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

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

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

***

In two prior columns, which can be accessed here and here, Mark Skidmore and I wrote about the $21 trillion in federal government transactions in the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that our government indicated were undocumented and unexplained.

As the concerns and questions we raised gained traction, investigative reporter Dave Lindorff dug into the issue, recently publishing the article “Exclusive: The Pentagon’s Massive Accounting Fraud Exposed” in The Nation (2018). 

Based on a series of interviews with current and former government officials, Lindorff concluded that Pentagon accounting is “phony”, composed of made up numbers designed to obfuscate and thus propelling “US military spending higher year after year”.

The issue received additional attention in the media when incoming Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to the $21 trillion in a Tweet:

$21 TRILLION of Pentagon financial transactions “could not be traced, documented, or explained.” $21T in Pentagon accounting errors. Medicare for All costs ~$32T. That means %66% of Medicare for All could have been funded already by the Pentagon. And that’s before premiums.

This comment captured the attention of numerous media outlets including the New York Times and the Washington Post where the focus was on fact checking (see here and here, for example). The near universal assessment was that the comment by Ocasio-Cortez was misleading—the $21 trillion in undocumentable transactions do not reflect actual unauthorized spending. However, there is a very important point that is missed by nearly everyone.

Click here to read the full article in Forbes (January 2019)

*

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

Featured image is from Forbes

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

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

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

***

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in highbrow periodicals. – George Orwell, “Freedom of the Press”

Recently, a friend told me she’d taken part in a webinar conducted by the Council of Canadians. The webinar included First Nations people speaking about RCMP mistreatment of indigenous peoples on reserve. It was contrasted with the peaceful disbursement of freedom convoy protesters in Ottawa on February 18th.

The webinar narrative was partially true, likely informed by mainstream news reports. RCMP policing among First Nations people needs to be repaired. But, the Trucker Freedom Convoy in Ottawa wasn’t broken up peacefully. Just ask Candice “Candy” Sero.

Sero is a full-blood Mohawk woman from Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory in Hastings County, Ontario. On February 18, I watched live footage online of mounted police officers charging through the freedom protester crowd and trampling Candy Sero as she stood with her wheeled walker. She fell to the ground. A horse stepped on her shoulder.

A man in the crowd started yelling with growing desperation, “Oh my gosh. Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness. Look what you did. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. Look what you did to her. You trampled on the lady… Shame on you. Shame on everyone of you. Shame on you…”

Candy Sero survived the trampling. But she suffered a broken clavicle.

However, what I saw unfolding live in downtown Ottawa wasn’t part of the new orthodoxy. The live footage I saw wasn’t part of what right-thinking people would be shown, would accept. The people hosting the webinar could be forgiven.

But why did I have to depend on independent reporters and footage from protesters cell phones to reveal an ugly side to policing in Ottawa on February 18? Why weren’t the CBC or CTV covering these stories?

Why was I increasingly feeling set adrift from my NDP and Liberal political leaders?

My vote for Joe Clark in 1979 was the exception to my mostly voting NDP since 1980. My paternal grandfather voted for the United Farmer’s of Alberta party from 1921 until it collapsed in 1935, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation until 1961, and its successor – the New Democratic Party – until he died. NDP leader Tommy Douglas was a hero in my family. And so I supported causes like funding for the CBC, and giving donations at times to the Friends of the CBC.

Over the decades, I’ve been on the ‘left’ on a host of political debates: against NAFTA, keeping Canada out of the Iraq War, and more. I enthusiastically supported Jack Layton, NDP leader from 2003 to 2011, and was acquainted with him when I campaigned for him as a city counsellor when I’d lived in Toronto.

All governments require scrutiny

Still, I knew Liberal or NDP governments were fallible. Jody Wilson-Raybould was a star Kwakʼwala indigenous Liberal candidate Vancouver riding next to mine in the 2015 federal election. She was given the dual portfolio of Minister of Justice and Attorney-General by prime minister Justin Trudeau. But in 2019, she was expelled from the Liberal caucus over the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Canada’s Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion later found that Trudeau improperly pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in an ongoing criminal bribery case. Trudeau’s impropriety concerned the Quebec-based construction company SNC-Lavalin and pressuring Wilson-Raybould to offer the company a deferred prosecution agreement.

In read her memoir, Indian in the Cabinet, Jody Wilson-Raybould described a one-on-one meeting with Justin Trudeau at the Fairmont-Pacific Rim Hotel in Vancouver on February 11, 2019. It took place while the SNC-Lavalin affair dominated the headlines. These lines from her memoir haunted me:

He asked if I trusted him. I could see the agitation visibly building in the prime minister. His mood was shifting. I remember seeing it. I remember feeling it. I had seen and felt this before on a few occasions, when he would get frustrated and angry. But this was different. He became strident and disputed everything I had said. He made it clear that everyone in his office was telling the truth and that I…and others, were not. He told me I had not experienced what I said I did. He used the line that would later become public, that I had “experienced things differently.” I knew what he was really asking. What he was saying. In that moment I knew he wanted me to lie – to attest that what had occurred had not occurred.

By the time the pandemic began in March 2020, I had brought my manuscript Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored to a boutique publisher.

Early on, I heard from some friends who were beginning to question the official narrative about the pandemic. But most of my friends accepted mainstream news stories. I was shocked by accounts of people being put on ventilators. And boggled by the daily case counts, death counts. But, mostly I kept my own council.

Over the next 18 months I worked with editorial staff on editing, copyediting, proof reading, graphic design, and marketing for my book, working with a publicist. The lockdowns, semi-lockdowns and occasional modest restrictions were inconvenient. But, I had my home. I had my computer. In Vancouver, I could order take-out from restaurants. I was rolling with things. Not altogether comfortably. But, I was comfortable enough. I had a deadline to get my book to publication on the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Vaccine adverse events get personal

My comfort with the mainstream media pandemic narrative changed abruptly in June 2021. A close family friend I’d known since early childhood eagerly stepped up to get his first shot of AstraZeneca. Within 18 hours he suffered a brain aneurysm. He couldn’t speak. He couldn’t walk. He couldn’t work. His mother suffered from greatly reduced lung capacity after her first dose.

As 2021 rolled along, several others in my wide circle across North America were injured by mRNA vaccines. Many others were learning about adverse events, AND calling into question how rare the side effects were.

Still, the media daily reported these vaccines were “safe and effective.” Though on August 6, 2021, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that the Covid-19 vaccines did not stop or reduce transmission, or prevent infection. What was being offered as the only solution to the pandemic didn’t seem to be able to deliver what it was peddled to solve.

Tolerance

In late December 2021, prime minister Justin Trudeau called the unvaccinated “misogynist, racist… We have a choice to make. Do we tolerate these people?” Given Trudeau’s carefully crafted image, this was jarring, illiberal. Classic liberalism has championed the value of tolerance. In 1789, the National Constituent Assembly of the French Revolution passed its Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Article 10 stated:

“No-one shall be interfered with for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their practice does not disturb public order as established by the law.”

But in 2021, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was signaling to Canadians that there were categories of people that maybe shouldn’t be tolerated. He was characterizing legal protests, of the right and freedom to assemble – established under the Canadian charter – as illegal.

Since he’d become leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau’s public image was that of someone who was inclusive. Trudeau was someone who cared about the average person. He was someone who listened to their concerns. But now, the prime minister was openly disdainful, calling the protesters everything but classist. Justin Trudeau’s unwavering rhetoric helped cement disgust toward the protesters among many Canadians.

Collapse of liberalism in Canada

What did the Liberal Party of Canada have to do with liberalism in 2022? Classical liberalism emerged with the collapse of feudalism and the slow erosion of church authority in the Renaissance.

Liberalism began with the invention of the printing press, the flowering of culture in the vernacular (non-Latin) languages among the commoners, and widespread educational reform. Classic liberalism advanced the need for non-interference and independence of citizens under the rule of law.

In his 2003 book, LiberalismJohn Gray writes that classical liberalism consists of these four pillars.

First, “it is individualist, in that it asserts the primacy of the person against any collectivity.”

Secondly, liberalism is “egalitarian, in that it confers on all human beings the same basic moral status.” It is universalist in its inclusion of all persons regardless of any distinguishing features – all having the same moral worth.

And fourthly, liberalism anticipates the march of human progress attained through critical reason to advance social wellbeing. The word liberal comes from the Latin liber which means “free.”

In the 18th and 19th centuries liberal politicians championed causes that included the 6-day/48-hour workweek, welfare, child labour laws and public schooling, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, universal suffrage, unemployment insurance, social security, and the abolition of slavery.

Bodily integrity and security of the person

Liberalism also advanced the value of bodily integrity. This included i) a women’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, ii) An individual’s right to not be sold into slavery or forced labour, iii) The right not to be tortured, iv) The right not to be sexually assaulted, v) and The right to the security of one’s person. The latter included informed decisions about taking medical treatments and procedures.

After World War II the security of one’s person was the catalyst for creating the Nuremberg Code of August 1947. In the Nuremberg Trial, German physicians were held responsible, and sentenced, for conducting unethical medical procedures on humans during the war. The judges at Nuremberg rendered this verdict in relation to any medical procedure or treatment, including:

  • Point 1: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
  • Point 4: The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  • Point 5: No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  • Point 6: The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Off-message data

Almost 75 years later, was there reason to be concerned that the Covid vaccines could result in death or disabling injury? Were these vaccines riskier than advertised? The prime minister declared “the science is settled.” The Covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective.

Yet, documents released by court-order in the USA revealed Pfizer knew by February 2021 that 1,223 people had died from taking their vaccine, according to the pharmaceutical companies Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports.

At the Centers for Disease Control’s on Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the system was blinking red. In January 2022 the number of Covid-19 vaccine deaths stood at over 23,000 in America.

As of May 13, 2022, the CDC’s cumulative reported deaths after Covid vaccination in the USA stands at 28,141. This was in less than a year and a half. Since 1990, VAERS has been criticized for notorious underreporting.

Comparing VAERS data on Covid-19 vaccines with other CDC data is illuminating. Merck’s anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx, was pulled from the American market in 2004 after five years. In 2004 VAERS reported 6,636 people had died in reaction to taking Vioxx. An article in the Lancet determined Vioxx caused 88,000 heart attacks, and 38,000 of these died.

VAERS 6,636 reported Vioxx deaths turned out to reflect only 17% of the actual deaths. VAERS 5-year Vioxx data is less than 24% of deaths compared to experimental Covid vaccines reported in less than 18 months.

What if, like Vioxx, the 28,000 deaths from Covid-19 vaccines represent only 17% of the actual deaths and were 165,000? Or higher? It would appear the Covid-19 vaccines don’t meet the standards set in the Nuremberg Code, based on Pfizer’s own internal reports alone.

May 2022, Canadian hospital statistics on Covid-19 admissions found 50% had received the 3rd shot (booster), 32% were “fully vaccinated,” 2% had one shot – “partially vaccinated” – and 16% were unvaccinated. This is consistent with hospitalization trends since the start of 2022. Could this be due to a National Institutes of Health and Moderna study finding that the mRNA vaccine is “impeding the development of the anti-nucleocapsid antibodies” and suppressing the immunity of the vaccinated?

A study published by the NIH titled “‘Pandemic of the unvaccinated’? At midlife, white people are less vaccinated but still at less risk of Covid-19 mortality in Minnesota” suggested what was at play was a “pandemic of the disadvantaged.”

Autonomy

Nonetheless, Canadians were required to get two doses. When I got fully vaccinated, I no longer believed the vaccine would keep me safe from infection or injury. A mix of social obligations, personal circumstances, and social coercion played a big role.

In America, Dr. Anthony Fauci was alleging the spread of Covid was due to a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.

The claim was repeated in Canada.

Yet Peter Doshi, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British Medical Journal, concluded “We are not in a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Doshi said, 

“It saddens me that we as a society are oversaturated with the attitude of ‘everybody knows,’ which limits intellectual curiosity and leads to self-censorship.” If hospitalizations and deaths occur almost exclusively in unvaccinated people, “why would booster shots be necessary?” asked Doshi.

“And why would the statistics be so different in the United Kingdom, where most hospitalizations and deaths from COVID occur among the fully vaccinated? There’s a correlation there that you should be curious about,” Doshi said. “Something’s not right.”

But Canadian authorities barreled along. The penalty for refusing vaccination in Canada for many has meant getting fired with no employment insurance.

In New Brunswick the government let stores decide if they would allow the unvaccinated to buy groceries.

In Quebec, the premier considered placing a tax on the unvaccinated. Effective November 30, 2021, unvaccinated Canadians were prohibited from traveling by air or train domestically, and from leaving the country by plane, train or ship.

Though these policies are mandated by governments that are purportedly ‘liberal,’ they reveal a serious collapse of liberalism in Canada. For centuries, liberalism has advanced the cause of citizen autonomy: the capacity of individuals in a nation state to make informed decisions free of coercion. But, coercion has been a regular feature accompanying these measures.

Heroes & villains

On March 31, 2021, Justin Trudeau lauded Canadian truckers as heroes of the pandemic. He tweeted:

“While many of us are working from home, there are others who aren’t able to do that – like truck drivers who are working day and night to make sure our shelves are stocked. So when you can, please #ThankATrucker for everything they’re doing and help them however you can.”

But as 2022 began, the Trudeau government determined that unvaccinated truckers WOULD not be allowed to cross the Canada-U.S. border, effective January 15, 2022. The Canadian Trucking Alliance (CTA), the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters have all asked the federal government to either eliminate or postpone the mandate. Factoring in American truck drivers, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the American Trucking Associations estimated that as many as 32,000, or 20%, of the 160,000 Canadian and American cross-border truck drivers could be taken off the highways by the vaccination requirement.

When the new trucker mandate was enacted on January 15th, it crossed a line for many Canadians. Based on transmission of the virus by the vaccinated, and truckers never being super-spreaders, there was no defensible medical reason to require them to be vaccinated.

By January 22 a Trucker Freedom Convoy formed in Prince George and Vancouver, British Columbia. Their destination was Ottawa. On January 26, prime minister Trudeau derided those joining the convoy as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” and claimed he was “following the science.”

As the convoy headed east during January’s freezing temperatures, truckers reported what was unfolding.

The convoy is 100kms long and growing all the time. The support people have is overwhelming. Coming into Winnipeg yesterday was pretty emotional the com radios went pretty quiet because no one could find words to express what we felt…people packed on the shoulders of the streets. Cars parked and people for miles and miles on the ring road around the city. On the four lane going out of Winnipeg…ended up driving 5 to 20 km/hr for hours and hours.

People had camp fires going in the ditches, fire works… Crane trucks with the booms up with signs, lights flashing, and flags. The shoulders of the four lane packed with people and cars. Overpasses packed with people. Tons of families little kids all bundled up. Everyone was jumping, dancing, waving signs, flags, and flash lights. All in -30C.”

CBC news footage on January 27 confirmed a sea of Canadian flags greeting the convoy as it headed to Ottawa.

As convoys from British Columbia departed on January 23, those charged with standing on guard for Canada were remarkably passive. CSIS, the RCMP and the Canadian military had access to surveillance of everyone’s phone calls, text messages, and emails among the organizers of the convoy (and all Canadians). Yet, no one in the military, CSIS or the RCMP expressed any concern about a coup or insurrection. There was no attempt by those in authority to halt Ottawa-bound convoys from the West or the Maritimes from arriving in Ottawa the week of January 23rd.

As the convoy arrived in Ottawa on January 28, on the Power and Politics show, CBC announcer Nil Koksal commented “there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, or perhaps even instigating it from the outside.”

Another CBC commentator mused

“I don’t know if it’s far-fetched to ask but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows… perhaps even instigating it…”

The allegations were retracted by the CBC on February 4. As well, there was a lot of media hype about the convoy being a white supremacist conspiracy. But federal financial investigators found no evidence of the charge.

Peaceful protest

Prime minister Justin Trudeau went into an undisclosed location after having caught COVID. The PM had received two vaccines and the booster, which might be seen as undercutting the need to mandate them. He ridiculed the whole convoy as “an insult to truth.”

Rex Murphy stood nearly alone, rebuking his counterparts in the Canadian media for its “alarmist rhetoric,” WHO WERE describing the arriving protesters as “an occupying force.” Murphy observed:

The protest has been actually not mainly but overwhelmingly peaceful, and the political and major press response, wildly alarmist and ominous. Ottawa shops remain with their windows intact, no assaults on police stations or police being bombarded with sticks and stones, no armed patrols by the truckers telling people where they could go or not go, and a splendid number of rather endearing incidents that have failed to make it to national or local press.”

Murphy lambasted slanted media coverage depicting the protesters as Nazis, based on a lone swastika carried by a dodgy man shunned by the crowd.

The New York Times commented:

“The protests…blocked traffic on major streets downtown, disrupted business and tormented residents with incessant honking. But they were by and large nonviolent. Organizers inflated bouncy castles in the street, and people brought small children and dogs. DJs played music from a flatbed truck turned into a stage. At one point people soaked in a hot tub erected in front of the Parliament building.”

This was hardly a recipe for insurrection.

Barring Australia and China, during the pandemic Canada had some of the harshest restrictions in the world. Many citizens wanted government accountability and a public discussion about the rationale for the mandates. National Post reporter Rupa Subramanya, Bill Gates, Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau weren’t alone being triple-vaxxed and still getting Covid. Based on hospitalizations, this was happening to a lot of Canadians who got the booster.

Allegations of property damage and arson

Trucker Freedom Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson Q.C., reports that during the first week after the trucks arrived the trucks were vandalized.

Groups of Antifa were coming through at night in their black hoodies and backpacks and black jeans. And they would come when the truckers were sleeping and knife their tires and cut their air lines and spray paint the trucks. They would vandalize the trucks. So, each block had a block captain for that area of trucks. And they had a watch system so that when an Antifa person would show up, the trucker would grab them, call 9-1-1 and the police would come, arrest that guy and take him away. That would happen three instances in the night. Guess what the police chief would do the next day? He’d say ‘we had three arrests for property damage in the downtown core last night’ The arrests were Antifa, the 9-1-1 calls were from truckers.”

But Ottawa police left it to the media to infer the vandals, those responsible for “property damage,” were convoy protesters. But politicians and the press, hunting for any indication of violence on the part of the protests continued apace.

On the morning of February 6, Matias Munoz alleged two arsonists came to an apartment building at Metcalfe and Lisgar at 5 AM. with fire starter bricks into the lobby. He tweeted: “One of them taped the door handles so no one could get in or out” (including the arsonists).

According to the story, a tenant saw the arsonists lighting a fire in the lobby, asked if they were truckers. And then decided to go to bed without calling 911. Which is what you’d do if you knew you were in a building that was on fire.

Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson held an emergency meeting of city council condemning the “malicious intent” of the convoy protesters. “Yesterday we learned of a horrific story that clearly demonstrates the malicious intent of the protesters occupying our city.”

But the Ottawa Deputy Chief told the press on February 8, “We don’t have any direct linkage between the occupation — the demonstrators — and that act.” On March 21, Ottawa police confirmed the person charged with the February 6th arson had nothing to do with the convoy protest.

On April 8th, Rex Murphy reported:

This week, we found out that the attempt to burn down an apartment building in Ottawa, which was so widely and wildly heralded during the Freedom Convoy protest, had nothing to do with the truckers. Please let this sink in.

At the time, such was the volume of assumption, innuendo and outright allegation that everyone from Nanaimo, B.C., to Nain, N.L., formed the impression that this despicable action, an outrage by any standard, was the work of the truckers. Not true. False. Nothing to do at all with the protesters. It was allegedly the work of two Ottawa miscreants who were working alone.”

Crowdfunding

As the convoy protest continued, over 130,0000 individuals contributed to crowdfunding on GoFundMe. When this was shut down on February 4, donors gave to GiveSendGo. Funds raised for the truckers soon reached $12.7 million, plus several million more in cryptocurrencies. The average donation was $75.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s brother-in-law donated $13,000 dollars to the Convoy. When the media found out, Jodver Singh Dhaliwal said he “didn’t know what the Convoy was all about.” It would seem prudent for anyone giving a $13,000 donation to look into what the donation was in support of. But, never mind.

The CBC alleged on February 10 that donors to the crowdfunding efforts were largely Trump supporters and foreign racists meddling in Canadian domestic affairs. But, GoFundMe testified to the House of Commons Safety Committee on March 3 “Our records show that 88% of donated funds originated in Canada.” This was about 113,000 Canadians. CBC eventually retracted their story that donors were mostly foreign.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford was among those addressing the protesters. On February 12, Peckford told the Freedom Convoy he worked with the prime minister’s father and other Canadian premiers to enshrine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The April 1982 charter that Peckford and his counterparts signed gave Canadian citizens these inalienable rights:

  • 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (including) c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association.
  • 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
  • Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
    a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
    b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
  • 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived…

Truckers who drove by themselves to take essential supplies to keep the economy running had for two years not been spreading Covid. Yet, now were being deprived of their charter rights: of mobility, to remain in and leave Canada, and to pursue a livelihood. Peckford slammed the vaccine mandates as a violation of the Charter.

Legal protest

Justin Trudeau, Chrystia Freeland and other Liberal cabinet ministers, repeatedly referred to the convoy protest as “illegal.” But on February 7 Ontario Chief Justice McLean ruled the protest was legal. 

He wrote:

the defendents and other persons remain at liberty to engage in a peaceful, lawful and safe protest.”

Ottawa city councillor Dianne Deans said the protesters were terrorists. This is a nationwide insurrection.

Yet, Barry MacKillop, deputy-director of FINTRAC, the federal organization that goes after terrorism funds and criminal money-laundering, told the Commons finance committee that there was not a shred of illegal activity associated with the trucker convoy. The protests had nothing to do with domestic terrorism or money-laundering.

Calls for dialogue

Several MPs with the Liberal Party disagreed publicly with the prime minister, advising the need for Trudeau to listen to citizens “legitimate concerns.” “It is time to stop dividing people, to stop pitting one part of the population against another,” said MP Joel Lightbound on February 8. Liberal MPs Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Yves Robillard agreed with Lightbound.

While the protest continued, scientists and physicians present with the convoy wanted to have a discussion with politicians and Dr. Theresa Tam and Dr. Howard Njoo (Public Health Agency of Canada), and Dr. Shelley Deeks (chair of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization). For two years there was no public discussion, debate, or scrutiny REGARDING the veracity of the claims of politicians and public health officials about the Covid vaccines, mask mandates, lockdowns or social distancing. There was no media exposure to any dissenting or alternate opinion, no matter the credentials of those asking for accountability.

After two years of “we’ve got the science, so shut up,” protesters said back up your claims. But Tam, Njoo and Deeks, along with the prime minister and his cabinet, avoided all opportunities to conduct public or private discussions.

Racists, misogynists

The media made much ado about a single protester sporting a Nazi swastika, and another masked man with a confederate flag. Justin Trudeau emerged from HIS COVID WITHDRAWAL from time to time to denounce the “racist, misogynist” protesters.

But on the ground others experienced things differently. Rupa Subramanya, reporting for the National Post and the Wall Street Journal is an Indo-Canadian. Throughout the protest, she was their daily visiting and interviewing people.

Subramanya said in an interview:

I wanted to go there and make up my own mind. The reality of these protesters, the truckers, starting from Day 1, is very different from the received narrative that was already in place – propaganda – because that is really what it amounted to. These people were a cross-section of Canadians. They were mostly working-class.

I encountered people of colour. I saw new immigrants. I saw children. I saw women. I saw the old, the young. Franco-Canadians, Anglo-Canadians. A lot of camaraderie. I spent three weeks at the protest every day, several times a day. I didn’t encounter a single racist, white supremacist, or even a misogynist.

These were some of the warmest, friendliest, people I’ve ever met in my life, two decades here, in Canada. It was quite unusual that my perspective as a person of colour who went into the protests was so different from the mainstream coverage. There was this total disconnect between what was being said and what I personally experienced.” Or as prime minister Justin Trudeau might have suggested, Rupa Subramanya “experienced things differently.”

When Asian-Canadian Doctor Daniel Nagase spoke from the stage he received nothing but applause. The same was the case for longtime Global TV news writer Indo-Canadian journalist Anita KrishnaDr. Julie Ponesse was another woman providing leadership, and speaking to a receptive crowd. Nonetheless, a completely different political and media depiction of the protesters saturated the news from Day 1. The fascist insurrection needed to be stopped to prevent a coup.

Who were these protesters?

Though the media framed the protest as “anti-vax,” Rupa Subramanya found most were vaccinated in the Ottawa crowd. Numbers had been infected with Covid and recovered. They wanted to know why natural immunity wasn’t accepted, for the first time in history, as part of a person’s medical history? The protesters also had fundamental questions about the erosion of Canadian democracy and infringement of charter rights.

Rupa Subramanya interviewed “Peter the trucker, who I spoke to very close to where I live (in downtown Ottawa). He pointed to my building and he said, you know, ‘I put the concrete stairs in that building.’”

The truckers were the people who delivered the food, delivered the hospital supplies, the oil and gas, construction materials for building, road and bridge upgrades and repairs, and botox to keep news anchors looking ten years younger on their daily newscasts. They’d delivered books from Amazon, and more for two years.

A downtown Ottawa data scientist named David lived on Kent Street, and saw the protesters “camped out below my bedroom window.” Interested to meet his new neighbors, David introduced himself. He walked to many of the protesters, including an indigenous man from Manitloulin Island who showed David his medicine wheel.

On his blog, David concluded that night he’d “met someone from every province except PEI. They all have a deep love for this country. They believe in it. They believe in Canadians. These are the people that Canada relies on to build its infrastructure, deliver its goods, and fill the ranks of its military in times of war.

“The overwhelming concern they have is that the vaccine mandates are creating an untouchable class of Canadians…. They see their government willing to push a class of people outside the boundaries of society, deny them a livelihood, and deny them full membership in the most welcoming country in the world; And they said enough. Last night I learned my new neighbours are not a monstrous faceless occupying mob. They are our moral conscience reminding us…. We are not a country that makes an untouchable class out of our citizens.”

During the first week of the protest, news broke on February 2 raising concerns of many in the convoy that the lockdowns were nothing more than a government confidence game. That day the front page of the National Post ran with this headline: “Lockdowns only reduced COVID deaths by 0.2 per cent, John Hopkins study finds.”

Convoy and City of Ottawa letters of agreement

After February 8, Keith Wilson details how “there was a secret meeting between lawyers for the Convoy and City of Ottawa. The city wanted the trucks removed from the 5-way intersection near the Chateau Laurier. And the Convoy agreed to move the trucks.

Letters of agreement were signed and publicly released by the head of the Convoy, Tamara Lich, and Mayor Jim Watson. (This was) outlining a plan to move the trucks from downtown Ottawa side streets to a farm, and have people who wanted to protest be shuttled as pedestrians back to Parliament Hill. While Convoy leaders were moving trucks out of Ottawa Prime Minister Trudeau announced he was invoking the Emergency Act.

In an interview with Viva Frei, Wilson explained:

This was all in place by Friday, February 11 – Saturday, February 12. So, on Monday, February 14, the truckers started to move their trucks out of Ottawa. But not all the police were aware of this and so the police would stop them from moving the trucks out of the downtown core. However, after Convoy leaders got in touch with a Captain of the Ottawa police, they were able to get 40 trucks moved out of the downtown core to a farm. In Mayor Watson’s letter he acknowledged that moving the number of trucks the city wanted moved out of designated areas was a big operation that would take a number of days to accomplish. However, as the Convoy leaders were getting more trucks moved out of the downtown to de-escalate things, as the Mayor had requested, more Ottawa police kept stopping truckers from moving their trucks out of downtown Ottawa.”

Ottawa Police charged Tamara Lich with mischief for counseling truckers. Keith Wilson says:

“yes, she counseled truckers. She told truckers to move their trucks and open up emergency lanes in order to comply with the request of the City of Ottawa, and the Ottawa Police. They didn’t counsel any truckers to block a road. The word the Convoy leaders got from the Ottawa Police on Friday, February 11, to explain why they were stopping truckers from moving their trucks out of Ottawa, and off the side streets over to Wellington Street, was that they got their instructions to stop the trucks from moving from the Federal Government.”

Meanwhile, interim Ottawa Police chief Steve Bell told reporters “The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa is funded by the Ontario government and is empowered to seize children from families if necessary.” One trucker whose two teenagers were with him in his truck asked CBC reporter Joseph Tunney who was inferring his children were in danger said, “Are my children in danger for being in Ottawa? Is that what you’re saying to me? I have two teenagers here that are in my car. Are they in danger? Yes or no?”

Emergency Act

On the afternoon of Monday, February 14th, – Valentine’s Day – Justin Trudeau announced the invocation of the Emergency ActThe Emergency Act IS the successor to the War Measures Act.

The War Measures Act ceased to be in force the moment the Emergency Act was passed in parliament to replace it in July 1988. It was drafted by Perrin Beatty, Minister of Defense.

By the time Trudeau made his announcement, protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor had been cleared. While protests in Coutts (AB), Emerson (MB) and in the Pacific Highway Crossing (BC) were already in the process of being cleared by police using the legal powers they already had.

Yet, Justin Trudeau explained “It was only after we got advice from law enforcement that we invoked the Emergencies Act.” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said, “We are listening to law enforcement. According to law enforcement we need the Emergencies Act.” 

But none of this was true. On May 11, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lecki told a joint Commons-Senate Committee, “No, there was never a question of requesting the Emergencies Act. We successfully used a measured approach and existing legislation to resolve (the) blockades.” Neither did the Ottawa Police or the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The National Post observed that:

The Ottawa Mayor, if requested by the chief of police, could invoke (municipal) Section 4 to prohibit public assemblies, or perhaps more simply just impose an overnight curfew in the downtown area, so police could fine and even detain anyone not in their residence. Emergency management, whether for public welfare or public order, starts at the lowest level of government before it — if necessary — escalates upwards. The prime minister shouldn’t be declaring a national emergency if the only result will be to prohibit assemblies or impose curfews. Having declared a municipal emergency the mayor of Ottawa can do so, and the question is, why hasn’t he?”

During a press conference on February 17, a Francophone reporter pointed out that Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino had been “insinuating for days” that weapons were being brought to Ottawa, or were in Ottawa with the convoy. Mendicino replied, “I am not saying that there is an intelligence saying there are weapons in Ottawa.”

At a March 24 House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety, Conservative MP Dane Lloyd pressed Ottawa Police Service (OPS) interim chief Steve Bell to confirm “Were loaded firearms (at the Freedom Convoy) found? Yes or no?” Bell replied, “In relation to—no, not relating to any charges to this point…at no point did we lay any firearms-related charges. ”

The Trucker Freedom Convoy protest of 2022 paled in comparison to the FLQ Crisis in October 1970. In 2022 there was no organized terrorist group. Acts of terrorism had not occurred. There were no bombs, no explosions. No one had been kidnapped and held for ransom. The convoy organizers urged an end to vaccine mandates and pandemic restrictions. Unlike 1970, no buildings were destroyed. No one had been killed. Contained in the February 14 invocation was the clear wording of the Emergency Proclamation confirming Canadians had the right to go to downtown Ottawa to protest.

Freezing bank accounts

As part of the passage of the Emergency Act, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that bank accounts, pension funds, mortgages, insurance, and other financial assets by protesters – and those who donated to their cause – would be frozen. Martha Durdin, CEO of the Canadian Credit Unions Association, confirmed in her March testimony before a Parliamentary committee that there was a run on the banks. This took place immediately after Freeland made her announcement that they were going to freeze people’s bank accounts for making small donations to the Convoy cause.

Convoy lawyer, Keith Wilson, told Viva Frei, “I have it from a very high source, that a) the banks realized what had happened when they saw how their customers reacted. Having people who don’t trust your institution…is bad for your business model. There were some people withdrawing millions of dollars from their accounts.

As well, big financial players in the investment community in the USA weighed in. They were asking if investing in Canada was now like investing in Venezuela or Cuba. “What just happened to Canada? I thought it had the rule of law. I thought  it had checks and balances.”

There was a phone call to the PMO from Wall Street which cautioned,“We are going to publicly distance ourselves from your actions. We are going to criticize your actions. You have 24 hours to reverse them.” So, Justin Trudeau held a press conference and said “circumstances have changed and now it’s time for Canada…”

By March 30, 2022, authorities had the bank accounts of 206 people frozen. Despite some reports in the press, Keith Wilson was not aware of any of the crowdfunding donors having their bank accounts frozen. Wilson said, “if someone in a retirement home in Lethbridge, Alberta, made a $50 donation because it was important to him, I think he’s just going to be fine.”

The implied threat by the Freeland to retroactively seize and freeze accounts of donors prior to invoking the Emergency Act on February 14, Keith Wilson claimed, was legal a non-starter.

The Freedom Convoy was a federally licensed non-profit organization. Media commentator Viva Frei remarked “The Convoy was never designated a terrorist organization. And you can’t just make it one – a terrorist organization – because you don’t like it.”

Cracking down on the convoy

On February 18th, police cracked down on the peaceful protest and disbursed the crowd. The mainstream media in Canada showed viewers tension in the air, but not police beating, or swarming, protesters with batons or ends of rifles. All-Day footage showed protesters experienced things differently here, and here.

The Financial Times of London wrote an editorial titled “Canada’s Illiberal Response to Protesters.”

FT warned:

“Canadian leader Justin Trudeau’s invocation of the Emergencies Act this week in response to the occupation was a step too far… The measures are designed to respond to insurrection, espionage and genuine threats to the Canadian constitution rather than peaceful protest, no matter how irritating and inconvenient. The right to such protest is fundamental to a free society.”

Wall Street Journal headline asked “Will Canadian Democracy Survive Justin Trudeau?: His father invoked emergency powers in 1970—but that was against terrorists, not peaceful protesters.”

WSJ wondered:

will Canada return to its peaceful, democratic roots? Or will this episode transform into something more sinister and undemocratic. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has certainly acted like a tinpot dictator. Mr. Trudeau refused to meet with Freedom Convoy organizers or protesters in Ottawa…the PM was nowhere to be seen. Instead of finding ways to diffuse this tense situation, Mr. Trudeau’s approach was to throw more gasoline on the fire. The absentee Prime Minister would infrequently grace the nation with his presence to mock and smear his opponents.”

In another editorial, the paper concluded “Government’s job is to maintain public order while respecting civil liberties. Canada has failed on both scores.”

The Economist editorialized that “a wise government would listen to them (Freedom Convoy protesters) and respond politely, taking their complaints seriously and patiently explaining why COVID restrictions, though onerous, are necessary for the time being.” But if you followed the mainstream news in Canada, seldom was heard a discouraging word.

Canada’s mainstream media gave Trudeau’s decision to invoke the Emergency Act two thumbs up. Perhaps it helped that 1,500 Canadian media outlets received a total of $61 million from the Trudeau Liberals before the fall 2021 election.

Emergency Act lifted

The Emergency Act was enforced by the Federal cabinet bringing the act into force on February 14. But both Parliament and the Senate had to pass the act. As senators debated the measure it looked like it was going to be defeated. 45 of 91 Senators debating the Emergency Act indicated they would vote no. More had yet to speak.

As well, all the provinces had to pass the act within 30 days. Seven premiers had cautioned Trudeau against invoking the Emergency Act.

On February 23, once 45 senators indicated they would vote no, only one was more needed to signal a no vote and embarrass the Liberals. While the senators were still speaking, a press conference was hurriedly called. Prime minister Trudeau announced the Emergency Act was lifted, and it was now a time for “healing.”

Brian Lilley described the 180-degree turn-of-events in the Toronto Sun: “Less than 24 hours after defending the need to keep all the emergency powers he had granted his own government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dropped every single last one. Not just some of them. Not just the ban on taking minors into the area around Parliament Hill. He dropped all of them at 4 p.m. on Wednesday.

It is mind-boggling…

The worst part of this whole ordeal though is the precedent Trudeau and his government have set with the politicization of the Emergencies Act. Declaring a national emergency over concerns about tow trucks and some ineffective local policing is a pretty low bar.”

The convoy protest unfolded while most lockdown, or semi-lockdown, measures remained in force across Canada. Citizens made meaning of what was happening in their own bubbles, watching their trusted news sources to frame the story. The Liberals and the media succeeded in stampeding a majority of Canadians into a state of agitation and disgust toward the protesters. At most the protest could be construed as civil disobedience.

But an Ontario judge had ruled the protest was legal. It was never an insurrection, or an occupation. The long history of civil unrest has numbers of other incidents, like the 78-day Mohawk blockade or the Mercier Bridge in 1990.

Even after September 11, when 26 Canadians died in the terrorist attacks in the USA, amidst great chaos and confusion, there was no invocation of the Emergency Act.

Mandatory inquiry

In the United States, when the 9/11 Commission was impaneled, President George W. Bush declared the purpose of the inquiry was “to examine and report on the facts and causes relating to the September 11th terrorist attacks” and “make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the attacks.”

However, it turned out the Bush White House didn’t actually want this at all.

Before the 9/11 Commission began its investigation, Executive Director Philip Zelikow drew up an outline of the final Report. Zelikow was the author of the paper justifying preemptive war in Iraq and neglecting Clinton White House briefings about al Qaeda in the transition to the Bush administration. Zelikow’s outline for chapter headings and sub-headings for the 9/11 Commission Report prescribed what narrative the inquiry would conclude.

During the course of the investigation, Zelikow decided who would speak before the commission, and whose testimony would be included or omitted from the Report. 9/11 victims’ families asked for Zelikow’s resignation.

The Trudeau government is mimicking the 9/11 Commission, viewed by many September 11th families as a cover-up. As required by law, an inquiry will report back to Parliament on February 20, 2023.

Trudeau has mandated Ontario appeals court judge Justice Paul Rouleau to focus on the actions of the Freedom Convoy protesters, rather than on holding the government accountable. Rouleau donated over half a million dollars to the federal Liberal Party between 1993 and 1997 alone. Rouleau’s instructions are:

(i) …to examine and report on the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public order emergency being issued by the federal government and the measures taken by the Governor in Council by means of the Emergency Measures Regulations and the Emergency Economic Measures Order for dealing with the public order emergency that was in effect from February 14 to 23, 2022;

(ii) to examine issues, to the extent relevant to the circumstances of the declaration and measures taken, with respect to

(A) the evolution and goals of the convoy and blockades, their leadership, organization and participants,

(B) the impact of domestic and foreign funding, including crowdsourcing platforms,

(C) the impact, role and sources of misinformation and disinformation, including the use of social media,

(D) the impact of the blockades, including their economic impact, and

(E) the efforts of police and other responders prior to and after the declaration…

The inquiry into the freedom convoy protest omits investigating the Trudeau government for its response to the protest. There is no requirement to scrutinize the choice not to meet with convoy leaders. No mandate to scrutinize the prime minister’s rhetoric about the working-class protest.

No scrutiny about the merits of suddenly requiring vaccination for truckers crossing the U.S.-Canada border. No scrutiny into how the prime minster’s own rhetoric may have been a catalyst for the protest itself. There is no instruction to Justice Rouleau to access the necessity to invoke the Emergency Act.

What’s left of the Canadian Left

In the midst of the freedom convoy protest, where was the Canadian Left? From the 1900s, the coming together of workers in a powerful way in order to demand greater rights, including the right to work, has been seen as a positive thing by the Left. Historically, whether it was the Dominion Labor Party, United Farmers of Alberta, Progressive, CCF, or the NDP, all have supported working-class strikes and protests of almost any kind.

But the face of the Left in 2022 is NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, egging on Trudeau to pass the Emergency Act.

It fell to former NDP MP Svend Robinson, who served as NDP’s Justice Critic when the Emergency Act was passed to replace the War Measures Act, to comment two days after Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergency Act,

I was in the House during 1988 debate on the Act, when we were promised that “emergency powers can only be used when the situation is so drastic that no other law of Canada can deal with the situation.” That test has not been met. The NDP can stop this. Will they?”

Yet this view wasn’t echoed by a single sitting member of the NDP parliamentary caucus in 2022.

In October 1970, NDP leader Tommy Douglas, while agreeing that the FLQ kidnapping was serious, told parliament the federal government had the option:

to deal with it (FLQ Crisis) under the powers which it now has under the laws of Canada…There are very considerable powers there. I think the government deserves some criticism because some of those sections have not been used.”

The same could be said for the considerable powers the federal government had at its disposal, in the Criminal Code, in February 2022. Yet, Jagmeet Singh endorsed invoking the Emergency Act before it was debated, before it was declared. Singh was part of the hysteria, warning Canadians about sedition, and a coup. Meanwhile protesters played hockey, gave food to the homeless, danced to the Macarena, and honked horns, and sang O Canada.

The Freedom Convoy protest reveals a growing class divide in Canada. This is accompanied by a huge disconnect between the Left and the working-class. When a real insurrection comes along, I’ll rush to my laptop and pen a call for patriots across our nation to “stand on guard for thee.”

Meanwhile, I’m waiting for our political establishment to reacquaint themselves with the meaning of words like inclusion, listening, tolerance, autonomy, mobility, accountability, and liberty. And why they still matter.

What is the future of civil disobedience, of protest, of liberty in Canada?

The Freedom Convoy has been framed as sedition, insurrection, a cause for the Emergency Act. What excuse will future governments cook up?

The convoy protests of 2022 has revealed, especially for the working class, not so much the fact of liberal democracy but the myth of liberal democracy. The mainstream narrative about the protest is a case study of how, through the clever and careful use of language, politicians and the media can manipulate the emotions of citizens, influencing their perceptions and actions.

The truckers for two years were lauded as heroes, but media spin and political ridicule turned them into enemies, “mercenaries.” The story we’ve been told about the truckers must not stand. In May 2022, 5 to 6 million Canadians are unvaccinated. Accepting the media spin about the trucker convoy as history ensures another group of people will be shown the door as Canada morphs into a society, based on who is “in” and who is “out.”

*

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

Ray McGinnis is the author of “Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored”.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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

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

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

***

Continental Observer conducted an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain, a former Air Force pilot, who provides us with his analysis of the situation in Ukraine, but also on on NATO.

Continental Observer: Concerning the characteristics of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. How can an independent expert explain and comment on this?

Jacques Guillemain: First of all, I thank you for this interview, which allows us to contradict the dominant anti-Russian discourse. One day, historians will be able to sort out the truth from the falsehood. I do not claim to be an “independent expert”, but the observation of the real facts allows one to form an opinion, free from any one-sided propaganda. Every war has multiple reasons, and the key to any analysis is to remain objective. This is not the case in the Western camp, which is totally enslaved to Washington’s narrative, which amounts to designating Putin as the aggressor and sole culprit. The disinformation is insane.

However, for Vladimir Putin, it is above all a question of ensuring the security of Russia and its people, threatened by constant pressure from NATO since 1990.

It is all the same dismaying to hear that Russia is the aggressor, when NATO, despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, has found nothing better than to integrate 14 countries of the former USSR, thus going from 16 countries in 1990 to 30 members in 2022 and soon 32, with Sweden and Finland.

I would add that the Minsk agreements signed in 2015 by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France, providing for autonomy for the pro-Russian republics of Donbass, have never been respected. A war waged by Kiev against the separatist republics resulted in 13,000 deaths, but who is talking about it? And, it is proven that Kiev was preparing an attack on the separatists for March 2022, a reality that precipitated the Russian offensive. Putin does not want missiles on Ukrainian soil, just as Kennedy did not want them in Cuba in 1962. An obvious fact that our Western “experts” prefer to hide.

CO: Why is the German practice of creating “Festung” – fortress cities with civilians as “human shields” – visible in the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU)?

JG: Urban warfare is the response of the weak to the strong. It is estimated that in open terrain, the balance of power between the attacker and the defender must be 3 to 1 to ensure victory. But it increases to 6 or 10 to 1 in an urban war. An exorbitant cost for the attacker. A suicidal option that Putin refused in Kiev. There is no question of conquering the city district by district, house by house. There is no question of razing a city of 2.5 million inhabitants and adding up the civilian casualties, as the enemy does not hesitate to take over inhabited buildings, hospitals and even schools to protect itself from the Russian artillery.

It is obvious that the Ukrainian army has no chance of resisting the Russian army in a frontal clash in open terrain. The Ukrainians have never carried out any large-scale attacks and have totally suffered the invasion of the first three days of the war. Since then, the front has stabilized over 1000 km long and 150 km wide. The Ukrainians understood that urban warfare was their salvation, and this is what they practice, which explains the destruction in many cities, even if the Russians target only military objectives, not wanting to raze the cities and kill civilians.

In 1944, Hitler proposed the idea of “Festung” in cities that had operational or strategic importance. The enemy had to occupy these “strongholds” first in order to free up transportation routes for a new offensive. In August 1944, American troops began the siege of the French port of Brest. It was turned into a “Festung” by the German general, Bernhard Ramke, who held the defense for 43 days before surrendering. Many inhabitants of Brest were killed, starved to death or perished under the rubble.

CO: Can we see a similar military strategy with the Ukrainian army?

JG: Warfare in the shelter of fortresses has existed since the dawn of time. Messada, Alesia, Constantinople, to name only the most famous sieges. The Middle Ages were built around castles, these fortresses that were most often besieged, waiting for famine and disease to do the work instead of weapons. Therefore, it is understandable that the Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities. But, we must not forget that the Russians are perfectly informed about the targets to be destroyed. When Ukrainian soldiers hide in a civilian building, it becomes a military target, with the risk of collateral losses. The Russians fear that in the Donbass, the Ukrainians will generalize an urban war like in Mariupol, which would lead to inevitable destruction and civilian casualties.

CO: In Ukrainian cities, Ukrainian armed forces have not only taken Ukrainian citizens hostage. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, more than 7,500 foreigners are currently being held hostage in Ukrainian cities. Why don’t the French media talk about this?

JG: In this war, there is only one culprit, Putin, according to the Western narrative. Therefore, let’s not expect from our media the truth about the Ukrainian turpitude and exactions. We are never told about Kiev’s crimes in Donbass for eight years. Yes, it is the great silence on the civilians who are used as human shields, on the foreigners trapped by the war. But there is also a silence about the hundreds of foreign soldiers serving alongside Ukrainian soldiers, either as advisors or as mercenaries. We learn on the Russian side that NATO officers have been killed, but nothing filters through to the Ukrainian side. The best example is the Azovstal fortress, where Azov units, civilians and foreign soldiers were locked up. The siege of this factory seems to be over, since the civilians have been evacuated and 260 fighters have surrendered. The Russian command expects a lot from this partial surrender, rich in information of all kinds.

CO: During the war, the first strikes are made against the capital of the attacked state, the residence of its leader and the military headquarters. Why does Russia almost never strike the centers of political and military leadership, does not destroy key infrastructure – rail transport, communications, pipelines, bridges and other facilities for survival of the civilian population?

JG: In my opinion, Kiev was never a military objective for Putin. He probably thought that the Ukrainians would not object to the overthrow of a corrupt government, hated by the population. But Biden decided otherwise and saw in this Russian offensive, the unexpected opportunity to fight Russia by proxy. And Zelensky, manipulated by Washington, immediately took on the role of David against Goliath. The media artillery then took it upon itself to make the Ukrainian president the new Churchill and Putin a “butcher”. The result is that Ukraine, helped by forty nations, “resists” the Russian bear, but at what price? How many military losses? How many civilian victims? How much destruction? Only the Americans are the big winners of this useless relentlessness. Because Putin will not back down. Crimea and the Donbass will remain Russian. In my opinion, the “hero” Zelensky will have to answer to his people one day, for having refused to negotiate when there was still time. And, to answer the second part of your question, Putin never wanted to wage war on the brotherly Ukrainian people, but only on the regime in place and the Nazi units accused of abuses by Amnesty International and Human Right Watch. He first wanted to preserve all civilian infrastructures. He only decided to destroy them in order to block the convoys of arms supplied on a massive scale by the West.

CO: How do you explain the fact that Russia supplies Europe with gas via Ukraine?

JG: Putin would be wrong to deprive himself of this manna which brings him billions. He has almost doubled his income with the rise in prices, and these sales in rubles have enabled him to bring the ruble back to its pre-war level. As for the rights of passage that Ukraine receives, this is part of the give and take deals that we see in all conflicts.

CO: Why hasn’t Russia refused to honor the contracts?

JG: For the moment, Putin needs these contracts. Let’s not forget that the West has blocked, not to say stolen from Russia, $300 billion in foreign exchange reserves, half of the reserves of the Bank of Russia. A hold-up never seen in history. If France’s nominal GDP is 2500 billion euros, Russia’s is 1500 billion. Therefore, the main wealth of Russia, beyond its scientific geniuses, is its colossal mining resources, that is to say 20% of the world reserves!

CO: What position should France take in this conflict?

JG: A total neutrality. No arms to Ukraine, but massive humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. Secondly, I am in favor of leaving the integrated command of NATO, which has become an offensive alliance at the sole service of Uncle Sam and in particular the American arms lobby. We do not have to be the Americans’ auxiliaries in their colonial expeditions worthy of the 19th century. Adventures that have all ended in fiascos.

CO: Finally, Sweden and Finland have declared that they want to join NATO. What is your opinion on this decision?

JG: I am opposed to it, but I hear that Putin is ready to accept this double membership, provided that no NATO base is established in these countries. And if Biden plays with fire, we should not be surprised if the world relives a new Cuban missile crisis, that frightening game of “nuclear poker” that was played in 1962 and brought the planet to the brink of the Apocalypse. Because Putin is not Khrushchev…

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on French Lieutenant Colonel Jacques Guillemain: “Ukrainian soldiers are entrenched in the cities”
  • Tags: ,

Biden Administration’s Ministry of Truth Stumbles

May 24th, 2022 by Philip Giraldi

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

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

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

***

Finally some good news – maybe! The Department of Homeland Security’s recently launched Disinformation Governance Board has gone into what has been described as the “pause” mode and its controversial Director Nina Jankowicz has resigned, citing “vile personal attacks and physical threats.” Its status will reportedly be reviewed over the next 75 days and it will likely be rolled out more quietly next time around and under a different name.

The Board was developed to counter what was held to be unfair criticism of policies being promoted by the government.

Ironically, however, it has recently become clear that the White House itself has been doing much of the lying. It uses the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other government agencies to spread false information, referred to as disinformation, to dupe the public into believing that there is something good and noble about America becoming heavily involved in the war in Ukraine, with all that entails. And, of course, since the evildoers must be excoriated as that drama is playing out, good old Russia fits in admirably, particularly as the Democrats still like to pretend that it was Moscow’s interference that defeated Hillary in 2016.

A lie is a lie, but it is the ultimate irony when a government that is caught lying on a regular basis sets up an inquisition that seeks to identify and take action against ordinary citizens who are accused of spreading “disinformation.”

Of course, critics on the right immediately discerned that the disinformation will consist of anything that challenges the official government line on various issues, up to including pandemics, white supremacist domestic terrorism, aborting unwanted babies, and even the march to war.

Although the inept President Joe Biden Administration can rightly be accused of elevating deceit to a steady diet of malapropisms, one can trace the rise of egregious lying by heads of state to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and, more recently, to the criminal deceptions carried out by the George W. Bush Administration. Those lies led to the invasion of Iraq, which cost trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and which is still producing unrest in the region.

So now we were to be confronted by the Disinformation Governance Board, so designated under the august authority of the Department of Homeland Security to root out disinformation and those who are seeking to disseminate falsehoods about what our noble elected officials are doing to us in Washington. Followers of George Orwell inevitably, and almost immediately, dubbed the new creation the Ministry of Truth.

The official launch documents in late April claimed that the DGB would be “protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, & civil liberties” against the “threat of disinformation.” Its focus would be on “homeland security, focused specifically on irregular migration and Russia,” meaning that it would be discrediting any source that complains about the flood of aliens crossing the US southern border or casting doubts on the necessity of supporting America’s Ukraine “allies.” In a follow-up briefing DHS elaborated that it would monitor threat “disinformation spread by foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran, or other adversaries such as transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations.”

And the board was to be headed by one Nina Jankowicz, a weird, highly politicized concoction who sang about her mission in a tweet entitled “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation” while confirming that she would be the first executive director of the DGB. She has also written a book entitled “How To Be A Woman Online.” She has worked for the National Democratic Institute, the Democratic Party affiliate of the National Endowment for Democracy that promotes democracy worldwide. She has also been a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

In an NPR interview responding to a question concerning Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, Jankowicz ridiculously opined that “I shudder to think about, if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would be like for the marginalized communities around the world…” Glenn Greenwald further described the new Disinformation Czar as having “herself ratified and helped spread virtually every disinformation campaign concocted by the union of the Democratic Party and corporate media over the last five years. Indeed, the only valid basis for calling her a ‘disinformation expert’ is that she has spread disinformation with such gusto. The most notorious of those was the pre-election lie that the authentic Hunter Biden laptop was ‘disinformation.’ She also decreed falsely that the origins of COVID were definitively proven to be zoonotic and could not have come from a lab leak, was a frequent and vocal advocate of the fraudulent Steele Dossier, and repeatedly pronounced as true all sorts of Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy theories which Robert Mueller, after conducting an intense 18-month investigation, rejected as lacking evidence to establish their truth.”

Jankowicz’s boss Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas nevertheless claimed that she was “eminently qualified,” a “renowned expert,” and politically “neutral.” But to put that in context, her rather thin actual work history, heavy on being a Democratic Party apparatchik tied to the Clintons, oddly includes a stint as a Fulbright-Clinton fellow in 2017 serving as an adviser on disinformation to the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry. She sports the US and Ukrainian flags next to her picture on her twitter page.

Attempts by governments to shape their message by discrediting alternative viewpoints are not exactly new. Here in the US, suppressing contrary views is nearly as old as the republic. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 gave the president power to deport potentially “dangerous” foreigners and made it a crime to print “any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government. President John Adams supported these laws because he wanted to prevent a war with France, quite the reverse of what the Biden regime is seeking to do as it mobilizes against Russia. Vice President Thomas Jefferson was openly disgusted by the unconstitutional acts, which probably contributed to his election as president in 1800.

The Acts were subsequently allowed to expire and were never reviewed by the Supreme Court, but there is also the later example of the Committee for Public Information which was used by the government to support the war party line in World War One. There followed the Espionage Act of 1918, which is still in effect, that was used liberally by President Woodrow Wilson to silence critics of American entry into the war. The definition of what constitutes “espionage” was deliberately made infinitely elastic and the Act is still in use against whistleblowers and presumably also Julian Assange.

Given the language connected with the launch of the Disinformation Government Board, it might reasonably be assumed that it would have surely sought to suppress “malicious writing” and speech relating to the Biden sponsored wave of illegal immigration along the country’s southern border that has driven America’s foreign-born population to a record 46.6 million people. And, in addition to an increase in arriving Afghans, which was actually written into the bill proposing $33 billion more for Ukraine, there will surely be more Ukrainian migrants. Jewish organizations in the US, Europe and Israel are already actively bringing in co-religionists. Given political realities, displaced Ukrainian Jews will likely be quietly given refugee status granting them full benefits to include housing and welfare payments.

Not surprisingly, the surging wave of immigration is highly unpopular among working people who are already established, even among many Democrats, and the Biden response will be to compel the bad vibes go away, literally, by openly labeling critics as liars peddling disinformation. Whether there will be actual criminal or civil penalties attached to the process remains to be seen when the board is most likely resurrected under another name.

And, of course, the likes of Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Tom Massie, journalist Tucker Carlson and former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard would have their views on the developing catastrophe in Ukraine challenged and denigrated, to include possibly arranging for their banning from social media sites, which is already being done to some critics. The fact is that we do not know at this point exactly what the new Board will eventually be empowered to do, but one can count on the results being bad, destructive both of the First Amendment and of honest journalism in the United States.

The ability of the government to collude with corporate America to diminish personal liberty of the citizenry cannot be understated. We have already seen corporations that operate on the internet proactively terminating accounts that it considers politically unacceptable. Consortium News, a perfect respectable site of long standing that has a splendid record of investigative journalism, was recently delisted by PayPal, which took the further step of confiscating its nearly $10,000 of funds with the threat that the money might be retained by PayPal as an additional punishment.

The reality is that the government can unleash its thousands of lawyers to make a case against nearly every citizen who is politically active. Which is why the Biden Administration has already been criminalizing and/or sanctioning any foreign organization that has “interfered in or undermined public confidence in United States elections,” as if the two major parties are not already doing that quite effectively all by themselves. If that is truly a crime why aren’t Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell being sanctioned?

In my own experience, I have dealt with threatened punishment regarding my contributing to and participating in the activities of an Iranian NGO and a Russian information site. Neither organization can plausibly regarded as a threat to the United States, though they both were highly critical of US government policies, as am I. In one case, American participants in a conference overseas organized by the Iranians were warned that they would be arrested upon return, which currently appears to be “due process” in the US. In the case of the Russian site, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) advised that any American writing for the site could be fined as much as $311,562!

The unfortunate reality is that the real damage is being done through the employment of government driven restrictions punishing ordinary citizens who are exercising their right of free speech and free association. It is easy to claim that a foreign news service or NGO is “undermining confidence in US elections” as it is a charge that one need not have to prove. Indeed, it is unprovable and it is a weapon that can be used to manage dissent and to narrow the bounds of acceptable discourse. The question becomes whether and to what extent the successor to the now paused Disinformation Governance Board will attempt to apply similar standards to Americans. One might suggest that the barring of dissident US journalists and political figures from social media sites and from funding mechanisms like PayPal is the first shot to be fired in a long struggle over what is “truth” that will play out over the next two years.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

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

***

On March 1, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, in an interview to France Info radio, described the Western sanction packages as “extremely effective” measures that would cause “the collapse of the Russian economy”. This has failed – the ruble has recovered, and analysts also expect Moscow’s trade surplus to hit record highs in the coming months.

The West did sanction the country in an unprecedented way, targeting its foreign reserves particularly, and, as response to that, worried citizens rushed to their banks to withdraw cash. The financial system thus seemed to be on the way to its collapse.

Imports fell, as expected, due to logistical disruptions and also due to the regulatory uncertainty that arose as a result of the new sanctions and their relative vagueness. For example, Kazakhstan’s vice-minister of trade and integration, Kairat Torebayev, complained in an interview to EURACTIV on May 13 that “nobody can tell me if Kazakhstan can sell yogurt to Russia”.

Moreover, the sanctions and the expulsion of some of the Russian lenders from the SWIFT network made it harder for firms in Russia to buy goods from the West. Initially, the ruble depreciated dramatically and there was talk of an inevitable default on Russian debts. With its assets frozen, and sanctions preventing its Central Bank from using about half of its $640 billion in foreign reserves (to pay back its creditors), plus rising inflation and capital flight, things certainly were not looking good.

However, at the end of March, the currency began to recover. By mid-April, its value had already reached 1 RUB = 0.013 USD, which was the rate just before Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine.

On April 26, the rouble hit a more than two years high (trading at 76.90 versus the euro) before it stabilized near 77. And, on May 5, it was then reported that the ruble briefly reached its highest level (against the US dollar) since March 2020. It hit a high of 65.31 per dollar.

Finally, on May 20, the ruble reached both its strongest level against the Euro since June 2015 (touching 59.02) and the strongest level against the US dollar since March 2018 (hitting 57.0750).

On May 19, Moscow stated that about half of the 54 Russian gas company Gazprom’s clients have opened accounts at the Gazprombank; analysts have attributed the ruble rally to this fact. The EU after all has allowed its member states to keep purchasing Russian gas without breaching the sanctions they themselves imposed on Moscow – by using rubles for payment.

But it is not just the currency that has recovered.

Exports are going well too. According to the Economist, Russia in fact can expect a record trade surplus.

Even though the Kremlin has ceased to publish detailed monthly trade data, one can still work on the data pertaining to Russia’s trading partners themselves.

The data available shows that China, on May 9, reported that its goods exports to the country did fall by more than a quarter (in comparison with last year), but its imports from Russia rose by over 65%. Based on data from the eight largest Russian trading partners, the Economist estimates that while Russian imports may have fallen by approximately 45% (since February), its exports, on the other hand, have risen by around 8%.

The Institute of International Finance (IIF), which is a bankers’ organization, estimates that the current-account surplus (including trade and financial flows) can come in at $250 billion in 2022. That is more than double the $120 billion that was recorded last year. Thus it would appear that sanctions in fact have boosted Moscow’s trade surplus. Even the exports directed to the West have been holding up well. The global rise in energy prices has boosted the revenues even further. Russian inflation is still high, but it is slowing. With economic activity indicators improving, the Russian authorities have reasons to be optimistic about avoiding a financial crisis.

The truth is that the Russian Federation, being an almost 140 million people market, comprises half of the whole Eurasian Union. The Russian market is quite irreplaceable from the perspective of these countries. Moreover, in Europe, there is no quick alternative for Russian energy sources.

Meanwhile, Germany’s inflation rate rose in April at its fastest pace since before the country’s reunification in 1981. This is fuelled by the rising energy prices, which in turn have been exacerbated by the current Russo-Ukrainian crisis. Similarly, with energy bills soaring, the UK inflation rate is rising at its fastest rate for 40 years.

At this point one can already say that the Western sanctions against Russia have failed and even backfired.

This means the West is losing the economic and financial war it waged against Moscow. Sending weapons to Ukraine is not working either.

This explains why talks of a cease-fire are being echoed by the main European leaders and by the US itself, even though the very same players had signaled their intention to a full-spectrum confrontation quite recently. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenski has changed his hitherto uncompromising tone: speaking on national TV, on May 21, he stated that “only diplomacy can end the Ukraine war”.

The West is losing its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine – both militarily and economically. Now it has to reopen diplomatic channels. The only other choice is a global nuclear war.

*

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

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Robert Snow, a pilot for American Airlines, one of the top 3 largest airlines in the country, has 31 years of commercial airline experience and additionally seven years of experience as a U.S. Air Force pilot.

Snow says that he might not be able to fly again after he suffered a cardiac arrest only 6 or 7 minutes after landing a plane he piloted from Denver to Dallas Fort Worth (DFW).

He still had two more flights scheduled on April 9.

He believes that his cardiac arrest is connected to the Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccine he was forced to take in order to keep his job on Nov. 4, 2021, even though he already had natural immunity from previously contracting the virus.

Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist, told Newsmax that Snow’s case fits a “pattern.”

“There is no other explanation,” McCullough said about Snow’s case since Snow has no coronary disease.

“The MRI pattern is consistent,” the doctor said. “Indeed, it may have been vaccine-induced myocarditis with a late manifestation of cardiac death.”

In addition, he told The Epoch Times that he has received “several phone calls and communications from friends in the industry that do think that they might have had issues with a vaccine.”

Most alarming is that some pilots are “afraid to raise the flag and say, ‘Hey, I think I might have an issue because they’re afraid they’ll either lose their medical certification to fly, which if we lose our medical, we can no longer operate. We can’t be a commercial pilot anymore. And in worst-case scenario, which is what right now probably what I’m experiencing is you can’t fly at all. Period,” Snow said.

“I would just tell you that there are other pilots out there that have had concerns, not just pilots, also because it was an employee mandate. So we have flight attendants, we have mechanics, we have dispatchers, we have gate agents, you name it. Of course, for pilots, we consider that a safety-sensitive job so we’re a little bit more concerned from the standpoint of aviation safety; but yes, I have received calls from other pilots and other communications stating that they have concerns but because of the nature of this, they’re afraid to come forward.”

The veteran pilot had serious questions about the novel COVID vaccines that are supposed to prevent infection from the SAR-CoV-2 virus.

Vaccine booster efficacy also wanes over time.

What’s more, cases of myocarditis—inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis—inflammation of the lining outside the heart have spiked dramatically since the COVID vaccines started being administered worldwide.

He did not want to get the shot, but being the sole provider for his family, decided to take the risk.

Amid short sighs, Snow told The Epoch Times: “Initially, my employer was not going to force the vaccine on its employees. They subsequently changed their mind on approximately October 1, in conjunction with the executive office here in the United States mandate on federal contractors. They decided that now that they would enforce the vaccine mandate on all employees of the airline. And in regard to that, we were told that if we did not receive the vaccination we would be terminated. There was no question as to the sincerity at that time of their statement.”

Airlines, which are government contractors, were affected by President Joe Biden’s executive order from September that states all employees of those companies have to be vaccinated against the CCP virus.

The Epoch Times reported on December last year that the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) was breaking its own rule that states pilots should not fly after having taken medications that have been approved for less than a year, according to a group of attorneys, doctors, and other experts; including another pilot who says his career ended due to adverse reactions from a vaccine.

“So I elected, after some serious consideration given that I was the sole source of income for my family, that I would go ahead and receive the vaccine. I didn’t want to,” Snow said.

“I had serious questions as to the safety and the efficiency and the effectiveness of the vaccine. I’d already had COVID. I’d already tested positive for antibodies, and really didn’t see the rationale for it. But, the only solution that might have been available to me to not receive the vaccine was to request a religious or medical exemption. Neither of which did I really feel like I should request. Medical exemption, I didn’t have any reason to not to, scientifically speaking, not receive it, other than the fact that it was issued under an EUA and not fully tested. And as far as a religious exemption, I didn’t see any reason to request that because I don’t really have a religious belief that would prevent me from receiving this particular vaccination. So for moral and ethical reasons, absolutely. But that wasn’t considered a valid reason not to get the vaccine.”

The veteran pilot had a sore arm for 10 days after getting the jab, and later experienced a strange pain that spread through his upper body.

Snow said that his arm became “pretty sore,” for 10 days, something which he didn’t experience with any previous vaccinations. For other vaccines for travel or in the military, he would usually have soreness for two or three days maximum.

Things returned to normal until January, then he recalled:

“I was on that course of a flight and noticed a strange pain while I was working on the overhead panel. …  I got a strange pain in my right shoulder, seemed to spread down to my lower right quadrant and then up into my chest and through my shoulder blades, which I thought was very strange, but I just kind of chalked it up to manipulating myself oddly on the overhead panel, maybe tweaked a nerve or something like that, because I really had no history of that whatsoever that I’d ever experienced. And so [the] pain went away after one or two minutes and then back to normal.

“When we finished that flight, I actually tested positive again for COVID for the second time, [the] first time I had it was in March of 2021. Second time then would have been in January of 2022—this is postvaccination mind you— and that was what I presumed to be the Omicron variant because it presented itself basically as just allergies, I kept sneezing a lot, runny nose and that was it, no fever, no chills, no nothing, no loss of taste and smell like I had the first time. So I went back to work, after the mandatory amount of time, and I started getting the pain again, only a little bit more frequently this time. So actually, with a history of gastrointestinal issues, I went to see a gastroenterologist he elected to do an endoscopy to take a look to see if I had maybe a hiatal hernia or something that was aggravating the vagus nerve. We also did an abdominal CAT scan.

“During the course of awaiting the results of the abdominal CAT scan, that’s when I had my sudden cardiac arrest and that was after the course of a flight from Denver to DFW. We had been on the gate just a few minutes after shutting the aircraft down, probably about six minutes, six, seven minutes after touchdown. And I stood up to collect my bags to proceed to the next aircraft. We were to finish up with another turn to a different city to come back and then finish the trip on day four. And that’s the last I remember, standing up collecting my luggage. And at that point, witnesses say I collapsed in the flight deck. And that’s all I know at this point. When I woke up, I was in the ICU at Baylor Scott and White in Grapevine Texas, having suffered a sudden cardiac arrest.”

He now has to wear an automatic external defibrillator or “life vest” that monitors his heartbeats, except when he showers when he is supposed to be monitored by a family member. The life vest is designed so that if the heart rhythm becomes abnormal, it will send a small shock to get it back to sinus rhythm, and if it detects full atrial fibrillation, ventricular fibrillation, or any sort of fibrillation, it would send a much stronger shock to try to get it back to the right rhythm.

Albeit all this trauma, Snow feels very fortunate because he was able to get professional care immediately, which is not the case for many other people.

According to heart.org:

“Cardiac arrest is when the heart stops beating. Some 350,000 cases occur each year outside of a hospital, and the survival rate is less than 12 percent. CPR can double or triple the chances of survival.”

“If you look at the numbers … I try not to look too closely at them because it’s rather intimidating.” Snow said, referring to the survival rate of cardiac arrests.

“The thing that concerns me, is [that] this happened in the right place at the right time. Because if it had happened … any other time where I was either alone or beyond reasonable response time for a medical response, I wouldn’t be here having this conversation.”

John Pierce Law, who previously represented many prominent conservatives, is going to sue 18 major airlines, including American Airlines, focusing on the alleged unconstitutionality of the vaccine mandates that were imposed on the airline employees.

*

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

Enrico Trigoso is an Epoch Times reporter focusing on the NYC area.

Featured image: A stock photo of an airplane taking off. (Mohamed Hassan/Pixabay)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Top Airline Pilot Suffers Cardiac Arrest Between Flights Post Mandatory COVID Vaccination

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

 

 

Der vorliegende Appell ist das Bekenntnis einer freien Seele inmitten der Qual einer globalen Krise, die zu einer totalitären „Neuen Weltordnung“ (NWO) und einem anderen „Menschsein“ führen wird. Man möge keine Selbstschilderung darin erblicken, auch wenn der Autor von Erlebnissen in seiner Jugend ausgeht. Mit Absicht wurden alle politischen Fragen in den Hintergrund gestellt: ihnen kam in vielen Artikeln besondere Betrachtung zu.

Da das Denken und Handeln erwachsener Menschen nach wie vor von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ – kritiklos und umnebelt von Glücksverheißungen – bestimmt wird, ist der Autor der Auffassung, dass die Aufklärung im 17./18. Jahrhundert ein unabgeschlossenes Projekt geblieben ist. Die Autoritätsgläubigkeit führt unweigerlich zur Autoritätshörigkeit, die in der Regel den Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams und eine Verstandeslähmung auslöst. Vollsinnige Erwachsene können dann nicht mehr selbständig denken und vernünftig urteilen. Aber nicht nur ihre Intelligenz wird eingeschüchtert und herabgesetzt, sondern auch ihr Wille und ihr Selbstbewusstsein.

In religiösen Gemeinschaften beginnt die Erziehung zum Gehorsam bereits beim kleinen Kind. Es muss sich von allen am Erziehungsprozess beteiligten „Autoritäten“ – Eltern, Lehrern, Priestern – widerspruchslos führen und leiten lassen. Das autoritäre Prinzip in der Erziehung schließt sich ohne jeden Unterbruch an den „göttlichen Ursprung“ der Herrschaft und den Respekt vor allen „Autoritäten“ an, so wie er von der Kirche vermittelt wird. Somit machen sowohl die religiöse wie auch die autoritäre Erziehung die heranwachsende Generation gehorsam und gefügig.

Den Autor treibt die Sorge um, dass diese Erziehungsmethoden dazu führen werden, dass auch die junge Generation nicht in der Lage sein wird, die Welt einmal in eine andere Bahn zu lenken. Die wissenschaftliche Psychologie, die die menschliche Natur erforscht und gesicherte Antworten auf die Frage nach der seelischen Verfassung des Menschen bereithält, fordert deshalb eine neue „Aufklärung“, die die Erkenntnisse der wissenschaftlichen Psychologie über die menschliche Natur mit einbezieht.

Dabei behauptet ein freier Denker nicht, dass er über die alleinseligmachende oder alleinglückverheißende Wahrheit verfügt. Für den freien Geist gibt es eine unbegrenzte Anzahl von zu entdeckenden und dem Wandel folgenden Wahrheiten.

Jean Meslier (1664-1729), katholischer Priester und französischer Radikalaufklärer aus der Zeit der Frühaufklärung, beantwortet die Frage, was wahr ist, mit den Worten:

„Wahr ist, was nicht dogmatische Fessel ist und die Menschen nicht in Gläubige und in Nichtgläubige oder Andersgläubige trennt, sondern dem Zusammenleben der Menschen nützt und ihr Einvernehmen fördert.“ (1)

Selbstverständlich bleibt es das unveräußerliche Recht des religiösen Menschen, aus den Bibelworten Offenbarungen der höchsten religiösen Wahrheiten zu schöpfen. Aber es ist ebenso die unbedingte Pflicht des Forschers, historische Wahrheiten nur aus ganz einwandfreien Zeugnissen zu folgern.

Nach Auffassung des französischen Physik-Professors und Präsidenten der Union der Atheisten, Francis Perrin (1901-1992), führt die Überzeugung, dass kein Gott ist, den Menschen nicht zu Verzweiflung oder Angst, sondern zu einem tiefen Verständnis für den Wert und Sinn des Lebens:

„Die feste Überzeugung, dass kein Gott ist und dass die angemaßten Antworten der Religionen illusorisch, töricht oder kindisch sind, wenn der Mensch, von Fragen bedrängt, über sein Los nachdenkt oder nach einem Sinn des Daseins sucht, diese feste Überzeugung führt keineswegs zu Verzweiflung oder Angst, sondern zu einer großen Ruhe des Geistes, zu einem tiefen Verständnis für den Wert des Lebens und zu einer hohen Vorstellung von der Würde des für sein Leben und seine Taten vor sich selbst verantwortlichen Menschen.“ (2)

Der in allgemeinverständlicher Sprache verfasste Appell soll auch dem interessierten Laien Einsichten in das menschliche Seelenleben vermitteln.

Er ist eine Ergänzung und Vertiefung des 2020 in Gornji Milanovac (Serbien) erschienen Buches des Autors mit dem Titel „Keinem die Macht übergeben! Ein psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands“ (ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5). Die „Neue Rheinische Zeitung“ (NRhZ) veröffentlichte im November 2020 einen Vorabdruck und eine Kurzfassung des Buches. Die Kurzfassung wurde auch von „Global Research“ in Kanada übernommen.

Da davon auszugehen ist, dass sich für den vorliegenden Aufruf kein Verleger finden wird, wird er als zweisprachiger Artikel (Deutsch und Englisch) per Internet verbreitet werden.

Einleitung 

Thema dieses Appells ist die Überzeugung des Autors – einem Lehrer, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologen –, dass junge Menschen sich sehr wohl zu frei denkenden, mutigen und moralischen Bürgern entwickeln können. Doch dazu müssen es alle für die Erziehung der Jugend Verantwortlichen unterlassen, die heranwachsende Generation auf ihrem Weg ins Erwachsenenleben mit verstandeslähmenden religiösen und autoritären Erziehungsmethoden „gehorsam“ und „gefügig“ zu machen.

Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung im 17./18. Jahrhundert war ein großer Umbruch in der Geschichte. Der Philosoph Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) formulierte den Leitsatz der Aufklärung: „Habe den Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen.“ Hinter dieser Aussage stand der Gedanke, dass der Mensch seinen Verstand gebrauchen und sich dadurch zu einer mündigen Persönlichkeit entwickeln soll.

Vor der Aufklärung war es von der Kirche und der Obrigkeit nicht gewünscht, dass der Mensch seinen Verstand gebraucht: Er sollte die „Wahrheiten“, die ihm von Staat und Kirche vorgesetzt wurden, als gegeben hinnehmen, ohne diese zu hinterfragen. Nun aber geriet der blinde Gehorsam gegenüber der Kirche ins Wanken.

Die Berufung auf die Vernunft als universelle Urteilsinstanz gilt als wichtiges Kennzeichen der Aufklärung. Dazu gehört der Kampf gegen Vorurteile, die Hinwendung zu den Naturwissenschaften, das Plädoyer für religiöse Toleranz und die Orientierung am Naturrecht.

Das Naturrecht, ein von der Natur gegebenes Recht sagt, dass es etwas gibt, was von Natur aus recht ist. Das Wissen darüber, was von Natur aus recht ist, macht es möglich, totalitären Ideologien und Diktaturen von einem festen menschlichen Standpunkt aus entgegenzutreten und ein Gefühl der Empörung gegen Unrecht und Unmenschlichkeit zu empfinden.

Seinen Anfang nahm das naturrechtliche Denken in der antiken griechischen Philosophie. Platon (427-347 v.u.Z.) ging davon aus, dass es objektive, absolut gültige Normen, Werte und Gesetze gibt, die nicht von den wechselnden Meinungen der Menschen abhängig sind. An den objektiven Ideen dessen, was Recht ist, müsse sich der Staat und die Staatsführung zu allen Zeiten orientieren. Das höchste Ziel im menschlichen Leben sei ein vernunftbestimmtes Leben.

Gesellschaftspolitisch zielte die Aufklärung auf mehr persönliche Handlungsfreiheit (Emanzipation), Bildung, Bürgerrechte, allgemeine Menschenrechte und das Gemeinwohl als Staatspflicht. Viele Vordenker der Aufklärung waren fortschrittsoptimistisch und nahmen an, eine vernunftorientierte Gesellschaft werde die Hauptprobleme menschlichen Zusammenlebens schrittweise lösen.

Nach Auffassung des Autors ist die Aufklärung jedoch ein unabgeschlossenes Projekt geblieben, ein unvollendeter gesellschaftlicher Emanzipationsprozess. Denken und Handeln der meisten Menschen wird nach wie vor beherrscht von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ und einem absoluten geistigen Gehorsam.

Dabei wird der Mensch weder religiös noch gottesgläubig geboren. Das geistig gesunde und „unverkrüppelte“ Kind gerät jedoch in eine Gesellschaft, in der wahnhafte Ideen und Illusionen vorherrschen. Wenn man versteht, wie die magische Weltanschauung auf das Seelenleben und die Vernunft des jungen Menschen wirkt, dann versteht man auch das unmündige Verhalten erwachsener Gläubiger.

Kaum zeigen sich beim kleinen Kind die ersten seelischen Regungen und es lernt zu sprechen, wird es von der Gesellschaft, den Eltern und der Kirche „in Obhut genommen“. Es wird ihm klar gemacht, dass sich sein Wesen bezüglich des Naturgefühls und der Weltanschauung nicht frei entwickeln darf. Will es verhindern, mit allgemeiner Verachtung und höllischen Peinigungen bestraft zu werden, muss es sein Wesen in eine bestimmte kirchliche Form pressen.

Mit diesem Vorgehen wird ein sehr starker und lähmender Druck auf die Kinderseele ausgeübt. Keine noch so diktatorische und totalitäre politische Organisation ist imstande, einen solch lähmenden Druck auf Kinderseelen auszuüben. Diese seelische Vergewaltigung ist schlimmer und nachhaltiger als jede körperliche. Das gleiche gilt für die Vergewaltigung des Geistes.

Der religiöse Glaube setzt neben Vernunft und Wissen eine magische Scheinwelt, der sich die wissenschaftliche Analyse nicht zu nähern hat. Die Religionen betrachten sich als etwas über Allem Stehendes, das nicht Gegenstand empirisch-rationalistischer Untersuchung sein darf – und auch nicht sein kann. Sie sind der Meinung, dass die Wissenschaft überhaupt nicht imstande ist, den Bereich der Religion, der göttlicher Herkunft sei, in seiner Totalität zu erfassen.

Wenn wir von einem „magischen Autoritätsglauben“ und dem Reflex eines absoluten geistigen Gehorsams ausgehen, dann müssen wir zum Verständnis seiner Ursachen einen Text heranziehen, den Ignatius von Loyola (1491-1556), der Gründer des Jesuitenordens, Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts verfasste und auf den das deutsche Wort „Kadavergehorsam“ zurückzuführen ist. In der vom Spanischen ins Lateinische übertragenen und von der Ordenskongregation 1558 veröffentlichten Fassung heißt es:

„Wir sollten uns dessen bewusst sein, dass ein jeder von denen, die im Gehorsam leben, sich von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen führen und leiten lassen muss, als sei er ein toter Körper, der sich wohin auch immer bringen und auf welche Weise auch immer behandeln lässt, oder wie ein Stab eines alten Mannes, der dient, wo und wozu auch immer ihn der benutzen will.“ (3)

Bereits lange Zeit vor Ignatius von Loyola verglich Franz von Assisi (1181/82-1226) die vollkommene und höchste Form des Gehorsams gegenüber dem Vorgesetzten mit einem toten, entseelten Leib, der sich ohne Widerspruch und ohne Murren hinbringen lässt, wo man will (4).

Der gehorsame Mensch muss sich gemäß dem Text von Loyola „von der göttlichen Vorsehung mittels des Oberen“ oder „Vorgesetzten“ widerspruchslos „führen“ und „leiten“ lassen als wäre er ein „toter Körper“ oder „entseelter Leib“. Auch die herrschende Schicht der Gesellschaft rechtfertigt ihre Herrschaft, ihre politische und wirtschaftliche Macht über die Gemüter der Menschen seit jeher mit dem ideologischen Begriff der „Autorität“. Und diese wird wiederum gestützt durch die Idee des „Absoluten“, das sich jeder Kontrollmöglichkeit durch die Erfahrung entzieht.

Für die „Herrschenden“ ist die höchste Kraft einer solchen Ideologie „Gott“ – als „unerkennbare“, „letzte“ Ursache und ethischer Gesetzgeber. So nennen sich etwa Könige „von Gottes Gnaden“ und sagen damit, dass sie ihre Inthronisierung von der göttlichen Instanz herleiten.

Da sich bereits das Kind von den am Erziehungsprozess beteiligten „Autoritäten“ widerspruchslos führen und leiten lassen muss, um auch noch als Erwachsener gehorsam zu sein, fordert die wissenschaftliche Psychologie eine neue „Aufklärung“.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Schwerpunkte: Klinische-, Pädagogische- und Medien-Psychologie). Als Pensionär arbeitete er viele Jahre als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung und eine Erziehung zum Gemeinsinn und Frieden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Noten 

  1. Hagen, Friedrich (1977). Jean Meslier oder der Atheist im Priesterrock. Leverkusen und Köln, S. 37
  2. A. a. O., S. 7
  3. https://de.wikipedia.org./wiki/Kadavergehorsam
  4. A. a. O., S. 7
  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wissenschaftliche Psychologie fordert neue „Aufklärung“

What’s Biden’s End Game in Ukraine?

May 24th, 2022 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

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

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

***

Last week, President Biden signed a massive $40 billion military aid bill for Ukraine. Who cares that inflation is killing the American economy and mothers can’t even get baby formula. For Washington, spending on war and empire always seems to trump America’s interests.

To put this giveaway to Ukraine in perspective: just since late February, the US has provided nearly $60 billion in “assistance” to Ukraine. That is almost half that country’s entire 2020 GDP! Washington has literally adopted Ukraine in our name and on our dime.

The Biden Administration claims that Ukraine is winning the war with Russia and that such an expenditure to protect Ukraine’s borders is critical to our national interests and worth risking a nuclear war over.

But protecting Ukraine’s democracy is no longer the stated goal of the Administration. Defense Secretary Austin outlined the Administration’s new intention not long ago when he said that the real goal is to weaken Russia.

Biden’s neocons are fighting a war with Russia, but once again Congress has no interest in voting on a war declaration or even in debating whether war with Russia 30 years after the end of the Cold War is a good idea.

There is a reason our Constitution grants war powers to the legislative branch. Forcing Members of the House and Senate to declare the US to be in a state of war also enables them  – through the powers of the purse-string – to define the goals of the war and particularly what a victory looks like. That prevents the kind of mission-creep ahd shifting objectives that have characterized our endless wars in the 21st century – including this current proxy war with Russia.

Even the US mainstream media is beginning to notice. Last week the New York Times’ Editorial Board published an editorial originally titled, “What is America’s Strategy in Ukraine?” complaining that the Biden Administration has yet to answer any questions to the American people regarding its involvement in Ukraine.

While, as could be expected, the paper attacked the “isolationists” in the US Congress who opposed the $40 billion giveaway, the NY Times editorial board nevertheless registered what can only be seen as the first major sign of dissent among the usual media war cheerleaders.

They wrote:

…it is still not in America’s best interest to plunge into an all-out war with Russia, even if a negotiated peace may require Ukraine to make some hard decisions. And the US aims and strategy in this war have become harder to discern, as the parameters of the mission appear to have changed.

While warning that Americans’ interest in Ukraine will begin to wane without more clarity from Washington as to its goals, the paper went on to directly contradict the Biden Administration’s predictions of a Ukraine victory:

A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal.

Congress – with very few exceptions – has opened a financial spigot to the government in Kiev without asking a single question about how and why the money is to be spent. When Senator Paul simply asked for someone to keep track of the $60 billion we shipped over there he was met with near-unanimous opposition.

An endless supply of US taxpayer money to Ukraine with zero stated goals and zero oversight. Isn’t it time to stand up and demand that both parties in Congress start asking some hard questions?

*

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

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

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

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

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

***

The president of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, Mahdi al-Mashat, weighed in on the effects of the UN-brokered truce and the future position of Yemen during a televised address carried by Al Masirah TV on 22 May.

According to the Yemeni president, the truce has resulted in very little alleviation of the suffering of the Yemeni people.

“The citizen did not feel a difference between truce and non-truce, which is not encouraging enough. We are not against extending the truce, but what is not possible is accepting any truce in which the suffering of Yemeni people continues,” Al-Mashat said.

Saudi Arabia has consistently violated the UN-brokered ceasefire agreement which started on 2 April.

By 9 April, the Saudi-led coalition had committed 1,647 violations of the ceasefire.

The violations consist of shelling residential communities, the seizure of oil tankers approved by the UN, and the launch of hundreds of illegal spy plane missions over Yemeni airspace.

The ceasefire stipulated that UN-approved fuel ships must be allowed to pass the Saudi-imposed naval blockade. Few ships have been allowed to enter Yemeni ports, despite having UN approval.

Another stipulation – the re-opening of Sanaa International Airport to commercial flights – was not honored until approximately one and a half months into the two-month truce, with the first flight departing on 16 May.

Two flights per week are being reportedly allowed during the remaining 15 days of the truce.

On this basis, President Al-Mashat affirmed the will of Yemen and its people for establishing a real and lasting peace, but said that it must coincide with their demands for ending the siege, bombardment and military occupation of Yemeni lands, as well as the start of reconstruction efforts to rebuild what was destroyed during the war.

On 17 May, the UN declared its intentions to extend the truce in order to begin negotiations to end the seven years of war.

The Yemeni president expressed the desire of his country to engage in real cooperation that leads to the improvement of humanitarian and economic situations in any truce.

Al-Mashat referred to the unelected council appointed by Saudi Arabia as the “Council of Shame,” stating that such a council was  responsible for killing Yemeni people and that “there was no difference between their position and that of the traitor Hadi.”

The war-torn country continues to experience one of the worst humanitarian crises as a result of the Saudi-led war and its economic blockade on Yemen.

*

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

Featured image: Yemeni President Mahdi al-Mashat (Photo credit: Al Masirah / Al Mayadeen)

EU Gives OK to Pay for Russian Gas in Rubles

May 24th, 2022 by Julianne Geiger

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

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

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

***

The EU has put an end to the lingering ambiguity surrounding how EU members can pay for Russian gas without violating sanctions.

Russia has demanded that countries pay for its gas in rubles, although European governments have struggled to find a way to oblige Russia while not running afoul of sanctions. Further complicating matters—until now—was the EU’s lack of clarification on whether such an arrangement would violate the current sanctions.

On Friday, Germany and Italy both told companies that they could open up rubles accounts in order to purchase Russian gas, in line with President Vladimir Putin’s request.

Russia’s request has companies opening up two accounts at Gazprombank; one in euros or U.S. dollars and another in rubles. Buyers would deposit the payment into one account in U.S. dollars or euros, and then it is automatically converted to rubles without the involvement of the Bank of Russia.

As of last week, 20 companies in the EU had opened accounts at Gazprombank, while another 14 had asked for the necessary paperwork to open up accounts. Germany’s VNG had already opened up an account with Gazprombank.

With the EU now clarifying that such an arrangement would not violate sanctions, additional companies are expected to file paperwork to open up ruble accounts.

But so far, Bulgaria, Finland, and Poland have refused to pay with ruble accounts. Russia has already cut off supplies to Bulgaria and Poland, and Russia said it would cut off gas supplies to Finland on Saturday.

According to Reuters, the EU has so far given out contradictory information, one version in writing on how to buy gas from Russia without violating sanctions, and a contrary version in a closed-door meeting that cautioned EU members not to open ruble accounts with Gazprombank.

*

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

Featured image is from 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.

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

***

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot; her death was deemed to be caused by myocarditis due to the shot

Emergency calls for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020

Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials; the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats

Research conducted by the New York State Department of Health found the shots’ effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%

Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots

*

A previously healthy 36-year-old mother of two died 11 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot.1 Initially, her cause of death was deemed inconclusive, but at an inquest, pathologist Dr. Sukhvinder Ghataura explained that he believes the COVID-19 shot was to blame. He told the coroner:2

“On the balance of probabilities, she had vaccine-related problems. There is nothing else for me to hang my hat on. It is the most likely reason, in my conclusion. It is more than likely Dawn died in response to the Covid jab.”

Government officials continue to deny deaths linked to Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot. In the U.S., they’ve only acknowledged nine deaths as causally associated with Johnson and Johnson’s COVID-19 shot as of May 10, 2022.3 But this case, which occurred in the U.K., highlights the potential dangers of shot-induced myocarditis.

According to Ghataura, the woman had several signs of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, including inflammation of the heart, fluid in the lungs and a small clot in her lungs.

She had also reported menstrual irregularities, jaw pain and arm pain.4 When asked by a family member whether he believed the woman would still be alive today if she hadn’t received the shot, Ghataura said, “It’s a difficult question but I would say yes.”5

COVID-19 Shots Increase Heart Attack Risk by 25% in Youth

At the conclusion of the inquest regarding the woman’s death, assistant coroner Alison McCormick stated, “I give the narrative conclusion that her death was caused by acute myocarditis, due to recent Covid-19 immunization.”6 Myocarditis is a recognized adverse effect of mRNA COVID-19 shots,7 and one that has been named in other deaths.

Dr. Neil Singh Dhalla, a CEO of a major health clinic, fell asleep four days after he got a COVID-19 booster shot — and died from a heart attack.8 The autopsy stated myocarditis. He was only 48 years old and had never had heart problems in his life. In another example, epidemiologists confirmed that two teenage boys from different U.S. states died of myocarditis days after getting the Pfizer shot.9

Both had received second doses of the shot. In a study that examined the autopsy findings, it’s reported that the “myocarditis” described in the boys’ deaths is “not typical myocarditis pathology”:10

“The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy. Understanding that these instances are different from typical myocarditis and that cytokine storm has a known feedback loop with catecholamines may help guide screening and therapy.”

An astounding study published in Scientific Reports further revealed that calls to Israel’s National Emergency Medical Services (EMS) for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome increased more than 25% among 16- to 39-year-olds from January 2021 to May 2021, compared to the same time period in 2019 and 2020.11

The researchers evaluated the association between the volume of the calls and other factors, including COVID-19 shots and COVID-19 infection, but a link was only found for the shots:12

“[T]he weekly emergency call counts were significantly associated with the rates of 1st and 2nd vaccine doses administered to this age group but were not with COVID-19 infection rates.

While not establishing causal relationships, the findings raise concerns regarding vaccine-induced undetected severe cardiovascular side-effects and underscore the already established causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis, a frequent cause of unexpected cardiac arrest in young individuals.”

COVID Shots Weren’t Tested on Pregnant Women

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Pfizer attempted to hide COVID-19 shot clinical trial data for 75 years. “When I saw that, that’s when I got very vocal and said fraud has occurred. How do I know that? They won’t show us the clinical data,” former Blackrock portfolio manager Edward Dowd said.13 This should be a red flag for all Americans.

Now that a lawsuit forced the FDA to release thousands of the documents, data about what they were trying to hide is coming out. Among the revelations is evidence that Pfizer deliberately excluded pregnant women from COVID-19 shot trials. So how did they make the recommendation that the shots are safe and effective for pregnant women?

This was based on a 42-day study involving 44 rats.14 What’s more, a Pfizer-BioNTech rat study revealed the shot more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss and also led to a low incidence of mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae in the fetuses.15

A CDC-sponsored study that was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy,” according to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK).16

When the risk of miscarriage was recalculated to include all women injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 82% to 91%.

Also buried in one of the documents is the statement, “Clinical laboratory evaluation showed a transient decrease in lymphocytes that was observed in all age and dose groups after Dose 1, which resolved within approximately one week …”17 What this means is Pfizer knew that, in the first week after the shot, people of all ages experienced transient immunosuppression, or put another way, a temporary weakening of the immune system, after the first dose.

Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’

“It looks to me — this is not an overstatement from what I’ve seen — that this was a clinical trial that by August 2021, Pfizer and the FDA knew was failed, the vaccines were not safe and effective,” said investigative author Naomi Wolf. “That they weren’t working. That the efficacy was waning … and that they were seriously dangerous. And they rolled it out anyway.”18

Regarding the shots for pregnant women, Wolf said, in an interview with Stephen Bannon on “War Room,” that a spike in severe adverse events among pregnant women coincides with the rollout of COVID-19 shots.

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) whistleblowers datamined the DOD health database, revealing significant increases in rates of miscarriage and stillbirths, along with cancer and neurological disease, since COVID-19 jabs rolled out.19 “This is honestly one of the wors[t] things I’ve ever, ever seen in my 35 years as a reporter,” Wolf said.20

Not only does IPAK’s data show COVID-19 injections prior to 20 weeks are unsafe for pregnant women, but 12.6% of women who received it in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening. Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.21

Young children are also developing severe hepatitis and nobody knows why.22 COVID-19 shots have been linked to cases of liver disease23 and liver damage following the shots has been deemed “plausible.”24

Confirmed: COVID Shots Affect Menstrual Cycles

It’s clear that there are many unknowns about how COVID-19 shots affect pregnancy and reproduction, including their effects on menstrual cycles. Women around the globe have reported changes in their menstrual cycles following COVID-19 shots, and health officials have tried to brush off the reports or label them all as anecdotal.

But a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — and funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health — confirms an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.25

Clinical trials for COVID-19 shots did not collect data about menstrual cycles following injection, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) does not actively collect menstrual cycle information either, making it difficult to initially determine whether the shots were having an effect. Anecdotal reports on social media, however, are numerous and, according to the study, “suggest menstrual disturbances are much more common …”26

The Obstetrics & Gynecology study involved 3,959 individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 years. Those who had not received a COVID-19 shot noted no significant changes in cycle four during the study compared to their first three cycles.

Those who received COVID-19 shots, however, had longer menstrual cycles, typically by less than one day, when they received the shots. The longer cycles were noted for both doses of the injection, with a 0.71-day increase after the first dose and 0.91-day increase after the second dose.27

While the researchers described the change as not clinically significant, meaning it’s not notable from a health standpoint, there were some women who experienced even greater menstrual changes, particularly those who received two shots in the same menstrual cycle. These changes included a two-day increase in cycle length and, in some cases, changes in cycle length of eight days or more.

Pfizer Shot Only 12% Effective in Children

Adding insult to injury, research conducted by the New York State Department of Health shows the dismal reality about the effectiveness of COVID-19 shots in children.28 From December 13, 2021 to January 24, 2022, they analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 year, who had received two doses of the shots.

Effectiveness declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%. Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.29 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.30

In the younger age group, the shots provided almost no protection at all. And it’s not only children who are affected by the shots’ rapidly waning effectiveness. COVID-19 booster shots also lose effectiveness rapidly, with protection plummeting by the fourth month post-shot.31 One CDC-funded study involved data from 10 states collected from August 26, 2021 to January 22, 2022, periods during which both delta and omicron variants were circulating.

Visits to emergency rooms and urgent care facilities, as well as hospitalizations, among people seeking medical care for COVID-19 were analyzed. The study did not include milder COVID-19 cases, for which no medical attention was sought.

While initially vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-associated emergency department or urgent care visits and hospitalizations was higher after the booster shot, compared to the second COVID-19 injection, effectiveness waned as time passed since vaccination.32

Within two months of the second COVID-19 shot, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits related to COVID-19 was at 69%. This dropped to 37% after five months post-shot. The low effectiveness five months after the initial shot series is what prompted officials to recommend a booster dose — and the third shot “boosted” effectiveness to 87%.

This boost was short-lived, however. Within four to five months post-booster, protection against emergency department and urgent care visits decreased to 66%, then fell to just 31% after five months or more post-booster.33

Considering the adverse effects and lack of effectiveness, many have called for an immediate withdrawal of the shots. IPAK believes the data are already compelling enough to withdraw the shots for vulnerable populations, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, children and those of child-bearing age.34

Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, spoke at the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting held April 23, 2021, and also called for “all gene therapy vaccines” to “be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts,” including fertility.35

*

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

Notes

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Independent May 6, 2022

3 U.S. CDC, Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination May 10, 2022

7 U.S. CDC November 12, 2021

8 BitChute December 28, 2021

9 Odysee February 17, 2022

10 Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine February 2022

11, 12 Scientific Reports volume 12, Article number: 6978 (2022)

13 KLIM News February 15, 2022, 6:45

14, 20 WND May 4, 2022

15, 16, 34 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021

17 The Naked Emperor Substack March 29, 2022

18 WND April 18, 2022

19 Rumble, The Red Line With Dr. Robert Malone, Part I February 3, 2022, 18:48

21 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021, Further Discussion

22 NBC News April 15, 2022

23 Journal of Hepatology October 4, 2021

24 Food and Chemical Toxicology June 2022, Volume 164, 113008, Section 11

25, 26, 27 Obstetrics & Gynecology: January 5, 2022 – Volume – Issue – 10.1097

28 medRxiv February 28, 2022

29, 30 CNBC February 28, 2022

31, 32 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. ePub: 11 February 2022

33 The New York Times February 11, 2022

35 Halt COVID Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latest Bad News About COVID Vaccines: Pfizer and FDA Knew Vaccines Were Not ‘Safe and Effective’
  • Tags: , ,

Pressure Mounts on Patel Over Assange Decision

May 24th, 2022 by Joe Lauria

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

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

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

***

At some point during the next nine days, British Home Secretary Priti Patel will decide whether or not to extradite imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange to the United States to face espionage charges for publishing accurate information revealing U.S. war crimes.

Pressure is building from both sides on the home secretary.  Press freedom and human rights organizations, a Nobel laureate, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, journalists and Assange supporters have appealed to Patel to let Assange go.

While it would be deemed improper for outside influence to be brought on judges, it would not be fanciful to imagine that behind the scenes Patel is getting the message from the U.S. Department of Justice and possibly from U.S. and U.K. intelligence services about what is expected of her.

The home secretary should know without prodding what the U.S. and British governments want her to do. Patel is a highly-ambitious politician who no doubt will calculate how her decision will impact her career.

“Politicians think about their next election, they think about their voters … that’s what makes them tick,” Kristinn Hrafnnson, WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, told Consortium News at a protest outside the Home Office in London last Wednesday. “For the first time it’s in the hands of a politician, and Priti Patel, if she wants to think about her legacy … she should do the right thing.”

“Politics is a strange beast,” Hrafnsson said. “Anything can happen. I’m hoping this is something that will be taken up in the Cabinet here. Let’s not forget that Boris Johnson was a journalist. He was part of the media community and should have better understanding of this case than many others.”

Patel is acting after the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision to overturn a lower court ruling barring Assange’s extradition on health grounds and the danger of U.S. prisons. The High Court decided solely on conditional U.S. promises that Assange would be well treated in custody.

With the courts no longer involved and the decision solely in Patel’s hands, the case now is purely political, meaning political pressure can be brought to bear on the home secretary.

“The home secretary has the discretion to block this extradition, and there is a lot of pressure from civil society and press freedom groups for her to do so,” said Stella Assange at a film screening on Thursday.

She said the “heaviest” pressure had come from Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe, “urging Patel to block it.” Mijatovic wrote to Patel on May 10, saying:

“I have been following the developments in Mr Assange’s case with great attention. In the judicial proceedings so far, the focus has mainly been on Mr Assange’s personal circumstances upon his possible extradition to the United States. While a very important matter, this also means, in my opinion, that the wider human rights implications of Mr Assange’s possible extradition, which reach far beyond his individual case, have not been adequately considered so far.

In particular, it is my view that the indictment by the United States against Mr Assange raises important questions about the protection of those that publish classified information in the public interest, including information that exposes human rights violations. The broad and vague nature of the allegations against Mr Assange, and of the offences listed in the indictment, are troubling as many of them concern activities at the core of investigative journalism in Europe and beyond.

Consequently, allowing Mr Assange’s extradition on this basis would have a chilling effect on media freedom, and could ultimately hamper the press in performing its task as purveyor of information and public watchdog in democratic societies.”

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquive has also written to Patel. “I join the growing collective concern about the violations of the human, civil and political rights of Mr. Julian Assange,” the Argentine wrote. He called the extradition request “illegal and abusive” and said it imperiled press freedom and could bring “potentially fatal consequences” to Assange.

Amnesty International released a statement at the end of April calling on Patel to deny extradition. “If the Home Secretary certifies the US request to extradite Julian Assange it will violate the prohibition against torture and set an alarming precedent for publishers and journalists around the world,” Amnesty said. It went on:

“Prolonged solitary confinement is a regular occurrence in the USA’s maximum-security prisons. The practice amounts to torture or other ill-treatment, which is prohibited under international law. The assurances of fair treatment offered by the USA in Julian Assange’s case are deeply flawed and could be revoked at any time. Extradition to the USA would put Assange at risk of serious human rights violations, and hollow diplomatic assurances cannot protect him from such abuse.

If the UK government allows a foreign country to exercise extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction to prosecute a person publishing from the UK, other governments could use the same legal apparatus to imprison journalists and silence the press far beyond the borders of their own countries.”

“There has been a huge mobilization all over Europe in many countries and 1,800 journalists have written an open letter to Priti Patel saying that this case should be blocked because it affects their safety because of the implications for global press freedom,” Stella Assange said.

Reporters Without Borders submitted a petition to Patel on Thursday with 65,000 signatures. It was delivered to British embassies in eight countries, Assange said.  More than  700,000 Australians have also signed a petition.

New Australian Government 

The election on Friday of just the fourth Labor government in Australia since the Second World War may bode well for Assange. The new prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said publicly that Assange should be returned to his native Australia.

It is now up to the new prime minister to pick up the phone and call Joe Biden to tell him that “enough is enough” means the prosecution must be dropped and Assange sent home. He also knows Patel’s phone number.

“Albanese, I hope he will stick to his promises and convictions,” Hrafnsson said. But he is skeptical. “I’ve been a journalist for 30 years to rely on politicians is something … I’d rather be betting on the card table I guess.”

Cross Appeal

If Patel decides to extradite Assange it’s not the end of the legal road for Assange. He has the option of launching a “cross” appeal to the High Court. Though he won in magistrate’s court on health grounds and the condition of U.S. prisons, the judge ruled on every other point of law in Washington’s favor.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied that the case was a political offense in violation of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty; that it violated the U.S. first amendment and threatened press freedom; and that Assange’s rights to due process were violated when it was revealed that the C.I.A. had spied on privileged conversations with his lawyers and she ignored testimony that the C.I.A. had discussed kidnapping or poisoning Assange.

“The judges will have all the other elements, the important elements, that were discussed by the magistrate’s court but disregarded by the High Court because it was not the appeal point,” Hrafnsson said. The U.S. appeal was only about Assange’s health and U.S. prison conditions and Washington won because it convinced the judges of the credibility of its conditional assurances to treat Assange humanely.

Since Baraitser’s Jan. 4, 2021 decision, other facts have emerged that could form part of the cross appeal. The C.I.A. plot against Assange was further corroborated by U.S. officials in a Yahoo! Newsreport. A key U.S. witness on computer charges against Assange recanted his testimony. And Assange’s health has further deteriorated when he suffered a mini-stroke last October.

Assange’s legal team hopes the High Court will hear the cross appeal on at least some of the nine points it would raise. “If Priti Patel signs the extradition, then we will be given the opportunity to seek to appeal on all the points that were lost,” said Stella Assange. “It’s basically as if we had lost back in 2021. That’s the position we are in now. ”

*

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

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times.  He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe  

Featured image: Priti Patel. (Number 10/Flickr)

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

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

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

***

The World Health Organization (WHO) on Friday held an emergency meeting to discuss the outbreak of monkeypox after more than 100 cases were reported across 12 countries.

Days before the WHO convened, the Biden administration placed a $119 million order for monkeypox vaccines after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed six people in the U.S. were being monitored for the viral infection, and one person had tested positive.

Belgium on Sunday became the first country to introduce a compulsory 21-day quarantine for monkeypox patients after reporting four cases of the disease in the last week, Politico reported.

The 100 newly reported cases, or suspected cases, garnered attention because many of them do not appear to be linked to travel to Africa, where in some regions, monkeypox is endemic.

Cases were reported in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. No deaths are reported as of yet.

The number of identified cases in Europe is a record, described by Germany’s armed forces medical services as “the largest and most widespread outbreak … ever seen in Europe,” while its spread in the U.K. was described as “unprecedented.”

U.K. public health officials warned more monkeypox cases are being detected “on a daily basis” and that there “could be really significant numbers over the next two or three weeks,” though they did not specify what “numbers” would be considered “really significant.”

The manner in which monkeypox may have spread — through sexual health services and sexual contact between men — also may have helped to heap attention on this new outbreak.

Many of the recent cases were traced to two “superspreader” events that involved situations in which men came into close physical contact, including 30 monkeypox cases in Spain traced to a single adult sauna in Madrid.

Monkeypox cases reported in Belgium appear to be connected to a recent gay “fetish festival.”

For some, these developments may bring to mind the early onset of HIV, which at the time was connected to sexual contact among males, and to remarks by Dr. Anthony Fauci that he visited gay saunas and bars during the early years of the HIV outbreak to understand how the virus was spreading.

WHO Europe regional director Hans Kluge last week expressed concerns about transmission at “mass gatherings, festivals, and parties.”

However, other public health professionals said there is a low risk to the public and a low likelihood that the epidemic will last long.

Meanwhile, questions are popping up about the similarity between a March 2021 tabletop “simulation” of a monkeypox outbreak and a similar simulation in 2019 — Event 201 — which correctly “predicted” the COVID-19 pandemic

Monkeypox — what is it?

Monkeypox was first discovered in 1958 in monkeys, although they are not the source of the virus. It was first identified in humans in 1970.

The virus is particularly prevalent in Central and West Africa and is considered a rare zoonotic disease, which means that it is caused by germs that spread between animals and people.

Monkeypox typically is spread by wild animals, such as in instances when a human is bitten or comes into contact with animal blood or bodily fluids. However, human-to-human transmission, while rare, is possible.

The virus is known to enter the human body through broken skin, the respiratory tract, or the eyes, nose or mouth, for instance through large respiratory droplets or through contact — including sexual contact — with bodily fluids or lesions, or indirectly through contaminated clothing or linens.

However, “common household disinfectants can kill it.”

A prior outbreak — the first to occur outside of the African continent — occurred in the U.S. in 2003, linked to animals shipped to Texas from Ghana.

And in July 2021, monkeypox was confirmed in a Texas individual who had returned to Dallas from Nigeria, according to the CDC.

Symptoms of monkeypox infection tend to be mild, and include fever, rash and swollen lymph nodes, and occasionally intense headache, back pain, muscle aches, lack of energy and skin eruptions which can cause painful lesions, scabs or crusts.

There are two strains of monkeypox: the West African and Central African strains. The latter is known as the deadlier of the two, but the cases identified in the recent outbreak all appear to have been caused by the milder West African strain.

Did March 2021 ‘pandemic exercise’ predict monkeypox outbreak?

In October 2019, just weeks before the outbreak of COVID-19, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, along with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, organized “Event 201,” a “high-level pandemic exercise” that mirrored what later followed with COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2021, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), in conjunction with the Munich Security Conference, held a “tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats.”

This “fictional exercise scenario” involved the simulation of “a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months.”

According to NTI, this exercise, which was “[d]eveloped in consultation with technical and policy experts,” brought together “19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.”

The exercise culminated in a report, published November 2021, titled “Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conference.”

This report contains key findings from the exercise, as well as “actionable recommendations for the international community.”

The outcome of this “exercise scenario” found the fictional pandemic, “caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight,” led to “more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.”

The fictional start date of the monkeypox pandemic in this exercise was May 15, 2022. The first European case of monkeypox was identified on May 7, 2022.

Key findings from the report included:

  • The “need” for “a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.”
  • “Gaps in national-level preparedness,” which will require national governments to “improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of ‘triggers’ that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs,” described as a “no-regrets” policymaking basis.
  • “Gaps in biological research governance” in order to “meet today’s security requirements” and be “ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future.”
  • “Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics,” and a lack of financing for countries to “make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.”

Key recommendations included:

  • Bolstering international systems “for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins,” calling upon the WHO to “establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system” and the United Nations system to “establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin.”
  • The development and implementation of “national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response,” including the adaptation of the “no-regrets” approach to responding to pandemics via “anticipatory action” based on “triggers” that would automatically generate a response to “high-consequence biological events.”
  • The establishment of “an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances,” that would “support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle — from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.”
  • The development of “a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world,” which would include “[n]ational leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector” with the aim of establishing and funding “a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness” and that would incentivize “national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.”
  • The establishment of “a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience,” based on a “high-level panel’ that would be convened by the UN secretary-general “to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.”

The above recommendations were borne out in practice during the simulated monkeypox pandemic scenario.

As stated in the report:

“In national pandemic response plans, specific readiness measures would be ‘triggered’ based on factors related to the potential severity of the outbreak, expected delays in situational awareness, and the time it would take to implement response measures and see results.”

What would be “triggered” bears a remarkable similarity to the COVID-19-related measures of the past two-plus years.

The report states:

“Although triggered actions would vary depending upon the particular needs of the country, in most cases the goals are the same: slow the spread of disease to buy time and flatten the epidemiological curve, while using that time to scale up public health and medical systems to keep up with growing caseloads and save lives.

“NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions] such as mask mandates and ceasing mass gatherings were deemed to be critical for blocking chains of disease transmission.

“Participants generally did not endorse travel restrictions such as border closures, but travel health screening measures [i.e., vaccine passports] were viewed as valuable.”

According to the results of the simulated scenario, the fictional countries that “prioritized keeping their economies open, undertaking little-to-no NPIs, and downplaying the virus and its potential impacts … have experienced much worse outcomes in terms of illness and mortality” than those fictional countries that “promptly adopted aggressive measures to slow virus transmission,” such as “shutting down mass gatherings, imposing social-distancing measures, and implementing mask mandates,” in addition to establishing “large-scale testing and contact-tracing operations.”

Gates Foundation, pharma execs, WHO participated in monkeypox pandemic simulation

Who took part in the NTI’s monkeypox pandemic simulation?

Key participants included:

  • Dr. Ruxandra Draghia-Akli, global head of Johnson & Johnson Global Public Health R&D and Janssen Research & Development.
  • Dr. Chris Elias, president of the global development division of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  • Dr. George Gao, director-general of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (the Chinese CDC).
  • Dr. Margaret (Peggy) A. Hamburg, interim vice president for global biological policy and programs at NTI, a member of the global health scientific advisory committee for the Gates Foundation and a member of the board of GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance.
  • Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator who is the founder and co-chair of NTI.
  • Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO Health Emergencies Program and a highly visible figure during COVID-19 times.
  • Dr. Petra Wicklandt, head of corporate affairs for Merck.

Several of the participants listed above also “participated” in Event 201.

The authors of the report also stand out for their background.

For example, Dr. Jaime M. Yassif, vice president of NTI global biological policy and programs, holds a Ph.D. in biophysics from the University of California-Berkeley and a master’s degree in science and security from the King’s College, London, war studies department.

Yassif previously led the initiative on biosecurity and pandemic preparedness at the Open Philanthropy Project, including the management of nearly $40 million in biosecurity grants, the “initiation of new biosecurity work in China and India,” and “establishment of the Global Health Security Index.”

She also previously advised the U.S. Department of Defense on science and technology policy and worked on the Global Health Security Agenda at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Co-author Chris Isaac, program officer for NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team, “has been involved with synthetic biology through the Internationally Genetically Engineered Machines Competition since the start of his scientific career” and “is an alumnus of the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.”

The report is the product of a partnership between NTI, co-founded by Nunn and Ted Turner, and the Munich Security Conference.

Both NTI ($3.5 million, for “vaccine development”) and the Munich Security conference ($1.2 million) received funding from the Gates Foundation.

The report itself was funded by the Open Philanthropy project, one of whose main funders is Dustin Moscovitz, co-founder of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg.

Open Philanthropy, over the past decade, has provided donations and grants to the following entities and for the following purposes:

  • $166.9 million for “global health.”
  • $90.2 million for “biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.”
  • $18 million for “global catastrophic risks.”
  • $40.2 to Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.
  • $17.9 to NTI.
  • $2.2 to The Guardian.
  • $1.6 to Rockefeller University.

Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at center of multiple tabletop exercises

NTI and the Munich Security Conference are not new to “tabletop exercises” — their report highlights previous simulations, including a 2019 report titled “A Spreading Plague,” and a 2020 report titled “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

Other simulations in the recent past, in addition to Event 201, include:

  • Operation Dark Winter (June 2001, less than three months before the 9/11 attacks and subsequent anthrax scare, “examining the national security, intergovernmental, and information challenges of a biological attack on the American homeland”).
  • Operation Atlantic Storm (January 2005, “designed to mimic a summit of transatlantic leaders forced to respond to a bioterrorist attack”).
  • The Clade X exercise (May 2018, “to illustrate high-level strategic decisions and policies that the United States and the world will need to pursue in order to prevent a pandemic or diminish its consequences should prevention fail”). Yassif helped develop the Clade X exercise.

The common denominator among all of these simulations? The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which published a document titled “The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028,” comprising “a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future.”

Predictions for the future don’t end there, however. For instance, in September 2017, NTI and the WEF organized a roundtable discussion on the current state of biological risks presented by technology advancement in light of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

And in January 2020, NTI and the WEF again joined forces, issuing a report titled “Biosecurity Innovation and Risk Reduction: A Global Framework for Accessible, Safe and Secure DNA Synthesis.”

According to the report:

“Rapid advancements in commercially available DNA synthesis technologies — used for example to artificially create gene sequences for clinical diagnosis and treatment — pose growing risks, with the potential to cause a catastrophic biological security threat if accidentally or deliberately misused.”

Merck, whose head of corporate affairs participated in the monkeypox simulation, was the subject of an FBI and CDC investigation in November 2021 regarding 15 suspicious vials labeled “smallpox” at a Merck facility in Philadelphia.

Bill Gates no stranger to predicting the future

Bill Gates has himself been remarkably prescient with his predictions of future events.

Here are some of Gates’ predictions:

  • In a November 2015 TED talk, he stated “[i]f anything kills over 10 million people in the next few decades, it’s most likely to be a highly infectious virus rather than a war. Not missiles, but microbes.”
  • In a 2017 speech at that year’s Munich Security Conference, he said “the next epidemic could originate on the computer screen of a terrorist intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus,” arguing in favor of the merger of “health security” and “international security.”
  • In May 2021, Gates said “[s]omebody who wants to cause damage could engineer a virus so that the cost, the chance of running into this is more than that of naturally-caused epidemics such as the current one … [t]he ways the humans interact with other species, these viruses are coming across the species barriers whether it’s bats or monkeys.”
  • In November 2021, Gates publicly pondered, “[y]ou say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that? There’s naturally-caused epidemics and bioterrorism-caused epidemics that could even be way worse than what we experienced today.”
  • In February 2022, Gates warned that the next pandemic “… won’t necessarily be a coronavirus or even the flu. It is likely to be a respiratory virus. Because, with all the human travel we have now, that’s the one that can spread in such a rapid way,” emphasizing the significance of providing sufficient funds to the private sector and academia to build better vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.
  • Earlier this month, Gates called for the development of a so-called “Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization” (GERM) initiative, stating that present WHO funding was “not at all serious about pandemics” and that $1 billion a year would be needed to operate this initiative.
  • Also this month, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced “a new financial commitment of up to US$125 million to help end the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future pandemics,” with much of the money going toward “strengthening health systems in low-income countries, enhancing integrated disease monitoring, expanding access to pandemic tools, and helping countries manage COVID-19 alongside other pressing health needs.”
  • In his new book, “How to Prevent the Next Pandemic,” Gates argues that, despite COVID fatigue, the world must focus on preparing for future pandemics, regardless of whether a disease is circulating.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As Monkeypox Cases Spread, Report Shows Gates Foundation, WHO, Pharma Execs Took Part in Monkeypox Pandemic ‘Simulation’
  • Tags: , , ,

Another Orchestrated Health Crisis in the Works? Smallpox Vaccine to Protect against Monkeypox

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 23, 2022

The corrupt public health officials in the Western world, who are shills for Big Pharma as they share in the profits of the drugs that they approve, are about to inflict on humanity a worst castrophe than the Covid vaccine. 

How Many People Have Been Killed by the COVID Vaccine?

By Josh Mitteldorf, May 23, 2022

Several scholars and statisticians have used different methods to estimate how many Americans the vaccines have killed. I took a stab at it myself. Credible results fall in the range 250,000 to 500,000 people killed promptly by the vaccines, about ¼ to ½ the number that the COVID virus has reportedly killed.

Over 100 Monkeypox Infections Detected in 10 Countries as Unprecedented Outbreak Spreads Globally

By Evan Blake and Benjamin Mateus, May 23, 2022

Much remains unknown about what is causing the outbreak, which is the most geographically dispersed and rapidly spreading monkeypox outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1958. In the coming days and weeks, more data and scientific understanding will emerge, but already there is profound concern within the scientific community and among the public, which has found wide expression on social media.

The U.S. Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

By James A. Lucas, May 23, 2022

The largest WWII casualties  were China and the Soviet Union, 26 million in the Soviet Union,  China estimates its losses at approximately 20 million deaths. Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) which lost a large share of their population during WWII are now under the Biden-Harris administration categorized as “enemies of America”, which are threatening the Western World.

History of Ukraine’s Nazi Connection

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, May 23, 2022

Britain’s parliamentary warlords have to date gladly provided £2.1 Billion to fund the Ukrainian war effort rather than budgeting to fix the UK’s gutted NHS, declining educational system, historic poverty or ever-increasing homeless population. With the deplorable state of the UK in mind, why does the British public continue to ignore this national decline in favour of Ukraine’s factual allegiance to neo-Nazism?

The History They Don’t Teach You in School: America and Russia Have a Long History of Collaboration

By Nancy Spannaus, May 23, 2022

History shows that, from the period of America’s independence struggle to the time of President John F. Kennedy, American statesmen sought and achieved alliances with Russia (including in the Soviet period) in their common interest. In each case these statesmen were leading representatives of the American System of political economy.

Globalization and Rampant Racism

By Jim Miles, May 23, 2022

Words are important.  Using the word ‘rampant’ in the title gives the real image of racism:  not some narrow right wing ethos that surfaces occasionally into violence, but something that is “violent or extravagant in action or opinion, arrant, aggressive, unchecked, prevailing.” (Oxford English dictionary). All wars and significant amounts of domestic violence throughout the world can be accurately viewed through the perspective of racism, racism prevails.

How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 23, 2022

Skyrocketing prices and food shortages are already looming, and are likely to become worse in the coming months. At present, many parents across the U.S. are running from store to store in search of baby formula and finding only empty shelves. How did this happen?

Dr. McCullough: ‘Medical Crisis’ Is Being Exploited to Push Global Government

By Emily Mangiaracina, May 23, 2022

Since the early stages of COVID-19, McCullough has spoken regularly about the dangers of the COVID shots, and about the suppression of effective early treatment for COVID. However, he has been mostly tight-lipped on the reasons behind the seemingly ubiquitous push for dangerous jabs, and suppression of effective treatment.

The Anatomy of Inflation

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 23, 2022

In my latest Alternative Visions radio show I break down the various causes of US inflation and its evolution from the summer of 2021 when it emerged to the present (and coming months). False narratives by US politicians–inflation due to too much government relief spending in March 2021, due to ‘Putin’s war, or due to US households’ flush with savings and cash–are exposed for the economic ideology they represent.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Another Orchestrated Health Crisis in the Works? Smallpox Vaccine to Protect Against Monkeypox

How Many People Have Been Killed by the Covid Vaccine?

May 23rd, 2022 by Josh Mitteldorf

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

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

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

***

In a science-based world, in the world we all want to live in, this question would be answered directly by institutions and agencies eager to collect safety information on a new medical technology, even as it was being rushed to market. But this is not our world, and in reality we have to glean bits of information from diverse sources and try to compare their implications to converge on a consensus view.

Several scholars and statisticians have used different methods to estimate how many Americans the vaccines have killed. I took a stab at it myself. Credible results fall in the range 250,000 to 500,000 people killed promptly by the vaccines, about ¼ to ½ the number that the COVID virus has reportedly killed. 

This includes only people who die within a few days or sometimes weeks after vaccination. Long-term health effects from the vaccines are thought to be predominantly detrimental, but difficult to quantify because they are just beginning to become apparent.

Medical journals that are worse than useless

Such is the captured state of our most prestigious medical journals that this article appeared in Britain’s “best” medical journal last month. The message they want to propagate is that “most reactions were mild”. MedPageToday summarized the Lancet study with the headline, “6 Months of U.S. Data Support Safety of mRNA COVID Vaccines” — a statement that goes well beyond the (distorted) claims in the Lancet, as covered by the Children’s Health Defender here.

“Most reactions were mild?” Well, yes, that’s true in the sense that there were a whole lot more headaches than deaths, and more sore arms even than headaches. But look at the absolute numbers! Deaths from the COVID vaccine have been 90 times higher than the previous most deadly vaccine in history, Shingrix.

This practice of looking only at the ratios of different kinds of vaccine injuries and not the crucial issue of absolute rates was introduced into the FDA protocol just last year, undoubtedly because the mRNA vaccines could never have been approved if absolute rates of injury were considered.

A measure called PRR = proportional reporting ratio is a complicated statistical algorithm that effectively makes most readers’ eyes glaze over. But Matthew Crawfordis not most readers, and he pointed out last summer that PRR had this diabolical property that the absolute number of injuries appears in both the numerator and the denominator, so that PRR is completely insensitive to the actual rate of injuries caused by the vaccine.

Long-term harm — no data yet

Here, I focus only on the short-term risk of death from the vaccines.

There is good reason to suspect that the mRNA vaccines have detrimental effects on the immune system and, in some cases, on the heart, the nervous system, and the reproductive system. Seneff and McCullough (with other experts) analyzed mechanisms of immune suppression from the vaccines, with potential long-term consequences for cancer, infectious disease, and other aspects of health.

Another recent publication documents that the RNA from the vaccines can be reverse-transcribed, with potential to become a permanent part of a person’s DNA. The implication of these findings is that some vaccinated patients may continue to generate spike protein for the rest of their lives, and that there is a possibility their offspring might also carry genes for the spike protein.

Sen Ron Johnson and attorney Tom Renz have obtained statistics from the US Medical Military Epidemiological Database.

Figures for 2021 show large increases in several types of cancer, MS, inflammation of the heart, and a variety of chronic diseases. This has large but yet unmeasured implications for long-term health of the vaccinated.

Renz also announced last year that an anonymous whistleblower within CDC had leaked to him unpublished data from Medicare and Medicaid patients. Among this group (about 60 million people), there were 48,465 deaths within 2 weeks of vaccination. These were concentrated among the elderly, but the rate was far above background death rates for all age groups.

Actual data from people vaccinated more than a year ago is just beginning to be available, and there is no substitute for compiling symptoms and statistics in the real world.

Nevertheless, I don’t hesitate to say that it was the height of irresponsibility for Pfizer and Moderna and FDA to have distributed mRNA vaccines to billions of human experimental subjects without even considering the question how long the spike protein remains active in the minority of cases where the mRNA is not efficiently eliminated and whether the RNA can reverse-transcribe to become a permanent part of a person’s genome, and the FDA stepped far outside its role as watchdog and protector in the health marketplace when it authorized (then approved) COVID vaccines with no data on long-term health effects.

Pfizer’s data

The FDA originally asked to withhold, for up to 75 years, Pfizer’s data, submitted to them in support of approval of their vaccine. But now some of this data is being released over about a year. This first data dump reports 1,223 deaths worldwide following vaccination through February 28, and suggests that about ⅓ of them are in the US. Based on 38.4 million US Pfizer vaccinations during this time period (CDC data), Pfizer’s own figures suggest a prompt fatality rate of 10 per million vaccination doses.

That would scale to about 6,000 American vaccine deaths today, assuming the rate remained constant, based on 558 million vaccine doses delivered (according to CDC). This is much smaller than the number of deaths reported to date to VAERS (11,700 US) and VAERS is generally considered to be substantially under-reported — see below. Incidentally, CDC treats all these deaths as coincidence, and has acknowledged just nine deaths from COVID vaccines, none of them from Pfizer or Moderna.

Pfizer’s reported 1,223 deaths is almost certainly an undercount based on what we have seen from other sources. But for the FDA, it was an unprecedented level of risk. For example, when the swine flu vaccine was rushed out in 1976, the vaccine was pulled abruptly from the market after 53 people died. 53 deaths were enough to pull the plug on a vaccination program in 1976; but the Pfizer vaccine was authorized by FDA with 1,223 admitted deaths, and later approved after more than 10,000 deaths had been reported to VAERS.

VAERS

VAERS, the 30-year-old Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, though deeply flawed, may be the best resource we have. There have been 12,000 US deaths reported to VAERS following receipt of the COVID vaccines in 2021 and 2022. We know that reporting to VAERS is not only voluntary but cumbersome and that most harms from vaccines are never reported to VAERS.

So to get from 12,000 to the full number of deaths, we need to multiply by a compensatory “underreporting factor”, URF. For every reported death there are URF total deaths, reported and unreported. A Harvard Pilgrim Study in 2010 concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”, or URF>100, but we expect that a single URF is an oversimplification.

More serious injuries that begin immediately after vaccination are likely to be reported at a higher rate (lower URF) compared to milder injuries that become apparent only weeks or months after vaccination. Deaths are a special case — the most serious of “adverse events”, but no patient remains to report the issue. What is the URF for deaths?

In the past, CDC itself has estimated its underreporting factor. Here [2020], they come up with numbers from 1.5 to 8 for various conditions. No CDC estimate has been made since the mRNA vaccines appeared. There are credible charges that VAERS has deleted reports and that social and economic pressures are used to discourage reporting of COVID vaccine injuries in particular.

This article from Massachusetts General Hospital is limited to anaphylactic shock in response to the COVID vaccines. This is the most obvious and most immediate serious (life-threatening) side-effect of vaccination. The authors calculate an underreporting factor between 50 and 123.  Kirsch, Rose, and Crawford compute URF=41 based on this same MGH data and corresponding reports to VAERS.

Jessica Rose estimates the underreporting factor using Pfizer’s own data for the 15,000 subjects in their trial and comparing the rate of severe side-effects in Pfizer’s trial with the numbers subsequently reported to VAERS when the same vaccine was distributed to the public. She arrives at URF=31. 12,000 reported deaths for mRNA vaccines might then correspond to 370,000 actual vaccine deaths.

More ways to estimate the death toll from COVID vaccines

There are other methods we might use to estimate URF, the number of VAERS cases that go unreported for each one that is reported. One is to look at excess all-cause mortality from all causes in 2021 (when the vaccines were introduced), and compare it to 2020 and prior years; another is to look at data from other countries or whole-world data.

Mark Skidmore has taken a direct approach with a broad-based national survey.

A fourth approach, which I undertook myself, is based on data reported by life insurance companies indicating that death claims in the working-age population (18 – 65) were up.

Edward Dowd, a securities analyst, posted his analysis based solely on CDC all-cause mortality data that for millennials (age 25-40), all-cause mortality is up 84% during this year of vaccination compared to what would be expected based on recent previous years.

The percentage is larger for the young millennials because the baseline number is smaller. In other words, the expected death rate among 25-40 year olds is low, so vaccine injuries show up as a larger percentage, and the result is easier to see.

This is evidence that while COVID-19 kills mostly older people, roughly in proportion to their baseline demographic risk, the COVID-19 vaccines take a relatively greater toll on younger people. Older people have exponentially higher probabilities of dying of any cause, and the COVID virus mimics the natural background rate, killing older people far more often than younger people. The mRNA vaccines also kill older people more often than younger, but the probability is not so strongly skewed, so, compared to background rates, vaccine deaths in younger people scream from the rafters as a statistical anomaly.

Since the beginning of 2021, there have been a lot of “excess deaths” (more than in previous years), and the numbers are too glaring to hide. Of course, the mainstream press is not even asking the obvious question, “could these be connected to the COVID jabs?” Everyone agrees the number of deaths is far in excess of what can be explained directly by the COVID virus.

The excess mortality for young people provides clear and compelling evidence for vaccine fatalities. We can extrapolate roughly from data pertaining to the young to the population as a whole using the VAERS database to estimate what portion of the deaths are in each age range. (In doing this, we assume that the URF does not depend on age, even though we know intuitively that it is far more likely that a VAERS report will be filed for a 40-year-old death than a 90-year-old death.)

Outright denial from the usual sources

This Lancet article, sponsored by the Gates Foundation, offers a model to help us understand the factors leading to excess deaths at various places in the world. They use statistical methods to select relevant variables, but, as you might guess, some salient variables like “vaccination rate”, “lockdowns”, and “use of ivermectin” were not under consideration.

The article finds that in addition to 6 million people who died of COVID-19 in two years of the pandemic, there were 12 million excess deaths that could not be traced directly to the virus. Their estimate of 18 million worldwide excess deaths agrees pretty well with The Economist’s model, described below, which centered on 20 million, with wide margins.

This is a list of the variables considered by the Lancet/Gates study for explanation of the increase in all-cause mortality.

This kind of study is called a “multivariate regression”. A list of possible causes is first postulated, each of which is correlated with the outcome, and with each other. The statistical procedure then tells you quantitatively what percentage of the outcome is explained by each of the candidate causes.

In this case, the outcome is the difference between the death rate in 2020-2021 and death rate before 2020. The fact that billions of doses of an experimental vaccine were delivered to half the world population during 2021 and not at time before stands out as the elephant in the room, but assessing vaccine risk was not on the agenda of this list of authors.

The list of candidate causes that they came up with is implausible because none of these factors changed between 2020 and 2021, and the most dramatic increase in all-cause mortality occurred in 2021. I assume that mass vaccination with a hastily-tested experimental technology is the most plausible candidate for the 2021 increase in deaths.

Skidmore survey

Prof Mark Skidmore is the same man who uncovered $21 trillion [sic] missing from Pentagon accounting three years ago.

Late last year, he conducted a modest survey of just 3,000 people, designed to be a representative sample of Americans. Results were published here. Skidmore was recently interviewed on Rumble.

He asked subjects about family members and people who died of COVID-19 and in parallel asked about people in the same group who died of the COVID-19 vaccine. He found 55 people who reported a fatality from inoculations compared to 150 people who reported a fatality from COVID-19.

The implication is that COVID vaccines have killed 37% as many people as the COVID virus. (Because of the small sample size, the percentage could be as low as 26% or as high as 47%.) An additional, more contingent, step in the calculation is to then calculate 37% of government estimates of COVID fatalities nationwide (996,000) to conclude that 365,000 Americans have died (promptly) from the COVID vaccinations. Skidmore himself hedges this extrapolation, and suggests the number is 294,000 for calendar 2021.

Deaths from all causes are up in 2021, far beyond the highs of 2020

Several research articles have been written based on research from The Economist. Their modelers brought together real world data and projections to come up with the best estimate they could of the number of excess deaths during the pandemic—those due to the virus, and those due to other causes, principally the responses to the pandemic. They estimate (with wide margins of error) 20 million excess deaths over 2 years, with only 6 million caused by the virus directly.

You can see that only 6 million of the excess deaths occurred in 2020, and 14 million in 2021. The virus was with us in both years, and the worst of the lockdowns and economic hardship was in 2020. The thing that distinguishes 2021 is that 11 billion doses of an experimental vaccine were administered to 58% of the world’s population.

1.9 million people died of COVID worldwide in 2020, and 4.0 million in 2021. This accounts for 2.1 million of the 8 million difference. If w attribute the remaining 5.9 million difference between 2021 and 2020 to vaccines, we can divide by 11 billion doses to get a mortality risk per vaccination = 0.053%. This translates to just over 300,000 US deaths, based on 577 million US doses. (This is my own calculation, unpublished and unsourced.)

Of course, there were other causes of excess deaths besides vaccines: deferred medical attention while hospital staffs were COVID-spooked, deaths caused indirectly by lockdowns and economic hardship, suicides, overdoses, and deaths from addiction while people were isolated and depressed. I don’t subtract these from the calculation above because I presume they were present about equally in 2020 and 2021. There were already 6 million excess deaths in 2020 which included both direct COVID deaths and deaths caused by the COVID response. An important assumption in this calculation is that in subtracting 14 million 2021 excess deaths minus 6 million 2020 excess deaths = 8 million “excess excess deaths”, I presume to have accounted for everything except the vaccine deaths. To the extent this is not true, this calculation of vaccine risk is an overestimate.

“Life insurance CEO claims deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”

This is a huge spike, by historic standards. Life insurance statisticians estimated a 1 in 1,000 chance that the number would fluctuate by as much as 10%. Since 1950, the year-over-year death rate in the US has never before varied by more than 1%. Clearly, something dramatic happened in the third quarter of 2021.

I have taken this headline (“Life insurance CEO claims deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”) and translated into a very rough estimate of the absolute number of deaths.

The result I got was that a dose of one of the vaccines has a probability 0.036% of being lethal for the 18-64 age group. This translates to 201,000 Americans killed by the vaccines. This number is lower than most of the estimates above, probably because I have made a straight-line extrapolation from the employed and healthy 18-64 age group to the population as a whole. In fact, the probability of dying from the vaccine is greater for the elderly and people who are too sick to work.

Details of the calculation are at the end of this article.

The bottom line

We can say with some confidence that several hundred thousand Americans have been killed promptly by the COVID vaccines, and that long-term effects are yet to be counted. Even though we cannot pin the number down more exactly, we have confidence in the magnitude because so many independent calculations roughly agree. The magnitude of COVID vaccine deaths, even at the low end of our estimate, is unprecedented in American medical history, and it screams out for a change in course.

Details of my calculation based on 40% increase in Life Insurance claims

To compute the expected number of deaths among 18-64 year olds for a calendar quarter, I started with two demographic tables. One was the number of Americans in each 5-year age cohort — 20-24, 25-29…. etc, from Statista.com. The other was a life expectancy table from the Social Security Administration which lists the probability of a person age x dying before he or she reaches age x+1. Both these tables were divided M/F.

To make the two tables compatible, I averaged the one-year probability of death in 5-year aggregates. Then, I multiplied each 5-year average by the number of people in the age group, added M+F to get the total number of expected deaths in a year. I divided by 4 to get the number of deaths in a quarter = 174,000. 40% of that number is 69,500. This is the increase in all-cause mortality (in ages 18-64) reported by the insurance executives.

To extrapolate from 18-64 year olds to the population as a whole, we can use the VAERS data, reported by age, and summarized in the histogram (bar chart) above. From that chart, it appears that about 26% of the VAERS deaths are in the 18-64 age group. If 69,500 deaths is 26% of the whole, then the number of excess deaths in the entire population is 267,000. This is just the deaths in the third quarter. There were 66 million doses distributed in the third quarter. So if we attributed all these excess deaths to vaccines, this calculation would lead to an implausibly high risk of death: 267,000 / 66,400,000 = 0.40%, equivalent to over 2 million vaccine deaths for the whole country, all dates. This tells us that either the claim by insurance executives (40% excess mortality in the working age population) is exaggerated, or not all of these deaths follow promptly on vaccination. I also suspect that the vaccines are damaging immune systems, so that there are delayed deaths of people vaccinated months earlier. Some of the excess deaths in the third quarter are indeed vaccine deaths, but they come from vaccinations in the first and second quarters. The long-term effects of mRNA vaccines represent a frontier in our knowledge that we are just opening.

The population that the life insurance executives were attending to were predominantly people who worked for large employers, because it is those employers who bought group life insurance policies. According to President Biden’s mandate, these people would have all been vaccinated in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2021 in order to keep their jobs. I assumed one vaccination per individual in the life insurance group during the 3rd quarter. So the number of doses is presumed equal to the 18-64 population, which was 193 million. Dividing 69,500 deaths by 193 million doses, I calculated the probability that a vaccine dose is lethal = 0.036% in this age group.

A straight extrapolation to the whole US population (558 million doses) suggests that 201,000 Americans have died from the COVID injections. This doesn’t take into account the fact that the vaccine is more likely to kill elderly people than the 18-64 age group for which we have data.

*

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

This article was originally published on Unauthorized Science.

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

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

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

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

***

An unprecedented outbreak of monkeypox virus has officially spread to 10 countries outside of Africa, with 107 confirmed or suspected cases reported as of this writing, in the United Kingdom (9 cases), Portugal (34), Spain (32), France (1), Belgium (2), Sweden (1), Italy (3), Canada (22), the United States (2), and Australia (1).

Much remains unknown about what is causing the outbreak, which is the most geographically dispersed and rapidly spreading monkeypox outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1958. In the coming days and weeks, more data and scientific understanding will emerge, but already there is profound concern within the scientific community and among the public, which has found wide expression on social media.

In preliminary posts, scientists speculate that the virus, which is endemic in parts of Africa, could have evolved to become more contagious and better suited to human-to-human transmission. In addition, nearly all people under 42 years old have not received a smallpox vaccine (which is 85 percent effective at preventing monkeypox infection) since smallpox was eradicated in 1980. As a result, they have no immunity, and younger adults can be infected as easily as children. Since 2017, annual monkeypox cases have been steadily rising in Africa.

The fact that this monkeypox outbreak takes place amid the deepening COVID-19 pandemic has caused unease among a growing number of people, particularly those who have been alerted to threats to public health by the COVID pandemic. Over the past two years, the criminal negligence and policies of deliberate mass infection by the majority of world governments have needlessly killed over 20 million people worldwide. If capitalist society has disastrously failed to stop the preventable spread of COVID-19, what will transpire in the coming weeks and months with new or previously rare infections?

Since the peak of the global Omicron BA.1 surge in January, nearly every government outside China has scrapped all mitigation measures to slow the spread of COVID-19, falsely claiming that the virus has become “endemic.”

In the US, the Biden administration is presently doing nothing to stop the growing surge of the highly infectious Omicron BA.2 and BA.2.12.1 subvariants, which have once again driven the 7-day average of daily new cases above 100,000.

Due to the deliberate undermining of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, world society is deeply unprepared for this latest infectious disease outbreak, which could potentially develop into another parallel global pandemic.

On May 13, the World Health Organization (WHO) was first notified of two confirmed and one probable case of monkeypox in the same household in the UK. A British citizen who traveled to Nigeria developed a classic monkeypox rash on April 29, and subsequently returned to the UK on May 4, is considered a likely index case. Upon his return, he was immediately isolated and contact tracing identified chains of transmission, though health authorities indicated that onward risk of infections from this case is minimal. The source of infection in Nigeria has not been determined.

Regarding the UK cases, the WHO has stated,

“In contrast to sporadic cases with travel links to endemic countries, no source of infection has been confirmed yet. Based on currently available information, infection seems to have been locally acquired in the United Kingdom.”

The emergence of multiple cases across different countries is deeply problematic. Dr. Jennifer McQuiston, the Deputy Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) division of high consequences pathogens and pathology, told STAT News,

“Given that we have seen now confirmed cases out of Portugal, suspected cases out of Spain, we’re seeing this expansion of confirmed and suspect cases globally, we have a sense that no one has their arms around this to know how large and expansive it might be. And given how much travel there is between the United States and Europe, I am very confident we’re going to see cases in the United States.”

Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, added his concerns, stating,

“There could be dynamic transmission here that we just haven’t appreciated because of the potential number of contacts.”

In nearly every public statement by epidemiologists, they have all admitted to being bewildered by how entrenched the virus already is in communities, given that it is normally extremely rare. Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told STAT News,

“this is starting off with much more of a foothold, in a much more distributed way, and we don’t understand how it got into those networks.”

The monkeypox virus was first identified by Danish virologist Preben von Magnus in 1958 from crab-eating macaque monkeys used as laboratory animals, hence the name of the disease and the virus that causes it. Unlike the single-stranded RNA-based SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, the monkeypox virus is a double-stranded DNA zoonotic virus, one of the human orthopoxyviruses that includes the variola virus which causes smallpox.

The incubation period lasts about one to two weeks and symptoms of overt infection begin with fever, headache, fatigue, muscle aches and swollen glands. After a few days of high fever, distinct lesions appear, first on the face before spreading to other parts of the body. The lesions begin flat, then raise, containing fluid and pus. The lesions then scab over and can leave scars. The course of illness usually takes two to four weeks.

According to the WHO, human-to-human transmission is normally limited, requiring close contact with respiratory secretions or skin lesions of an infected person or recently contaminated objects. Saliva and respiratory droplet transmission are possible, placing health care workers and their family members at risk of infection. Some studies have shown that monkeypox could potentially be airborne, similar to SARS-CoV-2, although this has not been definitively proven.

Asymptomatic transmission is theoretically possible. Patients with monkeypox can suffer from secondary infections, respiratory distress, gastrointestinal disturbances, vision problems, and brain inflammation. Treatment is supportive.

The number of severe side-effects of the smallpox vaccine makes its use in a mass vaccination campaign problematic. However, due to the long incubation period for monkeypox, the smallpox vaccine can work as a post-exposure prophylaxis in a “ring vaccination” model.

Monkeypox is endemic to Central and West Africa and found mainly in the rainforest regions. There are two natural groups of viruses split into clades (groups with common ancestry) from the Congo Basin and West Africa. The first human transmission was reported in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC, then known as Zaire) in a nine-year-old boy in a region where smallpox had been eliminated two years earlier.

Since its emergence in human populations, monkeypox outbreaks have been primarily limited to the African continent. In a World Health Organization (WHO) surveillance between 1981 and 1986 in the DRC, 338 confirmed cases and 33 deaths gave the Congo Basic clade a case fatality ratio of roughly 10 percent, similar to SARS-CoV-1. The clade that has caused the current outbreak in Europe and North America is the milder West African clade, with a fatality rate comparable to SARS-CoV-2.

The first monkeypox outbreak outside Africa occurred in the Midwest of the US in the spring of 2003. The zoonotic source was pet prairie dogs that had been infected by African rodents brought in from Ghana. Since then, there have been more frequent reports of cases across the globe.

An outbreak in Nigeria that started in 2017 has been ongoing. The UK reported its first case of monkeypox in September of 2018 from a Nigerian national, and three additional cases were identified that winter. In May 2019, a middle-aged man traveling from Nigeria was hospitalized with monkeypox in Singapore.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, three cases in a UK household with connection to Nigeria were identified on May 24, 2021. On July 16, 2021, an American traveling from Nigeria was hospitalized.

A report published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases in April 2021, by Dr. Raina MacIntyre of the Kirby Institute in New South Wales, Australia, detailed the emergence of monkeypox in Nigeria, noting, “[t]he effect of a decline in individual-level immunity among vaccinated persons, as well as population growth in the [smallpox] postvaccination era, has substantially reduced the overall population immunity level within the past 45 years.”

Critical to the current global outbreak of monkeypox was the ending of the mass vaccination program for smallpox after it was eradicated in 1980, leaving the youngest in the population susceptible to monkeypox.

MacIntyre et al. wrote, “This contemporary susceptible population is composed mainly of working adults who maintain wider social contact and are more likely to engage in activities that include risk of animal exposures, such as hunting, farming, or trading bush meat. In addition, the expanding unvaccinated population means that entire households are now susceptible to monkeypox instead of just children, which enhances the risk of human-to-human transmission. In fact, the index case in 2017 was part of a five-member family cluster of cases.”

These observations for the Nigerian population are just as applicable to the global population. In a world deeply interconnected by travel and commerce, local outbreaks in one country are no longer isolated events.

As with COVID-19, the emergence of monkeypox and the lack of any internationally coordinated response by health authorities to address the crisis speaks to a much broader decay of public health precautions under the impact of the deepening crisis of capitalism.

The past two years of the COVID-19 pandemic and the deepening propaganda campaign that workers must “learn to live the virus” underscores the inability of capitalism to protect the lives and livelihood of the world’s population against any such threat.

It is both possible and necessary to eliminate monkeypox, SARS-CoV-2 and myriad other infectious diseases worldwide, but this will only happen through the development of a mass revolutionary movement of the international working class, the overthrow of capitalism, and the building of a world socialist society which prioritizes social needs over private profit.

*

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

Featured image: Close-up of monkeypox lesions on the arm and leg of a female child in Bondua, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia. http://phil.cdc.gov (CDC’s Public Health Image Library)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Over 100 Monkeypox Infections Detected in 10 Countries as Unprecedented Outbreak Spreads Globally
  • Tags:

History of Ukraine’s Nazi Connection

May 23rd, 2022 by Brett Redmayne-Titley

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

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

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

***

The UK government is funding a Nazi regime in Ukraine rather than prioritizing its domestic national interests.

Britain’s parliamentary warlords have to date gladly provided £2.1 Billion to fund the Ukrainian war effort rather than budgeting to fix the UK’s gutted NHS, declining educational system, historic poverty or ever-increasing homeless population. With the deplorable state of the UK in mind, why does the British public continue to ignore this national decline in favour of Ukraine’s factual allegiance to neo-Nazism?

Answer: the lies of the British media.

It is high time to factually challenge the British media cover-up of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi connection by exposing the inconvenient truths regarding its allegiance to Nazi-inspired Ukrainian leader Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian Right Sector, and the Azov Battalion whose swastikas are steeped in the blood from the slaughter of 14,000 eastern Ukrainians.

 

 

The origin of the war in Ukraine and its propagation of neo-Nazism can be traced back to the 2014 Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” that saw America help overthrow the legitimately elected president Viktor Yanukovych and create the terror of Maidan Square. Months before, Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland had publicly stated that the US had spent US$5 Billion to support US-style democracy in Ukraine. When that “democracy” spiralled into predictable national violence much to the dismay of European leaders, Nuland famously stated, “Fuck the EU.” A three-word synopsis for US democratic diplomacy then and now.

Regionally and culturally Ukraine is divided East to West, on either side of the Dnieper River with the capital, Kyiv at the north end. Eastern Ukraine is primarily culturally Russian and has been for centuries. The 1939 Molotov/ Ribbentrop Pact divided Ukraine along new borders and today western Ukraine is far more aligned culturally and politically with western Europe and the US. For these reasons, western Ukraine has great animosity towards the East, hence the 2014 election was very close and violent.

Yanukovych was from the Donbas of far eastern Ukraine and until the 2014 election, the people of the city regions of Luhansk (LPR), Donetsk (DPR), and the Donbas had little to fear from the Ukrainian government. These regions are the important industrial, manufacturing and mining centres of Ukraine while the western half is far more agrarian. Regardless, east and west lived in relative harmony post-1939 until 2014. On Feb 20 that year pro-democracy snipers murdered in cold blood forty-nine innocent Ukrainians and four policemen in one night during the US-backed post-election protests against Yanukovych at Maidan Square.    

The murders- falsely blamed on Russia- had the intended effect of sending Ukraine into a tailspin of East vs. West anti-Russian ultra-violence. Yanukovych abandoned the presidency and went to Russia and the parliament installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as temporary president until new elections brought to power Petro Poroshenko who was aligned with US interests and did nothing to restrict the growing influence of the neo-Nazi Right Sector or Azov Battalion.

Thus began the Ukraine war.

For the western media to cover up the neo-Nazi connection in Ukraine is the biggest lie of this war. I have recently returned from two months of reporting in and around Ukraine. Certainly, both sides are guilty of atrocity but I have seen a different kind of barbarity by the AFU that is beyond the pale of war because the AFU and the Avovs consider and treat all Ukrainian Russians, Jews and even peace advocates as vermin. They have given up all morality. I can bear witness to the killings of the innocent, the torture and killings of prisoners, the firing on civilian targets, the mining of the humanitarian corridors to prevent escape, and the execution of anyone who suggests peace much less negotiation, and I have seen the Swastikas and pro-Nazi tattoos scrawled on the hands, arms, necks and chests of the AFU killers.

This is evidenced by a Ukrainian politician, Andriy Parubiy. He has served as Deputy Speaker and Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament from 2014 to 2019, and Secretary of National Security and the Defence Council of Ukraine. Andriy Parubiy is a Nazi. He has proudly proclaimed this many times before his parliament, before the Ukrainian military and the public on TV.

V Nuland and A. Parubiy

Parubiy at the House of Commons, Canada

When Poroshenko was elected, Washington used this opportunity to open the flood gates into Ukraine for US weaponry and military training in preparation for its eventual de facto assault on the East and Russian influence there. As such, Ukraine incrementally became the largest military in Europe. It was also at this time that the previously suppressed “Banderists” dominated the AFU and Ukrainian politics, much to the pleasure of the US and NATO.

The Right Sector is admittedly disciples of Stepan Bandera and exerts neo-Nazi influence as they act as a political watchdog propagating their philosophy across Ukraine. The AFU is not exclusively Banderist but the massive Azov battalion stationed in the east is predominately so. Like Bandera, they hate Ukrainian Russians and Jews. The United Nations Human Rights Commission reported that the Azovs have killed over 14,000 eastern Ukrainians since 2014, as the East begged Russia for military assistance to help their regional militias fight back.

To stop this slaughter in 2014 Russia brokered a truce called the Minsk Protocols which the AFU ignored. This was followed in 2015 by Minsk II which also had no practical effect on the AFU genocide. For seven years this terror continued unchecked as Washington salivated in the wings for more dead Russians.

In 2019 Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a comedian and actor famous for his role in the TV series, Servant of the People, defeated Poroshenko in a landslide by promising peace by honouring the Minsk accords and controlling corruption and the rising violence of the Right Sector.  But it took mere months for the Ukrainians to become the brunt of this comedian’s dark joke that saw him become, not a leader for peace, but a US and Banderist puppet.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and its divestiture of its many satellite countries in 1990, NATO had promised not to expand into these countries. However, almost without exception NATO expanded and began to ring Russia with US weapons and NATO influence. With Ukraine being the launching point for past wars against Russia, the Kremlin had made it clear to the US that Ukraine joining NATO was a red line.

For the UK media to suggest that Russia was not incrementally provoked into defending both eastern Ukraine and its own national interests is to turn the truth on its head. With Spring being historically the best time to begin a war, during February Zelensky ordered the Azov Battalion and the AFU to begin amassing 100,000 troops and munitions towards the east in preparation for a massive attack designed to take back the autonomous eastern regions.

The DPR, LPR and Donbas militias again begged Russia for intervention but Putin still refused. Instead, the Russians tried diplomacy and repeatedly contacted Washington and Kyiv in an effort not to militarily intervene. The demands were simple and rational: Abide my Minsk I & II; not attack the East; de-Nazify the AFU and not join NATO.

The US and Kyiv did not so much as respond. In an effort to get a negotiated response, and with the AFU continuing to amass forces eastward, Russia began to prepare its army on the Russian/ Ukraine border. Instead of negotiating with Russia for peace, Ukraine and the western media falsely screamed “Russian aggression.”

Then on the last week of February Zelensky did the unthinkable. He informed the US that he was now willing to allow US nuclear weapons into Ukraine.

The next day, February 24th, the Russian army crossed into eastern Ukraine.  Thus began the Russian / Ukrainian war and the incredible barbarity of the AFU.

For the western media to cover up the neo-Nazi connection in Ukraine is the biggest lie of this war.

I have recently returned from two months of reporting in and around Ukraine. Certainly, both sides are guilty of atrocity but I have seen a different kind of barbarity by the AFU that is beyond the pale of war because the AFU and the Avovs consider and treat all Ukrainian Russians, Jews and even peace advocates as vermin.

They have given up all morality.

I can bear witness to the killings of the innocent, the torture and killings of prisoners, the firing on civilian targets, the mining of the humanitarian corridors to prevent escape, and the execution of anyone who suggests peace much less negotiation, and I have seen the Swastikas and pro-Nazi tattoos scrawled on the hands, arms, necks and chests of the AFU killers.

Many facts are being covered up such as the network of US bio-weapons labs discovered across Ukraine and that the Ukrainian army is not winning this war, it is being decimated. Air Force, Navy, fuel refineries, supply and railway lines destroyed. 50,000 men dead with so many surrendering that the Russians are building larger POW camps. All men16-60 being- by law- conscripted as replacements. NATO munitions supplies destroyed as soon as they cross the polish border, and command and control communications centres are in ruins.

This day Boris Johnson‘s favourite democratic champion, President Zelensky signed a new law banning all opposition parties from existence after already arresting five generals and the main opposition leader, Viktor Medvedchuk as “anti-heroes” for the treasonous crime of suggesting peace.

Thus factually challenged here, the neo-Nazi connection properly exposed and the big lie of this war properly exposed is it not  time for an increasingly impoverished Britain to now demand of Mr Johnson, their parliament, and the British media the most fundamental, important and intelligent of age-old questions.

*

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

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last decade travelling and documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” An archive of his many articles can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at [email protected]. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: 2015 march in Kiev to celebrate the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (pictured on black and red flag) (Source: Liberation 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.

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

***

Below are selected excerpts from an incisive opinion article published by The New York Post.

Our thanks to the NYP for having brought this to our attention.

***

Two decades ago, when I was 4 years old, my parents immigrated to Canada from India in search of greater freedoms, autonomy and economic opportunities. They’re core Canadian values — enshrined in our national anthem, which gloriously heralds “The True North strong and free.”

However, the past two years have seen a near complete erosion of the foundational liberal values that have attracted millions of immigrants like myself to this country.

Under the once-righteous guise of COVID safety and online protections, the Canadian government has taken its power to extreme levels once only imaginable — let alone permissible — in a dissent-stifling authoritarian state.

The control has extended to nearly every element of Canadian society, but nowhere more so than in our everyday personal lives.

Take my own case contending with Canada’s COVID bureaucracy a few months back.

I was returning to Canada from the US when multiple Air Canada employees refused to let me on the plane. Although I had a negative COVID test, the government was suddenly requiring even returning citizens to be vaccinated (unvaccinated foreigners were already barred from entering).

Since the most documented adverse effect associated with COVID vaccination — heart inflammation — is concentrated in young men ages 15 – 25, I chose not to get vaccinated. I am 21 years old, have already recovered from COVID and have no co-morbidities. I’m at low risk from serious COVID illness, which is why I remain unvaccinated. But this can make air travel difficult — especially in Canada.

Minutes before my boarding gate was closed, a sympathetic Air Canada staffer “begged” his manager to let me board the plane. “I just gave you a massive favor. No one else would do this,” he said as I finally made my way down the jetway.

In the Canada of Justin Trudeau’s making, you must now go to extreme measures simply to be allowed to return to your own nation. And for what?

COVID is just the beginning of the Canadian madness. The internationally recognized trucker protestsearlier this year were the most flagrant display of political control ever witnessed within the ranks of the Canadian government. After trying to dismiss the truckers as a “fringe minority” of “swastika wavers,”Trudeau manufactured a National Emergency in order to justify truly outrageous tactics. Not only did he suspend the insurance of the truckers’ vehicles, he regulated the cryptocurrency transfers and froze the bank accounts of folks simply donating to the trucker cause.

In my own small British Columbia town, Chilliwack (about an hour and a half from Vancouver), a single mother earning minimum wage who donated $50 to the Truckers Convoy allegedly had her bank account frozen.

But the crackdowns on truckers were just the tip of the iceberg.

I know a bank worker in my city who was fired for not getting vaccinated, despite working remotely. A food truck delivery driver in my city met the same fate. If any of this was about “science,” prior infection or regular COVID testing would have been a factor here, but they weren’t. Get the jab or get out.

Trudeau, who once professed to being cognitively unable to do basic math, has plunged the country into over $1 trillion in national debt for the first time in history. Everyday, that number surges by an additional $400 million. Canada is now at risk for stagflation: both economic stagnation and high inflation, as families are unable to meet their bills.

 

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

Rav Arora specializes in topics of race, civil liberties, and spirituality. Follow him on Twitter @Ravarora1 and on Substack at ravarora.substack.com

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

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

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

***

There was a time in the intelligence and diplomatic communities of the United States, when “intelligence” required study of the history and culture of other nations, and their historical relationship with our own country. The current conflict between the United States and Russia, dangerously escalating toward a potential World War III, begs for such an approach.

History shows that, from the period of America’s independence struggle to the time of President John F. Kennedy, American statesmen sought and achieved alliances with Russia (including in the Soviet period) in their common interest. In each case these statesmen were leading representatives of the American System of political economy.

These statesmen saw a common interest with leading Russians in developing their huge land masses through collaboration in scientific and technological ventures, raising the standard of living and conditions of life for their populations and assuring world peace.

Their successes, although constantly under assault and significantly sabotaged, were crucial in creating conditions for progress worldwide—as they intended. The stated commitments of the American System of Economics—advancing the productive powers of labor, scientific and technological progress, unleashing humankind’s creative powers of mind to “garden” the earth and the universe—led them to find common cause with Russian leaders who, for all their political differences with the United States, shared those aspirations.

In other words, collaboration with Russia on a principled basis is an American System tradition.

The three prime examples I will deal with here are Presidents John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In each case, their determination to develop our nation led them to seek alliances with Russia which had lasting positive effects.

While this article, a version of which was first published in 2017, is primarily addressed to an American audience, I believe it is also quite relevant for Russian readers as well.

First, Some Crucial Background

While it is beyond the scope of this article to deal in depth with the genesis of the pro-progress factions in both the United States and Russia, a few significant historical aspects should be noted.

The first was the influence of the great German philosopher/scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz in both nations. The universal thinker Leibniz (1646-1716) headed an international network of scientists and statesmen who devoted themselves to building institutions that would serve the general welfare of their nations. He pioneered discoveries in economics as well as physical science, promoting the development of heat-based machines and scientific academies to foster such scientific work. He looked beyond ideology to find the higher principles upon which nations could be developed, as well as collaborate.

How was Leibniz connected to Russia and America? In Russia, he became an adviser to Czar Peter the Great, from which position he inspired the establishment of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1724), reshaped the structure of the Russian government, and promoted the remarkable development of industry in Russia under that Czar’s reign.

The institutions he created, especially the still-existent network of Russian academies of science, were crucial in producing the later collaborators with the United States. In America, Leibniz’s scientific and philosophical input came through the leaders of both the Massachusetts Bay Colony (such as Cotton Mather) and Philadelphia (led by William Penn’s secretary James Logan and the great American philosopher/statesman Benjamin Franklin).

Leibniz also had a more indirect influence through his follower Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss thinker whose writing on statecraft and international law had a major influence on Alexander Hamilton, among others.

A second major precondition for the policies of the three American System presidents we mention here was the critical role played by Russia in the formation of the League of Armed Neutrality, the 1780 pact among Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Prussia, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire to defend neutral shipping against the British Empire’s assaults on the French-American alliance in the American Revolutionary War. This action, while showing no political affinity of Empress Catherine the Great with the American republican cause as such, established a strong sense of sympathy and appreciation from the American side toward the Russians.

The third significant element involved the spread of American System economics to Russia. As early as 1792, Russian diplomatic circles were seeking access to Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures, submitted to Congress the previous year. That report was then published in Russian in 1807, in a translation sponsored by the Ministry of Finance, with an introduction by Russian educator V.F. Malinovsky, who wrote, “The similarity of American United Provinces with Russia appears both in the expanse of the land, climate and natural conditions, in the size of population disproportionate to the space, and in the general youthfulness of various generally useful institutions; therefore all the rules, remarks and means proposed here are suitable for our country.”

The influence of Hamilton’s outlook persisted among Russian government circles, enhanced by the interventions of German adherents of the American System, like followers of Friedrich List, and finally coming dramatically into fruition in the late 19th century under Czars Alexander II and Alexander III.

We now turn to the first instance of documented close collaboration between Russian and American elites, that of John Quincy Adams.

John Quincy Adams and Russia

John Quincy Adams was the first ambassador to Russia, following the opening of diplomatic relations in 1807.

While in St. Petersburg, the capital of Russia at that time, he conducted a years-long dialogue on affairs of state, foreign relations and trade with Russian Chancellor Count Nikolay Rumyantsev. Rumyantsev’s devotion to American ideas and interests was such that, when he was ousted from office in 1813, he told Adams: “I could say that my heart belongs to America, and were it not for my age and infirmities, I would go now to that country.”

Image on the right: John Quincy Adams [Source: whitehouse.gov]

John Quincy Adams | The White House

Rumyantsev interceded to stop Denmark from aiding the British against America in the War of 1812, and even proposed to join the United States in its anti-British trade policy with South America—although this plan was nixed by the Czar.

In his subsequent career as Secretary of State (1817-25) and then President (1825-29), John Quincy Adams found his potential partners in Russia to be less amenable—Russia having acquiesced to the British and Austrian-engineered post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, but subsequent developments showed that the pro-American strain in Russian institutions was not dead.

For example, cooperation continued among engineering circles, particularly those involved in launching Russia’s railways. Engineer Pavel Melnikov was sent by Czar Nicholas I to the United States in 1839 to meet all the American railroad builders (the era of mass expansion of rail and canals began under Adams’ administration of 1825-1829).

His success is shown by the fact that he ended up hiring American engineers to help build the first major Russian railway, one from St. Petersburg to Moscow. World-famous railroad engineer George Washington Whistler ended up going to Russia to consult on the project; he died there in 1849, leaving a legacy of cooperation that lasted through the end of the century.

Abraham Lincoln’s Alliance with Russia

When Abraham Lincoln entered the office of the Presidency in the spring of 1861, Russian Czar Alexander II had just the day before abolished serfdom, which had held 20 million Russians in bondage to the land and its owners.

Biography of Alexander II, Russia's Reformist Tsar

Czar Alexander II at his desk. [Source: thoughtco.com]

Czar Alexander had been classically educated and was steeped in the ideas of the pro-American German poet of freedom, Friedrich Schiller. He also took power during the devastating British assault on Russia in the Crimean War (1853-56) and was painfully aware of the vulnerability which a society based on serfdom represented. (The United States supported Russia against the British in this war, although not with soldiers.) The new czar was determined to modernize Russia and, throughout his reign, which lasted until his assassination in 1881, encouraged and backed international collaboration that would help develop his nation.

Lincoln appointed the Kentucky anti-slavery politician Cassius Clay as his ambassador to Russia. From his post in St. Petersburg, Clay spread the word of the American System, especially the work of Lincoln’s chief economist, Henry Carey.

From the very start of the Civil War, the Russians expressed the “most cordial sympathy” for the Lincoln government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote a highly publicized note to President Lincoln on July 10, 1861, in which he declared the Czar’s “sincere wishes” for U.S. success.

This was not just a sentiment. It was followed on October 29, 1862, by a formal Russian pledge never to act against the United States, and to oppose attempts of others to do so. The “maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation” was the Russian objective. It was also backed up by Russian refusal to join a British-inspired “mediation” effort between North and South, which would, in effect, have resulted in recognition of the Confederacy as a separate nation.

U.S.-Russian Collaboration: An American System Tradition

Russian naval officers during their trip to the United States during the Civil War. [Source: americansystemnow.com]

The highlight of the close relations between Russia and the United States in this period was the deployment of the Russian fleet to both New York City and San Francisco in the fall of 1863. While these visits to “ports of call” were not explicitly intended as participation in the fighting (Russia insisted it was actually neutral in the Civil War), they provided enormous moral support for the embattled Union forces and Presidency. And, although they never had to carry them out, the Russian fleet in San Francisco had orders to defend U.S. forts from attacks by the Confederates, should they occur.

<p>The crew of the Russian frigate <em>Osliaba</em> during the American Civil War (Photo: Getty Images)</p>

Crew of the Russian frigate Osliaba while docked in New York harbor in 1863. [Source: usrussiarelations.org]

The Russian fleet was greeted in lavish style in New York City, with parades and a Grand Ball. When it went on to the port of Alexandria, Virginia, in December, Mrs. Lincoln herself joined the celebrations. San Francisco also put out the welcome mat, although in less lavish style. The fleets stayed in American waters until the spring of 1864.

<p>Cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln and Alexander II shaking hands as fighting and death take place around them (Photo: Getty Images)</p>

Cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln and Russian Czar Alexander II with fighting all around them. [Source: usrussiarelations.org]

Why was Russia so sympathetic to Lincoln’s United States? A pamphlet put out by the U.S. Naval Historical Foundation in 1969 cites the agreement between the two governments on getting rid of slavery, maintaining the Union, and supporting domestic manufactures through the protective tariff. The collaboration continued after Lincoln’s death, with visits to Russia by American military leaders, public figures, and engineers. The United States sent a naval force to Russia in 1866 after an assassination attempt against Czar Alexander II failed, and was greeted with a grand celebration. “May these two flags in peaceful embrace be thus united forever,” wrote Admiral Gustavus Vasa Fox, who led the 1866 U.S. naval force.

The Russians and the Americans saw their alliance as a stepping-stone to cooperation in economic development. In his Annual Address to Congress in 1864, President Lincoln touted the work under way on an overland telegraph linking the American and Asian continents across the Bering Strait. This link would be followed by the construction of the rail route, the Trans-Siberian Railway, which was accomplished under the leadership of Count Sergey Witte, an advocate of an American System approach.

Witte saw the completion of the railroad (1904) as “one of those world events that usher in new epochs in the history of nations and not infrequently bring about the radical upheaval of established economic relations between states.” He was thinking in particular of providing the basis for “recognition of tangible mutual interests in the field of the worldwide economic activity of mankind,” and the opportunity for “more direct relations with the North American states.” The railway would disclose a “solidarity of political interests” between Russia and the United States,” Witte wrote.

The route of Witte’s Trans-Siberian railroad, built with the aid of the United States. [Source: americansystemnow.org]

Among the significant Russian interlocutors with American scientists and industrialists was world-famous Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev, then a member of the St. Petersburg Academy and government consultant, who visited the United States during the 1876 Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia. Mendeleev used his time in the U.S. to work with Thomas Edison, study the oil industry, and learn about the economics of America’s developing industries.

He was already familiar with the American System of Economics through his travels and time in Germany (through the List circles), but clearly developed them further during this trip. In 1891 he published a major piece on protective tariffs, which reflects the influence of his American collaborators.

Not to be overlooked in the 19th century, collaboration between the U.S. American System advocates and Russia was the Russian sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867. In Russia, supporters of the sale argued that Russia and the United States were natural allies in the Pacific Basin and that, if Great Britain were to try to seize “Russian America” (Alaska), the U.S. would be in a better position to defend it than Russia would. The British, for their part, were noticeably alarmed at the closeness of Russian-American collaboration.

FDR’s Policy Toward Russia

It was the United States that broke diplomatic relations with Russia (then within the Soviet Union) after the Bolshevik Revolution (1917). In early 1918, the Wilson administration invaded the country with six other nations in an attempt to restore czarist rule, but failed.

Though business activity certainly continued through the 1920s, official diplomatic recognition for the Soviet Union did not occur until Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared it in November 1933. FDR sidestepped the State Department professionals and braved significant public opposition in making this decision, but he refused to be dissuaded. The agreement was consummated in the Oval Office through personal diplomacy between FDR and Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov.

At the time FDR made this decision, all the other major powers had diplomatic relations with the Soviets, and he felt the United States could only lose by maintaining its isolation, commercially and strategically. Renewed relations were not easy, but when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, FDR moved immediately in support. He sent his personal emissary, Harry Hopkins, to Moscow to meet with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

This was followed by an official exchange of notes in August, in which FDR pledged support. Soon afterwards, the Soviets sent Washington a list of the supplies they urgently needed in order to carry out their defense. Despite continued opposition, FDR decided to use the Lend-Lease legislation, which had passed in March of that year (and was being used to supply Great Britain), to provide material support to the Soviets.

U.S.-Russian Collaboration: An American System Tradition

This statue stands in Fairbanks, Alaska, as a testament to U.S.-Soviet collaboration in World War II. [Source: americansystemnow.com]

Ultimately, the United States provided 250,000 tons of materiel, ranging from planes to tanks to foodstuffs, to the Soviet Union to aid in the war effort. The physical aid played a critical role in keeping the Russian resistance going. Meanwhile, FDR carried out personal diplomacy—through both Hopkins and Vice President Henry Wallace—to seek to establish a relationship with Stalin.

This was finally accomplished at the Tehran Conference in 1943, with the aid of humor at the expense of Winston Churchill. When Stalin burst out laughing at FDR’s ribbing of Churchill, FDR knew he had succeeded. FDR also went to bat against Churchill’s constant attempts to sabotage the invasion of France, the so-called second front, which the Soviets desperately needed in order to divert the Nazis from their mayhem in Russia.

FDR was convinced that patience and good will would make the Soviet Union a good partner in the post-war arrangements to keep world peace. As he said in Tehran, “we have proved… that the varying ideas of our nations can come together in a harmonious whole, moving unitedly for the common good of ourselves and of the world.” He had devised a plan for the United Nations that would recognize the Soviet Union as the great power it was.

Collusion with the USSR: Why did FDR's Vice President visit the GULAG and praise it? - Russia Beyond

Henry Wallace, FDR’s Vice President, third from left in front row, with Russian guides in Moscow in 1944. [Source: rbth.com]

The Soviets had borne the brunt of the Nazi onslaught, losing some 27 million people during the war. Had FDR lived into the post-war period, respect for that sacrifice and for the Soviet people would have dictated U.S. policy, and potentially cut the legs out from under the British initiative to go straight from the war against the Nazis to war against the Soviet Union.

The British, for their part, concentrated on destroying Soviet-American collaboration, which they considered a threat to their imperial interests. With Roosevelt dead, they succeeded, and the Cold War ensued. The American System’s albeit rhetorical posture to sovereignty, international relations, and progress was increasingly undermined, while the dangers to world peace escalated.

The JFK Echo

President John F. Kennedy attempted to continue the FDR/American System tradition in his brief presidency, including on the question of relations with the Soviet Union. Kennedy’s decision to establish personal communication with Soviet leader Khrushchev upon taking office, played a critical role in allowing the Cuban Missile Crisis to be defused.

One of the most striking statements of Kennedy’s policy break with the Cold War mentality came in his June 10, 1963, American University speech, where he tackled the question of achieving world peace, and proposed the talks that ultimately resulted in the test-ban treaty. But, more interesting to us today than the final result is the approach which Kennedy took to dealing with the superpower which had—from Cuba to Berlin and elsewhere—become “the enemy.” I quote at some length:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament—and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude—as individuals and as a Nation—for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward—by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable—that mankind is doomed—that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are man-made—therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable—and we believe they can do it again. …

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims—such as the allegation that “American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars” …

[I]t is sad to read these Soviet statements—to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning—a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements—in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation’s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland—a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again—no matter how—our two countries would become the primary targets….

So, let us not be blind to our differences—but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists’ interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world.

The leaders of the Soviet Union were so impressed with this speech that they reprinted it in their press. The negotiations on the test-ban treaty did take place and succeed. Kennedy himself followed up with an offer on September 20 for joint work with the Soviets on space exploration.

What Will the Answer Be?

Kennedy was right. The current breakdown in U.S.-Russian relations is “man-made, and reversible.” The key is to revive those American System principles on the highest level, for they define the common interests which both nations (among others) have in cooperation for improving the lives of all people on earth through scientific and technological progress. Our history augurs it. Our future demands it.

*

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

Nancy Spannaus is the manager of the blog americansystemnow, which features many historical and topical articles on the political economy of the United States. She is also the author of the book Hamilton Versus Wall Street: The Core Principles of the American System of Economics, available here. Nancy can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Statue of Abraham Lincoln and Czar Alexander II in Moscow that commemorates U.S.-Russian friendship in that period. [Source: twitter.com]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The History They Don’t Teach You in School: America and Russia Have a Long History of Collaboration
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

The corrupt public health officials in the Western world, who are shills for Big Pharma as they share in the profits of the drugs that they approve, are about to inflict on humanity a worst castrophe than the Covid vaccine. 

They are considering using smallpox vaccine to protect against monkeypox.  The New York Times, dependent as it is on pharmaceutical advertising, will support the next wave of orchestrated “health crisis” in service to vaccination profit.

Although complicit public health officials and Big Pharma will not admit it, many distinguished independent scientists have concluded that the Covid vaccine leaves the vaccinated immunocompromised. 

The smallpox vaccine was always dangerous even to those with good immune systems.  The result of giving smallpox vaccine to the immunocompromised could be to give them smallpox and thus reinfect the human population with a far more dangerous virus than Covid and monkeyvirus. 

The reason public health is threatened is not because of Covid or monkeypox or any other illness. 

Public health is endangered because public health authorities are marketing agents for pharmaceutical companies, and members of Congress are dependent on campaign contributions from Big Pharma for their reelections.  Those who are supposed to be watching out for the public’s health are instead watching out for their own interests.  This is why Covid with its masks, lockdowns, and untested vaccine was a catastrophe.

No one has explained why and how monkeypox, a problem in a small area of Africa, suddenly appeared all at once all over the Western world.  Was the virus released in order to continue vaccination profits and to further the pandemic controls that are on the verge of being handed to the World Health Organization? See this.

Are we about to experience another fear campaign?  Or is something even more evil in the works—population control by infecting the immunocompromised with smallpox?

The gullibility of Western peoples and the mendacity of their rulers is enormous.  No evil is beyond the likes of a Fauci.  The public has a perfect record of falling for every fear and brainwashing campaign.  Are we to expect another “health crisis” in the middle of a war in Ukraine that could widen, rising food and energy prices, rising national indebtedness, open European and American borders to immigrant-invaders whose care imposes high costs on European and American populations that cannot trust their own governments and whose living standards are falling?

Smallpox vaccination ceased four decades ago when the disease was wiped out.  Older generations who were vaccinated against smallpox are probably immune to monkeypox. Younger generations are not.  Most at risk are those whose immune systems have been compromised by the mRNA vaccines.

Here is some good solid information with which to arm yourself against the forthcoming lies from the New York Times and the rest of the presstitutes and from the many shills for Big Pharma.  Try not to be panicked a second time before we recover from the first: see Paul Alexander’s analysis:

Smallpox vaccine to prevent monkeypox could cause global smallpox (vaccinia) epidemic; I warn, do not be that stupid, understand you have damaged the immune systems of m (b)illions with COVID vaccines

Experts are saying the smallpox vax 85% effective in monkey pox; this is NOT good news, for millions/billions are now immunocompromised from COVID vax; smallpox vax, potential huge problems.

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

It would be really difficult to believe that the United States is not in a proxy war with Russia if reports that it plans to send anti-ship missiles to Ukraine are true.

In fact, the State Department did not exactly deny this exclusive report from Reuters that Washington was readying to share the weapons capability to help “defeat Russia’s naval blockade…amid concerns more powerful weapons that could sink Russian warships would intensify the conflict.”

“As the conflict is changing, so too is our military assistance to deliver the critical capabilities Ukraine needs for today’s fight as Russia’s forces engage in a renewed offensive in eastern Ukraine,” a State spokesperson said on Friday.

The only thing that is being directly denied are assertions by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs adviser, who tweeted Friday that

the US is preparing a plan to destroy the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet. The effective work of the Ukrainians on [Russian] warships convinced [the US] to prepare a plan to unblock the [Ukrainian] ports. Deliveries of powerful anti-ship weapons are being discussed.”

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, asked about this at the briefing Friday, was adamant: “I can tell you definitively that that’s not true.” This unfortunately has the splitting hairs quality of the denial/non denial a couple of weeks ago when the Pentagon confirmed reports it was supplying targeting intelligence to the Ukrainian military but not specifically to sink Russian ships or kill its generals.

When asked whether the U.S. would be sending those anti-ship missiles, Kirby was more ambiguous:

We are — we are talking to the Ukrainians every day, as you know in fact, today’s another one of those days when the Secretary is going to talk to Minister Reznikoff about — we talked to them about their needs and our capabilities. And when we have decisions, we come right out here and we issue a press release and we tell you about that. So, I’m not going to get ahead of decisions that haven’t been made. We’re doing the best we can to meet their — their capabilities in as near real-time as we can. And we keep trying to make those capabilities match what’s going on on the ground. And what’s going on on the ground right now is a very artillery heavy, long-range fire heavy fighting in the Donbas.

According to Friday’s report from Reuters, the U.S. is considering sending shorter range Harpoon anti-ship missiles, or the newer, longer range Naval Strike Missile, which can be launched from the coast and has a range of over 100 nautical miles. This missile is made by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, but the company has teamed up with Raytheon for a more advanced application for the U.S. Navy.

The Washington response to the Reuters report has been tempered — we are dedicated to giving the Ukrainians everything they need. But the Ukrainian interpretation — the U.S. plans to destroy the Russian’s Black Sea fleet — is what the Russians are likely hearing. Moscow so far, has responded moderately: “You know, many weapons are being supplied to Ukraine from the West. And you know our attitude very well. There is nothing new about this,” said Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Friday. “The Russian military thoroughly monitors all these supplies and takes preventive measures.”

Also on Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanded that Russia lift its blockade of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports in order for the country to export food and fertilizer, the shortage of which are creating crises across the globe.

“The Russian government seems to think that using food as a weapon will help accomplish what its invasion has not – to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people,” he said at the meeting called by the Biden administration. For their part, the Russians say they are willing to deal, as long as Western-imposed sanctions on Moscow are on the table.

Friday’s news indicates that Washington is edging closer to giving Zelensky more of what he has wanted in terms of long-range, heavy artillery and away from its insistence that the U.S. is averse to a more direct confrontation via proxy war with Russia. In that same Reuters’ report, sources said M270 or a similar rocket system like the M142 HIMARS would be considered for shipment to Ukraine once Congress passed a $40 billion supplemental funding bill.

Pushing forward with these more advanced weapons increases the odds of a wider war dragging NATO into the fray, and worse, nuclear conflict. If the U.S. has not yet decided to take this up a notch with anti-ship missiles, officials may want to consult more temperate voices before it reaches the point of no return. From my colleague Anatol Lieven:

US anti-ship missiles can do enormous damage to Russia’s Black Sea fleet; but they will not break the Russian naval blockade of Ukraine, because Russia has anti-ship missiles of its own, as well as air superiority, with which it can sink or intimidate ships trying to enter or leave Ukrainian ports. For the USA to break the blockade would mean deploying US warships as convoy escorts (as in the Persian Gulf during the — which would bring America into direct military confrontation with Russia.

This seems like the transfer of anti-ship missiles could set us on a slippery slope that Washington should want to avoid.

*

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

Featured image: Llittoral combat ship USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) launches a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) during exercise Pacific Griffin. The NSM is a long-range, precision strike weapon that is designed to find and destroy enemy ships ((U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Kenneth Rodriguez Santiago)

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

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

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

***

It was understandable why, on 29 November, 1947, the United Nations (UN) passed Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine and creating a Jewish state. In the wake of the Holocaust, there was a widespread sentiment that there should be some form of recompense to the Jews, even if it came at the expense of those who had nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Nearly three-quarters of a century later, it is clear that this was a ghastly mistake. Even before the establishment of the Israeli state, some 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled. Since then, Israel has launched pre-emptive wars against all of its neighbours, but, above all, it has waged war on the Palestinians who remained in Israel and those who came under its rule when it occupied the portion of Palestine that it failed to capture in 1948, namely the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The time has come for the UN to recognise that Resolution 181 was a terrible mistake and to now revoke it and, with it, Israel’s legitimacy.

Israel’s targeted assassination of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, the subsequent police attack on her funeral and its brazen refusal to even open a criminal investigation, should be the last straw.

When we couple this with Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, the latest being Masafer Yatta, this confronts us with a simple question: can Israel, as long as it is a Jewish state, ever live in peace with the Palestinians? Or are its only friends in the Middle East destined to be Arab despots?

For over 50 years, from The Roger’s Plan of 1969 via the Oslo Accords to John Kerry’s Peace Plan, Israel has made it clear that it prefers a Greater Israel to a peaceful settlement.

Even within the 1948 borders, Israel has been incapable of granting meaningful equality to its own Palestinian citizens. Even today, it continues to steal their land and pursues a policy of internal colonisation, which it calls “Judaisation”. How is Judaisation different to the policy of Aryanisation in Nazi Germany?

The 2018 Jewish Nation-State Law simply codified existing practices, making explicit what had always been implicit. Under this law, “Jewish settlement”, the colonisation of further Arab land, is a “national value”. This same law made it clear that only Jews were nationals of the Israeli state. Palestinians, including Arab citizens, were guests to be tolerated at best.

Israel is officially an apartheid state, and according to international law, apartheid is a crime. The UN has no alternative but to rescind Resolution 181. It is also evident that a Jewish state and a democratic state are mutually exclusive.

Just imagine that the British government had a policy of thinning out the black population of London with white Britons. This would be dismissed out of hand as racist, yet in Israel, this is the norm.

How can we account for the fact that half the Bedouin villages in the Negev are “unrecognised”, meaning they have none of the basic facilities that Jewish settlements have, such as government schools, running water or electricity? No polling booth is established in these villages. No matter how long residents have lived there, they are treated as squatters.

Al-Arakhib has been demolished over 200 times. Umm Al-Hiran was demolished in 2018 to make way for the wholly Jewish town of Hiran in its place. The Israeli state refused to contemplate a Jewish town co-existing side by side with an Arab village. As Adalah said:

“Israel’s demolition of Umm Al-Hiran Bedouin village & forced eviction of residents is act of extreme racism embodying colonialist land policies, backed by entire Israeli court system [sic].”

Israel, from its birth, has been an abnormal, settler colonial state where racism is the norm. Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed:

“Israel is not a state of all its citizens… Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people – and only it.” When MK Bezalel Smotrich addressed Arab members of the Knesset, telling them, “you are here by mistake – because Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and throw you out in 1948,” he said out loud what the Zionist “left” says quietly.

The question of whether, in a Jewish ethno-nationalist state, Palestinians can ever live as equals is a question that Western politicians prefer to avoid. The most basic and simplest of questions, when it comes to Israel, are too difficult for them. Instead, they retort with cries of “anti-Semitism”.

Zionist colonisation of Palestine began in 1882, nearly 60 years before the Holocaust. Today the Zionist movement weaponises the Holocaust against its critics. At the time, though, the Zionist movement saw the Holocaust as a distraction from its main goal – building a Jewish state.

The Palestine Jewish press even doubted the existence of the Holocaust, citing reports in the Nazi press to refute claims that the Jews were being exterminated: “Probably not even Goebbels in his wildest plans could have elicited the kind of treatment the Hebrew press accorded to information about the Holocaust.”

In a letter to President Roosevelt, the leader of American Zionism, Stephen Wise, admitted:

“It is indisputable that as many as two million civilian Jews have been slain. I have had cables and underground advices for some months, telling of these things. I succeeded, together with the heads of other Jewish organisations, in keeping them [the cables about the systematic mass murder] out of the press.”

Yoav Gelber, a history professor at Haifa University, observed:

“The fight on the Jewish front for the Zionist solution removed the Zionists and the Yishuv, even before the war, from rescue attempts and strategies not connected to Eretz Yisrael. This is shown by Weizmann’s refusal to attend the Evian Conference of 1938.”

Noah Lucas described:

“As the European holocaust erupted, Ben-Gurion saw it as a decisive opportunity for Zionism… In conditions of peace… Zionism could not move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their horror must be harnessed to the advantage of Zionism… By the end of 1942… the struggle for a Jewish state became the primary concern of the movement.”

Albert Einstein gave a clear warning as to what would happen if a Jewish state were established. In a letter of 21 January, 1946, he warned:

“I am in favour of Palestine being developed as a Jewish Homeland but not as a separate state. It seems to me a matter of simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given political rule over Palestine where two-thirds of the population are not Jewish.” 

In his testimony on 11 October, 1946, before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, Einstein confirmed: “I was never in favour of a state… I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad.” Also in 1946, in a speech to the National Labor Committee for Palestine, Einstein expressed his fear about the damage that a Zionist state would do to Judaism: “I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks… A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be equivalent to turning away from the spiritualisation of our community which we owe to the genius of our prophets.”

It was not difficult to predict the path that Israel would take. The idea of “transfer” had been around as long as Zionism itself. Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land. The Nakba was inevitable.

Any student of European history should know that a Jewish state is a throwback to the Europe of the Middle Ages. The French Revolution of 1789 ushered in Jewish Emancipation and the separation of state and religion. Clermont Tonnerre declared in the Constituent Assembly: We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to Jews as individuals.” Zionism hated Jewish Emancipation because it would lead to assimilation. That was why the Zionists welcomed the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.

In the Europe of the 1940s, the Christian ethno-nationalist states – Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Croatia – became the slaughterhouse of the Jews. Croatia was the only state under Nazi occupation that set up its own extermination camp, Jasenovac, for Serbs, Jews and Muslims. Slovakia was the first state to deport its Jews to Auschwitz. In a state where one’s civil and political rights depend on adherence to a particular religion, those not of that religion are bound to suffer.

Israel was born in violence and terror. The UN Partition Plan envisaged that Jerusalem would be subject to an international regime. This was unacceptable to the Zionists. When UN mediator Count Folk Bernadotte, who had rescued more Jews from the Nazis than the entire Zionist movement, visited Jerusalem in September 1948, he was assassinated.

MK Geulah Cohen of Lehi, the group that carried out the assassination, explained when asked if she still supported Bernadotte’s assassination: “There is no question about it. We would not have Jerusalem anymore.”

What is happening today in Israel is a product of a Jewish state. Sectarian violence and the continuing Nakba are integral to the state itself. Israel is a failed state whose only values are the worship of Jewish militarism. It is time it went.

*

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

Featured image: Oslo Accords, the 25th Anniversary – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UN Resolution 181 Must be Repealed: The Creation of Israel and the Partition of Palestine Was a Terrible Mistake
  • Tags: , ,

Globalization and Rampant Racism

May 23rd, 2022 by Jim Miles

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

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

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

***

Words are important.  Using the word ‘rampant’ in the title gives the real image of racism:  not some narrow right wing ethos that surfaces occasionally into violence, but something that is “violent or extravagant in action or opinion, arrant, aggressive, unchecked, prevailing.” (Oxford English dictionary).   All wars and significant amounts of domestic violence throughout the world can be accurately viewed through the perspective of racism, racism prevails.

It is a stubborn human trait,  a perseveration of the ability of greedy and powerful people to persuade, somehow convincingly, that there is some ‘other’ out there –  who [‘who’ is grammatically correct, but within this context ‘that’ would imply something ‘other’ than human] – that is to be reviled and over-ridden in pursuit of one’s own gain.   Many recent events have highlighted the ubiquity of racism, as have many events of the recent and historical past.

Assassination

In Palestine a well known and widely respected journalist and reporter was murdered by an Israeli sniper.   In Israel this is not unusual, that journalists are targeted, but it is significant in the obvious manner in which it occurred.  Marked clearly as ‘Press’, standing with others clearly marked similarly, Shereen Abu Aqleh was killed with a high precision shot that hit her in the face between her helmet and flak jacket collar.  Israel came up with the usual excuses, denials, obfuscations and only after some international blowback to consider an ‘investigation’, the likes of which never produce any justice, and which currently, according to Ha’aretz, the IDF will not undertake.

The Canadian government, in its obsequious acceptance of official Israeli excuses for its colonial settler society, did not acknowledge the criminality of the attack until the media showed photos of the IDF attacking the funeral cortege for the slain journalist.   Nothing unusual there, as Canada’s own racism, its own colonial settler past – and ongoing evasion of responsibility as far as restitution is concerned – is alive and well.  Canada supports Israeli racism and is fully involved with US racism, the latter especially in its foreign affairs as it participates in many different forms with the rampant racism of the US.

Mass murder? Domestic terrorism? White Racism?

In Buffalo, shortly before the murder of Shereen abu Aqleh, a young white man, apparently well versed in racist propaganda, killed ten people in Buffalo, New York.  President Biden said there was no harbour for  “hate-filled domestic terrorism” yet this was only one of dozens of mass shootings in the US annually.   With racism being an inbred component of US culture, this particular killing is noted for its total deaths and its specific targeting of black people.   Given past performance, to expect any change in US culture –  being its gun laws and the ever present right wing media outlets soft selling ideas like the current “replacement” theory – is an expectation of futility.

Denouncing this one incident so vociferously detracts in a way from the overall racist nature of US society and of US military adventurism overseas.

Military aggression

The prevailing manner by which the US determines its foreign policy is through military aggression:  overtly (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan); covertly (Iran, most of Latin America, many African countries); and politically (NATO expansion along with its overt military aspects in Yugoslavia, Libya, Afghanistan and now Ukraine).  Recently this has spilled over into economic aggression through the “weaponizing” of the US$, the World Bank, the IMF, et al (the Washington consensus of international financial institutions) and the application of US sanctions.  Sanctions have been used frequently before, but never as widespread as they are currently applied, nor have they had the blowback that the weaponizing of the US$ is currently delivering to the global economy.

The US is the major sponsor of Israeli military actions, using Israel as a forward operating base in the Middle East. The “hate filled domestic terrorism” seen in Buffalo is perfectly acceptable when it happens in Israel.    The murder of Palestinians is an ongoing attribute of Israeli racism, as are the demolitions, imprisonment, night raids, attacks on children, and the many other ways Israel controls its apartheid policies.

End of racism?

At this point in history, if ever, the end of racism is not in sight.  That is to say that current geopolitical forces, current domestic forces – especially in the US and its allies – have no real interest in curtailing the underlying racism of their policies.  More and more frequently, as global financial, climatic, and military actions create an ever increasing population deprived of basic human rights and humane conditions of living, racism in its overt forms is likely to increase, supported by the underlying persistence of what appears to be, unfortunately, a very human trait.

Yet it is a trait that can be reduced through education and creating an equitable standard of living for all people of the world.  The minority that lives in the empires of consumption and greed and the desire for power over others needs to be arrested – however one interprets that word – and a fair distribution of the earth’s produce – in all its forms – needs to be created.

Along with that, humanitarian services – education, health care, worker’s safety and fair compensation – need to be made universal as a right.  Then and maybe only then can racism be tamed and the people of the world can interact culturally with respect for other cultures and in a society created for equitable and sustainable living on a healthy planet.

*

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

Jim Miles is regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Globalization and Rampant Racism
  • Tags:

How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster

May 23rd, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

In mid-February 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down Abbott Nutrition’s infant formula manufacturing facility in Sturgis, Michigan, resulting in a severe shortage of formula across the U.S., as labeling regulations bar most infant formula from other countries to be imported

May 16, 2022, the Biden administration announced it had reached a deal to reopen the Abbott plant in about two weeks, which should result in shelves being restocked in another six to eight weeks

The Biden administration is also loosening the regulations around foreign imports of infant formula, relaxing WIC restrictions on the types of formulas you can obtain, and cracking down on price gouging to discourage hoarding and reselling at higher prices

While that may solve the problem in the short term, it does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is the fact that the U.S. market is monopolized by three companies: Abbott, Mead Johnson and Gerber

Recipes for a superior and healthy homemade infant formula are included

*

Skyrocketing prices and food shortages are already looming, and are likely to become worse in the coming months. At present, many parents across the U.S. are running from store to store in search of baby formula and finding only empty shelves. How did this happen?

The shortage, it turns out, stems from the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration shut down Abbott Nutrition’s facility in Sturgis, Michigan, back in mid-February 2022, after five infants were reportedly sickened with Cronobacter and Salmonella infections.1 Two of the babies died.

February 17, 2022, Abbott voluntarily recalled Similac, Alimentum and EleCare powdered formulas manufactured in the Sturgis facility. According to the FDA, the Sturgis facility failed inspection and was ordered to halt production until required sanitary measures were carried out.

The FDA inspection came on the heels of a whistleblower report,2 submitted to the FDA in October 2021, alleging several health and safety compliance issues at the Sturgis facility, including falsification of records; release of untested formula; undermining of an FDA audit in 2019; lax cleaning processes; and the failure to adequately trace its products.

Some members of Congress are now calling for an investigation to determine whether the FDA took sufficiently prompt action after receiving this information.3,4

Feds Fail to Address Industry Monopoly

May 16, 2022, the Biden administration announced5 it had reached a deal to reopen the Abbott plant in about two weeks, which should result in shelves being restocked in another six to eight weeks, but while that may solve the problem in the short term, it does nothing to address the underlying problem, which is the fact that the U.S. baby formula market is monopolized by three companies.6

Regulatory red tape also prevents the import of infant formula from other countries. As reported by The Defender:7

“The $45.4 billion U.S. baby formula market is controlled by three companies — Abbott, Mead Johnson and Gerber. A 2011 market analysis8 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows these companies accounted for nearly all U.S. formula sales …

Abbott Nutrition … dominates the market — the company’s sales accounted for roughly 43% of the formula market … according to a 2011 USDA report, which contains the latest available figures …

FDA regulations for baby formula9 make it nearly impossible for parents in the U.S. to buy infant formula produced outside the country … The issue is this: FDA rules bar formula imports from Europe if the product does not have FDA-compliant nutritional labels.

The formula may be perfectly safe and produced in accordance with European standards that are at least as stringent as U.S. health and safety requirements, but it can’t be imported because the FDA has not reviewed and approved what is printed on the package — a costly and time-consuming process for producers.”

US Response to the Crisis

House Democrats have now approved an emergency spending bill to allocate another $28 million to the FDA to allow it to hire more inspectors and prepare for future baby formula shortages. Some Republicans voiced opposition to the bill, saying it doesn’t contain any instructions for how the money is actually supposed to be spent, which would likely render it ineffective,10 and as of this writing, it’s still uncertain whether the bill will pass the Senate.11

May 18, 2022, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to increase production.12 The law allows the president to compel companies that supply various formula ingredients to prioritize the needs of formula manufacturers over other customers.

Commercial aircraft owned by the U.S. Defense Department will reportedly be deployed to pick up formula overseas and fly it back to the U.S., in an operation dubbed “Operation Fly Formula.” DoD contracts with other commercial air cargo will also be used to speed up imports and distribution.

That same day, the House also passed bipartisan legislation to allow WIC recipients to purchase any brand of formula.13 The Biden administration has also promised to crack down on price gouging to discourage hoarding and reselling at higher prices.14

While that’s all well and good, but the Biden administration was initially criticized for its tone-deaf response to the crisis. In “The Jimmy Dore Show” episode featured above, Dore replays Jen Psaki’s response to a reporter who asks where parents should turn if they cannot find formula for their babies. Psaki suggested they call their pediatrician.

And then what? What is the pediatrician supposed to do about it? Manufacture baby food? Do they have some sort of magic wand? Dore also points out she’s apparently unaware that millions of parents are uninsured or underinsured, and can’t afford to pay for pediatric visits to ask about how to feed their babies.

Three Key Problems

Three key factors have contributed to the current disaster, and none is being properly addressed. First of all, the market has been allowed to be monopolized by so few companies that the takedown of a single plant has the ability to threaten the lives of millions of babies.

Adding insult to injury, our corporate-captured government has implemented labeling regulations that effectively ban foreign imports of formula, even if they meet or exceed FDA nutritional requirements.

Far more importantly than either of those, however, is the fact that science — to say nothing of common sense — has been ignored for decades and corporate greed has been allowed to dictate infant nutrition instead.

Absolutely nothing can compare to breast milk, yet people have been brainwashed into thinking that manmade formula is better, and that breast feeding is somehow undignified and unnecessary.

Formula offered greater freedom for busy moms, and the promotion of the obnoxious idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful fueled the transition, making more moms defer to the bottle rather than their breasts. For years, women could even be fined for “public indecency” if caught breastfeeding in public.

Were breastfeeding the norm, the country wouldn’t be in a panic over low inventory of infant formula. Many children would also enjoy better health overall. The sad reality is that most commercial infant formula is complete junk food.

Most contain shocking amounts of sugar — typically in the form of corn syrup, which is the worst of all — and even far worse ingredients, including large amounts of dangerous linoleic acid from soy (the risks of which I detail in “Infant Soy Formula — A Risky Public Experiment”) and genetically modified ingredients (reviewed in this 2012 article). Infant formulas have also been found to contain hazardous contaminants, including glyphosate15 and perchlorate (rocket fuel).

We’re now also hearing about artificial breast milk, a brand-new industry heavily funded by Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg. A company called Biomilq is trying to create artificial breast milk from cultured human mammary cells.16 What could possibly go wrong with that? As of yet, however, artificial breast milk is not commercially available, so that’s a concern for another day.

All of that said, as it stands, the formula shortage is an absolute disaster, because while breastfeeding is the perfect option for most new mothers, it’s certainly not an option for anyone who didn’t breastfeed from the start, or who hasn’t breastfed for a number of weeks or months. You can’t just restart lactation at will. For that reason, telling mothers who already rely on formula to “just breastfeed” is ridiculous, because they can’t.

Breast Is Best

If you are a new mother and still lactating, then giving breastfeeding a try would be your best bet at this point. Breastfeeding has several benefits over formula,17 including reducing your baby’s risk of dying,18 improving your baby’s microbiome, thereby lowering their risk of obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease later in life.19

Exclusively breastfed babies also tend to have higher IQs than formula-fed babies.20 For an even more comprehensive list of benefits for both the baby and mother, see my 2018 article, “The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding.”

How to Make Homemade Formula

If the opportunity to breastfeed has already passed, your next-best option is to make your own infant formula.21 The Weston A. Price Foundation has been a leader in this for years. In the video above, former Weston A. Price chapter leader Sarah Pope demonstrates how to make the formula created by Mary Enig, Ph.D., published in the book, “Nourishing Traditions.”

However, based on my research into linoleic acid (LA), iron and other components, I have revised Enig’s original formula (which you can find on the Weston A. Price Foundation’s website22). In my view, it’s really crucial to NOT include any kind of iron or seed oils with high LA content, for all the reasons detailed in “Iron Overload Destroys Mitochondria and Sabotages Health” and “How Linoleic Acid Wrecks Your Health.”

I don’t have any children, but if I did and the child’s mother could not breastfeed, I would never use commercial infant formula as the recipe below is decidedly superior to commercial formulas and will give your child a major head start in life and preserve their health.

Dr. Mercola’s Preferred Healthy Homemade Infant Formula

This recipe will make 36 ounces. Place all ingredients in a clean glass or stainless steel container and mix well. To ensure your mixing bowl is properly sanitized, place it in boiling hot water for a few minutes. Remove with tongs and let fully cool before using.

To serve the formula, pour 6 to 8 ounces into a sanitized glass baby bottle, attach the nipple and set it in a pot of simmering water. Heat until the formula is warm but not hot to the touch. Always check the temperature of the formula before feeding using either the back of your hand or your tongue. Never ever heat formula in a microwave oven. You’ll need to make a batch every other day or so, but the formula can be frozen so you have a stash for emergencies.

Homemade Whey Recipe

To make homemade whey, start with plain unsweetened yogurt, raw milk or cultured milk. Rest a large strainer lined with a clean linen kitchen towel or several layers of cheese cloth over a bowl.

If you’re using yogurt, place 2 quarts in the towel-lined strainer. Cover with a large plate and leave at room temperature overnight. The whey will drip out into the bowl. Place the whey in sanitized glass jars and store in the refrigerator.

If you are using raw or cultured milk, place 2 quarts of the milk in a glass container and leave at room temperature for two to four days until the milk separates into curds and whey. At that point, pour the mixture into the towel-lined strainer and cover with a plate. Leave at room temperature overnight to separate the whey from the curd. (The whey will drip out into the bowl.) Store in clean glass jars in the refrigerator.

Dairy-Free Formula

If your baby has a milk allergy, you can make a liver-based formula as follows. This recipe, again revised from the original Weston A. Price recipe to remove iron and seed oils, will make 36 ounces:

*

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

1 U.S. FDA February 17, 2022

2, 3 Delauro.house.gov April 28, 2022

4 Politico May 16, 2022

5 Market Watch May 16, 2022, Updated May 17, 2022

6, 7, 17 The Defender May 16, 2022

8 USDA Economic Research Service August 2011

9 J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr October 2019; 69(4): 480-486

10 New York Times May 17, 2022

11 Bloomberg May 18, 2022

12, 13 New York Times May 18, 2022

14 Liberty Nation May 13, 2022

15 Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2018 Apr;35(4):723-730

16 Biomilq

18 Obstetrics & Gynecology Fall 2009; 2(4): 222-231

19 Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology October 16, 2012; 2: 94

20 BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2021; 21, article number 62

21, 22 Weston A Price How to Make Infant Formula

23 Kalone Supernatural Organic Non-Homogenized Milk

24 Piima Yogurt Culture

25 Amazon NOW Foods Lactose

26 Carlson Labs Cod Liver Oil

27 Amazon Sari Foods non-fortified nutritional yeast flakes

28 Great Lakes Beef Gelatin

29 Amazon Organic Acerola Powder

30 Amazon Lakanto Liquid Monkfruit Extract

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 kr

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

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

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

***

Pfizer has asked a U.S. court to throw out a lawsuit from a whistleblower who revealed problems at sites that tested Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Brook Jackson, the whistleblower, alleged in a suit that was unsealed in February that Pfizer and associated parties violated clinical trial regulations and federal laws, including the False Claims Act.

In its motion to dismiss, Pfizer says the regulations don’t apply to its vaccine contract with the U.S. Department of Defense because the agreement was executed under the department’s Other Transaction Authority (OTA), which gives contract holders the ability to skirt many rules and laws that typically apply to contracts.

That means that Jackson’s claim that Pfizer must still comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulations “is simply wrong,” Pfizer said.

Warner Mendenhall, a lawyer who is working on Jackson’s case, said in a recent interview that Pfizer has “clearly not followed federal procurement laws.”

“And now they’re saying, ‘of course we didn’t follow federal procurement laws, we didn’t have to—this was just for a prototype,’” he added.

Mendenhall, who declined an interview request, said lawyers for Jackson are working on figuring out legal ways to counter Pfizer’s argument.

“We may lose on this issue because their contract imposes … none of the normal checks and balances on quality control and consumer protection that we fought for decades in this country,” he said.

The contract in question was outlined in a base agreement and a statement of work for the agreement, which was signed in the summer of 2020.

The government agreed to pay up to $1.9 billion for 100 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine pending U.S. regulatory clearance. That included the manufacturing of the vaccine on top of researching and developing it.

The contract was granted under the “prototype” provision, which falls under the OTA. The rules for prototypes state that just one of four conditions must be satisfied. The condition that was satisfied in the Pfizer contract was the involvement of a “nontraditional defense contractor.”

Federal law defines nontraditional defense contractors as “an entity that is not currently performing and has not performed” a contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense for at least one year preceding the solicitation of the OTA agreement. Pfizer has dozens of contracts with the military.

That means the government certified “an absurd fiction” to use an OTA to grant the contract, Kathryn Ardizzone, counsel with Knowledge Ecology International, told The Epoch Times in an email.

The Department of Defense and other government agencies have increased the use of the OTA over time. Thirty-four such agreements were hammed out in fiscal year 2016; by fiscal year 2018, that number was 173, according to the Government Accountability Office (pdf).

Because the agreements shield contract holders from some regulations and laws,

“the increasing use of OTAs, which includes in contexts where it’s inappropriate to do so, is undermining the rule of law and jeopardizing the public’s interests,” Ardizzone said. The Pfizer contract is an example of an inappropriate context, because the contract “was not about producing a prototype,” she asserted.

As far as Pfizer’s argument, about the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) not applying to the agreement, it’s not clear that is the case.

The base agreement only mentions the regulations pertaining to the handling of classified information. The statement of work does not mention any.

“I’m not sure what it means when an OTA is silent on a regulation that appears in the FAR,” Ardizzone said. “That would be up for the judge to decide, and it might side with Pfizer since the prevailing view is that FAR regulations do not necessarily apply for an OTA.”

Pfizer, in its motion to dismiss, noted that the government did not join Jackson’s suit—it was filed on the government’s behalf—nor have regulators rescinded clearance of its vaccine, which was authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in late 2020, after Jackson revealed issues at sites managed by Ventavia Research Group, a Pfizer subcontractor.

“The agreement makes no mention of the FDA regulations and FAR provisions cited in relator’s complaint,” Pfizer said. “The agreement instead conditions payment, more simply, on Pfizer’s delivery of an FDA authorized or approved product. Pfizer’s vaccine has satisfied that condition since December 2020, as the complaint acknowledges, and the vaccine continues to satisfy that condition today. The Court should reject Relator’s express certification claim for this reason alone.”

*

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

Zachary Stieber covers U.S. and world news. He is based in Maryland.

Featured image is from Health Thoroughfare

The Anatomy of Inflation

May 23rd, 2022 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

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

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

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

***

In my latest Alternative Visions radio show I break down the various causes of US inflation and its evolution from the summer of 2021 when it emerged to the present (and coming months). False narratives by US politicians–inflation due to too much government relief spending in March 2021, due to ‘Putin’s war, or due to US households’ flush with savings and cash–are exposed for the economic ideology they represent.

Why inflation will continue at high levels and even escalate this summer are explained. And why Fed rate hike policies now underway, designed to destroy Demand, won’t dampen inflation; nor lead to a ‘soft landing’ of the US and global economies.

Dr. Rasmus dissects the various causes of inflation in the US over the past year, explaining it is mostly Supply side driven and not consumer Demand.

Following last spring 2021 reopening of the US economy, some price increases followed due to more wage in come as workers went back to work. That was a moderately rise, however.

The big escalation of inflation began last September due to global and US domestic Supply chain problems which was followed by price gouging by monopolistic US corporations many of which had no supply issues (ex: bakery-cereal and meat packing companies, oil companies, etc.).

In 2021 Supply was responsible for at least 3/4s of the inflation. Overlaid on these forces in 2022 were three additional causes: first, commodity inflation due to Ukraine war and Biden sanctions depressing supply of oil, gas, industrial metals, certain agricultural goods; second, rising unit labor costs by US businesses due mostly to collapsing US productivity (worst since 1947) passed through to prices; third, emerging inflationary expectations (the latter a Demand factor). To address this anatomy of inflation, the Fed is raising interest rates at a record pace, addressing Demand but unable to address Supply causes. Recession will follow (as in 19981-82). Rasmus further explains how the US exports both its inflation and recession to emerging market economies via a currency crisis now underway.

Listen below.

*

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

Jack Rasmus blogs at http://jackrasmus.com and hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern time. Join him at twitter for daily updates at @drjackrasmus.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma

By F. William Engdahl, May 22, 2022

Acting on an initiative from the Biden Administration, by November 2022, conveniently at the onset of the next flu season in the northern hemisphere, the World Health Organization, barring a miracle, will impose an unprecedented top-down control over the national health regulations and measures of the entire planet.

Analysis of the Election Results in Lebanon: Biggest Winners and Losers

By Steven Sahiounie, May 23, 2022

The Lebanese Parliamentary elections were held on May 15, with 128 seats filled in a sectarian voting system unique to Lebanon. The country is suffering from the worst economic crisis in the world in the last 150 years, according to the World Bank. In 2019, street protests began against the political elite, who were seen as corrupt, and the root cause of the country’s political, economic, and social failure.

How to Prevent and Treat COVID Jab Injuries

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 22, 2022

For the last two years, Dr. Michelle Perro has been in the trenches treating COVID-19 complications, not only from the infection but also from the jab, which is far more problematic and deadly.

War in Eastern Ukraine Looks a Lot Different in Person Than It Does on CNN

By John Parker, May 22, 2022

I had just left the Lugansk People’s Republic, making my way to an interview in Moscow, when I saw a May 11 CNN story claiming Russia had targeted civilians in the Ukrainian city of Odessa. This was after the bombing of a hotel and shopping center there. When such structures are bombed, one assumes that they were filled with civilians.

Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why

By William M Arkin, May 22, 2022

Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act. If Russia were more intentionally destructive, the clamoring for U.S. and NATO intervention would be louder.

Video: Iran: Digital Food Rationing Rolls Out Using Biometric IDs Amid Food Riots

By Ice Age Farmer, May 22, 2022

Iran is set to be the first country to roll out a food rationing scheme based on new biometric IDs. Where vaccine passports failed, food passports will now be eagerly accepted by hungry people who can’t afford rapidly inflating food prices. This is the realization of a longstanding agenda by the Rockefeller/UN/WEF crowd to, as Kissinger put it, “control food, and control people.”

What’s Behind the Outbreak of Sudden, Severe Hepatitis in Kids?

By Dr. Julie Comber, May 22, 2022

As researchers seek answers to why in recent months more than 500 previously healthy children worldwide have developed sudden-onset, severe hepatitis, two leading hypotheses have emerged linking the outbreak to adenovirus and coronavirus. In a May 18 update, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it is investigating 180 cases of hepatitis in children, up 71 from the 109 cases the agency reported on May 5.

Video: Dr. Syed Haider: Healing Vax Injuries and Long COVID

By Dr. Syed Haider and Kristina Borjesson, May 22, 2022

As the numbers of vaccine injured and long covid sufferers rise after taking injections of pharmaceutical products that long ago met the FDA’s death and injury threshold for declaring a drug too dangerous for public consumption, all too few physicians are effectively addressing their devastating health issues. Dr. Syed Haider, who treats these patients, explains what he’s used that works, which in some cases includes Ivermectin, that has shown to be very effective.

How Has Monkeypox Spread All Over the Globe at Lightning Speed?

By Michael Snyder, May 21, 2022

What in the world is going on? In the past, we were told that monkeypox was not a major concern because it was so difficult to spread it from person to person. But now monkeypox seems to be spreading like wildfire.  On May 7th, the very first case in the western world in 2022 was confirmed in the United Kingdom.

What’s the Deal with Germany?

By Mike Whitney, May 22, 2022

Why is Germany sending weapons to Ukraine? Don’t they realize these weapons will be used to kill Russian soldiers? Don’t they realize these weapons will be given to Nazi combatants who tattoo swastikas on their arms and march in torchlight parades? Don’t the German people care about that?

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The WHO “Stealth Coup” to Dictate Global Health Agenda of Gates, Big Pharma

The Age of Imran Khan

May 23rd, 2022 by Saad Rasool

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

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

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

***

Imran Khan is almost 70 years old. But that’s not what this is about. My humble contention is that we, in Pakistan, live in the age of Imran Khan.

I belong to a generation that was born in the 1980s. Growing up under the overarching shadow of Zia-ul-Haq and the Afghan War, as far back as memory stretches, the only ‘national hero’ that one can remember is the great Imran Khan. Well, him and

Sultan Mohammad Golden—the daredevil stuntman, who flickered for a while, and then faded away.

But even as others faded away, Iman Khan did not.

Initially, Imran Khan was just our cricket captain. An international playboy with a litany of supermodel girlfriends. For those growing under Zia’s regime, this image of Imran Khan was almost an act of defiance to Pakistan’s repressive status quo of the time. At the twilight of the 1980s, as Pakistan came out of shade of military rule and into light of democracy, Imran Khan continued to be the generational representation of modernism. Rubbing shoulders with British Royalty, being celebrated as a sports icon across the world, Imran Khan was the ‘correct’ ambassador of a progressive, modern and educated Pakistan.

If all that wasn’t enough, in 1992, on a breezy night in Melbourne, Imran Khan’s popularity grew to unprecedented heights, as his cornered-tigers won Pakistan its maiden cricket world championship. This may not mean much in countries that have multiple sports icons. But in Pakistan, a cricketing hero—the first to win the World Cup—would naturally become a permanent iconic part of national history.

For most men, in most countries, this would have been the crowning glory. The rest of Imran Khan’s life could have been spent making celebrity appearances, and partying through the chaos of Pakistan’s unpredictability. But that would be most men. Not Imran Khan.

In Pakistan, during the 1990s, my generation—then in middle/high-school—spent a significant part of our time volunteering for Shaukat Khanum Hospital’s fund raising. Selling ‘tickets’—Rs10 a pop—to parents and relatives, this generation followed Imran Khan to his dream of a ‘free cancer hospital’. Selling fifty tickets got you a cap. Selling a hundred got you a ball. And in each school, there that one student—envy of everyone else—who sold enough tickets to get a cricket bat signed by Imran Khan himself.

That was the Holy Grail; something that Bollywood’s Rekha also wanted, but didn’t have. Because it was the age of Imran Khan.
Completion of the Shaukat Khanum Hospital, in 1996, coincided with the launching of the next (even bigger) chapter in the age of Imran Khan; a political party—the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf—which had no more than a snowflake’s chance in hell to make any impact in Pakistani politics.

The great Imran Khan was advised against politics. This is a not a game of cricket, he was told. Politics, especially in Pakistan, is a contact sport. It wasn’t for Imran. He couldn’t fathom, and certainly not prevail, in the myriad of compromises that is Pakistani politics.

To be honest, this wasn’t bad advice. Within a year of Imran Khan launching his political party, in the 1997 elections, Khan was faced with a rude awakening. He may have been a king in the cricket stadium, but in the political arena, he was a mere bystander.

Whereas Nawaz Sharif and Benazir won close to 70 percent of the votes between them, Imran Khan got a mere 1.7 percent of the votes. He was a footnote in that election; not even. In the next election, in 2002, he won a single seat (his own). And was ridiculed across Pakistan for having wasted his stardom in the muddy waters of Pakistan politics.

This rude awakening would have been enough for a lesser man. It was clear: Imran Khan could not bend himself to fit in the corridors of political power. He did not have the finesse to negotiate his path to power. He may become some version of Asghar Khan, at best… but no more. Khan should have given up. Smarter and more seasoned political pundits advised him to stop. To relent. To see the writing on the wall. Many had already written his political obituary. They ridiculed his ideas, and laughed at the notion of him succeeding. But Khan, the resilient Kaptaan, believed that his time will come—even though there was no logical reason to do so. Why? Because he knew a secret that the rest did not: that we live in the age of Imran Khan.

During the 2008 election campaign, Kaptaan decided to boycott the elections (claiming irregularities and pre-poll rigging). In fact, Kaptaan tore his nomination papers, during a press conference, in the run-up to the 2008 elections. And suddenly, Kaptaan and his PTI had no presence, at all, in the Parliament. Political wizards swore that this would be the last of Kaptaan. That by boycotting the elections, he is going to drive away the few remaining members of his political clique (PTI wasn’t much of a ‘political party’ at the time). People urged him to leave politics, and instead focus his attention on social-work, where he had tasted mild success. It was good advice. There was every reason for Kaptaan to quit. His days of politicking were, for all intents and purposes, over. His message had failed. And so had he.

But, as I said, Kaptaan knew a secret that the rest did not: that we live in the age of Imran Khan.

And then, suddenly, on an October night in 2011, Kaptaan witnessed his (illogical) perseverance being rewarded. And we all witnessed a miracle in Lahore. As usual, political pundits had speculated that it would be small and meaningless. Ruling parties had dismissed it as the fading cries of dying political party. Everyone, with their gaze towards the Minar-e-Pakistan and abated breath, waited to find out if the day would mark the end of Imran Khan’s promise, or witness the birth of a new political force.

And then it happened: they came in groups of tens and twenties and hundreds—on donkey-cards and Land-Cruisers, from affluent living-rooms as well as dusty fields, some bare-footed and others in Prada shoes—till the swell of humanity became the PTI ‘tsunami’. They waited patiently and danced for hours in anticipation of one person alone: Imran Khan. There was no Shah Mehmood Qureshi, or Jehangir Tareen, or Aleem Khan on the stage. In fact, this ‘tsunami’ had gathered to celebrate the antithesis of what these individuals stood for. The moment was a fracture in the fabric of our political history, and marked the inception of a new hope.

Kaptaan’s PTI did not win the 2013 general elections, but emerged as a political force to be reckoned with. And in 2018, was elected the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

If anyone thought that becoming Prime Minister was going to be the peak of Khan’s popularity… well, they were wrong. Because, it is not about being the Prime Minister; we live in the age of Imran Khan.

Khan, was removed from office this year, allegedly at the back of a US-orchestrated coup. And if anyone thought that that would be the end of Imran Khan, think again. Whether or not he was the generational icon earlier, now, in the post-PM phase, the age of Imran Khan has finally arrived.

As we gain some time and distance, and (puny) leaders will fade away from national memory, history will write its own (unforgiving) verdict on this period of time. And just as the 30s and 40s were the age of M. Ali Jinnah, the 60s and 70s were the age of Bhutto, this period—our generation’s footprint—will be remembered as the age of Imran Khan.

*

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

Featured image is from Multipolarista

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bruising the Major Parties: Arise Australia’s Independents

What We Learned from Hating the Unvaccinated

May 23rd, 2022 by Susan Dunham

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

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

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

***

The battlefield is still warm, following Canada’s war on the unvaccinated. The mandates have let up, and both sides stumble back into something that looks like the old normal — except that there is a fresh and present injury done to the people we tried to break. And no one wants to talk about it.

Only weeks ago, it was the admitted goal of our own leaders to make life unlivable for the unvaccinated. And as a deputized collective, we force-multiplied that pain, taking the fight into our families, friendships, and workplaces. Today, we face the hard truth that none of it was justified — and, in doing that, uncover a precious lesson.

It was a quick slide from righteousness to cruelty, and however much we might blame our leaders for the push, we’re accountable for stepping into the trap despite better judgement.

We knew that waning immunity put vast numbers of the fully vaccinated on par with the shrinking minority of unvaccinated, yet we marked them for special persecution. We said they hadn’t “done the right thing” by turning their bodies over to state care — even though we knew that principled opposition to such a thing is priceless in any circumstance. And we truly let ourselves believe that going into another ineffectual lockdown would be their fault, not the fault of toxic policy.

And so it was by the wilful ignorance of science, civics, and politics that we squeezed the unvaccinated to the degree that we did.

We invented a new rubric for the good citizen and — failing to be one ourselves — took pleasure in scapegoating anyone who didn’t measure up. After months of engineered lockdowns, having someone to blame and to burn simply felt good.

So we cannot hold our heads high, as if believing we had logic, love, or truth on our side while we viciously wished death upon the unvaccinated. The best we can do is sit in the awareness of our rabid inhumanity for having cast so many aside.

Most of us who pilloried the noncompliant did it because it seemed like certain victory, like the unvaccinated would never make it through unbroken. Indeed, the promised new normal looked unbeatable, so we sided with it and made punching bags out of the holdouts.

But betting against them has been a scathing embarrassment for many of us who’ve now learned that the mandates only had the power we gave them. It was not through quiet compliance that we avoided endless domination by pharmaceutical companies and medical checkpoints at every doorway. It was thanks to the people we tried to tear down.

So for those of us not among the hopeless few that pray for the return of mandates, we might find some inner gratitude for the unvaccinated. We took the bait by hating them, but their perseverance bought us the time to see we were wrong.

It seems right now like the mandates will return, but this time there’s hope that more of us will see them for what they are: a rising authoritarianism that has no concern for our wellbeing. If there’s an enemy, it’s the confidence game of state power and the transparent attempt to tear us apart. Heeding that looks like our best shot at redemption.

*

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

Follow me on Instagram for my latest articles and shareable excerpts. IG: @susankaydunham

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The Lebanese Parliamentary elections were held on May 15, with 128 seats filled in a sectarian voting system unique to Lebanon. The country is suffering from the worst economic crisis in the world in the last 150 years, according to the World Bank. In 2019, street protests began against the political elite, who were seen as corrupt, and the root cause of the country’s political, economic, and social failure.

The Lebanese diaspora is estimated to be as high as 14 million, but only 225,114 had registered to vote in this election. There were 1043 candidates, which included 155 women to fill the seats for a four-year term.

The absence of the Future Movement in this race was a major change, as former Prime Minister Saad Hariri had announced his withdrawal from politics, and his party did not participate in the election.

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Schenker participated in a ZOOM symposium for the Washington Institute entitled “Hezbollah-Shia Dynamics and Lebanon’s Election: Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Implications”. Schenker openly admitted the dangerous role played by the US administration in causing Lebanon’s economic collapse and maintaining the US financial and economic siege on the country.

The US policy in Lebanon was to create chaos which was to weaken the Lebanese resistance to the occupation by Israel, who is the main US ally in the Middle East.

The Lebanese Association for Democratic Elections said about 80 percent of the population faces poverty as a result of the economic crisis. Candidates and party supporters have been accused of trying to buy their way to victory by offering cash bribes to undecided voters. Paying for votes appears commonplace in the electoral districts where competition is fierce, especially Beirut I, Beirut II, Zahle, Keserwan, Jbeil, Batroun, Koura, Bsharri, Zgharta, and Chouf Aley.

The political elite, otherwise referred to as the traditional parties, were collectively the biggest losers in the election.  Fouad Siniora, who is well known for being accused of corruption, and had served for years as a minister as well as Prime Minister in the past, was a big loser in this election.  Perhaps, the biggest loser could be identified as Prince Talal Arslan, who had served for 30 years in parliament.

Samir Geagea, of The Lebanese Forces, emerged with the largest number of deputies and is now the largest Christian party in parliament for the first time. Geagea is famous for having been convicted of the 1994 bombing of a Maronite Christian church–which killed 11 people, and the coldblooded slaying of a rival, former militia leader Dany Chamoun, his wife, and two young sons in 1990.

The winners in this election were the new faces, ready to bring the demands of the 2019 protest movement to the chamber floor, and chosen by the voters to serve in response to years of corruption by the political elite, who were shocked by the outcome of this election.

The important next step in the process of forming a parliament and government is to choose the Speaker of the Parliament. Nabih Berri has served in that position for 30 years, and while he might again serve in that important position, it is not a forgone conclusion.  The Vice Speaker of the Parliament must also be decided upon.

Equally important, is to choose a Prime Minister, and this must be done by a consensus of the majority; however, a majority may not exist.  In that case, no government can be formed.  It may come down to regional powers forcing an acceptable choice to be made.

In October, President Michel Aoun’s term will expire. This vacancy will leave a gap in the government.  There is a distinct possibility arising, in which Lebanon has no President, nor a  government for months, and maybe longer. The reason would be there could be no majority in the Parliament, which would result in no consensus on who should be President of Lebanon.  However, that deadlock could be solved by the intervention of foreign powers; such as France, the US, or Saudi Arabia.

Hezbollah and their allies lost their parliamentary majority. Hezbollah, and its ally Amal, have won all 27 seats allotted to the Shiite sect.  They received more than 350,000 votes from Shiites, which means the Shiite community still supports Hezbollah and is still committed to resistance to the Israeli occupation. This furthermore means, there are no seats in the Parliament that are Shiite, but against Hezbollah.  The US has had a plan to turn Shiites against Hezbollah, but the plan has failed to produce results.

Hezbollah might not enjoy a majority in domestic politics, but they do hold the majority in the area of national defense.

About 12 seats went to new candidates who are young people seeking change and are not affiliated with the political elite, or the older traditional parties.  But, can they affect a change?

If these new fresh faces in the Parliament, who are not tied down to corrupt practices, can unite then they stand a small chance of in succeeding effecting necessary changes in Lebanon.  However, we can’t forget that as much infighting there has been among the traditional parties, at the end of the day they have been able to hammer out deals behind closed doors to solve issues and deadlocks.  The question will be, if these new members of Parliament will be capable of unity, and negotiating tough issues. Experts anticipate the new legislative body will be fractured and passing needed bills will be a struggle.

It will be very difficult to remove Riad Salameh from his position as Governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon because the ‘Lords of Corruption’ is protecting him. The US Ambassador to Lebanon, Dorothy Shea, said, “…any political retaliation against the Governor of the Banque du Liban, Riad Salameh,” will have major consequences.

Lebanon’s financial prosecutor, Judge Ali Ibrahim, decided to retract Salameh’s subpoena, and the Judge’s action was based on not only personal or internal considerations but also on the US intervention to protect Salameh.

Ambassador Dorothy Shea also told OTV it was a mistake to scapegoat any one person or institution for Lebanon’s economic collapse in response to a question about the role of central bank Governor Riad Salameh, who she said: “enjoys great confidence in the international financial community”.

Despite the US government’s support of Salameh, France, Germany, and Luxembourg have seized properties and frozen assets worth 120 million euros ($130 million) in a major operation linked to money laundering in Lebanon which belongs to Salameh and his family.

The new Parliament may take action against Riad Salameh, to calm the Lebanese street soon. The corrupt political elites will do so to protect themselves, and they will offer up Salameh as the sacrificial lamb, to pay the price of all.

Lebanon’s electrical grid has collapsed and many have no access to electricity for daily life.  A plan was devised to use the existing Arab Gas Pipeline, from Egypt to Lebanon, to deliver fuel to be converted into electricity.  Even though part of the pipeline runs through Syria on its way to Lebanon, the US Ambassador to Lebanon had supported the plan.

However, Republican members of the US Congress refused to agree to the plan because of the US Congressional sanctions in place against Syria.

Two Egyptian and Jordanian diplomats visiting Washington, in connection with the proposed use of the Arab Gas Pipeline, pressed President Joe Biden’s administration for further assurances they would not be affected by the sanctions but failed to receive them.  The Republican party could take control of Congress in the November midterm elections, and that would prevent any exemptions to the sanctions to help Lebanon.  Republicans in Congress have sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken saying that the proposed pipeline would violate the sanctions against Syria.  The US Republican party flexes its muscles in Lebanon to deprive the Lebanese people of turning on a light in their own homes.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Analysis of the Election Results in Lebanon: Biggest Winners and Losers
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

At the onset of the Russian incursion into Ukraine I argued in my article ‘Order Out Of Chaos: How The Ukraine Conflict Is Designed To Benefit Globalists‘ that US boots would be on the ground within a few months. I was wrong – As it turns out, US and European military boots were ALREADY on the ground. Ukraine was a proxy war from the very beginning.

But what is a proxy war, really? It means that Russian troops are fighting Ukrainian soldiers that are intermingled with western “advisors” and most likely US and European special forces, not to mention US intelligence operatives utilizing all the information gathering technology at the disposal of the Department of Defense. In other words, Russian soldiers are being killed by Western assets. Some pro-Ukraine people might ask why this is a problem?

To understand the gravity of this situation we have to first examine the historical significance.

The closest event in history that I could approximate Ukraine to is Vietnam, when communist elements within the country were receiving constant aid, weaponry and even some troops from China, along with monetary and technological aid from the Soviet Union. Vietnam was essentially a “safe” arena or cage match between the West and Communism; a place where the paradigm players could fight it out without risk of a larger nuclear exchange. The globalists could sit back, relax and watch the show while Americans sacrificed their lives over a conflict that did not need to exist.

Ukraine is similar, but the stakes this time are much higher. This is probably why the mainstream media and the White House have been in full denial that Ukraine is a proxy war at all, and have consistently downplayed the complex involvement of Western military assets. The fact is that Ukraine would have fallen completely by now had it not been for the fact that Russia is not really facing Ukraine; it is facing a proxy force of US and European support elements feeding intel, weaponry and likely direct kinetic support.

In my article ‘Ukraine Learns The Value Of An Armed Citizenry, But Far Too Late,’ published on March 2nd, I noted that the Ukrainian “militia” programs being instituted at the last minute while Russia troops swiftly marched across the Donbass were a side show. The media was acting as if citizens with no more than a couple of weeks of training were going to make some kind of difference in the war; this was nonsense. In my view, the insurgency narrative was meant as cover for well trained Western assets already in place with advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft technology. As I stated in that article:

“Today, as Russia invades, the Ukrainians don’t even have basic [defense] measures in place. Their ability to hold off the Russians at all is predicated on American missile systems like the Javelin which are being steadily funneled into the Ukrainian military.

Also, the methods which Ukrainian forces are using to ambush Russian armor columns are rather advanced and familiar. I suspect the possibility that there are outside military “advisers” (perhaps US advisers) on the ground right now in Ukraine. The advanced guerrilla-style ambush tactics and the results look similar to training that is often given to Green Berets or SAS. The UK did send anti-tank weapons along with a small group of “trainers” to Ukraine in January.

Maybe I am mistaken, but if this is the case it would be diplomatically disastrous if such adviser teams were ever discovered to be involved in the fighting…”

Not long after I wrote this, a stream of information leaks revealed that US and EU military involvement was far deeper than I had expected.

French journalist and Le Figaro senior international correspondent Georges Malbrunot came back from Ukraine with revelations that Americans are “directly in charge” of the war on the ground. He added that he and the volunteers he was with “almost got arrested” by the officials and that they were forced to sign a contract “until the end of the war” which denied then the right to tell the public about the circumstances they witnessed.

Citing a French intelligence source, Malbrunot also tweeted that British SAS units “have been present in Ukraine since the beginning of the war, as were the American Deltas.”

This was obvious from the advanced tactics being used by “Ukrainian” forces to stall the Russian advance, but the first hand accounts confirm the problem is real. The New York Times and other media outlets have been publishing rare admissions of US involvement in intelligence sharing with Ukrainians which have led directly to the deaths of multiple Russian generals as well as the destruction of major assets such as troop transport planes and the Russian flagship Moskva.

In the meantime, Pentagon officials and Joe Biden have incessantly denied that Ukraine is a “proxy war.” If it’s not a proxy war, then I don’t know what is. Without US, UK and EU involvement, there is NO WAR. It would already be over and Ukraine would have surrendered weeks ago.

People can argue whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. As I have mentioned in multiple articles, I have no feelings either way because the entire event appears to be a distraction from the much more important threat of global economic decline and the inflationary crisis. The thing to remember here is that this is indeed a proxy war and that the very presence of American and European military assets on the ground in Ukraine could be used as a rationale by Russia to expand their operations far beyond the Donbass region.

Not only that, but it also justifies wider tactics that directly target the US and Europe. For example, a proxy war allows Russia to reasonably argue in favor of completely cutting off the EU from oil and natural gas resources, which Europe relies on for around 40% of its energy needs. It justifies Russian economic strategies including alliances with China to cut out the US dollar as the world reserve currency. And, I continue to expect cyberwarfare attacks sometime this year as a result of the Ukraine situation. At the very least, such attacks will be blamed on Russia and China whether or not they are actually responsible.

Does the presence of US and European troops in Ukraine mean a global nuclear war is imminent? It;s unlikely. Just as Vietnam did not lead to a nuclear war between Russia, China and the US despite the NVC receiving steady supplies and training from Soviet and Chinese forces, there is minimal chance that global nuclear war will erupt from the Ukraine. Mutual destruction does not serve the interests of the globalists, at least not if they hope to predict the outcome in the slightest.

That said, I would not be surprised to see at least one mushroom cloud somewhere in the world this decade within a regional conflict. Also, world war does not have to become nuclear to be disastrous.

Sadly, because of Hollywood movies a large number of people have misguided notions of what World War III might actually look like. Entertainment media always depict WWIII as happening in a flash, an instant in which missiles are launched and a broken civilization of survivors is left to pick up the pieces. What they never show is a long grinding war of financial attrition, supply chain disruptions, cyber attacks, and drawn out regional battles in which Americans are shipped overseas to die for no purpose other than to pretend that these territorial disputes are somehow “our responsibility.”

What I see in Ukraine is the beginnings of a war unlike any other; a war in which the weapons are primarily indirect and financial rather than kinetic. Because of global interdependency in trade many Western nations have been left utterly defenseless in this kind of conflict. We don’t have the ability to fight back because our economic systems are built around a model that demands we abandon domestic production and rely on the resources and industry of other nations.

This is never more true than in our relationship with China, which controls around 20% of all export goods into the US. China has closely allied with Russia. This is not going to change because they know that there is nothing the West can do to about it; there is far too much economic leverage involved. Furthermore, the events in Ukraine are probably a precursor to China’s own invasion of Taiwan.

If this is the plan, then China would have to wait for optimal weather conditions after the monsoon season, sometime in September. This would start with missile bombardment and infrastructure attacks, followed by an amphibious assault sometime in early October.

The proxy war in Ukraine is a key moment in history going forward (along with the potential invasion of Taiwan), because it offers global power interests with dreams of a “Great Reset” the ability to offload the worldwide economic crisis they created years ago onto the “tides of fate.” They can say that the collapse only happened because of the hubris of sovereign nations and “meaningless borders.” If the US and Europe are directly involved in the killing of Russian troops, and this is widely exposed, then the Russian side of the narrative become clarified and the Western side becomes muddled. Direct Russian retribution becomes logical and rational rather than the crazed reaction of a nation led by a madman as the mainstream media claims.

Both sides of the Kabuki theater have to feel as though they are justified in escalating a small war into a world war. That is how this has always worked. When the working class population gets a little too unruly and the threat of rebellion against the establishment is at hand, the elites start a war. It’s like clockwork. This tactic weakens the general population, wears down the number of fighting age men that might have otherwise presented a threat to the ruling class and creates enough fear and panic to convince the public to trade away more of their freedoms.

The wild card right now is the US and European populations, and to some extent the Russian citizenry, and how they respond. The old joke is “What if they held a war and nobody showed up to fight?” This is a potential reality right now as it is in the hands of the public how far the Ukraine issue goes. Are most Americans and Europeans willing to send their sons and in some cases daughters to fight and die over the Donbass? Are Russian citizens willing to fight and die beyond the borders of Ukraine?

A lot of people are engaging in big talk lately, but is this really the hill they are ready to die on? I think not. Why? Because deep down most people know that this war is a farce, a play on the global chess board by elitists with nefarious aspirations. They know that the reasons for the war are not pure, on either side. They virtue signal in favor of Ukraine, but they will never be willing to go and risk their lives for Ukrainian soil. Nor are they willing to risk a family member’s life for Ukraine.

I suspect that the globalists know this by now, as the narrative has been shifting away from trying to convince Americans that open military involvement is needed. They will switch to the economic side of the conflict in the hopes that fiscal disaster will fog the minds of the public and make them more willing to support wider war tomorrow.

*

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

Featured image is from Alt-Market.us


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

President Joe Biden is resisting demands from Kiev to supply long-range rocket launchers to the Ukrainian military, Politico reported, suggesting the White House is concerned the weapons could be used for strikes inside Russia.

Ukrainian officials have requested increasingly advanced weaponry from Washington in recent months – even before Moscow’s invasion commenced earlier this year – and are currently urging the US government to send M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), among other hardware.

While Biden was reportedly willing to consider the request during a trip to Germany last month, where dozens of countries met to discuss aid for Ukraine, a congressional staffer told Politico the plan is not moving forward.

“There was momentum on it at Ramstein, but that seems to have cooled,” they said, adding that “There’s definitely a frustration building” among officials in Kiev over a perceived reluctance to send heavier arms.

The staffer did not offer a reason for the change of heart, but according to three other sources cited by the outlet, Kiev believes the White House is “holding back over worries the weapon could be used to launch strikes inside Russia, thereby expanding and prolonging the conflict.”

Though the war raging in Eastern Europe has largely been confined to Ukrainian territory and separatist-controlled areas in the Donbass region, a number of mysterious blasts have erupted on Russian soil over the last month, including in the Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions bordering Ukraine. Kiev has stopped short of taking credit for the apparent attacks, but US officials have confirmed that Ukrainian forces were behind at least one of the incidents.

Depending on the munitions used, the M270 MLRS has a range of between 20 and 40 miles, though more advanced rockets can travel up to 100 miles, potentially putting them far beyond the range of the American M-777 Howitzers supplied to Ukraine in recent weeks. Even with special rocket-assisted rounds, the latter artillery pieces have a maximum range of just over 18 miles. The M270 is also a self-propelled platform and was specifically designed to evade Russian artillery strikes, capable of rapidly firing up to 12 rockets before moving to a new position.

Washington has sent billions of dollars in weapons to Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in late February, including attack helicopters, artillery, tank-killing Javelin missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft platforms. Moreover, a massive new aid package currently moving through the Senate will bring total US assistance since March to nearly $54 billion if passed, much of it devoted to arms and other military gear.

Despite the complaints from Ukrainian officials, however, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland recently suggested Kiev may be receiving US-made multiple-launch rockets after all, telling European Pravda in April that “we already supply MLRS systems.” The comments prompted speculation that Washington could be sending the M142 HIMARS, a lighter-weight, wheeled variant of the M270. President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly mentioned both systems by name in public appeals for additional armaments.

An unnamed White House official cited by Politico also indicated that Biden’s reluctance to send the M270 did not mean a final decision had been made, stating that Washington and Kiev are still “in active discussion” about the weapon.

*

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

Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute.

Will Porter is the assistant news editor of the Libertarian Insitute and a staff writer at RT.

Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter host Conflicts of Interest along with Connor Freeman.

Featured image is from TLI

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

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

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

***

Politicians thoroughly enjoy times of war. Periods of bellicosity are when the most power-hungry members of the political class indulge in their most depraved political fantasies. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been no exception to this trend.

Western politicians have been taking advantage of the largest conventional military conflict on European soil since World War II to crack down on civil liberties at home and drag their countries closer to an open conflict with a nuclear power. The domestic measures Western governments have pursued have been particularly breathtaking.

For example, the European Union has already banned Russian state media outlets such as RT and Sputnik for allegedly spreading disinformation. In the United States, which has stronger free speech protections, the assaults against freedom of expression had taken a more corporate hue. For example, Big Tech juggernauts such as Google have enthusiastically blocked channels receiving funding from Russia.

Even more egregious have been the actions of EU and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These countries have criminalized any behavior that could be construed as being in support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Similarly, Latvia has created a police hotline where citizens can report individuals who manifest support for Russia’s military action in Ukraine. Several German states have pushed the envelope even further by prosecuting individuals who display the Z symbol connected to Russia’s military campaign.

The corporate press and governments are setting a startling precedent. The definition of “pro-Russia” content could be potentially broadened to attack antiwar activists and noninterventionists who are skeptical of Western countries trying to get involved in the Russo-Ukrainian war.

While the Russian invasion of Ukraine is horrific, there need to be honest discussions about this invasion and what led up to it. International relations scholar John Mearsheimer has talked about how US foreign policy moves such as NATO expansion helped create the conditions for the present great-power tragedy. For simply putting forth an alternative theory for what caused the present security crisis, Mearsheimer was nearly subjected to a struggle session by University of Chicago students, who adamantly refused to entertain the professor’s contrarian views.

Given the recent trajectory, it would not be a stretch to suggest that even realist critiques of Western foreign policy could be subject to social and political sanctions. The simple act of pointing out that the US’s geopolitical ambitions have played a significant role in creating the present instability could be treated as “pro-Russian” speech if deep state proponents have their way.

Dissidents getting punished for their antiwar views is nothing new in American history. Socialist leader Eugene V. Debs learned this the hard way during World War I. To make sure that America’s war effort went unchallenged, the Wilson administration passed the Espionage Act in 1917, followed by the Sedition Act in 1918.

These bills imposed harsh criminal penalties. On June 16, 1918, Debs gave a speech in Canton, Ohio, imploring attendees to resist the World War I draft. Debs’s actions eventually landed him in trouble with the law, and he was charged with ten counts of sedition. The socialist activist received a prison sentence of ten years and faced a lifetime of disenfranchisement.

It took a pardon from President Warren G. Harding, one of the presidents most pilloried by court historians, to finally get him out of jail, and Debs was released toward the end of 1921.

Later, during the Vietnam War, there were several cases of the FBI surveilling antiwar groups or even infiltratingthem to hinder their effectiveness. As Randolph Bourne proclaimed in an unfinished manuscript, “War is the health of the State.” It remains so, as Western governments are working overtime to augment their power during a great-power conflict.

Self-proclaimed liberal democracies already showed their true colors during the covid-19 pandemic, when they treated their citizens like mere cattle to be poked and prodded by whimsical technocrats. Now, as the Russo-Ukrainian War rages on, they’re further manifesting their pent-up tyrannical desires.

An integral part of the West’s unique value proposition is its respect for civil liberties, something countless societies have never enshrined in their governing documents. But now that has drastically changed. The haughty rhetoric coming from Western governments about being profreedom is vacuous at best when their actual behavior is observed.

The irony here is that the West has fallen down the classic “you become what you fight” path. The very Western countries that pound their chests about their exceptionalism are now morphing into the countries they rail against.

Politics is not without a sense of irony.

*

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

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. Sign up for his mailing list here. Contact him via Facebook or Twitter. Get his premium newsletter here. Subscribe to his Substack here

Featured image is from Mises Wire

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Russo-Ukrainian War: A New Opportunity for Demagogues to Destroy Freedoms at Home

How to Prevent and Treat COVID Jab Injuries

May 22nd, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

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

***

The introduction of the experimental COVID jabs has opened the eyes of many to the fact that there are fundamental flaws with the vaccine program — not just with the mRNA shots, which have never existed before, but also with conventional vaccines

Toxins in food, water and air; vaccines, mRNA shots, electromagnetic field exposures and more, are making children sicker than any generation before them

When trying to prevent and/or treat a COVID jab injury, there are five toxic components that need to be addressed: spike protein toxicity, PEG, inflammation from the nanolipid, graphene oxide and nanotoxicity

A key tool in Dr. Michelle Perro’s treatment arsenal is spike protein-binding therapies like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

Other helpful remedies include fibrinolytic enzymes like lumbrokinase, NAC, pine needle tea, curcumin, zeolite and symptom-specific homeopathics

*

For the last two years, Dr. Michelle Perro has been in the trenches treating COVID-19 complications, not only from the infection but also from the jab, which is far more problematic and deadly.

Perro went to Yale as an undergrad, and then to Mount Sinai Medical School. She completed her postgraduate residency training in pediatrics at Bellevue Hospital in New York City. She now sees patients with an integrative approach, educates regarding GMOs, pesticides and environmental health and is working on her second book in California, where the pediatric population is highly vaccinated.

Perro’s Journey

During the first 40 years of her career as a pediatrician, she didn’t question the validity of vaccines. “Thinking that we would intentionally harm children is a very difficult reach,” she says. “It’s out of reach of many pediatricians.”

However, by the early 2000’s, she began to see a significant uptick in autism, and that led her down the proverbial rabbit trail to vaccines.

“[The rise in autism] correlated with my understanding of GMOs and pesticides,” she says. “However, when you start looking at one toxicant, you look at other toxicants, and that’s where I got into the field of environmental toxicity, including our food, air, water, EMFs, you name it …

Now I’m an advisor for NAEM [the National Academy of Medicine], and I’m working on a pediatric environmental health questionnaire. I wrote an Environmental Health Bill of Rights for children. So, I’m deep into this now — not just focusing on vaccines, but the global issue of protecting children from environmental toxicity …

 Over 25 years ago, I became a homeopath, and then an integrated physician. I don’t talk about being a homeopath because it’s not taken well by a lot of my peers, but most of my treatment successes have been from homeopathy.”

Old Truths Are Being Re-Revealed

Interestingly, the introduction of the experimental COVID jabs has really opened the eyes of a large percentage of the population to the fact that there are fundamental flaws with the vaccine program as a whole — not just with the mRNA shots, which have never existed before, but also with conventional vaccines.

Dr. Maurice Hilleman, for example, a former head of Merck who developed polio vaccines, has admitted these vaccines were contaminated with dozens of viral pathogens, including simian virus 40 (SV40), which can cause cancer.

“This idea of vaccination contamination was exposed again in 2017, when they found nano contamination with heavy metals in 43 out of 44 vaccines in a study out of Italy,” Perro says.

“And these nanoparticles, because of their size, are inflammatory. They cross the blood brain barrier. And I am sure, without a doubt, that’s what’s linked to this neuroinflammatory process that we see with kids on the spectrum, the rise in ADHD and another neurosensory/ neurocognitive issues.”

Glyphosate Worsens Aluminum Toxicity

Perro also cites research showing glyphosate shuttles aluminum across the blood-brain barrier in six different ways. So, glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and aluminum are synergistic.

This, too, is likely part of the equation, because children are highly exposed to glyphosate through food, which then shuttles the aluminum from their childhood vaccines straight into their brains. Aluminum is added to many vaccines as an adjuvant, because it elicits a stronger immune response.

This, in turn, results in higher antibody titers, which is how they measure vaccine effectiveness. The problem is, by stimulating the humoral antibody system only, and not the cellular immune system, you create an imbalance that can eventually lead to immune dysregulation, with the worst outcome being cancer.

In short, vaccination is not nearly as effective as the multifaceted immune response you have when exposed to natural infection. This is even more true for young children. As explained by Perro:

“It really speaks to why children are immunologically different than adults. Children are not mini adults, because they have that other arm of the immune system, the innate immune system …

Children have a very robust innate immune system, and they have a thymus, which involutes with time as adults — ours are long gone. Because of this innate immune system, and increased NK [natural killer] cells, they’re able to fight COVID.

That’s why children do so well with this virus. [They have] robust innate immunity, which is totally bypassed when you give somebody a vaccination. Dr. [Anthony] Fauci himself said in 2004 that natural immunity is better than vaccine induced immunity.”

Pediatric Side Effects From the COVID Jab

Once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the COVID jab for children, aged 12 to 17, it didn’t take long before Perro started seeing injuries in her practice.

“I was amazed at how many kids were injured … The types of reactions I started seeing were initially neurologic. Some of them in the beginning were simple but concerning, like tinnitus, which is ringing in the ear, and that could be horrific for a kid …

I had a musician who goes to Julliard, and he had severe acute onset [of tinnitus] after the first the Pfizer [shot]. It got worse after the second. I have colleagues who saw Guillain-Barre ascending paralysis … I saw cardiac [problems], myocarditis for sure, and abnormal heart rate responses like tachycardia and increased heart rate …

I saw POTS — postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome — something very common in Lyme disease that is very difficult to treat. Another weird thing I saw was this one child with rhabdomyolysis, where he had massive breakdown of his muscle tissue, which is a very rare event in childhood.

Then, I started seeing people develop symptoms who were unvaccinated, including myself. I got ‘spiked.’ That’s what I call it, ‘getting spiked.’

[I saw] teenage girls with heavy menstrual bleeding, prolonged bleeding, and other menstrual irregularities. There was a smattering of rashes, urticaria, hives — a bizarre host of rashes.

So, this is the kind of stuff we started seeing, and this began happening last June [2021], after ACIP, the American Committee of Immunization Practice, said, ‘Yep, 12-year-olds can be vaccinated [against COVID]’ …

Once again, we as clinicians … have to sort out how to fix it with tools not in the traditional toolbox. That’s what we’re faced with …

There is a bigger agenda here, because clearly these vaccines are dangerous for kids. There’s no doubt. The data is irrefutable, and yet we’ve proceeded. So, we’re dealing with other agendas here … I think parents need to rise up and protect their children, because this is not going away. If anything, it’s ramping up.”

Preventing and Treating COVID Jab Injuries

When trying to prevent and/or treat a COVID jab injury, there are five toxic components that need to be addressed:

  • Spike protein toxicity
  • PEG
  • Inflammation from the nanolipid
  • Graphene oxide
  • Nanotoxicity

Each of these can be modulated in a variety of ways. “That’s why we have to use an entire menu of things when treating a reaction from the COVID vaccine,” she says. A key tool in Perro’s treatment arsenal is spike protein-binding therapies like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. She explains:

“If you’re making spike [protein], even though kids don’t have a lot of ACE2 receptors, those spikes are everywhere. In mice, it is shown that they cross the blood-brain barrier. They’re disseminated, and then they tend to focus in your area of weakness.

They go into fat-loving tissues, they go into the ovaries, they seem to go everywhere. So, binding the spike protein, that’s one aspect, and there are different things you can do, both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical.

My favorite is ivermectin for the spike. I was giving kids 12 milligrams, initially, once a day. I went up to 12 mg twice a day for Omicron, but it depends on the size of the kid. For bigger kids, it’s 18 mg twice a day.

I didn’t see any toxicity with ivermectin. I’ve used ivermectin before, mostly for parasitic infections, and I never had any problem with ivermectin. I have not used hydroxychloroquine before, but now, for Omicron, I would use hydroxychloroquine, 200 mg twice a day.

I use a lot of quercetin and zinc together … To decrease inflammation, especially IL6, you also want to use a lot of immunomodulators, and a lot of supplements can do that.”

What’s in Perro’s Toolbox?

In addition to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to bind the toxic spike protein, and quercetin and zinc to boost immune function, Perro also uses the following remedies for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19, and the prevention and treatment of COVID jab injuries:

I would also recommend getting plenty of sunshine, as infrared rays, especially the near-infrared spectrum, triggers melatonin production in your mitochondria. Melatonin is a potent antioxidant, and it increases glutathione, which is crucial for efficient detox. Melatonin also increases mitochondrial efficiency and energy production in the form of ATP.

Of course, eating organic is key since GMOs also have been demonstrated to decrease glutathione — the master antioxidant — and increase oxidative stress, which is the basis for all chronic disease. If you’re prone to sun burn, it could be a sign that you’re eating too many seed oils high in linoleic acid (LA), so to reduce your tendency to get burned, cut out all seed oils from your diet.

That includes restaurant foods, processed foods and condiments in particular, but also conventionally raised chicken and pork. A very low, virtually zero seed oil diet is probably one of the best ways to prevent sunburn, as well as chronic degenerative diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Adding in more whole food vitamin C can also be helpful for preventing sunburn. Acerola cherry (Barbados cherry) contains some of the highest amounts of vitamin C.

More Information

As noted by Perro, recognizing there’s a problem is always the first step. So, first, we have to recognize that our children are under toxic assault, and in many instances, the harming of children’s health appears to be intentional.

Step 2, then, is for parents to take back control and remove the systems that have taken over and are harming their children. While that may sound like an unsurmountable task, it doesn’t have to be. It begins with cleaning up your family’s diet, using food as medicine, growing some of your own food and getting back to basic principles of health and health care.

“We have to get them out of this infantilized system where people feel they have to run to the physician for every bruise, cut and boo-boo, ‘Quick, call the pediatrician!’

Not so. Parents have lost that ability and we have to regain it. Think about when we were kids. How often did you go to the doctor? I think I went once as a child. Our parents had some knowledge, so we need to regain that.”

Perro also believes we must begin to create parallel systems and structures, as suggested by Mattias Desmet, Ph.D. The power of this strategy was demonstrated by Vaclav Havel, a political dissident who eventually became the president of Czechoslovakia.

A parallel structure is any kind of business, organization, technology, movement or creative pursuit that fits within a totalitarian society while being morally outside of it. Once enough parallel structures are created, a parallel culture is born that functions as a sanctuary of sanity within a totalitarian world.

To learn more, see DrMichellePerro.com, and GMOscience.org, which is the nonprofit she cofounded in 2014. Also keep your eyes peeled for her next book, “Making Our Children Well,” which is scheduled to be published sometime in 2023.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

a

***

 “As the Director-General of WHO, I have a duty to protect and promote health wherever it is under threat, and there is nowhere on earth where the health of millions of people is more under threat than in Tigray.”Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director General of the World Health Organization, March 16, 2022 [1]

What’s really shocking about this is that all of the mainstream news is about the suffering in Tigray and how Ethiopia is starving Tigray, and there’s very little word about Amhara and Afar.” – Ann Garrison, from this week’s interview.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

While the opinions of people in Europe, Canada and the United States is riveted to footage of the spectacular Ukraine war drawing them to the television sets and internet browser regularly, there is little attention drawn to the situation in Ethiopia. [2]

While casualties in Ukraine are counted in the thousands, the death toll in the one and a half year war in Ethiopia is tallied in the hundreds of thousands. And on top of that, food shortages unparalleled in nearly forty years are beginning to threaten still more lives.[3][4]

According to an article written for the BBC, the government of Abiy Ahmed who became Prime Minister in 2018 made sweeping reforms, including removing the Tigrayan government leaders charged with corruption and repression. He also ended the war with Eritrea. [5]

The critics in Tigray however branded Mr Abiy’s moves as an attempt to centralize power and destroy the Ethiopian federal system. On account of the coronavirus, the Abiy government withdrew the ability for Tigray to host a regional election and withdrew their funds. This was interpreted as an act of war by the Tigrayan administration, and in November 2020, prompted their forces to attack army bases and steal their weapons. Abiy saw this as crossing a “red line,” and forced the Ethiopian federal government into a military confrontation. [6]

Thus began the civil war. [7]

At least one journalist has taken notice of the situation and raises concerns seldom expressed by the mainstream Western media. In particular, she has written several articles documenting the role the so-called Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) played while in power for close to thirty years advancing the interests of the United States. The Tigrayan people, she argued, attacked federal authorities. They were not bullied by Ethiopia and Eritrea. Yet, they are frequently portrayed as the victim, even by the WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

Given that this branding of the players in a country Americans barely know resembles the approach taken in Yugoslavia in 1999, or Syria in the last decade, it seemed like this journalist would make a valuable contribution in a discussion about yet another “genocidal war.” The journalist in question is Ann Garrison. She has covered African countries as a reporter for community radio station KPFA and also for Black Agenda Report. She was in Ethiopia as part of an investigative tour of the region when she was interviewed, and brings a full half hour report to the Global Research News Hour.

However first off, following an article summary, we heard from the activist originally from Eritrea now in San Francisco, Elias Amare, to relate a little about his concerns about the new developments, and whatever he might be hearing from folks on the ground.

Elias Amare is a journalist and editor of Horn of Africa TV. He is also involved with Peace Building Centre for the Horn of Africa. He originally came from Eritrea.

Ann Garrison is a reporter for Pacifica community radio station KPFA operating out of Berkeley, Fresno, California and Santa Cruz.  She is also a lead reporter for the Black Agenda report. She received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize  for promoting peace through her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 356)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Other stations airing the show:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-who-press-conference-16-march-2022
  2. Maher Mezahi (March 6, 2022), ‘Viewpoint on Ukraine: Why African wars get different treatment’, BBC News; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-60603232
  3. Geoffrey York (March 15, 2022), ‘Tigray war has seen up to half a million dead from violence and starvation, say researchers’, The Globe and Mail; https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-tigray-war-has-seen-up-to-half-a-million-dead-from-violence-and/#:~:text=As%20many%20as%20500%2C000%20people%20have%20died%20from,Ethiopia%20over%20the%20past%2016%20months%2C%20researchers%20say.
  4. https://www.unfpa.org/news/ethiopias-worst-drought-40-years-threatens-derail-gains-made-maternal-and-newborn-health
  5. BBC (June 29, 2021), ‘Ethiopia’s Tigray war: The short, medium and long story’, BBC News; https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-54964378
  6. ibid
  7. ibid

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

I had just left the Lugansk People’s Republic, making my way to an interview in Moscow, when I saw a May 11 CNN story claiming Russia had targeted civilians in the Ukrainian city of Odessa. This was after the bombing of a hotel and shopping center there. When such structures are bombed, one assumes that they were filled with civilians.

Odessa was also the location of a massacre that took place after the 2014 coup, which had been supported and financed by the U.S. The fascist element that was part of that coup burned the Odessa House of Trade Unions on May 2, 2014, killing progressives, socialists, trade unionists and anti-fascists.

My friend and guide during the Lugansk portion of my trip was Alexey Albu, who was inside that burning building and one of the few who escaped. At the time, Alexey was an elected member of the Odessa Regional Council. He was a former member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and at that time the local coordinator of Union Borotba (Struggle).

He and others were working on solving the contradictions created in society by the coup in a peaceful way through the still-existing legislative processes.

However, by May 2, time had run out. The fascists who praised Nazi collaborators and pushed ultra-nationalism against the Russian population turned even more violent against any opposition. Political repression and jailings were on the rise by the coup government, and six days after the massacre, Alexey found out he was to be arrested. He and his family then fled to Crimea where they felt safe. He later went to Lugansk to continue his political work, but had to separate from his family for four years to do so.

As he is from Odessa and still has many connections there, I wanted to ask Alexey about the bombing on May 11. Alexey responded: “Yes, Russia attacked the luxury hotel Grande Pettine, because there were foreign mercenaries operating there. And the big shopping and entertainment center Riviera was attacked because they turned it into a warehouse for NATO weapons.”

Fact Check-An image of a Serbian hotel wrongly captioned as being in Ukraine was not tweeted by CNN | Reuters

“It’s also important to know that Russia used high-precision missiles, so as not to cause harm to civilians. And it is very interesting that CNN did not pay attention when more than 40 civilians were drowned in blood and burned in fire in the Trade Unions Building on the second of May 2014,” said Alexey.

Challenging U.S. narrative

The Russian intervention in Ukraine began February 24 at the request of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR). About a month later, unlikely sources—analysts and advisers working for the Pentagon—became whistleblowers in an exposé published by Newsweek, “Putin’s Holding Back.”

The authors, many of whom were military officers, had to remain anonymous in order to be as truthful as possible, since they were still working as advisers. The article challenged the official narrative that Russian President Putin was targeting civilians.

Regarding a similar earlier accusation by the corporate media about a Russian bombing, said to have targeted “peacekeeping facilities” (as if belonging to the UN), one of the analysts responded: “And the so-called peacekeeper training ground [in Yavoriv] was hit because it was the place where the ‘international legion’ [Ukrainian military unit, training international mercenaries] was to have trained.”

This quote from one of the advisers sums up their motivation for becoming whistleblowers:

“I’m frustrated by the current narrative—that Russia is intentionally targeting civilians, that it is demolishing cities, and that Putin doesn’t care. Such a distorted view stands in the way of finding an end before true disaster hits or the war spreads to the rest of Europe,” said this Pentagon adviser and U.S. Air Force officer.

It’s interesting that CNN reported that only one person died and five were hospitalized in the May 11 bombing. In a shopping center and hotel filled with people, as they implied, many more likely would have died.

One of the ways to determine whether someone is telling the truth when you have no access to events far away, under media whiteouts and the jailing of journalists, is to either catch the liar at other lies to bring their credibility into question, or find a way to get access to the location of the events.

We did both.

Fact-finding mission

On April 27, I began a trip to the LPR in the Donbas region as part of a fact-finding mission organized by Struggle-La Lucha newspaper in the U.S. to gather eyewitness observations and testimony from Lugansk residents, some of whom I found were living in shelters near the front lines of the war. The loud blasts are a constant reminder for them of the artillery of the Ukrainian military, targeting apartment buildings nearby and hopefully continuing to miss them.

A picture containing person, wall, indoor, person Description automatically generated

Chairman of the Lugansk People’s Republic, Sergey Kozlov presents John Parker with Honorary Badge for Good Deeds. [Source: Photo by Lugansk Information Center]

This trip would not have been possible if not for our friends from Borotba, who we’ve been collaborating with for eight years. Borotba was founded in 2011 and was in the process of becoming a political party, but the Maidan coup interrupted that process.

While passing through Russia on the way to Lugansk, I spoke to progressive, socialist and communist organizations at the Moscow May Day celebrations and a commemoration of the Odessa Massacre on May 2.

I also interviewed visiting journalists from Belarus who were covering the May 9 Victory Day parade, commemorating the defeat of Nazi Germany and honoring the 27 million Soviet people who died fighting fascism—a fact which everyone should consider as context in today’s vilification of Russia. Soviet Russia, along with the rest of the USSR, was essential in order to defeat Nazi Germany in World War II.

Although Russia is no longer socialist, that does not change the fact that the parents and grandparents of most of the people in the country sacrificed for that victory. That deep understanding of the dangers of fascism did not disappear with the counterrevolution. Nor did the targeting of this region by U.S. imperialism end.

The U.S. government says that the current Russian intervention was an uninvited “invasion,” that the justification of self-defense and concern over the growth of fascist forces in the Ukrainian government and military is just a smokescreen designed to facilitate the takeover of that country. They claim the Russian military is targeting civilians and the Ukrainian military is not.

The Biden administration also says that it would be better for all of the people in the region if the Russian military withdrew its troops, with no acknowledgment of the eight-year Ukrainian war against the people of the Donbas region.

Surprisingly, a significant portion of organizations here in the U.S. that consider themselves anti-imperialist and socialist agree with the assessment pushed by the U.S. State Department.

The celebration of victory against the Nazis, by the way, is illegal in Ukraine. President Zelensky will not allow it. I know, the irony is unbelievable, but the fact remains—celebrating Victory Day in Kyiv and anywhere controlled by the Ukrainian regime is illegal.

In spite of Zelensky’s recent announcement giving lip service to the day for cover, the fact is that there was a curfew in place that day to discourage it. While in Lugansk, I asked someone what would happen if I were to have a sign celebrating Victory Day in Kyiv. The answer was that in five minutes I would no longer be carrying that sign, and probably would be taken to prison.

But perhaps that’s just a quirky policy meant for public safety? Let’s dig deeper.

Rubizhne: Life on the front line

“Don’t step there!” a soldier from the LPR warned me as my foot was about to step into the grass, away from the established path of the soldier walking in front of me.

This trek began in the morning, hitching a ride with the Lugansk People’s Militia to an area in the north of Lugansk, close to the front line of war against the Ukrainian military, where the LPR with the help of Russian soldiers recently liberated a residential area in Rubizhne. This city in Lugansk was previously occupied by Kyiv forces.

In front of a Ukrainian tank stopped by Lugansk People’s Militia and Russian soldiers. From left: Alexey Albu, John Parker, Evgeniy Miroshnichenko. [Source: Photo by member of Lugansk People’s Militia]

Here there was a shelter in an abandoned apartment complex. Unexploded armaments and even mines from the Ukrainian military littered the area, the soldier said.

Of course, I obliged and changed my path. I also immediately understood why no children were running around the grounds or using the playground. Instead, they mostly seemed to stay in the shelter or sometimes came out to play soccer in a small patch of land directly in front of it, under the watchful eye of a young LPR soldier.

At that moment my parental feelings kicked in and all I wanted to do was play with them, comfort them. But I had work to do.

This was once a lively apartment complex with a school and a beautiful playground. But now it looked like the backdrop to a “Walking Dead” episode.

Borotba’s Alexey Albu accompanied me and provided interpretation. The video clips linked here include some of these conversations and contain more footage from this portion of the trip.

We spoke with the woman in charge of the shelter, Larisa. She reluctantly took the position of caretaker for the shelter, voted in by the residents who trusted her. It definitely seemed like the right choice, because she keeps it in the best order that can be expected in these times. With all the work and responsibilities, she still manages to share compassion with those in need of comfort—war makes apparent the devils, but also the angels.

Basic foodstuffs and supplies—grains, water, and diapers—were neatly stored away. Getting food is especially a challenge for people who have nowhere else to go. Some residents who had alternative dwellings and were not disabled left Rubizhne, but the area is still not safe for travel. Many stayed to remain under the protection of the soldiers of both the LPR and Russia.

Russia provides humanitarian aid

Humanitarian aid arrives frequently in Rubizhne, delivered by Russian soldiers. (In the short time I was at the border entering Lugansk from Russia, I saw ten large trucks full of humanitarian aid entering the LPR.)

While we were at the shelter, two shipments of aid were delivered in a van, which we helped bring into the shelter. The box I was carrying almost broke open, with utensils and napkins barely making it to the bench where other items, especially diapers, were being placed.

Larisa explained that fuel, which is now hard to come by, had been used as their primary source for electricity, refrigeration and water (running the generator and water pump). So the aid is essential to prevent people from starving or dying of thirst.

“Because of the war, they had problems getting assistance to the shelter,” Alexey explained. The trade unions in charge of delivering food in Lugansk were not able to, due to the area becoming a war zone, meaning they had to hand over that task to the military.

Despite the danger and the fact that the Ukrainian military still controlled the area, the Russian and Lugansk soldiers, at great risk to their own lives, were able to get some aid to the residents of the shelter even before the area was liberated.

A picture containing text, sky, truck, outdoor Description automatically generated

Russian humanitarian aid convoy in Lugansk. [Source: lug-info.com]

Recalling this moment, and the effect it had on her own child, brought Larisa to tears. She needed a minute to recover.

“Ukrainian soldiers did not help at all,” she said when she returned. “That is unacceptable. No one from the Ukrainian side asked us, visited us. I had supported Ukraine, but after I saw how they left these people I no longer supported them.”

Accompanying us was a journalist from an Italian media organization. He asked why people stayed here at the shelter, and if they were allowed to leave. Although Larisa made the facility as comfortable as possible, the conditions were hard and the constant thunder of bombings was heard during our entire time there.

Alexey explained that the roads here, although dangerous now, were even more dangerous during Ukrainian control, so leaving was not a safe option then. It became more possible after the area came under Russian control. “We tell people it is not safe, but if they want to leave, of course they can. No one will stop them,” explained Larisa.

Another issue Larisa wanted to address was the propaganda that has spread throughout Ukrainian society saying that the Russian soldiers rape and kill the people living in areas they have taken control of. She wanted to make it clear that this was not true.

“No, everything was very good, relations were very good and polite with the Russian soldiers. Even when we ask for some special foods like coffee or tea, they give it to us.”

Soldiers and civilians

To get a feel for the character of the relationship between the residents and the Russian and LPR soldiers, here is one encounter that stuck with me. When we visited the school in the complex, which is now a shelter, I saw a woman reprimanding one of the soldiers for having the humanitarian aid truck remain too long at the entrance.

Alexey said she was complaining that if they had to evacuate the school quickly, the truck would be in the way. The soldier politely nodded and agreed to move it soon, as if she was in charge. From her tone it seemed like that to me, and it definitely did not reflect a repressive relationship—not for the residents anyway.

Both in the village of Krymskoye and here in Rubizhne, folks talked about living underground, in their basements, to avoid being hit by bombs. In this shelter we walked down the stairs into a dark hall where we had to use the light from our phones to navigate, leading to the basement.

Everyone slept with cots on the concrete floors, with just a few feet of space between each other, to have some semblance of privacy and illusion of personal space. Paint chips were peeling from the green concrete walls. Most of those spaces contained many members of a family.

We interviewed a woman who looked like she was in her 80s. She was alone in her space. Unlike the majority in Lugansk, she spoke Ukrainian. She was bundled in layers of clothing, although the weather was nice around noon, in the 60s°F (18°C). At night, temperatures drop into the 40s°F (7°C) this time of year. Given the situation with no heat and her age, the layers made sense.

With a handkerchief hiding her tears, she spoke to us. “I have no relatives, I have no family,” she cried. Right away the caregiver of the shelter answered her: “Don’t worry, don’t worry—we are your family now.” Alexey, knowing Ukrainian, was able to interpret her words for us.

“Soldiers shot into my home and burned all my things. Everything that I own is right here,” she said, pointing to the bed she sleeps on. I could see nothing but blankets and pillows. Her age and situation makes leaving an even worse prospect.

After we were done, I tried to give her a hug, forgetting that we were required to wear bulletproof flak jackets and helmets the entire day. I accidentally head-bumped this 80-year-old woman. I panicked, thinking I would hurt her, but it did not affect her one bit. Our compassion and willingness to listen to her story, however, did affect her.

If only the compassion for the images, sometimes real, sometimes manufactured, used to promote support for U.S. war escalation against people in Lugansk and Donetsk, would extend to actual people like this woman, with the added compassion to at least listen to their stories!

Can’t eat Biden’s weapons

We then heard from a family of three—a mother, son and grandson. The son and grandson were both adults. The mother and son were disabled and therefore unable to find any employment in this environment, let alone travel.

They, like many others, were dependent on the humanitarian aid given by Russia. They cannot eat Biden’s high-tech weaponry sent to the Kyiv regime. So they remain here.

They shared a similar story of having to leave a building that was being shot at. Although they said they could not say for sure who was shooting at them, they were sure the shells were coming from where the Ukrainian military brigades were stationed.

I then asked them if they felt safe here in the shelter. They all said they did and that they did not know what they would do without this place.

I also wanted to know how they felt about the Russian soldiers being at the shelter. Both Russian and Lugansk People’s Republic troops are present in this location, with the greatest number being LPR soldiers. But I wanted to specifically know how they felt about the Russian troops. So I asked them: “If the Russian soldiers left this shelter, how would that affect you?” The son and grandson answered immediately that they would not feel safe, and the mother nodded agreement.

The last interview we did in that basement was more detailed, regarding the circumstances of a family of four (five if you count the big gray cat held protectively by the teenage daughter).

The grandmother spoke to us about how they came to be there. She said that, although this family was Russian, their neighbors were Ukrainian. When the Ukrainian soldiers came to their area, they told those soldiers that they did not have to worry because there were no Russian troops there. About a half hour later, the Ukrainian tanks came and began shooting into the houses.

“The dogs were very frightened and my neighbors were running out of their burning houses,” said the grandmother. “They were shouting, ‘What are you doing, why are you shooting at us? We are Ukrainians.’ When they asked that, the soldiers just laughed and turned their faces away from the burning houses.”

She said: “I had to see who exactly was doing this, so I went outside and found some soldiers standing around and asked them, ‘Why are you shooting at my neighbors’ houses?’ No one answered me. But about 20 minutes later another Ukrainian tank came and shot directly into my house.”

When asked by another journalist how she felt about this situation, she recalled the hardship for her children and grandchildren after the 2014 coup. “They [the Ukrainian government] did not like that we used our native language [Russian]. So all schools, all kindergartens, changed their program to Ukrainian. But they are children who learned their language in homes that speak Russian. So we continued to teach our children in Russian.”

“My granddaughter and great-granddaughter both pleaded with me: ‘Please, I want to change schools because I don’t understand.’ But we couldn’t do anything about it. And with exact sciences like mathematics they had bigger difficulties because they couldn’t understand what was written.

“This shows how the Nazis feel about us and why they killed us and harmed our homes and organized shellings against us—they don’t consider us as their people.”

A picture containing dirty Description automatically generated

Black Sun Nazi symbol we found at building in village of Krymskoye that had been occupied by Ukrainian military. [Source: Photo courtesy of John Parker]

The Italian journalist asked: “So they were not locals, these were western Ukrainians?”

“Yes,” she replied, “I think they were western Ukrainians.”

This is just a small reflection of the Ukrainian nationalist tendencies that grew out of the 2014 regime change and inspired the Donbas regions of Lugansk and Donetsk to become independent republics. Ukraine, instead of honoring Victory Day on May 9, now honors Nazi collaborators—like the notorious Stepan Bandera—with statues and street names.

A picture containing tree, outdoor, road Description automatically generated

Monument to Stepan Bandera in Lviv. [Source: opendemocracy.net]

Under Ukrainian bombs

It happened while we were there! A nearby apartment was bombed by Ukrainian artillery while we were interviewing the families in the basement shelter.

Another irony hit me (like the bomb attempted to do): My tax dollars were a portion of the billions spent on weapons like the one that just targeted the area where I and the people I was interviewing stood. Thanks for that, President Biden and all the Republicans and Democrats on board with escalating this proxy war against Russia.

Fortunately, that apartment building close to us was already abandoned, unlike the demolished homes of the 350 people who were using and had used this shelter.

The bombing is so constant that it almost fades away in the background. But reminders like the shelling of the nearby apartment bring them, and the fear, back up to the conscious mind.

The constant threat of bombings also makes cooking a challenge. Right outside the shelter are two areas for cooking. Since there are no gas stoves due to lack of fuel, the cooking has to be done outside in self-made fire pits—and as illustrated by the recent bombing, it has to be done fast so as not to be outside too long.

“We cook bread and a very tasty dessert specific to Lugansk here,” said Larisa. I asked her if she and the others who cook outside get worried about their safety. “Yes, of course we are afraid, but we need to cook because everyone needs to eat something.”

Today we find ourselves once again being sold a war by the U.S. government, this time against Russia. And—as in all U.S. imperialist wars—the corporate media follow along, dutifully reporting and publishing every video and “news story” they become aware of, with sources unknown at best and dubious at worst.

These hidden parts are the other side of that story, the more truthful side.

Next: School’s out for now; take a tour of the after-effects of two opposing camps separated by ideology; and more voices from Lugansk, in the once Ukrainian-occupied village of Krymskoye.

*

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

John Parker is a 2022 Socialist Unity Party and Peace and Freedom Party candidate for the U.S. Senate from California.  Parker has been a union organizer, public school teacher, and is a coordinator of the International Action Center. John can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Nazi swastika symbol we found at building in village of Krymskoye that had been occupied by Ukrainian military. [Source: Photo courtesy of John Parker]

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

The following text by William Arkin published in Newsweek based on analysis and interviews within the US intelligence establishment provides an incisive understanding on the nature of Russia’s military operation.

See William Arkin’s author’s archive

William M. Arkin is a former US intelligence official and award-winning best-selling author. Global Research has posted several of earlier writings. Our thanks to Newsweek. Below are selections from the article with a link to the complete Newsweek text.

 

***

As destructive as the Ukraine war is, Russia is causing less damage and killing fewer civilians than it could, U.S. intelligence experts say.

Russia’s conduct in the brutal war tells a different story than the widely accepted view that Vladimir Putin is intent on demolishing Ukraine and inflicting maximum civilian damage—and it reveals the Russian leader’s strategic balancing act. If Russia were more intentionally destructive, the clamoring for U.S. and NATO intervention would be louder. And if Russia were all-in, Putin might find himself with no way out. Instead, his goal is to take enough territory on the ground to have something to negotiate with, while putting the government of Ukraine in a position where they have to negotiate.

Understanding the thinking behind Russia’s limited attacks could help map a path towards peace, experts say.

In nearly a month since Russia invaded, dozens of Ukrainian cities and towns have fallen, and the fight over the country’s largest cities continues. United Nations human rights specialists say that some 900 civilians have died in the fighting (U.S. intelligence puts that number at least five times UN estimates). About 6.5 million Ukrainians have also become internally displaced (15 percent of the entire population), half of them leaving the country to find safety.

“The destruction is massive,” a senior analyst working at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) tells Newsweek, “especially when compared with what Europeans and Americans are used to seeing.”

But, the analyst says, the damage associated with a contested ground war involving peer opponents shouldn’t blind people to what is really happening. (The analyst requested anonymity in order to speak about classified matters.) “The heart of Kyiv has barely been touched. And almost all of the long-range strikes have been aimed at military targets.”

In the capital, most observable to the west, Kyiv city authorities say that some 55 buildings have been damaged and that 222 people have died since February 24. It is a city of 2.8 million people.

“We need to understand Russia’s actual conduct,” says a retired Air Force officer, a lawyer by training who has been involved in approving targets for U.S. fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. The officer currently works as an analyst with a large military contractor advising the Pentagon and was granted anonymity in order to speak candidly.

“If we merely convince ourselves that Russia is bombing indiscriminately, or [that] it is failing to inflict more harm because its personnel are not up to the task or because it is technically inept, then we are not seeing the real conflict.”

In the analyst’s view, though the war has led to unprecedented destruction in the south and east, the Russian military has actually been showing restraint in its long-range attacks.

As of the past weekend, in 24 days of conflict, Russia has flown some 1,400 strike sorties and delivered almost 1,000 missiles (by contrast, the United States flew more sorties and delivered more weapons in the first day of the 2003 Iraq war). The vast majority of the airstrikes are over the battlefield, with Russian aircraft providing “close air support” to ground forces. The remainder—less than 20 percent, according to U.S. experts—has been aimed at military airfields, barracks and supporting depots.

A proportion of those strikes have damaged and destroyed civilian structures and killed and injured innocent civilians, but the level of death and destruction is low compared to Russia’s capacity.

“I know it’s hard … to swallow that the carnage and destruction could be much worse than it is,” says the DIA analyst. “But that’s what the facts show. This suggests to me, at least, that Putin is not intentionally attacking civilians, that perhaps he is mindful that he needs to limit damage in order to leave an out for negotiations.”

Russia began its invasion of Ukraine on February 24 with an air and missile attack targeted against some 65 airfields and military installations. On the first night, at least 11 airfields were attacked. Some 50 additional military installations and air defense sites were hit, including 18 early-warning radar facilities.

 

In fact, there has been no methodical bombing campaign to achieve any systemic outcome of a strategic nature. Air and missile strikes, which initially seemed to tell one story, have almost exclusively been in direct support of ground forces.

“Think of the Russian Air force as flying artillery,” says the retired senior U.S. Air Force officer, who communicated with Newsweek via email. “It’s not an independent arm. It has undertaken no strategic air campaign as American observers might be used to from the last 30 years of American conflict.”

Ukrainian air defenses, both fixed and mobile missiles, have proven resilient and deadly.

“The Air Defense’s survivability and efficacy have surprised many, not only in Kyiv, but also across the country,” Kyiv-based military expert Oleg Zhdanov told the Kyiv Independent.

Ukrainian military reporter Illia Ponomarenko says that the air defense system defending Kyiv from aircraft and missiles “has been particularly effective.

“Most missiles targeting the city are successfully intercepted,” Ponomarenko says.

Russia did not bomb stationary air defense emplacements protecting cities. U.S. analysts say Putin’s generals were particularly reluctant to attack urban targets in Kyiv.

As a result, regardless of the Kremlin’s plans—whether Russia was actually seeking air superiority or intended to limit damage in Kyiv—there is no question that Putin has had to revise the long-range attack plan.

Over the course of almost four weeks, missiles fired at Kyiv have been scarce. Ukrainian media have reported just more than a dozen incidents involving Russian cruise and ballistic missiles intercepted over the city and its closest suburbs since February 24. And all of them, U.S. experts say, have been clearly headed for legitimate military targets.

“The fact that the mobile S-300 SAM systems are still operating is a powerful indictment of Russia’s ability to conduct dynamic or time-sensitive targeting,” the Atlantic Council asserted this week in a military brief.

The DIA analyst disagrees: “For whatever reason, clearly the Russians have been reluctant to strike inside the urban megalopolis of Kyiv.

“Yes they might not be up to the U.S. task [in dynamic targeting] or in establishing air superiority … But this is the Russian air force, subordinate to the ground forces. And this war is different: it’s being fought on the ground, where everything strategic that Russia might destroy in front of its forces—bridges, communications, airfields, etc.—also becomes unusable to them as they move forward.”

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Putin’s Bombers Could Devastate Ukraine But He’s Holding Back. Here’s Why
  • Tags: ,

What’s the Deal with Germany?

May 22nd, 2022 by Mike Whitney

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

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

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

***

Why is Germany sending weapons to Ukraine? Don’t they realize these weapons will be used to kill Russian soldiers? Don’t they realize these weapons will be given to Nazi combatants who tattoo swastikas on their arms and march in torchlight parades? Don’t the German people care about that?

In World War II, the German Wehrmacht killed 27 million Russians. Isn’t that enough? How many Russians have to die to satisfy Germany’s bloodlust? Another million or so? 5 million? 27 million? How many?

And, how does a country with Germany’s history justify the killing of more Russians today? Alot of people would like an answer to that question? I know I would.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz thinks that Germany has a moral obligation to back Ukraine in its war against Russia. In a televised speech to the nation he said, “We defend law and liberty on the side of the party under attack. We support Ukraine in its battle against the aggressor.”

What Scholz failed to mention were the numerous (Ukrainian) provocations that took place prior to the Russian invasion. He failed to mention Kiev’s stepped-up bombardment of east Ukraine where 14,000 ethnic Russians have been killed in the last eight years.

He failed to mention the 30-or-so Ukrainian bio-weapons labs where lethal pathogens –that target specific ethnicities and spread highly-contagious diseases around the world– are being secretly developed.

He failed to mention that President Zelensky had threatened to rebuild Ukraine’s nuclear weapons program which would put nuclear missiles on Russia’s western border.

And he failed to mention that Ukraine had become a defacto member of NATO via its joint-military drills, logistical support, training and arms shipments from the Alliance. All of these have created a grave threat to Russia’s national security. But Scholz failed to mention any of them. Instead, he used the entire presentation to whip up support for another US-led bloodbath.

“We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear,” Scholz said emphatically. “So, we have decided to deliver arms.”

Scholz is simply acknowledging what everyone already knows, that he got his marching orders from Washington, and he is complying with those orders. That much is obvious. Here’s how the World Socialist Web Site summed it up in a recent article:

“The historic decision to let German tanks roll against Russia once again is not driven by “security and peace” and least of all the protection of the Ukrainian population. Instead, Germany and the other NATO powers have systematically provoked Russia’s reactionary invasion to allow them to wage a proxy war against Russia on the backs of the Ukrainian population….

In the months leading up to the Russian invasion, the Ukrainian government, with massive support from the US and Germany, has been preparing to bring the areas held by pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country under its military control. A war against Russia in Crimea was also planned…. All restrictions imposed on Germany after the world war are to be removed, and the Bundeswehr will be rebuilt into the largest European army….

The German government has already delivered tanks from former East German stockpiles to Ukraine and announced further heavy arms deliveries. These include anti-aircraft tanks and self-propelled howitzers that are capable of enormous destruction. Germany and NATO are ready to lay waste to Ukraine in order to defeat Russia…

With its heavy weaponry, Germany is equipping the Azov Battalion and other neo-Nazi units. These groups are the political descendants of Bandera’s Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which was responsible for the murder of thousands of Ukrainian Jews.” (“On anniversary of defeat of Nazi regime, German Chancellor Scholz delivers war speech”, World Socialist Web Site)

How did we get here? How did we reach a point where no one is concerned about the reemergence of German militarism?

It can all be traced back to Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev.

In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gorbachev lifted his objections to German reunification and “agreed that a unified Germany will be free to choose which alliance it will belong to, and Chancellor Helmut Kohl told Gorbachev that Germany wanted to stay in NATO.”

Got that? Gorbachev gave Germany the green light to join NATO.

Can you see what a terrible mistake that was? Can you see that German reunification and the entry of Germany into a hostile, Russophobic military alliance (NATO) paved the way for the current conflagration?

Germany’s entry into NATO was followed by three waves of expansion that pushed the Alliance further and further eastward until today, NATO’s combat troops, military bases and missile systems are on Russia’s doorstep just a few hundred miles from Moscow.

And NATO’s eastward push will not stop at Ukraine either, any more than Hitler or Napolean stopped at Ukraine. Ukraine is just the last whistlestop on the way to Moscow. That’s the real strategic endpoint; Moscow. So, eventually, NATO will push deeper and deeper into Russian territory destroying everything in its path and killing anyone who gets in its way. That’s where all this is headed, in fact, the Pentagon warlords don’t even try to hide it anymore. “We want weaken Russia,” they say. “We want to break Russia’s back”. And, that is the plan. They want to crush Russia and seize its resources. Nothing is concealed. All of this is being stated publicly.

And it’s all Gorbachev’s fault. The crisis Russia faces today, can be traced back to Gorbachev.

What was he thinking? Was he thinking that NATO would honor its word and not “move one inch east” like they promised? Was he thinking Germany would not eventually ‘get back on its feet’ and resume its habitual march eastward? Was he thinking that leaders in the west had miraculously changed their spots and become more trustworthy, unselfish and peaceful?

What a stupid, stupid man. Gorbachev’s breezy liberalism has brought NATO’s weapons systems and NATO’s shock troops to Russia’s doorstep. He has cleared the path for another agonizing and bloody conflict that will plunge the entire region into chaos and ruin. Is it any wonder why western leaders sing Gorbachev’s praises at every opportunity? Check out this excerpt from an article at RT:

“Large-scale NATO military drills started in Estonia on Monday. The exercise dubbed ‘Hedgehog 2022’ is one of the largest in the Baltic nation’s history, according to the military bloc. The drills will involve some 15,000 troops from 14 nations, including both military bloc members and their partners.

Soldiers from Finland, Sweden, Georgia and Ukraine are among those that will take part in the exercise… The drills will include all branches of the armed forces and will involve air, sea and land exercises, as well as cyber warfare training, according to the broadcaster. According to a NATO statement, the drills will also see the US Navy Wasp-class landing ship ‘Kearsarge’ take part in the exercises….

The drills started just a day after Finland and Sweden officially announced their plans to join NATO...

The exercises in Estonia are, however, just one part of NATO’s large-scale military activities near the Russian border. Another Baltic state, Lithuania, is hosting the ‘Iron Wolf’ exercise, which involves 3,000 NATO troops and 1,000 pieces of military equipment, including Germany’s Leopard 2 tanks.

Two of NATO’s biggest exercises – ‘Defender Europe’ and ‘Swift Response’ – are taking place in Poland and eight other countries, involving 18,000 troops from 20 nations, according to NATO’s statement on Friday….

The NATO Response Force is currently taking part in the 7,500-strong ‘Wettiner Heide’ drills in Germany. The Mediterranean Sea is about to witness ‘Neptune series’ naval drills involving the USS ‘Harry S. Truman’ carrier strike group that will be placed under NATO command. This will only be the second time since the end of the Cold War that a US carrier group has been transferred under the military bloc’s command, NATO has said.

In June, the Baltic States and Poland will host what NATO describes as “Europe’s largest integrated air and missile defense exercise,” which would involve 23 nations. In late April, Finland hosted NATO naval drills. Now, it is also hosting a joint land exercise, in which troops from the US, the UK, Estonia and Latvia are participating.

The massive military wargames are taking place amid heightened tensions between Russia, NATO and some of the military bloc’s partners. Finland, which shares a long border with Russia, and Sweden decided to reconsider their long-standing policy of non-alignment following a major change in public opinion after the launch of Russia’s attack on Ukraine.” (“NATO starts drills near Russian border”, RT)

What will it take for the American people to see what’s going on right before their eyes?

NATO and the US are simulating a war on Russia because that’s the plan. These are massive, integrated, combined-arms exercises that are structured in a way that best addresses the strengths of a particular​ enemy. And that enemy is Russia. Can’t you see that?

And have you noticed how it’s suddenly okay to talk openly about war with Russia? Among the cadres of retired generals that appear regularly on the cable news channels and their chest-thumping allies in the Democrat party, all sense of caution has been completely abandoned. They’re no longer deterred by the threat of nuclear war because– according to them– the US will prevail in a nuclear war and, besides, they all agree that it is worth the risk. Maybe you think I’m kidding, but I’m not kidding. The prevailing view among establishment elites has fundamentally changed. These people want a war with Russia and they want it now. Their lust for war has completely eclipsed their fear of nuclear annihilation. It’s madness.

And Germany has joined the rush-to-war despite the fact that it will trigger an unprecedented energy crisis followed by a severe economic slump that could last for years. In short, Scholz has committed economic hari-kari to placate his masters in Washington. Here’s more from the WSWS:

“Germany is using the war to remove all obstacles that previously stood in the way of unrestrained rearmament… First, the German government increased the arms budget by €100 billion… and abandoned the principle of not supplying weapons to war zones. Ukraine was first supplied with light and then with heavy weapons. In the meantime, Ukrainian soldiers are also being trained on German soil...

The German government’s preparations for a Third World War are not limited to arming the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces) and providing military support to Ukraine…. The former editor-in-chief of finance daily Handelsblatt, Gabor Steingart, speaks bluntly about this in his “Pioneer Briefing” on Tuesday. Without the slightest qualms, he discusses the question of what is required to make a world war “manageable”:

“The waging of a Third World War is not just a military issue,” he proclaims. It is “first and foremost an economic issue. For without economic disentanglement along the power and military blocs, effective warfare that can be sustained over a longer period is impossible, as we can already see from Germany’s dependence on Russian natural gas.”

“Whoever wants to make world warfare manageable must first unbundle world trade,” Steingart emphasises. “Economic independence is more important than billions more for the Bundeswehr. So, it is not only the soldiers and their military equipment that must be gathered into an offensive formation, but also economic resources.”

“Viewed with this economic eye,” he then states, “the preparations for making a Third World War manageable are in full swing.”..

The insane policy of preparing a third world war and making it “manageable” is supported by all parties represented in the Bundestag… Germany must “urgently define its national interests against the background of the new reality” and “adopt a national show of strength to implement and safeguard them,” it says. “To meet this challenge, comprehensive military capabilities are needed, which will also entail many a sacrifice and burden.” (“Germany’s preparations for a third world war in full swing“, World Socialist Web Site)

Do you still think the idea of a Third World War is far-fetched?

Of course, not. The preparations are already underway. The elites want war because they see no other way to preserve the western-centric world order. That is why the threat of German militarism has been ignored by the media and foreign heads-of-state. Because they now think that German militarism can be used to defend America’s global primacy. And that’s what they want.

Here’s a bit more background from an interview with Norman Finkelstein

“The Russians were promised that there would be no NATO expansion to the East, that was the quid pro quo for the reunification of Germany after the decomposition of the Soviet Union. The Russians were promised that but the West went ahead. We’re talking about the 1990s: the promises were given, but the West then went ahead and started to expand NATO …. there was the first tranche, then the second tranche … Then NATO starts expanding in Georgia and in the Ukraine (which crosses) a red line.

To stop this, (Russia) offers a perfectly reasonable resolution: just neutralize Ukraine like we neutralized Austria after World War II, neither aligned with an Eastern bloc nor aligned with a Western bloc. That seemed to me perfectly reasonable…

And then the reasonableness of those demands,… have to always be seen in context. So, what’s the context? The context is the Soviet Union, the former Russia, it lost… the estimates are about 30 million people during World War II….

And now there’s this Ukraine, where Nazis are playing an outsized role. (and they), are aligned with a formidable military bloc called NATO (and) NATO keeps advancing and advancing and advancing, closing in on Russia, trying to suffocate it… And beginning around 2016, under Trump, begins to arm the Ukraine, pouring in weapons, engaging in military exercises with NATO, behaving very provocatively. And then the Foreign Minister Lavrov finally says we’ve reached the boiling point.

(So, for) more than 20 years… Russia has tried to engage in diplomacy; (to make Ukraine neutral) like Austria after World War 2… (So) if you agree that was a legitimate demand, and if you agree that the West was expanding and expanding NATO, and if you agree that Ukraine had de facto become a member of NATO, with weapons pouring in and engaging in military exercises with NATO; and if you agree… that Russia lost 30 million people during World War II because of the Nazi invasion,…, then the simple question is: What was Russia to do?

… I’m not a general and I’m not a diplomat, so I’m not going…. so, I’m not going to say it was the wisest thing to do…. But I will say … that they had the right to do it….They had …. the historic right to do it. 30 million people (killed during WW2), and now you’re starting again, now you’re starting again? No, no,… I can’t go for those who acknowledge the legitimacy of the arguments made by Putin but then call the invasion criminal. I don’t see that.” (“Norman Finkelstein : Russia has the historical right to invade Ukraine“; Listen to the whole interview, The Saker)

Yes, Putin has every right to protect his country from another foreign invasion. And, he’d be foolish to think that that’s not what Washington has in mind, because that’s precisely what they have in mind. What Washington really wants is a subjugated Russia languishing permanently beneath Uncle Sam’s bootheel.

So, Putin must do everything in his power to prevent that from happening. And, so far, he’s done just that.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0

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

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

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

***

All elections are filled with the half-truths, mistruths and full-fledged lies.  Victory is rarely bought on a platform of complete honesty.  But the road to the current Australian federal election has been potholed by more deception than most.  This is bound to happen when policy platforms are weak and rickety, leaving the opponents large scope to undermine each other.  The personal prevails over the substantive; ideas play little to no role.

Much of the influence of misinformation and its more aggressive twin, disinformation, is given a legendary status ahead of time.  Commentaries abound about how to spot “fake news” from outlets that have themselves been prone to promote counterfeit material.

A study commissioned by Digital security and privacy company Avast filled electors with little confidence about either the content of news or their talents in spotting irregularities and fictions.  38 percent of those surveyed revealed they were not confident in identifying fake news online.  The age group between 18-24 were said to be the least confident.

Misinformation has a tendency to multiply and amplify in the wildfire environs of the Internet.  “In recent research,” claimed Avast security expert Stephen Ko, “our AI team found that 17.9 percent of hyperlinks of misinformation sites link to other misinformation domains.  If users visit a misinformation site, the risk is higher that they end up in a rabbit hole of misinformation sites.”  His advice, resembling those cautionary words of an impatient parent to an inattentive child, is to check such matters as the publication date.  News should, he remarked, be “current”.

The Australian Electoral Commission has also gone out on a limb in establishing what it calls a “disinformation register”.  Doing so comes with a caveat.  “The AEC is not the arbiter of truth regarding political communication and does not seek to censor political debate in any way.”  A fine objective, except that the AEC is also authoritative in pointing out that, “when it comes to the election process we conduct, we’re the experts and we’re active in defending Australia’s democracy.”

A list of “prominent pieces of disinformation” follows, though the actual source is not overly specific beyond the platform.  The first example: “The AEC has sent multiple copies of unsolicited postal votes to a single voter proving voter fraud occurs.”  The unsurprising source: Facebook.

Others include claims that First Nations people “have been wiped from the electoral roll without their knowledge”; that applications for postal votes “are being submitted and processed for deceased Australians” and “Dominion voting machines will be used and will be ‘rigged’ to favour one of the major political parties.”  That old favourite – that the AEC is itself politically aligned – also features.

Various ethnic groups have been the subject of interest in disinformation strategies.  The ABC has reported instances of Liberal Party supporters using the WeChat platform to spread falsehoods about a number of Labor supporters and critics of the Morrison government.

Not to be outdone, some Labor supporters have targeted the incumbent Liberal member for the seat of Chisholm, Gladys Liu, the first ethnic Chinese woman to serve a term in the House of Representatives.  According to a Facebook page hosted by an ALP branch located in the Queensland electorate of Wright, Liu’s loyalties were malodorously suspect.  A post from April 19 insinuated that Liu was potentially linked to a Chinese plot to infiltrate the Australian parliament.

A particularly aggressive campaign of media disinformation has also blown through some seats where independents are running against threatened incumbents.  Earlier this month, the New South Wales electorates of Mackellar, Warringah and Hughes woke up to a number of posters with independent candidates branded with the Greens logo.  A statement from the Greens leader Adam Bandt made much of the deception, suggesting that there was “a good chance that whoever is behind this has also committed a criminal act.”

In the Melbourne electorate of Kooyong, a simmering campaign alleging the hidden allegiances of independent Monique Ryan has also been marked by the stain of inaccuracy and mistruth.  Stickers have emerged at points claiming that a vote for Ryan is a vote for Labor.  This has not been helped by an aggressive campaign waged by the Liberal Party and the Murdoch-News Corp cheer squad alleging much the same thing.

Zoe Daniels, running against the Liberal Party’s Tim Wilson in the Victorian seat of Goldstein, expressed dismay in a tweet about voting strategies set to undermine her candidacy.  “In a new low, ‘people’ on social media are spreading the lie that it’s only necessary to mark me number 1 for the vote to be valid.”  This was a matter of “orchestrated DISINFORMATION,” she capitalised in anger, “designed to cause informal voting.”  Every box, she fumed, had to be numbered.

In its response to the message from Daniels, the AEC expressed its own disappointment. “Formality rules are very clear – in addition to them being printed on our ballot papers, our staff will also walk voters through what’s required.”  In some cases, it will take more than just a walk through to dispel the miasma of falsehoods that will mark this election as voters cast their ballots.

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

The upcoming 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) to be held in Geneva from 22-28th May 2022 will potentially adopt far-reaching amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR). The IHR is currently the most important multilateral treaty regulating the global architecture for health emergency, preparedness, response and resilience (HEPR architecture). The extensive amendments to the IHR have been initiated by the United States (US), listed as agenda item WHA75/18 for the 75th WHA. The amendments are already backed by 19 co-sponsor states and the EU.   

As of yet, there has been almost no public awareness or debate of the substantial amendments to the IHR although the WHO Secretariat circulated the US initiative first in January 2022 to state parties. The US initiative contradicts the gist of a report by the WHO Director-General issued in November 2021 which sketched out some of the amendments now tabled by the US, but which also indicated that the IHR will not be renegotiated, raising a number of concerns about amending the IHR. Attention to the US amendments was further drowned by the stir made around the launch of the negotiations to draft a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response by 2024 with a hitherto uncertain scope, content and outcome, as well as an uncertain relationship to the existing legal framework of the IHR. The scope of the proposed US amendments might therefore come as a surprise to a number of delegations to the 75thWHA.

The following is a brief comment on the extensive amendments proposed by the US that, if adopted, will lead to a considerable extension of WHO’s emergency powers.

Increasing the WHO General Director’s executive emergency powers and its implications

Under Article 12(1) of the current IHR, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) IHR, the WHO Director-General already has the broad executive power to declare a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) when faced with an ‘extraordinary event’ in one state which is determined ‘to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease and to potentially require a coordinated international response’. In this process, the Director-General shall inter alia enter into extensive consultations with the state party in whose territory the ‘event’ occurs and come to a mutual conclusion within 48 hours on whether the event indeed constitutes a PHEIC (Article 12(2) IHR). The proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR will both considerably extend the executive powers of the WHO Director-General to declare global emergency-like situations and centralise this power further by removing the need to consult and find agreement with the respective state party.

The former is achieved first via the introduction of a new category of an ‘intermediate public health alert’ that requires ‘heightened international awareness’ of a hitherto undefined low threshold (proposed new Article 12(6) IHR). Second, the US amendments suggest granting new overlapping layers of executive emergency powers to the six WHO Regional Directors to declare a ‘public health emergency of regional concern’ (PHERC) (proposed new Article 12(7) IHR). There is no indication as to the division of powers between the regional and international levels to declare health emergencies, nor are there any proposals as to how the increase in the WHO Director-General’s and Regional Directors’ executive powers is to be safeguarded against abuse. The importance of these questions becomes clear when practical and legal consequences of PHEIC/PHREC/‘intermediate public health alert’ declarations are considered: the powers of Emergency Committees (see Articles 15-17 and 48-49 IHR) set up by the WHO Director-General in response to such emergencies to issue recommendations to states to adopt medical and non-medical countermeasures, which, as has become clear with regard to the responses to Covid-19, can have far-reaching implications for the livelihoods, lives, health and human rights of individuals around the world. In addition, WHO emergency declarations can trigger the fast-track development and subsequent global distribution and administration of unlicensed investigational diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. This is done via the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EULP). The introduction of an ‘intermediate public health alert’ in particular will also further incentivise the pharmaceutical industry’s move to activate domestic fast-track emergency trial protocols as well as for advance purchase, production and stockpile agreements with governments before the existence of a concrete health threat to the world’s population has been detected, as is already the case under WHO’s EULP via the procedures developed for a ‘pre-public health emergency phase’ (see here, pp. 10-15).

As indicated, the proposed US amendments to Article 12 IHR also increase WHO’s powers towards the state in whose territory an ‘event’ occurs, i.e. on whose territory a new, emerging or re-emerging pathogen is detected. This, in turn, further restricts states’ ‘sovereign rights to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies’ as set out in Article 3(4) IHR, should they disagree with the assessment of WHO’s Director-General and the Emergency Committee. This would be so even if the legislation is adopted and implemented in line with the respective states’ obligations under international human rights law as specified in Article 3(1) IHR. The US amendment proposals to Articles 9 and 10 IHR moreover strengthen WHO’s powers to assess alleged global health risks by relying on information received outside official channels, giving the respective states only 24 hours to verify such information, and to accept WHO’s ‘offer’ to collaborate in ‘assessing the potential for international disease spread, … and the adequacy of control measures’. The rejection of such an ‘offer’ results in the disclosure of the health information, giving the respective state no possibility to express its views on the matter, including on potentially unjustified allegations. The US proposals also do not envisage WHO consultations with the respective state parties concerning information indicating the potential existence of an ‘intermediate public health alert’ or a PHREC. Given the substantive economic consequences (especially concerning tourism and international trade) WHO declarations of such emergency situations can have for affected states, these provisions are unlikely to promote friendly relations between governments, and between WHO and its member states.

WHO deployment missions as default option during PHEICs 

A related US proposal for the amendment of Articles 13(3) and (4) IHR has a similar effect of increasing WHO powers in relation to member states’ freedom to determine their own health policies during a PHEIC in light of local circumstances and preferences. By deleting the phrase ‘at the request of the State Party’, and replacing ‘may’ with ‘shall’, assistance offered by WHO to a state in the response to public health risks becomes the default option. If a state does not accept such offers for assistance within two days, it must justify this by declaring the ‘public health rationale for the rejection’ to all other WHO member states, potentially resulting in far-reaching economic and financial consequences for the rejecting state. WHO assistance offered includes ‘mobilisation of international assistance’, including on-site assessments, supported further by suggested amendments to Article 15(2) IHR, allowing the WHO Director-General and the Emergency Committees set up by him/her to recommend ‘the deployment of expert teams’ to states experiencing a PHEIC.

The proposal to grant WHO – and the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which is closely associated with WHO due to its technical skills in epidemiological investigations – the right to carry out on-site assessments/send expert teams that the state party in question cannot easily reject, should be carefully analysed also in light of similar US proposals made in 2004 during the then thorough revision process of the IHR (lasting from 1995-2005). At the time, some WHO regions rejected the proposal as they suspected a US’ intention behind them to gain access to biodefence research facilities around the world, thus fearing espionage. This appeared against the background of the Iraq war which started in 2003 under the pretext of the existence of Iraqi bioweapons that UN investigators had been unable to find (see more here at p. 24).

Issues not considered: detection of SARS viruses automatically constituting PHEICs and default end to PHEICs  

US proposed amendments miss the opportunity to question the fact that the detection of a SARS virus automatically leads to the declaration of a PHEIC in accordance with current Annex 2 of the IHR without there being a requirement that the actual severity of the illness caused by the new respiratory virus is assessed. Considering the experiences with SARS-CoV-2, it can rightly be questioned as to whether such an approach is justified. The SARS-CoV-2 PHEIC declared by WHO on 30 January 2020 resulted in the adoption of unprecedented medical and non-medical countermeasures around the world having extensive second and third order effects (analysed e.g. here, here and here), despite the fact that the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) for Covid-19 is low, in particular for persons under the age of 70.

In light of the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 PHEIC should – in accordance with Article 12(4) IHR – have been terminated by now (May 2022), amendments could have suggested the inclusion of an automatic expiry date for PHEICs, similar to the expiry of temporary recommendations after a three months period issued by the Director-General and Emergency Committees (according to Article 15(3) IHR). This would also terminate the global distribution of investigational EUL diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines, transferring them back into regular clinical trial procedures to ensure their full safety and effectiveness.

Compliance Committee and Universal Peer Review Mechanism

The US amendments include a proposed new chapter IV to the IHR on a Compliance Committee tasked to monitor state compliance with their obligations under the IHR. Consisting of six government experts from each WHO region, it shall inter alia be authorised to request information from state parties, undertake information gathering in state parties (with their consent), seek services of experts and advisers (including a wide range of non-state actors), and recommend how states shall improve compliance, including by offering financial and technical assistance. Questions can be asked as to whether a group of nominated ‘governmental experts’ are suitable to independently judge whether a state party violated their obligations under international law. Proposed amendments to Article 5 IHR furthermore envisage the introduction of a Universal Peer Review Mechanism to review states’ capacities to detect, assess, notify and report new, emerging and re-emerging pathogens. If implemented, these mechanisms are likely to contribute to restructuring of domestic health systems and allocation of domestic health budgets away from primary health care centred around the implementation of the core human right to health towards pandemic surveillance, preparedness and response activities, regardless of how disease burdens are spread locally.

Adoption and entry into force of the amendments

Finally, the US amendments propose to reduce the time during which state parties to the IHR can reject, or enter reservations to, future IHR amendments that were adopted by a simple majority of the WHA from 18 months to six months (proposed US amendments to Article 59 IHR). Thus, in future, if states do not opt out within six months, amendments enter into force for them automatically in line with Article 22 WHO Constitution and the amended Article 59 IHR. This leaves states rather limited amount of time thoroughly evaluate the legal and practical implications of IHR amendments, including for their domestic health policies and budgeting.

Concluding remark

This short review of the US proposals to amend the IHR would like to end with a call on members of the WHA to discuss and carefully consider the implications of the proposed amendments before endorsing and adopting them. Have technocratic, biomedical approaches, developed and implemented from the top down primarily through executive action, worked well in response to Covid-19, justifying a further extension and centralisation of global emergency powers at WHO? And, if WHO’s powers are extended in this way, is there a need to also answer the question quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guards?), and to thus set up mechanisms ensuring that WHO complies with its obligations under the IHR and its Constitution, as well as its responsibilities for human rights deriving from customary international human rights law?

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Far-reaching U.S. Proposals to Amend the International Health Regulations at the Upcoming 75th World Health Assembly: A Call for Attention
  • Tags: ,

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

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

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

***

The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created as an early warning system to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events

Publicly available VAERS data clearly reveal that the COVID shots are the most dangerous “vaccine” ever created, accounting for more injuries and deaths than all previous conventional vaccines combined over the last three decades

Data analyst Albert Benavides has been analyzing VAERS data since the release of these novel shots. According to Benavides, at least 10,000 reports of death or serious injury following COVID “vaccination” have vanished since the rollout of the shots — and they were not duplicate reports, which is a common “explanation” for their removal

About 2% of all COVID jab-related reports are deaths, and about 5% of death-related reports are being deleted

Only the initial VAERS reports are available to the public. Updated reports are only viewable internally. That means we have no way of knowing how many of those who were injured have since died from those injuries. This is a loophole that can make a vaccine appear less deadly than it actually is

*

The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was created as an early warning system to identify vaccines that may be triggering a higher than expected number of adverse events. One of its primary objectives is to:1

“Provide a national safety monitoring system that extends to the entire general population for response to public health emergencies, such as a large-scale pandemic influenza vaccination program.”

It’s far from perfect, but it’s still incredibly useful and does serve its purpose. Publicly available VAERS data clearly reveal that the COVID shots are the most dangerous “vaccine” ever created, accounting for more injuries and deaths than all previous conventional vaccines combined over the last three decades.

But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which jointly run VAERS, continue to insist the shots are “safe and effective,” and that not a single death has been directly attributed to the shot.

Such claims are outlandish in light of the available data, and perhaps they’re starting to realize the pickle they’re in as well, because in recent months, investigators have discovered that VAERS reports are being deleted in ever growing numbers. As noted by Stew Peters of the Stew Peters Show (above):

“VAERS is supposed to simply collect reports filled out by doctors and other medical professionals from around the country — reports of people suffering injuries and illnesses and even death after taking vaccines.

Nobody is supposed to be editing or curating or fact-checking it. It’s supposed just be the reports of doctors for the entire world to see. But now we have evidence that that’s, in fact, not what’s happening at all.”

Who’s Deleting VAERS Reports?

Peters interviews Albert Benavides, an RCM expert, data analyst and auditor, who’s been analyzing VAERS data since the release of these novel shots.2,3 According to Benavides, at least 10,000 reports of death or serious injury following COVID “vaccination” have vanished since the rollout of the shots — and they were not duplicate reports, which is a common “explanation” for their removal.

Benavides cites the case of a young child in Alaska who reportedly died after the jab. That death report is now gone, and there’s no other remaining report that matches it.

VAERS ID 18150964 is another example. This is the case of a 13-year-old girl in Maryland, who died 16 days after her first jab. This report was entered October 25, 2021, and deleted April 15, 2022. VAERS claims it was deleted because it was a duplicate, but there are no 13-year-old girls in Maryland who died, anywhere else in VAERS.

According to Benavides, over the past 30 years, some 4,000 non-COVID reports have been deleted, and of those only a couple of hundred were deaths. For the COVID jab, VAERS is deleting a far higher proportion of severe injuries and deaths. About 2% of all COVID jab-related reports are deaths, and about 5% of death-related reports are being deleted.

The result of this is that the ratio of deaths to other injuries appears lower than it probably is. Overwhelmingly, it’s reports of severe injuries and death that are being deleted, which gives the distinct appearance that they’re trying to hide the true extent of the harm of these shots. Who could possibly be doing this? Benavides insists the direction to delete valid reports must be coming from the very top of the FDA and/or CDC.

If you want to dive deeper into Benavides’ data, you can find his VAERS Analysis Dashboard here. Another resource you’ll want to bookmark is the VAERS Wayback Machine on MedAlerts — a search system specifically for deleted VAERS reports.

Other Factors That Downplay COVID Jab Risks

Benavides also points out that only the initial VAERS reports are available to the public. Updated reports are only viewable internally. What that means is, we have no way of knowing how many of those who were injured have since died from those injuries. This is a loophole that can make a vaccine appear less risky than it actually is.

What’s more, Benavides is finding that they’re routinely misclassifying the event level of severity; 65% of all COVID-related reports have the lowest severity classification, meaning they’re not serious and didn’t require medical intervention or hospitalization.

However, when you actually read the reports, you find heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary embolisms and other clearly serious injuries. So, many are clearly misclassified, or mis-coded. Benavides has also found 65 reports where the patient died after the COVID shot, but because the box for death is not checked, they are not included in the total death tally.

We also have evidence that VAERS is throttling the release of reports. It can take months before a filed report is actually published, as COVID jab victim Brittany Galvin has discovered.

In January 2022, she was eight months into the reporting process to VAERS and was advised by VAERS staff that it would likely be another six to 12 months before her case would be posted.5 In early June 2021, Peters interviewed her about her injuries and experience with the VAERS process (video below).6

VAERS Analysis Reveals Hundreds of Serious Side Effects

An earlier VAERS data analysis by Benavides, reported by Steve Kirsch in November 2021,7 revealed there were by then already hundreds of serious adverse events associated with the COVID shot that were far more elevated than the admitted risk of myocarditis, identified by the Department of Defense (although that fact was for a time dismissed as “conspiracy theory”).

“The evidence in plain sight shows that they are either lying or incompetent. Or both,”Kirsch wrote.8 “In a … VAERS data analysis performed by our friend Albert Benavides (aka WelcomeTheEagle88), we found hundreds of serious adverse events that were completely missed by the CDC that should have been mentioned in the informed consent document that are given to patients.

And we found over 200 symptoms that occur at a higher relative rate than myocarditis (relative to all previous vaccines over the last 5 years). All together, there were over 4,000 VAERS adverse event codes that were elevated by these vaccines by a factor of 10 or more over baseline that the CDC should have warned people about …

The FDA and CDC have basically been batting .000 in terms of spotting safety signals that have been sitting in plain sight the entire time … The CDC has repeatedly said you can’t ascribe causality to data in VAERS. Not true.

The VAERS data analysis (temporal data, the dose dependency, and the elevated reporting rates compared to baseline) provide ample signal to enable us to show causality on all of these events using the five Bradford-Hill criteria applicable to vaccines.”

Of the hundreds of side effects Benavides identified, neurological, cardiovascular and female reproductive problems topped the list. (You can view and download the data from Kirsch’s article.9) Here are some selected highlights from Kirsch’s comprehensive review of Benavides’ findings:10

High Rates of Post-Jab Myocarditis Confirmed

Getting back to myocarditis (heart inflammation), which is the only side effect the FDA and CDC have really admitted, a recent JAMA study found that:12

“Both first and second doses of mRNA vaccines were associated with increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis. For individuals receiving 2 doses of the same vaccine, risk of myocarditis was highest among young males (aged 16-24 years) after the second dose.”

Among double-jabbed men (age 16-24), there were four to seven excess myopericarditis events per 100,000 vaccinees in the first 28 days after the second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA shot, and anywhere from nine to 28 excess myopericarditis events per 100,000 after the second dose of Moderna.

According to the authors, “The risk of myocarditis in this large cohort study was highest in young men after the second SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose” and “this risk should be balanced against the benefits of protecting against severe COVID-19 disease.”

Rheumatologist Reports High Rate of Jab Injuries

While fact checkers are hard at work trying to debunk VAERS data as too unreliable to pay any attention to, doctors and specialists around the world — those brave enough to speak — are reporting absurdly high rates of side effects among their COVID jabbed patients.

One of the latest ones is Dr. Robert Jackson, an award-winning rheumatologist in Missouri. Kirsch recently interviewed Jackson (video above),13 who reports that 40% of his COVID jabbed patients have been injured by the shots; 5% remain unresolved, 5% have developed a new clotting disorder and 12 have died. For comparison, he normally sees only one or two deaths a year.

Of his 5,000 patients, about 3,000 got the shot. That means just over 1 in 300 were killed by the shot. Jackson’s clinical experience matches nicely with data from other rheumatologists, published in the BMJ.14 They report a 37% adverse event rate among jabbed patients; 4.4% of patients also had a flare up of their disease after the jab.

In the interview, Jackson also discusses some of the treatments he’s using on these vaccine injured patients. Interestingly, he’s seen significant improvement using a 30-minute infusion of mesenchymal stem cell derived exosomes.

Non-COVID Excess Deaths Are Exploding

Across the world, and in most U.S. states, we are now seeing excess deaths rates skyrocketing, and it’s not due to COVID. For U.S. data, check out USmortality.com,15 where the excess mortality for each state is listed.

In California, the excess death rate rose from 13.5% in 2020 (38,799 excess deaths) to 18.7% in 2021 (52,278 excess deaths). And, less than five months into 2022, California’s excess mortality has already breached the 20% mark.

For the U.S. as a whole, there were 3,440,546 deaths of all ages for the year 2020. The expected numbers were 3,028,959, so that was an excess of 13.6% (411,587 above expected). In 2021, there were 3,459,496 deaths of all ages, which was 16.4% above expectations. As of mid-April 2022, the excess death rate was already at 14.1%, with 1,041,538 reported deaths of all ages. Among working age Americans, deaths are up 40%, compared to prepandemic levels.16

If the COVID jabs worked, you’d expect excess mortality to drop, yet that’s not what we’re seeing. We’re also not seeing mass death from COVID. The only clear factor that might account for these discrepancies is mass injection with an experimental gene transfer technology.

Cyprus is also reporting elevated all-cause mortality for 2021 (16.5%, perfectly matching that of the U.S.).17 Third and fourth quarter rates are particularly elevated, which corresponds with the rollout of booster shots. Canada, meanwhile, is seeing a shocking 70% excess death rate for ages 0 to 44, compared to 2014 through 2019,18 and U.K. data show COVID-jabbed children, aged 10 to 14, are dying at 28 times the rate of their unvaccinated peers.19,20

I’ve provided other data examples in other articles, and they’re all showing the same trend. The most tragic part of this is that it’s intentional. None of the agencies charged with protecting public health have lived up to their mandate. Instead, they’ve been serving the Great Reset agenda.

Eventually, though, I believe the truth will simply be too overwhelming and obvious to be ignored by the masses. FDA and CDC can’t delete enough reports to make the jabs look safe. People’s personal experiences also trump that of any data set, and now, vaccine injuries are so commonplace, most people know of someone who had a bad reaction, got COVID anyway or died from it. And they can’t scrub that.

*

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

Notes

1 VAERS, About

2 Audible, The Real Number of Vaccine Deaths in the US with Albert Benavides

3 COVEXIT August 28, 2021

4 Medalerts VAERS ID 1815096 Deleted Report

5 Odysee, January 20, 2022, Min 18:10

6 BitChute, June 5, 2021

7, 8, 9, 10 Steve Kirsch Substack November 9, 2021

11 Bitchute July 14, 2021

12 JAMA Cardiology April 20, 2022 [Epub ahead of print]

13 Steve Kirsch May 1, 2022

14 Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2022;81:695-709

15 US Mortality

16 ZeroHedge January 3, 2022

17 Cureus April 20, 2022; 14(4): e24325

18 Twitter Kelly Brown April 11, 2022

19 Deaths by Vaccination Status England

20 Steve Kirsch Substack May 4, 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.

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

***

Iran is set to be the first country to roll out a food rationing scheme based on new biometric IDs. Where vaccine passports failed, food passports will now be eagerly accepted by hungry people who can’t afford rapidly inflating food prices. This is the realization of a longstanding agenda by the Rockefeller/UN/WEF crowd to, as Kissinger put it, “control food, and control people.”

Christian breaks it down in this Ice Age Farmer broadcast.

*

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

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

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

***

GR Note. The authenticity of this video is yet to be fully ascertained. It should be noted that it is confirmed by Newsweek

A pair of well-known Russian pranksters claim to have tricked former U.S. President George W. Bush into speaking to them about the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stolyarov posted a brief video to the Russian video sharing site Rutube on Tuesday that appears to show Bush speaking to the duo about the conflict. Kuznetsov and Stolyarov, who are also known as Vovan and Lexus, have made headlines in the past for pranking high-profile individuals including musician Elton John and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

***

Believing that he was actually speaking with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, former U.S. President George W. Bush has been duped by a prankster into admitting that NATO expansion eastward towards Russia had violated a U.S. promise not to do so. “Listen, times change,” Bush says in a video created by the Russian prankster duo known as Vovan and Lexus. 

After “Zelensky” calls Bush “a very, very wise person,” the former U.S. president says he didn’t want Russia to become a member of NATO either, but rather, “I wanted them on the fringe of NATO. I wanted Ukraine in NATO.”

Bush tells “Zelensky” that “your mission is to destroy as many Russian troops as you can.”

He then condemns Russian President Vladimir Putin for essentially putting an end to Wall Street and Washington’s domination of Russia under President Boris Yeltsin.

“I thought for a while that Russia would be more cooperative and then Putin changed dramatically,” Bush tells the fake Zelensky.

NATO’s expansion eastward is one of the causes of the Ukraine war, especially after the West in December rejected Moscow’s treaty proposals for a new security arrangement in Europe. Russian pranksters (who have been banned from YouTube) put out a short video. Here is a longer clip:

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

As researchers seek answers to why in recent months more than 500 previously healthy children worldwide have developed sudden-onset, severe hepatitis, two leading hypotheses have emerged linking the outbreak to adenovirus and coronavirus.

In a May 18 update, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it is investigating 180 cases of hepatitis in children, up 71 from the 109 cases the agency reported on May 5.

The cases occurred in 36 states and territories over the past seven months.

The CDC reported on May 5 that 90% of the children were hospitalized, and 5 deaths were under investigation.

According to the May 18 update, no deaths were reported since February, and the proportion of patients requiring liver transplants decreased since May 5 from 15% to 9%.

The U.S. now has as many cases as the U.K., which on May 12 updated its numbers to 176 cases. As of May 3, 11 U.K. children had received liver transplants, and there were no deaths.

On May 11, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported a total of 449 probable cases of sudden and severe hepatitis in children in 27 nations, but with the updated numbers from the U.S. and the U.K., the total number is now 533.

The highest numbers of cases per country so far are in: the U.S. (180), the U.K. (176), Italy (35), Spain (22), Brazil (16), Indonesia (15), Israel (12), Sweden (9), Argentina (8), Japan (7) and Canada (7).

Hepatitis is the medical term for inflammation of the liver. It typically is caused by one of several known viruses, medications or exposure to certain chemicals, according to Healthline.

However, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported these common causes were ruled out in the hepatitis cases, which is what makes the cases so unusual.

Severe and sudden hepatitis in healthy children

Affected children were between 1 month and 16 years old. More than three-fourths of the children in the U.K. were under 5, and those in the U.S. had a median age of 2 years, according to the WHO.

Overall, 11 children died so far, and 31 were reported to require liver transplants.

“It’s extremely unusual because these are healthy children,” and most of them are younger than 5, Dr. Elizabeth Whittaker told the Washington Post. Whittaker, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist at Imperial College in London, is assisting the investigation in the U.K.

Mild hepatitis is fairly common in children, Whittaker said. But this outbreak is different. Doctors are seeing previously healthy children with liver injury severe enough to require transplants.

Typically, the U.K. might have eight to 10 liver transplants in a year. This year, there were 11 transplants in three months, Whitaker said.

Possible causes: Adenovirus? Link to COVID-19?

The growing number of cases has spurred an international race to identify the cause, with doctors and researchers from global health agencies, including in the U.S., the U.K., Israel, Italy and Japan, sharing data and hypotheses.

According to the WHO, the common viruses that can cause acute viral hepatitis (hepatitis viruses A, B, C, D and E) were not detected in any of the cases, nor does international travel appear to be a factor.

Seven months in, Whittaker said, “We have not had any ‘aha’ moments.”

“At present, the leading hypotheses remain those which involve adenovirus — with also still an important consideration about the role of COVID as well, either as a co-infection or a past infection,” said Philippa Easterbrook, with the WHO’s global hepatitis program, during a May 10 press conference.

Easterbrook also said (on May 10) that within the week, there would be data from the U.K. on a case control study comparing whether the detection rate of adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis differs from that of children hospitalized for another reason.

“That will really help hone down whether adeno[virus] is just an incidental infection that’s been detected or there is a causal or likely causal link,” Easterbrook said. At the May 17 WHO press conference, no further information was provided about this study.

Adenoviruses are a common family of viruses that cause symptoms ranging from the common cold to pinkeye.

The strongest evidence that adenovirus may be the cause of the hepatitis outbreak are test results that detected adenovirus in the blood of more than half the children in the U.S. and nearly three-quarters of those in the U.K.

Some of the children in the U.S. also tested positive for the adenovirus 41 strain, which is associated with severe stomach illness.

However, adenovirus was not detected in the children’s liver tissue, which would be expected if it was causing the liver injury.

Adenovirus on its own is rarely associated with severe liver damage in healthy children, but other factors could increase vulnerability.

These factors include:

  • An abnormal susceptibility or host response, perhaps because young children had fewer social interactions during the pandemic and may be more susceptible to adenovirus.
  • The possibility that adenovirus is more prevalent than usual.
  • Priming of the immune system through a previous infection or co-infection with SARS-CoV-2, or from other pathogens, toxins, drugs or environmental exposure.

Another possibility is that SARS-CoV-2 could be the cause, and some doctors suggest this could have contributed to liver inflammation through an old infection or a co-infection that triggered the immune system to overreact.

“The big focus over the next week is looking at serological testing for previous exposure and infections with COVID,” Easterbrook said.

Doctors in Israel favor the hypothesis that COVID-19 is a possible cause.

“Some of us think that the only thing that changed in the last year is COVID-19,” said Dr. Eyal Shteyer, head of the pediatric liver unit at Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem, where seven children were treated.

A letter published on May 13 in The Lancet presented the idea that part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein resembles a bacterial toxin that could provoke an abnormal response in the immune system when there is a co-infection with adenovirus 41.

U.S. and U.K. doctors noted that few of the children they treated for hepatitis had documented COVID-19 infections.

However, studies show three-quarters of children in the U.S. and more than 95% of those in the U.K. have COVID-19 antibodies, which indicates past infection. In addition, active SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 18% of affected children in the U.K.

Other leading hypotheses include a post-infectious SARS-CoV-2 syndrome, a new variant of adenovirus, non-infectious causes, a novel pathogen or a new variant of SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 vaccines not thought to be the cause

In the U.K., no COVID-19 vaccinations were recorded in cases of children under the age of 5 who developed hepatitis, and this age group makes up more than 75% of the hepatitis cases, according to the U.K. Investigation report.

The report states:

“There are fewer than 5 older case-patients recorded as having had a COVID-19 vaccination prior to hepatitis onset. There is no evidence of a link between COVID-19 vaccination and the acute hepatic syndrome.”

In the U.S., none of the nine children in Alabama had received a COVID-19 vaccine.

Cause for concern, but rare

The CDC noted on May 18 that while the 71 cases reported since May 5 may appear to be a large increase, “it’s important to understand the vast majority of these are what we consider ‘retrospective’ patients.”

According to the CDC:

“Since CDC’s investigation looks at patients reported back to October of 2021, most of these numbers involve patients that are just now being reported, rather than new cases of hepatitis — so not all are recent, and some may ultimately wind up not being linked to this current investigation.”

The CDC recommends everyday hygiene, such as regular hand-washing, to prevent infectious disease.

According to the WHO, many cases globally have included reports of gastrointestinal symptoms including stomach pains, diarrhea and vomiting, prior to requiring hospitalization. Fever wasn’t reported as a symptom.

Hepatitis symptoms can be mistaken for stomach flu, but parents should watch for “yellow discolouration of the skin and yellow discoloration of the white of the eyes,” both of which are signs of jaundice, Dr. Dina Kulik, a Toronto-based pediatrician, told CTV’s News Channel.

Jaundice is an indication that something is wrong with the liver, and medical attention should be sought immediately.

Parents should also watch for symptoms that include dark urine, loss of appetite and light-colored stools.

*

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

Julie Comber is a freelance science reporter for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s Behind the Outbreak of Sudden, Severe Hepatitis in Kids?
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, has become a minority in the Knesset, after Arab-Israeli lawmaker Ghaida Rinawie Zoabi resigned, citing the occupation army’s deadly harassment of Palestinians.

“The scenes from the Temple Mount of violent policemen confronting a crowd of worshippers, and the funeral of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Aqla, led me to only one valuable conclusion: no more,” Rinawie Zoabi wrote in a letter released on 19 May.

“I cannot continue to support the existence of a coalition that disgracefully harasses the society I came from,” she added.

The former member of the Knesset (MK) also called the abuse perpetrated on Palestinians throughout the holy month of Ramadan “unbearably difficult.”

With this latest loss, the Israeli premier finds himself facing down the likely possibility of a snap election – Israel’s fifth in three years.

On 9 May, Israeli media reported that Bennett himself expected his government to collapse soon.

According to informed sources, Bennett held a meeting with a senior policy adviser on what to do in the event of the resignation of his government, and in strategies in case of a new election.

Last month, MK Idit Silman resigned her seat in parliament, ending the coalition government’s parliamentary majority and dropping Bennett’s support base of lawmakers from 61 to 60 out of 120.

According to Israeli media, Silman was offered a deal by former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to be on the Likud list in the next Knesset elections and a spot as minister of health in the next government.

As this new political crisis bears down on Israel, Netanyahu has been gearing up to attract the Jewish supremacist vote under the rallying cry of “the Arabs are taking over the country.”

A report by The Times of Israel from 18 May claims the Likud Party has several new laws in mind, tailored to attract voters upset with the waves of Palestinian retaliatory operations against the Israeli occupation.

Over recent weeks, operations by Palestinians in Tel AvivAriel, and Elad have left 20 Israelis dead.

Recent polls also show that a large portion of Israeli citizens have lost faith in the future of their nation.

In response to this trend, Likud promises to introduce legislation that would deport relatives of Palestinian resistance members who hold Israeli citizenship; criminalize the flying of the Palestinian flag or burning the Israeli flag, punishable by imprisonment; and revoke the citizenship of those who protest during “times of war.”

*

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

Featured image is from GPO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s Ruling Coalition Crumbles as Lawmaker Quits, Citing Abuse of Palestinians
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

***

The number of sailors who deserted the Navy last year is more than double the number who deserted in 2019, a statistic that one expert described as “staggering.” 

According to a new report from NBC, 157 sailors deserted the Navy last year, compared to 98 in 2020, and 63 in 2019. While Navy officials couldn’t explain the increase to NBC, they pointed to the “many different stressors” in the service. And there have been many stressors made public in the last several months.

The service started the year amid a water contamination crisis in Hawaii that displaced thousands of service members and their families from their homes. In February, junior soldiers and sailors told Navy Times they were living without “basic qualities of life” at the Naval Support Activity Bethesda barracks, which houses the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Navy Times described barracks that went without air conditioning for several months in the summer, had no hot water, and even had doors that wouldn’t lock. And at Naval Air Station Key West, Florida, junior sailors are on their own to find housing after the Navy recently announced it was shutting down a barracks for repairs.

Sailors are deserting the Navy at a ‘staggering’ rate

Naval Air Station Key West’s sign (Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Cody R. Babin/U.S. Navy)

The Navy has also seen a string of deaths, many of which are suspected to be suicides, aboard the USS George Washington as it undergoes extensive repairs. Sailors told Military.com last month that the people who had to move back on board despite it still being worked on meant they were living in “a construction zone,” with constant problems that have added up over time and “never goes away.”

“There’s grinding, needle gunning, there’s always problems with ventilation, there’s always problems with hot water,” one sailor said. In response to sailors’ questions about their living conditions, the message from Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Russell Smith was essentially, things could be worse.

“I hear your concerns and you should always raise them but you have to do so with reasonable expectations and then understanding what…what this is like,” Smith recently told sailors during a visit to the aircraft carrier. “What you’re not doing is sleeping in a foxhole like a Marine might be doing. What you are doing is going home at night, most nights, unlike the Harry S Truman.”

Two of the Navy deserters still at large as of May 9 were from the USS George Washington, according to NBC. But the USS George Washington is just one of multiple housing issues that have come to light this year.

Nevertheless, improving housing and living arrangements don’t appear to be a top concern for Navy leaders. As Military.com reported on Thursday, the Navy is “still prioritizing other construction issues” such as shipyards over their housing.

Sailors are deserting the Navy at a ‘staggering’ rate

Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Russell Smith speaks to Sailors assigned to Assault Craft Unit 5 (ACU 5) during an all hands call July 12. (Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class David Mora Jr./U.S. Navy)

During a congressional hearing this week, Meredith Berger, assistant secretary of the Navy for Environment, Installations, and Energy said the service’s construction budget of almost $3.8 billion would be be used to “continue to optimize our naval shipyards [and] enable operating capability of platforms such as the Columbia-class submarine and the F-35,” according to Military.com.

Later in the hearing, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told Navy officials that “toys, for lack of a better term, should not be a higher priority than making sure [of the] quality of where our troops live.” Master Chief Petty Officer Smith responded that those “toys” are “things we use to fight,” Military.com reported.

But for many watching the problems unfold, it’s a question of leadership and mental health awareness. One military law attorney, Stephen Karns, told NBC that of the almost 1,000 desertion cases he’s handled, mental health has been a factor in nearly every one. And one Navy veteran, Julien Napoli, recently wrote at Task & Purpose that the Navy has been “mired in a crisis of leadership” for years, leaving sailors overworked and feeling that they can’t seek help if they need it. He pointed to a quote from retired Navy SEAL and Medal of Honor recipient Mike Thornton, “Take care of your people and your people will take care of you.”

“This simple but powerful principle, if truly followed by naval leadership, would drastically increase combat effectiveness,” Napoli wrote. “It is much to the dismay of sailors that mental health awareness is such a low priority in today’s Navy.”

*

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

Haley Britzky joined Task & Purpose as the Army reporter in January 2019. She previously worked at Axios covering breaking news. She reports on important developments within the service, from new uniforms to new policies; the realities of military life facing soldiers and their families; and broader cultural issues that expand outside of the Army, touching each of the military services. Contact the author here.

Featured image: U.S. Navy sailors stand at attention during the commissioning of the USS Frank E. Petersen Jr. in Charleston, S.C., May 14, 2022. (Lance Cpl. Dylon Grasso/U.S. Marine Corps).

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

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

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

***

As the numbers of vaccine injured and long covid sufferers rise after taking injections of pharmaceutical products that long ago met the FDA’s death and injury threshold for declaring a drug too dangerous for public consumption, all too few physicians are effectively addressing their devastating health issues. Dr. Syed Haider, who treats these patients, explains what he’s used that works, which in some cases includes Ivermectin, that has shown to be very effective.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Whistleblower Newsroom.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Famine is the Name of the Game

May 21st, 2022 by Peter Koenig

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

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

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

***

In the Horn of Africa every 48 seconds a child dies from the consequences of famine, Oxfam reports. The worst famine in decades, allegedly caused by drought-ravaged Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia, further stressed by the war in Ukraine… See this.

When a child dies from hunger it is particularly sad. Children are the most vulnerable category of humanity. Famine is not the result of a worldwide food shortage. But famine has to do with food hoarding for speculation, with a lack of well- and equalitarian food distribution system. There is no lack of food per se in the world. According to FAO, with current technologies we are able to produce sufficient food for 12 billion people.

The “post-covid” (really?) Ukraine-Russia war period, is generating a wanton food crisis – leading to a cruel, but well planned, hunger catastrophe. The first victims are usually the poverty-stricken populations, but this time its planned not to stop at the borders of “developed” countries in the Global North.

The cause is not just drought, it’s the consequence of poverty and mass unemployment triggered by the Covid-19 lockdown measures initiated Worldwide in March 2020, not to mention the string of bankruptcies affecting agriculture, food production and  distribution.

Is it part of the unspoken “depopulation agenda” under the auspices of the Great Reset, of UN Agenda 2030, of Klaus Schwab’s 4th Industrial Revolution, all inter-changeable programs with the same objectives?

Even a drought of such severity is suspicious.

Weather Modification Technologies

Remember the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) developed in the 1990s, which was initiated in Alaska, as an ionospheric research program, jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Pentagon and US Secret Services.

HAARP, Gakona Alaska, 1990s

Earlier weather modification technologies were applied in the 1960s, during the US-war against Vietnam, when extreme Monsoons were “created” (through cloud seeding), so as to impede the transit of the communist Vietcong soldiers and mercenaries from North-Vietnams to the South, through the jungles of Vietnam.

Owning the Weather 

Since the 1990s, HAARP has become highly sophisticated and is suspected (without firm evidence) of being responsible for several world-wide occurring extreme weather phenomena:

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report, ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’

Creating famine in any way possible, through modified weather patterns, or wantonly deficient food distribution systems, or food retention by other politically influenced means, is a crime against humanity, a crime of biblical proportion, for which apparently, so far, nobody has been held accountable.

Western populations – predominantly Europe and the US – are being warned, repeatedly, that they will be hit by devastating food shortages, as well as a huge, unheard-of in the west, accompanying inflation. See this.

What we are witnessing is one of the most inhumane, cruel ways of killing people, by famine.

The rich will survive, they will also get their food. The poor and middle segments of society may suffer the most. Many will die.

WEF advisor, Yuval Noah Hariri, calls them “useless eaters”. Lack of food will create riots, for sure, and the riots itself – all planned, foreseen, counted with and funded by “philanthropic” oligarchs – create more havoc and death, interrupting the remaining food chains.

That’s not all. Food shortages will also affect the Middle East and North African countries that are already in conflict, some in war-like situations. They may cut off or reduce Middle-Eastern hydrocarbon production, with all the consequences of spiraling oil-related shortages. Refugees from these lands will migrate to Europe, where they hope to find a better life, food, and shelter. The refugee influx in Europe will exacerbate the food and everything-shortages by a multiple.

Groomed Proxy Politicians, Acting on Behalf of Powerful Financial Interests

But all of that is known and planned that way, by the very “leaders” (sic) of Europe and the west in general – many of them scholars of Klaus Schwab’s Academy for “Young Global Leaders” (YGL).

For a full list of such proxy politicians, who were taught to apply tyrannical measures on the very people who allegedly elected them, who pay for them, who still live under the illusion that their leaders serve them, want the best for their people, in whom they trust – see thisIn the words of Klaus Schwab:

I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now… (Klaus Schwab)

Click here or image to access Video 

 

Famine is the Name of Game

Famine will be the name of the game, accompanied by a collapsed western economy, joblessness, freezing cold winters, due to lack of heating oil / energy, homelessness. As the debt burden increases, so does dispossession of shelter.

The banks and oligarchs get richer – exactly the script of the 4th Industrial Revolution, and the useless eaters are driven into mass poverty.

 

The construct, the plan, the UN Agenda 2030, the Great Reset, are inter-changeable. They become increasingly visible – and people, who are not (yet) reacting, may be doomed.

Death by famine, follows death by vaccine, and embraces death by despair.

People have no clue of what’s going on behind the scenes – what really causes famine and why – it’s a wanton population reduction scheme, à la Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, Kissinger… and more.

These are just the most blatant perpetrators. Killing people, mostly children, the weakest link of society, is just about the worst crime that humanity can commit.

Mainstream media does not inform us. They are paid to keep silent, or worse, to trick us into believing it’s our fault either because we do not decry loud enough the Russian aggression on Ukraine, the timing of which is no coincidence.

The war in Ukraine also decimates harvests, and oil and gas production, which, in turn, reduces fertilizer production, and by extension, what is produced cannot be shipped, because of delivery disruptions, due to covid, bankruptcies, labor fallouts, because we didn’t vaxx enough, to keep the “social and industrial machinery oiled to function”, and so on. A perpetual spiral to misery.

The Pandemic Treaty, the QR Code. Towards Digital Tyranny 

Hence, we are supposed to be inclined voluntarily to submit to the soon-to-come vaxx mandates; and that, before its possibly military enforced through the “coming” WHO-designed and managed worldwide “Pandemic Treaty”, whose flagship is the multi-purpose international vaxx certificate, via QR-coded electronic data collection and full and absolute surveillance, leading many scared and desperate victims of the 24/7 propaganda to the 4th, 5th, 6th and so on boosters, until death does us part from this wonderful world of the Great Reset.

Famine is already ongoing in Africa, India and parts of Latin America. Will the famine disaster hit the Western “Developed Countries”, later in the fall, as predicted by some analysts?

All has to do with the western insane, suicidal act of sanctioning Russia for her aggression on Ukraine. So, say many pundits, analysts and free-thinkers. Do they truly believe that the west, especially Europe, doesn’t know what they are doing by sanctioning Russia?

They know exactly that Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan together account for about 30 to 40 of the world’s food supply, mostly grains.

They know that much of the grain may not be produced, as a result of the war.

What is produced and supposed to be shipped to the world’s market places, may be stranded, due to lack of labor, transport, fuel, it’s a self-perpetuating spiral of disruptions and shortages, that will impact vital food supplies – and cause famine.

For self-protection and to guarantee least damage to her food supply, India, also an important wheat and grain producer, has just banned all wheat exports, mostly to keep local prices down and to secure as much food as possible for her local population – some 1.4 billion people. See this India prohibited all exports of wheat on Friday in an attempt to reduce local prices.

Also, no coincidence – fires destroy food manufacturing plants, storage and transport facilities throughout the western and mid-western Unites States. See the video below. A further planned contribution to food shortages.

 

The Bird Flu H5N1 Outbreak

A new kind of Bird Flu H5N1 – lab-made, indeed, is already making sure that for our, human protection tens of millions of poultry are already being euthanized.

Perhaps hundreds of millions more around the globe may follow the same fate. For your health protection, of course. Unfortunately, this health protection move will eliminate vital sources of protein, especially for the common people. But, so what, as Yuval Noah Harari would say – it may help neutralizing some of the “useless eaters”.

All this results in food shortages, leading to famine and misery. But no worries, Bill Gates and his artificial meat production scheme will soon come to rescue. We then may have an abundance of Monsanto produced GMO plant food and Bill Gates sponsored artificial meat production. Bon appetit!

Nothing is “bad-management” or unwise decision-making. Nothing is coincidence. No, it’s all been planned that way for years, decades. The ongoing phase, total destruction of the western economy, is only a stepping stone to the larger objectives, total control of the world economy shifted from the bottom and the middle to the top – massive population reduction, and the ringing in of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (FIR).

But they will not win.

Mind you FIR has little to do with “industrial”, and even less with “revolution”, but it has all to do with transforming the remaining world population into a herd of gnomes, computer and robot- manipulated slaves, or transhumans, as per Yuval Noah Hariri, Darwinist, author of “Sapiens” and “Homo Deus”.

Hariri is also the closest personal advisor of Klaus Schwab – WEF creator, eternal WEF CEO (acting on behalf powerful financial interests), and continued Mastermind of eradicating nation states’ sovereignties and creating an artificial world, a One World Order (OWO), under a One World Government (OWG), the most anti-nature and anti-social proposal imaginable.

This will never happen. The collective human mind is strong and in solidarity capable of over-coming all evil attempts to control us. We must abandon the illusion to have national governments serving the people. We must escape form this Cognitive Dissonance.

We must wake up and come to senses and to grips with reality. If we do, we are safe. We will be able to resist this soul- and heartless cult of dark and sick people, and we shall resist their criminal machinations.

People, compatriots of Mother Earth, wake up!

Open your eyes to what this  Elite Financial Cabal has in store for us.

They are at the beginning of their agenda – UN Agenda 2030 – The Great Reset – the 4th Industrial Revolution – different names for the same killing game.

We must take over the next eight years, acting in solidarity, converting this sinister economic and social agenda into broad grassroots process for humanity.

In the next eight years, we must put a term of what is tantamount to genocide, namely an all-controlling, totalitarian world governance – the digital tyranny – the transformation of humans to transhumans and mind-manipulation through an sophisticated brain control scheme that will give us a robotized smile since we own nothing but are happy.

We must stop it.

And we will.

We have the Human Power.

We are the Spirit of Light.

They are the darkness.

We aspire for Community, Peace and Love.

We shall overcome!!!

*

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

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.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

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

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

***

“Governments do like epidemics, just the same way as they like war, really. It’s a chance to impose their will on us and get us all scared so that we huddle together and do what we’re told.” —Dr. Damien Downing, President, British Society of Ecological Medicine

I represent the World Council for Health, and I am writing to voice my solemn concerns about the amendments to International Health Regulations (IHR) Articles 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 48, 49, 53, and 59 proposed by the US Department of Health & Human Services on January 18, 2022.

You have the unique opportunity to stop the greatest threat to national sovereignty in history by rejecting these amendments.

Conversely, advancing these amendments would constitute a shameful act tantamount to treason against the people of the world.

I implore you to choose courageous action over cowardly capitulation to globalist pressures.

If approved, the IHR amendments would grant the WHO director-general dictatorial power to declare a public health emergency—even if the member state objects.

That means an unelected bureaucrat would have the ability to impose a “One Health” directive that supersedes the laws of a democratically elected nation-state and the will of its citizens.

Empowering a single individual with such absolutist authority is egregious enough, but it represents an even deadlier danger when that person is a likely war criminal.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has been credibly accused of “systemic genocidal violence and gross human rights violations” by the Amhara Professionals Union Research Department. Furthermore, Nobel Peace Prize nominee David Steinman has lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court against him for being “a crucial decision maker in relation to security service actions that included killing, arbitrarily detaining, and torturing Ethiopians.”

Catapulting an alleged war criminal to an omnipotent role would fulfill Joost Meerloo’s admonition in The Rape of the Mind at a global level:

“In a state where terror is used to keep the people in line, the administrative machine may become the exclusive property and tool of the dictator.”

Additionally, the proposed IHR amendments would equip WHO “regional directors” with the authority to declare a Public Health Emergency of Regional Concern (PHERC).

Meerloo warns about these petty bureaucratic tyrants as well—what Christopher Browning calls “desk murderers”:

“This creeping totalitarianism of the desk and file goes on nearly everywhere in the world. As soon as civil servants can no longer talk humanely and genially but write down everything in black and white and keep long minutes in overflowing files, the battle for administrative power has begun. Compulsive order, red tape, and regulation become more important than freedom and justice.…

“The burning psychological question is whether man will eventually master his institutions so that these will serve him and not rule him.”

The answer to that burning psychological question has been made resoundingly clear over the past two years of COVID tyranny, during which countries around the world seized exponentially multiplying authoritarian powers to institute a range of failed, hazardous, and even lethal guidelines in the name of a mild condition that even Bill Gates now admits had a “fairly low fatality rate” and is “a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu is.”

Taking this runaway absolutism to the international level would be equivalent to imposing a planetary dictatorship.

In 1976, Paddy Chayefsky prophesied the arrival of such a world in Network:

Should the proposed amendments pass, the director-general could unilaterally issue an “Intermediate Public Health Alert (IPHA)”—the equivalent of a deafening transnational air-raid siren that would send the world into a state of terrorizing fear and panic, which Meerloo says “can be used to deepen man’s sense of insecurity and further his passive surrender to the totalitarian environment.”

It is now evident that was squarely the intention of those orchestrating the fear-fueling propaganda campaign that has been waged against the public since early 2020, and formerly submissive people are waking up to that fact in indomitable numbers.

The amendments would usher in a universal health surveillance system capable of enslaving the citizens of the world, and you would make that possible if you greenlight them.

Don’t let their pretty words about protecting the public health fool you. As Thomas Paine cautions:

“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.”

Article 5, for example, would involve the formulation of early warning criteria that would enable the WHO to deploy the same outrageously erroneous modeling used as an excuse to transform the world into an open-air prison.

One of the architects of those panic-mongering models, the notorious Neil Ferguson, expressed his amazement that they were able to “get away with” emulating the containment policy of a totalitarian government in a democratic nation:

“It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could …”

These despotic measures turned out to not only be ineffectual but also catastrophically destructive and fatal, causing infinitely more harm than the 98.8% survival rate diseasethey were purportedly introduced to curb.

Under the proposed amendments, Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13 would give a member state forty-eight hours to accept or reject on-site assistance following a WHO risk assessment. Nations that fail to comply could face penalties such as economic sanctions, loss of international aid, and multinational disdain, stoking potential conflicts and heightening the risk of starvation, rioting, violence, and wars.

Article 9 would permit the reliance on secret sources to decree a public health emergency. Eliminating transparency and accountability guarantees corruption. Pharmaceutical corporations, world-bossing foundations, and other dubious entities that profit grotesquely both financially and hegemonically from such emergencies could provide fabricated evidence.

Does “yellow cake” ring any bells?

Via Article 12, the WHO director-general could declare a suspected Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) without even consulting the WHO Emergency Committee and member state(s), effectively overriding national sovereignty.

Article 59 gives member states six months to say no to the proposed IHR amendments after the World Health Assembly adopts them—in other words, starting in November 2022, nations could lose their sovereignty. Failure to reject the amendments constitutes de facto approval.

Søren Ventegodt considered the WHO such a menace that he titled his 2015 Journal of Integrative Medicine & Therapy article, “Why the Corruption of the World Health Organization (WHO) Is the Biggest Threat to the World’s Public Health of Our Time.”

Below are a few salient excerpts from this article, whose criticisms of the Swine Flu fiasco map directly to the WHO’s disastrous handling of COVID:

  • “[I]t seems that the pharmaceutical industry has gained control over the WHO system, leading to an extreme bias towards the use of not only ineffective and unnecessary influenza vaccines and medicines, but also to the use of antipsychotics, antidepressant, antianxiety and other psychopharmacological drugs, cytotoxic anti-cancer chemotherapy, and a number of other drugs, which according to independent meta analyses and Cochrane reviews are found to be without significant beneficial effect—and often harmful.”
  • “Ten years ago WHO changed its financial policy and allowed private money into its system, instead of only funding from the member states. WHO has since been extremely successful in raising funds and is now receiving more than half of its yearly budget from private sources. Bill Gates has for example given more than one billion dollars to the WHO. The new system of private funding of WHO has brought WHO much closer to the pharmaceutical industry.”
  • “The Danish director of the Nordic Cochrane Center openly addressed what he called ‘the criminal practices of the pharmaceutical industry’ and documented in his book the problem that ‘Big Pharma’ already has taken patient’s lives and caused harm to patients from the use of poisonous, poorly documented, and ineffective medicine.”
  • “Recent scandals, like the Swine Flu scandal in 2009, has shown that WHO unfortunately has succumbed totally to the power of the pharmaceutical industry.”
  • “In an interview the Polish health minister revealed everything about the horrible industrial contracts, where the pharmaceutical companies—helped by WHO—sold vaccines that were not even properly tested! The minister pointed to the fact that the test groups were extraordinary [sic] small—so small that the adverse effects of the vaccines could not even be evaluated.”
  • “So the world learned that the pharmaceutical industry was running WHO! Wow. So the industry itself declared the pandemic that forced all European countries and many more to buy enormous amount of ineffective and dangerous medicines.”

Had Ventegodt’s recommendation of a “fundamental revision of the WHO-system” been heeded at the time, the millions of lives lost to and incalculable harm caused by the WHO’s abominable management of COVID—through lockdowns, through hospicide, through unsafe and ineffective injectable products, through the denial of early-treatment protocols, through the refusal to recognize natural immunity, through masking, through the losses of human rights, through poverty, through suicides, through deaths of despair—could have been prevented.

If we fail to act on that exhortation again, we will continue to repeat these annihilatory policies over and over and over again, only at significantly greater scales given the boundless tyrannical powers you are considering bestowing upon this malfeasant organization.

In keeping with the autocratic approach demonstrated throughout the proposal process, the public is being deprived of the opportunity to voice its concerns about the amendments, and stakeholder communities have been given a mere twenty-four hours to submit their comments.

Consequently, we must rely on you to decide in favor of the people and against an organization captured by the pharmaceutical industry and profiteering foundations.

By sanctioning these amendments, you would be building your own concentration camp—and if you think you will be exempt from this worldwide panopticon because you’re a leader, you’re as naïve as the menticided Good Germans begging for subjugation.

Soft totalitarianism can harden as quickly as molten steel into a bullet.

The only way to prevent future atrocities is to dismantle the mechanisms that facilitate them. Heroic trailblazers are already building a better way.

You have the historic privilege of being able to stop one-world tyranny.

Do you have the integrity, fortitude, and temerity to do so before it’s too late?

Reach into the deepest part of your being and discover your invincible summer:

“In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer. And that makes me happy. For it says that no matter how hard the world pushes against me, within me, there’s something stronger—something better, pushing right back.” —Albert Camus

*

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

Featured image is licensed under Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Tyranny: The WHO “One Health” Directive that Supersedes the Laws of Democratically Elected Nation States. Letter to the US HHS Office of Global Affairs
  • Tags: , ,

The following text is Chapter VI of Prof. Chossudovsky’s E-Book.

To access the full document consisting of 14 Chapters, click below:

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

 

***

“There has been another cost that we’ve seen, particularly in high schools. We’re seeing, sadly, far greater suicides now than there are deaths from COVID. We’re seeing far greater deaths from drug overdose,” (Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the CDC, July 14, 2020).

***

The corona virus mental health predicament of several million people Worldwide is the result of

  • social engineering including confinement, isolation, social distancing and the mask,
  • the incessant 24/7 fear campaign waged by the media and the governments,
  • the spike in unemployment, mass poverty and despair triggered by the Worldwide destabilization of national economies.

Psychiatrists have addressed the “negative impacts” on mental health pertaining to the factors mentioned above. Confirmed by peer reviewed reports, the lockdowns have also been conducive to triggering depression, uncertainty, and anxiety.

“There is concern the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic is having a negative impact on the mental health of the general population through a range of suggested mechanisms: fear, uncertainty, and anxiety; social distancing/isolation; loneliness; and economic repercussions”

The overall picture of the impacts of the corona crisis on mental health is yet to be fully addressed. Our analysis will focus on the following issues for which data is available:

  1. the dramatic increase in suicides Worldwide in countries where the lockdown was imposed,
  2. the increase in mortality attributable to drug overdose (cocaine, opioids),
  3. the rise in alcoholism resulting from a hike in alcohol consumption.

Worldwide Rise in Suicides

The frequency of suicides has increased in numerous countries. The complete data and tendencies remain to be firmly established. US data on suicides in 2020 (CDC) are not yet available. In 2019, suicides were the 10th leading cause of death in the US, 47,511 Americans died by suicide. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.38M suicide attempts. (See AFSP statistics)

Suicides in the US

A CDC sponsored peer reviewed report (Mark É. Czeisler, Rashon I. Lane, Emiko Petrosky, et al) suggests that the loss of employment and purchasing power by “vulnerable” social and low income groups often triggers a wave of depression and anxiety, which results in “suicide ideation”(thinking about different ways to die). The authors confirm that:

Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder increased considerably in the United States during April–June of 2020 [in the immediate aftermath of the mid March 2020 lockdown], compared with the same period in 2019 (1,2). ….

The percentage of respondents who reported having seriously considered suicide in the 30 days before completing the survey (10.7%) was significantly higher among respondents aged 18–24 years (25.5%), minority racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic respondents [18.6%], non-Hispanic black [black] respondents [15.1%]), self-reported unpaid caregivers for adults (30.7%), and essential workers (21.7%).

Another study confirms that: Social distancing/ isolation and loneliness‘ resulting from the lockdown policies are factors which may contribute to suicide:

“Secondary consequences of social distancing may increase the risk of suicide,” researchers noted in an April 10 paper published by the American Medical Association. “It is important to consider changes in a variety of economic, psycho-social, and health-associated risk factors.” (See FEE)

Essentially, researchers warned, forced isolation could prove to be “a perfect storm” for suicide. (emphasis added)

The central issue –which is not always addressed by the peer reviewed reports— is how the engineered loss of employment and purchasing power coupled with confinement leads to depression and despair.

Anxiety and depression resulting from unemployment and loss of income is a Worldwide phenomenon, unprecedented in World history. Country by country, one can observe similar tendencies. Low income developing countries such as India are experiencing a situation of total despair affecting large sectors of an impoverished population.

Suicides in India

The lockdown in India has been conducive to a spike in suicides which is a consequence of: “severe hardship … as entire livelihoods have come undone, amid an escalating job crisis”.

“It should come as little surprise then that the spectre of suicide has raised its ugly head, with spikes in reports of people, who see no change in fortune on the horizon, taking their own lives.”

The Brookings Institute has also addressed the role of the the corona crisis in triggering suicides in India:

Anecdotal evidence for India, meanwhile, suggests increases in rural suicides. India instituted one of the world’s strictest lockdowns amidst high rates of poverty. … Lockdowns resulted in millions of more Indians entering poverty and exacerbated one of the highest suicide rates in the world. The additional numbers of suicides are estimated to be well into the thousands.

Suicides in Japan

Within a different context, the developed high income countries are also experiencing an unprecedented rise in suicides. In Japan, a significant increase in the number of suicides were recorded in the wake of the lockdown:

“Far more Japanese people are dying of suicide, likely exacerbated by the economic and social repercussions of the pandemic, than of the COVID-19 disease itself. …  Provisional statistics from the National Police Agency show suicides surged to 2,153 in October alone, marking the fourth straight month of increase.”CBS November 2020 report  (emphasis added)

Deaths Resulting from Drug Overdose

The main drug opioid categories (CDC) are as follows:

  • illegal heroin,
  • synthetic opioids such as fentanyl,
  • so-called “pain relievers” including oxycodone (OxyContin®), hydrocodone (Vicodin®),
  • codeine,
  • morphine,
  • etc.

The drugs listed above are “chemically related and interact with opioid receptors on nerve cells in the body and brain” (CDC).

Recorded in 2020, the corona crisis has contributed to a significant increase in both opioid and cocaine sales. According to the CDC:

Synthetic opioids ([categorized by the CDC as] primarily illicitly manufactured fentanyl) appear to be the primary driver of the increases in overdose deaths, increasing 38.4 percent from the 12-month period leading up to June 2019 compared with the 12-month period leading up to May 2020.  …

Overdose deaths involving cocaine also increased by 26.5 percent. … Overdose deaths involving psychostimulants, such as methamphetamine [produced by GSM], increased by 34.8 percent. The number of deaths involving psychostimulants now exceeds the number of cocaine-involved deaths. (CDC December 2020 Report) (emphasis added)

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in December 2020  “that the pandemic may have contributed to “a rise in deadly drug overdoses”. While the data is incomplete, the CDC report confirms a sizeable increase in the number of deaths attributable to drug overdose (related to consumption of cocaine and opioids):

Drug overdoses were linked to more than 81,000 people’s deaths between June 2019 and May 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, jumping 18 percent compared to the previous 12-month period. Such deaths rose 20 percent or more in 25 states and the District of Columbia, the report said. (PBS report)

The  CDC graph based on both the predicted as well reported values (ie. numbers) of deaths attributed to drug overdoses reveals the that the monthly count started to accelarate in February 2020.

In April, 2,146 people died of opioid overdose, followed by 3,388 deaths in May, marking the largest monthly increases since 2015 when the federal government began collecting this data. (quoted in PBS report)

The following graph indicates the US monthly data. In the months prior to the corona crisis (July 2019 to January 2020), the monthly drug overdose death count was substantially below 1000.

The hike starts in February (coinciding with the financial crash). Following the mid-March lock down, drug overdose deaths go fly high.

In May 2020 the overdose death count was in excess of 3000, i.e. a more than three fold increase in relation to the  drug overdose deaths recorded prior to the corona crisis.  In the US, the recorded monthly drug overdose deaths in 2020 have more than tripled.

 

Graph based on CDC data quoted above, Source PBS

.

Opioid Related Deaths in Ontario

The tendency in Canada is consistent with that observed in the US. A dramatic increase in opioid related deaths was recorded in Ontario following the March 17, 2020 lockdown emergency which was coupled with mass unemployment following the closing down of economic activity:

The number of opioid-related deaths increased quickly in the weeks following the state of emergency declaration in Ontario on March 17, 2020. Overall, there was a 38.2% increase in opioid-related deaths in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic (695 deaths; average of 46 deaths weekly) compared to the 15 weeks immediately prior (503 deaths; average of 34 deaths weekly).

 

Source: Screenshot Public Health Ontario

The following graph provides a clearcut picture of the dramatic rise in opioid overdose emergency visits in Ottawa starting from January 2020 through December 2020.

 

The Production and Trade in Opioids

According to UN sources, Afghanistan currently produces 94% percent of the World’s opium supply, which is transformed into heroin, morphine as well pharmaceutical opioids. The heroin trade is protected. US military presence in Afghanistan plays a key role. It’s a multibillion dollar operation involving both the Drug Cartels (illegal heroin) and (indirectly) Big Pharma  which is involved in the sale and distribution of pharmaceutical opioids.

Several Big Pharma’s companies involved in the marketing of the Covid-19 vaccine including Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson are also involved in the highly profitable and (legal) sale of pharmaceutical opioids, which in the course of the corona crisis (2020-2021) have become one of the main causes of drug overdose.

Corrupt Big Pharma Companies

Local communities across America took a stance against the Pharma Giants in regards to opioids. In 2019.  The Purdue opioid multibillion dollar settlement was reached “with thousands of [US] cities and counties”,

In October [2020], Oxycontin-maker Purdue admitted to enabling the supply of drugs “without legitimate medical purpose”, paying doctors and others illegal kickbacks to prescribe the drugs, among other claims. It agreed to pay $8.3bn.

.

More recently at the height of the corona crisis (November 2020):

“Four major Big Pharma distributors  (Johnson & Johnson, McKesson, Cardinal Health, Amerisource Bergen) involved in the production (J &  J) and distribution of prescription opioids  “reached a tentative $26 billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”.

 

The settlement was referred to as the “Opioid Epidemic”. What relationship to the corona crisis?

These same Pharma distributors benefited from the spike in the sales of opioids resulting from the lockdown, which in turn contributed to a significant increase in drug overdose deaths in the course of 2020-2021. (see graph above)

In a bitter irony, the spike in drug overdose has led to increased profits for Big Pharma”.

Alcoholism

Drug abuse and alcoholism are often related.

Drug and alcohol abuse have increased with COVID, and so has suicide. Help hotlines are flooded and certain statistics — online alcohol sales increased in the U.S. by over 200% — paint a dark picture.”

“Addiction is skyrocketing. says addiction therapist Cindi Brand, who worked formerly with CAMH.

The pandemic has increased all forms of anxiety and stress even … Social distancing means people with addiction issues “can’t possibly get the help they need right now,” she says. (emphasis added).

Increase in Sales of alcohol

An upward trend in alcoholism during the corona crisis in the US is confirmed by a significant increase in the sale of alcohol. According to a Nielsen study, the stay at home orders in March 2020 resulted in “a 54% increase in national sales of alcohol for the week ending March 21, 2020, compared with 1 year before; online sales increased 262% from 2019.”

A RAND corporation sample survey study conducted with the support of the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) consisted in comparing adults’ drinking habits in 2019 with those prevailing during the corona crisis (2020):

“American adults have sharply increased their consumption of alcohol during the shutdown triggered by the coronavirus pandemic, with women increasing their heavy drinking episodes (four or more drinks within a couple of hours) by 41%” (RAND Corporation study)

A national survey found that the overall frequency of alcohol consumption increased by 14% among adults over age 30, compared to the same time last year. The increase was 19% among all adults aged 30 to 59, 17% among women, and 10% among for non-Hispanic white adults. (Rand Corporation)

While the Rand Corporation study on drinking habits reveals an increase in the consumption of alcohol, the results must be interpreted with caution. The recorded increase in the actual sale of alcohol (54%) was significantly higher than the estimated increase in drinking, based on the Rand sample survey. Concurrently, however, under the lockdown, consumption of alcohol has largely been taking place in homes, rather than in (closed) bars and restaurants.

According to Michael Pollard, lead author of the study at RAND: “People’s depression increases, anxiety increases, [and] alcohol use is often a way to cope with these feelings.”

***

The above text is Chapter VI of Prof. Chossudovsky’s E-Book.

To access the full document consisting of 14 chapters, click below:

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

 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The Impact of the Corona Crisis on Mental Health: Suicides, Drug Overdose, Alcoholism
  • Tags:

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

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

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

First published on August 31 2022

***

“Our economic leadership does not seem to be aware that the normal functioning of our economy leads to financial trauma and crises, inflation, currency depreciations, unemployment and poverty in the middle of what could be virtually  universal affluence—in short that financially complex capitalism is inherently flawed. Hyman Minsky (1919-1996), American economist, (in ‘Stabilizing an Unstable Economy’, 1986)

“War deficits are the worst fiscal policy imaginable. They add to civilian demand but generate no marketable output of consumer products or capital goods. Accordingly, war deficits tip the economy toward excess demand, inflationary bottlenecks, rising interest rates, and financial instability. They destroy wealth and lower living standards.” A. Stockman (1946- ), American politician, former U.S. congressman and budget director under President Ronald Reagan, and private equity investor, (in ‘The Great Deformation, 2013, p.214)

“The survivors of a generation that has been of military age during a bout of war will be shy, for the rest of their lives, of bringing a repetition of this tragic experience either upon themselves or upon their children, and… therefore the psychological resistance of any move towards the breaking of a peace… is likely to be prohibitively strong until a new generation… has had time to grow up and to come into power. On the same showing, a bout of war, once precipitated, is likely to persist until the peace-bred generation that has light-heartedly run into war has been replaced, in its turn, by a war-worn generation.” Arnold. J. Toynbee (1889-1975), British historian, (in ‘A Study of History’, vol. 9, 1954

“The tragic truth is that if the West had not sought to expand NATO into Ukraine, it is unlikely that a war would have raged in Ukraine today, and Crimea would most likely still be part of Ukraine.” John J.Mearsheimer (1947- ), political scientist at the University of Chicago, (in his lecture given at the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, Italy, on Thursday, June 16, 2022)

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Albert Einstein (1879-1955), in an interview in ‘Liberal Judaism’, April-May, 1949)

***

Besides the lingering Covid-19 pandemic and the on-going climate crisis, which will be accompanied by an energy crisis, not to mention the coming migration crisis, the world could be facing two man-made major crises in the years to come, i.e. an economic and financial crisis and a hegemonic war crisis.

Fundamental imbalances in the world economy

Indeed, fearing a persistent shortage of aggregate demand in the largest industrial economies (U.S., E.U., Japan, etc.), central banks adopted the unconventional monetary policy of pushing nominal interest rates toward zero and real interest rates into negative territory. This has resulted in investments whose profitability cannot be sustained in the long run when interest rates return to normal levels.

Secondly, the worldwide Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-2022 and demographic shifts have caused a slowdown in aggregate supply with supply shortages and supply chain disruptions for many commodities and products. Additionally, in the wake of the pandemic, many workers have withdrawn from the labor force, thus creating labor shortages in certain  sectors.

Thirdly, one negative consequence of economic and financial globalization has undoubtedly been its fiscal impact on the budgets of national governments. Less able to raise tax revenues on international corporations and other entities operating in their countries, governments felt obliged to raise their budget deficits and to go deeper into public debt. Any substantial rise in interest rates will result in a fiscal crisis for many governments.

Fourthly, central banks were pressured by treasuries to purchase increased amounts of public debt, thus increasing their balance sheets and the monetary base of the economy. In the case of the American Fed, its balance sheet was around $4 trillion in early 2020, and it has ballooned to around $9 trillion in mid-2022, mainly as a consequence of buying treasury securities and mortgage-backed private securities.

Similar actions by other central banks have also resulted in large increases in their balance sheets. This has pumped excessive liquidity into many economies and that is the first cause of higher inflation worldwide and the depreciation of fiat currencies. Higher inflation, for people on fixed incomes, means a rise in their cost of living and a drop in their standard of living. Economically, this is also the main cause behind the current condition of stagflation, i.e. a condition of slow economic growth with rising prices.

It would seem that economic and financial globalization has reached its potential, and its negative consequences have become more important. The fact that the U.S. government imposes unilateral economic and financial sanctions on other sovereign nations raises important legal and political issues about the sovereignty of independent states.

Indeed, due to the resurgence of international military and geopolitical tensions (see below), the system of economic and financial globalization erected after the Second World War is rapidly weakening. If such geopolitical tensions were to escalate, this could lead to a dislocation of the global economy and to a global economic slowdown, which could last many years.

 A centenary hegemonic war could be in the making

Small-scale regional wars have been numerous an prevalent since World War II, but this does not mean that world wars have been eradicated from the international system.

History shows that such large-scale wars seem to occur in each century. It is an observed historical fact that countries with great military power always attempt to bend the international economic, financial and political systems to their advantages. And such dominating states in international politics do not hesitate to resort to a cold-blooded game of power politics to achieve their objectives.

Indeed, through the ages, such behavior has resulted in horrific hegemonic wars that peoples had to suffer, time and again, when empires engaged in the deadly game of “great power competition”.

The cycles of murderous and destructive hegemonic wars and efforts to avoid them have been well analyzed by British historian Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975), Charles Kindleberger (1910-2003) and other international scholars.

This time around, as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, a cohort of neoconservatives in positions of authority within the Biden administration, supported by a score of Washington-based hawkish think tanks and weapons-making firms, is de facto calling the shots, along the lines of the doctrine of permanent war for the United States.

The United Nations is presently powerless to prevent hegemonic wars

After World War II, the creation of the United Nations, in 1945, raised the hope that such hegemonic wars would be a fixture of a more barbaric past. The purpose was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.

The central article of the U.N. Charter, which spells out the way to avoid war, is ‘Article 33’.

It reads:

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

But lo and behold, the great powers of the time (U.S., Russia, China, U.K. and France) did find a way to exclude themselves from the rules designed to maintain world peace. This was done mainly in obtaining a veto for themselves at the 15-member U.N. Security Council, a body whose decisions are binding on all UN members. And that is where the world stands today. Great powers can always wage aggressive wars with impunity.

The United States government in particular has de facto sidelined the United Nations. This was done behind the screen of NATO, originally a defensive alliance to contain the old Soviet Union, but redefined for the purpose nowadays as a de facto offensive military alliance, under U.S. control. NATO should have been abolished in 1991, when the USSR collapsed. Many European countries and Canada have fallen in line in backing the new warmongering NATO.

Suddenly, militarism is on the rise in the United States and some parts of the world, at a time when the United Nations has been rendered impotent. The Biden administration, as the head of the so-called ‘free world’, has not shown much interest in diplomacy and in negotiations to solve international conflicts, along the lines of a rule-based international system centered on the U.N. Charter and the legal prohibition of the use of force in international relations.

Joe Biden and the U.S. commitment to militarism and permanent global war

Image source: The Last Refuge

By coincidence or not, the arrival of Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden (1942- ) in the White House, less than two years ago, has been followed by a chaotic period of unfolding international and domestic tensions.

President Biden’s choices for his foreign policy team may have revealed his real bellicose intentions. This was the case when he diverted from tradition and named a career general (Lloyd Austin) instead of a civilian as Secretary of Defense. He also chose a known neoconservative (Antony Blinken) as Secretary of State. Mr. Biden probably knew what he was doing and that he had no real desire to put diplomacy ahead of warmongering in his international dealings. Numerous members of Biden’s national security advisors are in the same bellicose camp.

During the 2020 U.S. presidential election campaign, the media did not report much about Senator Joe Biden’s warmongering past. Rightly or wrongly, the Democratic candidate was considered more mentally stable, less arrogant and less ‘dangerous’ than outgoing incumbent Donald Trump. At least, that was what Mr. Biden’s campaign promises conveyed.

There is a lesson here, and it is about the necessity to know about a presidential candidate’s past to predict future U.S. government policies. The other lesson is that American policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and by a small group of affluent Americans. In American politics—money rules.

Therefore, after the botched and chaotic American withdrawal from Afghanistan, it was not a complete surprise when the Biden administration adopted an aggressive foreign policy, especially against Russia, Iran and China. It is a policy based on ‘power politics‘ in international relations. And it is characterized by provocations, threats and economic and proxy wars.

The military conflict in Ukraine could have been avoided

The Russo-Ukrainian war is a good example of a proxy war between the United States and Russia. It is a war that could have been avoided with a modicum of diplomacy. Indeed, everything was in place for this to be the case.

Image: Ukrainian troops prepare to fight Russian forces in Donbass (Source: Indian Punchline)

When the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2199 on February 12, 2015, which called on the countries involved (mainly Ukraine, Russia and the United States) to respect the two Minsk agreements of September 5, 2014 and of February 12, 2015, a diplomatic solution seemed possible.

❲As a reminder, these agreements provided for the establishment of a federal system in Ukraine, so that the Russian-speaking Ukrainian minority of the Donbas mining basin contiguous to Russia, and mainly located around the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk, could enjoy autonomous status, in order to preserve its language and culture. —France and Germany had brokered such agreements.❳

Although the Security Council resolution was binding on all UN members, its guidelines were not followed. This failure prompted the Russian government to officially recognize the independence of the Russian-speaking territories and to invade the region militarily on February 24, 2022.

The alleged objective was to defend the inhabitants against the ongoing military attacks by the Ukrainian government, which took place after the ‘coup d’état’ against the pro-Russian Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych, on February 22, 2014, (with a strong implication by the U.S. government.) —Yanukovych and his Party of Regions had been elected in the February 2010 Ukrainian Presidential election with 48,95% of the popular vote.

Over the last six months of this year, there has been an escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian war. There lies a real danger of an all-out military confrontation of the United States and NATO against Russia. European countries would then be on the front line of such a devastation. The world could then be facing a World War III, which could possible degenerate, by accident, into a nuclear World War. a first in history and probably the last.

Leadership crisis in the West

Currently, many countries are facing a major leadership crisis, with several nations having political leaders who do not seem to be able to solve problems, some even welcoming a thermonuclear war. In other cases, they even seem to enjoy throwing gasoline on the fire and making matters worse.

European leaders are actively supporting a dangerous military escalation in Ukraine, where the war has become a daily disaster for civilians because of severe violations of international humanitarian law.

In their unconditional support of the Ukrainian Zelensky regime, it is as if such leaders were ready to accept a world war on European soil. If so, this would be the third major European war in a century. One has no need to look any further to understand Europe’s decline and marginalization in world affairs during the last quarter century.

Conclusion

Many people alive today have never experienced a period characterized by difficult economic times and war. However, this is the type of world that leaders without much substance and judgement have been trying to create for the past few years.

On the economic front, a perfect storm is brewing, as economic and financial imbalances, coupled with demographic problems and costly environmental policies, risk being a drag on future economic progress for years to come.

On the geopolitical front, the post World War II uni-polar world order is crumbling before our very eyes, leading to more frequent hegemonic military conflicts.

The combination of a global economic and financial crisis and a serious geopolitical crisis could throw the world into a devastating perfect storm.

*

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 author’s website, Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book about morals “The code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” of the book about geopolitics “The New American Empire“, and the recent book, in French, “La régression tranquille du Québec, 1980-2018“. He holds a Ph.D. in international finance from Stanford University.

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

US Weapons to Ukraine: Entering the Black Market?

May 21st, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

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

***

As the US systematically sends weapons to Ukraine, concerns are growing about who is actually receiving such equipment. Recently, a series of reports have been made by journalists, pointing out that the material sent by Washington was possibly entering the black market, which would be a repetition of the American experience in Afghanistan and Syria. The case is really serious and reiterates the importance of demanding an end to the shipment of arms to Kiev.

In the recent history of conflicts involving the US, there has been an increasing number of incidents of war material diversion, with US weapons falling into the “wrong hands”. In most cases, the weapons officially sent by the US are somehow diverted when they arrive in the destination country, falling into the domain of contrabandists who sell them on the international black market. The result is that terrorist organizations, extremist militias, paramilitary groups and drug traffickers around the world benefit from this, purchasing such weapons illegally.

US forces have had experience with weapons diverted from the battlefield in virtually every recent war the country has been involved in, most notably in Afghanistan and Syria, which are supposed to be the origin countries of many of the weapons that are now used by terrorists across Central Asia and the Middle East – as well as in other continents, considering the influx of such organizations to different parts of the planet, mainly Africa. It is worth noting that in these conflicts there was direct participation of the American forces, which maintained military personnel in the countries that were receiving the weapons, which is not the case now in Ukraine. Therefore, there is even greater fear that the weapons sent to Kiev will be diverted considering that there are no American troops to supervise the direction of the material on Ukrainian soil.

In this sense, American investigative journalist Daniel Lazare believes that such a deviation will certainly happen, also emphasizing the issue of Ukrainian corruption, which is recognized as one of the biggest in Europe:

“Vast amounts of western armaments are entering the country but are then being lost in the fog of war (…) Much of the aid will presumably find its way to battlefield forces. But since Kiev is far and away the most corrupt government in Europe, it’s a sad bet that some portion will end up in the hands of third parties involved in the illicit international arms trade. Once the fighting stops we can expect much of what’s left over to find its way to the black market”.

The corruption factor is really important to be analyzed. Ukraine is home to one of the largest black arms markets on the European continent. In short, trafficking networks operate freely in the country, without any state interest in capturing and prosecuting such criminals, which is certainly a consequence of the widespread corruption of Ukrainian public agents. Police officers, politicians, judges and other agents who should uphold the law not only fail to fight arms trafficking, but they also certainly benefit financially from the operation of organized crime due to their corrupt schemes.

The result of all this is catastrophic. The US-funded 2021 Global Organized Crime Index points to an exponential growth of the illegal arms trade in Ukraine since the beginning of the civil war in Donbass, mainly in the cities affected by the hostilities. In the same vein, journalists and academic researchers linked to the Small Arms Survey, an independent investigative project based in Geneva, point out that between 2013 and 2015, more than 300,000 weapons “disappeared” from Ukraine, of which only 13% were later recovered, being the rest lost in the midst of international smuggling networks.

Concrete examples of corruption also demonstrate the seriousness of the case. In 2019, unidentified Ukrainian soldiers were caught trying to sell a package of 40 RGD-5 grenades, 15 RPG-22 rockets and 2,454 firearm cartridges, according to a report by journalists from Responsible Statecraft. The following year, 2020, Ukrainian intelligence exposed data that confirmed the diversion of dozens of grenades and anti-tank mines from a military base in Odessa that were never recovered.

It is necessary that before sending weapons to Ukraine the American authorities question themselves about their ability to supervise what will be done with such equipment. If Ukrainian agents have been repeatedly diverting weapons from their own state since 2013, they are expected to do the same with what they now receive from the US. And surely the scenario resulting from the diversion of billion-dollar packages to arms smugglers would be catastrophic for global security.

Once again, it is clear that an immediate end to the shipment of weapons to Kiev must be a priority and the whole of international society must mobilize to achieve this.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Spread of the Culture of War

May 21st, 2022 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

***

Updated on May 22 to embed the video interview.

Participating in this special episode of Grandangolo is Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, director of the Center for Research on Globalization (Canada), who traces the historical and geopolitical scenario of the war in Ukraine: provoked by the US-NATO strategy against Russia, it threatens to lead the world to nuclear war.

For the one hour TV video production broadcast nationwide in Italy on May 20, 2022, click image below 

You can watch below the video interview from May 20, 2022.

The gravity of the situation is confirmed by the fact that large NATO military exercises “planned long ago,” that is, before the Russian military operation in Ukraine, are underway throughout Europe, especially close to Russia. About 40,000 soldiers with land, air and naval weaponry are participating. In Italy, the Navy’s Mare Aperto 2022 exercise is underway, centered on Sardinia, with 4,000 military personnel from 7 countries and more than 65 ships, submarines, fighters and helicopters. 
.

Participating in the exercise alongside the military are university students from 11 Italian universities, including Milan’s Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Venice’s Ca’ Foscari, Bologna’s Alma Mater Studiorum, Pisa’s Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Rome’s La Sapienza and Naples’ Federico II. Students are embarked on warships in the roles of political advisor and legal advisor, to “provide political legitimacy and legal framing” for military action. This operation is part of the dissemination of the culture of war, which is functional to the military preparation for war.

The culture of war is disseminated by the political-media apparatus in several ways: the very serious risk to which Europe is exposed with the further enlargement of NATO to Sweden and Finland is concealed; Ukrainian neo-Nazism is made to disappear by presenting the Azov regiment as a bulwark of “resistance”; anti-Russian hatred is stoked by going so far as to expel a Russian violinist from an international competition in Gorizia.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on byoblu.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image: Ukrainian troops prepare to fight Russian forces in Donbass (Source: Indian Punchline)


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

First published on December 6, 2022

***

An international vaccine passport, digital identity, a social credit system and a central bank digital currency (CBDC) form a digital control system that will lock down the population in perpetuity

Facial recognition is an essential part of the control structure, as it’s the “password” to your digital identity.

By the end of 2022, there will be 1 billion data collecting surveillance cameras in the world, all connected to the internet and artificial intelligence (AI). Cameras and audio recording devices in cell phones, automobiles and smart appliances also collect and share data.

All these data are then used to give each person an individual score, based on their behavior, expression and interaction with the world. Ultimately, your social credit score, will dictate what you can and cannot do, what you can buy and where you can go.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is an absolutely crucial component, without which the control system cannot work. The easiest way to push against this system is to starve AI of data by refusing to use technologies that collect and share your personal data.

*

In the video above, Maria Zeee with ZeeeMedia interviews computer scientist Aman Jabbi about the coming international vaccine passport, digital identity, the social credit system being built in the West, and central bank digital currency (CBDC).

All these factors are now coming together to control the global population. As noted by Zeee, this digital prison, which is already mostly built, will be the final lockdown of mankind.

Your Digital Identity Will Be Your Digital Prison

In the video, Jabbi goes through a presentation that explains the digital prison that is your digital identity — in other words, how your digital identity ties in with the coming social credit system and will control what you can and cannot do in your everyday life.

As noted by Jabbi, surveillance cameras with facial recognition software have already been erected around the world. They are an essential part of the control structure, and this surveillance will be linked together with digital identity, the social credit score system, carbon footprint tracking, CBDCs and more.

Facial recognition has been sold as a great convenience and security feature. With facial recognition, you don’t need to remember pins or passwords, and since no one has your exact face, it’s supposed to keep your personal accounts more secure.

But, as with most other technologies sold under the guise of convenience and security, facial recognition is ultimately a tool for mass control and an essential part of your individual digital prison. As explained by Jabbi, the Chinese control system is based on facial recognition in combination with a social credit system.

He describes the Chinese social credit system as a feedback system that responds based on your behavior. Unbeknownst to most Westerners, an identical system has already been set in motion behind the scenes in Western countries — they just haven’t told you yet.

Weaponized Surveillance

By the end of 2022, there will be 1 billion data collecting surveillance cameras in the world, all connected to the internet and artificial intelligence (AI). The United States actually has the most surveillance cameras per capita. China is second place and the U.K. in third.

In addition to all of that data collection, cameras and audio recording devices in cell phones, automobiles and smart appliances also collect and share data, even when you’re at home.

All these data are then used to give each person an individual score based on their behavior, expression and interaction with the world. Ultimately, that score — your social credit score — will dictate what you can and cannot do, what you can buy and where you can go.

As noted by Jabbi, there are also additional control mechanisms already built into the hardware being erected. For example, many smart light poles have built-in charging stations for drones, which in the future will be used for law and behavioral enforcement purposes. We will largely be policed by AI and machines.

These smart light poles can also be weaponized. Built-in are LED incapacitators. Sometimes referred to as “puke rays” for their ability to induce severe nausea, LED incapacitators are weapons designed like a flashlight that emit an extremely bright, rapid and well-focused series of “differently-colored random pulses.” According to Jabbi, these lights can also induce brain damage, spinal damage, sickness and likely even death.

LED combined with radar on some smart poles can also be used to identify people carrying guns, and could theoretically be used as a weapon to selectively take out people carrying weapons.

A New Chapter in the ‘Social Contract’

Digital identity has been described by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as a new chapter in the social contract. The problem, as noted by Jabbi, is that the WEF’s new social contract is one that none of us has agreed to. It’s being revised by the WEF and its allies and thrust upon the rest of us, without our consent.

The vast majority of people don’t even know what this new social contract actually entails, or how it will affect their personal day-to-day lives and individual decision-making ability. That, for obvious reasons, has never been fully delineated because, if fully understood by everyone, virtually no one on earth would accept it. After all, few people with normal intelligence relishes having their lives dictated by someone else.

digital identity

Source: World Economic Forum

As shown in the graphic above, your digital identity will be required to unlock all aspects of life, from logging onto the Internet to accessing social services, travel, food, shopping and financial services. If your social credit score is too low, one or more of these aspects can be turned off and made unavailable to you. “So, by default, you’re always a prisoner,” Jabbi says.

Your digital identity is confirmed through facial recognition, and is tied to your social score, carbon footprint score and CBDCs. As your social and carbon footprint scores go down, so does your purchasing ability.

As noted by Zeee, the international vaccine passport proposed at the 2022 G20 meeting is, at least right now, THE key to the entire effort to get everyone into the digital ID system. So, preventing the adoption of vaccine passports is a central component of resistance to the digital prison system in its entirety.

You must also reject the vaccine passport unless you’re willing to be a medical lab rat for the rest of your life. Zeee cites documents stating 500 new vaccines will be ready by 2030 that are targeting most common diseases. It is likely that having an up-to-date vaccination status will be one of the requirements to maintain a valid passport, which will also serve as your digital identity.

In other words, vaccine refusal can be used to nullify or “lock” your digital ID, leaving you unable to do, go or buy anything. The question is, what will those vaccines be? Basically, you’ll have no choice but to comply, even if you believe or know that a vaccine can injure or kill you, as is the case with the COVID jabs.

Zero Trust System

As explained by Jabbi, the new social contract created by the WEF and its allies is a zero-trust system. In a physical prison, prisoners are under a zero-trust policy. In other words, the guards don’t trust the prisoners and there are security measures in place to make sure they behave. The new open-air prison system envisioned by the WEF is based on the same premise.

Everywhere you go, you must prove who you are and that your compliance metrics are in alignment with the prevailing rules. So, to buy food, you have to not only identify yourself so that your purchase can be permanently logged as one of your purchases, but you also have to meet certain compliance standards, or else your CBDC won’t work.

The default in this system is denial, so everything you want to do — absolutely everything — must be unlocked by your digital ID. As noted by Jabbi, “Once we accept digital identity, it’s Game Over for humanity.”

Geofencing and Smart Cities Form the Walls of Your Prison

To enforce your conditional access to life, geofencing will be used. Smart light poles equipped with LED incapacitators can be used to prevent you from going beyond your designated geofence, but there are also other geofencing mechanisms. For example, your CBDC can be programmed to not work outside your district, and your smart car can be programmed to shut down past a certain perimeter. Jabbi also reviews the inexorable push toward smart cities, which will:

  • Limit your mobility and eliminate car ownership
  • Control you through weaponized surveillance
  • Ration water, electricity and gas consumption
  • Surveil your speech
  • Track your actions and whereabouts 24/7

Starve the Beast

Jabbi cites a formula created by the WEF’s philosophical guru Yuval Noah Harrari, to describe technocrats’ ever-growing ability to hack humans: B x C x D = AHH

B stands for biological knowledge, C is computing power, D is data and AHH is the level of ability to hack a human being. As noted by Jabbi, the ability to hack humans is dependent on AI being fed a constant stream of data.

It’s a “beast system” in the sense that AI is the beast, and it needs to be fed. Its food is data, gathered through a vast array of data conduits such as cameras, recording devices, facial recognition, GPS and sensors of all kinds that make up the Internet of Bodies. You can learn more about this in “Manufactured Dystopia — Globalists Won’t Stop Hacking Humans.”

AI is an absolutely crucial component for success of the digital prison. Without it, it cannot work. The answer then, is to starve the beast, and we do this by withholding our data. “No amount of legislation can stop this,” he says, “it has to be done by the people.” In short, we must refuse to use the technologies that gather our data.

We won’t be able to avoid them all. Smart light poles and traffic cameras, for example, cannot be avoided unless you avoid certain areas, which could include your own street. But there are many we can avoid, such as smart watches, fitness trackers, smart thermostats, smart TVs, AI assistants and Ring surveillance cameras just to name a few.

We can also fight, on a local level, to prevent the expansion of facial recognition cameras and 5G, and we can refuse the coming vaccine passport, and the push toward virtual reality. As noted by Jabbi, one way in which people are surreptitiously led into the digital prison is by relying on apps that offer convenience, such as apps that allow you to order food or transportation.

Eventually, they’ll phase out apps on your phone and transfer them to virtual reality googles, so that you have to be in the virtual world in order to use them. It’s important to understand why this is done. It’s to force you deeper into the digital prison system, which includes digital clones and living much of your life in a virtual reality.

China Demonstrates Coming Prison State

At present, China is being rocked by massive protests against the Zero-COVID policy that is used to imprison tens of millions of people in their homes for weeks on end. You’d think an American company like Apple would stand for American values like freedom but, no, it does not. It’s working with the Chinese government to quell dissent.

As reported by Bloomberg1 November 9, 2022, Apple is limiting its iPhone file-sharing tool, restricting AirDrops from non-contacts to 10 minutes. The wireless file-sharing feature was used to share pictures and videos from the protests, thereby encouraging more people to join.

According to Bloomberg, while the change was only made to phones sold in China, Apple says it plans to roll out the same limitation globally. Why? Are they predicting anti-government protests elsewhere?

According to a Twitter user named Songpinganq,2 the video above shows iPhone workers clashing with police over the country’s Zero-COVID policy. In response, the Chinese government is alleged to have remotely switched all of the protesters’ COVID passports to “red,” which prevents them from entering public spaces.

If they try to enter a building, for example — including residential complexes — an alarm will go off and they’ll be detained and escorted to a quarantine camp which, by the way, they have to pay for. That’s how easy it is for the government to eliminate undesirables from society once this kind of control system is in place.

(For the record, I cannot confirm that the featured video is indeed iPhone workers, or that they’re specifically protesting the COVID measures. Regardless, the basic premise remains true, which is that government would be able to control large masses of people remotely, through their digital identity/vaccine passport.)

The video3 below is said to be from a Chinese quarantine camp. A health worker walks through the complex measuring the detainees’ body temperature. The second video4 shows the inside of a quarantine cubicle.

The World Is Starting to Catch On

The good news is that people around the world are starting to realize what’s happening.

As explained by legal philosopher Eva Vlaardingerbroek (video above), the reason there are now mass protests around Europe is because they’re realizing that the COVID vaccine passport system rolled out in Europe is a control system that has no expiration date. They’re realizing it’s meant to be permanent, and that it will be expanded.

In the video below, a young Chinese man describes how the digital ID, CBDCs and the social credit system operates in China. By 2017, they already had the technology to automatically deduct fines from your account for infractions such as jaywalking, and the control network is only getting larger and more sophisticated.

Is this what we want in the West? Is this what you want for your children and your grandchildren? If not, you need to participate in the movement to prevent it, and that starts with making changes in your own life to starve the beast of your personal data, and educating your family and friends about this necessity.

*

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

Notes

1 Bloomberg November 9, 2022

2 Twitter Songpinganq November 22, 2022

3 Twitter Songpinanq November 22, 2022 Video 2

4 Twitter Songpinganq January 9, 2022

Ukraine: A Crusade for NATO and the Western Powers

May 20th, 2022 by Michael Jansen

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

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

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

***

For Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Ukraine war is, in the immediate-to-short-term, a strategic defeat on the military, economic and political fronts.

First and foremost, the Russian units sent into Ukraine were too few to mount a successful offensive, as the military high commanders did not stick to the iron-clad ratio of three-to-one for attackers to defenders.

Secondly, the Ukrainian army and national guard were unexpectedly well trained and armed and unexpectedly effective in halting the initial Russian thrust into Ukrainian territory.

Thirdly, the Russian forces performed unexpectedly poorly although technological and tactical improvements had, reportedly, been made in recent years. Although the Kremlin appeared to believe its troops and tanks would capture or besiege Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital, within days, the advance of hundreds of armoured vehicles stalled enroute and many were picked of by Ukrainian drones, mortars and artillery fire. The failure to achieve this objective undermined Russian morale from the outset and appears to have confounded Russian military commanders and caused them to adopt a scorched earth policy while exerting little control over Russian troops, prompting them to kill, abuse and rob civilians.

The Russian army’s poor performance can, partly, be explained by the fact that from early December last year until February 24th, 90,000 Russian troops were reported to have massed on the Ukrainian frontier and their number had swelled to 120,000 when they crossed the border. During the 11 months the troops remained in encamped in snow in freezing winter weather, they lost their edge, their equipment was not properly maintained, food was not sufficient, and fuel was in short supply. Therefore, the attacking army was physically unable to achieve the objectives set by the generals.

Fourthly, while not expecting NATO to intervene directly, Moscow clearly did not predict that the West would pour billions of dollars worth of weapons into Ukraine to enable its armed forces to halt Russian advances and defend the country. The Ukraine war has become a crusade for NATO and the Western powers. Their media have whipped up public opinion in favour of the war in order to sustain it and justify expenditures to taxpayers. It is impossible to read, listen to or watch news these days without being overwhelmed by events in Ukraine, although wars and suffering elsewhere has not paused and needs to be tackled. The flow of news has become a constant barrage of propaganda against Russia.

On the economic front, Putin clearly did not believe the divided Western powers capable of uniting to impose a wide range of punitive sanctions on Russia. But, the West has frozen $600 billion in hard currency reserves in foreign banks, sanctioned Russian business and banking, closed down Western firms in Russia, and pressed European countries to cut their dependency on Russian oil, natural gas and coal. No such comprehensive sanctions have been previously imposed elsewhere. Instead, other aggressors and violators of human rights have not been punished. For example, Israel enjoys impunity for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians.

On the political front, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has united and strengthened NATO, which had been moribund until February 24. Isolated and derided during the Trump administration, the US has taken the lead in NATO and on the international scene and has pretentions, once again, of being the global hyperpower. This is bad news for everyone. The US vows adherence to but does not enforce the rule of law and accountability and has long been committed to weakening rather than coexisting with Russia which Washington’s ideologues continue to see as the heir of the Soviet Union rather than its orphan.

Despite these strategic losses, the outlook for Russia is not as bleak as it appears. NATO is not as firmly united as it would appear. Some 20 countries, not all members of NATO, have been providing arms for Ukraine. While 21 of the 27 European Union (EU) states are NATO members,

those involved in supplying weaponry are doing so not as members of the alliance or the EU but as individual states, due to the fiction they are observing “neutrality”. This has not fooled Moscow, which has threatened to bomb NATO weapons as soon as they are delivered and has carried out airstrikes on Ukraine’s railway lines to prevent the dispersal of weapons to hot fronts.

The original list of suppliers consisted of Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Holland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Britain and the United States.

Hungary not only refuses to arm Ukraine but also does not permit weapons to transit its territory to reach Ukraine.  Before the war Turkey supplied Ukraine with drones, which have played a large role in the battle against Russia, but has refused to send more drones and other weaponry to Ukraine since war erupted. Bulgaria is upgrading its own defences rather than sending arms from its small arsenal to Ukraine. As Iceland does not have its own military, it has offered to transport but not supply weapons for Ukraine.

The EU has been divided from the outset, with France and Germany, which sought to prevent the war the US and UK promoted, reluctantly decided to provide arms. Slovakia and Hungary do not support sanctions on Russia while Cyprus, Malta and Greece object to the full range of sanctions. Italy, Hungary, Greece, Cyprus and Austria, which, traditionally, have close relations with Russia, call for exemptions and the early removal of sanctions.

Once a ceasefire is in place and credible negotiations begin between Ukraine and Russia, pressure is certain to mount for the lifting of sanctions despite US President Joe Biden’s determination to “weaken” Russia permanently. This pressure will come from the Eastern Arab World, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, Asia, and Latin America as well as global big shots China and India. Many countries across the world do not want to return to the immediate post-Soviet Union era when the US was the hyper-power, particularly since disruptive and dangerous Donald Trump could very well be elected to a second term in office in 2024.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine: A Crusade for NATO and the Western Powers
  • Tags:

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

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

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

***

In recent weeks, much has been said about the political West’s (primarily US) “aid” to the embattled Kiev regime. The US Congress has so far approved or is in the process of approving at least $54 billion to Ukraine. In addition, various reports put the amount of EU “aid” at up to €10 billion thus far, although the actual number is most likely orders of magnitude greater. When put together, this pushes the publicly acknowledged figure to a staggering $65 billion, which is equivalent to Russia’s annual military spending in nominal USD exchange rates.

The number seems rather impressive and may give an outlook that Ukraine will be able to defeat Russian forces. However, the situation on the ground says otherwise. With the political West’s postindustrial economy, their ability to mass-produce affordable and easily replaceable military hardware has increasingly been called into question. Thus, most of the “aid” from the US/EU is essentially a half measure. Throwing money at a problem is highly unlikely to resolve it, as actual situations require genuine, not monetary action.

The amount of hardware Ukraine lost so far is difficult to determine, as both sides provide diametrically opposing data, while independent confirmation from the ground is virtually impossible due to ongoing military operations. However, war footage taken by civilians, alternative media embedded with frontline troops, and soldiers themselves, clearly shows that Ukraine’s losses in manpower and equipment have been massive.

To replace lost hardware, the Kiev regime will require enormous resources. However, this will be quite challenging, as the country’s Military-Industrial Complex has been virtually annihilated by Russia’s long-range strikes. Thus, the regime will need to acquire additional military hardware elsewhere. The political West is the go-to address for this purpose, as Ukraine has been getting NATO weapons for years. Still, this hardware has had a limited impact on the battlefield. To change that, NATO powers decided to ramp up the so-called “lethal aid”.

However, in reality, the prospect of Ukraine getting the promised “aid” is rather grim. An obvious question arises, what will happen to nearly $65 billion? The first go-to address for such a question should be the US Congress. With the lawmaking body trying to fast track the deal, some US congressmen have voiced concerns that corrupt officials would be able to steal the “aid”, as was the case for decades during numerous US invasions across the globe. However, corruption and embezzlement, which geopolitical expert Paul Antonopoulos recently covered in a superb analysis, is the lesser problem in this situation.

Mainstream media have been portraying the political West as if it will be sending actual, physical money to the Kiev regime. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The funds will essentially stay in the “donor” countries. The largest share of those funds will officially be allocated to arming, or rather, rearming the Kiev regime forces. But who exactly, or more precisely, which companies will be producing weapons for the Ukrainian military? It’s safe to assume we all know the answer – the US Military-Industrial Complex, the largest and most powerful arms manufacturing cartel on the planet. Household names such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, to name a few, will be getting the vast majority of those funds.

For instance, the “Phoenix Ghost” drones, manufactured by the California-based Aevex Aerospace and “Switchblade” drones, manufactured by AeroVironment, both designed to strike tanks and other armored vehicles, as well as infantry units. M113 armored vehicle is also being sent and while old, largely obsolete and not in production since 2007, it’s quite numerous, and getting rid of it will make way for the acquisition of its immediate successor, the AMPV (Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle), a turretless variant of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, produced by the BAE Systems.

Another BAE Systems product is the M777 howitzer, a towed 155 mm artillery piece designed for direct fire support. Ukrainian troops are already using them, while recent videos released by the Russian military show some have already been destroyed in battle. Interestingly, the howitzers delivered to Ukraine lack digital fire-control systems.

The much-touted “Stinger” MANPADS (produced by Raytheon) and “Javelin” ATGMs (co-produced by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon) have been sent in the thousands. However, their effectiveness has been questionable at best, despite Western media trying to portray them as supposed “game-changers”. Russian tanks have been filmed surviving up to 7 “Javelin” hits, even continuing to fight, much to the frustration of Ukrainian forces, which have recently been ordered to stop publicly complaining about the lackluster performance of Western weapons.

Raytheon’s AN/MPQ-64 “Sentinel”, an X-band range-gated, pulse-Doppler radar used to alert and cue short-range air defense systems has also been sent. In addition, 40 million rounds of small arms ammunition, 5,000 assault and battle rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns and 400 shotguns have been sent to Ukraine, along with more than 1 million grenades, mortars and 200,000 artillery rounds. These deliveries have been completed by early May. The actual number is most certainly much higher as of this writing.

The weapons in question are not changing the strategic balance between Russia and the Kiev regime, but are prolonging the fight, resulting in even higher military and civilian casualties. Also, logistics-wise, having so many different types of weapons creates a lot of problems for the Ukrainian military, which is barely holding together as it is. There are also issues of training and doctrinal incompatibility.

M777 howitzers are immobile when deployed and are designed with air dominance in mind. US troops are supposed to use them from a safe distance, serving as fire support by striking very specific targets during overseas operations, which is completely opposite to what is going on in Ukraine, where the other side (Russia) enjoys air dominance and uses massed artillery to punch holes in Ukrainian lines, followed by massive and well-coordinated armor assaults. Thus, US weapons not only fail in providing an effective counter to Russian troops, but are even getting Ukrainian forces killed, as they are still not accustomed to using them.

And last, but not least, the “aid” provided (and soon to be provided) by NATO countries are essentially long-term loans which will have to be repaid in the following decades. The WWII-era Lend-Lease program for the USSR, estimated at $160 billion in present-day USD, was repaid in full only in 2006. Thus, we can assume Ukraine will be paying off the current $65 billion “aid” for the rest of this century. That is, provided there will be a viable Ukrainian state to do so after the conflict ends.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

“Bye Bye American Pie”. Reasons Why America Will Fall

May 20th, 2022 by Julian Macfarlane

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

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

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

***

Drove my Chevy to the levee, but the levee was dry

Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye

And singin’ “This’ll be the day that I die”

 -Don McLean, Bye Bye American Pie

Reasons Why Rome Fell

1. unwinnable wars with “ Barbarian” tribes. …

2. over-reliance on slave labor. …

3. inequality

4. unemployment

5. inflation

6. debasement of popular culture, violent spectacle

7. the rise of the Eastern Empire. …

8. over-expansion and military overspending. …

9. political corruption and political instability. …

10. The arrival of the central and west Asian and east European peoples collectively called the “Huns” and the Barbarians encroachment on imperial provinces such as Britain

Reasons Why the US Will Fall

11. unwinnable wars with “Barbarian” tribes: in the ME, Asia and Latin America, and now Russia

12. over reliance on slave labor. …exploitation of workers at home and abroad

13. inequality

14. unemployment

15. inflation

16. debasement of popular culture, violent spectacle

17. the rise of the Eastern Empire–China and BRI

18. over-expansion and military overspending. …

19. government corruption and political instability. …

20. The arrival of the central and west Asian and east European peoples collectively called the “Huns”, now known as “Russians” and their taking of prospective imperial provinces such as Georgia, the Ukraine and Central Asian republics.

OK. But what about the differences between the Roman and American empires, especially modernization and technology?

Rome was not an industrial state. Nor was it global, although it dominated the Mediterranean and Western Europe. It was ruled by dynastic elites, an aristocracy. The US is a global empire with advanced communications which claims to be a democracy, by also ruled by dynastic elites. Yeah, most of the Billionaire class got their privileged positions, if not money,  from Mommy and Daddy.

However, a closer examination renders these differences essentially meaningless.

All civilizations since the advent of the Neolithic have fallen within a few centuries, or, in the case of the Incas, even less.

The reason lies in the growth of hierarchies that prevent adaptation and change and also in inequality that results in dynastic elites, effectively aristocracies.

Although the US says it has government of the people, by the people, it is actually ruled by a few large corporations owned by just those dynastic elites I mentioned.  The people are like Helots in Rome, a slave class.

Wherever the Romans went, they built roads; they also had a huge merchant fleet, tying the Empire together. All roads, as the saying goes, led to Rome. All ships went there too. Which is one reason the Romans were subject to frequent pandemics. Rats just love empires. Rats love cruises abroad.

Today, all roads lead to Washington— metaphorically only— since the US doesn’t build roads or railroads much, preferring air travel to tie their empire together. Also very effective in spreading disease. Rats rarely travel by air –so we have tourists.

We might think that the Roman Empire was small compared to that of America. But to the Romans, it was global — because they ruled all of the world that mattered to them.

The American Empire consists of the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Korea, so it is much more extensive but certainly not the whole world. Most of the World doesn’t belong to it, which used to be fine because the Third World didn’t matter to Americans in the past, except for a cheap vacation or cheap labor.

In the Roman case, the Barbarians learned a lot from the Romans and soon began to challenge the Empire. They were Rome’s Third World.

Today’s Barbarians are Russian and Chinese and Indian.

The Romans fought the evolving, adaptive societies in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, just as the Americans are now doing with the Russians and Chinese. But the Romans lost. As will the Americans.

That’s because a civilization can be dynamic or static. Rome and America both lost momentum.

A major cause was cultural narcissism. Why change or try to evolve when you believe yourself superior?

“I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” said Barack Obama, one of many comments to this effect.

Americans think themselves better, somehow chosen by God, even the poorest of them. The Romans believed this too — even the plebeians—despite their short, brutal lives.  As time goes on Americans are living shorter and more brutal lives, too.  In the US, health is indeed wealth.

When a civilization grows too large and powerful, it maintains social consistency largely through group-think, or propaganda, delusionary belief systems. In the American Empire, propaganda is based on media narratives — the best manufactured in Hollywood — stories told on TV, or now on the Internet. It is what Guy de Bord, calls the Society of the Spectacle. Think: the Super Bowl. Think Marvel movies. It is all “show”.  What is the war in the Ukraine but a one season series?

In Rome, they first built theatres modeled on Greek theatre. But Greek drama was for the educated in small city-state cultures. Rome was ever so much bigger and its hoi polloi more numerous wanting excitement and vicarious pleasure to fill out their boring but as mentioned short and brutal lives.

The Romans invented bread and circuses.

The Americans invented film and TV—and McDonalds’—they have their own versions of the Coliseum with endless entertaining and often very bloody spectacles, reaffirming the values of the Empire, in the same way that gladiatorial combat and throwing Christians to the lions did for the Romans and blood and guts makes them reach for the popcorn.

The difference between the US and Rome is really in technology and the sophistication of narratives and mythologies.

Rome split into pieces first– an Eastern Empire and a Western Empire, with chunks falling off each. The US will also devolve. We see that already with political division and Roe vs Wade going back to the States.  Cicero played the fiddle.  Biden can’t even do that.

In the end, Rome was just a much diminished city who had to open it gates to the Vandals. Can we expect the same of Washington?

Listen to the song, “Bye Bye, American Pie.

Listen because it not just the levee that’s dry, it’s your gas tank and your bank account ….

*

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

Julian Macfarlane is a Canadian media analyst / writer. 40 years in Japan. Worked for every major Japanese company including Toyota as media advisor in the Middle East and also most government ministries including the Foreign Ministry and Prime Minister’s Office.  More than 200 articles on political events and propaganda. Author of “Ageing Young: You’re Never Too Old To Rock ‘n Roll”, a seminal study of evolutionary psychology. For more articles go to: https://julianmacfarlane.substack.com/ 

Featured image is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Bye Bye American Pie”. Reasons Why America Will Fall
  • Tags:

NATO Expansion and Turkey

May 20th, 2022 by Craig Murray

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

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

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

***

I am in Turkey because, if there is to be movement in ending the war in Ukraine, it will happen here. President Erdogan’s firm stance on a potential veto of Swedish and Finnish NATO membership is framed in public only in relation to perceived support by those countries for Kurdish resistance groups. But of course it goes much deeper.

Erdogan understands that the spectacular advance by NATO eastward that Finnish enlargement in particular would represent, is a slap in the face for Putin that will make a peace deal in Ukraine far more difficult. Any such deal would have to be based upon Russia giving up some of the Ukrainian territory it holds today. Dramatic NATO expansion is the very opposite of an attempt to create the conditions for that. In fact, that NATO is so actively pursuing this expansion is sufficient evidence that NATO is looking for a long proxy war to bleed Russia, rather than trying to restore peace and stability to Europe.

That the European public are gripped by a wave of emotion over Ukraine was amply demonstrated by the popular vote of tens of millions in the Eurovision song contest. Once the spasm dies down, opinion in Finland and Sweden may revert. It has been obvious for over a decade that Putin has an aim to reintegrate Russian populated areas of the former Soviet Union into the Russian Federation. That agenda is currently causing a ruinous war, but is no military threat to Finland or Sweden.

Turkey retains the prestige of chosen venue and perhaps broker for continuing diplomatic contact between Russia and Ukraine. Erdogan’s robust stance on Finland and Sweden is necessary to maintain Russian trust. Turkey of course has its own lengthy and extremely complex historical and current relationship with Russia, which is much more important than Turkey’s role as a key NATO member might suggest. It is also worth bearing in mind that Turkey is a far more serious military power than Finland and Sweden combined.

There is another, specifically Turkish interest in play here, which is very much a factor in Erdogan’s willingness to stand up to Biden over Swedish and Finnish NATO entry. This of course relates to the permanent tension between NATO members Turkey and Greece.

Turkey is furious over the militarisation of the Eastern Aegean Greek Islands very close to its shores, and the lack of support and understanding it has received from other NATO members over the perceived threat.

The status of Greece’s most Eastern (Dodecanese) islands is not in doubt. It was established by the Treaty of Paris in 1947, to which all the permanent members of the UN security council, and many other states, are parties.

The demilitarisation of the islands is unequivocal, and no treaty since has negated it.

Other Greeks islands including Limnos and Lesbos slightly further West are similarly constrained by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Greece claims this status was modified subsequently by the 1936 Straits Convention. I don’t think that is right but that is a more complex argument than we need to develop just now. The 1947 Treaty is not modified.

Yet Greece had proceeded and is still proceeding with the militarisation of the Dodecanese islands on a large scale, involving tens of thousands of troops in total, military aircraft, and in particular long range surface to surface missiles. Turkey and Russia both regard these as a threat. The Turkish government are privately convinced that this militarisation is being carried out with active United States cooperation, participation and perhaps instigation.

In February, President Erdogan stated that as the Treaties specifying demilitarisation are the very Treaties which give sovereignty over the islands to Greece, then if Greece was repudiating the treaties it brought sovereignty into question. Erdogan was immediately slapped down by the Biden administration.

So Turkish resentment at US behaviour in the Aegean, seen as encouraging a direct military threat, is another reason why Erdogan is not anxious to defer quickly to the US agenda in the Baltic. Turkish exasperation is further fueled by the fact that this really is bad faith by the USA, in refusing to abide by an international treaty to which it is a party (a position complicated by the fact Turkey itself is not a party to the Treaty of Paris 1947).

I have found this last 17 years of blogging that it only takes a little background knowledge, a little research, and a few affable conversations, to find a picture far more complicated and realistic than that carried in the mainstream media. Sadly there are few left in the mould of Robert Fisk.

Speaking of which the most important piece of UK journalism this year is being totally ignored by the mainstream media. Please do read it; you will learn more about how the UK really works than you ever will from the BBC.

*

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

Featured image is from InfoRos

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

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

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

***

 

Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin said Thursday that Helsinki is opposed to NATO deploying nuclear weapons or establishing bases inside Finland if it joins the military alliance.

Marin said she didn’t think there was much interest in NATO for nuclear deployments or permanent bases inside Finland.

“Nor do I think there is any interest in deploying nuclear weapons or opening NATO bases in Finland,” she said.

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson has also said Sweden doesn’t plan on hosting NATO nuclear weapons or bases.

While the US, Britain, and France are the only NATO members with their own nuclear stockpiles, US nuclear weapons are deployed in other NATO states under a nuclear-sharing agreement. Under the agreement, there are US nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Moscow will respond to the expansion of NATO military infrastructure inside Sweden or Finland. While the two nations have no interest in nuclear weapons or bases, NATO could still send troops and other military equipment to the countries on a rotational basis.

Finland and Sweden formally applied to join NATO on Wednesday, but Turkey blocked the alliance from holding talks on their membership. Ankara is opposed to the Nordic countries joining due to their alleged support for the PKK and the export controls they imposed on Turkey. Finnish President Sauli Niinisto said Thursday that he’s working on getting Turkey to change its position.

*

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

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War