … I would say we’re going to see a consistent twofold to threefold increase in certain cancers, endometrial cancers, breast cancers, cancers of the prostate, cancers that are testicular or ovarian, neurologic cancers.

This spike protein has a propensity to cross the blood brain barrier and invade neural tissues. We know what it does to mitochondrial activity in terms of inhibiting it, blocking it, ruining cytochrome C oxidase systems, decreasing ATP.

Cancer is a hypoxic state. When you don’t have good cellular activity and cellular respiration and hypo-oxygenation, you end up with mechanisms that can induce more aggressive cancer. So, I think, at a minimum, [there’ll be a] two- to threefold [increase] … over the next year or two.

We can only hope that the immune system can normalize and we come up with enough interventions and treatments that will reverse some of this, what some people call spikeopathy, or the different diseases that are being caused by this persistent spike. ‘I don’t know’ is the honest answer, but that would be my projection based on I’ve seen.”

Excess Mortality Has Dramatically Increased

Abnormal blood clotting is another commonly reported side effect of the jabs. Post-mortem investigations have revealed thick, extremely long rubbery clots, including in the arteries, which is rare. The longest Cole has seen was about two feet. We’re also seeing a lot of micro-clotting, heart inflammation (myocarditis), strokes and heart attacks — all of which can have lethal consequences.

In early January 2022, OneAmerica, a national mutual life insurance company, announced2 the death rate of working-age Americans (18 to 64), in the third quarter of 2021, was 40% higher than prepandemic levels. And this excess mortality was not due to COVID infection. Many of those deaths were in fact cardiac deaths and strokes, which fits the injury profile of the COVID shots.

“After they came forward, additional insurance companies said, ‘We’re seeing anywhere from 30% to 50% increase in claims as well.’ They have no horse in the race. They’re just observing. And I say that as a pathologist too. Look, I don’t create disease. I don’t prevent disease. I’m a reporter at the scene of the crash.

My job is simply to report patterns, and then we can scientifically confirm those data patterns. And the all-cause death is increased in those who’ve gotten two, three shots. Again, it’s a dose-dependent curve. The more spike your body is making, the worse people tend to do over time.

Even Walgreens came out a couple weeks ago and showed their data. Individuals that got shots are getting COVID at higher rates. Even the mainstream media finally, last week — I think it was Good Morning America — said, ‘It’s looking like the boosters are a bad idea because it’s immune suppressing people.’

So, we’re finally making some progress and getting traction in the mainstream where at least the narrative is cracking. There’s a crack in the dam and it’s starting to leak. Hopefully it’ll rush forward and people will go, ‘Whoa, this was a bad idea. Let’s stop this chaos.’ But the FDA is trying to roll it out on [infants] of all things now … It’s really tragic.”

Why Was the Most Toxic Part of the Virus Chosen?

Considering autopsies have shown spike protein is still present at least four months after their last shot, it seems reasonable to assume that severe health problems can arise months or even years down the road. In fact, we still don’t know if the body ever stops producing spike protein once this genetically modified mRNA is injected.

“We know the spike is the inflammatory aspect of the virus, and our cells are made into spike toxin factories,” Cole says. “Studies out of the Salk Institute show that the spike is the cytotoxic aspect of [COVID-19], so we’re giving a shot that makes the toxic part of the virus, and it’s persisting.

That’s why I think we’re going to see this consistent elevation of different diseases related to the spike, be it cardiac, strokes, chronic clotting conditions, individuals dying from pulmonary emboli … It’s highly concerning that we have regulatory agencies allowing the most dangerous medical product ever released on humanity to persist in the marketplace.”

Neurological and Vascular Chaos

As predicted by MIT researcher Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., we’re now also starting to see reports of Creutzfeldt-Jakob — human mad cow disease — which is a prion disease that basically destroys the brain.

Strokes in young people and children are also on the rise. Media are now trying to convince you that this is “normal,” but it is anything but. Historically, children and teens do not die from strokes. This is a brand-new phenomenon, courtesy of the COVID jabs.

Microvascular clots (microvascular infarcts) are also a known contributing factor, in the long term, to early onset dementia. So, that’s yet another potential health avalanche in the making.

Four Helpful Remedies

I’ve quickly become a fan of pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, as it’s been shown to improve mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. At 15 to 20 milligrams a day, it could potentially go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab and post-COVID. 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.

Another important remedy is near-infrared light. It triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria3 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% near-infrared radiation,4 so this treatment is available for free.

For neurological side effects of the shot, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant called fluvoxamine may be helpful. Cole explains the mechanism behind it:

“[Fluvoxamine] upregulates a receptor called sigma-1, which blocks another receptor called inositol-requiring enzyme 1, which is a precursor for cytokines. So, fluvoxamine will block cytokine production in neural tissues. And that’s why [it works]. It’s not because of its antidepressant effects. It’s a cytokine precursor blocker. So, you actually are decreasing a cytokine storm in neural tissues.

This is why one uses fluvoxamine. There are other SSRIs, but this mechanism is very specific to fluvoxamine. It’s a tough to tolerate drug for some people. It makes some people anxious and agitated, but if you can tolerate it for two weeks, you can really turn down those inflammatory pathways in many patients. I’m not going to say everybody, but I’ve seen it work in many patients.”

A fourth treatment suggestion is hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). This too can be phenomenally helpful for strokes, heart attacks, autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”

IMPORTANT: COVID Shots Are Not Pharmaceutical Grade

Seneff also warned about potential unknowns arising from fragmented mRNA and impurities, as tests have shown these jabs really are NOT pharmaceutical grade, as you’d expect. Cole comments:

“These aren’t pure products, and I think this is a very important point. When Pfizer submitted vials to the European Medicines Agency to look at purity … they were in the 50% range … The TGA in Australia looked at it and said, ‘Look, these are only about 60% pure.’

This means you have a lot of fragmented sequences of mRNA that don’t have a stop or a start code on. They’re not coding for what you think they’re coding for. They’re coding for other tinier, shorter fragments. Are those mitogenic? Probably, but we don’t know. Can those reverse transcribe into our own DNA? Studies out of Sweden … show yes, they can …

And then, when they manufacture, they can’t spin and agitate these, so you get all these lipids that collect at the top of these big vats. So now you get some batches that are hyperconcentrated and some are hypoconcentrated. It appears about 5% of the batches are responsible for about 80% of the harms.”

Autoimmune Diseases of All Kinds Are To Be Expected

As explained by Cole in the interview, there’s a reason there’s never been a successful mRNA gene therapy product brought to market, despite 20 years of research effort. The persistence of synthetic mRNA with pseudouridine always caused too many problems in the animal trials to move into human trials. It caused autoimmune disease. It caused mutations. The manufacturers don’t even know if the nanolipid used to protect the mRNA is safe in humans.

“Based on the animal trials, we know there were problems and we can only predict that that’s going to happen in humanity. I want to be wrong, but from a basic immunology point of view, I don’t think I am,” Cole says.

“The nanolipid particles vary in size, interestingly. I’ve looked at some under the microscope. Some of them congeal and some of them stay tiny. But because of the fatty nature of them, they will carry their little mRNA and fractionated mRNA package to any cell in the body. And that’s the biggest concern. Now it has turned any cell in your body to a potential target [for your immune system].

An important paper came out in the European Journal of Immunology just about a month ago by Dr. Hagemann. There’s a condition called antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity. What that means is that [the mRNA] sequence gets into your cell [and] that cell now becomes the spike factory.

That spike is on the surface of your cell. Now your NK cells that I talked about earlier say, ‘We better blow that cell up.’ So now, because there’s that spike on the surface, your immune system will destroy your own cells. This is another one of the detrimental effects.”

Pipeline Now Filled With Risky mRNA Shots

Making matters worse, even though the COVID shots have been shown to be a complete disaster, the drug industry is already working on dozens of different mRNA “vaccines,” thinking they now have carte blanche to put out whatever they want using this platform.

And the reason for this continued insanity is because our health and regulatory authorities are corrupted to the core. They are completely dishonest. They’re covering up the shocking harms, and unless something radically changes, they will allow dozens of equally dangerous mRNA gene transfer injections to be put out.

Reactivation of Latent Viruses

The COVID jabs also downregulate pattern receptors in your body called toll-like receptors. Specifically, toll-like receptors 7 and 8 are downregulated by the mRNA and pseudouridine in these shots. What does that do? It allows latent viruses to flourish that would otherwise have been kept in check.

“We’ve seen a big uptick in herpes family viruses, especially herpes EBV4, which is Epstein-Barr virus [aka] mononucleosis,” Cole says. So, for those with post-COVID or post-jab fatigue, long-COVID and those with MS-like symptoms, he recommends checking for Epstein-Barr.

About 80% of MS patients have high Epstein-Barr titers. “You will find that a lot of these individuals will have reactivated mono,” he says. For reactivated mono, methylene blue, HBOT and nebulized peroxide would all be indicated.

Fertility Under Attack

In the interview, Cole also reviews the potential impacts of the COVID jabs on the reproductive system. Menstrual dysregulation appears extremely common, as is the inability to become pregnant, despite trying for months, and spontaneous abortions are off the charts. The DMED database also showed a strong signal for fetal malformation before it was frozen and altered.

“What we’re doing to society and humanity with a previously never before used modality and product is causing horrendous harm to the human race, with no regard for science, with no regard for scientific integrity. It’s a machine gone amuck,” Cole says.

“There are darker forces behind it. A lot of people are making billions, but they’re killing people to do it. And it’s just so unethical what we’re experiencing societally. Yes, we’re causing infertility. Yes, we’re causing mutations in cancers. Yes, we’re causing heart attacks and strokes. Yes, we’re destroying the longevity of a younger generation. It is horrendous.

There’s no justification for any doctor who can look themselves in the mirror and say, ‘I feel comfortable giving this experimental product to my patients all day long.’ They need to reflect and realize they’ve lost their mind, [their] critical thinking skills.”

More Information

Sadly, almost everyone who’s credible and trustworthy has been censored and deplatformed at this point, so finding them can be a challenge. To follow Cole’s work, be sure to bookmark his website, RColeMD.com. You can also find him on the GlobalCovidSummit.org forum.

If you are vaccine injured, the Global COVID Summit has a blockchain-based forum where you can share your experience and it will never be taken down. You can’t be censored or deplatformed. Cole is available to answer questions in that forum.

They’re also starting up another website to compete with WebMD and similar pharma-run medical sites. It will eventually be available on DMED.com, which stands for “decentralized medicine.” This site is not yet live, but you can try it later. Cole will have a page there as well.

Other thought leaders worth tracking down and following include Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Richard Urso, Dr. Paul Alexander, and Dr. Kirk A. Milhoan, a pediatric cardiologist, and his wife, Dr. Kim Milhoan, just to name a few.

“These have been wonderful leaders in this movement for truth and sharing science,” Cole says. “All of us are part of the Global COVID Summit. We are 17,000 doctors strong and it’s very important that people understand that.

I mean, that’s more doctors than they have at the CDC or the FDA or the NIH. This is a group of critical thinking people standing up for your health, your freedom and your right to your own bodily autonomy.

I think, going forward, as people are starting to wake up and part of this narrative is cracking, let’s come back together, let’s communicate, let’s be kind, let’s help each other get back to a more loving, peaceful, communicative society. I think if we can forgive — obviously, there are things we don’t want to forget, because we don’t want this to happen again — but try to forgive people and try to help people ‘come to’ again.

Just come back together in community. I think it’s important that we really try to circle the wagons again as humanity, and hopefully come back to our senses. That’s a hopeful message I would like to share.”

*

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

Notes

1 Steve Kirsch Substack February 5, 2022

2 The Center Square January 1, 2022

3 Physiology February 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019

4 Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology February 2016; 155: 78-85

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a “remarkable” disclosure, Canada’s national police force has described for the first time how it uses spyware to infiltrate mobile devices and collect data, including by remotely turning on the camera and microphone of a suspect’s phone or laptop.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police says it only uses such tools in the most serious cases, when less intrusive techniques are unsuccessful. But until now, the force has not been open about its ability to employ malware to hack phones and other devices, despite using the tools for several years. Between 2018 and 2020, the RCMP said it deployed this technology in 10 investigations.

“This is a kind of capability that they have done everything possible to keep incredibly quiet,” said Christopher Parsons, senior research associate at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab.

“This is a remarkable finding and, for the first time, publicly reveals that the RCMP is using spyware to infiltrate mobile devices, as well as the broad capabilities of their spyware,” he said.

The RCMP says the increasing use of encrypted communication means police need new tools to keep up. But critics say the advent of the digital era means police have access to vastly more information than ever before. They say there needs to be a public discussion about what limits to place on the use of malware and other intrusive tools.

The RCMP can use spyware to collect a broad range of data, including text messages, email, photos, videos, audio files, calendar entries and financial records.

The police can also gather “audio recordings of private communications and other sounds within range of the targeted device” and “photographic images of persons, places and activities viewable by the camera(s) built into the targeted device,” the document says.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

 

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In early June, some news media outlets reported on an interview General Paul Nakasone, the head of US Cyber Command, had with Sky News, where he openly admitted the United States is conducting offensive cyber operations against Russia. General Nakasone explained:

‘Hunt forward’ operations are allowing the US to search out foreign hackers and identify the tools they use against America.” Back then, Nakasone, who is also director of the NSA, stated he is “concerned every single day about the risk of a Russian cyberattack” and that the “hunt forward” activities were an “effective way of protecting America.”

He confirmed for the first time the US is conducting offensive cyber-ops against Russia in order to “support” Ukraine. “We’ve conducted a series of operations across the full spectrum; offensive, defensive, [and] information operations,” US general stated. He didn’t give any specifics, but claimed the activities of US military hackers were allegedly “lawful, conducted with complete civilian oversight of the military and through policy decided at the DoD,” adding that his job is to “provide a series of options to the secretary of defense and the president, and so that’s what I do,” declining to give any further details.

“Hunt forward is a key aspect of the Cyber Command’s partnerships. It is so powerful… because we see our adversaries and we expose their tools. Cyber Command specialists have been deployed abroad to 16 other nations where they can seek intelligence from the allies’ computer networks – always on a consensual, invitation basis,” General Nakasone said during a speech at CyCon, a conference on cyber conflict, hosted by NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCDCOE) in Tallinn.

“Crucial to how hunt forward works is Cyber Command sharing the intelligence they find with the host nation. If you’re an adversary, and you’ve just spent a lot of money on a tool, and you’re hoping to utilize it readily in a number of different intrusions, suddenly it’s outed and it’s now been signatured across a broad range of networks, and suddenly you’ve lost your ability to do that,” the general said. “In one such hunt forward deployment, US military specialists had been present in Ukraine very close to the date of the invasion. We went in December 2021 at the invitation of the Kiev government to come and hunt with them. We stayed there for a period of almost 90 days,” he added.

The revelation didn’t catch much attention from Western state-run mass media, or at least not as one would expect for such a groundbreaking admission. What garnered even less attention was a statement by Zhao Lijian, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman. When asked about the US cyber aggression against Russia, he responded:

“We have noticed relevant reports and are concerned over the dangerous and irresponsible US behavior. The US needs to explain to the international community how these ‘offensive hacking operations’ are consistent with its professed position of not engaging directly in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The US and NATO have said cyber-attacks can be considered an ‘armed attack’. The US also declared earlier that it could respond to cyber-attacks with conventional means or even nuclear weapons. According to its own logic of policy-making, the above-mentioned US operations could lead to the possibility of escalating the Russia-Ukraine conflict situation and even triggering a nuclear attack.

It’s quite obvious that the US is conducting a dangerous experiment in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The US believes that with an unrivalled military cyber capability, it is able to unilaterally control the scale and consequences of offensive hacking operations. However, the reality might not necessarily follow the US’s design. If the situation gets out of control, it will end up harming the common interests of the international community, the US included. Besides, the US has also declared repeatedly about ‘Forward Deployment’ of cyber military forces in some small and medium-sized countries. These countries need to keep their eyes wide open and beware whether such deployment could embroil them in a conflict they don’t seek.

Cyberspace is the common space of activities for mankind. We urge the US to change its dangerous and irresponsible behavior and join the international community in safeguarding peace and security in cyberspace.”

Indeed, NATO is contemplating the inclusion of cyber warfare in the controversial Article 5, the “collective defense” clause considered to be its cornerstone. The sheer hypocrisy of the political West’s actions and statements is nearly impossible to overstate. This has become so obvious that the world is plainly speaking sick and tired of it. Prior to the West’s escalating actions which forced Russia’s hand and the aggressive moves and rhetoric in regard to China, Mr. Lijian’s statements were usually very reserved. However, ever since, China has become more direct in criticizing US aggression against the world.

This also includes Russia’s former president and head of its Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, who has lashed out at the West multiple times so far, including a call for Russia to stop negotiating with the political West, which has broken nearly all international treaties and laws.

In addition to Russia, NATO and its numerous vassals have openly targeted China during the already infamous Madrid summit. The new policy will certainly result in further destabilization of the world. However, for the political West this is not merely an acceptable consequence, but also desirable, as their long-obsolete “purely defensive alliance” will finally get the “much-needed” reinvigoration.

*

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

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” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On June 24th, at the think tank, the Hudson Institute, U.S. President Trump’s CIA chief and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, delivered a 5,000+-word speech, suggesting that America has an essentially God-assigned mission to control the world, so as to preserve freedom and democracy for everybody, and that victory against Russia and China is therefore obligatory for the United States and its allies, not only to serve God but also to serve God’s People, because “central to the economic wellbeing of American families is a United States that leads.

It leads all across the world, both in military and in economic power”; and, so,

“We must act in concert with our allies to affect strategic clarity, unmistakable to both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China. To do that, we have to strengthen NATO.”

Furthermore, “The AUKUS Union [the recently U.S.-UK-created Asian military alliance] should be folded into this expanded security alliance,” so that NATO will become a global alliance against Russia and China, in order to preserve America’s world leadership.

His basic argument was that it’s either us or them, and they must be conquered, because God wants it, and we serve Him.

Pompeo did not argue that World War III will entail sacrifices for any of God’s People, but instead that winning this war will be necessary for the future safety and prosperity of the peoples of America, and of all countries that it will be leading, to conquer Russia and China.

The current U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Binken, or even President Biden himself, could have delivered this speech for themselves, with remarkably little modification, because the beliefs that it expresses are mainstream — and not ONLY in the U.S., but also in UK, and even in most of Europe (except for Russia and Belarus).

Pompeo’s personal background is a fundamentalist Christian whose entire life has been spent in the military-industrial complex and oil industries, and politics. He was first in his class at West Point, an editor of the Harvard Law Review, and cofounded Thayer Aerospace, before entering politics in 2011.

Here are highlights from his speech (including, without comment, its many historical falsehoods, because this is the ordinary way he writes (and extemporaneously speaks). These excerpts are taken from the text that he himself wrote, before he delivered the complete address, from his lectern, at that military-industrial-complex institution, on June 24th.

America and the nations of the world cannot continue the pretense that the war in Ukraine can end in a negotiated peace, which mollifies Russia. For such a peace cannot be negotiated with Vladimir Putin. Ukraine must win this war. It must win this war decisively if it is to realize peace, independence and freedom. Same goes for Europe. …

This war, Putin’s war, is to expunge Ukraine as a sovereign nation and as a people. Ukraine is to be folded into the new Russian Empire that seeks to become a rump of the Soviet Union. Nine, count them, nine American presidents from each of our political parties. Nine American presidents dismembered the Soviet Empire at enormous great human costs, to allow it to even begin to be reconstitution unthinkable.

Putin’s illegal assault of war represents a planned genocide, which is deliberate obliteration of a people, as defined by the 1948 United Nations. Though each genocide is different and unique as John mentioned, the one taking place in Xinjiang. This genocide that we’re seeing today is like the Holodomor engineered by Stalin that murdered millions of Ukrainians and it must be named to be fought. …

Putin may or may not be ill, but what is certain, what is certain is that he cannot contain his murderous fury. That he still leads a country exemplifies Russia’s decline into the abyss of madness. …

Both a mass murderer and a serial killer. Putin is that. I pray that Russia will reclaim its soul, its country’s soul. But it cannot do so as long it is led by a man who does not evince any concern for the horrific carnage he has wrought, or any concern for his own people.

Putin has this dream, to reestablish a lost empire. If America behaves properly, it will not occur. And we know this, we know that the dreams of dictators quickly become nightmares. …

It is my conviction that America and the West must acknowledge the centrality of hydrocarbon energy to the world geopolitics and indeed to man’s ability, humanity’s ability to adapt a cornerstone of life. …

Had the current administration maintained American energy dominance rather than prostrate itself to radicals, America could have led the way in securing the world’s hydrocarbon needs during this war. But because America’s abdicated this vital role, the war in Ukraine is compounding the pain that consumers are feeling today to cool their homes and to drive their vehicles. …

These nations were unchained in 1991 because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. And we dare not let any of them be recaptured by Russia. …

I believe Ukraine has found it’s [George] Washington in the embodiment of a single man. His name is Volodymyr Zelenskyy. …

America and the nations of the world cannot continue the pretense that the war in Ukraine can end in a negotiated peace, which mollifies Russia. For such a peace cannot be negotiated with Vladimir Putin. Ukraine must win this war. It must win this war decisively if it is to realize peace, independence and freedom. Same goes for Europe. …

This war can be won if America and our allies supply a range of our most capable conventional weapons to Kyiv. Dauntlessness is needed to end the war in Ukraine, seriousness of purpose. NATO solidarity is essential Germany and France must not defer to any of the Kremlin’s wishes. America and Britain have supplied multiple launch rocket systems. …

We must not give heat to Russia’s false claim that it believes its borders are threatened. This is silliness. …

I believe deeply that the weakness that was expressed in America’s undisciplined withdrawal from Afghanistan was interpreted by Vladimir Putin as a green light. …

As Secretary of State, I built upon my work as the director of the CIA to aid President Trump in formulating concrete terms that would’ve allowed for force reductions and withdrawal from Afghanistan but without the debacle. …

We know China’s intention. It’s intent on dominating global infrastructure development through its Belt and Road Initiative. But this is subterfuge. It hides. It’s a deceit. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a form of imperialism. It is the manifestation of a corrupt intent to entrap less developed countries with promises of loans and infrastructure improvements. …

Every president since Truman believed Taiwan’s existence is crucial to America’s defense. I believe that with all my heart. The 1970 Taiwan Relations Act requires that we maintain Taiwan’s defensive abilities to thwart an attack, but we’re now in danger of becoming complacent. The capture of Taiwan would grant the following objectives to Beijing: it would severely reduce American influence in the Indo-Pacific. …

Our relationship with Taiwan should be reinforced at every turn. It’s become a shining example in Taiwan of democracy, democracy for Asian peoples, and a hope to all of Asia. …

Central to the economic wellbeing of American families is a United States that leads. It leads all across the world, both in military and in economic power. …

I hope that my words today will galvanize American support for Ukraine and for Europe, for such aid is essential if we’re to enforce the national security policies that place American public interest as of paramount importance. …

We must act in concert with our allies to affect strategic clarity, unmistakable to both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. We must prevent the formation of a Pan-Eurasian colossus incorporating Russia, but led by China. To do that, we have to strengthen NATO. …

Moving past our current geo-strategic focus, the United States must help in building of the three lighthouses for liberty. These beacons should be centered on nations that have great strife: Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. They can be the hubs of new security architecture that links alliances of free nations globally, reinforcing the strengths of each member state, in time, linking these three bastions with NATO, as well as the new and expanded security framework for the Indo-Pacific will form a global alliance for freedom. This will benefit America.

“The need for this network of alliances is patent and cannot come too soon. The world has become too small for free countries to not be part of something greater, which will forestall armed conflict rather than react to it. …

The people of America are committed to seeing Ukraine emerge from this war as an undivided nation which will be a beacon to all, to show the world the primacy of freedom, determination, and of love. Thank you, and God bless you. …

*

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

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It’s about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is a screenshot from this video

What The Flag Means To Me. Brian Willson

July 4th, 2022 by Brian S. Willson

I was probably seven years old before it really sunk in that everybody in my town was not celebrating my birthday on July 4. It was an exciting day with parades, picnics, fireworks and, in my case, special birthday parties and gifts. I lived much of my young life with the extra boost of having been born on the day that our earliest political framers signed the Declaration of Independence, an historical act of defiance against monarchial colonial rule from distant England.

I remember proudly carrying the U.S. American flag in one of the July 4th parades in my small, agricultural town in upstate New York. And for years I felt goosebumps looking at Old Glory waving in the breeze during the playing of the national anthem or as it passed by in a parade. How lucky I was to have been born in the greatest country in the history of the world, and blessed by God to boot. Such a blessing, such a deal!

It wasn’t until many years later, while reading an issue of the armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes in Vietnam, that I began thinking and feeling differently about the flag and what it represents. There was a story about an arrest for flag burning somewhere in the United States.

I had recently experienced the horror of seeing numerous bodies of young women and children that were burned alive in a small Delta village devastated by napalm. I imagined that since the pilots had “successfully” hit their targets, they were feeling good and probably had received glowing reports that would bode well in their military record for promotions. I wondered why it was okay to burn innocent human beings 10,000 miles from my home town, but not okay to burn a piece of cloth that was symbolic of the country that had horribly napalmed those villagers. Something was terribly wrong with the Cold War rhetoric of fighting communism that made me question what our nation stood for. There was a grand lie, an American myth, that was being fraudulently preserved under the cloak of our flag.

It took me years to process this clear cognitive dissonance between the rhetoric of my cultural teachings and the reality of my own personal experiences. I had to accept that, either there was serious distortion in how I was interpreting my personal realities, or the cultural rhetoric was terribly distorted. Hmm. A dilemma! If I accepted the former, I could relax and feel good about being an “American.” If I accepted the latter, I would experience a serious identity crisis, perhaps a nervous breakdown. But no matter how hard I tried, I could not ignore what my own conscience was continually telling me

I began a serious reflection that included careful study of U.S. and world history. When I was a teenager living near Seneca Indian reservations in western New York State I occasionally heard Seneca acquaintances utter “jokes” about how the “White man speaks with forked tongue.” We thought it funny at the time. But then I discovered how my country really was founded. There were hundreds of nations comprised of millions of human beings–yes, human beings–living throughout the land before our European ancestors arrived here in the 1600s. The U.S. government signed over 400 treaties with various Indigenous nations and violated every one of them. And over time these original peoples were systematically eliminated in what amounted to the first genuine American holocaust.

When I reread the Declaration of Independence I noted words I hadn’t been aware of before: “He [the King of Great Britain] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” Honest history reveals that the very land upon which our founding fathers began this new experiment in freedom had been taken by violence and deceit, ironically using the same diabolical methods the framers accused of those already living here.

It became obvious after extensive reading that my European ancestors did not believe that Indigenous Americans were human beings worthy of respect, but despicable, non-human creatures, worthy only of extermination. The pre-Columbus population of Indigenous in the Western Hemisphere is estimated to have been at least 100 million (8-12 million north of the Rio Grande). By 1900 this population had been reduced to about 5 percent of its former size. An Indigenous friend of mine, a Seneca man who had served the U.S. military in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and then after retiring, discovered his ancestral roots as a native American, once remarked to me: “I call the American flag ‘Old Gory,’ the red representing the blood, and the white, the bones, of my murdered ancestors.”

>When adding to our first holocaust the damage done to African cultures through forcefully seizing human beings to be slaves in order to build our early agricultural and industrial base, and the carnage from nearly 300 U.S. overt military and thousands of covert interventions in the Twentieth Century to acquire access to markets and resources on our selfish terms, we see there are actually three holocausts that have enabled the “glorious American civilization” to be what it is today. It is now estimated that Africa lost 50 million of its population to the slave trade, at least two-thirds of whom were killed resisting capture or died during the horrors of transit; an estimated 20 to 30 million people in the Third World have been killed as a result of U.S. interventions. Note that when other peoples all over the globe have attempted to emulate the spirit of our Declaration of Independence (a proclamation of self-determination), such as Vietnam explicitly did in 1945, our government not only has turned a deaf ear, but has done everything in its power short of dropping Atomic bombs to destroy their efforts to obtain independence. This is the foundation upon which we have built “America.” Quite the karma!

The founding of our Republic was conducted in secrecy by an upper class who insisted on a strong national government that could assure a successful but forceful clearing of western lands, enabling the safe settlement and economic development of previously inhabited Indigenous territory. Our Founding Fathers did not represent the common people. Some historians believe that if the Constitution itself had been subjected to a genuine vote of all the people it would have been resoundly defeated. Subsequently, what evolved is a political system run by plutocrats who perpetuate an economic system that protects the interests of those who finance their campaigns (a form of bribery). The U.S. government is a democracy in name only. Never have we had a government that seriously addresses the plight of the people, whether it be workers, minorities, women, the poor, etc. Whatever has been achieved in terms of rights and benefits for these constituencies, i.e., the people, has been struggled for against substantial repression, and the constant threat the gains will be subsequently lost. Intense pressures are applied by the selfish oligarchy which seeks ever increased profits, rarely, if ever, considering the expense to the health of the majority of people, their local cultures, and the ecology.

What the West calls capitalism is nothing like what Adam Smith had in mind with his views of decentralized networks of small entrepreneurs working in harmony with the needs and forces of others in their own communities. What we have is a savage system of centrally institutionalized greed that is unable to generalize an equitable way of life for the majority of people here in the U.S., or in the rest of the world. It requires incredible exploitation of human and other natural resources all over the globe with the forcible protection of military and paramilitary forces financed or sanctioned by governments. It thrives on its own sinister version of welfare where the public financially guarantees–through tax loopholes, subsidies, contracts, and outright bailouts–the profitable success of the major corporations and financial institutions, especially, but not exclusively, in the military-industrial complex. Additionally, our monopoly capitalism defines efficiency by totally ignoring the true costs of its production and distribution.

It conveniently forgets the huge ecological and human exhaustion costs (both being our true wealth). If these costs were included, the system would be finished in a second. The reality, upon honest examination, is that the economic system we call capitalism, now neoliberal, global capitalism, is cruelly based on a very fraudulent set of assumptions that justify massive exploitation. The reality, upon honest examination, is that our political system was founded, and has been maintained to this very day by substantive plutocracy, not democracy. So when I see the flag and think of the Declaration of Independence, instead of the United States of America, I see the United Corporations of America; I see the blood and bones of people all over the globe who have been dehumanized, then exterminated by its imperialism; and I see a symbol that represents a monstrous lie maintained by excessive, deadly force. It makes me feel sick, and ashamed. And I know that my opinions being expressed here will not be popular, even among some of my closest friends. But I cannot ignore the reality as I now understand it.

I believe we are living one of the most incredible lies in history, covered over by one of the most successful campaigns of public rhetoric, ignoring empirical reality. It is truly amazing! I hope that one day we will end our willful ignorance and be able to see our transgressions, and beg, on our knees, for forgiveness, and then wail as we begin to feel the incredible pain and anguish we have caused the world as well as our own bodies, minds, souls, and culture.

S. Brian Willson, Vietnam war veteran, renowned peace activist, human rights lawyer and award winning author, Granada, Nicaragua, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What The Flag Means To Me. Brian Willson
  • Tags:

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Argentinian President Alberto Fernandez has accused Boris Johnson of contempt for international law regarding statements he made over the Falkland Islands.

Mr Fernandez raised the issue of his country’s longstanding claim over the islands, known in Argentina as Las Malvinas during a brief meeting at the G7 summit of world leaders in Germany.

Mr Johnson compared the situation with that of Ukraine and said that the islanders had exercised the right to self-determination and that the matter had been decisively settled 40-years ago.

But his response drew the ire of Argentina’s secretary for Malvinas, Antarctica and the South Atlantic, Guillermo Carmona.

He pointed out that Britain had occupied the islands in 1833 and forcibly expelled its Argentine inhabitants.

More recently, it had ignored 10 UN resolutions calling for a negotiated settlement to the disputed territories, the diplomat said.

Mr Carmona said that by making reference to the 1983 war, the British PM was effectively stating that barbarism and aggression are a legitimate part of international law, unless of course they are committed by Russia.

In addition, the principle of self-determination has been rejected by Mr Johnson in Donetsk and Crimea, not to mention the Chagos Islands, so to invoke it in the case of the Malvinas is nothing more than hypocrisy, he added.

Sovereignty over the islands, which lie around 300 miles off the Argentinian coast, has never been conceded by Buenos Aires.

The Argentinian government insists that the natural resources around the islands, including large oil reserves discovered in 1998, “belong to 14 million Argentinians.”

Britain is accused of constantly ignoring UN resolutions which call for renewed negotiations over sovereignty, with its military presence there branded illegitimate.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While there’s always the chance of events temporarily spiraling out of control, the odds are drastically stacked against anyone whether local or foreign who hopes to successfully weaponize perceptions about Uzbekistan’s constitutional reforms for Color Revolution ends related to waging a Hybrid War on Russia, China, and/or Iran in Central Asia by proxy through Karakalpakstan.

The Uzbek Interior Ministry dispersed an illegal rally in the western region of Karakalpakstan on Friday that they claim was organized in response to a “misunderstanding of the constitutional reforms that are conducted in the republic.” That gigantic but sparsely populated and largely impoverished swath of this doubly landlocked country is formally an autonomous republic with the constitutional right to secede via a referendum, though a draft of Uzbekistan’s many proposed legal changes suggests that it’ll lose that mostly symbolic prerogative and stipulate that its constitution mustn’t contradict national laws instead of only just not contradicting the constitution as is now the case. Additionally, a local blogger was reportedly detained too, which altogether prompted unauthorized protests in the capital of Nukus.

Previously stable Central Asia has been on edge since the unexpected Hybrid War of Terror on Kazakhstan broke out in early January, during which time terrorists almost took control of this former Soviet Republic prior to a decisive Russian-led CSTO peacekeeping operation saving the region’s largest country. Moscow concluded that regional terrorist networks were involved in this attempted regime change operation, but little else has been officially revealed thus far about the origin of that incident. In any case, it drew renewed attention to the pernicious role of non-state actors operating between Central Asia and Afghanistan, the latter of which is getting messy againand thus catalyzing closer military integration between those former Soviet Republics – including Uzbekistan—and Russia.

Having explained the backdrop to Friday’s unrest, it’s now time to say a few words about Uzbekistan. This country used to be casually described by Western observers as “the North Korea of Central Asia” because former President Islam Karimov pretty much closed it off from most of the world. His successor, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, has gone in the opposite direction by gradually opening it back up to the international community. This has seen some cosmetic political reforms along with comparatively more substantive economic and socio-cultural ones related to positioning Uzbekistan as a regional connectivity hub and the role of religion in everyday life respectively. Nevertheless, the military-intelligence services still remain ubiquitous and omnipotent behind the scenes.

The May 2005 Andijan Incident, which occurred just a month after neighboring Kyrgyzstan’s “Tulip Revolution”, can be considered a Color Revolution attempt that was forcefully put down and reportedly resulted in a large number of ostensibly civilian casualties. Its importance in the bigger picture is that it represents the US’ first serious effort to capture control of Central Asia’s most geostrategically significant country, which borders the region’s four other former Soviet Republics and Afghanistan. In the years since President Mirziyoyev came to office, however, Uzbek-American relations have noticeably improved. Even so, speculation continues to abound that the US still remains committed to destabilizing Central Asia, both due to the New Cold War context as well as the region’s growing role in multipolarity.

Central Asia is located in the Eurasian Heartland, which makes it the convergence point of Russian, Indian, Chinese, and Iranian interests, especially in terms of geo-economics. It therefore naturally follows that its stability or lack thereof will impact the rest of the supercontinent and therefore influence the global struggle between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the BRICS-led Global South. Primarily for this reason as well as the background that was explained in the preceding paragraph, some multipolar-friendly observers in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) were quick to speculate that Karakalpakstan’s latest protests against the draft constitutional reforms’ reported impact on their sub-state polity’s autonomy were a Color Revolution, or the US’ weaponization of protests for strategic ends.

It’s too early to arrive at that conclusion, however, though that also doesn’t mean that this interpretation should also be entirely dismissed either since it’s possible that events might move in that direction after some time. To elaborate, the Uzbek military-intelligence services still command immensely powerful influence in the country behind the scenes, which means that it’s very unlikely that there was any considerable financial, informational, and/or militant/terrorist infiltration into its western autonomous region whose hitherto constitutionally enshrined right to referendum-driven secession already made it a predictable Hybrid War target. It might of course be the case that corruption and/or incompetence crippled their professionalism in recent years, though that still seems very unlikely.

On the regional level, it’s difficult to get an accurate sense of Karakalpakstan’s demographic balance but reports suggest that the titular ethnicity and Kazakhs collectively form the majority. Whatever the true ratio might be, there’s no doubt that a statistically significant number of ethnic Karakalpaks inhabit this autonomous republic otherwise it wouldn’t have been given the largely symbolic political rights that it was shortly after Uzbekistan’s independence. With this in mind, it’s understandable why some of them might take to the streets to protest despite not receiving authorization to do so upon reports of their region’s official right to secede via referendum possibly being removed upon the promulgation of the proposed constitutional reforms.

Even though it was never realistic in any practical sense that they’d ever be able to successfully employ this right, it might still have had a psychological calming effect of sorts for folks to always consider in the ultimate worst-case scenario of full-on state dissolution. Despite that also being pretty much improbable due the military-intelligence services’ ubiquity and omnipotence in everyday life behind the scenes, it could nonetheless have remained in local Karakalpaks’ subconsciousness (especially “simpler” folks’) considering the presently chaotic phase of the global systemic transition to multipolarity brought about by the Ukrainian Conflict. Reports about its potential loss, amplified as they might have been by the local blogger who was recently detained, could thus have incited them to protest.

This insight means that most of the participants in Friday’s unauthorized rally almost certainly weren’t paid agents of a foreign intelligence service like many in the AMC naively generalize all those who participate in suspected Color Revolutions as being. It’s indeed possible that there might have been some foreign-connected elements among them, such as those plugged into “NGO”-disguised intelligence and/or terrorist fronts, who could have manipulated crowd psychology (including through disinformation, fake news, and weaponized rumors) in order to provoke violence. They, however, would be a statistically insignificant minority keeping with the core mechanics of all Color Revolutions. Be that as it may, such forces exert major influence over events, again, in alignment with the core mechanics.

Presuming that there likely were some foreign-connected elements either directly or indirectly involved in Friday’s incident, this in and of itself also doesn’t make the unauthorized protests a Color Revolution per se. All that it does is suggest an intent by some shadowy forces to provoke events towards that scenario, which to clarify, would be the weaponization of protests for political ends through the catalyzation of a self-sustaining cycle of unrest whereby civil-state violence spirals out of control and thus destabilizes the country as part of a plot to coerce some degree of unilateral concessions from its leadership. The last-mentioned include regime tweaking (legal reforms or reversal thereof), regime change, and/or regime reboot (far-reaching constitutional change intended to “Balkanize” the country).

For any of these outcomes to materialize, there must be simultaneous bottom-up pressure from the population (particularly those who participate in weaponized protests hatched as part of a foreign power’s Color Revolution plot) as well as top-down pressure from the same state behind the unrest as well as their international partners. Furthermore, this same two-front pressure must be severe enough to make the targeted government believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that capitulating to whatever the demand may be is “less painful” than continuing to push back against it (including through increasingly forceful means). Seeing as how China, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey are Uzbekistan’s top trade partners by far as of March 2022, it’s impossible for the US-led West to pressure it with sanctions.

On the military-security front, Karakalpakstan is largely rural, which means that urban disturbances can be contained comparatively easier than if most of the population lived in cities. Even in the worst-case scenario that the regional capital near the Turkmen border was temporarily captured by insurgents/rebels/terrorists/etc., it can immediately be isolated from the rest of the country prior to the commencement of a law-and-order/liberation operation that could also include Russian/CSTO back-end logistical/intelligence/technical support. The same state of affairs is in place with regards to its many scattered rural localities as well, which very strongly suggests that any incipient Color Revolution in Karakalpakstan (if that’s even what happened on Friday, which is debatable) is doomed to fail.

For these reasons, it’s premature for the AMC to speculate that Friday’s incident in Nukus was a Color Revolution, let alone one that poses any serious threat to Uzbekistan’s stability and especially that of the larger region. While there’s always the chance of events temporarily spiraling out of control, the odds are drastically stacked against anyone whether local or foreign who hopes to successfully weaponize perceptions about that country’s constitutional reforms for Color Revolution ends related to waging a Hybrid War on Russia, China, and/or Iran in Central Asia by proxy. Not all protests, including illegal ones, are proof of a Color Revolution since the socio-political dynamics in Karakalpakstan connected to Uzbekistan’s latest reforms convincingly appear to be genuinely grassroots for now.

That’s not to say that there aren’t “sleeper cells” in the region and beyond who hope to exploit the situation that was inadvertently triggered by the proposed constitutional changes and the way in which some forces interpreted them (whether sincerely or not) prior to sharing their understanding (whether accurate or not) with the public, but just that the chances of Uzbekistan becoming the latest Hybrid War battlefield in the New Cold War between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the BRICS-led Global South are close to nothing for the time being. Granted, there might be some factors behind the scenes that aren’t yet publicly known which could dramatically change this assessment, but the arguments presented in this analysis for why that likely isn’t the case should be seriously considered by the AMC.

*

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

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

Global Research would like to share to our readers that alongside our existing social media accounts, we have recently created a Telegram channel for public subscription. This medium will provide our readers easy and timely access to our daily articles through a simple notification from Global Research. Like direct personal messaging, you will receive “direct message” from us by subscribing to our Telegram channel.

Here are our active social media accounts, we encourage you to follow, subscribe and share.

Facebook:
https://facebook.com/Global-Research-109788198342383

Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/globalresearch_crg/

Telegram:
https://t.me/gr_crg

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/CrGlobalization

 


Thank you for supporting independent media.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Subscribe to Global Research’s Telegram Channel and Other Social Media Accounts!

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The June 23 BBC article by Bernd Debusmann, “US Immigration: They’d rather die than return to Nicaragua,” confirms that the corporate media consistently make every article on Nicaragua an attack on its Sandinista Government.

Of four Nicaraguans interviewed for this article from the department of Esteli, two are peasants from villages, one is a housewife from a village and the fourth is a housewife from a small town. They all consider themselves Sandinistas and say they have benefitted from many government programs including training and small loans for production or small businesses. One has worked seasonally for more than twenty years in El Salvador, and two have worked seasonally in Costa Rica at least twice.

They say they decided to attempt the difficult journey north because family and friends over the last eighteen months have told them that once they cross into the U.S., just turn themselves into border agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actually helps them get to their final destination. This proved true for all four after harrowing experiences along the way. Two were flown to Minnesota, one was flown to Miami and one was sent by bus to Houston.

In the U.S. Nicaraguan migrants are treated now with as much leniency as Cubans. In other words, the U.S. is clearly promoting migration to the U.S. by Nicaraguans since 2007. And Nicaragua has been left out of the Title 42 expulsions unlike Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans which have had much higher migration to the U.S. than Nicaragua since 2007, when a better government began in Nicaragua—a Sandinista government.

It should also be noted that US Border Patrol encounters are up with people from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean since Covid, with further increases in 2021 and 2022.

The other reason that migration to the U.S. is up, is that, at least in Nicaragua, people heard from other Nicaraguans who have gone to the U.S., particularly since mid-2021 that it is fairly easy to get work and that the pay is good—US$12 to US$18 an hour.

Nicaraguan migrants in Mexico

Nicaraguan migrants heading to the U.S. The BBC misled its readers about the reasons why many Nicaraguans have gone to the U.S. [Source: bbc.com]

Those interviewed all said their plan is to work for two to three years sending money monthly to elderly parents and teenage children, then go back to their families to buy land, cattle or invest in a small business. The woman who went to Miami was reunited with her husband who has been in Miami working for 19 years without papers.

I know of no one going because they dislike the Sandinista government. You have only to visit Nicaragua to experience the amazing investment in everything that makes life better: universal health care and education, housing programs, every aspect of infrastructure to make the country runs smoothly, best roads in the region by far, government loans and training for small producers and small enterprisers, 90% food sovereignty, 99.2% of the population now has electricity, more than 90% have running water in their homes, electricity is now primarily generated by renewable sources, great investment in sports, recreation and parks and so much more.

A picture containing square Description automatically generated

Nicaragua is currently investing U.S.$153 million in 2 new state of the art hospitals (the 23 and 24th they have built since 2008) in Ocotal and in Bilwi, North Caribbean Autonomous Region. [Photo courtesy of Nan McCurdy]

Beautiful Managua. [Source: twitter.com]

Of course anyone going to work in the U.S. without papers is smart enough to tell immigration what they want to hear—they have come to escape tyranny. If they said “I love Nicaragua and am just here to work,” they would be deported. Migrants are smart.

Migration has increased substantially around the world because of the economic effects of Covid on economies. And aside from this, the U.S. applied sanctions to Nicaragua in 2018 and more sanctions in 2021. There were no new World Bank loans to Nicaragua from 2018 to November 2020 when finally there were small loans related to the effects of two strong hurricanes. The International Development Bank provided US$43 million in Covid-related aid in 2020 but provided US$1.8 billion to El Salvador.

Another factor that is pushing Nicaraguans north is that Costa Rica’s economy was very hard hit by Covid. Historically hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans have gone to work yearly there. But in 2020 and 2021 more people returned to Nicaragua because of lack of work in Costa Rica. In 2021, total crossings were 228,000 and more were returning to Nicaragua. This would be another reason to look for work in the U.S..

The author says that people are also coming because of a “crackdown on civil society.” In the last four years some 440 nonprofit organizations have lost their tax-free status out of more than 6,000 non-profits. I’ve examined all the lists and the vast majority are non-profits that have not functioned in years.

And closing NGO’s is not unusual—this happens all over the world. Between 2006 and 2011 the IRS closed 279,000 out of 1.7 million nonprofits. 28,000 were closed in 2020 alone. In Great Britain about 4,000 a year are closed and in Australia 10,000 were closed in 2014, one-sixth of the total.

In 2020, Nicaragua followed the U.S. lead and created a Foreign Agents law that requires non-profits to share what foreign monies they receive and how the monies are used.

Since 2007 many non-profits acted as channeling vessels for funds from the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, International Democratic Institute, Freedom House and especially the U.S. Agency for International Development; and also for money from Foundations that work closely with the U.S. government money like the Soros Foundation to Promote Open Society and others.

A group of people posing for a photo Description automatically generated

Nicaraguan “human rights” defenders who receive funding from the national Endowment for Democracy. [Source: ned.org]

This money, to the tune of well over a half billion dollars channeled openly, was used for destabilization purposes and for the U.S. failed coup attempt of 2018. Those NGOs participating in the coup were shut down first with good evidence of fraud, treason and money laundering and other crimes that are crimes around the world.

Violent Coup Fails in Nicaragua, U.S. Continues Regime Change Efforts - Truthdig

Scene from failed U.S.-backed coup in Nicaragua in 2018. [Source: truthdig.com]

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) set up by the G7 imposed rules that apply globally. Nicaragua was praised by the FATC for its compliance with things like stopping money laundering.

Although there must be people who don’t like the Nicaraguan government, this is not the reason more people have tried their luck at the American dream in the last 18 months. On November 7, 2021 more than 65% of registered voters voted for President Daniel Ortega giving him more than 75% of the votes. Current polls show the same citizen approval. Travel to Nicaragua, talk with everyone you meet, do some investigation.

*

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

Nan McCurdy works for the United Methodist Church in the state of Puebla, Mexico with Give Ye Them to Eat (GYTTE), a ministry with impoverished rural people that works in community-based health, sustainable agriculture, and community development specializing in appropriate technologies. Nan is also the editor of the weekly on Nicaragua, NicaNotes. Nan can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Migration is up from all of Central America and Mexico since Covid. [Source: bbc.com]

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It should now be obvious, even to the casual observer, and despite a wall of propaganda to the contrary, that the Ukraine is losing the war with Russia. 

As of Sunday, the Russian armed forces captured Lysychansk, a large city in the Luhansk region of the Donbas. The Russian objective is to prevent the Ukrainian military and its ultranationalist component from ethnically cleansing the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.

This does not mean the United States and its “partners” (primarily Britain, Germany, and France) will admit defeat and return to the negotiating table. The war will grind on in partisan or guerrilla fashion.

In February, prior to the invasion, it was reported the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, and Special Forces Units, will conduct an “insurgent” war against the Russians.

“At the beginning, we had only hundreds of partisans, but as the population saw life under Russian occupation, more and more people join the movement, thousands of people in all regions, including Crimea,” Serhiy Kuzan of Radio NV said on May 26.

As an example of the sort of “resistance” that can be expected, consider the bombing of an apartment building where Andriy Shevchik lives. Shevchik served as a local councilman for the pro-Russia OPZZH party in Enerhodar.

Inspired by Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, the growing partisan movement is active in eastern and southern Ukraine. GT Invest, a Ukrainian business group, reported in May:

Oleksii Arestovich, the adviser to the head of the presidential office, confirmed the existence of self-formed partisan detachments in Ukraine: “Our partisans work there [in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Kharkiv regions] but they perform their own specific tasks aimed at destroying the enemy.”

In addition to insurgency activity in the Donbas, these Banderist militants have conducted sabotage operations across the border in the Russian Federation.

“‘Rail partisans’ carried out several actions to render unusable railway tracks in 4 regions of the Russian Federation,” Ukrainian News reported in April. (It should be noted that the Zelenskyy government has been caught lying on numerous occasions.)

The CIA has been on the ground in the Ukraine for some time planning and organizing this covert “war of resistance” against Russia and the ethnic Russians of the Donbas.

“But even as the Biden administration has declared it will not deploy American troops to Ukraine, some C.I.A. personnel have continued to operate in the country secretly, mostly in the capital, Kyiv, directing much of the vast amounts of intelligence the United States is sharing with Ukrainian forces, according to current and former officials,” The New York Times reported on June 25.

Freedom of Information requests have provided an incomplete yet nonetheless horrifying picture of how the CIA and US military “neutralized” opposition, beginning with Operation Phoenix in Vietnam.

“It wasn’t a coincidence that this ‘anti-partisan’ warfare concept should be adopted by U.S. forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day,” writes Todd E. Pierce, a retired Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, referencing the work of researcher and author Douglas Valentine. “Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to ‘Einsatzgruppen-style “special forces” and Gestapo-style secret police’ is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each,” writes Pierce.

Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the “enemy.” Hitler’s Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German “Security Warfare” as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is “potentially” a threat, deemed either “partizans” or terrorists.

As noted above, this paradigm remains functional, although modified. Neocon author David Kilcullen, a former Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the U.S. State Department, writes in a paper titled Countering Global Insurgency that the so-called “war on terror” is in fact a war on insurgency against the neoliberal order.

The paper, submitted to a working group led by Gen. David Petraeus, called for a “disaggregation strategy” that includes “actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program.” It should be noted that in military parlance, “infrastructure” includes human beings.

British PM Boris Johnson has promised to go the extra mile to defeat the Russians. Considering this, we should assume that British military intelligence is also secretly involved in formulating a counterinsurgency program.

In fact, British counterinsurgency techniques used in Malaya (Peninsular Malaysia) between 1948 and 1960 serve as a touchstone for US counterinsurgency.

“In December 1960, soon after the [British declared] emergency ended, the US Army’s Handbook for the Suppression of Communist Guerrilla/Terrorist Operations looked to the Malayan example as one resource for ‘practical measures’ that could be used against guerrilla activities the world over,” writes Wen-Qing Ngoei.

At base, studying effective counterrevolution offered US leaders lessons in repurposing Britain’s history of “imperial policing” throughout the world. These lessons—their fundamental imperial logic—quickly undergirded America’s network of client states, which received US counterinsurgency training programs during the Cold War.

Of course, when it comes to terrorism, torture, and assassination, there isn’t much the CIA can teach Ukraine’s SBU (Security Service of Ukraine), which colludes with the ultranationalists.

“The Ukrainian security service known as the SBU has served as the main enforcer of the post-Maidan government’s campaign of domestic political repression,” write Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy.

Pro-Western monitors including the United Nations Office of the High Commission (UN OHCR) and Human Rights Watch have accused the SBU of systematically torturing political opponents and Ukrainian dissidents with near-total impunity…The UN OHCR found in 2016 that “arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment of such conflict-related detainees were common practice of SBU… A former Kharkiv SBU officer explained, ‘For the SBU, the law virtually does not exist as everything that is illegal can be either classified or explained by referring to state necessity.”

In short, for the CIA, it is a match made in heaven.

There are rumors of secret American-operated torture sites in Ukraine in addition to roving “death-squads” targeting Russian “collaborators,” such as the dead civilians in Bucha, shamelessly used by the Zelensky regime as war propaganda.

“A long list of missing and murdered people will one day emerge from the post-war period in Ukraine,” writes the Donbass Insider.

If some of you have doubts, know that on 5 March 2022, the SBU assassinated Denis Kireev in the street. He was a diplomat and a member of the Ukrainian delegation that met their Russian counterparts in Gomel, Belarus. He was for peace, but according to Ukraine he was a traitor. Far from the normal actions of civilized countries in Europe, the SBU murdered him…

The SBU, with the help of Bandera indoctrinated ultranationalists, will likely serve as the regime’s Einsatzgruppen, the paramilitary death squads of the Nazi SS. In the hope of driving Russia out of the Donbas and southeastern Ukraine with endless partisan attacks (reminiscent of Afghanistan), the SBU and its neo-Nazi battalions are preparing for a final ethnic cleansing.

On a final note, consider the emphasis lately placed on the Pentagon’s “127 Echo” program. It was implemented along with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, “which prioritizes near-peer adversaries like China and Russia,” according to the Military Times. “The 127 Echo program is rarely discussed, but it involves shifting a greater share of the burden of waging war onto local partners, while allowing Americans to retain operational control over missions.” (Emphasis added.)

It doesn’t take a degree in world history to realize, when all the evidence is examined, that the US and its CIA are preparing for the next phase following the inevitable Russian victory in Donbas and other ethnic-Russian areas of Ukraine.

Biden and his partners, with a bit of waffling by France’s Macron, are determined to “drag out” the war in Ukraine indefinitely, or at least until Russia falls (this is a delusional neocon dream), as the Soviet Union did soon after departing Afghanistan.

If the neocons indeed believe they can defeat Russia, first by supplying the corrupt regime in Kyiv with high-tech munitions, and then by arming, financing, and supporting a guerrilla-like “partisan” army against the “occupation,” they are dangerously delusional in addition to psychopathic.

*

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

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine Is Losing the War. What Is the Next Phase? The Planning of a Covert “Insurgent War” Against the Russians
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

John Mearsheimer is Honorary Professor of Political Science at the Higher School of International Relations. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Mr Mearsheimer is best known for developing the theory of offensive realism, which describes the interaction between great powers as primarily driven by a rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system.

The following speech was delivered by John Mearsheimer at the European University (EUI) in Florence on June 16. American political scientist John Mearsheimer in his international lecture states that the United States and NATO bear all the blame for the bloodshed in Ukraine. Here they are trying to defeat Russia and will not stop before the escalation of the conflict. “History will severely condemn the United States for its strikingly insane policy towards Ukraine,” the author concludes.

***

The war in Ukraine is a multifaceted catastrophe that is likely to get worse in the foreseeable future. When a war is successful, little attention is paid to its causes, but when its outcome becomes catastrophic, understanding how it happened becomes paramount. People want to know: how did we get into such a terrible situation?

I have witnessed this phenomenon twice in my life — first during the Vietnam War and then during the Iraq War. In both cases, Americans wanted to know how their country could have miscalculated so badly. Given that the United States and its NATO allies played a decisive role in the events that led to the military conflict in Ukraine, and are now playing a central role in this war, it is appropriate to assess the responsibility of the West for this colossal disaster.

Today I will give two main arguments.

First, the United States bears the main blame for the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis. This does not deny that Putin launched a military special operation in Ukraine, and he is also responsible for the actions that the Russian military is taking there. But this also does not deny that the allies also bear a certain share of the blame for Ukraine, although in the vast majority they simply blindly follow America in this conflict. My main contention is that the United States has pursued and is pursuing a policy towards Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders view as an existential threat to Russia. And they have repeatedly stated this over the years. I am especially referring to America’s obsession with dragging Ukraine into NATO and turning it into a stronghold of the West on the border with Russia. The Biden administration did not want to eliminate this threat with the help of diplomacy and in fact in 2021 confirmed the commitment of the United States to accept Ukraine into NATO. Putin responded with a military special operation in Ukraine, which began on February 24 this year.

Secondly, the Biden administration reacted to the start of the special operation by practically doubling its anti-Russian efforts. Washington and its Western allies are determined to achieve Russia’s defeat in Ukraine and apply all possible sanctions to significantly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict, which means that the war is likely to drag on for months, if not years. At the same time, Ukraine, which has already suffered terribly, will be even more damaged. In fact, the United States is helping Ukraine to follow the false path of imaginary “victories”, in fact, leading the country to complete collapse. In addition, there is also a danger of further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict, since NATO may be involved in it, and nuclear weapons may be used during hostilities. We live in times full of deadly dangers.

Let me now state my argument in more detail, starting with a description of the generally accepted ideas about the causes of the Ukrainian conflict.

Confused ideas of the West

There is a widespread strong belief in the West that Putin bears full responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine and, of course, for the ongoing hostilities on the territory of this country. They say that he has imperial ambitions, that is, he seeks to conquer Ukraine and other countries — and all this with the aim of creating a great Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first goal, but not his last. As one scientist put it, he “pursues a sinister and long-standing goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given these alleged goals of Putin, it is quite logical for Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and for the alliance to increase the number of its forces in Eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

However, it should be noted that although this narrative is repeated over and over again in the mainstream Western media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. And when supporters of this generally accepted point of view in the West try to represent them, it turns out that they have practically nothing to do with Putin’s motives for sending troops to Ukraine. For example, some emphasize Putin’s repeated words that Ukraine is an “artificial state” or not a “real state.” However, such opaque statements of his say nothing about the reason for his campaign in Ukraine. The same can be said about Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” with a common history. Others note that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” And that Putin also said: “The one who does not remember the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants him back has no brains.” Still others point to a speech in which he stated that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, more precisely, by Bolshevik, communist Russia.” But in the same speech, speaking about Ukraine’s independence today, Putin said: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least acknowledge them openly and honestly.”

To prove that Putin seeks to conquer the whole of Ukraine and annex it to Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that, firstly, he considers it a desirable goal, secondly, that he considers it an achievable goal, and, thirdly, that he intends to pursue this goal. However, there is no evidence in public sources that Putin was going to, and even more so intended to end Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he launched a special operation in Ukraine on February 24.

In fact, everything is just the opposite. There is strong evidence that Putin recognizes Ukraine as an independent country. In his article on Russian-Ukrainian relations dated July 12, 2021, which supporters of the popular opinion in the West often refer to as evidence of his imperial ambitions, he tells the Ukrainian people: “Do you want to create your own state? We only welcome it!”. And as for how Russia should treat Ukraine, he writes: “There is only one answer: with respect.” And Putin ends this long article with the following words: “And what Ukraine will be like is up to its citizens to decide.” It is difficult to reconcile these statements with statements in the West that he wants to include Ukraine in the “greater Russia”.

In the same article dated July 12, 2021, and again in an important speech delivered by him on February 21 of this year, Putin stressed that Russia accepts “the new geopolitical reality that has developed after the collapse of the USSR.” He repeated this for the third time on February 24, when he announced that Russia was launching its military special operation in Ukraine. In particular, he stated that “the occupation of Ukrainian territory is not part of our plans,” and made it clear that he respects the sovereignty of Ukraine, but only up to a certain point: “Russia cannot feel safe, develop and exist, being under constant threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.” In fact, this suggests that Putin is not interested in Ukraine becoming part of Russia. He is interested in ensuring that it does not become a “springboard” for Western aggression against Russia, which I will tell you more about later.

One could argue that Putin, they say, is lying about his motives, that he is trying to disguise his imperial ambitions. It just so happened that I once wrote a book about lies in international politics — “Why Leaders Lie: the Truth about Lies in International Politics” — and it is clear to me that Putin is not lying. First of all, one of my main conclusions is that leaders don’t lie to each other often, they lie to their public more often. As for Putin, no matter what people think about him, there is no evidence in history that he ever lied to other leaders. Although some claim that he often lies and cannot be trusted, there is little evidence that he lied to a foreign audience. Moreover, over the past two years, he has repeatedly publicly expressed his thoughts about Ukraine and constantly stressed that his main concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially with NATO. He has never hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. If such behavior is part of a giant deception campaign, then it has no precedent in history.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not seeking to conquer and absorb Ukraine is the military strategy that Moscow has used from the very beginning of its special operation. The Russian army did not try to conquer the whole of Ukraine. This would require a classic blitzkrieg strategy aimed at quickly capturing the entire territory of the country by armored forces with the support of tactical aviation. This strategy, however, was not feasible because the Russian army, which launched the special operation, had only 190,000 soldiers, which is too small to occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population of more than 40 million people. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a strategy of limited goals that focused on creating a threat to capture Kiev, but mainly on conquering a significant part of the territory in the east and south of Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the opportunity to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, not to mention other Eastern European countries.

As noted by Ramzi Mardini (a well-known American political scientist, senior researcher at the influential American Institute of Peace, professor at the University of Chicago – Approx. Another indicator of Putin‘s limited goals is the lack of evidence that Russia was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, nurtured pro-Russian leaders in Kiev, or took any political measures that would allow it to occupy the entire country and, eventually, integrate it into Russia.

If we develop this argument, it should be noted that Putin and other Russian leaders probably understood from the experience of the Cold War that the occupation of countries in the era of nationalism is invariably a recipe for endless problems. The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is a vivid example of this, but Moscow’s relations with its allies in Eastern Europe are more relevant to this issue. The Soviet Union maintained a huge military presence in the region and was involved in the politics of almost every country located there. However, these allies were often a thorn in Moscow’s side. The Soviet Union suppressed a major uprising in East Germany in 1953, and then invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to keep them in its orbit. Serious troubles arose in the USSR and in Poland: in 1956, 1970 and again in 1980-1981. Although the Polish authorities solved these problems themselves, they served as a reminder that Soviet intervention may be necessary at times. Albania, Romania, and Yugoslavia usually caused trouble for Moscow, but Soviet leaders tended to put up with their “bad” behavior because their geographical location made them less important to deter NATO.

And what about modern Ukraine? From Putin’s article of July 12, 2021, it is clear that he then understood that Ukrainian nationalism is a powerful force and that the civil war in the Donbas, which has been going on since 2014, has largely poisoned relations between Russia and Ukraine. He, of course, knew that the Russian army would not be welcomed by Ukrainians with open arms and that it would be a “Herculean” task for Russia to subdue Ukraine, even if it had the forces necessary to conquer the whole country, which Moscow did not have.

Finally, it is worth noting that hardly anyone claimed that Putin had imperial ambitions from the moment he took the reins of power in 2000 until the Ukrainian crisis first broke out on February 22, 2014. Moreover, it is worth remembering that the Russian leader was a guest at the NATO summit in April 2008 in Bucharest, where the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become its members. Putin’s criticism of this statement had almost no effect on Washington, because Russia was considered too weak to stop further expansion of NATO, just as it was too weak to stop the waves of expansion of the alliance in 1999 and 2004.

In this regard, it is important to note that the expansion of NATO until February 2014 was not aimed at deterring Russia. Given the deplorable state of Russian military power at that time, Moscow was unable to pursue an “imperial” policy in Eastern Europe. Tellingly, even former US Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul notes that Putin’s seizure of Crimea was not planned before the “Maidan” crisis broke out in 2014. It was Putin’s impulsive reaction to the coup that overthrew the pro-Russian leader of Ukraine. In short, the expansion of NATO was not yet intended to contain the Russian threat, but was part of a broader policy of extending the liberal international order to Eastern Europe and turning the entire continent into a “Western” Europe.

It was only when the Maidan crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began calling Putin a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions, and Russia a serious military threat that must be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was intended to serve one important purpose: to allow the West to blame Putin for unleashing unrest in Ukraine. And now that that long-standing crisis has turned into a full-scale war, the West needs to make sure that Putin alone is blamed for this catastrophic turn of events. This “blame game” explains why Putin is now widely portrayed in the West as an “imperialist”, although there is practically no evidence to support this point of view.

Let me now turn to the real cause of the Ukrainian crisis.

The real cause of the troubles

The main root of the current crisis in Ukraine is the efforts of the United States aimed at turning this country into a stronghold of the West on the borders of Russia. This strategy has three directions: Ukraine’s integration into the EU, Ukraine’s transformation into a pro-Western liberal democracy and, most importantly, Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO. The strategy was put into action at the annual NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, when the alliance announced that Ukraine and Georgia would “become its members.” Russian leaders immediately reacted with outrage, making it clear that they view this decision as an existential threat and do not intend to allow any country to join NATO. According to a respected Russian journalist, Putin “flew into a rage” and warned that “if Ukraine joins NATO, it will be without Crimea and many of its eastern regions. It’s just going to fall apart.”

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, and during the Bucharest NATO summit was the US ambassador to Moscow, wrote a memo to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in which he succinctly describes Russia’s views on this issue. According to him: “Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the most contrasting of all red lines for the Russian elite (and not just for Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from patriots in the dark corners of the Kremlin to the harshest liberal critics of Putin, I have not found anyone who would consider Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge. interests of Russia”. According to him, NATO “will be considered… as a military structure throwing down a strategic gauntlet to Moscow. And today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will simply freeze… This will create fertile ground for Russian interference in the affairs of Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

Burns, of course, was not the only politician who understood that Ukraine’s accession to NATO was fraught with danger. Indeed, at the Bucharest summit, both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy opposed the promotion of Ukraine’s membership in NATO, because they understood that this would cause alarm and anger of Russia. Merkel recently explained her disagreement at the time as follows: “I was absolutely sure… that Putin just won’t allow it. From his point of view, it would be a declaration of war.”

The Bush administration, however, cared little about Moscow’s “most contrasting red lines,” and pressured the leaders of France and Germany to agree to make a public statement that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join the alliance.

Unsurprisingly, US—led efforts to integrate Georgia into NATO led to a war between Georgia and Russia in August 2008 – four months after the Bucharest summit. Nevertheless, the United States and its allies continued to advance their plans to turn Ukraine into a bastion of the West on the borders of Russia. These efforts eventually triggered a major crisis in February 2014, after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev forced Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country. He was replaced by pro-American Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk. In response, Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine and helped ignite a civil war between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian government in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine.

One can often hear the argument that in the eight years between the beginning of the crisis in February 2014 and the beginning of the war in February 2022, the United States and its allies paid little attention to Ukraine’s entry into NATO. They say that de facto this issue was removed from discussion, and, thus, the expansion of NATO could not be a serious reason for the escalation of the crisis in 2021 and the subsequent start of the Russian special operation at the beginning of this year. This argument is false. In fact, the West’s reaction to the events of 2014 was to redouble its efforts in the current strategy and bring Ukraine even closer to NATO. The Alliance began training the Ukrainian military in 2014, annually training 10,000 AFU servicemen over the next eight years. In December 2017, the Trump administration decided to provide Kiev with “defensive weapons”. Soon other NATO countries joined in, supplying Ukraine with even more weapons.

The Ukrainian military began participating in joint military exercises with NATO forces. In July 2021, Kiev and Washington jointly conducted Operation Sea Breeze, a naval exercise in the Black Sea in which the naval forces of 31 countries participated and which were directly targeted at Russia. Two months later, in September 2021, the Ukrainian army led Rapid Trident 21 exercises, which the US Army described as “annual exercises aimed at improving interoperability between allied and partner countries to demonstrate the readiness of units to respond to any crisis.” NATO’s efforts to arm and train the Ukrainian armed forces largely explain why the Ukrainian Armed Forces put up such strong resistance to the Russian armed forces at the initial stages of the special operation. As the headline of The Wall Street Journal read at the beginning of the special operation: “The Secret of Ukraine’s Military Success: Years of training in NATO” (the article appeared in The WSJ on April 13, 2022, The Wall Street Journal “The Secret of Ukraine’s Military Success: Years of NATO Training”, followed by the crushing defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Mariupol, Kherson and Severodonetsk — Approx. InoSMI).

In addition to NATO’s ongoing efforts to transform the Ukrainian armed forces into a more formidable fighting force, the policy related to Ukraine’s membership in NATO and its integration into the West has changed in 2021. Both in Kiev and in Washington, enthusiasm for achieving these goals has been revived. President Zelensky, who has never shown much zeal for Ukraine’s accession to NATO and was elected in March 2019 on a platform calling for cooperation with Russia to resolve the ongoing crisis, changed course in early 2021 and not only decided to expand NATO, but also took a tough stance towards Moscow. He has taken a number of actions, including shutting down pro-Russian TV channels and accusing a close friend of Putin of treason, which must have angered Moscow.

President Biden, who moved to the White House in January 2021, has long been committed to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, and has also been very aggressive towards Russia. It is not surprising that on June 14, 2021, at its annual summit in Brussels, NATO issued the following communique:

“We confirm the decision taken at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process. We confirm all elements of this decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be evaluated on its own merits. We firmly support Ukraine’s right to independently determine its future and the course of foreign policy without outside interference.”

On September 1, 2021, Zelensky visited the White House, where Biden made it clear that the United States was “firmly committed” to Ukraine’s “Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” Then, on November 10, 2021, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his Ukrainian counterpart Dmitry Kuleba signed an important document — the Charter on Strategic Partnership between the United States and Ukraine. The goal of both sides, the document says, is to “emphasize… Ukraine’s commitment to carrying out deep and comprehensive reforms necessary for full integration into European and Euro-Atlantic institutions.” This document is clearly based not only on the “commitments to strengthen the relations of strategic partnership between Ukraine and the United States, proclaimed by Presidents Zelensky and Biden,” but also confirms the commitment of the United States to the “Declaration of the Bucharest Summit of 2008.”

In short, few doubt that since the beginning of 2021, Ukraine has begun to move rapidly towards joining NATO. Nevertheless, some defenders of this policy argue that Moscow should not have worried, since “NATO is a defensive alliance and does not pose a threat to Russia.” But that’s not how Putin and other Russian leaders think about NATO, and what matters is exactly what they think. There is no doubt that Ukraine’s accession to NATO remained for Moscow “the most contrasting and dangerous red line.”

To counter this growing threat, Putin deployed an increasing number of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine between February 2021 and February 2022. His goal was to force Biden and Zelensky to change course and stop their efforts to integrate Ukraine into the West. On December 17, 2021, Moscow sent separate letters to the Biden administration and NATO demanding written guarantees that: 1) Ukraine will not join NATO, 2) offensive weapons will not be deployed near Russia’s borders, 3) NATO troops and military equipment moved to Eastern Europe since 1997 will be returned to Western Europe.

During this period, Putin made numerous public statements that left no doubt that he viewed NATO’s expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat. Speaking at the board of the Ministry of Defense on December 21, 2021, he said: “What they are doing, trying or planning to do in Ukraine does not happen thousands of kilometers from our national border. This is happening on our doorstep. They need to understand that we simply have nowhere to retreat further. Do they really think we don’t see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly by, watching the growing threats to Russia?” Two months later, at a press conference on February 22, 2022, just a few days before the start of the special operation, Putin said: “We are categorically against Ukraine joining NATO, because it poses a threat to us, and we have arguments in support of this. I have repeatedly said this in this Hall.” Then he made it clear that he believes that Ukraine is already becoming a de facto member of NATO. According to Putin, the United States and its allies “continue to pump the current Kiev authorities with modern types of weapons.” He further said that if this is not stopped, Moscow “will be left alone with an Anti-Russia armed to the teeth.” This is completely unacceptable.”

Putin’s logic should be perfectly clear to Americans, who have long been committed to the Monroe doctrine, according to which no even distant great power is allowed to deploy any of its armed forces in the Western Hemisphere.

I could point out that in all of Putin’s public statements during the months preceding the special operation, there is not the slightest evidence that he was going to seize Ukraine and make it part of Russia, not to mention attacking other countries in Eastern Europe. Other Russian leaders, including the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Russian Ambassador to Washington, also stressed the key role of NATO expansion in the emergence of the Ukrainian crisis. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it succinctly at a press conference on January 14, 2022, when he said: “The key to everything is to guarantee that NATO will not expand to the east.”

Nevertheless, attempts by Lavrov and Putin to force the United States and its allies to abandon attempts to turn Ukraine into a stronghold of the West on the border with Russia have completely failed. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken responded to Russia’s demands in mid-December by simply saying, “No change. There will be no changes.” Then Putin launched a special operation in Ukraine to eliminate the threat he saw from NATO.

Where are we now and where are we going?

Military operations in Ukraine have been raging for almost four months. Now I would like to offer some observations about what has happened so far and where the war may go. I will focus on three specific issues: 1) the consequences of the war for Ukraine, 2) prospects for escalation — including nuclear escalation, 3) prospects for the end of the war in the foreseeable future.

This war is a real catastrophe for Ukraine. As I noted earlier, Putin made it clear in 2008 that Russia would destroy Ukraine to prevent it from joining NATO. He fulfills that promise. Russian troops have captured 20% of Ukrainian territory and destroyed or severely damaged many Ukrainian cities and towns. More than 6.5 million Ukrainians have left the country, and more than 8 million have become internally displaced persons. Many thousands of Ukrainians, including innocent civilians, have been killed or seriously injured, and the Ukrainian economy is in deep crisis. According to World Bank estimates, Ukraine’s economy will shrink by almost 50% during 2022. According to experts, Ukraine has been damaged by about $ 100 billion, and it will take about a trillion dollars to restore the economy. country. Now Kiev needs about $5 billion in aid every month just to keep the government working.

It seems that there is little hope now that Ukraine will be able to restore the use of ports on the Azov and Black Seas in the near future. Before the war, approximately 70% of all Ukrainian exports and imports and 98% of grain exports passed through these ports. This is the current situation after less than 4 months of fighting. It’s scary to even imagine what Ukraine will be like if this war drags on for several more years.

So, what are the prospects for concluding a peace agreement and ending the war in the next few months? Unfortunately, I personally do not see the possibility that this war will end in the near future. And this view is shared by prominent politicians such as General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The main reason for my pessimism is that both Russia and the United States are deeply committed to the goal of winning the war, and it is impossible to achieve an agreement in which both sides would win now. More specifically, the key to the settlement from Russia’s point of view is the transformation of Ukraine into a neutral state, which will put an end to the prospect of Kiev’s integration with the West. But such an outcome is unacceptable for the Biden administration and a significant part of the American foreign policy establishment, because it would mean a victory for Russia.

The Ukrainian leaders, of course, have a certain freedom of action, and one can hope that they could adopt neutrality in order to save their country from further destruction. Indeed, Zelensky briefly mentioned this possibility in the first days of the special operation, but he never seriously developed this idea. However, it is unlikely that Kiev will be able to accept neutrality, because the ultranationalists in Ukraine, who have significant political power, are not interested in yielding to at least any Russian demand, especially one that dictates Ukraine’s political orientation in relations with the outside world. The Biden administration and countries on the eastern flank of NATO, such as Poland and the Baltic states, are likely to support Ukrainian ultranationalists on this issue.

Significantly complicating the situation is the question of what to do with large areas of Ukrainian territory that Russia has conquered since the beginning of the war, as well as what to do with Crimea? It is difficult to imagine that Moscow would voluntarily give up any of the Ukrainian territories that it now occupies, and even more so from the entire conquered part of Ukraine, since Putin’s current territorial goals are probably different from those he pursued before the start of the special operation. At the same time, it is equally difficult to imagine that any Ukrainian leader would agree to a deal allowing Russia to retain any Ukrainian territory, with the possible exception of Crimea. I hope I am wrong, but it is precisely for these reasons that I do not see an end to this destructive military conflict.

Now let me turn to the question of its possible escalation. It is widely recognized among international scholars that there is a strong tendency to escalate protracted wars. Over time, other countries are usually involved in the struggle, and the level of violence increases. The probability that this will happen in the war in Ukraine is real. There is a danger that the United States and its NATO allies will be drawn into hostilities, which they have so far managed to avoid, although in fact they are already waging an indirect proxy war against Russia. There is also the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used in Ukraine, which could even lead to an exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the United States. The main reason why this can happen is that the stakes in the Ukrainian conflict in its global refraction have turned out to be so high for both sides that neither of them can afford to lose.

As I have already stressed, Putin and his aides believe that Ukraine’s accession to the West represents an existential threat to Russia that needs to be eliminated. In practice, this means that Russia must win the war in Ukraine. Defeat is unacceptable for Moscow. The Biden administration, on the other hand, stressed that its goal is not only to inflict a decisive defeat on Russia in Ukraine, but also to inflict enormous damage to the Russian economy with the help of sanctions. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin stressed that the West’s goal is to weaken Russia to such an extent that it cannot re—enter Ukraine. In fact, the Biden administration is trying to knock Russia out of the great powers. President Biden himself called Russia’s war in Ukraine “genocide” and accused Putin of being a “war criminal” who, after the war, should be tried for “war crimes.” Such rhetoric is hardly suitable for negotiations on ending the war. After all, how to negotiate with a State that is carrying out genocide?

American policy has two important consequences. First, it significantly increases the existential threat that Moscow faces in this war, and makes its victory in Ukraine more important than ever. At the same time, this US policy means that the United States is deeply committed to Russia losing. The Biden administration has now invested so much in its proxy war in Ukraine – both materially and rhetorically — that a Russian victory would mean a crushing defeat for Washington.

Obviously, both sides cannot win at the same time. Moreover, there is a serious possibility that one of the parties will soon start losing heavily. If the American policy succeeds and the Russians lose to the Ukrainians on the battlefield, Putin may resort to nuclear weapons to save the situation. In May, US Director of National Intelligence Evril Haines told the Senate Armed Services Committee that this is one of two situations that could lead to Putin using nuclear weapons in Ukraine. For those of you who think this is unlikely, remember that NATO planned to use nuclear weapons in similar circumstances during the Cold War. It is impossible to predict now how the Biden administration would react if Russia used nuclear weapons in Ukraine. But one thing is for sure: Washington will be under great pressure and tempted to reciprocate with Russia, which will increase the likelihood of a nuclear war between the two great powers. There is a perverse paradox here: the more successful the United States and its allies are in achieving their goals, the more likely it will be that the war will become nuclear.

Let’s turn the playing table and ask what happens if it turns out that the United States and its NATO allies are heading for defeat, what happens if the Russians defeat the Ukrainian army, and the government in Kiev negotiates a peace agreement designed to save as much of the remaining part of Ukraine as possible. In this case, the United States and its allies will be tempted to take an even more active part in the fighting. It is unlikely, but it is quite possible that American or maybe Polish troops will be involved in hostilities, which means that NATO will be at war with Russia in the literal sense of the word. According to Evril Haines, this is another scenario in which the Russians can turn to nuclear weapons. It is difficult to say exactly how events will develop if this scenario is implemented, but there is no doubt that there is a serious potential for escalation, including nuclear escalation. The very possibility of such an outcome should give us all goosebumps.

This war is likely to have other disastrous consequences, which I cannot discuss in detail due to lack of time. For example, there is reason to believe that the war will lead to a global food crisis in which many millions of people will die. World Bank President David Malpass claims that if the war in Ukraine continues, we will face a global food crisis that will become a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

In addition, relations between Russia and the West are so badly poisoned that it will take years to restore them. And this deep hostility will fuel instability around the world, but especially in Europe. Someone will say that there is a silver lining: relations between countries in the West have improved markedly due to the conflict in Ukraine. But this is only true for the moment. Even now, there are deep cracks under the surface of the external Western unity, and over time they will very urgently and painfully declare themselves. For example, relations between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe are likely to deteriorate as the war drags on, since their interests and views on the conflict do not coincide.

Finally, the conflict is already causing serious damage to the global economy, and over time this situation is likely to seriously worsen. Jamie Diamond, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, says we should prepare for an economic “hurricane.” If he is right, then the current economic turmoil will affect the politics of every Western country, undermine liberal democracy and strengthen its opponents both on the left and on the right. The economic consequences of the Ukrainian conflict will affect the countries of the whole planet, not just the West. According to a UN report published last week, “the consequences of the conflict will spread human suffering far beyond its borders. The war in all its aspects has exacerbated a global crisis unprecedented at least for the current generation, endangering lives, livelihoods and our aspirations for a better world in the 2030s.”

Conclusion

Simply put, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is a colossal catastrophe, which, as I noted at the beginning of my speech, will force people all over the world to look for its causes. Those who believe in facts and logic will quickly discover that the United States and its allies are primarily responsible for this derailment of our common train. The decision taken in April 2008 on the accession of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO was destined to lead to a conflict with Russia. The Bush administration was the main architect of this fateful choice, but the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations intensified and aggravated this policy at every turn, and America’s allies obediently followed Washington. Despite the fact that Russian leaders made it abundantly clear that Ukraine’s accession to NATO would mean crossing Russia’s “most contrasting of red lines,” the United States refused to come to terms with Russia’s deep security concerns and instead moved tirelessly to turn Ukraine into a western bastion on the border with Russia.

The tragic truth is that if the West had not sought to expand NATO into Ukraine, it is unlikely that a war would have raged in Ukraine today, and Crimea would most likely still be part of Ukraine. In fact, Washington has played a central role in leading Ukraine down the path of destruction. History will severely condemn the United States and its allies for their strikingly stupid policy towards Ukraine.

Thanks.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT: 

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Two summits in a row, those of the G7 and NATO, show that the West is deploying all its weapons – military, political, economic – to maintain the dominance it is losing in a world that is becoming increasingly multipolar, as evidenced by the growing development of the BRICS: the economic organization that brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, which Iran, Argentina and other countries want to join.

In Ukraine, while the G7 provides Kiev with $30 billion, NATO provides it with increasing amounts of weapons against Russia. NATO’s role is not just that, however: Pentagon officials, interviewed by the New York Times, confirm for the first time, with precise facts, that the command and management of military operations in Ukraine are in the hands of the Pentagon and NATO.

The NATO Summit approved the new Strategic Concept, which calls Russia “the most significant threat to Allied security” and states that “strategic competition is increasing around the world.” In the new Strategic Concept, NATO speaks explicitly about China for the first time, declaring that “China’s coercive policies challenge our interests, our security and our values.”

We are facing a single strategy of war that the West implements from Europe to East Asia. While in Europe NATO under U.S. command expands from 30 to 32 countries, including Sweden and Finland, even closer to Russia, in Asia and the Pacific the U.S. military deployment grows, supported mainly by Australia and Japan. The world’s largest naval exercise under U.S. command is taking place in the Pacific against China.

All this costs money and we are always the ones paying for it. According to official NATO data, Italian military spending rises to about 29 billion euros in 2022, equivalent to 80 million euros per day. The sharpest increase occurred during the lockdown period: from 21 billion in 2019 it rose to over 26 billion in 2020 and over 28 billion in 2021. NATO, however, warns, “Doing more will cost more.”

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on West Closes Ranks for Battle with Russia: US-NATO, G7 “Deploys All Its Weapons” to Maintain World Dominance
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Peter Navarro, 73 years old, was Assistant to the President for Trade and Manufacturing Policy during the Trump administration. I do not know him.  

Last February the Democrats subpoenaed him to appear before the Democrats’ “Select Committee on the January 6 Attack,” a show trial operation trying to invent an “insurrection” by people who took selfies sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair.

As Trump had declared executive privilege, Navarro simply observed the president’s right and refused to appear.

There is nothing unusual about this. It has been happening forever.  Personally I do not know if executive privilege is a good idea, but it is a fact.

It is what happened to Navarro that is unprecedented.  In early June five armed FBI agents grabbed him as he was boarding a flight to Tennessee, handcuffed him, put him in leg irons and placed him in solitary confinement.  

This is not normal procedure on the part of the FBI.  This is pure Gestapo procedure.  It reminds me of the early years of Nazi Germany.  Courts would dismiss false charges against political opponents, but as the vindicated person walked out of the courthouse he was seized by the Gestapo and imprisoned regardless.

The normal procedure is to resolve the issue with a request for a waiver of executive privilege or to put the matter in the hands of the courts.  But instead of normal, legal procedure, a former Assistant to the President of the United States received Gestapo treatment.

Every American should be shocked at this, but they are not.  Democrats think it is wonderful that “an evil, racist Trump administration member” got his deserving comeuppance. The presstitutes see nothing amiss.  Apparently, the ACLU is too busy creating transgender rights to worry about the Constitution.  Republicans, including Trump, have treated Julian Assange worse than the Democrats have treated Navarro.  

In other words, everything is so politicized that there is no room for the Constitution.  

In many countries being in politics is a ticket to jail.  The arrest of former presidents by their political opponents is a South American tradition.  It is a tradition that Democrats and the FBI have brought to America.

The Democrats have built divisiveness into America with their identity politics, critical race theory, and open borders policy, and they have corrupted the Department of Justice and turned in into a political weapon.  The Democrats have rung the death knell for the “land of the free.” 

July 4th flag waving cannot restore our liberty.  Americans, of course, will stick their heads in the sand and go into denial, as they always do when faced with uncomfortable facts about their country.  Consequently, nothing will be done to stop the Nazification of America.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to 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).

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

There is a slow-motion buildup to a hot war with Russia happening.  The NATO and western alliance motive for the war is clear {Go Deep}.  The question is rapidly moving from “if” to “when.”

In this outline we will update on the troop and military movements and then explain why the war with Russia is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.  In many ways this will be the “Climate Change War,” you will see why below.

First, the U.S. is moving troops from the 101st Airborne ‘screaming eagles’ into NATO allied countries on the western border of Ukraine. This is the first deployment of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Europe in 80 years.  As noted by base reporting, “Elements of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and 101st Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion, 101st Airborne Division, have been assigned to carry out the mission.” [source]

“We’re going to check the Russian influence and we’re going to impact the Russians’ decision-making for probably the next 10-20 years,” said Col. John Lubas, deputy commanding officer for operations, 101st Airborne Division, in a pre-deployment briefing. “We’re going to do this with all our partners in NATO, the European Union and the West, and this is an incredibly important mission.”

Maj. Gen. JP McGee, commanding general, 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, said the division has been in an increased readiness posture for several months and is just as prepared now as during World War II.

“Since D-Day, June 6, 1944, this division has repeatedly answered the nation’s call in every major conflict,” McGee said. “The Screaming Eagles of today are ready to support our allies to preserve the long-lasting stability in Europe that our predecessors fought and died to secure.” (link)

Second, Joe Biden has announced that six U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are being moved into the Mediterranean Sea to provide air defense missions and the ability to launch cruise missiles well inland into Russia [source].

As noted in a press conference by Biden, “here in Spain, we’re going to work with our Ally to increase U.S. Navy destroyers stationed in Spain’s Rota Naval Base from three to — from four to six — four to six destroyers.”

According to Joe Biden

“In Poland, we’re going to establish a permanent headquarters for the U.S. Army Fifth Corps and — strengthening our U.S.-NATO interoperability across the entire eastern flank.

We’re going to maintain additional rotational Brigade — which is 3,000 fighters and another 2,000 personnel — Combat Team here in Europe, headquartered in Romania. And we’re going to enhance our rotational deployments in — deployments in the Baltic states. (link)

Third, Joe Biden is sending “two additional F-35 squadrons to the UK, and station additional air defense and other capabilities in Germany and in Italy.” [source] This is not a defensive posture.  This is an offensive buildup of U.S. troops across the broad western border of Ukraine and a positioning of advanced first-strike elements in proximity to Russia.

This large NATO footprint posture, of which the United States is the predominant military force, has little to do with Ukraine and almost nothing to do with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

As noted by the New York Times last weekend [source], the CIA, State Dept. and Pentagon special forces are operating in Kyiv and organizing the military conflict against Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.

War with Russia is moving from “if” to “when”, and here’s how we know it is almost certain.

The NATO and western alliance that is currently engaging in the military buildup against Russia is the exact same alliance of governments’ who are chasing the climate change agenda at all costs.

I know it sounds outlandish, but the World Economic Forum multinational corporations that influence and manipulate geopolitical politics are the driving force for this needed war with Russia.  Their holy grail of Climate Change policy, and the massive shift in global economic power that comes with executing the climate change agenda, is so consequential to the geopolitical world that such a massive move is needed.

More specifically, we already know there is going to be a global food shortage as a result of the new world order energy policy that underpins the Build Back Better agenda.  We do not know the extent of the food deficit; however, we do know less food, perhaps much less food, is going to be available on a global basis.

We also know the majority voices, including the United States, within the NATO alliance have decided it is more important to follow the climate change policy than it is to feed people. [Africa Example]  The U.K and Germany proposed trying to avoid further conflict by generating more food [source].  The U.S. and Canada have blocked the effort saying that maintaining the shift toward new western energy development is more important.

Maintaining the development of a new western energy system to drive economic activity is more urgent and important than the looming crisis of global famine.  Accepting that reality, understanding the priorities as outlined, are the keys to understanding why the western alliance need the war with Russia {GO DEEP}.

I cannot emphasize this enough.  If you do not accept the scale, scope and severity of the collective west’s entrenched commitment to climate change, you will be caught off-guard and not understand what is coming.

NATO and Western Governments, led by the policy of Joe Biden, have placed oil and gas sanctions against Russia. Those U.S-led Russian energy sanctions follow similar sanctions already in place against oil and gas from Iran and Venezuela.

Simultaneously the G7, Western Alliance will not allow Africa to develop their own use of natural gas to produce fertilizer to increase crop yield/harvest. [source] The G7 control food production in Africa by controlling the energy company investment needed to manufacture fertilizer. Again, as with the biofuel issue [source], the G7 and Western Alliance are prioritizing Climate Change energy policy over food production. Which will ultimately cause food shortages and famine.

However, within this forecast dynamic, now the “WEST” has an ideological problem. Sooner or later the issues will surface with massive interest. People around the world will figure this out.

The absence of food will change things.

People in all parts of the world will eventually get angry once they realize the absence of food is being caused by Western Govt prioritizing Climate Change over people.

Things will get intense. Things will get ugly. The Western “leaders” need a scapegoat, a way to focus the world’s anger away from them… and toward something else. Their advanced narrative messaging has already surfaced in the words of National Security Coordinator for Strategic Communication, John Kirby:

“President Putin is, no kidding, weaponizing food. Let’s just call it what it is: He’s weaponizing food. He’s got an essential blockade there in the Black Sea so that nothing can leave by sea — and that’s, of course, how Ukraine has historically gotten its grain to markets.” [source]

It is not coincidental that John Kirby was moved from Pentagon spokesperson to NSC strategic communications at the White House.  Kirby’s prior move into the White House is as much related to what is coming as the 101st Airborne deployment today.

Notice how the looming shortage of food is being blamed on Russian President Vladimir Putin.  “He’s weaponizing food,” Kirby repeats, this is a significant and telling advance narrative.  What Kirby is outlining is the western government justification for the upcoming war against Russia.

The collective western leaders, positioned by the NATO talking points, are going to justify war against Russia as a needed fight to stop the global food crisis from worsening.  They will claim it is Russian President Vladimir Putin who has disrupted the world energy production.

NATO and the western alliance will claim Putin is the reason why food fertilizer is in short supply.  NATO will claim that Putin’s war in Ukraine is the source of the global energy, food and subsequent economic crisis.  Just like Putin has been blamed for higher energy and gasoline prices, so too will Putin be blamed for starving millions of people.

The war against Russia will be justified as the war to stop Putin from creating mass starvation.   If you cannot see how this is being constructed through all of the sub-links, citations and sources above, I cannot lay this out more clearly.

A NATO and western alliance war with Russia is not a matter of “if“, it is now a question of when?

*

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

Featured image is from TLR

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deafening Drumbeats for War: Biden Sends More U.S. Troops to Ukraine Border, 101st Airborne Deployed, Six Destroyers to Mediterranean, F-35 Squadrons to U.K.
  • Tags: , , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A major loan was approved this week for an industrial food producer operating in Brazil, despite outcries from conservation groups and international shareholders worried that the money would ultimately fund activities that contribute to deforestation.

The $200 million loan was granted to industrial agricultural producer Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC) for monoculture soy and corn production in Brazil’s Cerrado, a grassland biome that has lost nearly 80% of its habitat cover.

“This is going to perpetuate environmental destruction in Brazil,” Kari Hamerschlag, Deputy Director of Food and Agriculture at Friends of the Earth, told Mongabay. “This company doesn’t need development funds. The money should be going towards enterprises that truly promote equitable development.”

The loan will bolster LDC’s operations in Mato Grosso, Goias and Minas Gerais, three states that have already felt the negative impacts of industrial agriculture. Corn, soy and cattle ranching have been connected to a long list of human rights violations — including forced labor, land grabbing and violence against Indigenous and traditional communities — while accelerating deforestation and greenhouse gas emission rates.

The most recent example of LDC controversy involves a report released last week from Reporter Brasil, which found that one of LDC’s suppliers, Agrícola Xingu, has been responsible for furthering land conflicts in western Bahia and deforesting more than 32,100 hectares (79,320 acres) in the Cerrado. Conservation groups are worried that the loan will result in similar problems.

“This project fails to take into account the concerns of locally affected community members and stakeholders, in a region troubled with land conflicts and significant environmental, human health, and labor rights concerns,” said a May 31 letter protesting the loan, which was signed by over 235 civil society and conservation organizations across the globe.

But LDC maintains that the loan will be sustainably responsible. The company recently announced its commitment to eliminate deforestation and the conversion of native vegetation for agricultural purposes by 2025. Operations funded by the loan are supposed to adhere to a “soy sustainability” policy, in which the company is obligated to collaborate with shareholders to ensure the soy supply chain isn’t contributing to deforestation, according to the loan disclosure.

Work funded by the loan will economically benefit farmers, the disclosure said, while providing them incentives to work towards zero-deforestation and conservation goals.

“LDC operates in strict compliance with all applicable laws and regulations globally, in line with our unwavering commitment to operate safely, reliably and safeguarding our planet’s finite resources,” it said in a statement to Mongabay.

The loan was granted by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a sister organization of the World Bank that’s tasked with private sector finance in developing countries. The corporation, like many multilateral development banks, has pledged to align its activity with the Paris Climate Agreement by 2023.

However, it has continued to invest in global industrial agriculture with connections to deforestation and human rights violations. Over the last decade, it has granted over $2 billion in loans to these sectors.

“We combine investments and advisory services to help the sector address higher demand and escalating food prices in an environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive way,” an IFC spokesman told Mongabay in an email. “The proposed project with LDC will support a portfolio of eligible soy and corn farmers in Brazil that are committed to zero deforestation and conversion of native vegetation.”

The loan will bolster LDC’s operations in states that have already felt the negative impacts of industrial agriculture. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

The loan was voted on Tuesday by the executive directors of the IFC, each of whom represent one or more countries with a stake in the World Bank. The vote count wasn’t immediately available following the announcement of the results.

The United States is a 20% shareholder of the World Bank, the largest of any country. A representative for the country declined a request for comment. Several other countries referred Mongabay to an IFC spokesperson.

Friends of the Earth and other civil society organizations wrote to and met with several executive directors ahead of the vote, trying to convince them to postpone the loan’s approval until more thorough environmental impact studies could be carried out. The groups claim that IFC is not following its “performance standard” policies in preparing the loan.

The strategy of writing to and meeting with shareholders looked promising weeks ahead of the vote. A similar approach was successful earlier this year, when the Inter-American Development Bank was pressured into permanently shelving a $200 million loan to Marfrig Global Foods, a Brazilian beef giant accused of furthering deforestation in the Amazon.

This time, while many executive directors expressed concern about the environmental and human rights implications of the IFC loan behind closed doors, it ultimately wasn’t enough to change the outcome. Three chairs — the Dutch, Nordic and Chinese — reportedly abstained on the vote. No office objected, according to Friends of the Earth.

“I am deeply disappointed that the U.S. government, the IFC’s largest shareholder, voted to approve this terrible loan and did not do more to hold IFC management accountable for upholding their own policies and mandates,” Hamerschlag said.

*

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

Featured image: Work funded by the loan will economically benefit farmers, the disclosure said. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia)

US Provokes Tensions Between EU and China Over Taiwan

July 4th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It is a common practice in American foreign policy to provoke divisions, frictions, and tensions in the global scenario so that strategic alliances between different poles are avoided, which favors the existence of a world hegemony on the part of Washington. For decades, the Americans have boycotted alliances that involved Western nations and US’ geopolitical enemies. This is what is currently happening in EU-China ties.

Like the US itself, the EU recognizes mainland China and maintains official diplomatic ties with Beijing, being a signatory to the One China Policy. The bloc also maintains relations with Taiwan but only through para-diplomatic representative offices. Historically, due to China’s high international relevance, even the greatest western powers have sought to respect the Beijing’s internal issues, interacting to Taiwan only through para-diplomatic relations, ensuring a non-intervention strategy that benefits all sides.

However, the troubled relationship between the US and the EU – in which Europeans continuously submit themselves to abusive impositions from Washington – is collaterally leading Europe to tensions with China. In recent months, the US government has signaled several times that it is preparing a radical revision of its One China Policy. President Biden even commented that Washington would support Taiwan militarily against China in the event of conflict, in addition to the usual ambiguous statements about the status of the strait that separates the island from the mainland – which the White House says is “international territory”. In the midst of this context, Europe has tried to avoid such polemics as much as possible, but increasingly its American allies are pushing them to adhere to an anti-Chinese stance.

In June, the European Parliament published a report expressing “concerns” about Chinese military development and “China’s failure to comply with its obligations under national and international law to respect human rights”. In the same document, it was stated that “China’s diplomacy of intimidation and manipulative disinformation campaigns” regarding Taiwan should be condemned. Furthermore, it was said that Taiwan would be a European “key partner and democratic ally in the Indo-Pacific”. In the text there were also several other negative mentions of China regarding topics like Hong Kong, Macau and Xinjiang.

In the same month, Slovakia signed a judicial cooperation agreement with Taiwan. The document establishes a series of partnerships for the judicial resolution of civil and commercial matters. This was the first agreement of this nature to be signed between an EU member state and the island, which is why it was considered an “extraordinary achievement” by Taiwanese diplomacy and will certainly serve as a precedent for other countries – and the EU as a whole – to approach Taipei.

In April, the EU and US had jointly issued a statement condemning some Chinese actions in the Taiwan Strait and demanding a “peaceful resolution” to disputes over the site. Although it was not a bellicose statement, it was somewhat disrespectful to Chinese sovereignty, as the US and EU recognize, at least officially, Taiwan as Chinese territory, which means that they also must recognize the Strait as part of China.

Previously, in January, two cases also caused great friction between China and the EU. One of them was the bloc’s initiative to file a lawsuit in the WTO against China due to the sanctions imposed by Beijing on Lithuania, an EU country that had had a few months earlier received Taiwanese diplomats in its capital, virtually recognizing Taipei’s “sovereignty”. Another case was Slovenia’s initiative to boost bilateral relations with Taiwan in the diplomatic and economic sphere and recognize the island’s “right to self-government”, which generated a war of words between Chinese and European officials.

The great mark in diplomatic relations between Europeans and Taiwanese, however, is from last year. In November 2021, the European Parliament sent an official delegation to Taipei for the first time in history, in a truly unprecedented diplomatic effort. Among the various statements made by the European authorities in Taiwan, there were notes of solidarity with the local de facto government in its search for “freedom” in the face of “Chinese pressure”. Obviously, China interpreted the event as an affront, which greatly worsened Sino-European bilateral relations.

There were also several other recent episodes that demonstrate an accelerated rapprochement between the EU and Taipei and the bloc’s gradual distancing from China. For example, European nations were individually invited to collaborate in military drills by US-led anti-China alliances such as QUAD and AUKUS. Several American and European think tanks have encouraged the EU’s military proximity to such groups in order to foment a kind of “global alliance” against China.

It is impossible to analyze these data and ignore the active participation of the US. All the radical maneuvers against China taken by the EU are directly related the belligerent turn taken by Washington since 2021. This becomes even more evident when we remember that in 2020, just one month before Biden inaugurated, the EU had advanced the terms for a great deal with China, the EU-China Investment Agreement. Even with Trump’s trade war, Europeans were willing to cooperate with China and approved the agreement, but the project does not seem to have resisted Biden’s aggressive policy, which significantly expanded US hostilities against countries considered enemies – mainly China and Russia.

With China becoming NATO’s central target, the China-EU situation is about to worsen. Considering that a significant part of the EU is also member of NATO, adopting the new guidelines of the military alliance will mean an open adherence on the part of European nations to a radical anti-Chinese policy. So, the tendency is for frictions between Europeans and Chinese to increase significantly in the coming months.

In fact, once again the EU is harmed by insisting on a foreign policy obedient to American impositions. The non-implementation of the EU-China Investment Agreement, for example, is a defeat for Europe, which loses a great opportunity to improve its trade relations. In the name of pseudo-humanitarian arguments of concern for Taiwan, Europeans are simply following American orders, becoming unnecessarily hostile to China, and failing to secure their own interests.

*

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

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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

February of 2022 was a particularly dark month, both in Quebec and in Canada generally.

In Quebec, we had the expansion of the use of “vaccine passports” to large, well-ventilated box stores; a curfew had been imposed in January (and was lifted after nearly three weeks); the demonization of the so-called “unvaccinated” reached a fever pitch, first in regime media, then in government pronouncements—a new tax on the “unvaccinated” was promised, and it was promised to be “significant”. Apparently the solution to the problem of Omicron defeating the non-vaccines, was to blame those who spared themselves the useless and potentially harmful injections.

By the end of the month, the Canadian federal government invoked the Emergencies Act to crush a popular, peaceful protest—the Freedom Convoy. Bank accounts of hundreds of protesters and donors were frozen; protest leaders were arrested and jailed on trumped up charges, while other protesters were trampled by horses or arrested at gunpoint by policemen outfitted in a manner almost identical to soldiers; and protesters’ private property was seized and/or vandalized by the police. What the dictatorial Justin Trudeau called a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” was accurate only as a description of his own regime, according to multiple surveys (like this one, that one, the other one, and now this). Everyone in Quebec was subjected to a new round of restrictions: the closure of businesses and churches; schools going back online. As mandated by the federal side of the regime, the “unvaccinated” were not allowed to leave the country, and they were banned from travelling by air or rail within Canada—the only country in the world to do that. An Iron Curtain was slammed down on Canada, and parts of that curtain remain intact. And then we all got Covid thanks to Omicron—for everyone I knew at the university, students and myself included, whether injected or not, the sickness was a total non-event and certainly far less severe than the common cold or a seasonal flu, even for those with multiple comorbidities. Some students were forced to quarantine at home with sick family members, and still did not get sick. All of this upheaval was meant to shield us from catching this?

In this dark, miserable month of authoritarian aggression against Canadians’ human rights and civil liberties, universities remained absolutely silent, because they were absolutely complicit. It is to this point that the following is directed.

On February 2nd, 2022, Reinfo Covid Quebec (a very large organization of health professionals, scientists, professors and citizens, numbering more than 10,000 members), organized and hosted a press conference titled, “The Collateral Damage of Government Measures” (“Dommages collatéraux des mesures gouvernementales”). The entirety of the professors’ panel in which I participated can now only be seen on Rumble (and Part 1 can be seen here). The event was mostly in French.

Before I continue, let me thank everyone in Reinfo Covid Quebec for their amazing organizational skills, their dedication, their professionalism, their courage, their high spirits, and their warmth. I thank them also for creating a momentary liberated zone for us: in contravention of government regulations, we met without masks, sitting shoulder to shoulder, laughing and chatting in large groups, for an extended time—no anti-social distancing, no useless breathing obstructions, no fear. In the darkness of February, they offered a warm and welcoming light.

My presentation (the video below), was in English. What follows beneath the video is the longer version of the remarks I had prepared, which appears only in print.

The Collapse of the Canadian University

When a Canadian university tells a professor in the natural sciences that, “this university does not recognize natural immunity,” then we have arrived at the lowest intellectual point in the history of our universities. Natural immunity is a basic biological fact. For it to be struck from recognition gives you just one indication of the assault on science and on academic knowledge committed in the name of a “public health emergency” that was used to justify irrational, capricious, arbitrary, harmful, and discriminatory impositions.

Self-censorship has prevailed in Canadian universities, encouraged by castigating the few who express doubts, and by university administrations that present unsubstantiated monologues that advocate for restrictions and for dubious pharmaceutical products. We are further hampered in Canada by an inadequate number of public intellectuals, while we instead have a surplus of public relations intellectuals with close ties to pharmaceutical companies and to corporate media.

This is a country which has now purged a wide range of scholars in the natural and social sciences, and the humanities, because they expressed dissenting views and stood by the ethics governing their disciplines. Academic freedom is now, de facto, cancelled. Tenure is also, de facto, nullified. Faced with the first real test to their integrity and their ethics, the vast majority of Canadian scholars failed to stand up and speak out.

Rather than serve as a source of diverse perspectives and challenging questions, universities instead fell in line with encouraging mass panic. This conformity has not only damaged public discourse, by taking leave of our duties as the critical conscience of society, it has damaged universities themselves, and I think the damage is now irreparable. University presidents have repeatedly produced unquestioning endorsements of the so-called “vaccines,” masking, and social distancing. Universities have internalized the “vaccine passport” system. Professors have been enlisted to police their students by enforcing mask mandates. Faculty unions have loudly advocated for tougher restrictions, such as mandatory inoculation. This is an extremely dangerous precedent, where one’s place in a university can be cancelled at any time based on one’s health status. Just as dangerous is the Canadian university being conscripted by the state-corporate alliance.

What will remain as a simply inexcusable and unforgivable reality of this period, is that open scientific debate was blocked during what was called a “pandemic”. Asked to rise up to meet history, Canadian academics mostly preferred to stand down. Consequently, the university itself has fallen as a victim of this emergency, with limited prospects for recovery.

The Rise of the Church of Covid

As an anthropologist, I have asked myself: what is happening here? And why is it happening? I think of religion and ritual, the making of community, and the art of secrecy.

The intense pressure to conform is, it seems, an attempt to cement a community of believers. Strict rules of belonging are imposed, and those who disagree are excluded. This community has invented new rituals to mark it as a community with borders, and to elevate certain knowledge beyond the realm of questioning. Rituals include ones such as “masking,” which as dubious as it is in preventing transmission and infection, is much more useful as a political symbol that is masked as a moral virtue. Masking also diminishes personal identity, which is one of the unstated intentions, while (anti-)social distancing means that this paradoxical community (united by separation) is one that coheres but not within itself—instead it coheres through adhesion to an abstract “common good” (which is neither common, nor good).

This community has invented its own rite of passage: a form of baptism, of purification in the name of salvation, with “the vaccine” worshipped as the saviour.

The high priests of this community—the administrators, the approved scientists—have made their knowledge special and magical by raising it above questioning. This is the role of censorship and even secrecy, in creating subjects and propositions that are taboo. Those who are not anointed and do not follow in the path of the saviour, are the damned.

The alleged common good—said to be imperilled by a dangerous, unclean “Other” who has not been ritually purified through “vaccination”—is a common good that expects tribute to be paid, and without reciprocity to members of the community whose rights have now become conditional privileges. In reality, it is not so much an objective community, as it is a method of extracting tribute, service, and submission—not so much a community as it is an exploitation scheme.

It is surprisingly self-reflective of Pfizer to call its new (not distributed) injectable, Comirnaty, in a play on the words for “community” and “mRNA,” for this is a community of devotion and service to mRNA technology. It is an imagined, even imaginary, community that flows from the point of the needle. In reality, actual living communities have been divided if not destroyed with the ritual mandates and restrictions that were ushered in to march the masses into the “vaccine” centres. Whether due to fear or mandates that left no choice, citizens were pressed into service for Pfizer and Moderna—and then they were patronizingly told that “we are all in this together” and condescendingly thanked for “stepping up and doing their duty”. Meanwhile, the massive flow of profits went in one direction only—for example, in the direction of building a massive new 417-foot-long mega-yacht for Jeff Bezos, for when he is not journeying into outer space.

Writing as a political economist, Professor Fabio Vighi provided a complementary explanation:

Virus, Vaccine and Covid Pass are the Holy Trinity of social engineering. ‘Virus passports’ are meant to train the multitudes in the use of electronic wallets controlling access to public services and personal livelihood. The dispossessed and redundant masses, together with the non-compliant, are the first in line to be disciplined by digitalised poverty management systems directly overseen by monopoly capital. The plan is to tokenise human behaviour and place it on blockchain ledgers run by algorithms. And the spreading of global fear is the perfect ideological stick to herd us toward this outcome”.

In his new book (Where Are We Now? The Epidemic as Politics. London: ERIS., 2021) the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben outlined some more parallels between Covid pandemicism and religious thought and practice. He argues that, “the transformation we are witnessing today operates through the introduction of a sanitation terror and a religion of health. What, in the tradition of bourgeois democracy, used to be the right to health became, seemingly without anyone noticing, a juridical-religious obligation that must be fulfilled at any cost” (p. 10). Reflecting further on the meanings of this highly leveraged if not outright invented crisis, Agamben points out how “science” has acquired the properties of religion:

“It is as if the religious need that the Church is no longer able to satisfy is groping for a new habitat—finding it in what has already become, in effect, the religion of our time: science. Like any other religion, this faith can produce fear and superstition, or it can be at least used to disseminate them. Never before have we witnessed such a spectacle of divergent and contradictory opinions and prescriptions, typical of religions in times of crisis. These opinions range from the minoritarian heretical position (one that is nonetheless represented by distinguished scientists) that denies the seriousness of the phenomenon, to the orthodox dominant discourse that affirms this same seriousness and yet differs within itself, often radically, on the strategies for facing it. And, as always happens in these cases, some experts (or so-called experts) manage to gain the approval of the monarch, who, as in the times of the religious disputes that divided Christianity, sides with one current or the other according to his own interests, before subsequently imposing his measures” (p. 20).

“The analogy with religion must be read to the letter,” Agamben asserts, adding: “Theologians declared that they could not clearly define God, but in his name they dictated rules of behaviour and burned heretics without hesitation; virologists admit that they do not know exactly what a virus is, but in its name they insist on deciding how human beings should live” (p. 33).

Prof. Douglas Farrow, a colleague at McGill University where he teaches theology and ethics, had much more to say on these issues in his article, “Enrolled in the Religion of Fear”.

In this New Church of the Eternal Pandemic, where states of emergency act as the crowning religious festivals on the annual calendar, universities train students in the methods of reproducing the authorized, orthodox theology. Dissidents, in some noteworthy cases, are publicly flogged to send a lesson to others, while boosting the morale of acolytes.

Update: Punishing Resistance to, and Critique of, the Non-Vaccines

Many dozens (perhaps hundreds) of professors across Canada have been suspended without pay, or terminated outright for refusing to disclose their private and personal medical status, in addition to those who have been suspended and/or terminated because they openly rejected the new non-vaccines. Thousands of students—in Ontario alone—were de-registered from their courses and barred from their campuses.

Before continuing, a note of clarification may still be necessary for some. Why non-vaccines? First, because the CDC changed its definition of “vaccines” in August of 2021, to accommodate the new products being developed for the market, which did not meet the previous CDC definition of “vaccine”. Second, because these are called gene therapies in the pharmaceutical industry itself; by the FDA they are formally referred to as investigational new drugs; in the legal arena, they are classed as prototypes by Pfizer itself. Note also that “emergency use” investigational new drugs are defined by the FDA itself as “experimental”. We can thus call these products experimental gene therapies to be brief, all complaints notwithstanding.

Personally, I know several dozen of these suspended and fired academics, through my membership in Canadian Academics for Covid Ethics. That is where we have met, corresponded, and co-authored some Op-Eds. Separate from CA4CE, I have received correspondence from at least three dozen more professors across Canada, some of which later joined the CA4CE. I will have much more to say about professors’ non-compliance, and the results, in future follow-ups on this site.

For now, I want to direct your attention to the very latest instance of the New Church of Covid (an ex-university), punishing two professors for publicly criticizing the experimental gene therapies used against Covid, one of whom was injured by taking these products. I am speaking here of Professors Patrick Provost and Nicolas Derome at Laval University. Professor Provost, whom I know, was the more prominent of the two in the media, having authored a recent article critical of Quebec’s disproportionate response, using the Quebec Health Institute’s own data to show just how overblown have been the impacts of Covid.

Indeed, a separate study which was not the subject of controversy, provided evidence of the fact that Quebec had 4,033 excess deaths between March 2020 and October 2021, but reported 11,470 Covid-19 fatalities—almost three times as much: “It’s the biggest gap recorded in Canada during the pandemic”. In reporting on the same study, it was admitted that, “Quebec doctors included COVID-19 as a cause of death in medical reports more liberally than doctors in other provinces did”. The alleged impacts of Covid were then used by the government to cause real psychological, physiological, economic, and social harms with lockdowns and various other restrictions and mandates. For having challenged the dominant narrative, Patrick Provost’s article was not only removed from the Web by its publisher, he was suspended for eight weeks without pay by Laval University.

Fortunately—and this has been rare in Canada—the Laval University faculty union has vigorously taken up the cause of both professors. This is plainly a fight about academic freedom. The Quebec Federation of University Professors has also endorsed their fight. Amazingly, in a sharp departure from its complicit silence, if not support for quashing the academic freedom of dissenters, the Canadian Association of University Teachers finally felt compelled to speak out in support of those targeted by Laval.

What makes the matter even more interesting is that the very same Quebec government whose pandemicist narrative has reigned throughout the past two (plus) years, recently passed an Academic Freedom Law (Bill 32). Many individual faculty and their unions in Quebec protested this law when it was first introduced, and seemed to be running interference for politically “woke” university administrations. Even the FQPPU criticized how the law was drafted and promoted. Along with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, I instead supported Bill 32, and I did so in a lengthy email on the subject that I sent the Minister. The same Minister of Higher Education who shepherded the law, Danielle McCann, has been forced to come out and condemn Laval University. Minister McCann then cited the situation at Laval as evidence that Bill 32 was necessary, and on this point she is correct.

We thus have a situation where a law—originally intended to shield professors who used “the N-word” in an academic context and for academic purposes, thus designed to hobble the importation/imitation of US culture wars into Quebec—is instead put to its first test with academic free speech against a narrative pushed by the government itself. Professors Provost and Derome have a straightforward case for grievance, and one which would likely win in the courts if it came to that. Laval University has in the meantime disgraced itself, in prime time, and it has broken the law.

For more on this, see the extensive list of media coverage compiled by Reinfo Covid Quebec on its page dedicated to this case (scroll to the bottom). One can read the page in English here. See also Douglas Farrow’s critique: “A Repressive Political Act—Université Laval rejects academic freedom and does violence to science”. Those who follow Zero Anthropology in Telegram would have received an abundance of coverage of this case over the past week.

For my part, I was hoping that the message in my video above would not be validated so much further, so close to home, in such short order.

*

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

Maximilian C. Forte is a professor of anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His areas of research and teaching interest are centered in Political Anthropology, with a focus on imperialism, neoliberalism and globalization, nationalism, democracy, and the international political economy of knowledge production. His long-standing research area involves the ethnohistory of Indigenous Peoples in the Lesser Antilles, and a focus on Indigenous resurgence in Trinidad & Tobago and neighbouring nations of the Caribbean.

Featured image is from ZERO ANTHROPOLOGY

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Collapse of the Canadian University and the Rise of “The Church of COVID”

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Dr David Martin joins Greg Hunter, who refers to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla’s recent threats to sue anti-vaxxers for “misinformation” and he asks Dr Martin if he thinks the vaccine manufacturers, the FDA, the NIH and the CDC are going to get away with their mass genocide?

Dr Martin replies that they will not get away with it and he explains the reason why we don’t see Pfizer or Moderna suing people like him, who are disclosing information that is material to criminal cases against them is because in order to prove defamation or libel, “You actually have to show the evidence that what we said was not true and the problem is, 100% of the evidence that we talk about is true.

“So, the cool thing is, they can threaten all they want, the bad news is they would have to disclose things that I can guarantee you they will never, ever disclose – and in fact, the shoe is on the other foot.

“As you probably know, we filed the very first federal case against the President [Biden], against CMS and against the Department of Health and Human Services in Utah, back in March. Oral arguments for that case are on July the 6th and we are not only not going to be sued for any libel or misinformation, we are actually holding people criminally accountable for their domestic terrorism, their crimes against humanity and the story of the coronavirus weaponization that goes back to 1998.”

Greg refers to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been killed and maimed by the bioweapons of COVID-19 and its “vaccine” and he asks if it’s going to get worse?

Dr Martin answers in the affirmative, saying, “The fact is, when you inject mRNA into a human being, which is what the current manipulations are, that mRNA makes the human body produce a scheduled toxin – and by ‘scheduled toxin’, I mean the spike protein modeled after the coronavirus spike protein and we need to be clear on the fact that by all of their own admission, the spike protein that the injection manufactures is a computer-simulation of a chimera of the spike protein of coronavirus.

“It is, in fact not a coronavirus vaccine, it is a spike protein instruction to make the human body produce a toxin – and that toxin has been scheduled as a known ‘biologic agent of concern’ with respect to biological weapons for the last, now decade and a half.

“The fact of the matter is the injections are an act of bioweapons and bioterrorism, they are not a public health measure and the facts are very simple: this was premeditated, this was actually an action taken specifically, as disclosed in 2015 at the National Academy of Sciences when Peter Daszak, who is the money-launderer in chief, the guy who sent money over to the Wuhan labs in China during the gain-of-function moratorium, when he made the statement, as I’ve repeated many, many times – and I’ll go ahead and read it for your audience:

“‘To sustain beyond the crisis, we need to increase the public understanding for the need for medical counter measures, such as a pan coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will follow if they see profit at the end of the process.’

“Peter Daszak, in 2015 actually stated that this entire exercise was a campaign of domestic terror to get the public to accept a universal vaccine platform using a known biological weapon – and that is their own words, not my interpretation.”

Dr Martin reminds us that, “In 2011, when the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Chinese CDC, the Wellcome Trust – Jeremy Farrar at the Welcome Trust – and others published ‘The Decade of Vaccination’, back in 2011, their stated objective was a population reduction of 15% of the world’s population.

“Put that in perspective. That’s about 700 million people dead…

“Ralph Baric published a paper in which he said the Wuhan Institute of Virology Virus 1 Coronavirus was quote, ‘Poised for human emergence,’ endquote.

“So they knew this all along, They knew it was a bioweapon since 2005. They knew it was effective at taking out populations, harming populations, intimidating and coercing populations and they did that all very intentionally for the purpose of destroying humanity…

“By their own estimate, they’re looking for 700 million people [dead] globally and that would put the US participation in that, certainly, as a pro-rata of injected population somewhere between 75 and 100 million people [dead]…

“By 2028, we have a tiny glitch on the horizon, which is the illiquidity of the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, so the fewer people who are recipients of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the better. Not surprisingly, it’s probably one of the motivations that led to the recommendation that people over the age of 65 were the first ones getting injected.”

There’s lots more, here, including the impact of forced vaccination of healthcare workers and airline pilots is beginning to have and he dispels the disinformation of the Government, NewsGuard and others about the vaxx not being capable of altering our genome, saying, “This is proven in their own data that the mRNA has the capacity to write into the DNA of the human and as such, the longterm effects are not going to merely be symptomatic. The longterm effects are going to be the human genome of injected individuals is going to be altered…

“Ten years of their own data showed that it did and that is published data. That is incontrovertible, it is their data, not mine.

“And by the way, for those people who doubt, they need to go look at that project, Darwinian Chemical Systems, the National Science Foundation funded it and it was the grant that gave birth to the company that we now know as Moderna.

“There is no question that they succeeded in getting mRNA to write-in to DNA. That is the reason why the company was started.”

In other words, everybody who got a shot – even one shot – now has changed DNA and Dr Martin believes that some of the adverse effects we are seeing is coming from the abnormal fold variations of chromosomes resulting from the jabs.

As usual, Dr Martin is superbly informed and articulate and this is yet another interview with him that is not to be missed.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Italy, while asking Washington to be admitted to Five Eyes, the most powerful US-led spy alliance in the world, boycott the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to the detriment of its national interests.

Two events – one in the West and one in the East – are emblematic of the changes in the international picture: the Copasir mission in Washington (Parliamentary Committee for the Security of the Republic); the International Economic Forum promoted by Russia in St. Petersburg, of which journalist Daria Platonova, geopolitics expert, reports.

Copasir president at the press conference in Washington, Adolfo D’Urso, stated that none of the four service reports examined by Copasir has anything to do with the Corriere della Sera dossier on the “Putinians of Italy”. The deputy director of Corriere Fiorenza Sarzanini must therefore explain if the dossier was invented or if she drafted it on the basis of “information” received under the table by the secret services.

As a further contribution to the “security of the Republic”, the president of Copasir urged the admission of Italy to the Five Eyes, the most powerful US spy alliance in the world, Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, because Italy is

a frontier land and a hinge with respect to the Russian projection, Chinese, but I could also say the survival of Africa to the Islamic threat and related issues “.

At the same time, Italy boycotted the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, dove, with large participation also from Africa, issues of primary importance were addressed. As the New York Times also documents, the move by the West to block imports of oil and gas from Russia is a boomerang especially for Europe, since China and India buy them at discounted prices, opening new outlets to Russia in the East. By excluding itself from a new large international market that s forming in the context of a multipolar world, Italy compromises its own national interests.

All this is hidden by our political-media mainstream, which makes us believe that the whole world has condemned and isolated Russia, while – as documented by the important Wilson Center in Washington – “the countries that sanctioned Russia for Ukraine represent only the 16% of the world population “.

*

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

This article was originally published on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Canadian Dimension

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Italy’s “Geopolitical Flatness”: Manlio Dinucci
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Guest: Jochen Kirchhoff – Philosopher & researcher of consciousness (Focus: transcendental philosophy of nature).

  • Worked for many years at the HumboldtUniversität Berlin.
  • Author of numerous books/essays.
  • Youtube channel: youtube.com/c/JochenKirchhoff

This session is on the subject, the function, the limits and the role of science in the present, against the background of its emergence.

The consequences of the prevailing concept of science on the world view, the self-conception, the self-image of man derived from it and the and the resulting open flank for control mechanisms of totalitarian systems and the Adaptation of illusionary substitute religions.

“We need a fundamental redefinition of what, what science is or should be.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Corona Investigative Committee: “We Need a Fundamental Redefinition of What Science is or Should Be”: Prof. Jochen Kirchhoff
  • Tags:

Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was planned with a purpose”

By Stop World Control, July 03, 2022

THE PLAN shows the official agenda of the World Health Organization to have ten years of ongoing pandemics, from 2020 to 2030. This is revealed by a WHO virologist, Marion Koopmans. You will also see shocking evidence that the first pandemic was planned and abundantly announced right before it happened.

Russia Steals the Thunder in ‘Wheat War’

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 03, 2022

In a master stroke of military diplomacy, Russian Foreign Ministry announced today that it is “withdrawing” the garrison in Snake Island, the hotly contested Black Sea property from where Ukrainian forces were evicted in March in the early days of Moscow’s special military operation. 

Americans Do Not Understand Their Own Military History

By Larry Johnson, July 03, 2022

I believe one of the reasons many Americans carry such negative feelings about the Russians is our collective failure to understand the price Russians paid to defeat Hitler. The sad truth is that most Americans have trouble identifying the warring parties in World War II and generally believe that terrible conflict was settled because of what America did.

Doctors Are Demanding Truth About COVID-19 Vaccines for Kids

By Arsenio Toledo, July 03, 2022

Dr. Vinay Prasad is demanding that President Joe Biden’s health officials and mainstream media outlets “just tell the truth” about the effects of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines on children.

Vladimir Zelenko, The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

By David John Sorensen and Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, July 03, 2022

The purpose of this report is to document how all over the world millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions of serious adverse events have occurred, after injections with the experimental mRNA gene therapy. We also reveal the real risk of an unprecedented genocide.

Ukraine: Warmongering Rhetoric. The Dangers of a Nuclear World War III. The WEF’s “Great Reset” Includes War with Russia?

By Joachim Hagopian, July 02, 2022

Speaking of balkanizing or breaking up a targeted nation into smaller, exploited pieces, that’s exactly what the US neocon unipolar design has working with the hostile encirclement of the Russian Federation for several decades.

The Restitution of Poland’s “Borderlands”?: Ukraine in the EU, “Polish-Ukrainian Federation” and the Issue of Restitution

By Konrad Rękas, July 02, 2022

Hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors, as well as Poles, Hungarians and Romanians who once lived in the lands which the Soviet Union “gave to Ukraine” (in the wake to WWII), have the right to recover their estates and get compensations for their heritage.  Kiev aspiring to membership in the European Union will face the due of fulfilling these claims.  The only question is whether Ukrainians are also aware of such multibillion-dollar costs?

BRICS+ and the Global South: Emerging Leaders of a Multipolar World? Pepe Escobar

By Pepe Escobar, July 02, 2022

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has highlighted how BRICS has “a very creative mechanism with broad aspects”. Tehran – a close partner of both Beijing and Moscow – already had “a series of consultations” about the application: the Iranians are sure that will “add value” to the expanded BRICS.

Why the Anglo-American Special Relationship Must End

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, July 02, 2022

Even though the last official war fought between Britain and the USA occured between 1812 and 1815, the British failure to destroy the United States militarily caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining the republic from within.

Conflict of Interest: Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ COVID-Related Social Media Posts, But Fails to Disclose Ties to Pfizer, World Economic Forum

By Megan Redshaw, July 01, 2022

Here’s a less-publicized fact some social media users — and consumers of online news — may not know: Reuters, owned by the $40 billion international multimedia company, Thomson Reuters Corporation, is also in the business of “fact checking” social media posts.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: The Plan. WHO Plans to Have 10 Years of Pandemics (2020-2030). “Proof that the Pandemic was Planned with a Purpose”

US Downing of Iranian Airliner Gone From History

July 4th, 2022 by Shane Quinn

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article was first published on July 2, 2018, to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the downing of  Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988.

Having found no evidence, Western powers continue to blame Russia for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Virtually erased from record are incidents like the blatant 1988 shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655, by a decorated American warship.

On 3 July, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655, flying from Tehran to Dubai, was shot down by the USS Vincennes, a huge United States missile cruiser. All 290 people aboard the Iranian airliner were killed, including 66 children, and 38 people of non-Iranian nationality. The Vincennes was rewarded shortly after for this act of mass killing, having received presidential honours upon return to American shores.

Almost 30 years ago, the large civilian aircraft was shot down over Iranian territorial waters, on its normal flight path. In doing so, the Vincennes had illegally incurred into Iranian territory before firing two surface-to-air missiles at the ascending airliner, both direct hits. US President Ronald Reagan described the killing of almost 300 civilians as “a proper defensive action”. The heavily armed warship, it seems, was in mortal peril at the hands of the unsuspecting passenger plane.

Then Vice-President George H. W. Bush (impending president) said of the incident a month later:

“I will never apologise for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologise-for-America kind of guy.”

Bush also said that it was “just an unhappy incident” and “life goes on”. It seems implausible that “life goes on” for the families of the victims, or indeed, for the 290 who lost their lives.

While there is irrefutable evidence the Iranian aircraft was downed by US forces, the missile that destroyed Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was “not fired by Russian soldiers”. As a result, the taking down of the Malaysian aircraft on July 17, 2014, killing 298, cannot be directly linked to the Russian military, even by the White House.

In fact, “no suspects have been named” over three years later. The absence of evidence did not prevent the European Union from joining the US in imposing sanctions on Russia, just weeks after the Malaysian airliner was destroyed. Glance back in time and we can see that the double standards and hypocrisy of the West are striking. The EU failed to impose sanctions on the US when its naval ship destroyed the Iranian airplane in 1988, despite overwhelming proof. This is hardly surprising, considering the EU has shamefully performed its role as a virtual US client entity for decades.

In June this year, the EU imposed further sanctions against Russia in relation to the Western-initiated conflict in the Ukraine. Again, there is no record of the EU placing economic measures on the US when the superpower (with allies) illegally intervened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and so on.

According to US government sources, the Vincennes mistook the Iranian Airbus A300 (177 feet long) for an F-14 Tomcat fighter (62 feet long), an American-made warplane used by the Iranian Air Force. This pretext falls further to pieces upon examination of the vastly different flight shapes of the respective aircraft: one a passenger plane, the other a fighter plane designed for stealth.

Image result for William C. Rogers III

The Vincennes’ captain, William C. Rogers III (image on the right), received the prestigious Legion of Merit award two years later for his “sterling performance without a blotch of tarnish”, and “his heroic achievement as air warfare coordinator in USS Vincennes on July 3, 1988”. The Vincennes’ entire crew were also awarded the combat-action ribbon.

Imagine the hysterical global reaction had the Russian (or Soviet) leadership behaved in such fashion under similar circumstances. When the US commits a heinous crime, then commends itself afterwards, the muted reaction across the West is something to behold.

The background to this forgotten war crime may prove insightful. The Iranian airliner was blasted out of the sky near the end of the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), in which hundreds of thousands died on each side. President Reagan had been strongly supporting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, following the 1979 Iranian Revolution in which the US had “lost control” of Iran.

To the present day, the US government has refused to apologise for the incident, despite being compelled to pay over $130 million in compensation (under the Clinton administration). The mainstream media in the US, as usual, played a key role in downplaying the aggression, ensuring it remained largely concealed from the American public’s view.

Two days after the Iranian airliner’s shooting down, the New York Times (“paper of record”) asked its readers to put themselves “in Captain Rogers’s shoes”. The Times’editors called it “an accident” and that it was “hard to see what the Navy could have done to avoid it”. If we believe the Times, then, it was difficult for trained navy personnel (with radar) to distinguish between a near 180-foot long passenger plane, and a fighter plane a third of that size. In fact, the Vincennes’ Aegis radar system was “the most technologically advanced in the world” at the time. It was also designed to “track scores of incoming missiles and aircraft in a major sea battle”.

On the 25th anniversary of the tragedy in 2013, Max Fisher of The Washington Post stuck dutifully to the line that the Vincennes mistook the large civilian aircraft for the F-14 fighter – as it “exchang[ed] fire with small Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf”. Fisher excused the Vincennes’ war crime as having been in “the heat of battle”, and that “the horrible incident brought Tehran closer to ending the war”. A war started by Hussein’s Iraq with vital American support.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was first published on The Duran in August 2017.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Duran

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

The US Supreme Court has been frantically busy of late, striking down law and legislation with an almost crazed, ideological enthusiasm.  Gun laws have been invalidated; Roe v Wade and constitutional abortion rights, confined to history.  And now, the Environmental Protection Agency has been clipped of its powers in a 6-3 decision.

The June 30 decision of West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency was something of a shadow boxing act.  The Clean Power Plan, which was the target of the bench, never came into effect.  In 2016, the Supreme Court effectively blocked the plan, which was announced by President Barack Obama in August 2015.  It has been originally promulgated under the Clean Air Act.

In 2019, the Trump administration repealed the CPP, replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.  It argued that the EPA’s authority under Section 7411 of the Clean Air Act only extended to measures pertinent to the plant’s premises, rather than industry-wide measures suggested by the CPP.  The ACER vested states with the discretion to set standards and grant power plants much latitude in complying with them.  In their decision, the DC Circuit vacated the repeal of the CPP by the Trump administration, and the ACER, sending it back to the EPA.  In effect, the EPA’s powers of regulation were held to be intact.

The Clean Power Plan was intended as a mechanism by which targets for each state could be set for each state vis-à-vis reducing carbon dioxide emissions stemming from power plants.  At the time the EPA touted it as laying “the first-ever national standards that address carbon pollution from power plants” which would cut “significant amounts of power plant carbon pollution and the pollutants that cause the soot and smog that harm health, while advancing clean energy innovation, development and deployment”.  And the plan would also lay the basis “for the long-term strategy needed to tackle the threat of climate change.”

A vital aspect of the Plan was also using “generation shifting”, creating more power from renewable energy sources and natural gas while improving the efficiency of current coal-fired power plants.  Such a shift through the entire sector to cleaner resources constituted, in language drawn from the 1970 Clean Air Act, a “best system of emission reduction” (BSER). Amongst its predictions, the Agency projected that coal could provide 27% of national electricity generation by 2030, down from the 2014 level of 38%.

Coal companies and various Republican-governed states litigated on the matter, arguing before the Supreme Court that the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had erred in accepting the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act as granting the agency vast powers to regulate carbon emissions.

This entire process struck an odd note, precisely because the CPP had not been reinstated by a Biden administration which intends to pass new rules on power plant carbon emissions.  This did not stop the Chief Justice John Roberts and his fellow judges from readying for judicial battle.  Merely because a government had ceased conduct central to the case did not stay the court’s intervention.  This would only happen if it was “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behaviour could not be reasonably expected to recur.”  With the Biden administration defending the methods used by the EPA under the Obama administration, one could not be sure.

Enter, then, the looming, and brooding question of US constitutional law: the “major questions doctrine”.  According to the doctrine, one that was prominently used in 2000 to invalidate attempts by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco, questions of “vast economic or political significance” cannot be regulated without clear approval for such measures from Congress.

The EPA argued that under the doctrine, a clear statement was required to conclude that Congress had intended to delegate authority “of its breath to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy”.  Having found none, the agency even went so far as to say that Congress had taken measures to preclude such policies as generation shifting.

For the majority, there was little doubt that this constituted a “major questions case”.  The question that exercised the majority, according to Chief Justice Roberts, was “whether the ‘best system of emission reduction’ identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority” of section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  The EPA’s own words – that it had discovered “in long-extant statute an unheralded power” which represented a “transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority”, clearly troubled the majority.  The Agency’s discovery of this power was then used “to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to act itself.”

To this, the majority took clear umbrage.  Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act had never formed the basis for rules of such transformative magnitude as that implied by the Clean Power Plan.  While Justice Roberts accepted that, “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day’,” but only Congress could adopt “a decision of such magnitude and consequence.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, also gave the major questions doctrine heft by claiming it shielded against “unintentional, oblique, or otherwise unlikely’ intrusions” upon such questions as “self-government, equality, fair notice, federalism, and the separation of powers.”

In her dissenting ruling, Justice Elena Kagan, accompanied by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, found that the EPA’s interpretation and position could be contextually and logically justified.  Resorting to the “major questions doctrine” was fanciful here, given that previous decisions had simply used the old, ordinary method of statutory interpretation.  The decision of an agency had been struck down because it had operated “far outside its traditional lane, so that it had no viable claim of expertise or experience.”  Had such decisions been also allowed, they would have “conflicted, or even wreaked havoc on, Congress’s broader design.”

In this case, the Clean Power Plan clearly fell “within the EPA’s wheelhouse, and it fits perfectly […] with all the Clean Air Act’s provisions.”  The Plan, despite being ambitious and consequential in the field of public policy, did not fail because of it.  Congress had wanted the EPA to discharge such functions.

What is available to the EPA has been dramatically pared back.  The Agency can still mandate coal-fire plants to operate more efficiently by adopting various technological measures, such as carbon capture and storage technology.  Apart from being prohibitive, this will have the effect of extending the operating lives of such climate change agents.

Justice Kagan’s words, in conclusion, are caustic and suitable for the occasion.  The Roberts majority had not only overstepped by usurping a critical domain of expertise and policy.  “The Court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”  Across the US, regulatory regimes – except those approved by Republican and conservative groups – are being readied for a judicial felling by the sword of the major questions doctrine.  Federal Agencies, if they have not already done so, will be girding their loins and readying for battle.

*

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

Dr. 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: Headquarters of the EPA at the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building (Licensed under the public domain)

L’Occidente Serra I Ranghi Per La Battaglia

July 3rd, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Due vertici l’uno di seguito all’altro, quelli del G7 e della NATO, dimostrano che l’Occidente sta mettendo in campo tutte le sue armi – militari, politiche, economiche – per mantenere il predominio che sta perdendo in un mondo che diviene sempre più multipolare, come dimostra il crescente sviluppo dei BRICS: l’organizzazione economica che riunisce Brasile, Russia, India, Cina, Sudafrica, cui vogliono aderire Iran, Argentina e altri paesi.

In Ucraina, mentre il G7 fornisce a Kiev 30 miliardi di dollari, la NATO gli fornisce crescenti quantità di armi contro la Russia. Il ruolo della NATO non è però solo questo: funzionari del Pentagono, intervistati dal New York Times, confermano per la prima volta, con precisi fatti, che il comando e la gestione delle operazioni militari in Ucraina sono in mano al Pentagono e alla NATO.

Il Summit NATO ha approvato il nuovo Concetto Strategico, in cui si definisce la Russia “la minaccia più significativa alla sicurezza degli Alleati” e si afferma che “la competizione strategica sta aumentando in tutto il mondo.” Nel nuovo Concetto Strategico la NATO parla per la prima volta esplicitamente della Cina, dichiarando che  “le politiche coercitive della Cina sfidano i nostri interessi, la nostra sicurezza e i nostri valori”.

Siamo di fronte a un’unica strategia di guerra che l’Occidente attua dall’Europa all’Asia Orientale. Mentre in Europa la NATO sotto comando USA si allarga da 30 a 32 paesi, includendo Svezia e Finlandia, ancora più a ridosso della Russia, in Asia e nel Pacifico cresce il dispiegamento militare degli Stati Uniti, sostenuti principalmente da Australia e Giappone. Si sta svolgendo nel Pacifico contro la Cina la più grande esercitazione navale del mondo sotto comando USA.

Tutto questo costa e siamo sempre noi a pagare. Secondo i dati ufficiali della NATO, la spesa militare italiana sale nel 2022 a circa 29 miliardi di euro, equivalenti a 80 milioni di euro al giorno. L’aumento più forte si è verificato nel periodo dei lockdown: da 21 miliardi nel 2019 è salita a oltre 26 miliardi nel 2020 e a oltre 28 miliardi nel 2021. La NATO però avverte:  “Fare di più costerà di più”.

VIDEO :

https://www.byoblu.com/2022/07/01/grandangolo-pangea-la-rassegna-stampa-internazionale-di-byoblu-54-puntata/

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’Occidente Serra I Ranghi Per La Battaglia

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on June 15, 2022

***

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has questionably authorised emergency use of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 injections for use among children aged 6 months and above despite the UK’s Office for National Statistics revealing that between January 2021 and March 2022 a total of 69,466 people died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination, and a further 109,408 people died within 60 days of vaccination in England.

In order to justify implementing Draconian restrictions in the name of Covid-19, the UK Government, with the help of the mainstream media, would publicise daily the number of Covid-19 deaths to have allegedly occurred that day. The metric used then, and still being used now, is any death occurring within 28 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 is counted as a Covid-19 death.

This questionable method of counting Covid-19 deaths led to dozens of Freedom of Information requests being made to various Government institutions requesting to know the number of people who had died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination.

If the method’s good enough for counting Covid-19 deaths to justify ruining children’s education, decimating the economy, and destroying lives, then it’s good enough for counting Covid-19 vaccination deaths, right?

However, each and every single time, the response received was as follows –

“We do not hold this information”

Source

But this was a lie, because one Government institution did hold this information, and they’ve finally published it over 17 months after the first time of asking.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the UK’s largest independent producer of official statistics and the recognised national statistical institute of the UK. It is responsible for collecting and publishing statistics related to the economy, population and society at national, regional and local levels.

On the 16th May 2022, the ONS published its 6th dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status, which can be found here, and it finally contains the number of deaths within 28 days of vaccination.

Table 9 of the dataset contains figures on ‘Whole period counts of all registered deaths grouped by how many weeks after vaccination the deaths occurred; for deaths involving COVID-19 and deaths not involving COVID-19, deaths occurring between 1 January 2021 and 31 March 2022, England’.

Here’s a snapshot of how the ONS presents the data –

Source

As you can see, the ONS still don’t make it easy for us by revealing the overall number of deaths, but with some patience and simple maths we can easily find this out ourselves.

The following chart shows the overall number of deaths within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022 –

According to the Office for National Statistics between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, a total of 7,953 people died with Covid-19 within 28 days of vaccination, and a total of 61,513 people died of any other cause within 28 days of vaccination. This means that in all, 69,466 people died within 28 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022.

The following chart shows the deaths within 28 days of vaccination broken down by both age group and the number of weeks after vaccination –

And the following chart shows the deaths within 28 days of vaccination broken down by age group only –

A lot of people will probably argue that this is to be expected with so many people being vaccinated. But these same people won’t bother actually backing their argument up with any evidence. Because if it’s to be expected, how exactly do they explain this for example? –

The above chart shows the monthly age-standardised mortality rates by vaccination status for all-cause deaths, per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 18 to 39 in England. The data has been extracted from the previous ONS dataset on deaths by vaccination status between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22.

The green line is the mortality rate among the unvaccinated, which while fluctuating has remained pretty stable throughout. The other lines however represent different vaccination statuses, and they are extremely concerning because the mortality rates are miles higher.

The largest statistical difference occurred in November 2021. The mortality rate among the unvaccinated equated to 33.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years, whereas the mortality rate among the double vaccinated equated to 107. A difference of 220.4%.

The argument that 69,466 deaths within 28 days of vaccination are to be expected because so many people are vaccinated has all of a sudden collapsed, hasn’t it?

But that’s not the worst of it. The UK Health Security Agency counts Covid-19 deaths as those that have occurred within 60 days of a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, so it’s only fair we also work out how many people have died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination.

Here’s the table taken from the UKHSA Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Report showing Covid-19 deaths within 60 days of a positive test –

Source – Page 44

Here’s a chart showing the overall totals by vaccination status of the above figures –

Yes, that does equate to 92% of all Covid-19 deaths in England during March 2022 being among the vaccinated population.

Here’s a chart showing the number of deaths within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st March 2022, according to the Office for National Statistics dataset

According to the Office for National Statistics between 1st Jan 21 and 31st March 22, a total of 14,049 people died with Covid-19 within 60 days of vaccination, and a total of 168,825 people died of any other cause within 60 days of vaccination. This means that in all, 178,874 people died within 60 days of Covid-19 vaccination between January 2021 and March 2022 in England.

There has never been an emergency in regard to Covid-19 infection among children. Two years of evidence show the alleged disease has only adversely affected the elderly and vulnerable. Children have been unlucky to suffer symptoms more severe than those associated with the common cold.

So why is the FDA risking the lives of babies and toddlers when official statistics show Covid-19 vaccination can prove to be fatal?

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Terms of Condescension: The Language of Australia’s “Pacific Family”

Russia Steals the Thunder in ‘Wheat War’

July 3rd, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a master stroke of military diplomacy, Russian Foreign Ministry announced today that it is “withdrawing” the garrison in Snake Island, the hotly contested Black Sea property from where Ukrainian forces were evicted in March in the early days of Moscow’s special military operation. 

This decision comes a day after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres discussed food security amid the situation in Ukraine, in a phone call Wednesday. The Russian readout said Lavrov “underscored that the export of Ukrainian grain is being prevented by Kiev’s mining of the Black Sea.”

Furthermore, Lavrov “reaffirmed readiness to continue fulfilling its obligations on export of food and fertilisers, despite their fulfilment being significantly complicated by the illegal unilateral sanctions of Western states and disruption of global production and retail chains due to the COVID pandemic.” 

Importantly, Lavrov conveyed to Guterres Moscow’s “intent for further work on reduction of threats of the food crisis, including in cooperation with the UN.” 

The Russian Defence Ministry while announcing the withdrawal from Snake Island, called it a “goodwill gesture” and linked it to the crisis of food security. It added, “The Russian Federation has demonstrated to the international society the absence of any obstacles for the efforts of UN to establish a humanitarian corridor for transporting agricultural products from Ukraine.

“This solution will prevent Kiev from speculating on an impending grocery crisis citing the inability to export grain due to total control of the northwestern part of the Black Sea by Russia.

Now it is up to the Ukrainian side that is still not clearing the Black Sea coastline, including the harbour waters.” 

In effect, Russia has challenged Kiev to do its part by removing the mines in the approaches to its ports. But this act of diplomacy is not without serious military implications. Kiev will surely celebrate this as a “military victory”. 

However, on the face of it, Moscow is taking a gambit — a clever action that takes the wind out of the sails of Western propaganda blaming Russia for the food shortage as if this situation is the result of its 4-month old operation in February rather than a crisis that had been snowballing through the past four or five years for which the US and the Western countries are to be blamed. 

But, as with any gambit, this ploy involves taking a risk insofar as the Russian retreat from Snake Island could be seized by Kiev to retake that strategic piece of real estate in the Black Sea, something that its American and British military advisors have been pressing for. Moscow has taken precautions by stating that it won’t accept wheat cargo ships being accompanied by western warships or drones and that it reserves the right to inspect the ships and ensure they are not carrying military stuff. 

So far, two major operations by Kiev with the indirect participation of the Americans and British advisors to seize Snake Island by force were beaten back by the Russian forces. The Western military analysts estimate that the Russian presence on Snake Island would pose threat to NATO’s assets in next-door Romania. (See my blog Southern Ukraine is the priority in NATO’s planing, Indian Punchline, June 22, 2022.) 

However, this Russian move also has a certain political resonance insofar as it can be construed as going beyond issues concerning Ukraine’s wheat export. Of course, the facilitation of “humanitarian corridors” in the Black Sea obviates the need for any Western intervention, as implied in the G7 Statement on Global Food Security issued in Elmau, Germany on 28th June  backing “UN efforts to unlock a safe maritime corridor through the Black Sea.” This is the first thing. 

Indeed, Russia, which accounts for accounted for 16% of global wheat exports, and Ukraine, which accounted for 10%, are not the only key global exporters of wheat — for instance, the US and Canada, which export 26 and 25 million tons of wheat, respectively (or around 25% of global exports) and other major western producers France (19 million tons) and Germany (9.2 million tons) accounting for another 12% of global exports are unwilling to share their grain with those in need, prioritising their own food security in the recent years.

Of course, these rich western countries have their own difficulties related to energy prices, production costs and inflation. They would want to keep their raw materials to shield their economies from further inflation spikes. Simply put, in the event of currency instability, or indeed any form of economic or political instability, it is always more prudent to have raw materials than cash: it does not depreciate as quickly as currency. 

The problem with the supply of such a widely produced commodity as wheat will most likely be solved only if the US and EU allow Russia, the largest exporter of wheat in the world, to share supplies in exchange for the removal of sanctions. The western sanctions have forced international companies to sever long-standing business ties and leave Russia, which caused supply disruptions. In one example, the EU last month banned cooperation with the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, through which more than half of the exported grain from Russia is shipped. 

What worries the West most is that Africa’s heavy dependence  on Russian wheat supplies have a strategic dimension that boosts Moscow’s influence in that continent. The rapidly growing Russian presence in Africa challenges the western neo-colonial projects of European countries. This is already evident in the Sahel region.  

At any rate, Russia still retains its dominance over the Black Sea and can not tolerate any threat to Crimea. The goodwill gesture on Snake Island apart, there is no let-up in the Russian special military operation in southern Ukraine, either. 

In this context, President Putin’s remarks at Ashgabat yesterday are to the point when he was asked by the media about the “current goal” of the Russian operations. Putin said: 

“Nothing has changed, of course. I talked about it in the early morning on February 24. I talked about it directly and publicly for the entire country and the world to hear. I have nothing to add. Nothing has changed… I trust professionals. They are doing what they consider necessary to attain the overall goal. I have formulated the overall goal, which is to liberate Donbass, protect its people and create conditions that will guarantee the security of Russia itself. That is all. We are working calmly and steadily. As you can see, our forces are moving forward and attaining the objectives that have been set for the particular period of the engagement. We are proceeding according to plan. [Emphasis added.]

“We are not speaking about any deadlines. I never speak about them, because this is life, this is reality. It would be wrong to make things fit any framework, because, as I have already said, the issue concerns combat intensity, which is directly connected with possible losses. And we must think above all about saving our guys’ lives.” 

Here, the operative words are: “create conditions that will guarantee the security of Russia itself.” After all, Snake Island is only some 175 miles from Sevastopol, the Russian naval base in Crimea. 

*

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

Featured image: Russian Defense Ministry in Frunzenskaya Embankment, Moscow (Source: Indian Punchline)

Medvedev/Putin: Highly Unusual Threats to NATO

July 3rd, 2022 by Ray McGovern

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As NATO leaders (aka ‘The 30 Blind Mice) started their summit meeting yesterday in Brussels, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threw down a seemingly gratuitous gauntlet. Medevdev warned: “Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war on our country.” And that if such an attempt were made by a NATO country, “This is a conflict with the entire North American Alliance. Third World War. Total catastrophe.”

I checked the original Russian; the English translation (verbatim) is accurate. For those who read Russian, here is the original:

«Любая попытка посягнуть на Крым – это объявление войны нашей стране, – напомнил политик. – И если это делает страна, входящая в НАТО, это конфликт со всем Североатлантическим альянсом. Третья мировая война. Тотальная катастрофа»

“For us, Crimea is a part of Russia. And that means forever. Any attempt to encroach on Crimea is a declaration of war against our country,” Medvedev told a regional news site, as quoted in Reuters.

“And if this is done by a NATO member-state, this means conflict with the entire North Atlantic alliance; a World War Three. A complete catastrophe,” he warned.

In the same comments, [see this] and just ahead of this week’s NATO summit in Madrid, Spain kicking off, the former president of Russia addressed Finland and Sweden’s recent applications to join the Western military alliance, saying that Russia would take immediate action to strengthen its Western border and would be “ready for retaliatory steps” if they were admitted.

He floated the possibility of positioning Iskander hypersonic missiles “on their threshold” – speaking of Scandinavian neighbors and the Baltic states. He further suggested a troop build-up, as well as fresh naval assets deployed near Finland in that scenario.

Additionally, he wrote on Telegram in a series of statements: … “If Sweden and Finland join NATO, the length of the alliance’s land border with Russia will more than double. Naturally, it will be necessary to strengthen these borders.”

That’s when he again emphasized that Finnish membership in NATO would only cascade into creating a nuclear standoff in the Baltic region for the first time:

“If this is the case, there can no longer be talk about the Baltic’s non-nuclear status – the balance must be restored,” he stated.

“Until today, Russia has not taken such measures, nor was it going to do so. If we are forced to, then ‘note, it wasn’t us who suggested this,’ as a character in a famous old movie said,” he added.

“The US is broadcasting its ‘Welcome!’ [sign] to the representatives of Northern Europe literally in every way possible. Just humbly knock – and we will let you in. And what does this mean? This means that Russia will have more official adversaries,” he pointed out further, according to TASS.

He said Moscow will act “without emotions, and with a cool head,” and described: “The number of countries in NATO – thirty or thirty-two – on the whole is not really important to us. Two more, two less, with their importance and population there is no big difference.”

Medvedev concluded the statements by appealing to the ‘common sense’ of the Western public and policy makers:

 “Nobody in their right mind wants higher prices and taxes, mounting tension along the borders, Iskanders, hypersonic weapons or ships with nukes a stone’s throw from their house. Let’s hope that the common sense of our neighbors eventually prevails. Yet if not, then, as they say, “they started it,” he said.

We may in due course learn if any specific act by NATO members brought that unusual warning from Medvedev. The NATO summit continues today and Thursday.

Meanwhile, no doubt as advance warning to the 30 Blind Mice now in Madrid, Putin said Saturday Russia planned to send nuclear-capable missiles to Belarus within months, signaling a boldness as it made gains in Ukraine’s eastern regions.

Putin made the promise in a meeting with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who has publicly supported Russia in its invasion of Ukraine.

“We will transfer to Belarus Iskander-M tactical missile systems, which can use ballistic or cruise missiles, in their conventional and nuclear versions,” he said, according to Russia’s state-owned Tass news agency. “It’s a deal.”

*

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

“We seek lasting peace while NATO prepares for perpetual war.”

July 3rd, 2022 by Progressive International

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Between 28 and 30 June, the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) met in Spain in the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine. But rather than seeking to secure collective survival, NATO presented a dangerous vision of a polarised world that reasserts its role as a global policeman.

Over years and decades, NATO’s mandate has stretched to accommodate the expansionist ambitions of its founders. NATO formed in 1949 with the mission of “deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent.” When the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991, NATO did not disband, but rather US strategy resolved to prevent “the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.”

Its 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, an “out of area” military operation that lasted 20 years, killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and forced millions to flee their homes. That war left a legacy of profound poverty, hunger, displacement, and instability in its wake. According to the United Nations, Afghanistan now faces “universal poverty” amid a total collapse of its developmental and humanitarian capacities.

NATO’s war in Libya saw open-air slave markets reappear in a nation that once boasted Africa’s highest Human Development Index. That destruction poured fuel on the fire of militancy and conflict in the nearby states of Mali, Algeria and Niger. This proliferation of violence has seen NATO move further afield through formations like the African Standby Force.

Today, NATO arms and trains forces in Morocco, sustaining not only its violent occupation of Western Sahara, but also securing its role as the lynchpin of European border security. On 25 June 2022, Moroccan security forces massacred dozens of refugees as they sought to enter the Spanish enclave of Melilla. Under NATO’s supervision, Europe’s externalised borders have become weapons against those who seek refuge.

NATO’s expansion has also provided a blanket of impunity for member-state Turkey. With generous political and material support from the United States and other NATO countries, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly violated international law in his assault against the Kurdish people. Now, Turkey is launching new military offensives at its borders — to silence or tacit approval from its NATO partners.

NATO gathered this week under the auspices of responding to Russia’s violent escalation of the war in Ukraine. But its ambitions reach further than regional defence. At the Madrid Summit, it named China as a long-term threat, promising to deepen cooperation with countries like Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea, the latter of which appeared at the NATO Summit for the first time in history — a clear pivot of the military alliance from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The vision of “Global NATO”, first articulated in 2006, is fast becoming a grim reality for billions of people for whom the costs of war are carved from the imperatives of survival.

NATO policies not only devastate those they maim or kill. They also inflame crises of climate, health, and hunger. For the first time in history, the world spent over $2 trillion on weapons in 2021, with the United States accounting for 40% of the total. In Europe alone, NATO has now committed to increasing its rapid response force nearly eightfold — to 300,000 troops.

Meanwhile, the world teeters on the brink of famine — and even citizens in Europe and the US face a winter of hunger as military and economic escalation take their toll. Weapons of war cannot fill empty stomachs. They cannot heat homes. They cannot repair a dying planet. And they cannot end pandemics.

Countries across the planet recognise the peril of a new Cold War. Nobody dares to envision the implications of a direct NATO confrontation with Russia and China. But a new Cold War also threatens to turn third nations into sites of indirect proxy conflict, creating new ‘sacrifice zones’ in the name of security for those who are last to bear the brunt of war.

Lasting peace can only be won by a common security framework that does not allow for the domination of one country by another, or one bloc over any other — but rather succeeds to demilitarise the planet, fight its poverty, and pool common resources to secure social and environmental justice. In standing against these existential priorities, NATO has revealed a preference for domination over the imperative of our survival.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “We seek lasting peace while NATO prepares for perpetual war.”
  • Tags: , , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I believe one of the reasons many Americans carry such negative feelings about the Russians is our collective failure to understand the price Russians paid to defeat Hitler. The sad truth is that most Americans have trouble identifying the warring parties in World War II and generally believe that terrible conflict was settled because of what America did.

The American people are good folk at heart. They genuinely want to help the less fortunate or the beleaguered. But, during the last 75 years, American politicians cynically have used this trait to convince the public to back foreign wars that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. All of this bloodshed was done under the banner of promoting freedom and democracy. Yet, if you ask the folks in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, Libya and Syria how they view the U.S. “help”, they have what can charitably be called a “different perspective.”

I believe one of the reasons Americans have been bamboozled into supporting most of the U.S. foreign adventures is a fundamental ignorance about U.S. military casualties. Misconceptions about U.S. losses in World War II are pervasive. If you ask the average American who knows something about the history of WW II, he or she likely believes that the United States paid dearly in blood to defeat Japan and to help bring an end to Nazi Germany. In fact, the vast majority of Americans believe that the Russians played only a minor role in crushing the Nazis.

Apart from lousy public education, Hollywood is the major culprit in perpetuating the myth of U.S. prowess in World War II. Those movies that mention the Soviet role (and that is a small number) usually portray Stalin as desperate for the Allies to open a western front against the Germans.

So let me share with you some surprising facts. What were the five bloodiest campaign battles in World War II that cost the United States the most fatalities?

If your family lost a loved one in these battles, the total number of deaths is meaningless. The death of the person who was loved by parents, siblings and friends was incalculable. My intent in presenting these stark statistics is to help you appreciate why the Russians are so justifiably paranoid about foreign threats, especially those that embrace modern Nazis.

Here are the top five Russian campaigns. They only fought the Germans. But the price in blood is staggering:

  • Battle of Leningrad–8 September 1941 – 27 January 1944. Total killed numbered 1,017,881.
  • Battle of Moscow–2 October 1941 – 7 January 1942. Russia lost 653,924 killed and missing.
  • Operation Barbarossa–22 June 1941 – 5 December 1941. Russia lost 566,852 killed in action
  • Battle of Stalingrad–23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943. Russia lost 478,741 killed or missing.
  • Battle of Kursk–5 July 1943 – 23 August 1943. Total fatalities were 432,317 killed or missing.

Let me state the difference in another way. Total U.S. killed in action in World War II in both the European, North African and Pacific Theaters totaled 472,000. The Russians lost more troops in four separate battles than the United States lost in the entire war.

The Russian people did not fight because Stalin had a gun pointed at their back. They rallied in a remarkable way to the Nazi invasion. Most military analysts at the time predicted the Soviet Union would collapse under the weight of the Nazi steamroller. The Russian people defied those expectations and rallied to defeat the best of the German armies.

The horrific death toll touched almost every family in Russia. That is why the Russians still remember and commemorate that sacrifice every May. It has nothing to do with communism. World War II scarred the Russians to the bone. That is the primary reason that Vladimir Putin enjoys widespread public support in taking on the threat from Ukraine. Ukraine has been a de facto NATO ally since 2014, when the United States and the United Kingdom helped orchestrate the coup that ousted the democratically elected president.

The United States and NATO are grossly mistaken if they believe that flexing military muscle by deploying troops on Russia’s borders will cow the Russian people. This perceived threat goes beyond Putin. It is something most Russians see and fear. My hope is that once the American people appreciate the legitimate paranoia of the Russians, they will reject calls to treat Russia as an intractable enemy.

The history of the 77 years that have passed since the end of the war is not replete with incidents of Russia launching repeated military operations in other countries. It is the United States that holds that tarnished crown. President John Quincy Adams, speaking about the Declaration of Independence, offered this wise counsel (Adams was the first U.S. Ambassador to Russia) :

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

I believe the American Republic would be well served to take Adam’s words to heart and construct a new foreign policy that is not based on sending our troops abroad to die in meaningless wars. The good heart that powers America still beats. But it is under assault at home. Russia does not threaten our Republic. Our peril is at home.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Americans Do Not Understand Their Own Military History

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

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

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Dr. Vinay Prasad is demanding that President Joe Biden’s health officials and mainstream media outlets “just tell the truth” about the effects of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines on children.

Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist and associate professor in the University of California, San Francisco‘s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, made these comments on June 15 in a recorded response to news that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have officially signed off on the COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as six months. (Related: Doctors are BEGGING parents not to give their children deadly COVID-19 vaccines.)

“You’re not persuading anybody” to give the COVID-19 vaccines to children, said Prasad in his message to the so-called experts in the FDA and the CDC. “You’re laying it on a little thick and you’re not being honest about it, and in the process you’re discrediting yourself.”

Prasad noted that many parents are not interested in getting their children vaccinated, especially since the data shows that as many as 75 percent of them have already been infected and therefore have a natural immunity to coronavirus.

He added that so-called experts may claim that vaccination provides more powerful and consistent protection even for children with natural immunity. “The truth is … they don’t know that to be true,” said Prasad.

“If a child has already had COVID, [and] recovered from COVID, we do not know that they have a further reduction in MIS-C [multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children], death, hospitalization, et cetera, from a potential reinfection. It’s a lie.”

Prasad noted that there is no proper scientific evidence proving that children with natural immunity will benefit from COVID-19 vaccines, and that scientists have not conducted large-scale randomized trials or investigated observational data to support their claims.

He called on health experts to just present the public with all they know and still do not know about the vaccines. If they do this, presenting all the risks and so-called benefits that come with vaccination, then maybe people would have more trust in their guidance.

“Just tell the truth,” said Prasad, instead of “exaggerating and lying and distorting the truth.”

Prasad urges Biden administration to revise COVID-19 guidelines for children

Prasad has been active in lobbying the federal government to revise its current pandemic guidelines for children. He is currently leading the group Urgency of Normal, which is made up of doctors and other health professionals like himself who are arguing for a return to pre-pandemic behaviors and public health policies.

Urgency of Normal has sent a letter to Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Biden administration’s pandemic response team, and CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, urging them to lift pandemic-related measures that could be negatively affecting the well-being of children.

“We strongly urge you to revise the CDC’s COVID-19 guidelines with regard to testing, isolation and vaccine recommendations for children to ensure that public health policies are not doing more harm than good,” wrote the organization.

The group pointed out that the CDC’s current guidelines are causing significant disruptions to the education of children while providing no demonstrable benefit to limiting the spread of COVID-19.

The group is calling for the CDC to end mandatory mass testing of children at schools in favor of a more targeted approach that focuses on children who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and to make sure that, if these kids do fall ill, they are quickly treated with effective therapeutics.

More importantly, Prasad’s organization wants the CDC to scrap its recommendation that children be vaccinated, claiming that this is keeping many COVID-19 vaccine mandates up and preventing organizations and businesses from recognizing natural immunity.

“CDC recommendations to vaccinate and boost healthy young individuals have led many schools, colleges, sports organizations and summer programs to require up to three doses of mRNA vaccine, regardless of prior infection,” wrote the organization. “Such requirements exclude unvaccinated children or those not boosted from important opportunities.”

Urgency of Normal also pointed out how many countries, U.S. states and Canadian provinces have already updated their COVID-19 pandemic policies to acknowledge that mitigation measures enacted by public health agencies have unintended consequences and that natural immunity reduced the risk of a severe COVID-19 case, especially for children.

“Most have also eliminated any COVID-19 vaccine requirements for children to fully participate in public life,” wrote the organization.

Watch this clip from InfoWars featuring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis refusing to give COVID-19 vaccines to infants.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ¿Los trágicos destinos de estrellas mundiales como Celine Dion y Justin Bieber abrirán los ojos de sus fans?