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.

***

A disturbing new analysis has revealed that over 40 percent of the world’s rivers may now contain harmful levels of pollution from pharmaceutical drugs. Published in the Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry journal, the study found that around 461 of 1,052 sites monitored across 104 countries had drug concentrations considered to be of concern. Concluding that pharmaceutical pollution is a global problem, the researchers say that work is urgently needed to reduce concentrations in rivers down to acceptable levels.

To assess the effects in rivers across the world, the analysis utilizes the results of a global monitoring study of 61 active pharmaceutical ingredients examined alongside available ecotoxicological and pharmaceutical data. Worryingly, not only did 43.5 percent of the sites sampled have drug concentrations considered to be of concern, but 23 of the substances measured occurred in concentrations exceeding those currently claimed to be “safe”. Such substances included drugs from the antidepressant, antimicrobial, antihistamine, beta-blocker, anticonvulsant, antihyperglycemic, antimalarial, antifungal, calcium channel blocker, benzodiazepine, painkiller, and progestin classes. The drugs most frequently detected were carbamazepine (an anticonvulsant) and metformin (a diabetes medication).

The global ecotoxicological effects of drugs

Pointing out that there are now over 1,900 pharmaceutical compounds in use in human and veterinary medicine, the researchers say it is inevitable that these will be emitted to the natural environment during their manufacture, use, and disposal. Summarizing the growing evidence that pharmaceutical compounds can negatively affect the health of ecosystems, the paper cites a notable decline in vulture populations on the Indian subcontinent, effects on the behavior of fish, and a rise in drug-resistant bacteria as examples of the damage that is occurring. The highest cumulative concentrations of pharmaceuticals in surface waters were found in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South America, with Lahore in Pakistan being the most polluted system.

The researchers say that while their study provides a major step forward in our understanding of the potential global ecotoxicological effects of pharmaceuticals, there is still much to do. Given the sheer number of drugs now being used in so-called ‘modern medicine’, and the fact that the study only looked at 61 of them, the researchers recognize that their analysis may well be underestimating the actual impacts on aquatic systems around the world. They additionally note that the rivers that were monitored will contain not just pharmaceuticals but also other pollutants such as industrial chemicals, pesticides, and metals. These too will inevitably be having ecotoxicological effects.

An environmentally unsustainable industry

In the conclusion to their study, the researchers point out that current ecotoxicological risk assessments have mainly been carried out using single-compound approaches. In other words, they essentially ignore the negative synergistic effects that drugs and chemicals have when present in combinations. This approach clearly has to change. Research from Denmark has already confirmed the dangers of chemical cocktails in foods. As a result, for example, we now know that even small doses of pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can amplify each other’s negative effects when present in combinations. The same will undoubtedly also be true for the numerous drugs and chemicals that are polluting the environment.

Even prior to the publication of this latest study it was already clear that the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’ is both scientifically and economically unsustainable. Through deliberately developing drugs that only treat the symptoms of diseases and avoid addressing their root causes, the pharmaceutical industry’s annual global income is forecast to reach $1.8 trillion by 2026. Illustrating how this business model has the potential to bankrupt entire economies, research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently estimated that close to half of all new brand-name prescription drugs launched in the United States in 2020 and 2021 came with an original price tag of at least $150,000 a year.

But as if even this wasn’t bad enough, evidence of the ecotoxicological damage that pharmaceutical companies are wreaking on the planet clearly shows that drug-based medicine is environmentally unsustainable as well. Replacing the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’ with natural systems of healthcare based on nutritional and Cellular Medicine approaches will therefore not only benefit the health of humanity, but that of the environment also. It is time for environmentalists and ‘green’ campaign organizations worldwide to recognize this and join together with natural health advocates in working for healthcare reform.

*

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

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Dr. Rath Health Foundation

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.

***

Democrats in Congress and their globalist billionaire backers are lobbying the Biden Administration to deploy hundreds of billions of dollars into the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The initiative is being advertised to “save Ukraine” and impoverished nations, but it acts as an instrument to further centralize monetary power.

In a letter this week that was signed by almost 50 democrat members of Congress, the politicians pressed the Biden Administration to infuse the IMF with $650 billion worth of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), bringing the international institution an enormous amount of capital to increase its lending and borrowing capacity.

Last year, citing the economic pain caused by their own COVID policies, Congress passed a bill resulting in the IMF approving a $650 billion SDR package. Now, it is being rebranded to “help Ukraine.” According to the letter, Biden can approve an additional $650 billion in liquidity without any new legislation from Congress. With the stroke of a pen, Joe Biden can instruct the Treasury to send $650 billion into a black hole.

The legislators describe the proposed money creation as “a simple, rapid, and cost-free way to enable Ukraine, its neighboring allies, and developing countries to respond to, and build back better from, these combined international crises.”

Yes, they labeled it cost-free.

The below IMF infographic provides the “official” explanation for what an SDR is, and what it is based upon. In short, it empowers the IMF’s largest stakeholders with a centralized reserve token with which to lend and borrow money as it sees fit. As the infographic explains, new SDRs are allocated to member countries in proportion to their relative share in the IMF, bringing more credit power to already powerful states.

Of course, there is no benefit to the average citizen, as SDRs are controlled by the people in charge, and it can potentially increase monetary debasement.

Moreover, there is a much more nefarious agenda in play here. The real purpose of an SDR, as outlined in IMF literature, is the continuing centralization of fiat currency systems, to the point that the SDR becomes the only game in town.

As the Mises Institute explains:

“The short-term plan, therefore, is to remove any remaining checks on fiat inflation at an international level, and to allow the deficits of sovereign debtors to soar. The long-term plan … is to make SDR the global paper money.”

In the words of the late Austrian economist Murray Rothbard, the plan amounts to this reality:

“An internationally coordinated and controlled world-wide, paper-money inflation, a fine-tuned inflation that would proceed unchecked upon its merry way until, whoops!, it landed the entire world smack into the middle of the untold horrors of global runaway hyperinflation.”

This extra liquidity would allow select IMF member states to move around hundreds of billions of dollars with no oversight. The creation of more SDRs makes for an even more centralized monetary environment, in which allocations of capital are made not according to market forces, but based on the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats.

The Soros machine and the International Chamber of Commerce, which would be some of the biggest beneficiaries of the funding, are leveraging their enormous wealth and influence to make a big push to convince Biden to sign off on the new disbursement.

A cost-free lifeline in the form of Special Drawing Rights can help Ukraine, its neighbors, and developing countries worldwide to respond to food shortages, rising energy prices, and weak vaccination rates. #DebtJustice https://t.co/l3jqf8Gzci

— Open Society Foundations (@OpenSociety) July 12, 2022

Progressive US Democrats and world business voice @ICCWBO don't always align. But today both are calling for IMF members to launch a new $650B+ issuance of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to support an increasingly troubled world economy. 1/Thread https://t.co/PeJKleRXR9

— Mark Malloch-Brown (@malloch_brown) July 13, 2022

Notably, the IMF chair is in D.C. this week echoing the calls for more liquidity, citing the risk of a monetary crisis in impoverished nations.

IMF’ Georgieva warns on the risk of a debt crisis, given rising rates and debt levels. Warns that financial conditions are tightening. Some 60% of poorer countries are at or near debt distress.

She was speaking at Devex World in Washington today.

— Shabtai (@velvetart) July 12, 2022

Advocates for this plan may label the move “cost-free,” but it is clearly anything but cost-free. And it comes coupled with a cloaked agenda of centralized power consolidation. The SDR push is the creation of a launching pad that can manifest the conditions for a global central bank digital currency.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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 BRICS seem really close to expanding. Now, according to information from the group’s International Forum, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey have expressed interest in applying for membership. Previously, Iran and Argentina had already asked to join the alliance. With this, it is evident that emerging countries around the world see in the BRICS a way to improve their international relations and contribute to the construction of a new world order.

Purnima Anand, president of the BRICS International Forum, said July 14, that three more countries could join “very soon” the group that is currently made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. According to her, representatives of the Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish governments have shown interest in entering the BRICS and are already forwarding the procedural requirements to formalize the candidacy.

“All these countries have shown an interest in joining and are preparing to apply for membership. I think this is a good step, because expansion is always positively perceived; this will clearly increase the influence of BRICS in the world (…) I hope that the accession of countries to BRICS will happen very quickly, because now all representatives of the core of the association are interested in enlargement. So, it will be very soon”, she said.

At another point of her speech, Anand also stated that the access may not occur “all at once”. In this sense, it is expected that one or two accessions will occur each time if the countries are actually accepted to join the group in the future.

In fact, Anand’s words confirm some previous expectations that emerged in recent similar pronouncements made by other authorities of the group. For example, the head of the Department of International Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, Li Kexin, had stated on one occasion that not only these countries but even Indonesia had expressed interest in joining the BRICS:

There are several countries currently ‘at the door,’ for example, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Argentina (…) I believe there is a shared understanding that we [the BRICS] need to enlarge, get ‘new faces”.

Indeed, the explanation for why so many countries are interested in the BRICS is simple and can be seen in the words of Argentina’s Ambassador to China, Sabino Vaca Narvaja, during a recent interview:

“We are interested in joining the BRICS because it is a cooperation mechanism composed entirely of emerging economies. There are no strings attached and all cooperation is mutually beneficial”.

While the economic blocs and political alliances led by the countries of the “geopolitical north” are almost always ruled by rigid ideological principles, linked to agendas such as neoliberalism, eco-capitalism and the western model of “democracy”, the BRICS, being a strategic and pragmatic group for the cooperation among emerging nations, is in no way interested in the political agendas followed by its members or in the ideological principles of their governments. What matters in the BRICS is to strengthen the multilateral partnership in order to reach more advanced levels of development, without political interventionism or ideological requirements.

This is undoubtedly of interest to countries that are somehow “disapproved” by the West for the way they manage their domestic politics, suffering boycotts, sanctions or simply reprisals for accessing some benefits in international society. In the BRICS, what is found is a path focused only on non-ideological cooperation – or, in other words, “no strings attached”, as said by Narbaja.

This non-ideological aspect has an essential strategic advantage: allowing rival nations to join the BRICS simultaneously, despite their conflicts of interests. The group makes it possible for states with divergent interests to overcome their disagreements in favor of a greater common good. This is precisely the case for China and India, for example – and it will also be the case for Iran and Saudi Arabia, if their applications are accepted.

It is necessary to note how the expansion promises to increase the importance of the BRICS in international decision-making processes. Currently, the group already houses 42% of the world’s population and holds 24% of the global gross product. With the possible joining of new members, these numbers will also increase and consequently the group will become even more relevant. Most of the world’s consumer middle classes will be within the BRICS or in some way integrated into it – considering the economic blocs of which the group’s members are part.

In practice, this major economic relevance means bargaining power in the international scenario – which undoubtedly interests emerging states and contributes to the formation of a multipolar world order.

*

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.

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.

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

***

If you were holding out hope that the media and military analysts predicting the imminent collapse of Russia because of the failed invasion of Ukraine would get a grip on reality, think again. I take the New York Times as the leading indicator of the establishment mindset and the Times published a piece that reveals the delusion and confusion about the war in Ukraine that infects the Washington/New York Swamps.

Put simply, the article–Ukraine’s Demands for More Weapons Clash With U.S. Concerns–tacitly concedes Russia is winning but holds out hope for a dramatic Ukrainian come back. Here are the highlights (and lowlights) of the piece tapped out by CIA mouthpiece, Eric Schmitt, and Julian Barnes:

The Ukrainians say they need faster shipments of long-range artillery and other sophisticated weapons to blunt Russia’s steady advance. The United States and the Europeans insist more are on the way but are wary of sending too much equipment before Ukrainian soldiers can be trained. The Pentagon is concerned about potentially depleting its stockpiles in the coming months.

Got that? Russia is advancing steadily. The weapon systems the US and NATO want to send outnumbers the Ukrainians trained to operate them. And the trillion dollar U.S. defense budget is running out of missiles and shells and cannot keep pace with the anemically funded Russians. Hilarious.

Now for the delusional parts of the Schmitt/Barnes article:

U.S. officials say Ukraine could mount a counterattack and claw back some — though not all — of the territory it has lost if it can continue to exact a bloody toll on Russia until new weapons can flow in from the West.

And if a frog had wings it could fly. The reason Ukraine is begging for new tanks, planes, artillery units and multiple launch rocket systems is because Russia has destroyed over 80% of Ukraine’s assets. And in the process of destroying tanks and planes and artillery pieces, Russia also has killed the best of Ukraine’s troops.

But that fact escapes Schmitt and Barnes. They happily peddle the DOD/CIA bullshit that Russia has suffered staggering losses and is scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill ostensibly depleted military units:

The nearly five-month war is at a critical moment, U.S. officials and others familiar with the intelligence assessments say. As many as 100 to 200 Ukrainian soldiers have died every day since Russia shifted its military campaign in the spring to focus on eastern Ukraine. But overall, about 20,000 Russians have been killed. Injuries have taken about 60,000 more off the battlefield. Nearly a third of Russia’s equipment has been destroyed in the war, according to Western officials, including several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

To replenish its military, Russia would have to mobilize more of its population, by making a declaration of war — officially the conflict remains a “special military operation” — or by moving troops and equipment from Russia’s Far North or Far East to Ukraine.

Let me do the math for you. Russia started Phase 2–i.e., focusing on Donbass–on 1 April 2022. As of today, that is 104 days. If Ukraine was losing 100 a day that means only 10,400 have died. If the number is 200, that means 20,800. So let me get this straight. Ukraine, which is in a defensive crouch since April 1, has lost the Luhansk Republic and is being methodically pushed out of Donetsk, and has, under the worse case presented by US intelligence, suffered the same number of casualties as Russia?

If the Russian army actually suffered the kinds of losses claimed by Ukraine and the New York Times and anonymous US officials, then how in the hell did those sneaky Russians beat the crap out of the well entrenched Ukrainians? Russia started the “Special Military Operation” with approximately 200,000 troops. Yet the folks talking to Schmitt and Barnes insist that 80,000 Russians are casualties. In other words, 40% of the Russian force has been lost.

So, if that is true, those Russians must be incredible warriors. Ukraine has not taken back and defended a single hectare of territory it once held. This despite having a three to one numerical advantage over Russia. What the hell? Ukraine started the war with 600,000 soldiers against Russia’s paltry 200,000 and it is Russia that is, according to the Times, “steadily advancing.”

The real question that Schmitt and Barnes should have asked, how long can US officials continue to bullshit themselves and pour expensive weapon systems into a rat hole? The speed of Russia’s advance appears to be accelerating. There are reports today that Russian forces are entering the outskirts of Seversk, one of the key strong points of the new Ukrainian defensive line. If true, the Russians are likely to achieve a strategic breakthrough in the Donetsk.

What the gullible reporters and the morons who staff the CIA and DIA fail to comprehend is that Russia’s tactic of systematically destroying the air, armor and artillery assets over the past three months appears to have achieved Clausewitz’s culminating point–i.e., the point at which a military force is no longer able to perform its operations.

Ukraine, notwithstanding it numerical advantage in personnel, has yet to mount a significant offensive that has pushed the Russians back and kept them at bay. That is reality. The reality for Ukrainian troops is a nightmare. Here is a video of Russia attacking three columns of Ukrainian troops trying to launch an attack on Kherson in southern Ukraine:

At some point, the American public will awaken to this reality and realize they have supported a program of unilateral disarmament. We sent many of our best weapons to Ukraine and the Russians are blowing them to hell.

*

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 South Front

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 month’s release of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine documents by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reveals three more reports of deaths among vaccine trial participants and more instances of Pfizer listing injuries as “not related” to the vaccine.

This month’s release of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals three more reports of deaths among vaccine trial participants and further instances of Pfizer downplaying serious adverse events sustained by participants and listing the injuries as “not related” to the vaccine.

Of the approximately 80,000 pages released this month, the most revelatory is a 3,611-page “confidential” document with no title — only the file name “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive.”

The document contains information about vaccine trial participants who died, who sustained adverse events during the trial or who contracted COVID-19 during the trial.

All participants listed in the document received the 30 μg dose of the BNT162b2 candidate vaccine, which the FDA in August 2021 granted Emergency Use Authorization.

The FDA on July 1 released the documents as part of a court-ordered disclosure schedule stemming from an expedited Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in August 2021.

Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, a group of doctors and public health professionals, initially submitted the FOIA request.

Document details deaths of three trial participants

The “interim narrative” document contains reports of three clinical trial participants who died — and in all cases, the investigator ruled out the possibility the deaths were related to Pfizer’s vaccines.

One instance pertains to a 56-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1007 10071101), who suffered cardiac arrest on Oct. 18, 2021, and died three days later. She was vaccinated on July 30, 2020, and Aug. 20, 2020.

The “narrative comments” accompanying the report on the woman’s death stated her death could not have been related to the vaccine, due to the amount of time that had elapsed following her second dose:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the cardiac arrest was related to the study intervention or clinical trial procedures, as the death occurred 2 months after receiving Dose 2.”

The woman’s medical history did not indicate any cardiovascular problems, although ongoing obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease and sleep apnea syndrome were listed.

The second report of a death was that of a 60-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID C4591001 1162 11621327), who received one dose of the vaccine (on Sept. 10, 2020) and died sometime in the following three days of atherosclerotic disease.

According to the document:

“The study site received a police report indicating that the police visited the subject’s home to perform a welfare check on 13 Sep 2020 (Day 4) and found him dead.”

The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing autoimmune thyroiditis, obesity and depression, and a prior craniocerebral injury and prior hip arthroplasty.

According to the report:

“It was reported that the subject’s body was cold and had visible lividity. According to the medical examiner, the probable cause of death was progression of atherosclerotic disease. Relevant tests were unknown. Autopsy results were not available at the time of this report.

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the arteriosclerosis was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected [emphasis added] underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

In other words, the participant’s death was attributed to a “suspected” cause, while the possibility that it was vaccine-related in any way, was dismissed.

The third death listed in the “fa_interim_narrative_sensitive” documents was listed under the section in the document listing reports from trial participants who withdrew, not those who died.

The report pertained to a 72-year-old Hispanic/Latino male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1152 11521497) who received one dose of the vaccine, on Oct. 7, 2020.

The subject sustained vasovagal syncope (a fainting incident) on Oct. 26, 2020, and was admitted to the hospital, causing him to miss his scheduled follow-up vaccination appointment on Oct. 28, 2020.

According to the document:

“The subject was transferred to the intensive care unit. Family medical history relevant to the syncope was unknown.

“On an unspecified date, the syncope resolved and the subject was discharged from the hospital.”

He was withdrawn from the study on Nov. 6, 2020. However, according to the subject’s sister, he died of “unknown” causes on Nov. 11, 2020.

As stated by the document (dated Nov. 22, 2020):

“The cause of death was reported as unknown. It was not reported if an autopsy was performed. A death certificate might be available at a later date.”

Nevertheless, this lack of information did not prevent the study investigator or Pfizer from dismissing the possibility that the participant’s death was vaccine-related. The document states:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the syncope was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment. Per Pfizer, the syncope was most likely coincidental and associated with underlying clinical conditions.”

The document contained no reports of deaths among trial participants who received the placebo.

Investigators attribute 4 serious adverse events to vaccine, Pfizer disagrees

According to the latest document release, investigators attributed the vaccine to serious adverse events in four cases, however, Pfizer disagreed with the investigators’ conclusions in three out of the four cases.

The incidents are:

• A 53-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1018 10181159), who developed “lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia” on Oct. 20, 2020, which was ongoing as of the date of the document (Nov. 22, 2020).

She was vaccinated on Aug. 14 and Sept. 4, 2020.

The woman’s medical history did not indicate lower back or lower extremity pain, just ongoing migraines and a prior history including a right shoulder dislocation, fibrocystic breast disease and Vitamin D deficiency.

The study investigator and Pfizer disagreed on whether the serious adverse event she experienced was related to the vaccination. As stated in the document:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia were related to the study intervention, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment and considered that there is not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study vaccine apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.

“Based on the information currently available, it was more likely that the lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain with radicular paresthesia was associated with the subject’s underlying known neurological condition.”

• A 71-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1142 11421247) sustained ventricular arrhythmias on Oct. 14, 2020 — the same day she received the second dose of the vaccine — and which continued until Oct. 21, 2020.

The woman received her first dose on Sept. 21, 2020. Her medical history indicated she was wearing a cardiac pacemaker and was experiencing ongoing atrioventricular block (complete), atrial fibrillation and supraventricular tachycardia.

Again, the study investigator and Pfizer could not agree as to whether this adverse event was related to the vaccination. The document states:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the ventricular arrhythmia was related to the study intervention based on the temporal relationship since the arrhythmias began within 24 hours of Dose 2, but not related to concomitant medications or clinical trial procedures.

“Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment. Additionally, Pfizer commented that there was not enough evidence to establish a causal relationship with the study intervention apart from a chronological association at this time of the report.

“In absence of evidence for an inflammatory response to study intervention, it was more likely that the ventricular arrhythmia was associated with the subject’s underlying known cardiac conditions.”

Pfizer dismissed the possibility that the vaccine may have exacerbated the subject’s existing cardiac conditions.

• A 48-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781107), who received one dose of the vaccine on Sept. 4, 2020, and withdrew from the study on Sept. 25, 2020.

In the interim, the participant sustained right axilla lymphadenopathy, with “at least four enlarged lymph nodes” — a condition that was still ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.

Her medical history indicated ongoing positional vertigo, osteoarthritis, eczema, sinus headaches, seasonal allergies and a Pitocin allergy, as well as prior menorrhagia, uterine fibroids and a past hysterectomy. In addition, her body mass index (BMI) was listed as being 36.9.

Pfizer also in this case did not agree with the study investigator’s assessment:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was a reasonable possibility that the lymphadenopathy was related to the study intervention. Pfizer did not concur with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

• A 30-year-old Asian female in the U.S. sustained a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA).

The documents did not list any severe adverse events occurring in anyone outside the U.S., even though the documents contain reports from trials in Argentina, Brazil and South Africa.

‘Unrelated’ adverse event reports habitually dismiss possibility injuries were vaccine-related

The documents reveal a large discrepancy between the number of adverse events deemed to be related to the vaccination (four) compared to those reported to be “not related” (113 non-placebo participants).

The reports associated with each incident reveal an ongoing tendency to dismiss any possibility injuries were vaccine-related — even in instances where no alternative cause was identified or where patients had no relevant prior medical history.

In still other instances, the cause of the adverse event was attributed to itself, while in several other cases, pre-existing conditions worsened following vaccination.

A significant number of accidents and falls — and subsequent injuries — also were reported.

Instances where severe adverse events were brushed over as being “not related” to the vaccination, despite no relevant medical history, include:

• A 75-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1013 10131176), who was vaccinated on Aug. 13 and Oct. 7, 2020, sustained 13 adverse events between Aug. 29 and Sept. 16, 2020, many of which were ongoing as of the document date of Nov. 22, 2020.

These adverse events included congestive heart failure, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, acute renal failure, aspiration pneumonia, anemia, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, leukopenia, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and mild concentric left ventricular hypertrophy.

The participant had ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, hiatus hernia, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension and constipation, in addition to prior small intestinal and knee surgery.

The report attributed the patient’s adverse events to his prior surgical history. The document stated:

“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the abdominal adhesions, small intestinal obstruction, pneumonia aspiration, and acute respiratory failure were related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but were rather likely related to subject’s previous surgery.

“Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”

 • A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1079 10791246) sustained a “cerebrovascular accident” (stroke), as well as expressive aphasia, on Oct. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 4 and Sept. 25, 2020.

Her medical history listed osteoarthritis, seasonal allergies and being postmenopausal. Nevertheless, her stroke and aphasia were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccine, although no cause was listed. Instead, the document stated, “pending medical records” with regard to the cause of her adverse events.

• A 66-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1021 10211190) suffered a stroke on Nov. 2, 2020, with ongoing symptoms as of the document date on Nov. 22, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.

Her medical history indicated ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease, seasonal allergies and postmenopause, as well as a BMI of 28.5.

Her stroke was dismissed as being “not related” to the vaccine, although no alternative cause was listed.

• A 68-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921015) sustained arrhythmia atrial fibrillation and elevated troponin on Aug. 26, 2020. He received his first dose on Aug. 19, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020, as it required “clearance from his cardiologist.”

His medical history did not specifically indicate heart conditions. Instead, it indicated ongoing basal cell carcinoma on his nose, as well as hypersensitivity, seasonal allergies, myopia, dyslipidemia, hypertension, actinic keratosis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Although the study investigator wrote, in reference to the cause of his injuries, that “medical records [are] being reviewed not able to answer at this time,” the report dismissed possibility that his adverse events were related to the vaccine.

• A 45-year-old Black male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1156 11561006) with ongoing Type 1 diabetes sustained deep vein thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism on Aug. 31, 2020. He received one dose of the vaccine, on Aug. 20, 2020, and was discontinued from the study on Sept. 8, 2020, “because he no longer met the eligibility criteria.”

Both adverse events were deemed as being “not related” to his vaccination, and were instead indicated as being “related to medical history of Type 1 diabetes mellitus.”

• A 67-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1178 11781015) sustained several adverse events on Oct. 10-11, 2020, including ascending aorta ectasia, diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle and transient global amnesia. These conditions were ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.

The patient’s medical record indicated ongoing depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, insomnia and neck pain.

While the cause of his adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccination, the study did state a cause, listing it as “possibly” having been hypertension.

• A 58-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12313674) sustained adverse events including panlobular emphysema, pneumonitis, and left submaxillary sialadenitis beginning on Sept. 29, 2020. The first two conditions were indicated as continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She was vaccinated on Aug. 24 and Sept. 13, 2020. Her medical record indicated ongoing Sjogren’s syndrome and insomnia.

The cause of these adverse events was deemed as being “not related” to the vaccines, although for the first two adverse events, the stated cause was listed as “unknown,” while for the third, the cause was listed as Sjogren’s syndrome.

• A 56-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12314001) was diagnosed with acute coronary syndrome on Nov. 8, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 25 and Sept. 15, 2020.

Her medical history consisted of ongoing hypothyroidism, allergic rhinitis and asthma — but no coronary troubles.

Nevertheless, according to the study investigator, her condition was determined to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the cause was listed as “unknown.”

‘Cause unknown’ but no chance the vaccine was to blame

In other examples, adverse events were assigned no specific cause or only a “probable” cause, but investigators dismissed the possibility the vaccines may have caused the injuries.

For example:

• A 34-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1226 12261745) developed a Leydig cell tumor in his left testicle on Sept. 23, 2020. He received the first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 16, 2020, and second dose on Oct. 7, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing allergic rhinitis.

While the study investigator claimed that the adverse event was “not related” to the vaccination, the cause was listed as “unknown.”

• A 19-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Brazil (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311281) with no indicated medical history was diagnosed with acute appendicitis and QT interval prolongation — a heart condition — on Sept. 18, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 4, 2020.

These conditions were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination, although the causes were indicated as “unknown.”

• A 41-year-old Hispanic/Latino female from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12311315) was diagnosed with anemia and malignant melanoma on Sept. 25, 2020, with symptoms continuing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She was vaccinated on Aug. 15 and Sept. 3, 2020.

The adverse events were indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination, but instead due to a “probable relationship with [a] vaginal tumor under study.”

• A 44-year-old Hispanic/Latino male from Argentina (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1231 12312854) was diagnosed with supraventricular arrhythmia on Sept. 17, 2020. He received the two vaccine doses on Aug. 21 and Sept. 11, 2020.

His medical history listed only ongoing sleep apnea syndrome and a BMI of 50.4.

According to the study investigator, the arrhythmia was “not related” to the vaccines, but instead “probably” corresponded “to an accessory intraventricular line.”

• A 56-year-old mixed-race male from Brazil (unique subject ID: C4591001 1241 12411825) was diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis on Nov. 2, 2020, and hypochromic anemia two days later. Both conditions were still listed as ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant was vaccinated on Sept. 17 and Oct. 8, 2020. His medical history listed ongoing hypertension.

According to the study investigator, these adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination. Instead, his acute pyelonephritis was due to a “possible” bacterial urinary tract infection, while the hypochromic anemia cause was “to be clarified.”

Worsening of pre-existing conditions ‘not related’ to vaccine

In other instances, participants experienced a worsening of pre-existing conditions. However, in all instances, no relation to the COVID-19 vaccine was determined.

For instance:

• A 72-year-old white male in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1092 10921187) sustained congestive heart failure on Oct. 1, 2020. He received his first dose of the vaccine on Sept. 15, 2020, and his second dose on Oct. 6, 2020.

The participant’s medical history included ongoing coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, asthma, obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, insomnia and seasonal allergies. Moreover, he had previously had a defibrillator installed.

The cause of his adverse event was simply indicated as “progression of cardiovascular disease” unrelated to the vaccine. The possibility that the vaccine may potentially have precipitated the worsening of his heart condition was not considered.

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1111 11111095) was reported as having sustained an “undiagnosed mental disorder” on Sept. 25, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. She was vaccinated on Aug.11 and Sept. 1, 2020.

The participant’s medical history did not indicate any prior mental disorders or conditions. Nevertheless, the cause of the adverse event was indicated by the study indicator as being “not related” to the vaccination and instead simply due to “mental instability.”

• A 58-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1109 11091387), who sustained worsening osteoarthritis of the right knee on Oct. 14, 2020, and later also experienced deep vein thrombosis on Oct. 20, 2020, which was still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The participant’s medical history indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, ongoing hypercholesterolemia, hypothyroidism, sleep apnea syndrome, rosacea and an enlarged prostate. A prior knee surgery was also listed.

Both adverse events were deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and instead attributed to the patient’s prior knee surgery and “previous medical history.”

• A 70-year-old white female from the U.S. (unique subject ID: C4591001 1127 11271023) experienced a worsening of her asthma on Oct.1, 2020. She later also developed malignant invasive ductal carcinoma in her left breast, on Nov. 5, 2020. Both cases were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

She received her two doses of the vaccine on July 30 and Aug. 18, 2020. Her medical history, aside from ongoing asthma, also indicated a recurrent urinary tract infection and ongoing bronchitis, seasonal allergies, myopia, migraines, hypothyroidism, hypertension, insomnia, hyperlipidemia, osteoarthritis, bilateral deafness and postmenopause.

According to the document, both adverse events were “not related” to the vaccination, and instead were attributed to an “allergy” and to a “malignancy,” respectively.

Reports of multiple adverse events ignored

Other examples include cases where patients sustained multiple adverse events, many of which were entirely ignored by the study investigators’ assessments.

These include:

• A 61-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1114 1114108), who sustained 10 vaccine injuries beginning on Sept. 12, 2020, after he received the first dose of the vaccine on Aug. 24, 2020, and his second dose on Sept. 30, 2020.

The adverse events he experienced included acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, chest pain, left ventricular hypertrophy, mitral valve regurgitation, bilateral hand pain, pulmonary hypertension, skin avulsion on his left finger, a Staphylococcal infection and tricuspid regurgitation. Several of these conditions were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020.

The patient’s medical history indicated ongoing peripheral neuropathy, type 2 diabetes, anxiety, depression, asthma, Staphylococcal infection, hypertension, hyperlipidemia and a prior leg amputation.

According to the study investigator, “the staphylococcal infection” was “not related” to the vaccine, but instead was connected to the patient’s hypertension, musculoskeletal causes and an “infection.” No mention was made in this assessment as to the probable causes of the other adverse events.

Some adverse events ‘caused’ by … the adverse event

In still other cases, the “cause” of participants’ adverse events was indicated as being the same as the adverse event itself.

Examples include:

• A 68-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1095 10951204), who was diagnosed with bladder cancer on Nov. 2, 2020. He was vaccinated on Sept. 2 and Sept. 21, 2020.

According to the document, the participant’s ongoing medical history included hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia, hypercholesterolemia, angina pectoris, coronary arterial stent insertion, coronary artery disease, erectile dysfunction and osteoarthritis.

However, the cause of his bladder cancer was attributed as “cancer” and deemed to be “not related” to the vaccination and “most likely coincidental and associated with the underlying clinical conditions.”

• A 48-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1124 11241106) sustained an acute myocardial infarction on Sept. 27, 2020. He previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 26 and Sept. 16, 2020.

His medical history indicated ongoing high cholesterol, gastroesophageal reflux disease and back pain.

According to the study investigator, the adverse event sustained by the participant was “not related” to the vaccination, but instead “related to cardiovascular risk,” with no further elaboration provided.

• A 73-year-old white female in the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1223 12231159) was found to have a pancreatic mass on Nov. 5, 2020. She was vaccinated on Sept. 10 and Oct. 1, 2020.

Her medical records indicated ongoing osteoarthritis, menopause, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, dyslipidemia, hypothyroidism, Eustachian tube dysfunction, prophylaxis, irritable bowel syndrome, osteoporosis and benign monoclonal hypergammaglobulinemia.

The cause of her adverse event, which was indicated to be “not related” to the vaccination, was listed as “new development of pancreatic mass” without any elaboration as to the factors that may have caused it to appear.

Other explanations for participants’ vaccine injuries include:

• A 78-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971011), who suffered from pneumonia between Sept. 20 and Oct. 5, 2020. He had previously received two doses of the vaccine, on Aug. 20 and Sept. 9, 2020.

According to the document, the cause of his pneumonia was “not related” to the vaccines. Instead, the listed cause was “pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from somewhere.”

• An 84-year-old white male from the U.S. (unique Subject ID: C4591001 1097 10971084) contracted pneumonia on Oct. 7, 2020, symptoms of which were still ongoing as of the document date of Dec. 4, 2020. He had previously been vaccinated on Sept. 1 and Sept. 23, 2020.

Similar to the patient above, the cause of the participant’s pneumonia was indicated as being “not related” to the vaccination. The narrative comment instead stated that “Pt [patient] contracted pneumonia from unknown source.”

Very few severe adverse events — and no deaths — were reported in other countries, although Argentina, for instance, was home to the largest of the Pfizer vaccine trials in 2020.

The next 80,000-page cache of FDA documents pertaining to the FDA’s authorization of the vaccine is set to be released on Aug. 1.

*

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.

Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., is an independent journalist and researcher based in Athens, Greece.

All images in this article are 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 Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Armenians citizens are rising up in their millions against a ruling class determined to take away their rights. There is chaos in the streets as Armenians, frustrated with the government and its close links to the World Economic Forum, have begun protesting against the authoritarian agenda.

The World Economic Forum has been bragging about “shaping the future of democracy in Armenia” since 2019, one year after the Velvet Revolution in Armenia and the ascension of Nikol Pashinyan, a close Schwab ally, who emerged from political obscurity to be installed as Prime Minister in 2018.

Armenia listened to the World Economic Forum, adopted their agenda, and the nation time traveled to 2030. It looks like ordinary Armenians don’t like living in Agenda 2030. Who could have predicted that?

REVOLUTION begins IN ARMENIA as the people HUNT down GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS pic.twitter.com/8jy8L5rznR

— Vivian (@ViviNMtl) July 12, 2022

Now there is anarchy on the streets of capital city Yerevan, and the mainstream media continues to collude with the establishment to cover up the scale of events and suppress the movement.

Pashinyan was the editor of Armenia’s best-selling daily liberal newspaper, The Armenian Times, which has always been highly critical of conservative governments.

Pashinyan’s new liberal government wasted no time partnering with the World Economic Forum and has served a testing ground for some of Schwab’s more adventurous plans for humanity, including a ban on cash.

Eurasia.net reported on Armenia’s move to ban cash in June:

Under a new law all big purchases will have to be made electronically, either through a mobile payment app or via a wire transfer at a bank.

And for now, at least, that will come with a steep fee: Banks charge between 1.5 and 3 percent for the transactions.

The new law, passed by parliament on June 9, affects business transactions of more than 300,000 drams (about $720) and transactions between individuals of more than 500,000 drams ($1,200). That limit for individuals will be reduced to 300,000 drams in July 2023.

The law also prohibits local and central government bodies from making or taking any payments in cash. Some institutions like hospitals, universities, and notaries will go completely cashless. Pensions and salaries will have to be paid via banks – even pawnshop loans, as well. And transactions made illicitly in cash can be annulled.

“Let no one think that we want to complicate people’s lives, on the contrary, we want to simplify people’s lives,” Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said in a June 2 cabinet meeting where the bill was discussed. “There are also fiscal and anti-corruption effects here.”

Meanwhile, there have been rolling protests in Yerevan to warn the government against concessions to neighboring Azerbaijan over the long-disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Opposition parties have accused the Prime Minister of treason, accusing him of planning to give away all of Karabakh to Azerbaijan after he told lawmakers last month that the “international community calls on Armenia to scale down demands on Karabakh”.

What are the odds that the “international community” referred to by Pashinyan is actually Klaus Schwab and the WEF?

*

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.

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

Featured image is from News Punch

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 Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced in Moscow on Tuesday that President Vladimir Putin will travel to Tehran on July 19, to take part in a tripartite meeting with his Iranian and Turkish counterparts as part of the Astana peace process to end the war in Syria as well as hold a bilateral meeting with Turkish President Recep Erdogan. 

Such a summit was long expected but the pandemic and the Ukraine conflict  delayed matters. The current impasse in Syria is fraught with risks. Turkey has plans to launch another military incursion into Syria’s northern border regions that are under the control of Kurdish groups, who, Ankara alleges, are linked to the separatist PKK and also happen to be Pentagon’s inseparable allies. 

Damascus, Moscow and Tehran — and Washington — disfavour the Turkish move as potentially destabilising, but Erdogan is keeping plans in a state of suspended animation, while tactfully dialling down the threatening rhetoric and acknowledging he’s “in no rush.”

For want of green lights from its Astana partners, presumably, Erdogan is unlikely to launch the military incursion, but Russia and Iran are wary that the incursion could complicate their presence and political influence in Syria and risk confrontation between Turkish troops and Syrian government forces. 

However, Syria apart, Putin’s trip has much wider ramifications. What transpires in his bilateral meetings with Erdogan and Iranian leaders are certainly the more important templates to watch. Clearly, Turkey and Iran are emerging as two of the most consequential relationships of Russian foreign policies and diplomacy. And Putin’s visit comes at a highly transformative period in the US’ approach toward both Turkey and Iran. 

Erdogan’s hopes of a rapprochement with the US have been dashed as Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis told reporters on June 30 that Athens had submitted a letter of request “in recent days” to the US government for a squadron of 20 F-35s, with options to buy an additional squadron. The Greek announcement came just a day after President Joe Biden had assured Erdogan on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Madrid that he backed the latter’s pending request for F-16s to Turkey. 

Erdogan should have known that Biden’s long, successful career has been inextricably linked with the powerful Greek lobby in America, which is a big source of election funding for aspiring politicians. Therefore, Greece’s F-35 deal is certain to be approved and it could further drive a wedge between the already strained relationship of the US and Turkey — and will only reinforce Ankara’s suspicion that Washington is using Greece as a pawn to control Turkey. Conceivably, the deal could change the military balance in Eastern Mediterranean, taking into account Greece’s alliance with Cyprus and Israel as well. 

Suffice to say, Putin’s conversation with Erdogan comes at a time of uncertainties in Turkish-American relations. In immediate terms, therefore, the circumstances are most conducive for establishing a Black Sea naval corridor to export grain from Ukraine. There is a strategic convergence between Moscow’s keenness to prove it has not caused the global grain crisis, and Turkey’s desire to project its strategic autonomy, although a NATO member country.

Turkish defence minister Akar announced on July 13 that a consensus has been reached on the establishment of a coordination centre in Istanbul with the participation of all the parties, and the Russian and Ukrainian sides also agreed on joint control of the ships in both entering and exiting the ports as well as on maritime security. It is a signal victory for Turkish mediation. In the process, we may trust the strong relationship between Erdogan and Putin to harness fresh energy for deepening Turkish-Russian political-economic relations. Turkey has a unique role to play, as Moscow navigates its way around the western sanctions. 

Equally, Putin’s talks with the Iranian leadership also has a big geopolitical setting. The US President Joe Biden would have just finished his trip to Saudi Arabia, an event that impacts Iran’s core interests at a crucial juncture when the nuclear negotiations are adrift and Teheran-Riyadh normalisation talks have made progress. 

The US National Security Advisor Jack Sullivan’s theatrical disclosure on Monday of Iran supplying “several hundred UAVs, including weapons-capable UAVs on an expedited timeline” and of Russian personnel undergoing training in Iran in this connection, etc. appear to have been timed carefully.

The important thing to be noted here is that Sullivan’s story overlaps secret parleys reportedly between Riyadh and Jerusalem on defence technology exchanges, specifically related to Saudi concerns about Iranian drones!  

Furthermore, Sullivan’s loose talk comes against the backdrop of the announcement by Israel last month of the formation of a mutual air defence coalition that is expected to involve, among others, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. 

To be sure, Sullivan’s revelation right before Biden’s trip to Riyadh comes with a political aspect, as it puts pressure on Saudi Arabia to rethink both its blossoming relationship with Russia as well as its normalisation talks with Iran. 

Moscow understands that Biden’s primary purpose in the Middle eastern tour is to put together a front against Russia and China. Indeed, Biden wrote in an op-Ed in the Washington Post last week on his Middle East tour, “We need to counter Russian aggression, be in a better position to win the competition with China, and work to strengthen stability in an important region of the world. To do this, we need to interact directly with countries that can influence the results of such work. Saudi Arabia is one of those countries.” 

Biden hopes to bring Saudi Arabia into some sort of format with Israel beneath an overarching binding strategic defence cooperation pact that goes beyond anything the US has agreed to before. This, inevitably, requires the demonising of Iran as a common threat. Simply put, Biden is reviving a failed American strategy — namely, organising the region around the goal of isolating and containing Iran.      

Indeed, if history is any guide, Biden’s idea of creating a collective security system is doomed to fail. Such attempts previously met with fierce resistance from regional states. Also, Russia has certain advantages here, having pursued a diplomacy with the regional states that is firmly anchored in mutual respect and mutual benefit, and predictability and reliability. During Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, a certain understanding was reached, which Riyadh is unlikely to disown. 

Indeed, Saudi Arabia and Russia have a convergence of interests with regard to the oil market. At any rate, expert opinion is that both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have very limited spare capacity. The expectation is that Saudi Arabia will most likely agree to loosen the oil taps on the back of the Biden visit, but the leadership will still strive to find a way to do it within the context of the current OPEC+ agreement (with Russia) that extends through December by, say, compensating for the production underperformance of struggling OPEC states such as Nigeria and Angola. (The OPEC+ capacity is already well below the level implied in the agreement.)

Fundamentally, as the executive president of Quincy Institute Trista Parsi noted recently, “any reduction in tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran is a threat to the durability of the Abraham Accords… That means in order for Israel and Saudi Arabia and the UAE to continue to have enough strategic incentives to collaborate and have relations and all jointly forget about Palestinian suffering, there needs to be a threat from Iran. Otherwise the whole house of cards falls apart.” 

Iran understands that the JCPOA talks are neither dead nor alive but in a comatose state, which may perish soon unless salvaged — depending on the degree of success or failure of Biden’s talks in Saudi Arabia. But all signs are that Tehran is pressing the pedal on strengthening the ties with Moscow. Its SCO membership is through, while it is now seeking BRICS membership. The compass for Iran’s foreign policy trajectory is set. Surely, from such a perspective, Putin has a lot to discuss in Tehran with the Iranian leadership as the new world order is taking shape.

Even with regard to Sullivan’s drone story, although Iran has issued a pro forma rebuttal, we may not have heard the last word.  The fact of the matter is that Iran is among the top five world leaders in the development and production of UAVs that may  interest Russia — Shahed strike systems, Mohajer tactical drones, various versions of Karrar reconnaissance and strike UAVs with range of 500-1000 kms, Arash kamikaze drones, etc. Interestingly, Iran’s MFA spokesman alluded to the existing framework of Iran-Russia military-technical cooperation that predates the war in Ukraine.

*

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: Iran’s underground base for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (popularly known as Drone) at an undisclosed location (File 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.

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

***

The peace movement needs to break the new “taboo” around criticism of Nato, activists heard at the launch of the Stop the War Coalition’s updated pamphlet Nato: a war alliance on Tuesday night.

“Nato is central to so much of what is going on in the world today,” the coalition’s Andrew Murray pointed out, “but we’re in a situation where in conventional and parliamentary politics it’s been removed as a topic.

“Questioning Nato and its role is forbidden not only in the Tory Party, which has more or less always been the case, but now in the Labour Party under Keir Starmer. Where Labour MPs might in the past have been speaking at a meeting like this, now they cannot criticise Nato for fear of losing the whip.”

A Stop the War statement issued as Russia invaded Ukraine in February, condemning the invasion but also the Nato expansion to Russia’s borders which had helped provoke it, was originally signed by 11 Labour MPs but all withdrew their signatures after being threatened with loss of the whip.

“So in publishing this, Stop the War is shining a light on what Nato is.”

Murray shredded claims that Nato is a defensive alliance.

“The illegal war against Yugoslavia in 1999, the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan — and we just saw the revelations about SAS soldiers reportedly murdering people in Afghanistan in cold blood — were Nato operations.

“The war on Libya in 2011 was also done under Nato auspices — it destroyed Libya, leading to immense suffering and a refugee crisis that we live with today.”

Stop the War remained clear that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified and that it should withdraw its troops immediately, he continued, but that did not mean it could not be explained.

“In the litany of Russian grievances, fear about Nato expansion is not irrational. If you look at the record, promises that were given to the Soviet government at the end of the cold war were broken, Nato has relentlessly pushed forward into eastern Europe.”

The idea that Nato was an alliance of democracies was also a myth, he argued, with the Salazar dictatorship in Portugal being a founding member and it currently including the authoritarian Polish and Hungarian governments as well as Erdogan’s Turkey, “hardly a democracy at all now.”

Even its status as a “north Atlantic” organisation was looking dubious given its role in the Afghan war in central Asia and the expansion of the US, British and French military presence in the China seas.

“What Nato is is an instrument, ultimately, of US power. It is designed to entrench that power globally at a time when by many other metrics, the US is losing ground, economically and diplomatically.

“Britain has been core to it from the beginning and we are trying to prop up by force a unipolar world where only the voice of the US really counts.

“The dangers of going along with this are apparent, we are seeing the normalisation of the idea of nuclear war, now being talked about quite casually as one way the Ukraine war might escalate.

“And we are certainly going to pay for it. Candidates for the next prime minister talk about spending going up from 2 to 3 per cent of GDP — an increase of £35-40 billion in military spending, which will all come out of no doubt much more useful areas of state.”

In recent months Nato and the US’s main economic and technological rival, China, have dropped their official neutrality towards each other.

China explicitly condemned Nato expansion as a factor in the outbreak of the Ukraine war, and has stated its opposition to Sweden and Finland joining.

At its recent Madrid summit Nato identified China as a “strategic challenge” — Britain and the US had reportedly backed the even more confrontational status of “threat,” but were apparently unable to convince continental European members this was wise — while China issued a diplomatic broadside last week accusing Nato of “creating conflicts …arbitrarily launching wars and killing civilians,” adding for good measure that when Western powers talked about the “rules-based international order” they meant their own right to dictate to others but ignored international law themselves whenever they wished.

China expert Jenny Clegg told the meeting that the Madrid summit had seen a “major escalation against China,” and that while war in Ukraine was raging Nato was not just “elevating the militarisation of Europe to an entirely new level” but “without any idea of the end game, turning the sights of its blunderbuss on China.”

The day after the summit, she noted, the US organised the biggest ever military exercises in the Pacific off Hawaii, with Britain taking part. Nato members made up almost half the 26 countries involved.

“What is an Atlantic alliance, designed as we’re told for the defence of Europe, doing in the Pacific?” she challenged.

“China is America’s priority and Joe Biden’s backers have realised that the US is not strong enough now to tackle China on its own, it needs its allies. The opportunity of Russia’s invasion to bring US allies around the world together was too good to be true.”

Clegg said we were rapidly descending into a new cold war with “those 300,000 forces on high alert across Europe are not only to keep Russia out, they sever Europe from Asia, lest, as [US strategist Zbigniew] Brzezinski warned, the two parts of Eurasia become the centre of world power.

“Why? Because the US is in decline, and now China is rising. China is forecast to overtake the US in economic size by 2030, but not only that, India and Brazil are also rising, co-ordinating with Russia and South Africa. The Brics could well eclipse the G7 [in economic clout] by the end of the decade.

“So the US is fighting for its dominance using the war in Ukraine to leverage its restoration as number one.”

The situation was extremely volatile, she argued, as there were numerous flashpoints for conflict in Asia, from the China-India border dispute to island disputes between Japan, Russia and China and the status of Taiwan. All were manageable by dialogue and negotiation, but all had the potential to spark conflict in an atmosphere of military brinkmanship and mutual mistrust.

The meeting saw a lively debate on the way forward, with speakers arguing that collective security should not involve confrontation of some blocs against others but needed to address everyone’s security.

This was key to addressing claims that Ukraine had a “right” to join Nato, for example, since countries do not have a right to threaten or destabilise their neighbours — though speakers agreed on Ukraine’s right to self-determination which was brutally violated by the Russian attack.

Members of the audience pointed to the need to build a campaign against the deployment of US nuclear weapons at Lakenheath, as well as the danger of pouring arms into Ukraine given the existence of fascist military formations there.

The first print run of 600 copies of Nato: A War Alliance has already sold out and another run is underway, with Stop the War urging activists to pre-order the pamphlet and to hold local meetings at which the issues it raises can be promoted throughout the movement, with a need to reassert the importance of peace and de-escalation through the labour movement given the Westminster ban on discussion.

*

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 Morning Star

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.

***

A group of 19 firefighters forced off the job for choosing not to get the experimental COVID vaccines are suing the city and the Calgary Fire Department (CFD) for a combined $38 million in damages, saying the city’s injection mandate “violated” their basic “human rights.”

“There’s something tyrannical about these mandates. We can’t identity everybody behind it, but what we can do is hold people accountable, like the fire chief, politicians, city managers. Those people are responsible for their actions,” Stephen Dabbagh, the leader of the lawsuit, told LifeSiteNews.

Dabbagh, a devout Catholic father of four, worked for 20 years as a firefighter for the CFD, most recently as a fire captain. He resigned under duress on December 8, 2021, over the department’s COVID vaccine policy.

He told LifeSiteNews that the lawsuit came about because it was time to stand up to the “political and ideology tyranny of these mandates.”

“It’s about trying to hold people (politicians, bureaucrats) accountable for their actions,” Dabbagh said.

The City of Calgary and the CFD were served with the Statement of Claim on July 7 in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta. The firefighters are seeking $2 million in damages for mental duress, violations of their Charter rights, violations under the Criminal Code, and “Punitive and exemplary damages.”

“By forcing its loyal employees to take experimental injections as a requisite to employment, the City has breached its legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to its Employees contrary to section 217.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada,” the lawsuit reads.

“The Plaintiffs have suffered measurable damages, including mental distress, anxiety, and, in particular, injury to dignity and self-respect. The Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to significant damages due to the manner in which the City suspended their employment, including a claim for punitive aggravated damages arising from flagrant human rights and Charter violations.”

The City of Calgary in the fall of 2021 mandated jabs for all city employees, with the mandate for firefighters coming into force in early October. All city employees had to show proof of vaccination status, submit to invasive and frequent COVID tests, provide a reason for an exemption, or risk being placed on unpaid leave.

While the COVID vaccine mandate was “suspended” by the city in March 2022, Dabbagh told LifeSiteNews that the lawsuit is needed to prevent these types of dictates from ever coming back.

“The law says we have these rights (to refuse the jabs via Canada’s Charter) even if they are not being upheld by the courts,” Dabbagh said.

“For me, it is using every avenue to fight against the political and ideology tyranny of these mandates. … These medications, or whatever they are called, are not safe and did not work.”

Most of the firefighters named in the lawsuit are long-serving employees. These include those who resigned under duress or went on leave due the mandates, a 25-year CFD employee who served as an acting chief for three years and retired under duress, and one who was fired for showing support for the Freedom Convoy.

A few of the firefighters are now working again for the CFD but under duress.

The firefighters are being represented by Alberta lawyer Leighton Grey, who is also behind other high-profile lawsuits in Canada concerning employee vaccine mandates, in particular those from WestJet employees.

Grey told LifeSiteNews regarding the lawsuit that all of the firefighters have had “their human rights impacted, even people who were on leave at the time have still suffered human rights violations.”

“The city of Calgary through its vaccine mandate has violated the human rights of the workers by discriminating against them on the basis of religion, and arbitrary discrimination against one’s medical choice,” Grey said.

“We are seeking a declaration from the court that this (jab mandates) violates their human rights as per the charter.  We are asking the court to recognize that these vaccine mandates violate, rights.”

Grey noted that the lawsuit seeks mainly two things from the court. They are “a declaration that these vaccine mandates violate human rights, so we are talking about freedom of religion, rights as a human person, informed consent,” and monetary compensation.

Grey is involved with jab mandate lawsuits for CP workers, CN workers, Canadian postal workers, as well as Atco Gas, CNRL, and some Manitoba healthcare workers.

He was also involved in other high-profile Canadian COVID litigation for the past few years, helping on the cases of Alberta Pastors James Coates and Tim Stephens, who were jailed for breaking virus rules.

He told LifeSiteNews that all these lawsuits have “one thing in common” in that they are “all based upon discrimination against Canadian workers, and the target seems to be against skilled Canadian workers.”

“It’s against the glue of people that are holding society together,” he said.

Grey told LifeSiteNews that the “attack on the Canadian worker, I think, is really clear now, is part of a global agenda.”

“When you look at these vaccine mandates, they seem to only attack the Canadian working class. In most cases, these are unionized workers, and they are coming to me as the union is not doing their job,” Grey said.

Grey noted that Canadians are “living through a period of Canada of intense corruption, and the reason why is we have a very corrupt leader (Prime Minister).”

“When you import this heinous ideology of socialisms into trade unions what you have is corruption, and what you have is all the calamities as a result,” Grey said.

“We know from the Pfizer dump, and anecdotal evidence, that these vaccines have dangers and can cause bodily harm.”

Firefighter: If courts don’t uphold the Charter, it says a lot about ‘where we stand as a society’

Dabbagh told LifeSiteNews that the lawsuit seemed like the right thing to do “to fight back” and see “whether or not the courts will uphold the law or not.”

“If they don’t, we kind of know where we stand as a society,” he said.

Dabbagh noted how Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms is “supposed to be the highest law of the land.”

“If it’s not going to be upheld in the courts, then what does that say about where we live,” Dabbagh said.

Dabbagh and a group of around 100 other Calgary first responders last September drew the ire of the city after holding a silent protest against COVID jab mandates in front of city hall.

He noted that the first protest served as the catalyst for fellow and former co-workers to fight against the city’s COVID vaccine policy.

At the time, Calgary Fire Chief Steve Dongworth called those employees protesting COVID jab mandates a small group of people “in the process of advancing their agenda.”

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called protesters at hospitals and other areas an “outrageous small minority” and threatened to bring the full extent of the law on them should they block roadways.

Kenney will soon be replaced as premier and leader of the United Conservative Party of Canada (UCP) after announcing he will step down due to lack of support, no doubt due to his going along with COVID mandates.

Danielle Smith, who is running in the UCP leadership, has promised if she becomes Premier that there will never again be lockdowns or jab mandates in Alberta, and she would not “enforce” any federal mandates imposed on the province.

Virtually all Canadian provinces had in place COVID mandates for healthcare workers. While these mandates have been dropped except for British Columbia, many provinces are desperately now looking to re-hire the un-jabbed workers.

Under Kenney, Alberta also mandated a COVID vaccine passport system for a time, despite the fact the leader promised he would never bring such a program to light.

Lawyer: The new concept of ‘an involuntary unpaid absence’ is nothing more than ‘dismissal’

Grey noted to LifeSiteNews that as the firefighters’ union, Firefighters Association IAFF 255, did not stand up for their rights, it left them with no choice but to fight back with a lawsuit geared around Charter rights.

“Never have we had an involuntary unpaid absence … this amounts to constructive dismissal,” Grey noted.

“The Calgary Firefighters cannot sue their employer directory due to union collective bargaining agreement,” he said. “Their only recourse is to grieve through the union.”

As the union did nothing to help with the grievance over the vaccine mandates due to a collective bargaining agreement, the firefighters had to sue the CFD and city for “violations of human rights,” Grey noted.

“Time will tell. We are in early days, this is uncharted territory,” Grey said.

“I’m very proud these guys and honored to help them.”

Grey pointed out that “corruption” within the union comes into play “in every single case” due to the unions having “received an independent legal assessment that their COVID jab mandates are fine, so they cannot be sued.”

The COVID-19 injections approved for emergency use in Canada, and which are still in an experimental trial phase, including the Pfizer jab for ages 12 and up, all have connections to cells derived from aborted babies.

All four have also been associated with severe side effects such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.

*

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 Shutterstock

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 assassination of Shinzo Abe may have been not just the act of a crazy man with a self-made gun. See the analysis of Emanuel Pastreich

There may have been a more profound agenda behind it – an agenda that permeates just about everything that we are seeing and experiencing in our convoluted, chaotic and un-transparent world.

An agenda with three major objectives:

• Globalization, i.e. total control through a One World Order (OWO) by a small but extremely wealthy financial elite;
• Digitization of everything – to facilitate total control; and
• Massive Depopulation, elimination of the “useless eaters” (Yuval Noah Hariri, Klaus Schwab’s close personal adviser), so that Mother Earth’s generous but limited resources will be available for the few self-designated rulers.

Former Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, leader of Japan’s Conservative Liberal Democrats Party, was a nationalist – a non-globalist. He campaigned for his party to win a two thirds majority in the upcoming Parliamentary elections.

Non-globalists, those who stand and fight for their countries and peoples’ sovereignty are not well seen by the globalists, to put it benignly.

There are other renown personalities who enter this category. For example, former President Trump, Presidents Putin and Xi Jinping, as well as former Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, who was thrown out of office on 10 April this year by a US instigated and bought Parliamentary “Vote of Confidence”. And, not to forget Muammar Gaddafi, who was captured and atrociously killed on 20 October 2011.

Gaddafi’s assassination was instigated and organized by the US and France, because Gaddafi wanted to free Africa from the monetary and economic dependency, or better called “enslavement”, on Europe particularly France (West and Central Africa) and the US, by introducing a gold and petrol based African Dinar.

An earlier champion of independence and sovereign nations, was the late President John F. Kennedy.

*

Back to Japan. A two thirds majority is needed to amend the Constitution to render Japan the military autonomy and political sovereignty that she was promised at the signing of the San Francisco Peace Agreement after WWII in 1951.

The enactment of the San Francisco Peace Agreement on April 28, 1952, returned a certain sovereignty to Japan. The Treaty was signed by 48 nations. However, the Treaty limited Japan’s sovereignty, in as much as it stipulated that Japan may not have a full military. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prohibits Japan from establishing a military force or solving international conflicts through violence.  

There is some similarity with Germany which, as of this day, has only an Armistice Agreement with the WWII victors, but no Peace Agreement. Under this arrangement Germany may not have an offensive army and no nuclear weapons on her territory.

Never mind that the US Air Base at Ramstein near Frankfurt – one of the largest outside the US – stores countless nuclear warheads. Here is one of those flagrant contradictions of the mighty in today’s power games.

Article 9 is interpreted as meaning that armed forces are legitimate for passive self-defense only.This is a severe limitation to Japan’s defense strategy. Seen from a Japanese media-influenced perspective, this is especially true in the light of China’s ever greater and more visible military ascent.

The rules under Article 9 implied that the United States would guarantee Japan’s security by stationing US military personnel in Japan. In fact, there are at least 7 US military bases with more than 80,000 military personnel, making Japan worldwide the country with most US military presence. Altogether, close to half of all US military stationed abroad are based in Japan.

This is seen by many if not most Japanese as a severe limitation of their country’s sovereignty.

In May 2017, then Japanese Prime Minister Abe set a 2020 deadline for revising Article 9, which would legitimize the Japanese Self Defense Forces (JSDF) as a true military defense system, with preventive capabilities, in Japan’s Constitution. PM Abe retired in 2020, officially due to health problems, without revising Article 9. 

When he was shot on July 8, 2022, former PM Abe campaigned for his Conservative Liberal Democrats to win a two-thirds majority, so that the Constitution could be amended, by either removing or modifying Article 9. It would also have given Parliament power to decide over foreign military presence in Japan.

All of this is clearly a move away from globalism. Certainly, a disturbing factor for those who still defend the One World Order (OWO) dogma, especially the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its financial masters, the amalgamation of the world’s financial giants BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. In the case of the US, PM Abe’s attempt at full sovereignty was a ”threat” to the US strategic military position at China’s doorsteps.

Japan is also the world’s third-largest economy with assets valued at US$ 12 trillion equivalent, close to 9% of the world’s GDP, with more than 50 of the Fortune Global 500 companies based in Japan. And most, if not all of them are controlled by the financial oligarchy, led by – you guessed it – BlackRock-Vanguard-State Street.

Would it therefore be surprising, that a decisive majority of Shinzo Abe’s Conservative Liberal Democrats, would not be desirable by the world’s political, as well as financial empires?

Nevertheless, de-globalization is in full swing, worldwide, as most countries – and especially the people of both the Global South as well as the Global North – have suffered under globalization and desperately want to get their countries’ sovereignty back.

For now, it looks like a losing battle for the OWO gnomes, but the war is not over by any means.

People around the world have to remain vigilant and actively defend their sovereign rights, human rights as well as societal rights. The trend looks positive so far, as the OWO structure seems to be falling apart and giving way to a multipolar world, possibly led by China and Russia – both politically and economically, with commodity-backed currencies – and – foremost – preserving each nation’s autonomy and own sovereign monetary system.

Shinzo Abe’s assassination may have been more than a threat for Japan’s Parliament, but an outright warning to the anti-globalist movement around the globe.

No fear.

People’s Power will Prevail.

*

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate 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.

***

Introductory note by John Philpot

It is also reminiscent of the discipline of the late Jerome Bicamumpaka who spent so many years in prison. At his funeral on June 11, a family member or his lawyer Philippe Larochelle explained that Mr. Bicamumpaka would get up every day in prison and go to work as if he were free.

John Philpot

*

What did inspire me to write the book ‘Rwanda. Understanding the Growth of an Economy at War during the Last Thirty Years’

The growth of the Rwandan Economy is my focus of research as an economist since 1986 when I obtained a PhD in Economics and started to work in the Rwandan Ministry in charge of Economic Policy. What prompted me to write this book is a kind of propaganda from all sides which makes the world believe that Rwandan leaders have made miracles and practise managerial methods unknown by leaders of other African countries.

The Rwandan government is often accused of manipulation of statistics on poverty reduction, even by its own partners in Europe and the United States. I wanted to assess and to examine myself the statistics from the government and compare with what is said outside Rwanda in order to confirm or to deny the accusations.

Summary

Rwanda has been in a state of almost perpetual war during the last thirty years, whether through internal conflict or through wars in Democratic Republic of Congo, conducted directly or through proxies and militias. Thus, one would expect very low economic growth rates and this is not the situation in Rwanda. It is crystal clear, Rwandan economy declined and the real economy collapsed in 1994. Since 1996 up to June 2022, those wars have not ceased, but there are high annual growth rates of global GDP and Rwanda remains a country of marked poverty and inequalities among rural and urban population and among social classes.

General subject and Central concepts

• Diagnosis of the macroeconomic environment at the threshold of the October 1990 war, during the war 1990-1994 and during the Kagame tenure (1994-2019)
• Disproportionate Growth of GDP among economic sectors what I call “Intersectoral revolutions” and social inequalities.

Place

The phenomenon examined takes place in Rwanda. Foreign countries intervene either as public donors (UK, USA, etc.) or battle field and where plundering of natural resources is carried out (Democratic Republic of Congo).

Interest

Very few research is made on Economies at war. In general, while the impact of war on the macroeconomic management of a country is considerable, research on the relationship between an economy and defence is still in its infancy. The sector involves more of an underground economy and the flows of financial resources are not recorded by the institutions normally in charge. This succinctly describes the situation in Rwanda.

Three particulars are pointed out in the book:

• Rwandan leaders are champion to fight against corruption when the beneficiary is not the political party on power (RPF);
• Population is distributed among sectors of economic activities depending of ethnic groups. Very high GDP growth rates have been accompanied by an increase in social inequalities between urban Rwandans and rural Rwandans. Rwanda is on the list of 14 out of 189 countries with the highest coefficient of income inequalities within its population over the period 2010-2019.
• The destination of bank loans and foreign direct investments in recent years demonstrates partially how capital accumulation is distributed among economic sectors, agriculture being almost abandoned. The share of GDP of agriculture, forestry and fishing for two decades, varied between 40% around 2000 and 28.0% in 2019.

Attractiveness of the book

The book is a mix of economic policy in theory and practice within an economy at wars or quasi-wars.  I avoided as much as I could writing in the book anything similar to pure politics although I was perfectly capable to set out information on bad governance in Rwanda. I want to be objectively reliable since my great wish is to be read in several circles including economic policy makers, scholars, students, NGO involved in development, in Africa and in other continents.

How did I discover the subject ?

Reflections on Rwandan Economy started in 1986 when I obtained a PhD in Economics from University of Fribourg in Switzerland and a Diploma Troisième Cycle in Management from Universities of French Speaking States of Switzerland. My former credentials as Director General of Promotion of investments in industry in Rwanda for two years and as a Minister in charge of economic planning in Rwanda for four years keep alive my reflections on Rwandan Economy. I observe and analyse with the greatest attention the Rwandan macroeconomic aggregates.

Click here to order the book.

*

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.

Augustin Ngirabatware was born in Rwanda on 12 January 1957. He was part-time Lecturer of Economics at Université Nationale du Rwanda. From 1987 to 1990, he was member of Board of Governors of Banque Rwandaise de Développement in Rwanda. From 1990 to 1994, he was Minister of Economic Planning and Minister of Planning and International Cooperation. For two terms in 1991-1992, he was Chairman of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) Council of Ministers having its headquarters in Brussels (Belgium). In 1994-1998 he taught at Université Omar Bongo/IST and at Institut d’Economie et des Finances, Libreville (Gabon) and was for a short time Director of Institute of Advanced Studies in Economics and Management (ISEM), Libreville, (Gabon). And from 1998 to 1999, he was Researcher-Consultant at Development Center of OECD in Paris, (France).

Featured image is from Barnes and Noble

Pfizer Crimes against our Children: Cardiac Arrest of Two Month Old Baby an Hour after Experimental Vaccine

Ranit Feinberg, July 6, 2022

COVID-19 Vaccines: Proof of Lethality. Over One Thousand Scientific Studies

SUN, July 9, 2022

What Was Covid Really About? Triggering A Multi-Trillion Dollar Global Debt Crisis. “Ramping up an Imperialist Strategy”?

Colin Todhunter, July 12, 2022

Will the Tragic Fate of World Stars like Celine Dion and Justin Bieber Open the Eyes of their Fans? Impacts of Covid-19 Vaccine

Dr. Nicole Delépine, July 9, 2022

Global Planned Financial Tsunami Has Just Begun

F. William Engdahl, July 8, 2022

The United Nations Scrubbed this Article Heralding ‘The Benefits of World Hunger’ from Its Website After It Went Viral

Alicia Powe, July 8, 2022

America’s New “Angels of Death”: Inject Humanity with a Gene-altering Death-dealing Technology. Medical Professionals Cannot Claim Ignorance

Prof. Bill Willers, July 11, 2022

European Union Finally Admits COVID-19 Vaccines Destroy Your Immune System

Arsenio Toledo, July 13, 2022

Video: European Farmers Fight Back Against the Globalist Scheme to Destroy the World’s Food Supply

Amy Mek, July 10, 2022

Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 8, 2022

The Cult of Globalism: The Great Reset and Its “Final Solution” for “Useless People”

Timothy Alexander Guzman, July 9, 2022

Beware of the QR Code, Remember Agenda ID2020?

Peter Koenig, July 11, 2022

75,322 Dead 5,938,318 Injured Recorded in Europe and USA Following COVID Vaccines – Babies and Toddlers Hallucinating and Having Seizures After Shots

Brian Shilhavy, July 9, 2022

The Shanghai “Covid Zero Tolerance Mandate”. Engineered Depression of China’s Economy?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 14, 2022

Dear Friends, Sorry to Announce a Genocide: Dr. Naomi Wolf on the Pfizer “Confidential Report”

Dr. Naomi Wolf, July 9, 2022

Video: Swedish Study: Pfizer Jab Installs DNA into the Human Genome

Alexandra Bruce, July 12, 2022

Video: Infertility and “Depopulation”: A Diabolical Agenda

Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 10, 2022

The West Is Abandoning Ukraine?

Eric Zuesse, July 11, 2022

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

Sonia Elijah, July 12, 2022

Dr. Anthony Fauci: COVID-19 “May Turn Out to be Like a Bad Flu Season”. His Peer Reviewed Article Versus His Public Statements

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 13, 2022

Toxicology vs Virology: The Rockefeller Institute and the Criminal Polio Fraud

By F. William Engdahl, July 14, 2022

One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.

New Zealand: A Study Finds a 10% Rise in Excess Mortality in Age Groups Who Have Had Booster COVID Injections

By Rhoda Wilson, July 14, 2022

Using weekly data on excess mortality in New Zealand, a study published last week set out to analyse the impacts of rolling out booster doses of Covid injections. It found that age groups most likely to have had booster Covid injections had 7-10% more excess mortality than the age groups most likely not to have taken up a booster dose.

Neocon John Bolton Admits that America “Plans Coups d’état”

By Drago Bosnic, July 14, 2022

John Bolton is one of the most prominent neoconservative politicians in recent US history. He has been described as so hawkish that it made the late John McCain look like Dalai Lama. One of the very first things Bolton did while serving as the US National Security Advisor in the Trump administration was to make sure the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (officially JCPOA).

June 14, 2022 Is the Tenth Anniversary of Rosalie Bertell’s Passing. The Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PBME) Commemorates Her with Respect, Appreciation and Gratitude!

By Prof. Claudia von Werlhof, July 14, 2022

As a pioneer of a new science, Rosalie certainly would have welcomed the increasing number of analyses of military geo-engineering world-wide. It would have consoled and atoned her to see that this topic is now on the map and can no longer be denied, with the ever-increasing evidence that is now provided. Because the entire development of this technology is now partially already beyond of what Rosalie was able to observe.

Whilst You Were Distracted by Boris Resigning, the UK Gov. Published a Report Confirming Fully Vaccinated Children Are 13,633% More Likely to Die of COVID Than Unvaccinated Children

By The Expose, July 14, 2022

A report quietly published by the UK Government, just hours before Boris Johnson announced he was resigning as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, reveals the Covid-19 injections are proving to have negative effectiveness against death among children in England.

Tanks Deployed Near Parliament and State of Emergency Declared in Sri Lanka

By Countercurrents.org, July 14, 2022

On Thursday, the Sri Lanka government announced a curfew in the capital Colombo and its suburbs that would run until 5am on Friday. To stop demonstrators from accessing the Parliament on Thursday, the Sri Lankan Army stationed tanks close to the building. Troops in green military uniforms and camouflage vests arrived by armored personnel carriers on Thursday to reinforce barricades around the parliament.

Russia and the World. History and Geopolitical Analysis. “What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe?”

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, July 14, 2022

The United States corporate business engagement is simply not comparable to Russia’s economic footprints in the United States. On April 29, 2021, President Vladimir Putin held videoconference with leaders of several corporate French companies-members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work in the Russian Federation.

Russia and China Haven’t Even Started to Ratchet Up the Pain Dial. Pepe Escobar

By Pepe Escobar, July 14, 2022

To call it the Biden-von Der Leyen-Blinken West or so would be too reductionist: after all these are puny politico/functionaries merely parroting orders. This is a historical process: physical, psychic and moral cognitive degeneration embedded in NATOstan’s manifest desperation in trying to contain Eurasia, allowing occasional tragicomic sketches such as a NATO summit proclaiming Woke War against virtually the whole non-West.

The Passing of Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos (1979-2017). From a Wartime President to Leading Energy Producer

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 14, 2022

One of the most important heads-of-state in the struggle to end Portuguese domination in Africa died in a Spanish hospital on July 8. Jose Eduardo dos Santos served as president of the Republic of Angola from 1979 to 2017 as well as the Secretary General of the ruling Popular Movement for Liberation of Angola (MPLA-Worker’s Party).

“The Conspiratorial Movement in Quebec”, Published by the UNESCO Chair in the Prevention of Radicalization and Violent Extremism.

By Guy Boulianne, July 14, 2022

The research report was presented to Pierre Fitzgibbon, Minister of Economy and Innovation of Quebec as part of the call for Solutions to COVID-19. It contains data obtained by survey on the members of this movement as well as a list of 45 “conspiracy leaders” from Quebec and Canada, including Stéphane Blais, Alexis Cossette-Trudel, Samuel Grenier, Amélie Paul, Daniel Pilon, Daniel Tadros , Maxime Ouimet, Jean-Jacques Crèvecoeur, Lucie Laurier, Mel Goyer and Jonas Colin (The Colin Show).

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 indication that the P5+1 (US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany) will agree to a new nuclear deal. The EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell traveled to Tehran and succeeded in gaining a resumption of indirect talks between the US and Iran in Qatar. Trade between Iran and the EU reached $5.07 billion in 2021, up 9 percent compared to the previous year. The war in Ukraine has caused the EU to urgently seek the Iran nuclear deal. Borrell said in May, “We Europeans will be very much beneficiaries from this (nuclear) deal, the situation has changed now.

For us it was something… ‘well, we don’t need it (Iranian crude).’ Now it would be very much interesting for us to have another supplier.” The Biden administration wants to sign a new deal as a campaign promise delivered, as well as an alternative to a military conflict with Iran, which would not be supported by the American people who are suffering in an economic crisis. Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Mohammad Hatami Milanlou, who is an expert in international political science affairs, with an emphasis on Europe and the US. The interview covers the Iran deal, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Qatar.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS): Recently, the French President Macron said a new Iran nuclear deal must be signed. In your opinion, do you see any progress towards a new nuclear deal?

Mohammad Hatami Milanlou (MHM): Considering that the process of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the West is slow and also considering that the main problem of the negotiations is the direct negotiation between Iran and the United States, these two should negotiate face to face and solve the main problems, of course, until the negotiations between Iran and the United States take place, especially the American side is willing to make demands, but not lift sanctions.

SS: The Israeli occupation is working on building an Arab-Israeli alliance against the Islamic Republic of Iran. How do feel Iran might react?

MHM: There are two factors that have made Iran more isolated and weaker in front of Israel and the Arab countries. The first is the death of Qassem Soleimani and the second is the internal riots caused by Iran’s wrong nuclear policies. This incident has caused Israel’s role in the region to become more prominent, and the United States, through the fear it has created for the Arabs, can strengthen this agreement through Iran.

SS: Iraq is working on reestablishing the relationship between Tehran and Riyadh. In your opinion, will this attempt be successful and what impact it will have on the region?

MHM: On the one hand, Iraq is the scene of conflicts between parties and groups, and on the other hand, it is the scene of the proxy battle of the country. Regarding the issue of Iraq, it must be said that Iraq was a single country before the fall of Saddam Hussein, but now is several parts after the fall of Saddam and the establishment of inefficient pro-American governments. Saudi Arabia and Iran, as well as groups of parties such as Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, as well as Iraq and its people, and it is also the source of Shiite taqilid, but in relation to the influence of Saudi Arabia and its position in Iraq, it should be said that Iran, as I said, with the death of Qassem Soleimani and the sharp decrease in the influence of Iran, Saudi Arabia was able to increase its influence in Iraq by attracting Iraqi proxy groups, whether Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds to support armed groups.

SS: Russia is engaged in a military operation in Ukraine. Russia and Iran are allies. In your opinion, will this relationship remain strong, and how will America react to their alliance?

MHM: No, the relationship between Iran and Russia is not permanent, because it has happened many times that Russia has betrayed Iran, and this relationship is more from the side of Iran, which is looking towards the East and is constantly trying to keep the support of both Russia and China, but the United States is also aware of this issue. The US knows that Iran is Russia’s toy.

SS: Recently, the Qatari foreign minister visited Tehran. Was he delivering a message from the US, and what was the response?

MHM: The message of the Qatari leader regarding the nuclear negotiations was that Iran should be soft towards the negotiations and stop its unreasonable demands, and the US wants Iran to return to the negotiation table.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. 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.

***

The following text is chapter XIV of Michel Chossudovsky’s E-book

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

***

The Storming of the Bastille occurred in Paris on the afternoon of July 14, 1789. The Bastille was a medieval armory, fortress, and political prison. It was the symbol of Royal Authority under the reign of King Louis XVI. 

The French monarchy was obliged to accept the authority of the newly proclaimed National Assembly as well endorse the Fundamental Rights contained in the “Declaration des Droits de l’Homme et du Citoyen” (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen), formulated in early August 1789.   

More than 230 years later, these Fundamental Rights (Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité) are now being contravened by corrupt  governments around the World on behalf of a totalitarian and illusive financial establishment.

Bastille 2022

Bastille 2022 pertains not only to the restoration of these fundamental rights. It seeks to reverse and disable the criminal COVID-19 agenda which in the course of more than two years has triggered economic, social and political chaos Worldwide in 193 member states of the United Nations, coupled with bankruptcies, unemployment, mass poverty and despair. Famines have been reported in more than 25 countries.

Starting in November 2020, an experimental mRNA vaccine launched by our governments (allegedly with a view to combating the spread of the virus) has resulted in an ascending Worldwide trend of vaccine related deaths and injuries. It’s a killer vaccine. It’s a crime against humanity.

Bastille 2022 is not a “protest” movement narrowly defined.

We do not seek to negotiate with corrupt government officials. We question their legitimacy. They are liars.

Our intent is to confront the powerful actors behind this criminal endeavor which is literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide, while creating divisions within society. The impacts on mental health on population groups Worldwide are devastating.

The numerous lockdowns documented in previous chapters (stay at home of the work force), fear campaigns, COVID-19 policy mandates imposed on 193 member states of the United Nations have also contributed to undermining and destabilizing:

1. The very fabric of civil society and its institutions including education, culture and the arts, social gatherings, sports, entertainment, etc.
2. All public sector activities including physical and social infrastructure, social services, law enforcement, etc.
3. All major private sector activities which characterize national, regional and local economies including small, medium and large corporate enterprises, family farms, industry, wholesale and retail trade, the urban services economy, transport companies, airlines, hotel chains, etc.
4. The structures of the global economy including international commodity trade, investment, import and export relations between countries, etc. The entire landscape of the global economy has been chattered.

In turn, a process of enrichment by the elite billionaires together with widening social inequalities has unfolded.(See Chapter V).

The massive debts incurred by the Nation-State resulting from corruption as well fiscal collapse have skyrocketed. Increasingly national governments are in a straitjacket, under the brunt of powerful creditor institutions. Mounting debts at all levels of society are the driving force. (See Chapter !V).

The Creation of a Mass Movement 

What is at stake is the creation of a mass movement (Nationally and Worldwide) which questions the legitimacy and authority of the architects of this insidious project which broadly speaking emanates from:

Big Money, Big Pharma, the Information Technology Conglomerates, the Security Apparatus, Intelligence, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Energy, the Corporate Media.

Ironically, the architects of the COVID-19 “pandemic” are now actively involved in formulating the “Solution”. The World Economic Forum’sGreat Reset consists in installing a Worldwide totalitarian regime. What is contemplated is a system of “Global Governance” (see Chapter XIII).

A 190+ UN member nation states are slated to be weakened and undermined. They are under the grip of the most serious debt crisis in World history. Under the Great Reset, the institutions of parliamentary democracy and the Welfare State are to be replaced by an unelected “public-private partnership” dominated by the upper echelons of the financial establishment.

Restoring Real Democracy

We will seek all avenues through peaceful means to disable and undermine this totalitarian project including dialogue with and within public and private institutions, law enforcement officials, members of the military and the judicial.

What is required is to break down the structures of corruption, hierarchy and abusive authority, namely to pursue what might be described as:

“the democratization of decision-making within our institutions”.

The Art of Deception

We must nonetheless understand the limitations of conducting effective judicial procedures against national governments. The judges are often pressured, threatened and corrupt, aligned with both dominant financial interests and politicians.

Moreover, inasmuch as this insidious project is enforced by national governments Worldwide, the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is officially “independent” in regards to the UN Security Council, has a longstanding record of side-stepping US-NATO war crimes. The ICC is controlled by the same financial elites which control the governments.

We must also understand the complexities of  this carefully designed and coordinated totalitarian project, namely the role of various fraudulent financial institutions, corporate advisory and lobby groups, consultants, “scientific advisors’, etc. acting as intermediaries on behalf of Big Pharma and the financial elites.

There is a hierarchy in the structures of authority. This complex and intricate decision making process is used to co-opt, bribe and manipulate government officials. Almost identical policy mandates (emanating from higher authority) are implemented simultaneously in numerous countries, requiring active coordination.   The same powerful lobby firms are acting at one and the same time in different countries (e.g. in North America and the European Union).

The legitimacy of politicians and their powerful Big Money sponsors must be challenged, including the police state measures adopted to enforce the imposition of a digital vaccine passport as well as the wearing of the face mask, social distancing, etc.

What are our Priorities? Counter Propaganda 

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis. Several billion people have already been vaccinated by an “unapproved” experimental mRNA “vaccine”, which has resulted in a Worldwide wave of mortality and morbidity.

While this tendency is confirmed by official figures pertaining to vaccine-related deaths and adverse events, the mainstream media and the governments are in a state of denial.

The devastating health impacts of the COVID-19 vaccine are rarely acknowledged. It’s the same catch phrase (which is an outright lie) repeated ad nauseam: “the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccine”.

“we actually have more safety data on the vaccine than the virus, and already see that the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccine.(Intercare)

Dr. Alan Schroeder thinks it’s very natural for parents to worry, but said for teens, the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine. (NBC)

Doctors are on the lookout for it in children, but the bottom line remains that the virus is far more dangerous than the vaccine.

“The mutations in the omicron variant make it [the virus] more prolific, dangerous, and elusive“

etc.

This propaganda consensus must be broken. With regard to the vaccine, informing people across the land regarding the data on deaths and adverse events is the first step.

The COVID Crisis initiated in January 2020 is unprecedented in World History. Propaganda under Nuremberg is a Crime. (See Chapter XII).

Dismantling the propaganda apparatus is crucial.  Counter-propaganda plays a key role in revealing the lies used to justify the policy mandates.

Without persistent media disinformation, the official COVID narrative falls flat.

First and foremost we must forcefully challenge the mainstream media, without specifically targeting mainstream journalists, who have been instructed to abide by the official narrative. We should in this regard favor dialogue with individual (independent) journalists.

We must ensure that people Worldwide achieve an understanding of the history and devastating impacts of the COVID crisis supported by scientific concepts, analysis, testimonies and data.  This endeavor will require a parallel process at the grassroots level, of sensitizing fellow citizens and establishing dialogue on the nature of  the alleged pandemic, the mRNA vaccine, the RT-PCR test, as well as the devastating economic and social impacts of the lockdowns.

While we must put an end to the fear campaign, we must nonetheless inform our fellow citizens regarding the dangers of the mRNA vaccine as well as the engineered chaos of this totalitarian agenda of “global governance” on the very structures of civil society.

The “fear campaign” is to be replaced by  “information, concepts, analysis and data” as well as “strategies” to confront Big Pharma, corrupt officials in high office as well as their Big Money sponsors.

We must also ensure the conduct of dialogue and debate at the grassroots of society.

Putting an End to The “Killer Vaccine”

Our first task is to immediately halt and cancel the so-called COVID-19 “vaccine” which has triggered a wave of mortality and morbidity Worldwide.

According to Dr. Thomas Binder: 

“The gene injections are unsafe. They can cause anaphylactic reactions, thromboembolism, thrombocytopenia, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and myocarditis in the short term.

There is possible immunosuppression and antibody-dependent enhancement, ADE, in the medium-term.

And in the long term there are possible autoimmune diseases, cancer and infertility, risks that have not been ruled out yet.”

According to Doctors for COVID Ethics, in the EU, UK and US the data respectively tabulated by EudraVigilance, MHRA (UK) and VAERS (US):

“have now recorded many more deaths and injuries from the COVID-19 “vaccine” roll-out than from all previous vaccines combined since records began”

With regard to the mRNA “vaccine”, the catastrophic number of injection related deaths has NOT been reported by the mainstream media, despite the official figures being publicly available.

“The signal of harm is now indisputably overwhelming, and, in line with universally accepted ethical standards for clinical trials, we demand that the COVID-19 “vaccination” programme be halted immediately worldwide.

Continuation of the programme, in the full knowledge of ongoing serious harm and death to both adults and children, constitutes Crimes Against Humanity/Genocide, for which those found to be responsible or complicit will ultimately be held personally liable”

The Pfizer “Confidential Report”

It is worth noting that a Confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a Freedom of Information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months):  

In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.

What is contained in  Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.

In a Court of Law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities in the EU, UK and US) is irrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours. (Analysis  of Pfizer Confidential Report)

It is an admission on the part of both the governments and Big Pharma that the COVID-19 vaccine is a criminal undertaking: Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine. No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.

As outlined in Chapter VII, Pfizer has a criminal record (2009) with the US  Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

As part of the 2009 DoJ settlement, Pfizer was put on parole:

“Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement … [which] provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.”

But we are no longer dealing with “fraudulent marketing”:

“Killing is Good for Business”: The vaccine is a multibillion dollar operation worldwide. It’s manslaughter.

Once the “vaccine” has been halted, the criminality of Big Pharma will be fully revealed and understood. In turn, the legitimacy of the official COVID narrative based on lies and fake science will inevitably be impaired. This is the first step towards breaking the “official” COVID narrative.

The Truth is an important peaceful weapon. Without propaganda and media disinformation, the architects of this project do not have a leg to stand on.

Let us break the “official” COVID-19 consensus and the propaganda apparatus which provides “legitimacy” to a criminal agenda.

Once it collapses, it will open up the road towards reversing the broader process of economic, social and political chaos generated in the course of the last two years.

The Geopolitical Dimension

What is unfolding is a new and destructive phase of US imperialism. It’s a totalitarian project of economic and social engineering.

The Biden administration has endorsed the COVID Agenda, which has been used to destabilize and weaken national economies including those of “enemy nations”.

We cannot divorce our understanding of the COVID Crisis from that of US foreign policy and America’s hegemonic agenda: e.g.  US-NATO confrontation with Russia in Eastern Europe, the militarization of the South China Sea directed against China, Iran and the geopolitics of the Middle East, the ongoing sanctions regimes against Venezuela and Cuba, etc. (see Chapter XIII)

Integrating All Sectors of Society

It should be noted that organized opposition in many Western countries is weak. Why? Because “progressive forces” including left intellectuals, NGO leaders, trade union and labor leaders both in Western Europe and North America have  from the outset endorsed the official COVID narrative. Many of these progressive movements are supported by corporate foundations.

The same billionaire foundations which are the unspoken architects of the “Great Reset” and “Global Governance” are also involved in (generously) financing various social movements. “They control the opposition”.

What this means is that  grassroots activists are often misled and betrayed by their leaders who are routinely coopted by their billionaire sponsors.

It is essential that these grassroots activists be integrated into the mainstay of the movement against the COVID-19 consensus.

The Road Ahead

What is required is the development of a broad based grassroots network which confronts both the architects of this crisis all well as all levels of government (i.e. national, states, provinces, municipalities, etc.) involved in imposing the vaccine as well carrying out the lockdown and closure of economic activity.

This network would be established (nationally and internationally) at all levels of society, in towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations. Church groups would be called upon to integrate this movement.

“Spreading the word” through social media and independent online media outlets will be undertaken bearing in mind that Google as well as Facebook are instruments of censorship.

Legal procedures and protests are unfolding in all major regions of the World. As part of a Worldwide network of initiatives, it is important to establish mechanisms of communication, dialogue and exchange within and between countries.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the financial elites, Big Pharma, et al., as well as the structures of political authority at the national level, is no easy task.

It will require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history.

What is required is the breaking down of political and ideological barriers within society (i.e. between political parties) and acting with a single voice towards Building a Worldwide Consensus against Tyranny. 

Worldwide Solidarity and Human Dignity is the Driving Force.

***

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

He has undertaken field research in Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific and has written extensively on the economies of developing countries with a focus on poverty and social inequality. He has also undertaken research in Health Economics (UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),  UNFPA, CIDA, WHO, Government of Venezuela, John Hopkins International Journal of Health Services (1979, 1983)

He is the author of 13 books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005),  The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015).

He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia. He can be reached at [email protected]

See Michel Chossudovsky, Biographical Note

Michel Chossudovsky’s Articles on 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.

***

John Bolton is one of the most prominent neoconservative politicians in recent US history. He has been described as so hawkish that it made the late John McCain look like Dalai Lama. One of the very first things Bolton did while serving as the US National Security Advisor in the Trump administration was to make sure the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal (officially JCPOA). Immediately after, Bolton focused all of his political power and influence on pushing for a Venezuela invasion.

After Russia intervened, the Trump administration decided this was not a very good idea. Bolton then refocused on advocating for invasions or at least regime change in Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Yemen, North Korea, etc. His warmongering became too much of a liability for the Trump administration and a major point of contention between Bolton and the then president himself, so much so that he was eventually fired after approximately a year and a half in office.

There is virtually no positive thing one might say about Bolton. However, there is one major aspect of his otherwise deeply unlikable personality. John Bolton is unambiguously direct. He seldom sugarcoats the message he is trying to convey. Unlike his neoliberal counterparts and political rivals, certain of their own “moral high ground” over everyone else, but who support the exact same US foreign policy as Bolton himself does, the neoconservative politician at least never tried masking US intentions with worthless rhetoric. Precisely this happened during an interview with Jake Tapper of CNN’s “The Lead” on Tuesday, where Bolton discussed US involvement in (geo)political shenanigans around the world, during which he admitted directly taking part in organizing coups to further US interests.

Speaking to Tapper right after the January 6 House Select Committee completed its seventh hearing about the breach of the US Capitol, Bolton claimed that the former commander-in-chief [Donald Trump] could not have pulled off a carefully planned coup d’etat. “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup,” Tapper argued. “I disagree with that,” Bolton retorted and then continued:

“As someone who has helped plan coup d’etats – not here but, you know, other places – it takes a lot of work. And that’s not what [Trump] did. It was just stumbling around from one idea to another.”

Tapper tried to press Bolton to provide further details regarding his claims about coup involvement, but Bolton refused to provide any additional information, adding that he was “not going to get into the specifics”, although he did mention Venezuela. In 2020, the US launched “Operation Gideon”, a coordinated insurrection involving Venezuelan assets aided by an American private military company, Silvercorp USA. The goal was to spread the conflict across the country and ultimately overthrow Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro. The insurrection failed miserably, with at least two US operatives arrested, along with dozens of their Venezuelan collaborators. The two were identified as Luke Denman and Airan Berry, both former US special forces operatives and were coordinated by Florida-based ex-Green Beret Jordan Goudreau in a mission to kidnap Maduro and “liberate” Venezuela.

Maduro directly pointed out this was attempted aggression, aided by neighboring Colombia, but both the US and its South American client state denied involvement. In 2019, a year before the botched coup, Bolton, in his capacity as US National Security Advisor, had announced support for Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido and his attempts to involve the Venezuelan military in ousting Maduro. Bolton claimed that the Venezuelan leader’s reelection was allegedly “illegitimate”, although it’s unclear who authorized Bolton (or the US itself for that matter) to make such statements, let alone enforce whatever he thought was “legitimate”. Luckily, the Venezuelan people pushed back and the (genuinely) legitimate President Maduro remained in office, although in no small part thanks to Russia, which armed Venezuela to the teeth, preventing what was then an almost imminent US attack on the country.

“It turned out not to be successful,” Bolton said. “Not that we had all that much to do with it but I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president and they failed. The notion that Donald Trump was half as confident as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable,” he added, to which Tapper responded: “I feel like there’s other stuff you’re not telling me.” Bolton declined to give further details and just replied: “I’m sure there is.”

Although many were appalled by Bolton’s admission, what’s truly shocking is that there are still those who are shocked by the notion that the US has been conducting such belligerent operations against dozens of countries around the globe, resulting in anything from temporary political turmoil and instability to brutal decades-long wars which cause a domino effect of further instability. It’s quite clear the bellicose power in decline will continue to conduct this blatant aggression against the world. What the world can do about it is arm itself and try to dilute US power as much as possible, because as long as the “Pax Americana” exists, the hope for global peace will remain just that – false hope.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image: John Bolton (Christopher Halloran via Shutterstock)

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.

***

President Joe Biden’s visit to the Middle East culminates months of diplomatic and military meetings between American and Israeli officials preparing Israel’s “Shopping List” for Biden’s trip.

In parallel, the Administration sent several envoys to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia negotiating quietly the political price the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohamed bin Salman (MbS) is willing to pay to exculpate him from Biden’s “pariah’s” list.

After insisting he would not meet MbS, Biden relented once he secured a gathering of local leaders to sign on an Israeli custom design plan, “Regional Defense System, RDS.”

Besides the irony of including Israel, the country that introduced the sin of nuclear power to the region, to oppose nuclear expansion in the Middle East, the misnomer RDS is only a subtle catalyst to integrate Israeli in the region under the guise of a hyperbolic Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Biden’s Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, reiterated this on July 12 when he explained that a main objective for the President’s visit is “to deepen Israel’s integration into the region.” In fact, Biden has pointed earlier to the Israeli factor as one reason he would meet MbS.

It’s not the US economy, not the 80-year strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia, not mutual interest that took President Biden to Saudi Arabia. But it is how Biden can surpass Trump’s servitude to Israeli lobby. A foreign lobby with an irrational grip on American politicians, and hence the obsession of US political leaders, especially presidential hopefuls, to placate Israeli firsters and deliver to Israel before Country.

Then, President Donald Trump, and the highest-level Israeli insider in the White House, Jared Kushner, willfully jettisoned the main pillars of the US constitution such as democratic values, human rights, and self-determination to deliver to Israel. US agreed to bailout a military dictatorship, denied the people of Western Sahara the right to determine their future, agreed to sell the most sophisticated fighters to an authoritarian Arab dictator, and provided cover for the murder of a journalist, and an American resident, all as a reward for establishing relationship with Israel.

Israel thrives on conflict; it is how it builds alliance; it’s how it achieves acceptance. This explains why Israel opposes all peaceful efforts to control Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

When in 2015 president Barak Obama secured an agreement to stop Iran from developing nuclear power, the Israeli prime minister, and for the first time in American history, a foreign leader was afforded a national platform to challenge the President’s leadership.

Israel’s amen corner in Congress invited Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak directly to US Congress demanding American elected officials to reject an agreement negotiated by their own president. In a rare occurrence in Washington, even the president Party’s most Senior Senator, Charles Schumer, supported the call from a foreign country leader to defeat his Party leader, and president.

Schumer, boasts, albeit falsely that his name is derived from a Hebrew word, shomer meaning “guard.” He believes god gave him the role of guarding Israel’s interests in the US Senate. When in fact his name came from a North German word meaning good-for-nothing, vagabond. But for the real meaning of his name, Schumer came close to helping a foreign leader defeat a US president, from his own Party, in US Congress.

It begs to ask, what do the obsequious toady politicians get in return for the unprecedented American political servitude to a foreign entity?

At the start of the Russian invasion, Ukrainian officials expressed interest in acquiring the Israeli-US Iron Dome missile defense system, Israel blocked the request so as not to ire Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In February 2022, the US requested non-voting allied countries, like Israel, to endorse a Security Council (SC) resolution condemning Russia. While more than 50 countries signed on, Israel refused to co-sponsor the United States-backed resolution. Then, Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid explained Israel’s refusal not to undermine “our mechanism of cooperation with (Russian) them . . .” in Syria.

In May 2022, Israel turned down a U.S. request to allow Germany supply Ukraine with anti-tank missiles manufactured in Germany under an Israeli license. Israel’s excuse the anti-tank Spike missiles―a technology most likely financed by American tax payers―could harm Russian soldiers and hurt regional security with Russia.

“Only Permanent Interest,” Israel perfected Nicholas Machiavel rule. In addition to signing the largest financial aid package for Israel — over $4 billion ahead of his trip, Israel’s Shopping List includes delivering Saudi Arabia, at least in small steps, like RDS, toward eventual normalization.

This week Israeli Prime Minister called for open relations with Saudi Arabia to change the “history for our children.” This is at the same time when the Israeli government approved to displace, change the history, for one of the largest Palestinian children from their homes in Masafer Yatta and make room for another Jewish-only colony.

Israel is not even willing to grant Biden a mere fig leave before his meeting with Arab royals. It continues to block Biden’s efforts to open the US Consulate in occupied East Jerusalem. This time using the same tired ruse, requesting the US to wait until after the election. It’s worth noting, after the last election, Israel denied the same request claiming it could collapse the elected government.

Israel is out for what it can get for self, even if it means creating perpetual conflicts. History has shown that Israel has nothing to offer the US, a “shomer,” vagabond, good-for-nothing milking its US welfare cow.

*

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.

Jamal Kanj (www.jamalkanj.com) is the author of “Children of Catastrophe,” Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes frequently on Arab world issues for various national and international commentaries.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: The Israeli and American flags displayed on the walls of the Old City in Jerusalem (Photo: Yonatan Sindel)

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.

***

Using weekly data on excess mortality in New Zealand, a study published last week set out to analyse the impacts of rolling out booster doses of Covid injections. It found that age groups most likely to have had booster Covid injections had 7-10% more excess mortality than the age groups most likely not to have taken up a booster dose.

“The results suggest 16 (95% CI: 5 to 27) excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses, amounting to over 400 excess deaths in New Zealand given the booster doses administered to date. If this rate of excess deaths is extrapolated to other countries, it amounts to over 300,000 excess deaths worldwide,” Professor John Gibson, the study’s author, wrote.

The study was published in EconPapers, the world’s largest collection of on-line economics working papers, journal articles and software, and authored by John Gibson, Professor in the Department of Economics at the  University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

In his paper, ‘The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated with Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand’, Prof. Gibson stated:

“The ratio of vaccine risk to benefits likely has swung more towards risk than during the original randomised trials, due to dose-dependent adverse events and to fixation of immune responses on a variant no longer circulating.

“In light of an unsatisfactory risk-evidence situation, aggregate weekly data on excess mortality in New Zealand are used here to study the impacts of rolling out booster doses.

“The age groups most likely to use boosters had 7-10 percentage point rises in excess mortality rates as boosters were rolled out while the age group that is mostly too young for boosters saw no rise in excess mortality.”

Excess mortality is the number of deaths from all causes during a crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under “normal” conditions.  In other words, Prof. Gibson found more people who had, likely, received a booster injection died than normally expected.

In September 2021 an advisory panel of experts outside of the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) voted 16-2 against the widespread use of Covid injection boosters due to a lack of safety data and doubts about the benefits of mass boosting over targeted approaches, Gibson noted.

After this vote was ignored and the FDA approved boosters for the general population, the top two officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review resigned and criticised decision-making about the mass rollout of boosters.

This critique noted that if unnecessary boosting causes significant adverse reactions it may increase vaccine hesitancy more generally; a concern raised elsewhere that the potentially low benefits of Covid-19 vaccines relative to the costs borne by vaccinees (such as exposure to breakthrough infections and to vaccine adverse events) may undermine public confidence in other vaccination efforts (Godlee, 2020; Gibson, 2022a). Even the World Health Organisation argue that a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable (WHO, 2022).

Several European countries have already restricted some mRNA vaccines to only those aged over 30 years due to these safety concerns.

Given this shift in the risk-benefit ratio, stronger evidence should underpin mass use of boosters but the opposite holds.

The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated with Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand, EconPapers, John Gibson, 28 June 2022

The primary Covid “vaccine” used in New Zealand is Pfizer.  Weekly data on all deaths in New Zealand, from 2011 through the end of March 2022, was used to calculate excess mortality during the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines.

On 21 December 2021, New Zealand’s Covid Response Minister Chris Hipkins announced that the interval between the second dose and the booster shot would be reduced from six months to four months; making 82% of vaccinated New Zealanders eligible for a booster by late February 2022. By then, before having any experience with Covid, Prof. Gibson noted, “8.2 million original protocol Pfizer doses and 2.2 million booster doses had been administered. In other words, about half of the population were both ‘fully vaccinated’ and ‘boosted’.”

As can be seen in the graph below, Prof. Gibson’s analysis found that the sustained rise in excess mortality from December coincides with the booster rollout.

The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated with Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand, John Gibson, June 2022

And the rise in excess mortality in the last four months was experienced by all ages except the 0-29 years group, who are mostly ineligible for boosters.

The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated with Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand, John Gibson, June 2022

The visual evidence of 400 cumulative excess deaths while boosters went from zero to over two million is suggestive, especially as the age-disaggregated data show no rise in excess deaths for the one group (0-29 years) mostly ineligible for boosters.

The regression results show statistical associations between booster rollout and excess deaths using observational data, not randomised data.

Secondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the mRNA vaccine [randomised control trials] RCTs shows higher risks with Moderna than with Pfizer (Fraiman et al, 2022), perhaps from dosage differences (100mg for Moderna versus 30mg for Pfizer). The use of the Pfizer booster raises the accumulated dosage, which may then make these vaccine adverse events more likely.

The Rollout of COVID-19 Booster Vaccines is Associated with Rising Excess Mortality in New Zealand, EconPapers, John Gibson, 28 June 2022

Prof. Gibson concluded that there is a close relationship between booster rollout and rising excess mortality. And that this relationship was not seen with the rollout of the original protocol vaccine doses.

“The age groups most likely to use boosters had 7–10 percentage point rises in excess mortality rates as boosters were rolled out while the age group that is mostly too young for boosters saw no rise in excess mortality. Instrumental variables estimates that exploit a plausible source of exogenous variation in the rate of administering booster doses suggest 16 excess deaths per 100,000 booster doses given, amounting to over 400 excess deaths from New Zealand’s booster rollout. Value of statistical life of these excess deaths is over $1.6 billion. Even a small fraction of this (say, one per cent) would have been sufficient to fund robust evidence on the impacts of rolling out Covid-19 booster vaccines,” Prof. Gibson concluded.

*

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 Expose

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.

***

Am 14. Juni 2022 ist der 10. Todestag von Rosalie Bertell. Die PBME – Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde – gedenkt ihrer mit Hochachtung, Wertschätzung und großer Dankbarkeit! Was hätte Rosalie wohl zu alldem gesagt, was seitdem weltweit geschehen ist? Sie hatte nach Erscheinen ihres Buches «Planet Earth. The Latest Weapon of War», das erstmals zur Jahrtausendwende im Jahre 2000 veröffentlicht wurde, bis 2011 viele Ergänzungen zu ihrer bahnbrechenden Arbeit verfasst, die seither in die deutsche Ausgabe ihres Werks sowie in allen anderen, die darauf folgen sollten, eingingen – die spanische, italienische, französische und schließlich die neue, überarbeitete englische Ausgabe, über die sich Rosalie vermutlich ungeheuer gefreut hätte.

Sie war nämlich nach 2000 zu der Auffassung gelangt, dass ihre Analyse noch entschieden verschärft werden musste. Dies war ein Ausdruck der Tatsache, dass ihr relativer Optimismus, den sie den großen sozialen Bewegungen der 1980-1990er Jahre verdankte, inzwischen verschwunden war. Denn diese Bewegungen hatten sich angepasst, waren von der «Gegenseite» übernommen worden oder hatten sich thematisch nicht weiterentwickelt, um das, was sie, Rosalie, zu sagen hatte, auch aufzunehmen. Vor allem die UNO, für die Rosalie ihr Leben lang gearbeitet hatte, war nun immer mehr zur Vorreiterin dieser neuen, politischen Tendenzen geworden, die das weltweite Zerstörungswerk am Planeten Erde als unser aller Lebenssphäre nicht aufhalten, im Gegenteil. Das zeigt sich heute, zehn Jahre später, in einem erschütternden Ausmaß, das für Rosalie früher wohl unvorstellbar gewesen wäre. Auch Rosalies Hoffnung auf die Gründung eines Internationalen Gerichtshofs, der sich der Frage des Schutzes der Erde vor dem Angriff des militärischen Geoengineerings annehmen könnte, dürfte inzwischen so weit in die Ferne gerückt sein wie nie zuvor.

Kurzum, ich vermute, Rosalie wäre heute geradezu entsetzt über das, was nach ihrem Tod geschah:

• von der ständigen Erweiterung von Maßnahmen des militärischen Geoengineerings zur öffentlichen Anerkennung eines sog. zivilen Geoengineerings und seine universitäre Verankerung als Beitrag zur Bekämpfung des so genannten menschengemachten Klimawandels – jenseits seiner militärischen Ursprünge und damit eine Neudefinition, Besetzung, Unkenntlichmachung und Verkehrung des Begriffs, zur öffentlich nicht wahrgenommenen Integration des militärischen Geoengineerings in die neue, die sog. 4. Industrielle Revolution, die nun als Modernisierung durch Digitalisierung und Künstliche Intelligenz, Biotechnologie, Nanotechnik und einen den freien und autonomen Menschen abzuschaffen versuchenden «Transhumanismus» propagiert wird,
• von der Corona-Krise, den medizinischen Experimenten, den Forschungen und Entwicklungen von im Labor hergestellten «Viren» als neue, unsichtbare Super-Waffen, dem im Zuge eines globalen Laborversuchs weltweiten Einsatz dieser neuen Methoden der Beschädigung des menschlichen Leibes samt der so genannten Massen-«Impfungen» mit noch unbekannten Langfrist-Folgen, die bereits kurzfristig zu schwerwiegendsten Folgeschäden und Todesfällen, vor allem auch aufgrund einer vermutlichen Störung oder gar Zerstörung der natürlichen Immunabwehr, führten. Diese experimentellen Stoffe, die insbesondere auch giftige, womöglich krebserregende sowie genveränderte oder gar genverändernde Elemente enthalten könnten, werden ausgerechnet von der WHO als UNO-Sonderorganisation, die nun sogar offensichtlich nach einer Art Weltherrschaft über das Gesundheitswesen aller Länder zu greifen scheint, nicht nur als angebliche Schutzmaßnahme gegen eine angebliche weitreichende Gefahr für die Gesundheit der gesamten Menschheit propagiert. Sondern sie wurden als angebliche «Eintrittskarte» in die Teilhabe am gesellschaftlichen Leben installiert. Dadurch scheinen sich die geradezu teuflischen Pläne einer auf die Durchsetzung einer systematischen Beschädigung des menschlichen Leibes bis hin zu seiner Tötung als eine Art «Kollateralschaden» zielenden Politik zu offenbaren und für die Überlebenden eine «Verschmelzung» mit der digitalen Mega-Maschine vorzubereiten, die sogar als «Verbesserung» des Menschseins durch den sog. «Transhumanismus» propagiert wird,
• über eine «Klima»-Politik, die auf der Basis von falschen Daten einer korrupten Wissenschaft, dem Weltklimarat der UNO, IPCC, durchgesetzt wird, nämlich mittels des «Green Deal» der USA und der EU sowie des Weltwirtschaftsforums, WEF, in Davos – einer Politik, welche wohl nichts Geringeres als die zivilisatorischen Grundlagen der Moderne in einer «großen Transformation», inklusive der corona-erprobten Installation diktatorischer Verhältnisse mittels Aushöhlung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Freiheitsberaubung und Entzug der Meinungsfreiheit, einem immer wieder offen deklarierten Depopulationsprojekt und dem offensichtlich generellen Verlust der Menschenrechte, unterziehen will,
• bis hin zum neuen Militarismus anlässlich des von der UNO nicht verhinderten Ukraine-Krieges, der sogar zum 3. Welt-, ja zu einem ausgedehnten Atomkrieg werden könnte.

All dieser Horror ist das Gegenteil von dem, was Rosalie, die gerade auch zu den Risiken atomarer Strahlung gearbeitet hatte und dafür mit dem alternativen Nobelpreis ausgezeichnet wurde, erwartet hätte. Sie hätte vermutlich laut ihre Stimme dagegen erhoben. Umso mehr sind wir aufgerufen, in ihrem Sinne zu handeln.

Schließlich gehört zu diesem vergangenen Jahrzehnt auch, dass Rosalies Werk zwar endlich umfassend Verbreitung fand, so etwa allein durch fünf Auflagen der deutschen Fassung, und am Ende auch die englische Originalversion, nun in erweiterter Form, wieder verfügbar war. Aber die Resonanz in der Öffentlichkeit war gering, ja in der Wissenschaft quasi nicht vorhanden, was allerdings inzwischen für die Resultate einer nach wie vor kritischen Wissenschaft insgesamt gilt. Und die gegenwärtigen sozialen Bewegungen sowie die Reste der früheren lehnten eine eingehendere Befassung mit Rosalies Themen trotz ihrer eigenen Betroffenheit bis heute ab.

Die Einbindung ihres Werks in den Ansatz der Kritischen Patriarchatstheorie, den Rosalie sich gewünscht hatte, traf nicht überall auf Verständnis, was sich zuletzt auch bei der Verfassung eines neuen, von mir herausgegebenen Buches, in dem auch Rosalie über einen Beitrag präsent ist: «Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet and Humanity», Global Research 2021, (Globale Warnung! Geoengineering ruiniert unseren Planeten und die Menschheit, Zeitgeist 2022) zeigte. Aber sie wäre ansonsten sehr zufrieden mit dem Buch gewesen, weil es ihre Arbeit in neuen Zusammenhängen präsentiert und weiterführende Analysen von Frauen aus der ganzen Welt sowie ihrem Freund Michel Chossudovsky von Global Research in Kanada leistet, zu einem Zeitpunkt, an dem die allgemeine Verwirrung über das, was im globalen Patriarchat der Fall ist, seinem Höhepunkt zustrebt. Als Ökofeministin wäre ihr das genau jetzt sehr recht gewesen, und der Zusammenhang ihrer Analyse mit der des globalen Patriarchats heute wird gerade so klar wie nie zuvor. Unser Begriff der «Militäralchemie» war für sie der Gesamtausdruck dafür geworden

Was Rosalie als Pionierin einer neuen Forschung im Übrigen sehr begrüßt hätte, ist die bedeutende Zunahme von kritischen Analysen des militärischen Geoengineerings in aller Welt. Es wären ein Trost und eine Genugtuung für sie zu sehen, dass das Thema nun nicht mehr vom Tisch zu bekommen ist und immer umfassendere Erkenntnisse darüber vorgelegt werden. Denn die Gesamtentwicklung dieser Technologie geht zum Teil bereits über das hinaus, was Rosalie beobachten konnte. Ja, die US-Luftwaffe will schon in drei Jahren, in 2025, ihr Ziel der weltweiten Wetterkontrolle realisiert haben.  (Col. Tamzy J. House et al., für die US Air Force, 1996: On Weather as a Force Multiplier. Owning the Weather in 2025).

In der Tat: der «Klimawandel» ist «Menschen»-gemacht!

Mit der Planetaren Bewegung für Mutter Erde, die wir angeregt durch Rosalies Wirken im Jahren 2010 gründeten, hoffen wir, das Bestmögliche getan zu haben, um ihre Erkenntnisse in die Welt zu bringen und weiter mit ihnen zu arbeiten. Das gilt auch für ihr Vermächtnis in den letzten beiden Interviews, die sie in ihrem Leben gegeben hatte, und die so lange verschollen waren, bis wir sie allerdings erst nach ihrem Tod wiederentdeckt haben: «Sind wir die letzten Generationen?» und «Planet ohne Zukunft?»

Wir halten in diesen Tagen inne und gedenken ihrer, der mutigen, unermüdlichen, engagierten, klugen, klarsichtigen, hellsichtigen und liebevollen Rosalie Bertell! Ihr «planetares Bewusstsein» wird uns ein Vorbild sein.

Und wir widmen ihr eine Erkenntnis von Hannah Arendt, die für den Informationskrieg unserer Zeit – und dabei auch den gegen Rosalie Bertell – gilt, und zwar so wie vielleicht nie zuvor, und die Rosalie wohl vorbehaltlos geteilt hätte: «Denn das Resultat ist keineswegs, dass die Lüge nur als wahr akzeptiert und die Wahrheit als Lüge diffamiert wird, sondern dass der menschliche Orientierungs-Sinn im Bereich des Wirklichen, der OHNE die Unterscheidung von Wahrheit und Unwahrheit nicht funktionieren kann, VERNICHTET WIRD». Solchem werden wir nach wie vor und gemeinsam mit Rosalie einiges entgegenhalten!

*

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. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.

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 are wondering about what Rosalie Bertell might have had to say about what has happened in the meantime. Her trailblazing book «Planet Earth – The Latest Weapon of War» was first published in 2000, but remained unknown as the publisher went bankrupt. Until 2011, she has written several adenda which since then were included in the German version of her book as well as in all other editions of her work, i.e. in Spanish, Italian, French and eventually, in the new and enhanced English version as well. Bertell would have been delighted about this.

As a result of her disappearing optimism for the great social movements of the 1980-1990’s, in the years after 2000, she arrived at the conclusion that her analysis should have been considerably sharper and more explicit. Because these movements had aligned themselves with, or were incorporated by the «opposing» side or, did not manage to develop their topics any further, after being unable to integrate Bertell’s findings and what she had to say. Most of all, the UN, the organization she had worked for all her life, did nothing to stop the global destruction process of planet earth and the entire sphere of life. On the contrary, the UN has increasingly become the leader of these new political tendencies. Ten years later, this becomes obvious to a degree that is rather unsettling and, most likely, would have been unimaginable to Rosalie. Also her hope for a foundation of an International Court of Justice, that would have been able to address the question of protection of the earth from military geo-engineering now seems to have become a rather remote idea.

In short, I suspect that Rosalie would be shocked about what has happened since her passing away:

• beginning with the on-going extension of measures of military geo-enineering towards a public recognition of a so-called civil geo-engineering and its integration into the university system, where it is presented as a contribution in fighting against so-called «man-made» climate change – thus concealing its military origins, giving it a new meaning and definition, which results in a reversal of the term beyond recognition,
• to the integration of military geo-engineering into the new, so-called 4. industrial revolution, now propagated as modernization via digitalization and artificial intelligence, biotechnology, nano- technology and transhumanism, which is designed to abolish a free and autonomous human being, none of which has yet reached critical public awareness,
• from the Corona-crisis and medical experiments, the research and development of «viruses» in chemical laboratories all over the world as a new invisible super weapon, its application within a worldwide lab experiment that damages the human body with mass- »vaccinations» on a global scale, with unknown, long-term consequences, leading to serious vaccine-related injuries and high numbers of vaccine-related deaths, possibly caused by their ability to disturb and even destroy the natural human immune-system. These experimental substances may contain toxic compounds, able to cause cancer as well as possibly elements that may lead to genetic alterations, are propagated by the WHO, a UN-organization, which now seems to be reaching for a kind of global dominance and control of the healthcare systems of all countries. Reasons for this lie not only in alleged safety and health protective measures against a supposed severe health threat of all mankind. But these measures are being set into place as an alleged «entry-ticket» for participation in social life per se. In this way, the evil plans of a policy are becoming visible that are currently under way, which include the systemic and deliberate damage to the human body, risking even its annihilation and considering this a form of collateral damage, while preparing for those who survive this, a «merging» with the digital mega machine, propagating this as an «improvement of the human being» via so-called «transhumanism»
• and a «climate» policy, implemented on the basis of false data produced by corrupted science, the world climate council of the UN , IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), via the «Green Deal» of the USA and the EU, as well as the World Economic Forum, WEF, in Davos – a policy intended to achieve nothing less than the abolition of the foundational principles of our modern civilization, via a «Great Transformation», including the installation of dictatorial conditions by means of erosion of the rule of law, the general withdrawal of human rights, the right to free speech, the withdrawal of personal liberties as tested during the Corona crisis, as well as a repeatedly and openly declared depopulation project,
• to the new militarization, as evidenced in the war in Ukraine, which was not prevented by the UN, and which could potentially lead to a Third World War, even a nuclear war.

All of this horror is the opposite of what Rosalie, whose research was especially on the numerous risks of nuclear radiation, for which she was awarded the alternative Nobel Peace Prize, would have expected. She would have raised her voice loud and clear against this. Now it is up to us to follow her lead in this matter.

During the last decade, the work of Rosalie found widespread distribution: five editions in Germany alone, and in the end, the original English version became available again in an enhanced edition. However, public resonance remained low, which, by the way, has now become almost common for the results of critical science in general. The current social movements as well as remnants of former social movements rejected a more in-depth analysis and discussion of Bertell’s topics, even though they themselves are effected by these.

The contextualisation of her works into the approach of Critical Theory of Patriarchy, which Rosalie desired, was not always met with understanding, as evidenced in the publication process of our new book «Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering is Wrecking our Planet and Humanity», Global Research 2021, (German version: Globale Warnung! Geoengineering ruiniert unseren Planeten und die Menschheit, Zeitgeist 2022) which contains a contribution of Rosalie Bertell.

She would have been pleased with this book, because it represents her work in new contexts and in the company of women from different parts of the world, investigating even further into her field of research, and also with a contribution from her friend Michel Chossudovsky from Global Research in Canada, at a moment in time, when the general confusion on what is actually truly going on in global patriarchy, seems to be reaching a climax.
As an eco-feminist, this would have been very much in her interest, especially now, when the relation of her analysis with the analysis of global patriarchy today has never become more obvious. For her, our term «military alchemy» had become the appropriate expression of this interrelationship.

As a pioneer of a new science, Rosalie certainly would have welcomed the increasing number of analyses of military geo-engineering world-wide.

It would have consoled and atoned her to see that this topic is now on the map and can no longer be denied, with the ever-increasing evidence that is now provided. Because the entire development of this technology is now partially already beyond of what Rosalie was able to observe.

Just imagine: In three years from now, in 2025, the US-Airforce hopes to succeed in the realization of its goal of achieving control over weather conditions world-wide. (Col. Tanzy J. House et al., for the US Air Force, 1996: On Weather as a Force Multiplier. Owning the Weather in 2025):

“Climate Change” is man-made, indeed!

Inspired by Rosalie Bertell, in 2010, we founded the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth, and we hope to have thus done our best to promote her ideas and findings and to build on her research. This also applies to the legacy of her last two interviews she gave in her life, which were lost for a long time, but eventually resurfaced after her death, with the titles: »Are we the last generations? » and «Planet without a future?»

These days we are pausing and commemorating her: the courageous, tireless, committed, intelligent, perceptive and deeply caring Rosalie Bertell! Her «planetary consciousness» shall be our model.

And we dedicate an insight by Hannah Arendt to her, that is applicable to the information war of our times – including also the one against the works of Rosalie Bertell – an insight that Rosalie would have shared without reservations:

“And the result is by no means that a lie is now accepted as the truth and the truth as a lie, but the human sense of orientation in the realm of the real, which cannot function WITHOUT the differentiation between truth and untruth, is being ANNIHILATED”.

On the basis of Rosalie’s insights and her research, we shall continue to resist this.

*

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

Dr. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.

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.

***

A report quietly published by the UK Government, just hours before Boris Johnson announced he was resigning as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, reveals the Covid-19 injections are proving to have negative effectiveness against death among children in England.

With the most recent figures showing triple vaccinated children aged 10 to 14 are a shocking 13,633.33% / 137.3x more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children.

On the 7th July, Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, announced he was resigning. Since then the Mainstream Media in the UK have distracted the public with 24/7 news on that announcement and speculation on who could replace him.

It’s times like these that you ought to watch what bad news is being quietly published in the background in the hope that it won’t receive much attention.

It just so happens that hours before Boris announced his resignation, his Government published new data that is devastating for both parents and children.

A UK Government agency, known as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), has just published data on deaths by vaccination status in England.

The latest dataset from the ONS is titled ‘Deaths by Vaccination Status, England, 1 January 2021 to 31 May 2022‘, and it can be accessed on the ONS site here, and downloaded here.

Source

Table 6 of the dataset contains data on deaths involving Covid-19 by age group in England between 1st January 2021 and 31st May 2022, and it includes the number of deaths among children aged 10 to 14.

However, it is quite clear from the data that the ONS are not being as transparent as we would like to believe. This is because they fail to provide the death rate per 100,000 person-years among children, whereas they have provided it for all other age groups in every other table contained in the dataset.

For example, here’s a snapshot of the data from table 1 of the dataset showing the death rate per 100,000 person-years by vaccination status in April 2022 –

Source

Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on which way you choose to look at it, the ONS still provides enough information for us to calculate the COVID death rate among children ourselves, and it is horrific.

Here’s a snapshot of the ONS data on Covid-19 deaths among children aged 10 to 14 between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st May 2022 by vaccination status –

Source

The data above includes the number of deaths and the number of person-years among each vaccination group. Therefore, all we need to do is divide each vaccination group’s person-years by 100,000, and then divide the number of deaths among each vaccination group by the answer to the previous equation, to work out the COVID death rates.

e.g. Unvaccinated 2,881,265 Person-years / 100,000 = 28.81
Unvaccinated Covid-19 Deaths (9) / 28.81 = 0.3 Deaths per 100,000 person-years

The following chart shows the calculated Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 person-years among children aged 10 to 14 in England between 1st Jan 2021 and 31st May 2022 –

Source Data

As you can see the rates are horrendous. With a death rate of 3.2 among the partly vaccinated, and a death rate of 41.2 per 100k among the triple vaccinated, compared to just 0.3 per 100k among the unvaccinated.

Based on Pfizer’s vaccine efficacy formula, this data reveals that the Covid-19 injections are now proving to have negative effectiveness against death among children, with the real-world effectiveness between January 2021 and May 2022 being as follows –

Formula:
Unvaccinated Death Rate – Vaccinated Death Rate
/
Unvaccinated Death Rate x 100 =
Vaccine Effectiveness against Death

Put plain and simply, the above means vaccinated children are more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children. Unfortunately, though, this increased risk of death is earth-shattering.

The Covid-19 injections are proving to have real-world negative effectiveness against death of minus-966.67% among partly vaccinated children, and a shocking real-world negative effectiveness against death of minus-13,633.33% among triple vaccinated children.

This isn’t anywhere near the claimed 95% effectiveness against death made by Pfizer, is it?

In other words, partly vaccinated children are 11x/966.67% more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children, and triple vaccinated children are 137.3x/13,633.33% more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated children.

The ONS unfortunately still refuses to provide any data on children under the age of 10, despite 5 to 11 year-olds being offered the Covid-19 injection in England since at least January 2022. We dread to think what sort of numbers we would be seeing if they had the decency and nerve to provide it.

The release of this horrific data has also, unfortunately, followed the questionable decision made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to authorise emergency use of the Covid-19 injection among infants as young as 6 months of age.

Source

Judging by this data that was quietly published by the UK Government just hours before Boris Johnson’s resignation as Prime Minister of the UK to ensure it was swept under the carpet, the people working for the FDA will live to regret that decision.

*

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 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.

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

***

The video below is a satire on COVID vaccines administered in Canada.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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.

***

Approximately a year ago, August 2021, Dr Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) wrote an opinion article in which he rhetorically asked What Would Happen to the World Without the United States. That article was and still is an informative, thought provoking and food for thought. It offers an insight into the need for global cooperation, peace and solidarity. It brings into memory the Communist slogans: the world without nuclear, peace and development, friendship and international solidarity.

After the historic fall of the Soviet era, Russia really dreamed of raising its status by joining international organizations. Over the past three decades, it became a member of many global bodies, participating actively at the United Nations. In addition, Russia created the Greater Eurasia Union, BRICS – a group of states comprising Brazil, India, China and South Africa – and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). With the current changes taking place, Russia has exited some of the foreign organizations including, Group of Eight (G-8), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). These have also generated hot debates whether to let it go out of the Group of Twenty (G-20).

Reports have categorically stressed that the course of geopolitical events is becoming irreversible. According to one report:

“Russia does not intend to tolerate the subversive actions carried out by the collective West towards setting up a rules-based order to replace international law trampled upon by the United States and its satellites.”

But today it seems we are almost close to the beginning of nuclear war. The world’s economy has been shattered, with skyrocketing prices, deficit in supplies of oil and gas to some parts of the world. The world has all the untapped natural resources to make people’ lives sustainable, but now an estimated half of the global population is under unbearable fear and deep strain, majority struggling to make a living.

This article seeks to focus specifically on Russia and the world. We attempt to imagine What Happens to Russia Without the United States and Europe. Unbelievably relations have soared these few years and almost at the verge of collapse completely. Another Cold war indeed, is at the door reminiscent of the previous ideological confrontation between the East and the West. We imagine Russia today without the two global powers; the United States and Europe.

What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? In his article published on RIAC website last August 2021, Dr Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) offered the definition or the descrption of the United States as often referred to as an “indispensable nation.”

The term was first used in January 1997 by President Bill Clinton during his second inaugural address. And thereafter, Madeleine Albright would mention it in her speeches and writings on numerous occasions after that. The underlying idea of “indispensability” here is that it suggests it would simply be impossible to maintain even relative order in the world – let alone resolve fundamental global and regional issues – without the United States. “It is likely no coincidence that the coinage came about and gained traction at a time when we were living in an almost completely unipolar world, when U.S. influence and authority around the globe had risen to never-before-seen heights over an incredibly short period of time,” he wrote in his article.

The situation is now evolving differently and how indispensable are the United States and Europe. Can we do, due to some typical circumstances, without them today? Russia, over the past few months exited out of a number of international organizations, and therefore moving into self-isolation. Russia is globe-trotting to make alliances against the United States and Europe. It leads new alliance first for defeating unipolarism, and second for creating a new world political and economic order. But, what would happen to Russia if the Federation Council and the State Duma (both organs of the Russian Federation) legislate to prohibit the use of Western and European languages, for instance English and French, due to the absolute hatred for these two powers’ hegemony. What if Russia has to prohibit the use of English, especially in its educational institutions, halt English-taught programmes throughout the Russian Federation. What happens if the Skolkovo project, considered as Sillicon Valley, kick out all foreign residents there?

Russia-Europe-United States’ cultural and educational cooperation have ultimately collapsed. It has crippled and ridiculed the work with civil society. Russia has closed the British Council, the American Educational Council with its Future Leaders Exchange (FLEX) programme, and Alliance Française and Geothe Institute. These are the largest cultural networks of Britain, the United States, France and Germany. While Russia struggles with its own non-profit NGO Russkiy Mir primarily tasked to popularize Russian language, literature and Russian culture around the world, but on the contrary found it necessary to halt non-political and non-profit educational branches of western ones that operated under their diplomatic missions in the Russian Federation.

The FLEX programme, created as the best way to ensure long-lasting peace and mutual understanding between the U.S. and the countries of Eurasia, enables young people, over 35,000 students who compete annually, to learn about the United States, and to teach Americans about their countries, mostly from the former Soviet republics. These educational and cultural centers have practically helped thousands of Russian students, with government-sponsored grants, to acquire comparative knowledge in various academic fields abroad. While some, after the training programmes, still remain abroad, others returned to contribute their quota in sustainable development in Russia.

What Would Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe?

The United States corporate business engagement is simply not comparable to Russia’s economic footprints in the United States. On April 29, 2021, President Vladimir Putin held videoconference with leaders of several corporate French companies-members of the Franco-Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI France-Russia) to discuss some aspects of Russian-French trade, economic and investment cooperation, including the implementation of large joint projects as well as the prospects for collaborative work in the Russian Federation.

From the historical records, France was described as a key economic partner for Russia, holding the 6th place among the EU countries (European Union is made up of 27 member-countries) in the amount of accumulated investment in the Russian economy and 5th place in the volume of trade. Over 500 companies with French capital are operating in various sectors of the Russian economy. Despite a certain decline in mutual trade in 2020, the ultimate figure quite acceptable at US$13 billion. But French investment in Russia was hovering around US$17 billion, while Russian investment in France, very tiny at US$3 billion.

There are EU countries such as Britain, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain playing significant economic roles in Russia. Their level of business are far higher than that of Russia in the European Union. Undeniably, Russia is only an energy supplier, but its economic involvement is comparatively little. Many Western and EU companies are suspending their business operations. The Kremlin and Russian authorities say the United States and European Union bloc are taking systematic and well-thought-out measures to destabilize the economy of Russia. Several “systematic, very serious measures corresponding to the extraordinary unfriendly conditions that were placed upon us by unfriendly actions (of other countries), well thought out measures,” are being taken, Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said during one of his media conferences.

‘United Russia’ – the largest political party in Russia, which supports President Putin’s policies – has proposed to nationalization of the enterprises of those Western companies that refused to operate in the Russian Federation. On March 7, Secretary of United Russia’s General Council Andrey Turchak said that the state legislative commission approved the initiative providing for the possibility of nationalizing the property of foreign corporations leaving the Russian market.

On the other hand, Dr Andrey Kortunov proposed to take a thought experiment: imagine if the United States were to completely depart from world politics, break all the international agreements to which Washington is a party, renounce all the obligations the country has undertaken, withdraw from all global and regional organizations, close the borders, shut down the embassies and consulates, freeze immigration and put all communication with the outside world on hold until things are looking better, focusing all its attention on building its biblical shining city upon a hill.

Dr Andrey Kortunov’s question: “What Would Happen to the World if the United States were erased from the map?” To begin with, there would only be one nuclear superpower left in the world, and that would be Russia. Accordingly, the last foundations of bilateral U.S.–Russia strategic arms control will collapse. It is unlikely that other nuclear powers would be particularly interested in entering into negotiations with Moscow on nuclear weapons, as the gap between Russia and all the other players is simply too great. It is even less likely that Moscow will agree to relinquish its unique nuclear advantage over the rest of the world. However, unconditional nuclear superiority does not automatically mean that Moscow would be able to freely dictate its will in global politics. The nuclear arsenals of other countries would continue to be effective deterrence instruments, and a war between the members of the “nuclear club” would be just as implausible as it is today.

That said, nuclear proliferation is likely to significantly aggravate. In the absence of the “extended deterrence” of the United States, many of its former allies and partners would think about acquiring nuclear weapons of their own. This primarily implies countries in East Asia (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) and the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt). The idea of building up a nuclear arsenal may also take hold in Germany. Some five or six new nuclear powers could appear in short order.

While it is unlikely that nuclear proliferation in East Asia would lead to a sharp escalation of military and political risks, the emergence of new nuclear states in the Middle East would be fraught with dire consequences – both for the region and for the international community as a whole. That said, we should acknowledge that the threat of nuclear proliferation exists even today, and this can in large part be put down to the approach of the United States to resolving issues related to the Iranian nuclear programme.

The question is: Would NATO be able to Survive in a World Without the United States? Theoretically, yes, but only if the European great powers – the United Kingdom, Germany and France – put the maximum political, economic and military effort into it.

The remaining countries in the bloc will have to increase their defence contributions by more than the two per cent on which Washington insists today to some four or five per cent. Even this, though, would not offset the losses that NATO would incur as a result of the U.S. withdrawal. Without American leadership, NATO would likely turn into a regional military and political instrument of the European Union – while London’s role in the organization would be unclear seeing as it is no longer in the EU – and NATO would have a far more modest role in world affairs than it has today. Without the United States, it is unlikely that NATO would continue to pursue its current global ambitions, and the remaining members may be rather reluctant to endlessly expand the organization’s zone of geographic responsibility.

In a world without the United States, China would almost automatically become the undisputed leader in global technology. Although Europe, Japan, India and Southeast Asian nations would likely have greater incentive to join forces to challenge China’s hegemony in this area. With this in mind, it is hard to say whether it would be possible to create a global technological ecosystem that would be independent of Beijing without the United States. This would largely depend on how rigid or flexible Beijing’s hegemony would actually turn out to be as well as on the extent to which China would manage to avoid monopolizing the new technologies that are fundamental to the global community at large.

Dr Andrey Kortunov wrote that the euro would inevitably become the main reserve currency once the dollar exits the global financial system. The Chinese yuan is not entirely convertible, which means that it would be a long time before China could compete with the European Union in the financial sphere. Other global currencies – such as the British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc – could gain in importance. European and Asian financial centres (London, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Singapore, etc.) would receive additional powerful incentives for development.

International financial institutions (the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund), where the United States has traditionally played a leading role, would undergo sweeping – and likely very painful – reforms. As a sidenote, we shall argue that the United Nations would also suffer a profound institutional crisis, losing both its current headquarters in New York and approximately 22 per cent of its base budget, as well as the U.S. contributions to individual UN departments and programmes. The Arctic Council would suffer less, as the American sector of the Arctic is far smaller than that of Russia and Canada. What is more, the United States has not yet ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which somewhat complicates Washington’s position in the Arctic Council.

The absence of the United States on the world’s energy markets could lead to a temporary revival of OPEC and a strengthening of Russia’s positions. The “green” and “shale” revolutions will continue unabated, however. Washington’s departure from the global arms and foodstuff markets would also result in a significant restructuring of these markets. Even with the joint efforts of the remaining players, the gap left by the United States in the arms market would be extremely difficult to fill.

With Hollywood no longer the centre of the global film industry, cities that used to hold that position -primarily Paris and Rome – would have the chance to revive their former cinematic glory. However, European filmmakers would face tough competition on the global entertainment market from filmmakers of Indian and, in particular, Chinese origin The disappearance of New York from world fashion would give a second wind to Paris and Milan, while the United Kingdom would probably become the centre of musical life for a long time to come.

According to Dr Andrey Kortunov, the departure of Apple – and its iPhones and MacBooks – from the portable electronics markets would create a vacuum that a dozen of the biggest electronics giants in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan would fight to fill. America’s self-imposed isolation would send shockwaves through higher education and science markets globally to reverberate for decades to come.

Quite naturally, the world would not lapse. It would survive the departure of the United States just like it survived the extinction of the dinosaurs and woolly mammoths. It would be difficult and extremely uncomfortable at first, especially for those international players who have been hiding in the shadow of the American superpower for decades. The withdrawal of the United States would lead to a number of crises and conflicts and a long period of instability and uncertainty as the struggle for the “American legacy” would inevitably be long and tense. Somehow, we would still get through it! Plus, the world already had a preview of Washington as an unpredictable and unreliable partner during Donald Trump’s presidency. It will actually be easier to resolve certain problems without Washington, since the U.S. is often part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

According to Dr Andrey Kortunov, the world would miss the United States. “We would miss the American optimism, the American energy and the American drive. We would miss the high-rise buildings of Manhattan, the narrow streets of the French Quarter in New Orleans and the expansive prairies of the Great Plains. We would miss the country music, the Chicago-style steaks and the Californian nutmeg chardonnay. We would miss Halloween, Thanksgiving and, perhaps, Independence Day. Just like the entire world would miss Russia, Argentina, Ethiopia and New Zealand. Every single country is unique and indispensable in its own way. In this sense, the United States truly is an indispensable nation,” he asserted in his conclusion.

European Russia accounts for about 75% of Russia’s total population. But demographical documents further indicate that 1.8 million Russians live in the European Union (majority in Britain, Germany and France), 1.3 million Russians live in the United States (majority in New York and Washington) and in Canada. Both the United States and Canada, and European Union have provided better living conditions for Russians more than for American, Canadian and European citizens (in fact very small number) who live in the Russian Federation.

But then, the rhetorical questions are: What Would Really Happen to Russia Without the United States and Europe? Can Russia lead the emerging global economic order? Is Russia ready to support developing countries where the United States and Europe have failed? Is Moscow a financial hub and host to international organizations’ representation offices as in New York and Washington, and in Europe? Can Russia turn into superpower with hegemony characteristics, and provide the same conditions for foreigners as obtained in the United States and Europe? Is this the end of Russians’ American and European Dream?

Dr Andrey Kortunov’s distinctive question is: What Would Happen to the World Without the United States? Special gratitude for food-for-thought and thought-provoking question from Dr Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of RIAC. The Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) is a non-profit academic and diplomatic think tank that was established in February 2010. The RIAC makes strengthening peace, friendship and solidarity its direction of activities, and works closely with the state, academic community, business, and civil society in an effort to find foreign policy solutions to complex diverse issues.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

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.

***

The Suicide Spectacular Summer Show, currently on screen across Europe, proceeds in full regalia, much to the astonishment of virtually the whole Global South: a trashy, woke Gotterdammerung remake, with Wagnerian grandeur replaced by twerking.

Decadent Roman Emperors at least exhibited some degree of pathos. Here we’re just faced by a toxic mix of hubris, abhorring mediocrity, delusion, crude ideological sheep-think and outright irrationality wallowing in white man’s burden racist/supremacist slush – all symptoms of a profound sickness of the soul.

To call it the Biden-von Der Leyen-Blinken West or so would be too reductionist: after all these are puny politico/functionaries merely parroting orders. This is a historical process: physical, psychic and moral cognitive degeneration embedded in NATOstan’s manifest desperation in trying to contain Eurasia, allowing occasional tragicomic sketches such as a NATO summit proclaiming Woke War against virtually the whole non-West.

So when President Putin addresses the collective West  in front of Duma leaders and heads of political parties, it does feel like a comet striking an inert planet. It’s not even a case of “lost in translation”. “They” simply aren’t equipped to get it.

The “You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet” part was at least formulated to be understood even by simpletons:

“Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield, well, what can I say, let them try. We have heard many times that the West wants to fight us to the last Ukrainian – this is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people. But it looks like it’s all coming to this. But everyone should know that, by and large, we haven’t really started anything yet.”

Fact. On Operation Z, Russia is using a fraction of its military potential, resources and state of the art weapons.

Then we come to the most probable path ahead in the war theater:

“We do not refuse peace negotiations, but those who refuse should know that the longer it drags, the more difficult it will be for them to negotiate with us.”

As in the pain dial will be ratcheted up, slowly but surely, on all fronts.

Yet the meat of the matter had been delivered earlier in the speech: “ratcheting up the pain dial” applies in fact to dismantling the whole “rules-based international order” edifice. The geopolitical world has changed. Forever.

Here’s the arguably key passage:

“They should have understood that they have already lost from the very beginning of our special military operation, because its beginning means the beginning of a radical breakdown of the World Order in the American way. This is the beginning of the transition from liberal-globalist American egocentrism to a truly multipolar world – a world based not on selfish rules invented by someone for themselves, behind which there is nothing but the desire for hegemony, not on hypocritical double-standards, but on international law, on the true sovereignty of peoples and civilizations, on their will to live their historical destiny, their values and traditions and build cooperation on the basis of democracy, justice and equality. And we must understand that this process can no longer be stopped.”

Meet the trifecta

A case can be made that Putin and Russia’s Security Council are implementing a tactical trifecta that has reduced the collective West to an amorphous bunch of bio headless chickens.

The trifecta mixes the promise of negotiations – but only when considering Russia’s steady advances on the ground in Novorossiya; the fact that Russia’s global “isolation” has been proved in practice to be nonsense; and tweaking the most visible pain dial of them all: Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

The main reason for the graphic, thundering failure of the G20 Foreign Ministers summit in Bali is that the G7 – or NATOstan plus American colony Japan – could not force the BRICS plus major Global South players to isolate, sanction and/or demonize Russia.

On the contrary: multiple interpolations outside of the G20 spell out even more Eurasia-wide integration. Here are a few examples.

The first transit of Russian products to India via the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) is now in effect, crisscrossing Eurasia from Mumbai to the Baltic via Iranian ports (Chabahar or Bandar Abbas), the Caspian Sea, and Southern and Central Russia. Crucially, the route is shorter and cheaper than going through the Suez Canal.

In parallel, the head of the Iranian Central Bank, Ali Salehabadi, confirmed that a memorandum of interbank cooperation was signed between Tehran and Moscow.

That means a viable alternative to SWIFT, and a direct consequence of Iran’s application to become a full BRICS member, announced at the recent summit in Beijing. The BRICS, since 2014, when the New Development Bank (NDB) was founded, have been busy building their own financial infrastructure, including the near future creation of a single reserve currency. As part of the process, the harmonization of Russian and Iranian banking systems is inevitable.

Iran is also about to become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the upcoming summit in Samarkand in September.

In parallel, Russia and Kazakhstan are solidifying their strategic partnership: Kazakhstan is a key member of BRI, EAEU and SCO.

India gets even closer to Russia across the whole spectrum of trade – including energy.

And next Tuesday, Tehran will be the stage for a crucial face-to-face meeting between Putin and Erdogan.

Isolation? Really?

On the energy front, it’s only summer, but demented paranoia is already raging across multiple EU latitudes, especially Germany. Comic relief is provided by the fact that Gazprom can always point out to Berlin that eventual supplying problems on Nord Stream 1 – after the cliffhanger return of that notorious repaired turbine from Canada – can always be solved by implementing Nord Stream 2.

As the whole European Suicide Spectacular Summer Show is nothing but a tawdry self-inflicted torture ordered by His Master’s Voice, the only serious question is which pain dial level will force Berlin to actually sit down and negotiate on behalf of legitimate German industrial and social interests.

Rough and tumble will be the norm. Foreign Minister Lavrov summed it all up when commenting on the Declining Collective West Ministers striking poses like infantile brats in Bali to avoid being seen with him: that was up to “their understanding of the protocols and politeness.”

That’s diplo-talk for “bunch of jerks”. Or worse: cultural barbarians, as they were even unable to respect the hyper-polite Indonesian hosts, who abhor confrontation.

Lavrov preferred to extol the “joint strategic and constructive” Russian-Chinese work when faced with a very aggressive West. And that brings us to the prime masterpiece of shadowplay in Bali – complete with several layers of geopolitical fog.

Chinese media, always flirting with the opaque, tried to put its bravest face ever depicting the over 5-hour meeting  between Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary Blinken as “constructive”.

What’s fascinating here is that the Chinese ended up letting something crucial out of the bag to slip into the final draft of their report – obviously approved by the powers that be.

Lu Xiang of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences went through previous readouts – especially of “Yoda” Yang Jiechi routinely turning Jake Sullivan into roasted duck – and stressed that this time Wang’s “warnings” to the Americans were “the sternest one in wording”.

That’s diplo-code for “You Better Watch Out”: Wang telling Little Blinkie, “just look at what the Russians did when they lost their patience with your antics.”

The expression ”dead end” was recurrent during the Wang-Blinken meeting. So in the end the Global Times had to tell it like it really is: “The two sides are close to a showdown.”

“Showdown” is what End of Days fanatic and Tony Soprano wannabe Mike Pompeo is fervently preaching from his hate pulpit, while the combo behind the senile “leader of the free world” who literally reads teleprompters actively work for the crashing of the EU – in more ways than one.

The combo in power in Washington actually “supports” the unification of Britain, Poland, Ukraine and The Three Baltic Midgets as a separate alliance from NATO/EU – aiming at “strengthening the defense potential.” That’s the official position of U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julian Smith.

So the real imperial aim is to split the already shattering EU into mini-union pieces, all of them quite fragile and evidently more “manageable”, as Brussels Eurocrats, blinded by boundless mediocrity, obviously can’t see it coming.

What the Global South is buying

Putin always makes it very clear that the decision to launch Operation Z – as a sort of pre-emptive “combined arms and police operation”, as defined by Andrei Martyanov – was carefully calculated, considering an array of material and socio-psychological vectors.

Anglo-American strategy, for its part, lasers on a single obsession: damn any possible reframing of the current “rules-based international order”. No holds are barred to ensure the perpetuity of this order. This is in fact Totalen Krieg – featuring several hybrid layers, and quite worrying, with only a few seconds to midnight.

And there’s the rub. Desolation Row is fast becoming Desperation Row, as the whole Russophobic matrix is shown to be naked, devoid of any extra ideological – and even financial – firepower to “win”, apart from shipping a collection of HIMARS to a black hole.

Geopolitically and geoeconomically, Russia and China are in the process of eating NATOstan alive – in more ways than one. Here, for instance, is a synthetic road map of how Beijing will address the next stage of high-quality development via capital-driven industrial upgrading, focused on optimization of supply chains, import substitution of hard technologies, and “invisible champions” of industry.

If the collective West is blinded by Russophobia, the governing success of the Chinese Communist Party – which in a matter of a few decades improved the lives of more people than anyone, anytime in History – drives it completely nuts.

All along the Russia-China watchtower, it’s been not such a long time coming. BRI was launched by Xi Jinping in 2013. After Maidan in 2014, Putin launched the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) in 2015. Crucially, in May 2015, a Russia-China joint statement sealed the cooperation between BRI and EAEU, with a significant role assigned to the SCO.

Closer integration advanced via the St. Petersburg forum in 2016 and the BRI forum in 2017. The overall target: to create a new order in Asia, and across Eurasia, according to international law while maintaining the individual development strategies of each concerned country and respecting their national sovereignty.

That, in essence, is what most of the Global South is buying. It’s as if there’s a cross-border instinctual understanding that Russia-China, against serious odds and facing serious challenges, proceeding by trial and error, are at the vanguard of the Shock of the New, while the collective West, naked, dazed and confused, their masses completely zombified, is sucked into the maelstrom of psychological, moral and material disintegration.

No question the pain deal will be ratcheted up, in more ways than one.

*

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

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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 UN Security Council has agreed to extend a system for cross-border aid to Idlib, Syria until January 2023.

The US and its allies had demanded a year-long extension, but Russia used its veto on Friday.

UN and other NGO aid delivery trucks will cross from Turkey into Syria at the Bab al Hawa crossing. The system has been in place since 2014, but expired on Sunday.

At stake are daily supplies for about 2 million people in the northwestern Idlib region of Syria. According to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 4,600 aid trucks, carrying mostly food, have crossed Bab al Hawa this year.

Dmitry Polyanski, Russia’s deputy ambassador to the UN, said Moscow would adopt the resolution with “a minimal modification.” At least nine of the 15 members must support a resolution to be adopted, and none of the permanent members can use their veto.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had emphasized the importance of extending the cross-border aid mechanism in Syria, in a conversation with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Monday.

Since 2019, Russia has argued that the UN should work with Damascus on aid deliveries out of respect for Syria’s sovereignty. Moscow and Ankara signed a ceasefire agreement covering Idlib in 2019; however, Turkey has failed to uphold its end of the bargain.

The original UN mandate for cross-border aid to Syria in 2014 was devised thinking that rebel-controlled areas were temporary, but the situation in Idlib continues to exist in a stalemate, with no clear military or political resolution on the horizon.

Heated debates in late 2019 and mid-2020, during which Russia and China used their vetoes three times to block resolutions renewing the mandate, saw Moscow succeed in limiting the UN’s cross-border operations to a single crossing, at Bab al-Hawa, and Russia made clear that the mandate could not be renewed indefinitely.

Russia also demanded that the UN work harder on delivering aid into Idlib from government-held Syrian territory, and called for greater international funding for recovery projects in government-controlled parts of Syria.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in particular has played a pivotal role in cross-border aid delivery.

In 2014, Serena Shim, an American journalist was killed in Turkey just one day after she broadcast that the Turkish intelligence agency had threatened her and accused her of spying.

This accusation followed her original investigative reporting at the Turkish border of Syria in which she observed Islamic State terrorists crossing into Syria inside UN food trucks.

The terrorists and their weapons were flooding from Turkey into Syria through a US CIA program which President Trump cut off in 2017.

The US and its western allies have demonized Russia over the current Ukraine conflict.  However, the work that Russia is doing in Syria should not be conflated with Ukraine, as they are not connected.

The Russian Center for Negotiations in Syria has been responsible for brokering peace deals between armed terrorists and the Syrian government.  This has led to the peaceful resolution on conflicts across the country, and terrorists and their families and supporters were given the option of surrender or being bussed to Idlib.

The population today in Idlib is not the original civilians, who were mainly olive growers, but is displaced people coming from locations far removed from Idlib.  The common denominator of the majority of inhabitants in Idlib is their political ideology which is Radical Islam.  The various ‘rebel’ groups from the outset of 2011, have been aiming for an Islamic State in Syria.  Freedom and democracy is not their goal.

The Free Syrian Army ceased to exist and Jibhat al-Nusra became the fiercest fighting force on the battlefields by 2015, and was the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria.  Because Jibhat al-Nusra is designated an outlawed terrorist organization by the US and UN, they changed their name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in an effort to clean up their image and keep US-EU support.

The HTS-backed ‘Salvation Government’ administers Idlib and rules with an iron fist.  HTS, Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood all have the same political platform: to establish an Islamic State, with the Koran as the only rule of law.

Idlib is just one small province in Syria, and most of the Syrian civilians in Aleppo, Homs, Latakia and Damascus don’t receive UN aid, or any charity aid.  This has led to a deep-seated resentment of the majority of Syrians, who are suffering from lack of electricity, lack of gasoline, and hyper-inflationary prices of basic food items, directed at the people living in Idlib who are living off free food and supplies.

In 2010, the Christian Science Monitor published an article “Syrian Secularism: a Model for the Middle East”.

Syria is a mixed population of Jews, Christians and Muslims.  The peaceful coexistence was maintained by the Syrian government embracing all religions and taking pride in a diverse heritage.

When the US-NATO attack on Syria began in 2011, they used Radical Islamic terrorists as foot soldiers, but their regime change goal was a failure because the Syrian population fought back against Radical Islam.  The Syrian people were determined to maintain their secular system.

Before 2011, about 10,000 Christians lived in the Idlib province, but their numbers started to decline in 2012, and by 2015 most of them had fled the Radical Islamic terrorists in control. Today, only about 200 Christians remain and are elderly.

In late January 2013, the Christian village of Al-Yacoubiyah in Idlib was captured by terrorists.

Between 2015-2018, up to 95% of Al-Yacoubiyah emigrated, as HTS took control and properties of the Christians were seized, churches were locked up and Christian people were denied to perform their religious rituals, church bells were prevented to ring and crosses were not allowed to be hung on churches.  HTS even takes 2.5% of the farmers crops per year as a tax on ‘heathens’, which HTS considers all Christians.

The US, EU and NATO have turned their backs on Syria and are involved with Ukraine. Experts have asked, “Who benefits from starving people in Idlib?”

Apparently, the US and its allies benefit from keeping the Idlib population as hostages to a political process which has no roadmap or movement.  Instead of convening a meeting of nations to solve the stalemate in Idlib, and free the civilians from an Islamic State in Idlib, the UN only haggles about how to deliver aid, to feed the stalemate.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

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.

***

One of the most important heads-of-state in the struggle to end Portuguese domination in Africa died in a Spanish hospital on July 8.

Jose Eduardo dos Santos served as president of the Republic of Angola from 1979 to 2017 as well as the Secretary General of the ruling Popular Movement for Liberation of Angola (MPLA-Worker’s Party).

The MPLA was the leading liberation movement which fought for the independence of Angola from Portugal. After the armed struggle against Lisbon and its NATO allies between 1961-1975, the MPLA became the target of the United States and the then racist apartheid regime in South Africa in their strategic aim of curtailing the genuine independence of the entire sub-continent. Rather than recognize the legitimacy of the MPLA, Washington and its cohorts backed two rival groupings, the FNLA (Front for the Liberation of Angola) and UNITA (Union for the Total Independence of Angola), which were funded and assisted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the South African Defense Forces (SADF).

Image on the right: Angola MPLA founding President Agostino Neto (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Angola founding President Agostino Neto, turned to the Republic of Cuba and other socialist and progressive forces across the continent and internationally in order to secure the independence of the state under MPLA rule. Cuban internationalist forces remained in Angola from late 1975 to 1989, when an agreement was reached with the apartheid rulers of Namibia and South Africa to withdraw from the country as well as neighboring Namibia, then known as Southwest Africa. Namibia won its independence in 1990 after 14 years of armed revolutionary warfare. The military defeat of the SADF in southern Angola also led to the release of political prisoners in Namibia and South Africa and the negotiated transition from apartheid to democratic rule in the Republic of South Africa in 1994.

Dos Santos and the MPLA

The deceased former president had joined the MPLA (founded in 1956) during its early years in 1961. He was granted a scholarship to study petroleum engineering in the Soviet Union during the 1960s. By 1970, Dos Santos had returned to the region to serve as a guerrilla soldier in the MPLA.

Dos Santos served in the Second Front of the MPLA military department known as the People’s Armed Forces for the Liberation of Angola (FAPLA). He was stationed in the oil-rich Cabinda province and often served as a representative for the MPLA in international forums. He was a member of the MPLA Executive Committee and after the independence of Angola on November 11, 1975, he was appointed as the first prime minister.

The UNITA rebel organization largely based in southern Angola continued with a civil war which lasted from 1975-2002, when the U.S. and apartheid-backed Jonas Savimbi was killed by FAPLA forces. During the administration of President Gerald Ford and later Jimmy Carter, clandestine support for the UNITA rebel grouping continued. During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan championed Savimbi as a proponent of bourgeois democracy in opposition to the Soviet-Cuban aligned Marxist MPLA.

Founding President Dr. Agostino Neto died in 1979 resulting in the ascendancy of Dos Santos as head-of-state. He was elected on numerous occasions over a period of 38 years and oversaw the resolution of the civil war and the establishment of peace and stability in Angola.

In the aftermath of the defeat of the SADF in southern Angola in 1988, UNITA had committed to participating in multi-party elections. However, when the MPLA was victorious in the voting which took place in 1992, UNITA resumed the armed attacks against the Angolan government and people. Since the 2000s in the wake of the death of Savimbi, Angola has emerged as a major producer of oil internationally. There has been substantial growth in various sectors of the economy.

From a Wartime President to Leading Energy Producer

Dos Santos announced in 2017 that he was leaving the presidency while remaining as leader of the MPLA ruling party. His successor was Joao Lourenco who remains as president today. Lourenco later took over as leader of the party in 2018.

Image below: Angola oil rig (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Africa News website reported that the Angolan president expressed his condolences on behalf of the government and people. The article notes that:

“Angolan President Joao Lourenco, who is seeking re-election in August, said the country had suffered a ‘big loss’. He declared five days of national mourning, starting Saturday (July 9). ‘This is very sad news… He has done a lot for the country,’ said Luanda resident Santos Camuenho, a 40-year-old mason. Dos Santos was admitted to a hospital in Spain and placed in intensive care after suffering a cardiac arrest on June 23. Namibia’s President Hage Geingob called dos Santos an ‘outstanding revolutionary’. ‘Another giant tree has fallen,’ Geingob said. Portugal’s President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa described him as a ‘decisive protagonist’ in the relations with Angola’s former colonial power. Former Portuguese prime minister and ex-head of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso recalled a leader of exceptional intelligence, who was able to guarantee Angolan national unity’.”

In neighboring South Africa under the ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), President Cyril Ramaphosa expressed his condolences and solidarity with the people of Angola during this time of loss and mourning. The ANC was a direct beneficiary of the solidarity extended by the MPLA and the Republic of Cuba during the 1970s and 1980s. The ANC armed wing, Um Khonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation), maintained training camps in Angola while the MPLA, the Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) of Namibia were fighting to fully liberate the region from the occupation of the apartheid SADF.

Angola and South Africa are important members of the 16 member-states Southern African Development Community (SADC), which works towards greater cooperation and economic integration throughout the region. The SADC has been able to assist in the security needs of other member states such as Lesotho and Mozambique.

In a statement issued by the South African President’s Office, it stated:

“I offer, on behalf of our government and nation, our sincerest condolences to the Republic of Angola on the passing of an outstanding revolutionary and leader of a nation. President Dos Santos’ humble beginnings, his militancy, his exile from the country of his birth and his education in the then Soviet Union resonate profoundly with the journey many South Africans in our own liberation movement experienced. Indeed, José Eduardo dos Santos and the MPLA (Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola) came to lead and extend their revolutionary solidarity and material and military support to our liberation movement. This support provoked the apartheid regime and its allies to violate the sovereign Republic of Angola by turning Angola into a battleground for preserving the apartheid regime. In the end, through the sacrifices of the Angolan people and the unwavering leadership of President Dos Santos, freedom dawned in a democratic South Africa. Today, our two nations are united in mourning as we were in struggle, and South Africa will continue to honor the contribution President Dos Santos made to building the Republic of Angola and bringing peace to our region. May his soul rest in peace.”

Over the last few years, Angola and the West African state of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, have contended as the largest oil-producers on the continent. Since May of this year, Angola has led Nigeria in the amounts of barrels per day being supplied to the international market.

These developments are significant in light of the burgeoning energy crisis in Europe where the war in Ukraine has prompted unprecedented sanctions by the U.S. and the EU against the Russian Federation, one of the largest producers and exporters of oil and natural gas. Many countries in Eastern and Western Europe are highly dependent upon Russian energy resources.

One television network in Nigeria said of the current situation:

“New data released by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on Tuesday (July 12) shows Angola produced more crude oil than Nigeria in June. This is despite Nigeria recording its biggest production jump in months by 134,000 barrels per barrel (bpd) to 1.158 million bpd in June from 1.024 million in May, based on direct communication. However, Angola’s oil production rose to 1.175 million bpd in June, up from 1.162 million bpd in May, based on direct communication.

IGBERETV had reported last month that Nigeria lost its status as Africa’s top oil producer to Angola as its output declined the most in May among its peers in OPEC.”

Amid an inflationary spike largely due to the precipitous rise in oil prices at the pump, the industry will be a central focus of many observers who are predicting a global recession. The 55-member-states African Union (AU) is already scheduled to hold a continent-wide summit with the Russian Federation beginning in November in Sochi. Undoubtedly, Angola will be an important player in the upcoming summit and the repositioning of the international energy markets.

*

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

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

Featured image: Angolan Presidents Dos Santos and Joao Laurenco (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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.

***

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is off to the fastest start for the first half of any year since 2008 according to government data published today.

Deforestation alert data from Brazil’s national space research institute INPE shows that 3,988 square kilometers of forest have been cleared within the Brazilian Amazon since January 1, a 17 percent rise over last year, when deforestation ultimately reached the highest annual total since 2006. The last time deforestation in the region topped 4,000 square kilometers in the first six months of a year was 2008.

DETER deforestation alerts for Jan 1 through Jun 30 since 2008. DETER in INPE’s deforestation monitoring system.

According to INPE’s deforestation alert system (DETER), 1,120 square kilometers of forest was cleared in June 2022, the highest for any June on record. INPE started publishing such data on a monthly basis in 2007.

The data comes as the Amazon heads into the height of its deforestation season, which typically run from May through September, when rain across much of the region is at a minimum. For the past 15 years, deforestation has normally peaked in July.

Average monthly deforestation detected by DETER, Apr 2007-Jun 2022

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has been on an upward trend since 2012, reversing a near-decade-long decline in the rate of forest clearing. About 20% of the Brazilian Amazon’s rainforest has been lost since the 1970s.

Scientists have warned that the Amazon may be approaching a tipping point where rainfall declines precipitously, leading to large-scale die-off of the region’s rainforest.

Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, 2006-2021 according to INPE. 

*

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: Global Forest Watch forest cover change alerts near Porto Velho in the State of Rondônia, Brazil in 2022. (Source: Mongabay)

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.

***

One of the outcomes of the alleged new SARS Covid virus that publicly emerged in 2019 is that the medical specialization of virology has been raised to a stature almost Godlike in the media. Few understand the origins of virology and its elevation into a leading role in today’s medicine practice. For this we need to look at the origins and politics of America’s first medical research institute, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, today Rockefeller University, and their work on what they claimed was a polio virus.

In 1907 an outbreak of a sickness in New York City gave the director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, MD, a golden opportunity to lay claim to discovery of an invisible “virus” caused by what was arbitrarily called poliomyelitis. The word poliomyelitis simply means inflammation of the spinal cord’s grey matter. There were some 2,500 New Yorkers, mostly children, designated with some form of poliomyelitis, including paralysis and even death, that year.

Flexner’s Fraud

The most striking aspect of the entire polio saga in the USA during the first half of the 20th Century was the fact that every key phase of the business was controlled by people tied to what became the Rockefeller medical cabal. This fraud started with claims by the Director of the Rockefeller Institute, Simon Flexner, that he and his colleague, Paul A. Lewis, had “isolated” a pathogen, invisible to the eye, smaller even than bacteria, which they claimed caused the paralyzing sickness in a series of outbreaks in the US. How did they come to this idea?

In a paper published in 1909 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Flexner claimed he and Lewis had isolated the poliomyelitis virus responsible. He reported they had successfully “passaged” poliomyelitis through several monkeys, from monkey to monkey. They began by injecting diseased human spinal cord tissue of a young boy who had died, presumably from the virus, into the brains of monkeys. After a monkey fell ill, a suspension of its diseased spinal cord tissue was injected into the brains of other monkeys who also fell ill.

They proclaimed that the Rockefeller Institute doctors had thus proven poliomyelitis virus causality for the mysterious disease. They hadn’t done anything of the sort. Flexner and Lewis even admitted that:

“We failed utterly to discover bacteria, either in film preparations or in cultures, that could account for the disease; and, since among our long series of propagations of the virus in monkeys not one animal showed, in the lesions, the cocci described by some previous investigators, and we had failed to obtain any such bacteria from the human material studied by us, we felt that they could be excluded from consideration.”

What they then did was to make a bizarre supposition, a leap of faith, not a scientific claim. They took their hypothesis of viral exogenous agency and made it fact, with no proof whatever. They asserted: “Therefore, …the infecting agent of epidemic poliomyelitis belongs to the class of the minute and filterable viruses that have not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.“ Therefore?

Simon Flexner simply asserted it “must” be a polio virus killing the monkeys, because they could find no other explanation. In fact he did not look for another source of the illnesses. This was not scientific isolation. It was wild speculation: “…not thus far been demonstrated with certainty under the microscope.” They admitted this in a December 18, 1909 follow up in JAMA, titled, THE NATURE OF THE VIRUS OF EPIDEMIC POLIOMYELITIS.

The so-called “virus” they were injecting into monkeys was hardly pure. It also contained an undetermined amount of contaminants. It included “pureed spinal cord, brain, fecal matter, even flies were ground up and injected into monkeys to induce paralysis.” Until Jonas Salk won approval from the US Government in April 1955 for a polio vaccine, no scientific proof of existence of a virus causing poliomyelitis, or infantile paralysis as it was commonly known, had been proven. That is the case to this day. The medical world all took Flexner’s word that it “must” be a virus.

Rockefeller Institute, Flexner and the American Medical Association

The Rockefeller Institute was founded from the Standard Oil fortune of John D. Rockefeller in 1901, to be America’s first biomedical institute. It was modelled on France’s Pasteur Institute (1888) and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute (1891). Its first Director, Simon Flexner, played a pivotal and most criminal role in the evolution of what became approved American medical practice. The Rockefeller goal was to completely control American medical practice and transform it into an instrument, at least initially, for promotion of medical drugs approved by the Rockefeller interests. By then they were looking to monopolize medical drugs produced from their petroleum refining, as they had done with oil.

Image on the right: Simon Flexner (Licensed under the public domain)

As Rockefeller Institute head, Simon Flexner, was publishing his inconclusive but highly acclaimed studies on polio, he arranged for his brother, Abraham Flexner, a school teacher with no medical background, to head a joint study by the American Medical Association (AMA), the Rockefeller General Education Board, and the Carnegie Foundation founded by Rockefeller’s close friend Andrew Carnegie.

The 1910 study was titled, The Flexner Report, and its ostensible purpose was to investigate the quality of all US medical schools. The outcome of the report was, however, predetermined. Ties between the well-endowed Rockefeller Institute and the AMA went through the corrupt AMA head, George H. Simmons.

Simmons was also the editor of the influential Journal of the American Medical Association, a publication delivered to some 80,000 doctors across America. He reportedly wielded absolute power over the doctors’ association. He controlled the rising ad revenues for drug companies to promote their drugs to AMA doctors in his journal, a highly lucrative business. He was a key part of the Rockefeller medical coup that was to completely redefine acceptable medical practice away from remedial or preventive treatment to use of often deadly drugs and expensive surgeries. As head of the AMA Simmons realized that the competition from a proliferation of medical schools, including then-recognized chiropractic, osteopathy, homeopathy and natural medicine, was lessening income of his AMA doctors, as the number of medical schools had increased from around 90 in 1880 to over 150 in 1903.

Abraham Flexner, former headmaster of a private school, toured various US medical schools in 1909 and recommended that fully half of the 165 medical schools be closed, as what he defined as “sub-standard.” This reduced competition from other approaches to healing diseases. They ruthlessly targeted then-widespread naturopathic medical schools, chiropractic ones, osteopaths as well as independent allopathic schools unwilling to join the AMA regime.

Then Rockefeller money went to the select schools with a proviso that professors be vetted by the Rockefeller Institute and the curriculum focus on drugs and surgery as treatment, not prevention, nor nutrition, nor toxicology as possible causes and solutions. They had to accept Pasteur’s germ theory of disease, which claims one germ to one disease reductionism. Rockefeller-controlled media launched a coordinated witch-hunt against all forms of alternative medicine, herbal remedies, natural vitamins and chiropractic–anything not controlled by Rockefeller patented drugs.

By 1919 the Rockefeller General Education Board and the Rockefeller Foundation had paid out more than $5,000,000 to Johns Hopkins, Yale and Washington University in St. Louis medical schools. In 1919 John D. Rockefeller granted another $20,000,000 in securities, “for the advancement of medical education in the United States.” That would be comparable to about $340 million today, a huge sum. In short the Rockefeller money interests had hijacked American medical education and medical researchby the 1920’s.

Creating Virology

This medical takeover, backed by the most influential doctors’ organization, the AMA, and its corrupt head, Simmons, allowed Simon Flexner to literally create modern virology under Rockefeller rules. The highly controversial Thomas Milton Rivers, as director of The Rockefeller Institute’s virology laboratory, established virology as an independent field, separate from bacteriology, during the 1920s. They realized they could manipulate far easier when they could claim deadly pathogens that were invisible germs or “viruses.” Ironically virus comes from Latin for poison.

Virology, a reductionist medical fraud, was a creation of the Rockefeller medical cabal. That highly important fact is buried in the annals of medicine today. Diseases such as smallpox or measles or poliomyelitis were declared caused by invisible pathogens called specific viruses. If scientists could “isolate” the invisible virus, theoretically they could find vaccines to protect people from harm. So their theory went. It was a huge boon for the Rockefeller cartel of pharmaceutical companies, which at the time included American Home Products which falsely promoted drugs with no proof of effect, such as Preparation H for Hemorrhoids, or Advil for pain relief; Sterling Drug,which took over the US assets including Aspirin of German Bayer AG after World War I; Winthrop Chemical; American Cyanamid and its subsidiary Lederle Laboratories; Squibb and Monsanto.

Soon virus researchers at the Rockefeller Institute, in addition to claiming discovery of the poliomyelitis virus, claimed to discover the viruses that caused smallpox, mumps, measles and yellow fever. Then they announced “discovery” of preventive vaccines for pneumonia and yellow fever. All of these “discoveries” announced by the Institute proved false. With the control of the research in the new area of virology, the Rockefeller Institute, in collusion with Simmons at AMA and his equally corrupt successor, Morris Fishbein, could promote new patented vaccines or drug “remedies” in the influential AMA journal that went to every member doctor in America. Drug companies refusing to pay for ads in the AMA journal were blackballed by the AMA.

Controlling Polio Research

Image below: Rockefeller University Main gates on York Avenue (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

Simon Flexner and the highly-influential Rockefeller Institute succeeded in 1911 in having the symptoms that were being called poliomyelitis to be entered into the US Public Health Law as a “contagious, infectious disease caused by an air-borne virus.” Yet even they admitted they had not proven how the disease enters the body of humans. As one experienced doctor pointed out in a medical journal in 1911, “Our present knowledge of the possible methods of contagion is based almost entirely upon the work done in this city at the Rockefeller Institute.” In 1951 Dr. Ralph Scobey, a critic of the Rockefeller rush to judgment on polio contagion, noted, “This of course placed reliance on animal experiments rather than on clinical investigations…” Scobey also pointed to the lack of proof poliomyelitis was contagious: “…children afflicted with the disease were kept in general hospital wards and that not a single one of the other inmates of the wards of the hospital was affected with the disease.” The general attitude at that time was summed up in 1911: “It seems to us despite the lack of absolute proof, that the best interests of the community would be conserved by our regarding the disease from a contagious standpoint.” (sic).

By having poliomyelitis symptoms classified as a highly contagious disease caused by an invisible, alleged exogenous or external virus, the Rockefeller Institute and the AMA were able to cut off any serious research for alternative explanations such as exposure to chemical pesticides or other toxins, to explain the seasonal outbreaks of illness and paralysis, even death, mostly in very young children. That was to have fatal consequences lasting to the present.

Enter DDT

In his 1952 statement to the US House of Representatives investigating the possible dangers of chemicals in food products, Ralph R. Scobey, M.D. noted,

“For almost half a century poliomyelitis investigations have been directed towards a supposed exogenous virus that enters the human body to cause the disease. The manner in which the Public Health Law is now stated, imposes only this type of investigation. No intensive studies have been made, on the other hand, to determine whether or not the so-called virus of poliomyelitis is an autochthonous chemical substance that does not enter the human body at all, but simply results from an exogenous factor or factors, for example, a food poison.”

Toxins as cause were not investigated, despite huge evidence.

During the 1930s with economic depression and then war, few new major outbreaks of poliomyelitis were noted. However, immediately after the end of World War II, notably, the polio drama exploded in dimension. Beginning 1945, every summer more and more children across America were diagnosed with poliomyelitis and hospitalized. Less than 1% of the cases were actually tested via blood or urine tests. Some 99% were diagnosed by merely the presence of symptoms such as acute pain in extremities, fever, upset stomach, diarrhea.

In 1938, with the support of presumed polio victim, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (March of Dimes) was founded to solicit tax-exempt donations to fund polio research. A German doctor and researcher, Dr Henry Kumm, came to the US and joined the Rockefeller Institute in 1928 where he stayed until joining the National Foundation in 1951 as Director of Polio Research. Kumm was joined at the National Foundation by another key Rockefeller Institute veteran, the so-called “father of virology,” Thomas M. Rivers, who chaired the foundation’s vaccine research advisory committee overseeing the research of Jonas Salk. These two Rockefeller Institute key figures thus controlled funds for polio research including developing a vaccine.

During the Second World War, while still at Rockefeller Institute, Henry Kumm was a consultant to the US Army where he oversaw field studies in Italy. There Kumm directed field studies for the use of DDT against typhus and malarial mosquitoes in the marshes near Rome and Naples. DDT had been patented as an insecticide by Swiss drug firm Geigy and their US branch in 1940, and first authorized for use on US Army soldiers in 1943 as a general disinfectant against head lice, mosquitoes and many other insects. Until war’s end almost all DDT production in the US went to the military. In 1945 the chemical companies looked eagerly for new markets. They found them.

Image on the right is from Beyond Pesticides

In early 1944, US newspapers triumphantly reported that typhus, “the dreaded plague that has followed in the wake of every great war in history,” was no longer a threat to American troops and their allies thanks to the army’s new “louse-killing” powder, DDT. In an experiment in Naples, American soldiers dusted more than a million Italians with DDT dissolved with kerosene (!), killing the body lice that spread typhus.

Rockefeller Institute’s Henry Kumm and the US Army knew that, as one researcher put it, “DDT was a poison, but it was safe enough for war. Any person harmed by DDT would be an accepted casualty of combat.” The US Government “restricted” a report on insecticides issued by the Office of Scientific Research and Development in 1944 that warned against the cumulative toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals. Dr Morris Biskind noted in a 1949 article, “As DDT is a cumulative poison, it is inevitable that large-scale intoxication of the American population would occur. In 1944, Smith and Stohlman of the National Institutes of Health, after an extensive study of the cumulative toxicity of DDT, pointed out, “The toxicity of DDT combined with its cumulative action and absorbability from the skin places a definite health hazard on its use.” Their warnings were ignored by higher officials.

Instead, after 1945, all across America DDT was promoted as the miracle new, “safe” pesticide, much like Monsanto’s Roundup with glyphosate three decades later. DDT was said to be harmless to humans. But no one in government was seriously scientifically testing that claim. One year later in 1945 as the war ended, US newspapers praised the new DDT as a “magic” substance, a “miracle.” Time called DDT “one of the great scientific discoveries of World War II.”

Despite isolated warnings of untested side effects, that it was a persistent, toxic chemical which easily accumulates in the food chain, the US Government approved DDT for general use in 1945. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), controlled by the Rockefeller-AMA-drug interests, established as “safe” a DDT content of up to 7 parts per million in foods, though no one had proven such. The DDT chemical companies fed the press with photos and anecdotes. Newspapers enthusiastically reported how the new miracle chemical, DDT, was being tested in the US against mosquitoes in the South believed carrying malaria, as well as “preserving Arizona vineyards, West Virginia orchards, Oregon potato fields, Illinois cornfields, and Iowa dairies.” DDT was everywhere in the USA in the late 1940s.

The US Government claimed DDT, unlike arsenic and other insecticides used before the war, was harmless to humans, even infants, and could be used liberally. Beginning 1945 cities like Chicago sprayed public beaches, parks, swimming pools. Housewives bought home aerosol spray DDT dispensers to spray the kitchen and especially childrens’ rooms, even their matrasses. Farmers were told to spray their crops and their animals, especially dairy cows, with DDT. In postwar America DDT was being promoted, above all by Rockefeller drug companies like American Home Products with its Black Flag aerosol DDT spray, and Monsanto. From 1945 through 1952 the US production of DDT increased tenfold.

As presumed cases of polio literally exploded across the USA after 1945 the theory was advanced, with no proof, that the crippling polio disease was transmitted, not by toxic pesticide chemicals like DDT, but by mosquitoes or flies to humans, most especially young children or infants. The message was that DDT can safely protect your family from the crippling polio. Officially listed polio cases went from some 25,000 in 1943 before US civilian use of DDT, to over 280,000 cases in 1952 at the peak, more than a tenfold increase.

In October 1945 DDT, which had been used by the US Army under supervision of Rockefeller Institute’s Henry Kumm as noted, was authorized by the US Government for general use as an insecticide against mosquitoes and flies. Dissenting scientists warning of toxic effects of DDT in humans and animals were silenced. Families were told DDT could save their children from the dreaded polio by killing the feared insects.

The US Department of Agriculture advised farmers to wash their dairy cows with a solution of DDT to combat mosquitoes and flies. Cornfields were aerial sprayed with DDT as well as fruit orchards. However it was incredibly persistent and its toxic effect on plants and vegetables were such it could not be washed off. Year-by-year from 1945 through 1952 the amount of DDT sprayed across the US increased. Notably, so too did the number of human cases of poliomyelitis.

Worst Polio Epidemic

By the beginning of the 1950s increasing attention was given in the US Congress and among farmers as to the possible dangers of such heavy pesticide use—not only DDT, but also the even more toxic BHC (benzene hexachloride). In 1951 Morton Biskind, a physician who had successfully treated several hundred patients with DDT poisoning, testified to the US House of Representatives on the possible link of paralytic polio to toxins, specifically DDT and BHC. He noted,

“The introduction for uncontrolled general use by the public of the insecticide “DDT” (chlorophenothane) and the series of even more deadly substances that followed, has no previous counterpart in history. Beyond question, no other substance known to man was ever before developed so rapidly and spread indiscriminately over so large a portion of the earth in so short a time. This is the more surprising as, at the time DDT was released for public use, a large amount of data was already available in the medical literature showing that this agent was extremely toxic for many different species of animals, that it was cumulatively stored in the body fat and that it appeared in the milk. At this time a few cases of DDT poisoning in human beings had also been reported. These observations were almost completely ignored or misinterpreted.”

Biskind further testified to Congress in late 1950,

“Early last year I published a series of observations on DDT poisoning in man. Since shortly after the last war a large number of cases had been observed by physicians all over the country in which a group of symptoms occurred, the most prominent feature of which was gastroenteritis, persistently recurrent nervous symptoms, and extreme muscular weakness…”

He described several case examples of patients whose severe symptoms including paralysis disappeared when exposure to DDT and related toxins was eliminated:

“My original experience on more than 200 cases which I reported early last year has since been considerably extended. My subsequent observations have not only confirmed the view that DDT is responsible for a great deal of otherwise inexplicable human disability…”

Also noted was the fact that polio cases were always most in summer months when DDT spraying against insects was maximum.

The Rockefeller Institute operatives and the AMA, via their agents in the US Government, created the 1946-1952 USA health emergency called polio. They did so by knowingly promoting the highly toxic DDT as a safe way to control the mythical insect spreaders of the feared disease. Their propaganda campaign convinced the American population that DDT was the key to stop spread of poliomyelitis.

Polio Suddenly Declines

Under leadership of the two Rockefeller Institute doctors, Henry Kumm and Thomas Rivers, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP) rejected critics such as Biskind and Scobey. Natural remedial treatment, such as using intravenous Vitamin C for the infantile paralysis, were rejected out of hand as “quackery.” In April 1953, leading Rockefeller Institute DDT consultant, Dr Henry Kumm, became Director of Polio Research for NFIP. He funded the polio vaccine research of Jonas Salk.

One courageous doctor in North Carolina, Dr. Fred R. Klenner, who had also studied chemistry and physiology, had the idea to use large doses of intravenous ascorbic acid—Vitamin C—on the hypothesis that his patients were victims of toxin poisoning and that Vitamin C was a powerful detox. This was well before Dr Linus Pauling’s Nobel Prize research on Vitamin C. Klenner had remarkable success within days for more than 200 patients in the summer epidemics of 1949 to 1951. The Rockefeller Institute and the AMA had no interest in the remedial prospects. They and the Rockefeller-controlled National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were only funding polio vaccine development, based on the unproven Flexner claim that polio was a contagious virus, not a result of environmental poison.

Then beginning sometime in 1951-1952, as polio cases were at an all-time high, something unexpected began to appear. The number of cases diagnosed as polio in the US began to decline. The decline in polio victims was dramatic, year by year until 1955, well before the National Foundation and Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was approved for public use and was widespread.

About a year before the sudden decline in polio cases, farmers, whose dairy cows were suffering severe effects of the DDT, were advised by the US Department of Agriculture to reduce DDT use. Rising public concern about how safe DDT was for humans, including publicized US Senate hearings on DDT and Polio in 1951 also led to a significant decline in DDT exposure into 1955, even though DDT was not officially banned in the US until 1972.

So-called “polio” cases fell by some two-thirds in that 1952-1956 time, in a remarkable parallel to the decline in DDT use. It was well after that decline, in late 1955 and 1956, that the Rockefeller-developed Salk polio vaccine was first administered in large populations. Salk and the AMA gave all credit to the vaccine. Deaths and paralysis as a result of the Salk vaccine were papered over. The Government changed the definition of polio to further reduce official cases. Simultaneously, cases of similar polio-like spinal cord nerve diseases– acute flaccid paralysis, chronic fatigue syndrome, encephalitis, meningitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, muscular sclerosis—rose notably.

Why it Matters

Over a century ago the world’s richest man, oil baron John D. Rockefeller, and his circle of advisors set about to completely reorganize how medicine was practiced in the USA and the rest of the world. The role of the Rockefeller Institute and figures like Simon Flexner literally oversaw the invention of a colossal medical fraud around claims that an invisible contagious extraneous germ, the polio virus, caused acute paralysis and even death in young people. They politically banned any efforts to link the disease to toxin poisoning, whether from DDT or arsenic pesticides or even contaminated vaccine poisoning. Their criminal project included intimate cooperation with the leadership of the AMA and control of the emerging drug industry, as well as of medical education. The same Rockefeller group financed Nazi eugenics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes in Germany in the 1930s as well as the American Eugenics Society. In the 1970s they financed the creation of patented GMO seeds which were all developed by the group of Rockefeller chemical pesticide companies—Monsanto, DuPont, Dow.

Today this control of public health and the medical industrial complex is exercised by David Rockefeller’s protegé and eugenics advocate, Bill Gates, self-appointed czar over the WHO and world vaccines. Dr Tony Fauci, head of NIAID, dictates vaccine mandates without evidence. The fraud behind the polio virus scandal after World War II has been refined with use of computer models and other ruses today, to advance one alleged deadly virus after the other, from Covid19 to Monkeypox to HIV. As with polio, none of those has been scientifically isolated and proven to cause the diseases claimed. None.

The same tax-free Rockefeller Foundation today, posing as a philanthropic charity, is at the heart of the global medical tyranny behind covid19 and the eugenics agenda of the World Economic Forum Great Reset.

Their poliomyelitis virus model helped them create this dystopian medical tyranny. We are told, “trust the science.”

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from NEO

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-9879389-2-3

Year: 2007

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

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 interview with President Biden aired on Israeli TV Wednesday where he said the US would be willing to use force against Iran as a “last resort.”

The interview with Israel’s Channel 12 was conducted in Washington before Biden departed for Israel, and the broadcast aired the same day he arrived in the country. When asked if the US would use force against Iran’s nuclear program, Biden said, “as a last resort, yes.”

“Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon,” Biden said. While Iran has been stockpiling more uranium, none of it is enriched at the 90% needed for weapons-grade, and there is no indication Iran has decided to develop a bomb.

Israel often carries out covert attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear program, but has been threatening to take more overt action lately and has held military drills simulating an attack on Iran. When asked if he received assurances from Israel that it wouldn’t act alone against Iran without notifying the US, Biden wouldn’t say. “I’m not going to discuss that,” he said.

A revival of the Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, should alleviate any US concerns about Iran developing a nuclear weapon as it would put Iran’s nuclear program under stringent restrictions, but Biden has taken a hard line on the issue.

Biden told Channel 12 that he wanted to revive the JCPOA but said he would walk away from the deal if its restoration was contingent on lifting the terrorist designation of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The Trump administration designated the IRGC as a terror organization after pulling out of the JCPOA. The sweeping designation means any person that was ever in the IRGC is subject to US sanctions, even if they were conscripts that served in a non-combat role.

Ahead of recent indirect JCPOA negotiations with the US in Doha, Iran reportedly dropped its demand to lift the IRGC designation. But talks made no progress, and the US still accused Iran of making demands not related to the nuclear deal. The Biden administration has taken the position that any sanctions not related to Iran’s nuclear program or the economic benefits Tehran is supposed to receive from the JCPOA cannot be lifted.

But the Trump administration imposed an enormous number of sanctions on Iran after pulling out of the JCPOA. And during President Trump’s final weeks in office, his administration added more sanctions with the goal of preventing Biden from being able to rejoin the JCPOA.

*

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.

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

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.

***

Adam Tooze, a financial crisis historian and director of the European Institute at Columbia University, warns the world is facing a “polycrisis” — a perfect storm of multiple global socioeconomic influences

Polycrisis is not merely the presence of several crises at once. Rather, it refers to a situation where the whole is more dangerous than the sum of the parts, as each individual crisis escalates, compounds and worsens other simultaneous crises

Tooze predicts several crises may erupt and converge over the next six to 18 months, including a food crisis, pandemic outbreaks, stagflation, a Eurozone sovereign debt crisis and potential nuclear war

While a majority of economists are optimistic and predict only a mild and temporary recession to hit the United States in 2023, real-time evidence doesn’t look good. Consumer spending, domestic investments, mortgage applications, manufacturing and U.S. railroad cyclical cargo loads are all declining, while inflation and interest rates are rising. Consumer sentiment, an indication of people’s confidence in the economy and their willingness to spend, is also tanking at a record rate

Two strategies that can strengthen individual and local resilience to the stresses facing us are the creation of local food systems and the strengthening of neighborhood and community connections. Both reduce individuals’ reliance on government handouts, and by extension, they’re less likely to be forced into these new Great Reset slave systems

*

In a recent Substack article¹ Adam Tooze, a financial crisis historian and director of the European Institute at Columbia University,² reviews and explains what he calls the impending “polycrisis of doom” — a perfect storm of global socioeconomic influences that signal trouble ahead.

Big Picture Crisis Modeling

Using charts and “krisenbilder,” i.e., “crisis pictures,” Tooze illustrates the many interconnected stress patterns at play on the global scene. The first graphic below illustrated the situation as of January 21, 2022.

The second graphic below shows the complexity caused by the Russia-Ukraine conflict as of February 24, 2022. As noted by Tooze:³

“What was once a relatively legible map has become a tangled mess … The war has had the impact it has because it has exacerbated existing tensions. Food prices were already rising in 2021 and provoking warnings of a crisis to come.

Energy markets were stressed well before the war broke out. Now both stressors are knotted together with the war. I have highlighted in red what emerge as a series of macroscopic risks, all of which may come to a head in the next 6-18 months.”

Many Crises Are Hitting All at Once

As noted by Tooze, we now face a series of significant challenges, and a) they’re hitting us all at once, and b) several of them reinforce and worsen each other. Also notable is the fact that there’s great uncertainty associated with some of them.

What might be the pandemic potential of new COVID variants? Will the Russia-Ukraine conflict escalate into a nuclear war? There’s really no way to predict with any amount of accuracy how those scenarios will play out. On the other hand, some of these forces offset or ameliorate others but, again, it’s hard to predict the likelihood of them happening.

In the following chart, Tooze summarizes the major crisis points and their likely influence on each other. Note he refers to these interactions as “entirely provisional and highly debatable.”

Indeed, some of his readers point out several additional influences that could be added into the mix, such as the weaponization of the U.S. dollar, the deplatforming of Russia from the SWIFT system, U.S. meddling in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the push to expand NATO, allowing health agencies to dictate economic policy and much more.

Still, Tooze’s analysis — incomplete as it may be — can be useful for those willing to ponder the potential ramifications of global interactions that may be facing us over the next six to 18 months.

Predictions for 2023-2024

As explained by Tooze, “polycrisis” is not merely the presence of several crises at once. Rather, it’s “a situation … where the whole is even more dangerous than the sum of the parts.”⁴

The reason why the whole ends up being more dangerous than any combination of crises put together is the way they escalate, compound and worsen each other in a symbiotic fashion. And, if Tooze is correct, we may find ourselves smack-dab in the middle of this polycrisis sometime in the next six to 18 months, or 2023 going into 2024. Tooze explains:⁵

“What this matrix helps us to do is to distinguish types of risk by the degree and type of their interconnectedness. The risk of nuclear escalation stands out for the fact that it is not significantly affected by any of the other risks.

It will be decided by the logic of the war and decision-making in Moscow and Washington. A food crisis does not make a nuclear escalation any more, or less likely. On the other hand, a nuclear escalation would, to say the least, dramatically escalate several of the other risks.

Continuing inflation will likely function as a driver of several other risks, but those risks in turn (COVID, recession, EZ sov debt crisis) will likely deescalate the risk of inflation.

I would not say that this is a forecast, but it does bias me towards thinking that inflation will be transitory. Most of the big shocks that we may expect, tend to be deflationary in their impact.

Conversely, a recession seems ever more likely in part because the effect of most of the bad shocks we may expect — from COVID, mounting inflation, or a fiscal deadlock in Congress — point in that direction.

The obvious next step is to ask whether the feedback loops in the matrix are positive or negative. So, for instance, a recession makes a Eurozone sovereign debt crisis more likely, which in turns would unleash serious deflationary pressures across Europe.

Conversely, inflation in fact seems self-calming. The effects it produces tend rather the dampen inflation than to feed an acceleration. At least as I have specified the matrix here.

A global hunger crisis seems alarmingly likely in part because all the other major risks will exacerbate that problem. A hunger crisis, however, will largely affect poor and powerless people in low-income countries, so it is unlikely to feedback in exacerbating any of the other major crises.

It is an effect of forces operating elsewhere, rather than itself a driver of escalation. To this extent the matrix becomes a way of charting the power hierarchy of uneven and combined development. Some people receive shocks. Others dish them out.”

Near-Term Outlook for the US Economy

In a July 1, 2022, Substack article,⁶ Tooze takes a deeper dive into the more near-term outlook for the United States specifically. The Federal reserve is now tightening its monetary policy “more steeply than at any time since the early 1980s,” while inflation remains “stubbornly high” at the same time.

The question on everyone’s mind is, are we in a recession, and might it worsen into a depression? Recession is when a country experiences a decline in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two consecutive quarters, while a depression is characterized by more long-term reductions in economic activity.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S. was officially in recession as of February 2020.^7,8 When the economy grew 5.7% in 2021, a rebound was declared,⁹ but then the GDP dropped again, first by an annual rate of 1.6% in the first quarter of 2022, followed by a negative 2.1% in the second quarter,¹⁰ which technically placed the U.S. in recession territory yet again.

Tooze notes that a majority of economists are optimistic and predict only a mild and temporary recession to hit in 2023, but real-time evidence doesn’t look good. As of early July 2022, consumer spending, domestic investments, mortgage applications, manufacturing and U.S. railroad cyclical cargo loads are all declining, while inflation and interest rates are rising.^11,12

Consumer sentiment, an indication of people’s confidence in the economy and their willingness to spend, is also tanking at a record rate.¹³ Tooze ends his review stating:

“All told, you might say that this is a gloomy outlook. And there are those who are increasingly skeptical of the possibility of a soft landing. But, it is surely far too early to tell.

If the aim of the game is to control inflation by bringing about a slowdown, then the evidence we are seeing, so far, is precisely what you would look for. What remains to be seen is how the different recessionary forces interact, and whether they brew up into really heavy weather.”

Two Strategies to Strengthen Your Resilience

While we may not be able to accurately predict just how bad the situation will get, it seems prudent to say that we’re all facing some hard times. One factor that Tooze does not include in any of his analyses is the now-apparent fact that some of these crises are intentionally manufactured, with the goal of breaking apart and dismantling current systems in order to justify the introduction of entirely new systems.

The financial system and the food system are two key examples where intentional deconstruction appears to be taking place. Basically, what the technocratic elitists who fancy themselves rulers of the world intend to argue is that because the systems are no longer working, they must be “built back better.”

However, the new systems will in no way, shape or form benefit the population at large. This is true globally, not just in the United States. These new systems, delineated under the flag of The Great Reset, are slave systems which, when networked together, will form a virtual digital prison.

Every person on the planet will be under their collective thumb, as the technocrats will own everything while the rest of humanity will be allocated resources such as food and energy based on obedience criteria.

The good news is that more and more people are waking up to what this “deep state” cabal is up to, and that’s another wild card that can upend things and, hopefully, lessen the impacts of some of these crises. Two strategies that can strengthen individual and local resilience to the stresses facing us are the creation of local food systems¹⁴ and the strengthening of neighborhood and community connections.

By building a strong local food system, you reduce food insecurity, and by building a community network of specialists, you reduce the effects of a crumbling financial system as you can simply barter goods and services.

Social cohesion also offers many psychological benefits.¹⁵ Local food systems and community networks both also reduce individuals’ reliance on government handouts, and by extension, they’re less likely to be forced into these new Great Reset slave systems.

How to Build a Local Food System

As explained by Brian Williams, a former local food planner in Columbus, Ohio, in a 2017 StrongTown article,¹⁶ building a strong local food system goes beyond community gardens, farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture (CSA) shares.

While these are valuable gateways, they don’t go far enough. He provides several excellent suggestions for those willing to spearhead a local food movement in their own hometown, including the following. Williams includes several other suggestions, which you can read through in his article, but these are some of the central ones:¹⁷

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.

***

AI translation from French. Reviewed by GR.

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 said Tuesday it is developing a plan to allow all adults, including those under 50, to receive a second booster shot amid worries of waning immunity among those who were vaccinated and boosted six months ago.

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new strategy to manage Omicron subvariant BA.5, now responsible for the majority of COVID-19 cases in the U.S.

As part of its strategy, the White House is developing a plan to allow all adults, including those under 50, to receive a second booster shot amid worries of waning immunity among those who were vaccinated and boosted six months ago.

The announcement comes one week after the Biden administration revealed it had signed a $3.2 billion deal with Pfizer for 105 million additional vaccine doses — with an option for 300 million more — to include reformulated bivalent boosters targeting Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.

Currently, people age 5 and older are eligible to receive a first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose. A second booster shot is available only to those 50 and older and immunocompromised individuals 12 and older.

The Biden administration hopes swiftly expanding access to booster shots will enable people who already received their first booster dose to receive reformulated shots — not yet authorized — this fall.

In addition, officials want to use up vaccine doses that are reaching their expiration dates and would otherwise be discarded, despite peer-reviewed research showing second and third doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine provide protection against the Omicron variant for only a few weeks

Expanding eligibility for booster doses within the next two weeks would allow the Biden administration to use up extra vaccine doses without “getting tangled up with the administration’s planned vaccination campaign” with reformulated boosters this fall, according to The Washington Post.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials privately signaled their openness to the strategy.

“This is a really complex decision, and there are pros and cons that need to be carefully weighed,” one official told The Post.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and vaccine adviser to the FDA, repeatedly criticized federal officials for what he characterized as “booster mania.”

“I do think [a second booster shot] does make sense for certain groups, but a universal boosting strategy doesn’t make sense,” Offit said.

Ruth Link-Gelles, an epidemiologist who leads the CDC’s task force on vaccine effectiveness, believes a fourth dose provides “substantial additional protection” among those with frail immune systems and healthy adults over 50. But it is “too early to draw conclusions” about a fourth dose in the broader population, she said.

According to CDC officials, there is no U.S. data showing whether a fourth booster would provide protection for people under 50.

While the booster plan still needs approval from regulators and health officials, it is backed by White House coronavirus coordinator Ashish Jha and quadruple-vaccinated Dr. Anthony Fauci, medical advisor to President Biden.

In an interview on Monday, Fauci, who recently had COVID-19 and developed rebound symptomsafter taking Pfizer’s Paxlovid, said he’s “leaning” toward allowing second booster shots for younger adults, pending authorization from the FDA and CDC.

Fauci admitted there was not enough clinical data to strongly recommend those under 50 receive a second booster shot, but said many in that age group received their last shot in November or December and protection against the virus is waning.

Persuading those who haven’t been vaccinated or fully vaccinated to “get the full regime” is “critical,” Fauci said.

“We also need to allow people who are under 50 to get their second booster shot, since it may have been months since many of them got their first booster.”

“The threat to you is now,” Fauci warned during Tuesday’s White House briefing. “Immunity wanes, whether that’s immunity following infection or immunity following the vaccine.”

“If you were infected with BA.1, you really don’t have a lot of good protection against BA.4/5,” — the two Omicron strains that now make up more than 80% of circulating variants as of last week, he added.

Contrary to Fauci’s statements, studies suggest natural immunity to COVID-19 yields better protection and stronger immunity than that provided by COVID-19 vaccines.

There is currently no data on the safety or efficacy of COVID-19 boosters targeting BA.4 and BA.5 variants, as they haven’t been developed yet.

White House bypasses regulatory agencies to push COVID vaccines

Although White House officials said the decision on whether to expand eligibility for a second booster dose lies with the FDA and CDC, the Biden administration has a history of circumventing the process and applying pressure to regulatory agencies to endorse its plans.

“I know that the [FDA] is considering this, looking at it,” Jha said during Tuesday’s White House briefing. “And I know [CDC] scientists are thinking about this and looking at the data as well. The decision is purely up to them.”

Fauci said conversations about booster eligibility have been going on for a while but said the final decision lies with the FDA and CDC.

“We always talked about it, it’s not something new, but we all recognize what the lines of authority are and that’s what we’ll be depending on,” he said.

Yet, Offit said in a recent interview with ZDoggMD that he believed the “fix was in” for modified COVID-19 boosters and felt the FDA’s advisory panel was led during a recent meeting to “vote yes” to reformulate boosters without critical data.

Offit said he believed modified boosters were desired by the Biden administration, which he suggested is politicizing the process.

In September 2021, two senior FDA officials stepped down after the Biden administration sidelined the agency when it announced a plan to begin offering a third booster dose to people who already received two doses of an mRNA vaccine beginning the week of Sept. 20.

At the time, booster doses for the general population had not been authorized by U.S. regulatory agencies and FDA advisors had not met to discuss data and provide recommendations to the agency on whether they should be authorized.

Dr. Marion Gruber, former director of the FDA’s vaccines office and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, stepped down because they were upset about the Biden administration’s announcement that adults should get a booster eight months after they received a second shot, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

Neither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet, the sources said, and both viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the FDA to quickly authorize them.

U.S. health regulators said there wasn’t enough data to recommend booster doses for the general population.

Yet, the White House moved forward with its plan to make Americans eligible for a third dose, even though the plan first required authorization from the FDA and CDC.

Following the controversy, both the FDA and CDC have bypassed their vaccine advisory panels to expand COVID-19 vaccines or authorize additional doses to broader age groups.

Push for second boosters motivated by fall booster campaign

As The Defender reported, the FDA on June 30 told COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers that any modifications to booster shots for fall would need to target Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

Original vaccines based on the Wuhan strain that is no longer circulating will be used for anyone getting their primary series of shots.

The FDA’s announcement came a day after the Biden administration said it had already entered into its $3.2 billion deal with Pfizer to secure additional vaccines and reformulated boosters for a fall booster campaign.

The Biden administration’s deal with Pfizer was announced on June 29, only one day after the FDA’s advisory panel met to discuss whether future COVID-19 booster doses should even be modified.

During the June 28 meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), the committee voted to add an Omicron component to future booster shots but did not decide whether the new booster vaccines should target BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 before the White House signed its deal with Pfizer.

VRBPAC said it would provide guidance to the FDA in making its decision, which was rendered after the White House made its announcement it had contracted with Pfizer to produce a specific type of modified vaccine targeting the subvariants.

Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the meeting he hoped changing the booster would “convince people to go get that booster,” adding the FDA already had plans in the works to begin a booster campaign in October.

Although there have been no clinical trials to date testing modified vaccines with Omicron subvariants in humans, Marks said manufacturers will be “asked to begin clinical trials with modified vaccines containing an omicron BA.4/5 component, as these data will be of use as the pandemic further evolves.”

The FDA did not publicly disclose what data it will need to see to authorize reformulated booster shots — which is a new product — but previous decisions on whether to authorize COVID-19 vaccines for the nation’s youngest age groups involved following a small number of clinical trial participants for only one month, which is not long enough to detect how quickly vaccine efficacy wanes or to discern any long-term adverse events.

*

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

***

A federal appeals court has rejected a bid by Monsanto owner Bayer AG to head off claims brought by cancer victims alleging that Monsanto failed to warn them of the risks of Roundup.

In a decision handed down Tuesday, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a “failure to warn claim” brought against Monsanto in Georgia by Roundup user John Carson is not preempted by requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) as lawyers for Monsanto, and its owner Bayer, have argued.

Bayer has sought – and now failed – in multiple courts to find backing for its argument that it should be protected from allegations that Monsanto failed to warn users of a cancer risk associated with its products. (Bayer bought Monsanto in 2018.)

The company asserts that if it had placed cancer risk warnings on product labels it would have conflicted with provisions of FIFRA that give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 0versight of labeling language. The EPA has said in it assessment, the herbicides are “not likely” to be carcinogenic.

“It’s another resounding rejection of Monsanto’s preemption defense,” said attorney Brent Wisner, who served as co-counsel for the first trial to take place in the nationwide Roundup litigation, which resulted in a unanimous jury decision finding Monsanto had hidden the cancer risks of its weed killers.

“It is safe to say that their argument is dead.  Every court to consider this issue has sided with plaintiffs,” Wisner said.

Bayer said in a statement that it believes the federal appeals court erred in its ruling.

“We respectfully disagree with the Eleventh Circuit’s decision, as a cancer warning would deviate from Roundup’s EPA-approved labeling, render the product misbranded, and require the company to make a label change that would be contrary to the consistent conclusions of EPA’s scientific assessments for more than four decades. The court’s determination that the FIFRA’s statutory registration process is not sufficiently formal to trigger preemption is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and the company will review its legal options regarding further proceedings. ‘

The company also said in the statement that it “continues to stand fully behind its Roundup products, as the weight of scientific evidence and the conclusions of expert regulators worldwide continue to support the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic.”

Carson is one of tens of thousands of people across the United States who have sued Monsanto alleging that their use of, or exposure to, Roundup or other Monsanto herbicides made with a chemical called glyphosate caused them to develop cancer.

The litigation began in 2015 after the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen with a noted association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

According to court filings, Carson used Roundup to treat weeds in his yard for roughly 30 years until he was diagnosed with malignant fibrous histiocytoma. He filed suit against Monsanto in 2017.

Bayer scored a win with the Carson case when the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ruled that his failure to warn claim was preempted by FIFRA and a related claim was also preempted for the same reason.

The appeals court ruling Tuesday reverses the district court findings, citing multiple reasons, including the fact that Congress created wide latitude for state regulation in the context of FIFRA. The court also said that the “EPA’s registration process is not sufficiently formal to carry with it the force of law…”

Bayer had gone so far as to ask the US Supreme Court to consider the preemption issue through two other cases the company lost at trial, but the high court rejected the company’s requests.

The twin rejections by the Supreme Court came after another blow to Bayer by the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 17 the 9^th Circuit panel of judges said in their ruling that the EPA’s 2020 assessment of glyphosate was so deeply flawed that the court was vacating the agency’s human health assessment of the weed killer.

The 9th Circuit panel found that the EPA failed to follow established guidelines for determining cancer risk, ignored important studies, and discounted expert advice from a scientific advisory panel in officially declaring that the weed killer glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic.”

Bayer has been attempting to settle the Roundup litigation, earmarking more than $11 billion for settlements, but while several firms have accepted settlements for their clients,  many others have not and continue to press for trials. Several new trials are scheduled in the next few months.

*

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 Maui Independent

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.

***

What was once the Current Thing has become a massive liability.

Europe is staring down the potential for a continental “Dark Winter,” and as each month passes, fewer countries aligned with the Biden Administration seem willing to maintain the appetite for perpetual warfare over who gets to control Ukraine.

This ruling class squabble has devastated the lives of hundreds of millions of ordinary citizens, but that didn’t change the trajectory of the conflict. It was only when the war effort became deeply unpopular did this consensus change. Poll-testing politicians are keenly aware that in both America and Europe, there is no longer a steady support for delegating untold billions in taxpayer funds and rhetorical support to this campaign.

What does this mean for the war in Ukraine? Don’t be surprised for a conclusion to the Russia-Ukraine conflict sooner rather than later.

Two realities that are worth paying attention to moving forward:

Ukraine is losing, and there are no signs that they can turn the tide of the war

After being pushed back from Kiev in the early days of the war, filling the news media and US/EU politicians with large doses of hopium, the Russian military has narrowed its focus on strategically vital and resource rich areas of Eastern Ukraine. In doing so, Moscow has remained dominant on the battlefield, thanks in large part to its ability to overpower Ukrainian forces with its artillery arsenal. The Zelensky led government is losing, and NATO armies don’t want to continue depreciating their own arsenals to assist in the propping up of its failing client.

Ukrainian artillery outnumbered eight to one by Russia- foreign legion https://t.co/PL8C3JFudB pic.twitter.com/4BwWWuXGdU

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 11, 2022

In addition to its continuing battlefield supremacy, Russia now has time on its side, thanks to the booming commodity market and Russia’s many willing energy buyers.

Russia snagged $24 billion in just three months from its energy sales to India and China, report says https://t.co/BXHKYTv6QI

— Markets Insider (@MktsInsider) July 6, 2022

Ukraine is in the polar opposite situation. Kiev is becoming a massive financial liability for the West. Even as Western powers have already allocated over 100 billions dollars in weapons and aid to Ukraine, the Zelensky-led government continues to demand incredible sums to sustain the war effort.

In some underreported signal that surfaced over the weekend:

Germany (which largely controls the EU’s finances) has reportedly been blocking a $9 billion dollar tranche to the Zelensky regime, concerned over the country’s ability to remain solvent.

#Germany is blocking the allocation of €9 billion in aid to #Ukraine from EU, writes Corriere della Sera. According to them, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner opposes financing this aid from the common European debt, as it was during the pandemic.https://t.co/XqyZAezi67

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) July 10, 2022

The U.S.-led sanctions regime is collapsing

The U.S.-led sanctions campaign against Russia is not working, and worse, it’s backfiring. The sanctions have transformed an already troubling global energy environment into a full blown crisis.

And nowhere is that crisis more imminent than in Europe.

For the first time Euro 💶 is worth less than US Dollar 💵

This is what happens when an entire continent 🇪🇺 decides to commit mass economic suicide on the altar of wokeness.

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 11, 2022

Europe is in such bad shape right now that their ESG-approved, climate hoaxing eco justice warrior politicians are desperately trying to fire up coal (!) power plants before the lights go out across the continent.

Germany planned to decommission 11 coal fired power plants in November as part of its incredible green energy transition.

Instead, Germany to decide on keeping those 11 open and reactivate 17 more dormant coal & oil fuel power plants for the winter. https://t.co/Ku4ZK1f809

— Ryan Maue (@RyanMaue) July 11, 2022

Meanwhile, Russia continues to capitalize on Europe’s energy vulnerability.

The Kremlin is leveraging its energy dominance to put immense pressure on European powers. On Monday, the state-run Gazprom took down its Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Europe for a minimum 10 days, citing “maintenance.” Europe isn’t buying the rhetoric. Moscow’s intentions are crystal clear.

Western energy majors will cut output and lose billions of dollars if Russia, as is feared, suspends a pipeline that is almost the only export route for oil from land-locked Kazakhstan, company sources, traders and analysts say https://t.co/y0r4WqdXnk

— Reuters (@Reuters) July 11, 2022

In hindsight, it should be clear by now that the sanctions never had a chance of achieving the stated objective of bankrupting the Russian economy and slowing its military. China, India, and dozens of other countries remained neutral and continued to trade openly with Moscow. Despite U.S. pressure, they did not even consider joining the sanctions effort.

As U.S. sanctions against Russia continue to collapse, the Biden Admin may find itself being able to count the remaining parties to the coalition on one hand.

With all of these continuing crises, coupled with a historic failure on the part of the Biden Administration, don’t be shocked if the war in Ukraine comes to an end sooner rather than later.

*

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 Dossier

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 delude ourselves at our own peril by wrongly believing that government policy makers and the captains of private finance and industry are older and wiser. Because these people have managed to reach the top of their game, we assume they possess the intellectual acumen to steer a nation past its economic and social ills. We falsely believe they have the comprehensive skills to tackle the dire challenges that lie ahead such as a warming planet, growing cultural divisions, and an economic system on the verge of total collapse.  But as the years go by, more and more Americans are mounting questions with no realistic answers in sight. People feel we are charging blindly towards unaffordable energy costs, food insecurity, out-of-control debt and runaway inflation.  We realize we can no longer rely upon our leading institutions and the mainstream media. Our politicians constantly voice promises that are never fulfilled.

We need to realize that the colonialist perspective, which has dominated American history since its founding, cannot be completely divorced from government efforts to manipulate and control factions within the population. A colonialist mindset can never offer constructive solutions to solve problems. Promoting common ground to simmer disharmony between seeming oppositional segments of society is counterintuitive to colonialism. Rather it must rely on instilling discord, conflict, and eventually violence, either psychological or physical, in order to keep conflicts alive, which in turn validate further control, surveillance and heavy-handed measures.  Our nation’s leaders and institutions believe they are the adults in the room and we their children deserve their tough love.

Consequently whatever can be weaponized in order to manipulate the sensitivities of others to keep conflicts alive is fair game. The emotions behind racial and gender tensions are weaponized to keep people divided. For example, Biden wants to criminalize parents who oppose school boards that seem determined to sexualize grammar school education. Religion has been weaponized whereby authentic religion barely exists in the American landscape anymore. Politicians on both sides of the aisle weaponize any issue contrary to their ideological goals. The Covid pandemic’s controversies are manipulated so that science is weaponized against itself. Physicians and medical professionals who disagree with the pandemic’s lockdowns, drug treatments, vaccine mandates and the wet market theory about the SARS-2 virus’ origins, are censored, demonized and threatened with the loss of their medical licenses. However there are always blowbacks and serious repercussions when others are weaponized in order to colonize a perceived enemy psychologically or by physical force.

A fundamental problem is that the average person expects very simple solutions to otherwise extremely complex problems. Regardless of the political divide, people expect instant transformation to be backed immediately by legislation. They want their emotional biases and self-righteous believes to written into law. And the easiest solution is to create a scapegoat and then keep the victim alive and wandering in the wasteland until the problem reaches its final solution. Nazis colonized the German psyche by scapegoating Jews, gypsies, and members of the LBGT community. But of course a final solution is never reached constructively and inevitably leaves catastrophic destruction in its wake.

Instead we are led to a more rapid breakdown of the remaining threads of democracy. The educational system, the nuclear family, and the very moral fabric that keeps a culture healthy and vital collapse. Inescapably, whoever is the aggressor generates its own negative and destructive identity. The new cancel culture, which has now been absorbed into the federal government, has become the very cancer of hatred and vitriol it tries to marginalize and eradicate. One party or the other becomes vehemently juxtaposed to the opposing party as an enemy to be abolished; eventually that party identifies subliminally with the very pernicious characteristics it blames on its enemy. The powerless seize power by demonizing those less powerful. What we are witnessing is American culture being displaced by a hyperactive Hollywood dystopia.  People are displaced by technological robotism. News porn displaces pragmatic inquiry. And as we look around, we no longer have a culture that is even capable of defining itself in any way other than a psychological tyranny bent on coercive control. It is as if we inhabit a haunted house of horrors while being completely oblivious to that fact.

Perhaps it is time to regard our nation’s politick as grievously and mentally unstable. For many people this is self evident. The US is the world’s most anxious, depressed and mentally disturbed nation. Despite the widespread use of psychiatric drugs to palliate symptoms and enormous resources spent to tackle the epidemic of mental disorders, Americans’ psychological health continues to worsen. Our ruling institutions believe they understand their own psychology but they are unquestionably clueless. The psychological fragmentation and creation of divisions in American culture are sometimes viewed as the Balkanization of American culture. This doesn’t suggest that the powers that be desire to carve up the nation into separate regions hostile and uncooperative with each other. That is counter-intuitive for any government or corporate ambition to strengthen political and economic control over a population. Nevertheless it has resulted in the red and blue factions becoming more distinctly divided and hostile. The Balkanization of the American psyche is the unwanted consequence of a mentally unsound political apparatus and an equally psychologically unstable media.

Perhaps it is more accurate to regard the belligerent quagmire of factional animosity towards the “other” as a fascist colonization of the American psyche. After Trump’s surprising 2016 electoral win, book sales dealing with fascism soared. Sales of Hannah Arendt’s Origins of Totalitarianism and Orwell’s 1984 skyrocketed.  However we should be very wary of our choice of words and the real life definitions we give them. Rather than assuming the reemergence of an early 20^th century fascism on American shores, perhaps we might consider the term Americanism as a unique fascist ideology contrary and in opposition to the Constitution.

In 1938, a Yale Divinity School professor, Halford Luccock, gave a sermon at Manhattan’s Riverside Church. Luccock derogatorily coined the term Americanism.

“When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled “made in Germany’; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism.”

Similar predictive warnings were not uncommon in the 1930s. The prominent social commentator H.L. Mencken gave a similar prediction. Writing for the Baltimore Sun, Mencken wrote:

“My own belief, more than once set afloat from this spot, is that it will take us, soon or late, into the stormy waters of fascism. To be sure, that fascism is not likely to be identical with the kinds on tap in Germany, Italy and Russia; indeed it is very apt to come in under the name of anti-fascism.”

In her 1939 Harper’s Magazine article, Lillian Symes wrote about Huey Long’s suspected prediction that “Fascism would come to America in the name of anti-fascism” (a quote often wrongly attributed to Winston Churchill)

“If a fascist movement ever triumphs in America it will undoubtedly triumph in the name of our most popular slogan – Democracy, and under the leadership of some such “friend of the common people” as the late Huey Long…. Whoever its angels and whatever their purpose, it will speak the language of a populist left.”

The fragmented Balkanization of the American psyche has certainly given rise to warring populist factions. The triumph of cancel culture, in groups such as Antifa, the radicalized factions in the race-based and gender movements, the White Fragility phenomena, and Silicon Valley social media censorship is evidence of a new emerging authoritarian Americanism growing within the ranks of the left’s liberal populism.

Roosevelt’s vice president Henry Wallace likewise observed signs that US’s weakness might flirt with fascism.  In April 1944, the New York Times quoted Wallace stating:

“The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power… They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution… Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”

Wallace believed that the greatest weapon to prevent fascism was to prioritize the importance of human well being above dollars and profit. He saw evidence that ‘fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually war with Russia.” Although such a war would never erupt during America’s Cold War against the Soviet Union, Wallace’s warning now seems to be at our doorstep. “Already American fascists,” Wallace wrote, “are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerance toward certain races creeds and classes.”  If Wallace could hear the venom spewed by the neo-con cartel surrounding Biden in the Oval Office, he would certainly see America’s fascist moment on hand. However, domestically, the ultimate goal of American political conceit and elitism is to impose homogeneity across society. Thus we observe the government imposing an aberrant universal vanity not only on its own population but repeatedly upon other nations through electoral interference and military or intelligence intervention.

Another obstacle is that America’s attention skills are direly week. Most Americans emotionally react to wherever the headline of the day leads them. Their priorities about the nation’s most urgent challenges shift and change dramatically.  For example, when the economy is strong, global warming and the preservation of the environment are high on people’s lists. Today with rising popular uncertainty, confusion and aimlessness, the percentage of people who place climate change as the single most important threat barely reaches double figures. It is only the most conscientious among us who are aware of how our activities and habits contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and the depletion of the environment.  Our international climate change summits are utterly worthless. They are little more than weeklong seminars for world leaders to learn more platitudes and more talking points for political campaigns and press conferences. Since no nation is held legally accountable by international environmental treaties, everything is voluntary and nothing essential is done. It is all smoke and mirrors to cover over Washington’s guilt.

Fortunately distrust in government and the media is growing exponentially. Yet sadly this will not solve our population’s growing disorientation in US’s new no-mans-land. Similar to the warnings given seven decades ago, the American media has been fully captured by private and secretive national security interests. We hear the dreaded dirge of a single official mantra; that is, increase irrational hope, surrender your independence and individuality, leave your reason at the door and obey your elected leaders and the unelected cartels that keep them in office. Only a tiny percent of the US population actually controls the larger national dialogues and agendas, both domestic and foreign. But a new generation of technocrats, groomed in the halls of the culture wars of division, condemnation and conquest are now entering the halls of government, finance and corporate boardrooms.  These are new shock troops that are leading the assault to colonize the American psyche, the mass formation of a distinctly American hive mentality, that forebodes far worse things to come in the near future.

*

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.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

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

They are regular contributors 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.

***

Guest is Karen Kingston, a Biotech Analyst and med-legal advisor with over 20 years of experience driving blockbuster commercialization efforts for medical devices and prescription therapies. She was once a Cardiovascular Sales Representative for the Northeast Region of New York at Pfizer.

This session is about the crossover study in which Pfizer injected as many infants and toddlers as parents would basically allow.
The results suggest devastating consequences of this study: stunningly few “subjects” aged 6 months to 4 years showed up for their first study visit, which was scheduled a week after the third dose.

According to the EUA document, many infants and toddlers suffered epilepticus, meaning multiple seizures per day, some of which were associated with permanent brain damage confirmed by EEG.

*

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

Global Research is glad to announce our publication of five e-Books. 

They are made available free of charge with a view to reaching out to people worldwide.

We are envisaging a PDF version of these e-Books that can be downloaded straight to your devices; in the meantime, you can read them on our website, www.globalresearch.ca. They are accessible in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website drop down menu on the top banner of our homepage (desktop version only).

Global WAR-NING! Geoengineering Is Wrecking Our Planet and Humanity

Edited by Prof. Claudia von Werlhof

After more than one year of “lockdowns” all over the world, the issue of “global warming” and “climate change” is back on the table of the international debate.

It seems that natural catastrophes have started to surround us everywhere – from the animal world next to us as well as from the sky above us. Is “nature” the enemy that has to be combatted today, be it by vaccinating humanity against the coronavirus that allegedly jumped out of the wilderness attacking us, be it by tearing down industrial production and consumption in order to avoid the alleged greenhouse gas CO₂ emissions, being officially identified as the sole culprit of a so-called global warming? Or be it by applying methods of an alleged civil “geoengineering” against an ongoing climate change that seems to threaten the world?

Click here to read the e-Book.

The 2020-22 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

In the course of the last 22 months starting in early January 2020, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the COVID crisis. From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic.

I suggest you first read the Highlights, the Preface and Introduction before proceeding with Chapters II through XIII.

Each of the thirteen chapters provides factual information as well as analysis on the following topics:

• What Is COVID-19, what is SARS-CoV-2, how is it identified, how is it estimated?
• The timeline and historical evolution of the Corona Crisis,
• The devastating economic and financial impacts,
• The enrichment of a social minority of billionaires,
• Social engineering and the destabilization of the institutions of civil society
• How the lockdown policies trigger unemployment and mass poverty Worldwide,
• The devastating impacts on mental health.

Click here to read the e-Book.

The US-NATO War of Aggression Against Yugoslavia

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

This e-Book is a retrospect. It takes the reader back in history. Several of the texts were written at the height of 1999 bombing campaign or shortly thereafter.

Twenty-two years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. “The operation was code-named “Allied Force ” – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker” according to Nebosja Malic.

In 1999, when Belgrade was bombed, the children’s hospital was the object of air attacks. It had been singled out by military planners as a strategic target.

NATO stated that to “save the lives” of the newly borne, they did not bomb the section of the hospital where the babies were residing, instead they targeted the building which housed the power generator, which meant no more power for the incubators. What this meant that was that the entire hospital was for all sakes and purposes destroyed and many of the children died.

I visited that hospital, one year after the bombing in June 2000 and saw with my own eyes how they did it with utmost accuracy. These are war crimes using NATO’s so-called smart bombs.

Click here to read the e-Book.

Our Species Is Being Genetically Modified. Are We Witnessing Humanity’s March Toward Extinction? Viruses Are Our Friends, Not Our Foes

By David Skripac

When the alleged “pandemic” was declared in March of 2020, I, like millions of other people around the world, was paying close attention to politicians and public health officials as well as to bureaucrats from the Rockefeller Foundation-created World Health Organization (WHO), all of whom announced, in almost perfect synchronicity, “This is the new normal until a vaccine can be developed.”

How odd, I thought. Why is it that the immediate default position is a vaccine? And why is it that a single coronavirus is being blamed for causing people to fall ill in every corner of the earth? Could something else—perhaps one or more toxins in the environment—be the real culprit?

Click here to read the e-Book.

History of World War II: Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

By Shane Quinn

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

Click here to read the e-Book.

Please help us in this endeavor. Kindly forward to family, friends, colleagues, and your respective communities.

If you wish to make a donation to support the e-Book Project click below.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

Video: Dutch Farmers Rise Up Against Food System ‘Reset’

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 13, 2022

The Netherlands intends to halve its nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030. To reach that goal, the Finance and Agriculture Ministry now wants to reduce the number of livestock by 30%. As a result, many farmers will be driven out of business. As with current energy shortages, the resulting reductions in farming are said to be an “unavoidable” part of the Green Agenda to improve air, soil and water quality.

Handling International Crises: From JFK to Biden

By Rick Sterling, July 13, 2022

Since Biden appointed the chief architect of the Ukraine coup, Victoria Nuland, to be the third top official at the State Department, one cannot realistically expect a change in policy from this administration.

Chris Hedges: NATO — The Most Dangerous Military Alliance on the Planet

By Chris Hedges, July 13, 2022

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the arms industry that depends on it for billions in profits, has become the most aggressive and dangerous military alliance on the planet. Created in 1949 to thwart Soviet expansion into Eastern and Central Europe, it has evolved into a global war machine in Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Alert: New York State Sets Dangerous Precedent for Draconian Quarantine Regulations

By Sara Middleton, July 13, 2022

A sobering precedent is now in force in New York state.  Going far and beyond the official guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – that is, stay home and isolate for 5 to 10 days if you test positive for COVID-19 – the New York governor and those in her corner want to exert an unimaginable level of control over its free citizens.

Soaring Energy Exports Send Russia’s Account Surplus to Record High

By Julianne Geiger, July 13, 2022

Russia’s account surplus reached a new record for the second quarter, according to data released by the central bank cited by Bloomberg. The surplus, now more than $70 billion, comes on the back of surging oil and gas—and other commodities as well—exports, which outweighed the sanctions placed on the country by Western powers.

Akron, Ohio Declares State of Emergency After the Police Execution of Jayland Walker

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 13, 2022

Protests have continued in Akron, Ohio after the June 27 police killing of Jayland Walker, 25, who had 90 bullets fired at him by officers, 60 of those rounds struck the victim. After the release of a police video of the shooting of Walker, who was unarmed, people poured into the streets to demand justice for the African American motorist.

Dismantling the U.S. Constitution: Police No Longer Have to Honor “The Right to Remain Silent”

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, July 13, 2022

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold police accountable for violating their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Vicarious Zeal: Fighting to the Last Ukrainian

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 13, 2022

On May 1, after travelling to Kyiv, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the colours.  “America,” she declared with earnestness, “stands with Ukraine until victory is won.”  She made little effort to expound on what this would entail, be it the expulsion of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, or the “meat grinder” solution, leaving Kyiv and Moscow to bleed, weakening the latter and strengthening NATO security over a dead generation.

European Union Finally Admits COVID-19 Vaccines Destroy Your Immune System

By Arsenio Toledo, July 13, 2022

The European Union (EU) has finally admitted that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines destroy the immune system and make people more susceptible not just to COVID but to all diseases. According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), taking booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccines every four months could weaken the immune system and tire people out.

Beware the Prophets of Doom – Organic Food, Fertilisers and Fossil Fuels

By Colin Todhunter, July 13, 2022

Much has been written in recent months about supply chain crises stemming from the conflict in Ukraine and the effects on gas and oil. Perhaps up to two thirds of the global population are reliant on nitrogen-based synthetic fertilisers for much of their food. As a result, alarm bells have been ringing over fertiliser and food shortages, which will hit the world’s poorest the worst.

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.

***

Since Biden appointed the chief architect of the Ukraine coup, Victoria Nuland, to be the third top official at the State Department, one cannot realistically expect a change in policy from this administration.

There are significant parallels between the international crises in Cuba in 1962 and Ukraine today. Both involved intense confrontations between the USA and the Soviet Union or Russia. Both involved third-party countries on the doorstep of a major power. The Cuban Missile Crisis threatened to lead to WW3, just as the Ukraine crisis does today.

Cuban Missile Crisis and  the current crisis in Ukraine 

In 1961, the US supported the “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba. Although it failed, Washington’s hostile rhetoric and threats against Cuba continued, and the CIA conducted many failed assassination attempts against Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Cuba, seeking to defend itself, or at least have a means of retaliating in case of another attack, sought missiles from the Soviet Union. The Soviets agreed and began secretly installing the missiles. As a sovereign nation having been attacked and under continuing threat, Cuba had the right to obtain these missiles.

US President John F. Kennedy thought otherwise. Invoking the Monroe Doctrine, he said the missiles endangered the US and must be removed. He imposed an air and sea quarantine on Cuba and threatened to destroy a Soviet ship traveling on the high seas to Cuba. The world was on edge, and there was global fear that World War 3 was about to erupt. In my homeland Canada, we went to bed seriously worried that nuclear war would break out overnight.

Fortunately for humanity, cooler heads prevailed, and there were negotiations. The Soviets agreed to withdraw the missiles in Cuba. In return, JFK agreed to withdraw US missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviet Union. The Cubans were furious, thinking they had been betrayed and lost their means of defense. But the Soviets had the bigger picture in mind, along with a US commitment to not invade Cuba.

The situation now in Ukraine has similarities. Instead of missiles in Cuba being a threat to the US, NATO in Ukraine is seen as a threat to Russia. NATO has steadily expanded east and installed missiles in Poland and Romania. Since 2008, Russia has explicitly said that Ukrainian militarization by NATO was a red line for them. Kiev is much closer to Moscow than Havana is to Washington. If it was justifiable for JFK to give the ultimatum regarding missiles in Cuba, is it not justifiable for Russia to object to Ukraine being a part of a hostile military alliance?

Different Responses

In 1962, the US and the Soviet Union realized that escalating tensions and hostilities must be avoided, and they turned to negotiations. They found a mutually acceptable compromise.

The situation seems more dangerous today. Instead of seeking an end to the war, the US and NATO are pouring in weapons and encouraging more bloodshed. It appears to be a proxy war with the US prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian. There are calls to escalate the conflict.

Ukraine Background 

Knowing the background to the current crisis is essential to understanding Putin’s actions. Unknown to most Americans, a crucial event took place in 2014 when a violent US-supported coup overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian government. US State Department official Victoria Nuland handed out cookies as Senator John McCain encouraged the anti-government protesters. In a secretly captured conversation with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Nuland selected who would run the government after the pending coup. In the final days, opposition snipers killed 100 people on both sides to inflame the situation and “midwife” the coup. Oliver Stone’s video “Ukraine on Fire” describes the background and events.

On the first day in power, the coup government issued a decree that removed Russian as a state language.

Within weeks, Crimea organized a referendum. With 85% participation, 96% voted to leave Ukraine and reunite with Russia. Why did they do this? Because most Crimeans speak Russian as their first language, and Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. When Soviet premier Khrushchev transferred Crimea from the Russian republic to the Ukrainian republic in 1954, they were all within the Soviet Union.

In Odessa, anti-coup protesters were attacked by ultra-nationalist thugs who killed 48, including many burned alive as they sought refuge in the Trade Unions Hall. In eastern Ukraine, known as the Donbass, the majority of the population also opposed the ultra-nationalist coup government. Civil war broke out, with thousands killed.

With the participation of France, Germany, the Kiev government, and eastern Ukraine rebels, an agreement was reached and approved by the United Nations Security Council. It was called the Minsk Agreement. Russia has repeatedly encouraged the implementation of this agreement. Instead of negotiations and peace, the Kiev government and NATO have done the opposite. Since 2015, there have been more weapons, more threats, more NATO training, more encouragement of ultra-nationalism plus NATO military exercises explicitly designed to threaten and antagonize Russia. This is not speculation; it is described in a 2019 Rand report about “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia.”

Endangering the world

The Biden administration appears to want to prolong the conflict in Ukraine. President Biden declared in a “gaffe” that Putin must be replaced. Defense Secretary Austin has said the US goal is to “weaken Russia”. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks Afghanistan in the 1980s is a “model” to follow in Ukraine by bogging Russia down in a protracted war. Republican and Democratic senators Graham and Blumenthal visited Kiev on July 7 and called for sending even more weapons. There is evidence that the US and UK have been advising Ukrainian president Zelensky to NOT negotiate.

The Need for Courage and Compromise

With war and bloodshed happening now, we need cooler heads to prevail as in 1962. We can have a LOSE – LOSE situation, endangering the whole world, or a compromise that guarantees Ukrainian independence while providing security assurances to Russia.

JFK had the courage and wisdom to resist the CIA and military generals who wanted to escalate the crisis. Does Joe Biden? There is a huge difference between the two presidents. JFK knew war first hand. He was injured and his brother died in WW2. He became an advocate for peace. It may have cost him his life, but millions of people were saved. In contrast, Joe Biden has been a proponent of every US war of the past three decades.  Not only that, he was a major player in the 2014 Ukraine coup and aftermath.

Since Biden appointed the chief architect of the Ukraine coup, Victoria Nuland, to be the third top official at the State Department, one cannot realistically expect a change in policy from this administration. Neo-cons are in charge.

If we are to avoid disaster, others must speak up and demand negotiations and settlement before the situation spirals out of control.

*

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.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist in the SF Bay Area. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

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.

***

In the oldest liberal democracy in the World you can win elections with an unparalleled majority of votes and have the strong support of the MPs and party members.  You can survive a series of really serious crises, image gaps and real social and economic problems – but the position of the Prime Minister is decided upon by the Inner Party, responsible only to Big Money and the Plutocracy. 

Last minute coup

And that is not the end yet.  Forced resignation of Boris Johnson has already been hailed in some commentaries as “a triumph of British democracy” and even “success of the parliamentary control”, despite the fact that a month ago the Prime Minister clearly won a no-confidence vote, with support of 59% of Tory MPs.

He was also widely popular among party members remembering who led the Conservative Party to Thatcher-like election triumph.

However, BoJo’s resignation was wanted by the frontbenchers, the party elites understanding perfectly well that they have to either play zero-one now, or the Prime Minister will prevail.

This threat was confirmed when the favourite of Tory sponsors, then the Chancellor Rishi Sunak was hit by the news about his wife’s £20 million tax avoidance.  In April that affair effectively distracted the public from BoJo’s previous problems, and the entire black-PR campaign was evidently carried out with at least the Joy of No 10.

However, the war perspective was probably the key, as it is really difficult to recall the Prime Minister of the War Cabinet, and BoJo has already skillfully used the Ukrainian crisis to disarm the Partygate (Downing Street cheese & alcohol parties during the lockdown period).

So, this was the very last moment for an attack.  That was decisive in the realities of the British Plutocracy and as we can see Johnson’s dismissal had nothing to do with the semblance of liberal democracy, more and more outdated.  Let’s be honest, for the UK, Oligarchy is absolutely natural, … a traditional form of power, so there is no need to hide it anymore.

Long preparations

Candidates for Johnson’s successor have been prepared for months because that’s how long it has taken to grill the Prime Minister.

As we remember, attempts have been made to shoot him off by hunting down the former chief advisor (and now fierce enemy) Dominic Cummings,  called the Father of BREXIT, and discussing the impact of the “work event” with cheese and wine by Downing Street employees on the spread of the Coronavirus.

Johnson, however, has endured so far, though many say that as a Zombie who has not noticed his own death.  In fact, BoJo’s only chance was the war with Russia, and the growing UK military involvement in Ukraine, Baltic States and Poland indicated that Johnson was desperate to accomplish this scenario.  His departure does not mean, however, that there will be no war.

Too early for Joy

War hawks have their favourites, which can also count on the votes of tough BREXITers.  While the Foreign Secretary, Luz Truss already proved in the midst of a war crisis that she is certainly not the sharpest knife in a drawer, the hardliners still have the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace whose main achievement was to empty the canteen bar of the Scots Guards at a time when he was an officer of this formation.

Wallace has already ruled himself out, but still receives high support in the polls.  Johnson’s main opponents, Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid were long considered favourites, but who enters the conclave as a papabile – leaves that as a cardinal,  and backbenchers can remember who tried to overthrow their own Cabinet.

But if the new UK Prime Minister supposed to be a representative of  minorities, so why not Nadhim Zahawi, Mr. Vaccine, who first received BoJo’s nomination for the new Chancellor and then shot the proponent in the back?

On the other hand, if the Tories would like to “Macronise” themselves (i.e. return to David Cameron’s style), then the ideal candidate of the centrist compromise and conservative coolness could be the highly promoted Penny Mordaunt, once a magician’s assistant, who has a skill valued not only in British politics.

Finally, to satisfy those who like when changes do not change anything, there are Jeremy Hunt or even Michael Gove.  The latter is likely to be the last hope of the Spitting Image creators, who lose with BoJo their inexhaustible source of sketches and inspiration.

Return to the 1980s?

Inflation in the UK has already reached 9.1%, what is the worst result since Margaret Thatcher’s first years.

A wave of strikes is sweeping throughout the country, including railroad and transport workers, airport personnel, postmen, even call-centre advisors.  While BREXIT supporters (especially farmers and fishermen) are disappointed in maintaining trade ties with European competitors, many service sectors suffer from restrictions that make economic immigration into lower-paid jobs practically impossible.

In addition, the Government of Scotland called for another independence referendum on the 19th October 2023, despite the disapproval already expressed by Johnson.  With all these problems war still seems to be an attractive form of “escaping forward”.

Of course not for ordinary Britons, who in all polls state that their main problem is the rising cost of living, not theRussian threat.

In fact, when asked directly by the European Council on Foreign Relations pollster, more English, Scottish and Welsh responded that they would support peace now and at all costs, than a peace called “justify” by western governments and the Kiev junta (22% to 21% with as much as 32% hesitating and 26% without a clear opinion). The war BoJo had no time to start can be then too politically expensive for his heir.

Second Crimean War?

However, Westminster’s involvement in sustaining and expanding the conflict with Russia continues to grow.

In Warsaw, Vilnius and Kiev we can notice strong confusion now: will the Eastern Europeans, having declared themselves on the side of the new, British form of Europe organisation of Europe – stay now with their hands in the Queen’s potty, with worthless British guarantees?  The commentators with faster reflexes, have already announced that Vladimir Putin must certainly be behind Johnson’s fall, because who else could?!

And only the most cautious ones point out that the dominant feature of the United Kingdom’s international strategies has always been their stability and consistency, which lasted despite Cabinet, parties and leadership changes, ignoring technical nuances and current small interests.

After all, the UK has neither permanent friends nor permanent enemies, because it has no friends at all, and the enemy is anyone who is assigned such a role by the Empire’s elite.

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.

Konrad Rękas is a renowned geopolitical analyst and 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.

***

On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin extended a fast-track process to obtaining Russian citizenship for all Ukrainians.

A decree signed by Putin says residents of Ukraine and the breakaway Donbas republics “are entitled to appeal for admission to citizenship of the Russian Federation via simplified procedure.”

The decree makes it so that Ukrainians no longer need to meet a series of preconditions to obtain Russian passports, such as taking a Russian language test and living in Russia for five years.

Russia first applied the simplified citizenship process to the Donestk and Luhansk oblasts in the Donbas in 2019. In May, Putin extended the waiver to the southeastern oblasts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, both of which are now mostly controlled by Russia.

According to the UN, over 1.5 million Ukrainians have fled to Russia since Putin launched the invasion on February 24. The decree gives the Ukrainians that have fled to Russia the option of staying regardless of what region they came from.

Ukrainian officials slammed Putin’s move and have accused Russia of forcing Ukrainians to flee to Russian territory.

“The purpose of this criminal policy is not just to steal people, but to make those who are deported forget about Ukraine and unable to return,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said.

Putin’s decree is also being taken as a signal that the Russian leader is planning to annex Ukrainian territory. Russian-installed officials in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia have both said they’re considering holding a referendum on joining Russia.

*

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

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

Featured image is from rusi.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.

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

***

A sobering precedent is now in force in New York state.  Going far and beyond the official guidelines from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – that is, stay home and isolate for 5 to 10 days if you test positive for COVID-19 – the New York governor and those in her corner want to exert an unimaginable level of control over its free citizens.

It seems petty that tyrants come up with more and more egregious ways to terrorize citizens.  Is this a preview of what’s to come for the rest of the United States – and is there something we can do to help?

Editor’s UPDATE: The New York State Governor’s forced quarantine regulation has been STRUCK DOWN as unconstitutional by NYS Supreme Court Judge Ronald Ploetz.  It is null, void and unenforceable, and the Court has prohibited the Governor and DOH from continuing to issue the regulation!

This can be viewed as a “victory” but, political tyrants won’t stop with their desire to lockdown and control the population.  We must remain vigilant in protecting our freedoms.  Stay tuned to NaturalHealth365, as we continue to monitor these situations.

New York State can now send you and your children into forced quarantine – even if you’re not “sick”

Thanks to an April 2022 update to the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, the NY Commissioner of Health or appointed alternatives can now force people to isolate or quarantine for the suspicion of carrying a “highly communicable disease,” a pathetically broad category in which even the common cold falls.

Found within Section 2.13 Isolation and Quarantine Procedures of regulation 10 NYCRR 2.3, the updated document states that isolation “may include home isolation or such other residential or temporary housing location.”

It adds that any attending physician who discovers a “case or suspected case of a highly contagious reportable communicable disease” (emphasis ours) must “cause the patient to be appropriately isolated and contact the State Department of Health and the local health authority where the patient is isolated and, if different, the local health authority where the patient resides.”

“Whenever appropriate,” the regulations continue, the State Department of Health or local health authority shall “coordinate with local law enforcement to ensure that [individuals forced into quarantine or isolation] comply with the order.”

What this means, minus the legal jargon:

The NY Department of Health or other officials now have full discretion over who can be sent to quarantine camps and detention centers – and they do not even need to confirm that detained individuals are actually sick. Being suspected of being sick is good enough for them.

There is no time limit, age limit, or location limit regarding these isolation and quarantine camps – these decisions are up to the state government now.

According to Bobbie Anne Cox, an attorney who filed a lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court back in April regarding these draconian measures (and is doing so pro bono), this exact same power grab was attempted by a NY legislator several years ago in NYS – but at the time the proposed bill received not a single co-sponsor.

Today’s updated regulations are blatantly unconstitutional and an “outrageous assault” on individual liberty, according to Dr. Peter R. Breggin, MD, who recently interviewed Cox.  He adds that Cox’s efforts are essential for putting an end to this frightening march toward Orwell’s 1984-type reality for America.

Get Involved – here’s how

New York citizens are on the precipice of losing their freedoms, and it’s naive to assume this new power grab won’t cross state borders.

This cannot be overstated.  Imagine the precedent this is setting, especially in a world where monkeypox, the flu, threats of smallpox, and SARS-CoV-2 (still hanging on by a thread in the media) are constantly blasted on the news, stirring up fear and chaos.

Who knows how much harder public health officials, politicians, and global elites will push for more control over the lives of sovereign individuals.  We do know that taking action is one of the only things we can possibly do to try to turn the tide on these egregious violations of our individual rights and freedoms.

To join the fight against New York state officials – including Governor Hochul, DOH Commissioner Bassett, the Department of Health, and the Public Health & Health Planning Council – consider joining Uniting NYS and promoting their cause.

*

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 iStock

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 Netherlands intends to halve its nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030. To reach that goal, the Finance and Agriculture Ministry now wants to reduce the number of livestock by 30%. As a result, many farmers will be driven out of business. As with current energy shortages, the resulting reductions in farming are said to be an “unavoidable” part of the Green Agenda to improve air, soil and water quality

Cattle are fed nitrogen in the form of crude protein. While protein is an essential nutrient for cows, nitrogen is not efficiently broken down by cattle, so a lot of it is excreted in the urine and feces as urea. When urine and feces get mixed together, the urea is converted into ammonia

Since the amount of ammonia produced is related to the crude protein the animals are fed, one suggested way to lower the ammonia is to reduce the amount of crude protein in the animals’ diet. A potential problem with that idea is that cattle have protein requirements just like humans do. If they don’t cut crude protein, they’ll have to downsize their herds, and if smaller herds aren’t financially feasible, they’ll have to shut down altogether

The decision to decimate cattle farming in the name of environmental protection rings hollow in the face of looming food shortages and potential famine worldwide. It appears they’re intentionally trying to make meat so scarce and expensive that regular people can’t afford it. They can then introduce synthetic meat alternatives and insect protein, both of which are part of The Great Reset’s food plan

While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately, the Green Agenda isn’t about the environment — it’s about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population is controlled through the allocation of those resources, and that includes the allocation of food

*

The Netherlands is currently in an uproar over the government’s decision to reduce the number of livestock by 30% in an effort to halve its nitrogen and ammonia pollution by 2030.¹ As a result of this “green” policy, many farmers will be driven out of business.² As with current energy shortages, the resulting reductions in farming are said to be an “unavoidable” part of the Green Agenda to improve air, soil and water quality.³

The Dutch government has even appointed a new Minister of Nature and Nitrogen to oversee the climate goals.⁴ Provincial authorities now have one year to work out how they’re going to meet the emission reduction targets.

In a public statement about the new emissions targets, the Dutch government admitted that “The honest message … is that not all farmers can continue their business.”⁵ Those who do continue will have to come up with creative solutions to meet the new emissions restrictions.

How Do Cows Contribute to Nitrogen and Ammonia Pollution?

Cattle are fed nitrogen in the form of crude protein. While protein is an essential nutrient for cows, nitrogen is not efficiently broken down by cattle, so a lot of it is excreted in the urine and feces as urea. When urine and feces get mixed together, the urea is converted into ammonia.^6,7

Since the amount of ammonia produced is related to the crude protein the animals are fed, one suggested way to lower the ammonia is to reduce the amount of crude protein in the animals’ diet. (Other factors such as season also impact ammonia production, but farmers have no control over that.)

A potential problem with that idea is that cattle have protein requirements just like humans do. It’s particularly crucial for healthy development, muscle growth and lactation. As noted in a 2009 paper⁸ by Jane Parish, a beef cattle specialist in Mississippi, “Providing adequate protein in beef cattle diets is important for animal health and productivity as well as ranch profitability.”

Responsible farmers give their cattle just the right amount, so cutting crude protein could impact both the animals’ health and farm productivity. If they don’t cut crude protein, they’ll have to downsize their herds, and if smaller herds aren’t financially feasible, they’ll have to shut down altogether. Needless to say, many are outraged, as skyrocketing fertilizer and feed costs have already cut profits for farmers and raised prices for consumers.

Curious Timing

As noted in a July 1, 2022, report by Peter Imanuelsen, an independent journalist in Sweden, the timing of this brazen attack on cattle farmers is a curious one, and one that can only really be explained as an intentional strategy to force us into The Great Reset by manufacturing a food crisis:⁹

“We will likely see even more expensive food next year, and unfortunately probably famines in some parts of the world. So, what do the genius politicians in Europe do? They want to shut down farms because of climate change of course! That will surely help! The cows are farting too much!

That’s not a joke by the way. In New Zealand, they want to implement a tax on cow farts and burps! I really don’t get this. We are facing a food crisis and they want to shut down farms in the name of climate change? I guess they really want you to eat the bugs and be happy. They are working on making meat so expensive that the common people won’t be able to afford it. Are you enjoying The Great Reset?”

In response to the new nitrogen and ammonia restrictions, an estimated 40,000 Dutch farmers have gathered in protest, arguing the attack on farming is irrational and unfair, as other industries responsible for far greater amounts of pollution — such as transport, construction and aviation — aren’t facing the same restrictions.

They’ve blocked a number of highways with tractors and even sprayed manure on the town hall in Lochem.¹⁰ Local police have reportedly responded by shooting at some of the farmers. Jimmy Dore reviews the situation in the video above.

What’s Wrong With Nitrogen?

As explained by Plant Based News,¹¹ nitrogen makes up about 78% of the earth’s atmosphere and is essential for life. However, in excess, and in the wrong areas, it can damage the ecosystem. Nitrogen runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and farms using synthetic pesticides and fertilizers can leach into and contaminate water supplies.

Nitrogen runoff can also cause algae blooms when it enters lakes or oceans. This depletes the water of oxygen and creates dead zones where no aquatic life can be sustained. This is why I’ve long advocated against CAFOs and conventional industrial farms that rely on chemicals to grow food.

That doesn’t mean livestock are a blight on the eco system, however. Quite the contrary. Livestock raised in accordance with regenerative agriculture principles will heal and massively improve soil quality and help stabilize the climate. So, it’s not cows per se that are the problem. It’s the industrialization of cattle ranching that causes it to have a negative impact. The answer, then, is not to eliminate meat production. The answer is to transition into a regenerative system.

Since the transition can take a few years, during which profits may be marginal or absent, many farmers hesitate to take this step on their own. Government could facilitate the transition by subsidizing farmers that make the switch, but none have opted to do so. Why? Could it be because regenerative farming is the converse of what The Great Reset is all about?

Dutch Climate Rules Will Cut Meat Availability Across EU

In 2019, the highest administrative court in The Netherlands, the Council of State, ruled the Dutch government was in breach of European Union law that called for stark cuts in nitrogen emissions.¹²

Following that ruling, some 18,000 infrastructure projects were abandoned in an attempt to meet the EU restrictions. The Dutch government also lowered the maximum daytime speed limit on highways to 100 kilometers an hour (61 mph). All of that still wasn’t enough though, so now the Finance and Agriculture Ministry wants to reduce the number of livestock by 30%.

The Netherlands has a significant number of farmers. In any given year, they raise some 4 million beef cattle alone. But reducing the number of cattle by 30% will not only have ramifications for the Dutch, but all of the EU, because The Netherlands is the largest meat exporter in the EU.¹³

In September 2021, Rudi Buis, a spokesperson for the Dutch agriculture ministry, told The Guardian:¹⁴

“We are a relatively small country with a lot of inhabitants, industry, transport and agriculture, so we are reaching the limits of what nature can take. There is a high level of urgency for us to tackle the nitrogen compounds problem. This means that in the near future, choices must be made.”

Apparently, the option they’ve chosen is starvation and nutritional deficiencies for all. The saddest part of it is that eliminating meat production is not going to have the fabulous impact they say it will have. It’s a fraudulent greenwashing enterprise that will destroy humanity instead.

While the notion of a pollution-free world is an attractive one, ultimately, the Green Agenda isn’t about the environment — it’s about creating a control system in which the world’s resources are owned by the richest of the rich, while the rest of the population is controlled through the allocation of those resources, and that includes the allocation of food.

The Global Food Reset Foretold by the Rockefeller Foundation

While looming food shortages are now blamed on climate change and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Rockefeller Foundation discussed coming food shortages as an inevitability back in July 2020, and called for a revamping of the food system to address it. Seeing how true prophets are few and far in between these days, it seems more reasonable to suspect that paper was delineating a known, intentional plan.

The document in question, titled “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System,”¹⁵ was published July 28, 2020. It describes how the COVID pandemic had caused “a hunger and nutrition crisis” in the U.S. “unlike any this country has seen in generations.”

Mind you, COVID was declared a pandemic March 11, 2020, so by the time this Rockefeller report was published, the pandemic had only existed for four months, and while certain high-risk groups did experience food insecurity, such as children whose primary meal is a school lunch, widespread food shortages, in terms of empty shelves, were not widely prevalent or particularly severe in the U.S.

The title itself is also revealing, as it’s a clear play on The Great Reset, which was officially announced by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Prince of Wales in early June 2020.¹⁶ The title alone tells us that the Rockefeller Foundation’s call for a food system reset is part and parcel of the WEF’s Great Reset. Many of the contributors to the Foundation’s paper are WEF members, which further strengthens this connection.

In the foreword,¹⁷ Rockefeller Foundation president Dr. Rajiv Shah also stresses that “a comprehensive playbook” to address the food system will also need to address other issues, “such as living wages, housing and transportation,” and that “all of us” — meaning the self-proclaimed designers of the future — “need to write that playbook together over the coming year.” What better way to predict the future than to actually create it?

All of those things — wages, housing and transportation — are all facets that will undergo dramatic revision under The Great Reset’s Fourth Industrial Revolution, as artificial intelligence, robotics, surveillance, social engineering and transhumanism (the merger of man with machine) take over.

Summary Take-Home of ‘Reset the Table’

In summary, “Reset the Table” describes how they intend to seize control of the food supply and the supply chain under the guise of “equity,” “fairness” and “environmental protection.” As noted by ThreadsIrish on Substack:¹⁸

“The document is very much framed in the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution. Here is the problem that they have created (COVID) and now they want to implement the solution (Transforming the global food supply). Naturally this is all ties into lands being destroyed, climate change and trying to move people back into smart cities (Page 5). Surprise, surprise.”

One key to this enterprise is data collection. They want to collect data on everyone’s spending and eating habits, and to facilitate that data collection, they want to shift everything into an online environment, including education, medicine and the buying of food.

Another key to success is “changes to policies, practices and norms.” The goal is to centralize control of the food supply into a single executive office, which is right in line with the idea of a “one world government.” As WEF member Henry Kissinger once said, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

From Beef to Crickets

Getting back to the issue of Dutch beef production being strangled, the reason global leaders seem so unconcerned with dwindling meat production is probably because they don’t want us to eat meat. They intend for us to eat lab grown synthetic meat that can be patented, and insects,¹⁹ which can easily and inexpensively be produced in mass quantities using very little land.

As noted in a July 2021 WEF article titled, “Why We Need to Give Insects the Role They Deserve in Our Food Systems,”²⁰ insects are “a credible and efficient alternative protein source requiring fewer resources than conventional breeding,” and “a healthy ingredient” that is highly digestible and particularly suitable for senior nutrition.

Insect farming also requires few natural resources, such as water, and could reduce agricultural pollution by nearly 99%. The article points out that the last barrier to making insect burgers the norm is “preconceived ideas about insects as a source of food and legislation with regard to the use and consumption of proteins derived from insects.”

There are indications that “Reset the Table” is promoting a diet of insects as well, because while it stresses the need for a “healthy diet” and “sustainable agriculture,” the words “organic” and “grass fed” do not appear a single time, and the word “natural” is only used in reference to “natural disasters.”

In other words, their versions of “healthy diet” and “sustainable agriculture” do not include what we know are basic criteria for a healthy, nutritious, sustainable and regenerative food supply. The Foundation’s call for changes to “policies, practices and norms” also indicates that the diet they’re talking about involves something that is outside the norm.

Both lab-grown meat and insects are outside the norm of what most people are willing to put in their mouth, and thus policies about what constitutes “food” need to be changed, as do food production practices and social norms about what’s acceptable to eat and what’s not.

Scientists Question Safety of Lab-Grown Meat

While venture capitalists see lab-grown meat alternatives as the cash cow of the future, many scientists are leery. In mid-June 2022, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) held a webinar in which a panel of experts addressed a number of questions surrounding lab-grown meats, including safety and regulatory issues.²¹

One of the panelists was Michael Hansen, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist with Consumer Reports. He raised concerns about cell-cultured meats, where biopsied cells from an animal are grown in fetal bovine blood (extracted from a live, aborted baby calf).

His main concern revolves around the use of manipulated DNA segments, as that could have unforeseen consequences, but he pointed out that we also have no data on the nutritional composition of this kind of meat. As reported by The Defender:²²

“According to Hansen, the piece of flesh biopsied from the animal is an undifferentiated stem cell. The products use bio-engineered proteins in a nutrient solution to induce the cells to differentiate into muscle for meat. This is done in bio-reactor vats similar to those used to make beer.

While scientific papers have covered topics related to cell-cultured meat, Hansen said, none has actually analyzed the nutritional characteristics of the finished product, and academics have not received samples. This implies ‘problems behind the scenes,’ Hansen said, adding, ‘I doubt this technology will work.'”

Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), was also part of the panel. Neltner noted that while sustainable protein sources are needed, lab-grown meats will be proprietary, meaning the full ingredients list and how they’re made is a trade secret, so “We won’t know their effect or what they are.” The Defender added:²³

“The concept of proprietary foodstuffs … led the panelists to address the regulation of cell-cultured meat and the role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which one panelist called a ‘captured’ agency.

Neltner said he worried cell-cultured meat could be ushered into the food supply under the FDA’s Generally Recognized As Safe program. Under the program, a company simply tells the FDA its product is safe, based on the company’s own documentation, and bypasses the public comment process.’

Neltner, whose primary focus at the EDF is food additive safety, said he preferred companies be required to submit to the FDA a ‘food additive petition,’ which includes a ‘right to challenge.’

Panelists also raised concerns about the effects novel ingredients may have on aspects of the human microbiome. Hansen pointed out that 10 years ago, we could not culture and study microbiome components. But now we can, and it’s important that we know these effects.

For example, Hansen said, it is now known that the genome and genes themselves can be affected by epigenetic changes without even touching the DNA …

Hansen said biopsied cells of an animal used in cell-cultured meat do not contain the immunity actions from the animal’s immune system, which could leave bio-reactor vats susceptible to bacteria like salmonella, fungi and worse unless antibiotics are used. Cell-cultured meat producers claim they may not have to add antibiotics, although even alcohol distillers have to add them to their vats, Hansen said.”

Prepare for Food Shortages

Everything now points to food shortages and famine becoming a reality in many parts of the world, including the U.S. and Europe.²⁴ As yet, stores are still fairly well stocked with essentials, but that will change come winter and into 2023. This means you may only have another six months or so to stock up.

This past Monday, I published an article with suggestions for how to prepare. That article, “Get Prepared With Shelf-Stable Foods,” will be made available for free on Substack, so if you missed it, you can review it now.

*

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

Notes

^{1, 4, 9, 10} Substack, The Freedom Corner with PeterSweden July 1, 2022

² Bloomberg June 28, 2022

^3, 5 Indian Express July 3, 2022

⁶ Science Daily June 29, 2016

⁷ Penn State Nitrogen from the Farm

⁸ Cattle Business in Mississippi April 2009, Protein Requirements of Beef Cattle

^11, 12, 13 Plant Based News September 27, 2021

¹⁴ The Guardian September 9, 2021

¹⁵ Rockefeller Foundation Reset the Table

¹⁶ Weforum June 3, 2020

¹⁷ Rockefeller Foundation Reset the Table (PDF) Foreword

¹⁸ ThreadsIrish June 18, 2022

^19, 20 WEF July 12, 2021

^21, 22, 23 The Defender June 27, 2022

²⁴ Substack Maajid Nawaz April 25, 2022

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 EU has frozen Russian assets worth €13.8 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February, but this large sum remains largely untouched across the bloc, a high-ranking European Commission official said on Tuesday (12 July).

“For the moment, we have frozen – coming from oligarchs and other entities – €13.8 billion, so it’s quite huge,” European Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders told reporters in Prague.

“But I must say that a very large part of it, more than €12 billion (…), is coming from five member states,” he said, refusing to name the five countries, adding that he expected other member states to step up their efforts soon.

German Finance Minister Christian Lindner put the value of assets frozen by the country alone at €4.48 billion in mid-June.

At the end of June, an international sanctions task force said its members, including several EU countries, had blocked $30 billion in assets belonging to Russian oligarchs and officials.

The Russian Elites, Proxies, and Oligarchs Task Force (REPO) said its members, who also include the US, Canada, Britain, Japan and other allies, had immobilised $300 billion owned by the Russian central bank.

The EU has so far adopted six sanction packages against Russia, including a ban on most Russian oil imports approved in early June.

A total of 98 companies and 1,158 individuals, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, have seen their property frozen and been banned from entering the EU.

Exploring to seize

However, as the financial reconstruction of Ukraine will require huge sums to rebuild the country after the war, the EU and member states are increasingly looking for ways how to potentially use frozen assets for this purpose.

Ukraine’s Justice Minister Denys Maliuska in Prague on Tuesday repeated calls for seized assets to be used to cover compensation for war damages.

“Currently they are protected by sovereign immunity, but our understanding is that assets of a state (that) started a war, committed aggression, shall not be protected by sovereign immunity,” he said.

“We are suffering from economic losses, and it does not make sense to cover all those losses with Ukrainian or European taxpayers’ money,” Maliuska added.

Many member states, for various reasons, are struggling to freeze assets of people sanctioned by the EU for their ties to the Kremlin. Furthermore, they lack legal powers to confiscate frozen assets.

In May, the Commission unveiled plans to make it easier to confiscate frozen assets linked to serious illegal activities and suspected criminals, including those evading EU sanctions against Russia.

Under the proposal, which still has to be approved by EU leaders, the violation of EU restrictive measures would be added to the list of crimes, which would create a legal basis for criminal offences and penalties across the EU.

Such common EU rules, in theory, would make it easier to investigate, prosecute and punish violations and, in the next step, seize assets with the help of the new ‘Freeze and Seize’ Task Force, set up by the Commission in March.

Although EU leaders initially were meant to green-light the European Commission proposal in June, Reynders said on Tuesday he expected a final political agreement after the summer with the policy possibly taking effect in the autumn.

To determine the feasibility of seizures, the European Commission earlier this month gave its approval to a pilot project to explore aspects such as sanction adoption, asset freezes, asset confiscation, and reintroduction of the confiscated assets into the national economy for social use, as well as into the EU budget for public spending in Ukraine.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” 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.

***

Russia’s account surplus reached a new record for the second quarter, according to data released by the central bank cited by Bloomberg.

The surplus, now more than $70 billion, comes on the back of surging oil and gas—and other commodities as well—exports, which outweighed the sanctions placed on the country by Western powers.

The surplus was also bolstered by high prices and decreasing imports—to $72.3 billion in Q1 from $88.7 billion in Q2—thanks to the sanctions, which have a greater effect on imports than on exports.

The sanctions on Russia’s energy exports have made scant progress in restricting funds flowing into Russia that it could use to carry on its aggression in Ukraine. India, for one, is purchasing record amounts of Russian crude oil—to the tune of nearly a million barrels per day as of June—this is about one-fifth of India’s total crude oil imports, according to Reuters.

China has also been importing record amounts of cheap Russian crude during June, even in the midst of Covid lockdowns. Russia is China’s main supplier of crude oil, and neither India nor China is showing signs of reluctance in snapping up Russian crude—a sanctioned commodity by Europe and the United States.

It’s not just oil. Russia is also said to be close to a deal with Brazil to supply the South American country with cheap diesel, Reuters reported on Monday. Brazilian President Bolsonaro, facing a tough reelection in October due to high fuel prices, has enjoyed an amicable relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russian exports were $153.1 billion in the second quarter after reaching $166.4 billion in the first quarter.

The United States has plans to discuss a possible oil price cap on Russian crude with major crude oil purchasers like India to garner support for such a plan—a plan that would seek to allow buyers to continue purchasing Russian crude but cap the revenues that Russia receives for those purchases.

*

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.

Julianne Geiger is a veteran editor, writer and researcher for Oilprice.com, and a member of the Creative Professionals Networking Group.

Featured image is from OilPrice.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.

***

As the bloody conflict in Ukraine continues, the rhetoric from the imperial spear-holders in Washington and some allies is becoming increasingly fixated with one object: victory against Russia.  Such words should be used sparingly, especially given their binding, and blinding tendencies.  When the term “unconditional surrender” was first used by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt at the January 1943 Casablanca conference in the context of defeating Nazi Germany, not all cheered.  It meant a fight to the finish, climbing the summit and dictating terms from a blood-soaked peak.

With such language crowning the efforts of the Allies, the Axis powers – certainly Germany and Japan – could continue fighting the war of extermination, aware that no terms they could submit would be taken seriously.  There would be no compromise in this existential confrontation.  It made the Allied advance in Western Europe slower and enabled the Soviet Union to expel German forces and duly occupy most of Eastern Europe.  It made negotiations about whether Japan would retain its emperor on surrendering nigh impossible, leaving the route open for the use of atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The supply of weapons to Ukraine in its efforts against Russia has become a zealous mission that will supposedly achieve victory. Messianic impulses tingle and move through the Washington and London establishment, with some echo in Warsaw and the capitals of the Baltic states.  An air of unreality – be it in terms of negotiating the future of Ukrainian territory under Russian occupation – fills such corridors of power.

On May 1, after travelling to Kyiv, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi raised the colours.  “America,” she declared with earnestness, “stands with Ukraine until victory is won.”  She made little effort to expound on what this would entail, be it the expulsion of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, or the “meat grinder” solution, leaving Kyiv and Moscow to bleed, weakening the latter and strengthening NATO security over a dead generation.

Her remarks did enough to worry Michael T. Klare, defence correspondent for The Nation.  “Nowhere, in her comments or those of other high-ranking officials, is there any talk of a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, only of scenarios leading to Russia’s defeat, at whatever cost in human lives.”

The vagueness of the term has led to grand, sanguinary calls to battle unenlightened Russian barbarism, with the UK and US governments repeatedly calling this a conflict that involves the whole west, even the world.  Peering more closely at the rhetoric, and another sentiment comes to the fore: the desire to bloody Russia vicariously while arms manufacturers take stock.

For over a decade, Ukraine has been something of a plaything in branches of the US State Department, and US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman can be found telling the BBC’s Newshour that Russia had to “suffer a strategic failure” in Ukraine.

The checklist for doing so, as outlined by US President Joe Biden, is lengthy.  “We will continue providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry, including Javelin anti-tank missiles, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, powerful artillery and precision rocket systems, radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, Mi-17 helicopters and ammunition.”

On this score, the hawks are in the ascendancy.  Anyone uttering the view that a Ukrainian victory would hardly be total, let alone likely, have been reviled, as British military historian and journalist Max Hastings writes.  They are tarred and feathered as either “ultra-realists” or appeasers.

Hard-headed peace talks, let alone anything approximating to negotiations have, as a result, also become taboo.  The early June suggestion by French President Emmanuel Macron that, “We must not humiliate Russia, so that the day the fighting stops, we can build a way out through diplomatic channels” was met with disdain and fury in Kyiv.

The previous month, the world’s oldest Machiavellian devotee, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, dared mention the need for the warring parties to commence talks.  Unconvicted war criminal he may be, his view that “negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome” was hardly controversial.  But the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy responded by foraging in the dustbin of history.  “It seems that Mr Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938.”

In Kyiv, the very idea of making a deal with Moscow is being met with revulsion.

“They have killed too many people,” opines Oleksii Movchan of the Ukrainian Parliament representing Zelenskyy’s Servant of the People Party. “They have destroyed too many cities.  They have raped too many women.  If the war stops now and the world tries to accommodate Putin, then international law will have no meaning.”

For the moment, support from the US is taking the form of logistical and material assistance in what has already been called by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a proxy war against Moscow.  With each ghoulish weapons update, we can read about the types of murderous devices used, and how effective they were.  The latest featured an attack on Nova Kakhovka in the Kherson region by Ukrainian forces using US-supplied Himars missiles.  Kyiv’s line: the attack was a success, destroying a Russian ammunition depot, killing dozens of Russian military personnel.  The Russian angle: homes and warehouses storing fertiliser had been pulverised, killing five and wounding 80.

Ukrainians have become surrogate democrats and freedom fighters (these terms are not necessarily identical) and Washington is willing to ensure, at least for the moment, that they have the weapons.  Other countries in Europe are willing to keep the borders open to Ukraine’s refugees.  But how long will this last?  Hearts can, in time, harden, leaving way for national self-interest to take hold.  At some point, the weapons will have to be put down, the war making way for the jaw.  Till then, the unofficial policy of fighting to the last Ukrainian will be in vogue.

*

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 OneWorld

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.

***

Protests have continued in Akron, Ohio after the June 27 police killing of Jayland Walker, 25, who had 90 bullets fired at him by officers, 60 of those rounds struck the victim.

After the release of a police video of the shooting of Walker, who was unarmed, people poured into the streets to demand justice for the African American motorist.

Police claimed that Walker had fired at them during a chase, however, he was not carrying any firearm when he was struck down in the hail of bullets fired by Akron police. The police later claimed they discovered a handgun in Walker’s vehicle after he had already been executed.

This incident represents a continuation of police violence directed towards African Americans across the United States. More than two years since the brutal police killings of Breonna Taylor in Louisville and George Floyd in Minneapolis along with the lynching of Ahmaud Arbery by vigilantes in Brunswick, Georgia, the various law-enforcement agencies have been given even more resources by the federal government to carry out their brutal treatment of Black and People of Color Communities.

In fact, Democratic President Joe Biden has repudiated the demand which grew out of the mass demonstrations of 2020 to defund the police. Biden went out of his way during his State of the Union Address earlier in the year to call for more resources being turned over to the police. Substantial amounts of funds which were ostensibly allocated by the U.S. Congress to address the socioeconomic crisis stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, have been turned over to law-enforcement departments around the country.

Akron is a city of 197,000 people, the fifth largest municipality in the state of Ohio within a broader metropolitan area with a population of 703,000, which also encompasses Cleveland and Canton. Once known as the rubber capital of the world due to the role of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, since 1960, Akron as a municipality has lost approximately 100,000 residents. 31.5% of the people living in Akron are African Americans

During the Independence Day weekend, Akron erupted in mass demonstrations and rebellion where several businesses reported property damages. It was reported by local police that 49 people were arrested on July 3-4 and charged with rioting. These developments prompted Mayor Dan Horrigan to declare a state of emergency in Akron.

The Akron Beacon Journal reported on the events saying:

“After Mayor Dan Horrigan and Police Chief Steve Mylett gave a 1 p.m. press conference Sunday (July 3) to discuss the video the city released of Walker’s death, hundreds of people gathered outside Quaker Station on Broadway downtown for an Akron NAACP Community Peace Rally. A large crowd rallied at the Harold K. Stubbs Justice Center downtown at around 10 p.m. As chants demanding justice for Walker continued, some began hurling water bottles and other objects at the building. Despite organizers calling for peace and expelling one person who had pulled down a street sign, the situation grew more hectic as police shot tear gas canisters into crowds of protesters. Protesters fled, while some launched smoke bombs into the streets. One protester began using a bat to break windows of snowplow trucks the city had used to block traffic in front of the Justice Center. On South Main Street windows were smashed and planters overturned. Downtown Akron Partnership President and CEO Suzie Graham said there was damage at 19 properties, with an estimated count of 101 broken doors and windows, as well as a broken pane of glass in a bus shelter.”

State of Emergency Targets Well-known Activists

The unrest in Akron has been downplayed in the national media in the U.S. There was the reporting of the brutal execution of Jayland Walker, yet there has been almost no follow-up on the subsequent demonstrations and arrests. However, other issues have dominated the corporate and government-controlled television, newspaper and radio networks.

Image on the right: Jayland Walker and family (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Much attention is being paid to the January 6 hearings in the Congress. In addition, a series of mass shootings has shifted the focus to the question of gun control. Not to mention the incessant reporting on the Ukraine war where the actual battlefield events are often characterized in Cold War propaganda terms.

Despite the failure of the White House to make a statement decrying the police killing of Jayland Walker, there are those who continue to advocate for an electoral strategy aimed at putting more Democrats in the House of Representative and the Senate. Nonetheless, there is tremendous discontent among the Democratic Party’s electoral base with specific reference to African Americans. This is potentially a serious problem for the Democratic-dominated House and evenly divided Senate.

Family members and supporters of victims of police brutality converged on Akron to express their solidarity with their counterparts in this Ohio city. Jacob Blake, Jr. was severely wounded by Kenosha, Wisconsin police in 2020, being shot seven times while moving away from the police to enter a vehicle. Blake’s father, already suffering from chronic health issues, stepped forward to demand justice for his son. The prosecutorial authorities in Wisconsin failed to indict the police officers involved in this heinous act of law-enforcement misconduct.

In addition, the family of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and Hakim Littleton of Detroit, demanded in public and courtroom settings that the police officers responsible for the death of their loved ones. The response by the courts have been mixed. The murderers of George Floyd were indicted and convicted in state and federal courts. However, no punishment was meted out to the killers of Breonna Taylor and Hakim Littleton.

The activism of the families of police victims has been highlighted in Akron. One report emphasized:

“The aunt of Breonna Taylor, who was killed in a botched police raid, and the father of Jacob Blake, another African American permanently paralyzed after getting shot by Kenosha cops, were arrested this week while protesting against police brutality in Akron, Ohio. Bianca Austin and Jacob Blake Sr. traveled together with Families United, a group against police brutality, to protest against the harrowing shooting of unarmed Jayland Walker. Amid the chaotic protest Wednesday night, Austin was arrested and Blake Sr. was transported to a local hospital. Police booked Austin at the local jail on charges of alleged rioting, disorderly conduct, and failure to disperse, while a bench warrant was issued to arrest Blake Sr.”

This type of conduct by the Akron police indicates clearly that they are more concerned with covering up for those officers under investigation in the brutal death of Walker. The same pattern has been repeated in municipalities, suburbs and rural areas throughout the U.S.

An attempt to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act during 2021 failed in the Senate where even some Democrats would not support any significant reforms related to holding the police accountable for their deadly behaviors. The failure of legislation promised by the Biden administration encompasses a wide array of issues.

There was the inability to codify within legislative action the right of women to reproductive freedom in light of the overturn by the Supreme Court of the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Today there are questions about whether individual states can investigate and prosecute women for seeking abortion care in states other than where they live.

Moreover, the abortion ban raises questions about the potential future actions of the conservative-dominated court. The 14th amendment to the Constitution purportedly guarantees equal protection under the law, privacy and the right to legal due process. Nevertheless, five justices on the Supreme Court were empowered to make a decision which most people in the U.S. do not support that effectively disregards the rights of at least half of the population.

These decisions call for independent action on the part of African Americans, Latin Americans, all oppressed nations and communities, including women of all nationalities, to gather together in order to ensure that the rights of peoples be protected and enshrined in the law. Until this attitude is adopted among the hundreds of millions of those negatively impacted by right-wing legislation and intrusions into the collective will of the people, the ruling class will continue its program to rob the masses of their inherent rights as human beings.

*

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

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

Featured image: Relatives of Jacob Blake and Breonna Taylor (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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.

***

For months, pandemic critics have pointed out the hypocrisy of government officials suppressing early treatment for COVID-19 and promoting the disastrous public health movement of locking down the world.  Health authorities coerced people (using millions of dollars in propagandized advertisements and celebrity endorsements) into taking a new gene-related therapy with the promise to prevent transmission of a highly survivable viral infection – never mind that later the jab was shown to be completely ineffective at preventing transmission after all.

The gaslit general public is now supposed to believe, of course, that these shots were “never” about stopping transmission but only about reducing the risk of severe illness and death.  However, official data from the UK shows yet again that even that claim is completely unfounded.

Vaxxed individuals in the UK significantly more likely to die of all causes than unvaxxed, analysis of official data reveals

The latest figures released in May by the UK’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggest that people who received COVID shots are much more likely to die of any cause than vax-free individuals.  Incredibly, this trend appears to hold for all age groups. 

Here are some of the most alarming data shared by ONS:

• Approximately 70,000 individuals have died within 28 days following a COVID shot in England, and some 179,000 persons have died within 60 days post-jab
• Getting a COVID vax increases the risk of death among kids aged 10-14 by anywhere from 8,100% to 30,200% (these figures were calculated by the Daily Expose based on official ONS data)
• The dramatic increase in death rates from all causes is apparently showing up within five months

To be clear, these alarming trends were not always the case.  Within the first two months after COVID shots began rolling out in England starting on December 8, 2020, it was the unvaxxed individuals who appeared more likely to die of any cause other than COVID-19.

By April, however, the rates started to normalize, and from May 2021, a major flip happened, with age-standardized mortality rates showing that vaxxed folks were more likely to die than the unvaxxed by any cause other than COVID-19.

Interestingly, the Daily Expose suggests that the age-adjusted mortality rates seem to correlate with the order in which people received the COVID-19 injections, as England rolled out their COVID shot program by age, with the oldest citizens being offered the shots first.

Month after month, the ONS data suggests that younger and younger age groups (from 90+ down to 50-59) began experiencing dramatic upticks in mortality.  The Daily Expose says of their analysis that this data could very well indicate that “the COVID-19 injections take approximately 5 months to completely decimate the immune system to the point where a person’s chances of dying of any cause are significantly increased.”

If this is what official data shows, one has to wonder what’s not being discussed

We would be remiss not to remind readers that the number of injuries, illnesses, and deaths post-jab are most likely underreported, even at this stage in the pandemic.  Doctors are quick to dismiss concerned patients and caregivers, touting the tired adage that “correlation does not equal causation.”

Yes, correlation does not equal causation.  But two factors can’t have a causal relationship without being correlated – and the growing trends in data pointing to a correlation between these mRNA shots and negative health outcomes is nearly becoming too great to ignore.

*

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 Zero Hedge

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.

***

“That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

We are witnessing the gradual dismantling of every constitutional principle that serves as a bulwark against government tyranny, overreach and abuse.

As usual, the latest assault comes from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 ruling in Vega v. Tekoh, the Supreme Court took aim at the Miranda warnings, which require that police inform suspects that they have a right against self-incrimination when in police custody: namely, that they have a right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, and that anything they say and do can and will be used against them in a court of law.

Although the Supreme Court stopped short of overturning its 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona, the conservative majority declared that individuals cannot hold police accountable for violating their Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

By shielding police from lawsuits arising from their failure to Mirandize suspects, the Supreme Court has sent a message to police that they no longer have to respect a suspect’s right to remain silent.

In other words, concludes legal analyst Nick Sibilla, “the Supreme Court has effectively created a new legal immunity for cops accused of infringing on the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.”

Why is this important?

In totality, the rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment speak to the Founders’ determination to protect the rights of the individual against a government with a natural inclination towards corruption, tyranny and thuggery.

The Founders were especially concerned with balancing the scales of justice in such a way that the innocent and the accused were not railroaded and browbeaten by government agents into coerced confessions, false convictions, or sham trials.

Indeed, so determined were the Founders to safeguard the rights of the innocent, even if it meant allowing a guilty person to go free, that Benjamin Franklin insisted, “It is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

Two hundred-plus years later, the Supreme Court (aided and abetted by the police state, Congress and Corporate America) has flipped that longstanding presumption of innocence on its head.

In our present suspect society, “we the people” are all presumed guilty until proven innocent.

With the Vega ruling, we have even fewer defenses for warding off government chicanery, abuse, threats and entrapment.

To be clear, the Supreme Court is not saying that we don’t have the right to remain silent when in police custody. It’s merely saying that we can’t sue the police for violating that right.

It’s a subtle difference but a significant one that could well encourage police to engage in the very sort of egregious misconduct at the heart of the Vega case: in which a police officer investigating a sexual assault isolated a suspect in a small, windowless room; refused him access to a lawyer or work colleagues; accused him of molesting a female patient; threatened him with violence; implied that he and his family would be deported; and terrorized him into signing a false confession dictated by the cop.

Although Terence Tekoh was eventually tried and acquitted, the Supreme Court refused to hold police accountable for browbeating an innocent man into making a false confession.

The Vega ruling threatens to turn the clocks back to a time when police resorted to physical brutality (beating, hanging, whipping) and mental torture in order to obtain confessions from suspects without ever informing them of their Fifth Amendment rights.

This was exactly the kind of misconduct that the Warren Court sought to discourage with its 5-4 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

As the Court concluded in Miranda almost 60 years ago:

The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.

The end result as one analyst notes: “Miranda v. Arizona, in creating the ‘Miranda Rights’ we take for granted today, reconciled the increasing police powers of the state with the basic rights of individuals.”

By largely doing away with Miranda, the Supreme Court has made its present position clear: anything goes if you’re a cop in the American police state.

Indeed, pay close to attention to the Court’s rulings lately, and the broader picture that emerges is of a judiciary that is playing fast and loose with the rule of law, picking and choose which rights to uphold and which can be discarded, in order to expand the power of the police state at the expense of the people’s rights.

If left unchecked, this constitutionally illiterate ruling will open the door to a new era of police abuses.

By shielding police from charges of grave misconduct while throwing the book at Americans for violating any of a rapidly expanding assortment of so-called crimes, the government has created a world in which there are two sets of laws: one set for the government and its gun-toting agents, and another set for you and me.

If you’re a cop in the American police state, you can already break the law in a myriad of ways without suffering any major, long-term consequences.

Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing—whether it’s shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people), raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports, trafficking drugs, or soliciting sex with minors—but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they get re-hired again.

For instance, police officer Jackie Neal was accused of putting his hands inside a woman’s panties, lifting up her shirt and feeling her breasts during a routine traffic stop. He remained on the police force. A year later, Neal was accused of digitally penetrating another woman. Still, he wasn’t fired or disciplined.

A few years after that, Neal—then serving as supervisor of the department’s youth program—was suspended for three days for having sex with a teenage girl participating in the program. As Reuters reports, “Neal never lost a dime in pay or a day off patrol: The union contract allowed him to serve the suspension using vacation days.”

Later that same year, Neal was arrested on charges that he handcuffed a woman in the rear seat of his police vehicle and then raped her. He was eventually fined $5,000 and sentenced to 14 months in prison, with five months off for “work and education.” The taxpayers of San Antonio got saddled with $500,000 to settle the case.

Now here’s the kicker: when the local city council attempted to amend the police union contract to create greater accountability for police misconduct, the police unions flexed their muscles and engaged in such a heated propaganda campaign that the city backed down.

This is how perverse justice in America has become, and it’s happening all across the country.

Incredibly, while our own constitutional protections against government abuses continue to be dismantled, a growing number of states are adopting Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR)—written by police unions—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.

In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations: questioned unmercifully for hours on end, harassed, harangued, browbeaten, denied food, water and bathroom breaks, subjected to hostile interrogations, and left in the dark about our accusers and any charges and evidence against us.

These LEOBoRs epitomize everything that is wrong with America today.

Now every so often, police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens. Occasionally, those officers are even sentenced for their crimes against the citizenry.

Yet in just about every case, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill.

The ones who rarely ever feel the pinch are the officers accused or convicted of wrongdoing, “even if they are disciplined or terminated by their department, criminally prosecuted, or even imprisoned.”

In fact, police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions.

No matter which way you spin it, “we the people” are always on the losing end of the deal.

With the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vega v. Tekoh, the scales of justice have shifted out of balance even more.

Brace yourselves: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, things are about to get downright ugly.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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 European Union (EU) has finally admitted that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines destroy the immune system and make people more susceptible not just to COVID but to all diseases.

According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), taking booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccines every four months could weaken the immune system and tire people out. (Related: Qatari study finds mRNA vaccines actually DECREASE immunity against COVID-19.)

Despite this revelation, the EU is still recommending that people take COVID-19 vaccines and boosters. What the EMA wants to change is the time in between booster doses.

“[Boosters] can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly,” said Marco Cavaleri, the EMA’s head of biological health threats and vaccines strategy. “We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”

But this revelation from the EMA has not stopped the EU from approving more vaccine doses for its population.

The EMA and the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) approved the recommendation giving people between 60 and 79 years old second booster doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

People with medical conditions that make them more susceptible to diseases are also now eligible to receive a second mRNA booster in the 27-nation bloc.

The approval of additional boosters for more vulnerable sectors of society was reportedly rushed following the recent rise in infections in perhaps the most vaccinated continent on the planet.

“With cases and hospitalizations rising again as we enter the summer period, I urge everybody to get vaccinated and boosted as quickly as possible,” said European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides. “There is no time to lose.”

“I call on member states to roll out second boosters for everyone over the age of 60 as well as all vulnerable persons immediately,” she added.

ECDC Director Andrea Ammon is also claiming that the continent is seeing “increasing COVID-19 case notification rates and an increasing trend in hospital and ICU admissions and occupancy in several countries.”

“This signals the start of a new, widespread COVID-19 wave across the European Union,” said Ammon. “There are still too many individuals at risk of severe COVID-19 infection whom we need to protect as soon as possible.”

More COVID-19 vaccinations will increase likelihood of death

“The Daily Veracity” host Vincent James noted that even amending the time in between booster vaccinations likely won’t make any difference and people will still experience debilitating effects upon taking the vaccines.

“If the vaccine and repeated doses of the vaccine destroys your immune system, which is what the European Union admitted recently, then this makes you more susceptible to all diseases,” warned James. “And if it makes you more susceptible to diseases, then it makes you more likely to die, because the vaccine destroys your immune system.”

James warned people against taking even just one COVID-19 vaccine, as evidence points to the fact that not only do they destroy the immune system, “but also they just straight up kill you.”

*

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 BigPharmaNews.com

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

By Sonia Elijah, July 12, 2022

The time period of the email correspondence in question stretches from November 10 – 25, 2020, just weeks before the EMA granted CMA (conditional marketing authorization) for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covdid-19 vaccine on December 21, 2020.

NATO: By Making China the Enemy, the Alliance Is Threatening World Peace

By Jonathan Cook, July 12, 2022

As the saying goes, if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The West has the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato), a self-declared “defensive” military alliance – so any country that refuses its dictates must, by definition, be an offensive military threat. That is part of the reason why Nato issued a new “strategic concept” document last week at its summit in Madrid, declaring for the first time that China poses a “systemic challenge” to the alliance, alongside a primary “threat” from Russia.

Ukraine and NATO’s Hardline Position on Expansion: End the War, Lift the Sanctions, Initiate Peace Negotiations

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, July 12, 2022

NATO’s hardline  position on expansion and membership is further reinforced by a motive which has become more obvious in the course of the war. Some members of NATO and the US leadership are keen to exploit the war to emasculate Russia as a military power.

India to Boost Sakhalin-1 Oil Output

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 12, 2022

After Sakhalin-2, Moscow also plans to nationalise Sakhalin-1 oil and gas development project by ousting US and Japanese shareholders. But Moscow will make an exception for India so that OVL which holds 20% stake will remain & continue to work. Moscow grapevine is that while Rosneft will continue to hold controlling share, more Indian companies may be inducted to replace US & Japan and thereby also ensure a sales market in India. 

Ex-NATO Commander Calls on Ukraine to Blow Up Crimean Bridge

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Ukrainian News, July 12, 2022

This bridge was geared towards train transport routes linking Western and Eastern Europe to the Caspian Sea basin, Kazakhstan and China. It is therefore an integral part of the Eurasian Project (linking up with China’s Belt and Road initiative). In recent developments, “former Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, said that the Crimean Bridge is a legitimate target for attack by Ukraine”.

Black Alliance for Peace Condemns Extension of United Nations Mandate in Haiti and Calls on Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to Support Haitian Independence and Sovereignty

By Black Alliance for Peace, July 12, 2022

Since beginning a 2-year term on the UNSC, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico has supported U.S.-backed initiatives that would extend BINUH’s occupation of Haiti. Mexico and the United States are “co-penholders” for this process, indicating the leadership role of the Mexican government in bringing forth this year’s UNSC resolution on Haiti.

‘Head-Spinning’: FDA Quietly Grants Full Approval of Pfizer Comirnaty Vaccine for Adolescents

By Megan Redshaw, July 12, 2022

In an FDA press release, the agency said full approval of Comirnaty follows a “rigorous analysis and evaluation of the safety and effectiveness data,” and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine “has been, and will continue to be authorized for emergency use in this age group since May 2021.”

Video: Swedish Study: Pfizer Jab Installs DNA into the Human Genome

By Alexandra Bruce, July 12, 2022

Dr Peter McCullough, Dr Richard Bartlett and Dr Simone Gold join Joni Table Talk host, Joni Lamb to discuss the Swedish in vitro study that shows the Pfizer jab installs DNA into the human genome.

The Nitrogen Problem in Agriculture

By Dr. Vandana Shiva, July 12, 2022

The nitrogen problem in Agriculture is a problem created by synthetic nitrogen fertilisers made from fossil fuels. Nitrogen fertilisers contribute to atmospheric pollution and climate change in the manufacture and the use of fertilisers.

“One-sided News on Ukraine”: Open Letter to CBC on Its Defamation of Eva Bartlett

By Karin Brothers, July 12, 2022

The implication that Eva Bartlett’s reporting is bought and paid for by Russia (made, incidentally, by those whose opinions seem to have been bought and paid for by Canadian taxpayers) is defamatory.

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.

***

First published on May 1, 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci and two co-authors published an article on March 26, 2020 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Anthony  Fauci is head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In the article, linked below, he states that COVID-19 may turn out to be comparable to a seasonal flu or similar to two relatively minor flu pandemics in 1957 and 1968. It is estimated that seasonal flu kills about 500,000 people globally every year and the two flu pandemics he cited each are thought to have killed about a million people globally. Below is an excerpt of the article. 

Covid-19 — Navigating the Uncharted

“On the basis of a case definition requiring a diagnosis of pneumonia, the currently reported case fatality rate is approximately 2%. In another article in the Journal, Guan et al. report mortality of 1.4% among 1099 patients with laboratory-confirmed Covid-19; these patients had a wide spectrum of disease severity. If one assumes that the number of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times as high as the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%. This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.“

It is not over yet, but this is much less than what our hysterical media and politicians have led us to believe. In the beginning of this historic, media-fueled panic, it sounded like millions would die in the US alone and tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, globally.

Ana Laura Palomino García on Patriot Fire Net 

***

Global Research Editor’s note

Ironically, the media panic referred to by Ana Laura Palomino García is being fuelled by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is playing a central role as a spokesperson in mainstream media reports.

His analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine is in sharp contrast with some of his frenzied statements on network TV, often taken out of context and/or misquoted by the media including press reports and headlines.

Dr. Anthony Fauci  is described as America’s trustworthy voice on coronavirus,  “often correcting President Donald Trump” who compares the COVID-19 to the Seasonal Flu. But isn’t that what Fauci is doing in his NEJM article. (In that regard Trump’s comparison is correct).

“Over the weekend, Fauci told CNN that the pandemic could ultimately kill between 100,000 and 200,000 people in the US should mitigation be unsuccessful.”

“Serving a president who initially dismissed coronavirus by comparing it to seasonal flu, Fauci has been even-handed in public.” (emphasis added)

Fauci is by far  a CNN favorite, providing “authoritative” statements on the virus:

Fauci tends to contradict himself.

He certainly does not inform Americans in a cautious way. He does not reassure Americans.

His authoritative statements often have no factual backing.

The Guardian screenshot,  March 29

He not only misleads Americans, he fails to acknowledge the statements of the WHO which confirm unequivocally that:

 The Hill, March 19, 2020

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, March 31, 20120

***

Thanks to Ana Laura Palomino García for having brought the NEJM article to our attention

*

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.

Featured image: Anthony Fauci (R), director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease and Dr. Anne Schuchat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention speak with reporters during a press briefing about the Zika virus at the White House in Washington February 8, 2016.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

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 war in Ukraine is dragging on. Today, the 11^th of July 2022 is the 138^th day of an armed conflict that began on the 24^th of February when Russian president, Vladimir Putin, declared that his country is launching a special military operation in Ukraine.

As one should expect, a few thousands have been killed so far on both sides. Among Ukrainians both soldiers and civilians are victims. Russian casualties have been mainly soldiers. There has also been massive infrastructure destruction in Ukraine.

The outflow of refugees from Ukraine to Poland and other European countries has been heart breaking. The other consequence of the war has been the imposition of severe economic sanctions upon Russia by the United States of America and other Western countries.

The sanctioning of the export of oil and gas from Russia has plunged a number of European states into economic crisis.

Inflation has soared sky-high and people are struggling to make ends meet especially in those countries where incomes have stagnated for some time. Since Russia is also a major exporter of wheat, Western sanctions have also multiplied the sufferings of people in poor wheat importing countries such as Egypt. Like the fuel supply chain, the global food supply chain has been strained more by the sanctions than by the actual war itself in Ukraine.

In spite of what sanctions and the war have done to families and economies thousands of kilometres away from the scene of the conflict, there are elements on both sides who want the war to go on. There are many Russians who argue that since they have gained control of almost the whole of southern and eastern Ukraine, known as Donbas, (which is where many Russian –speaking Ukrainians live) they should press ahead and consolidate their position. Besides, there is nothing to indicate that NATO is willing to exercise restraint over its eastward push towards Russia or refrain from incorporating Ukraine into NATO — which were the principal reasons why Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine in the first place.

If anything, the strategy document  adopted by NATO at the end of its summit in Madrid in June 2022, asserts emphatically that the doors of NATO  “remain open to all European democracies that share the values of our Alliance“ and “Decisions on membership are taken by NATO allies and no third party has a say in this process.”

NATO’s hardline  position on expansion and membership is further reinforced by a motive which has become more obvious in the course of the war. Some members of NATO and the US leadership are keen to exploit the war to emasculate Russia as a military power. This is why they would like to prolong the war. In Ukraine itself, the government in Kyiv, the capital, and a substantial segment of the populace in the Western part of the country perceive themselves as part of Western Europe and would want to see NATO emerge triumphant in the war. The Kyiv government is determined to re-take territory lost to Russia in recent weeks.

It is because these two positions are antagonistic to one another, that the Russian stance, on the one hand, and the Ukraine-cum-NATO-cum Western stance, on the other, appear so irreconcilable. This may also explain why sincere efforts by Indonesian President, Widodo and Pope Francis of the Vatican have not borne any fruit so far. Nonetheless, men and women of goodwill everywhere should go on trying.

It is in that spirit that we are proposing an international conference that will bring together all the main actors in this crisis and leaders of important nations and regional and international organisations to explore short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions to the crisis that confronts us which actually began in 2014. At the crux of it is of course the current war in Ukraine. The conference must at all costs bring the war to an immediate end. In doing so, it should conduct an honest examination of the trends and forces that led to the war. It must also analyse the central security concerns of our time with the clear aim of constructing a viable global security architecture. This architecture should eliminate the hegemonic power of any one nation or cluster of nations over the international system.

Given the disastrous consequences of sanctions, the conference should also eliminate all unilateral sanctions and subject collective sanctions undertaken through the UN to strict controls and checks by the UN General Assembly. For instance, only if 90% of GA members vote for a sanction should it be applied. Its implementation should be monitored by a special committee of GA members which will recommend when the sanction should be lifted.

Finally, who in the international arena should initiate the proposed conference? All its shortcomings notwithstanding, the office of the UN Secretary-General is the best institution to take up this challenge. It is an office that commands legitimacy in relation to the task at hand. Besides, the UN Secretary-General has the authority to do so.

It is urgent. And he must act immediately.

*

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. Chandra Muzaffar, Founder and President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), prominent human rights advocate, author and academic, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from The LIbertarian 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.

***

Global Research Editor’s Note

In December 2013, Moscow signed a bilateral agreement with the Yanukovych government in Kiev pertaining to the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait, connecting Eastern Crimea (which was part of Ukraine) with Russia’s Krasnodar region.

That agreement was a followup to an initial agreement signed in April 2010 between the two governments.

The Russia-Ukraine 2013 agreement pertaining to the construction of the bridge had, for all purposes already been scrapped before March 16, 2014.

Image right: new Kerch bridge links Eastern Crimea (road and rail transportation) to  Russia’s Krasnodar region. (image right).

Crimea’s union to Russia was already in the pipeline prior to the referendum, it was a fait accompli.

Less than two weeks before the March 16 2014 Referendum, at the height of the crisis in Ukraine, Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered the state-road building corporation Avtodor, or “Russian Highways” “to create a subsidiary company that would oversee the building of a bridge across the Kerch Strait”.

This bridge was geared towards train transport routes linking Western and Eastern Europe to the Caspian Sea basin, Kazakhstan and China. It is therefore an integral part of the Eurasian Project (linking up with China’s Belt and Road initiative).  

In recent developments, “former Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, said that the Crimean Bridge is a legitimate target for attack by Ukraine”.

See Ukraine News article below.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 12, 2022

***

Former Commander-in-Chief of the NATO Allied Forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, said that the Crimean Bridge is a legitimate target for attack by Ukraine. It is reported by Express on Friday, July 8.

Breedlove indicated that damage to the Crimean Bridge would be a devastating blow to the Kremlin, as it links the Russian mainland to the peninsula. The General called on Ukraine to attack the bridge with Harpoon missiles.

“The Kerch Bridge is a legitimate target. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Russians are worried about the Kerch Bridge. For them, it is incredibly important. Now that the West has provided Ukraine with Harpoon subsonic cruise missiles with a range of up to 200 miles (321 km), I think the Russians have every reason to worry that Ukraine could attack the bridge,” Breedlove said.

The General said that all bridges have their weak points, and if to hit the Kerch Bridge in the right place, it can fail for some time, but to destroy the structure a more massive bombardment is needed.

As Ukrainian News Agency reported, on April 21, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleksii Danilov said that as soon as Kyiv had a chance to hit the Kerch or Crimean bridge, it would be done.

On June 15, Major General of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Dmytro Marchenko, in an interview with Radio Liberty, said that the Crimean Bridge would be the number one target for destruction.

On June 16, the Defense Intelligence under the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine received and published detailed technical documentation of the Crimean Bridge.

*

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 Ukrainian News

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 Wednesday, July 13, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) will vote on an extension of the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Office (BINUH) in Haiti. Since beginning a 2-year term on the UNSC, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico has supported U.S.-backed initiatives that would extend BINUH’s occupation of Haiti. Mexico and the United States are “co-penholders” for this process, indicating the leadership role of the Mexican government in bringing forth this year’s UNSC resolution on Haiti. 

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) condemns in the strongest possible terms Mexico spearheading the renewal of the United Nations Integrated Office (BINUH)’s mandate in Haiti. The Haitian people view BINUH’s presence as a foreign occupation that undercuts Haiti’s independence and sovereignty. In solidarity, BAP, along with other civil society organizations, delivered an open letter to President López Obrador deploring Mexico’s role in extending the UN occupation.

In this letter, we ask AMLO to reconsider Mexico’s role as a co-penholder (with the United States) of the UNSC mandate, effectively serving the interests of Western imperialism in Haiti. We argue that not only does the UN occupation deny the sovereignty of the Haitian people, but it has both increased violence and instability in the republic while undermining the goal of national independence and self-determination for all countries in the Americas.

AMLO has emerged as one of the more progressive voices in the hemisphere, ostensibly working towards more equitable relationships between the peoples and nations of the region. BAP was heartened by and commended AMLO’s decision not to attend last month’s Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, as a call for fair representation and recognition of the sovereignty of all nations. In this vein, we have asked AMLO if — for some reason — Haiti does not count among those countries whose sovereignty and independence should be respected.

Like Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2004, who displayed his “leadership” by spearheading military action during the 2004-17 UN occupation of Haiti (MINUSTAH), AMLO’s support of BINUH’s mandate will result in the Haitian people paying the price for others’ political gains. Unfortunately, this is all too common among so-called “progressive” and “leftist” politicians in the Americas, who conform to the U.S.-led imperialistic system that these UN occupations represent.

Instead, we ask AMLO to contribute toward ending the foreign control of Haiti. This would be a positive step toward allowing Haitian people to determine their own fate, reversing regional militarization, and facilitating the realization of the Americas as a Zone of Peace, as the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States has called for.

We say No to Occupation. Yes to Self-Determination.

*

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 Juvenal Balán

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.

***

Trial Site News recently were able to review leaked internal emails from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and meeting report between the agency and Pfizer. The EMA oversees the evaluation and supervision of medicinal products for the European Union. Like other regulatory health bodies, its main responsibility is to protect and promote public health. Snapshots of internal EMA email correspondence; a November 26, 2020, PowerPoint presentation from a pivotal meeting between Pfizer and the agency, as well as a confidential 43-page Pfizer report were provided by an anonymous source because of their trust in Trial Site’s commitment to transparency, accessibility, and accountability in furtherance of a highly ethical, quality-focused and public health-centric biomedical research industry.

Regulatory agencies, like the EMA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) are chartered to make decisions based to better the public. External influences such as political or media pressure are not meant to be a driving factor in their decision-making, however, when it came to pandemic conditions and the fast-tracked conditional marketing authorization of the Covid-19 vaccines (particularly for the mRNA-based vaccines produced by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna), it appears the latter won the day.

The time period of the email correspondence in question stretches from November 10 – 25, 2020, just weeks before the EMA granted CMA (conditional marketing authorization) for the Pfizer-BioNTech Covdid-19 vaccine on December 21, 2020.

The FDA granted EUA (emergency use authorization) for this vaccine on December 11 with the MHRA making it first to the finish line on December 2. Here this author uses the term ‘finish line,’ as the emails do reveal an intense, almost competitive-like rush to authorize the Covid-19 vaccines, as quickly as possible. Understandably, the world was gripped by a pandemic at the time, where there was immense impetus to authorize a vaccine to protect people from the novel coronavirus.

The Rush into EUA

In an email from Marco Cavaleri, at the time the EMA’s Head of Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy, communicated with urgency how the U.S. FDA “are going to rush into EUA.”

Cavaleri refers to this ‘rush’ being ‘pushed hard by Azar and US GOV.’ Under the Trump administration, Alex Azar, former pharmaceutical executive was the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from 2018-2021. The FDA is an agency that falls directly under the HHS.

It’s worth noting that when Azar was former president of Lilly USA LLC, a division of Eli Lilly, drug prices skyrocketed under his leadership. The pharmaceutical company was also embroiled in a class-action lawsuit under his tenure where it was accused of exploiting the drug pricing system to increase profits for its insulin drug. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean this executive was complicit in any way, but the timing is noteworthy.

Cavaleri’s email speaks to the extent of how politics (and the US government) was driving the FDA’s regulatory process, making sure it was going at ‘warp speed’. And of course, on that note Trump’s Operation Warp Speed was to ensure all vaccine development records would be shattered. The intentions were undoubtedly good given the outbreak of the worst pandemic in a century.

However, across the Atlantic in Europe’s regulatory agency tension mounted as the pressure to accelerate deadlines made the air and general mood tense—the pressure and anxiety was palpable in the reviewed email exchanges.

Persons of high integrity and clarity as to their roles and commitments as stewards of public health emerged. For example, one individual demonstrated palpable concern over accelerated timelines to ensure they would meet the ‘deadline’ for vaccine authorization at the expense of a robust assessment. He was Noel Wathion, at the time the EMA’s deputy executive director, but who has since retired. This EMA official importantly pointed out, ‘We are speeding up as much as possible, but we also need to make sure that our scientific assessment is as robust as possible. Let’s not forget the responsibility/accountability attached to the recommendation to the EC to grant a CMA.’

Wathion assumes the FDA (and the MHRA’s) EUA would be issued before the EMA granted its own CMA, which turned out to be correct. What’s interesting is his concern to address the ‘damage limitation’ resulting from the probable outcome of the EMA finishing last in this regulatory race and his fear that this would result in public opinion and the media turning against the agency.   Speed seemingly superseded concerns of quality based on a careful review of these emails.

In a November 19 email, Wathion reveals a ‘rather tense’ TC (teleconference call) with the European Commissioner (Ursula von der Leyen) which was ‘at times even a bit unpleasant.’ This reflects the mounting pressure which the EMA staff were under to issue CMA quickly following an EUA granted by the FDA/MHRA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Von der Leyen is implicated in potentially being responsible for this tense environment with ‘a delay of several weeks…not easily acceptable for the EC [European Commission].’

In early 2022, Trial Sites News reported how von der Leyen was embroiled in scandal when a group of independent MEPs demanded her immediate resignation and full disclosure of a series of private text messages between her and Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla. Only a small portion of these texts were ever disclosed. Of the ones that were, they revealed her negotiating portions of a European-wide vaccine deal, unilaterally with Bourla via a series of texts! Clearly standard protocols in Europe were thrown out the window in favor of expediency and this seemingly was tied to a unified competitive pressure on all three regulatory agencies.

Wathion lays bare his reflections after this particular TC, and shockingly writes how ‘the political fall-out seems to be too high even if the “technical” level at the MSs [Member States] could defend such a delay in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible.’  Put another way the continuous broadcast of science first appeared as a cover for politics first.

Wathion points out that a potential delay of several weeks to secure ‘robust assurance in particular as regards CMC and safety’ will be met with ‘criticism from various parties,’ including media, EC (European Commission) and EP (European Parliament). Wathion speaks of his fear that if the deadline ‘to align as much as possible with the “approval” timing by FDA/MHRA’ cannot be met- ‘we will be overwhelmed from all fronts and be in the middle of the storm.’ However, this potential delay appeared to be necessary ‘in order to make the outcome of the scientific review as robust as possible.’ This implies that speed at the expense of safety was the order of the day to avoid ‘political fallout.’ Clearly, politics was dictating Covid-19 vaccine authorisation protocol, not the science.

In the above email from Marco, the EMA official reveals that Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla ‘lobbied’ Peter Marks, and this could be interpreted as highly controversial, given Marks is the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the FDA. Pfizer’s apparent access into the federal watchdog raises significant questions at the least, if not introduces the possibility for disturbing entanglements between industry and a purportedly independent, scientific federal agency.

Major concerns with the integrity between vaccine batches

An email from Cavaleri (see below) reveals at that time the FDA knew of ‘some issues’ associated with the CMC which needed to be sorted out and may ‘end up being the difficult bit.’ CMC refers to the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, also referred to as pharmaceutical quality, which covers various procedures used to assess and ensure the safety and consistency between pharmaceutical product batches.

An email from Evdokia Korakianiti (an EMA scientific administrator) explains in more detail what these “issues” were and how they were in fact major concerns to do with the Pfizer- BioNTech vaccine.

Alarmingly, significant differences in the levels of mRNA integrity between Pfizer-BioNTech’s commercial (large scale) and clinical vaccine batches (small scale) were observed. ‘~78% mRNA integrity’ in the clinical ones and ‘~ 55% in the proposed commercial batches’ with the ‘root cause’ not yet identified. Safety and efficacy implications due to this concern were also noted in the email ‘as yet to be defined.’

In a confidential Pfizer report, which was also leaked along with the EMA emails, the company states that according to Acuitas Therapeutics’ (the biotech company who developed the lipid nanoparticle platform for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine) own general experience, ‘a minimum threshold is approximately 70%.’ (See screenshot below)

Then on page 30 it states: ‘The efficacy of the product is dependent on expression of the delivered RNA, which requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule.’ (See screenshot below)

This exact phrase ‘requires a sufficiently intact RNA molecule’ was used in the email from EMA staffer, Evdokia Korakianiti, which I included above, sent on November 23, 2020- now we likely know where Korakianiti referenced it from.

For the commercial batches (which were going to be rolled out across the globe) to have such a significantly lower level of mRNA integrity (intact RNA molecule) is greatly concerning given its intrinsic tie to the efficacy and potential safety of the product.

The next day Veronika Jekerle, Head of Pharmacy Quality Office, writes to Evdokia (see below).

The difference in the level of mRNA integrity was again noted as a major concern ‘shared by most member states’ and its ‘potential impact on safety.’ Jekerle highlights in bold, “Anapproval by the end of the year could potentially be possible, if these concerns + GMP will be resolved.”

This gives rise to the critical question- how were all these concerns resolved when CMA was granted only a few weeks later, on December 21? A possible way it was resolved is explained later in this report.

In contrast to the concerns of some of the other EMA officials, Marco Cavaleri writes around the same time in the following email (see below) that the mRNA content is not a major concern, according to the FDA – ‘the issue on the mRNA content not perceived as major.’ He also shockingly states, ‘unclear if GCP inspections ever done.’ This revelation is highly concerning given that GCP refers to Good Clinical Practise, which is ‘an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, conducting, recording and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects.’

What’s even more alarming is his following statement- ‘no major interest from FDA.’ This looks to reveal the regulatory agency’s apparent lack of concern or even interest on whether GCP inspections were completed, in the context of Pfizer’s clinical trials, which was relied on by the FDA to grant EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. In one of this author’s previous investigative reports for Trial Site News, we noted that the FDA only inspected 1% of Pfizer’s trial sites.

Further damming information is revealed (see screenshot below) when multiple regulatory agencies: Health Canada (HC), EMA, MHRA and FDA are all aware of the issue with % mRNA integrity, yet FDA and Health Canada make an unsubstantiated claim that ‘safety concerns associated. Are more of a theoretical concern.’

Health Canada then appears to contradict itself because its later described as showing particular concern about one region receiving ‘all the suboptimal material.’ Obviously, it didn’t want to be that region.

Shockingly, the end of the email reveals the ‘Applicant [Pfizer] has shared with FDA and us [EMA]/MHRA only today and issue with visible particles in the DP [drug product] appears to be lipid nanoparticle components.)’

This is highly concerning due to this significant issue being made known to the three key regulatory agencies on November 25, only a few weeks away before the EMA granted CMA and the FDA granted EUA for the Pfizer vaccine. Alarmingly, it was just days before the MHRA granted authorization in the UK on December 2, 2020. Veronika’s assumption that the ‘visible particles’ could be LNPs (lipid nanoparticles) is hard to accept given nanoparticles are not visible to the naked eye. Other anomalies were apparent, yet this was probably still a historical effort in terms of speed of vaccine development. It seems clear however some more time was needed.

How % mRNA integrity was apparently resolved

The discrepancy between batches appears to have may been resolved when it’s mentioned that the ‘latest lots [received by the FDA] indicate the % intact RNA are back around 70-75%.’

However, in a leaked report of a meeting with Pfizer and the EMA on November 26, 2020, a day after Veronika’s email, it shockingly reveals that the RNA integrity specification was revised down to >=50% for drug product shelf life, significantly lower than the minimum threshold of 70% that Acuitas Therapeutics had stipulated and the average 78% of the clinical batches. Was this the EMA’s (and potentially FDA/MHRA/HC) way of ‘resolving’ the issue to ensure ‘an approval by the end of the year’?

Mention is made of ‘uncertainties about consistency of product quality and hence uncertainty as regards product safety and efficacy of the commercial product.’ Yet, it’s baffling how lowering the RNA integrity specification would remedy that major objection.

In another slide the artifact states, ‘Truncated [shortened] and modified RNA species should be regarded as product- related impurities.’ This confirms that these shortened mRNA species which lowered the level of %mRNA integrity were classed as impurities. Another alarming concern arising from these impurities is flagged ‘the possibility of translated proteins other than intended spike protein (S1 S2) resulted from truncated and/or modified mRNA species should be addressed.’ (See screenshot below)