Global Research

This article was originally published in 2018 following its 19th anniversary.

Twenty-three years ago, on 23 April 1999, a NATO missile attack on Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) headquarters killed 16 employees of the state broadcaster.

The forgotten war crime occurred during the Kosovo War (March 1999-June 1999), and was part of NATO’s aerial campaign alongside the US-backed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) a paramilitary entity with links to Al Qaeda and organized crime, in opposition to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In the aftermath of the attack there were no great public campaigns launched for the 16 murdered journalists and employees, no outpouring of emotion for those killed, no calls for solidarity and togetherness in the face of aggression. On the contrary the West justified this grievous blow against freedom of expression, praised it even.

Tony Blair, Britain’s then Prime Minister, welcomed the killings when speaking at NATO’s 50^th anniversary summit in Washington. Blair said the missile attack was “entirely justified… in damaging and attacking all these targets”, and that those murdered were part of the “apparatus of dictatorship and power of [Slobodan] Milosevic”.

Blair felt that, “the responsibility for every single part of this action lies with the man [Milosevic] who has engaged in this policy of ethnic cleansing and must be stopped”. Apparently Milosevic “must be stopped” by wiping out state journalists or what Blair describes as an “apparatus of dictatorship”.

According to one of the main leaders of the Western world, Milosevic must bear full responsibility for a NATO fighter plane firing a US-made missile on a state broadcasting service’s headquarters. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised by Blair’s visions of justice, particularly when examining his key role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the following decade.

Blair was not alone in praising this violation of international law. His Secretary of State for International development, Clare Short, said afterwards that,

“the propaganda machine is prolonging the war and it’s a legitimate target”.

Short is a Labour Party member and her official title today is The Right Honourable Clare Short. Defending these killings was neither right nor honourable one can assume.

NATO themselves commended the deliberate attack afterwards. NATO’s military spokesperson Air Commodore David Wilby declared RTS,

“a legitimate target which filled the airways with hate and with lies over the years”.

This followed on from a number of other NATO attacks on radio and television outlets in the country.

In the build up to the 2003 Iraq invasion, Cardiff University revealed that the BBC adopted the most pro-war stance of any British network. The official reasons for invading Iraq were based entirely on lies and misinformation. In this case was the BBC “the propaganda machine”, had it become “a legitimate target” too?

Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon also legitimised the war crime saying that,

“Serb TV is as much a part of Milosevic’s murder machine as his military is”.

Not to be outdone, the respected US diplomat and magazine editor Richard Holbrooke described the bombing of RTS as,

“an enormously important and, I think, positive development”.

In the build up to the Iraq invasion American networks like Fox News were styling the illegal intervention as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, with its correspondents and news anchors compelled to repeat that phrase. In addition a permanent American flag was fluttering in the top corner of the screen, and during the invasion itself the banner “war on terrorism” was unfurled.

Did this make Fox News and others like it, “a legitimate target which filled the airways with hate and lies”? Judging by the standards of Western elites, one would have to suggest so.

Meanwhile, a single person was charged for the attack on RTS: Dragoljub Milanovic, the Serbian network’s general manager, who received a 10-year jail term for failing to evacuate the building in time. Yet the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia concluded that NATO’s bombing of RTS was not a crime, noting that deaths were “unfortunately high, they do not appear to be clearly disproportionate”. Clearly disproportionate to the overall number of civilian deaths inflicted by NATO perhaps.

However, in January 2015 the Western reaction was somewhat different when 12 journalists from the Charlie Hebdo satirical newspaper were murdered by Islamic extremists – along with four Jewish men killed at a kosher supermarket shortly afterwards.

The British Prime Minister on this occasion, David Cameron, did not justify the killing of journalists and said,

“We stand absolutely united with the French people against terrorism and against this threat to our values – free speech, the rule of law, democracy”. Cameron went on, “we should never give up the values we believe in… a free press, in freedom of expression, in the right of people to write and say what they believe”.

About two weeks later Blair, now a Middle East peace envoy, said of the thinking behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks, “this extremism is not natural, it’s taught and it’s learned and you have to un-teach it in the school systems”. Blair seems further unaware of his own role in creating “this extremism” by playing the junior partner role in invading Iraq, a crucial factor in the rise of ISIS.

In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, millions marched to honour the dead with the slogan “I am Charlie” becoming famous. When the Serbian journalists and employees were killed just over 15 years earlier, there was no international motto of “I am RTS”.

New York civil rights lawyer Floyd Abrams described the Charlie Hebdo shootings as, “the most threatening assault on journalism in living memory”. The perception of “living memory” appears to be a remarkably short one.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published by The Duran in August 2017.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

Novavax on Wednesday announced that early data on its combination vaccine targeting COVID-19 and influenza showed the vaccine produced a strong immune response. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to grant the Maryland-based company’s request for Emergency Use Authorization for its COVID-only vaccine.

Vaccine maker Novavax on Wednesday announced that early data on its combination vaccine targeting COVID-19 and influenza showed the vaccine produced a strong immune response.

Chief Medical Officer Filip Dubovsky, during a call with reporters, said the Maryland-based company’s early phase clinical trial found that up to 25 micrograms of the COVID formulation combined with up to 35 micrograms of the flu formulation triggered a promising level of protective antibodies in the Novavax COVID-Influenza Combination Vaccine.

The shot would combine a seasonal booster for COVID with a seasonal flu shot.

“What we demonstrated in this study is we were able to get the immune responses really comparable to what the individual vaccines did prior to combination,” Dubovsky said.

Participants in the Phase 1 trial had a median age of 59 and all previously had received COVID vaccines.

Novavax plans to move forward with a Phase 2 trial this year to confirm the appropriate dosing levels, and plans to launch a Phase 3 trial on efficacy during the 2023 flu season at the earliest, Dubovsky said.

“Combination vaccines are an attractive public health intervention,” Dubovsky said. “You are hitting two life-threatening diseases in one medical contact, giving a single vaccination.”

Novavax’s COVID vaccine uses different technology than the Pfizer and Moderna shots, which rely on messenger RNA to turn human cells into factories that produce copies of the virus spike protein, inducing an immune response that fights COVID.

The spike is the part of the virus that latches onto and invades human cells.

Novavax’s shots, in contrast, synthesize the virus spike outside the human body. The genetic code for the spike is put into a baculovirus that infects insect cells, which then produce copies of the spike that are purified and extracted.

The spike copy is then injected into people to induce an immune response against the virus.

The vaccine also uses a novel adjuvant that contains a purified extract from the bark of a tree in South America, to induce a broader immune response.

The most common side effects of the Novavax combination vaccine were injection site pain, fatigue and headaches, Dubovsky said.

The company said the preliminary trial results found that the combination vaccine formulations induced immune responses in participants comparable to reference stand-alone influenza and stand-alone COVID-19 vaccine formulations (for H1N1, H3N2, B-Victoria HA and SARS-CoV-2 antigens).

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, internist and member of Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, experts acknowledged during the April 6 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting that immune responses, or neutralizing antibody titers, were inadequate to assess the immune response for COVID.

“The committee said future COVID vaccines would need to be authorized or licensed using clinical trial data, not antibody titers,” Nass said.

Novavax said clinical modeling results also showed a combined formulation has the potential to reduce total antigen amount by up to 50% overall, optimizing production and delivery, and reducing side effects.

“We continue to evaluate the dynamic public health landscape and believe there may be a need for recurrent boosters to fight both COVID-19 and seasonal influenza,” said Dr. Gregory M. Glenn, president of research and development at Novavax.

“We’re encouraged by these data and the potential path forward for a combination COVID-19-influenza vaccine as well as stand-alone vaccines for influenza and COVID-19.”

Dubovsky expressed confidence the new vaccine’s recombinant protein-based nanoparticle technology would allow the combo shot to be easily “tweaked” to address emerging coronavirus variants.

Is FDA slow-walking Novavax authorization in U.S.?

The World Health Organization in December 2021 approved Novavax’s COVID vaccine (not the new COVID-flu combination vaccine) for use in the European Union, but the FDA has yet to grant Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the product in the U.S.

Novavax’s Glenn today told attendees at the World Vaccine Congress the company is still optimistic about obtaining the EUA.

In a statement later in the day, the company said:

“We continue to have a productive dialogue with the FDA as they review data and we answer inquiries related to clinical and manufacturing data as expected. We look forward to scheduling our VRBPAC meeting in the near future as indicated by the FDA.”

At a Wednesday meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory committee, an FDA official indicated the agency was still awaiting manufacturing data from Novavax.

But an FDA spokesperson later said it was nothing more than the usual back-and-forth as part of the regulatory process.

An FDA spokesperson said:

“While the FDA cannot predict how long its evaluation of the data and information will take, the agency will review the EUA request as expeditiously as possible using its thorough and science-based approach.

“The agency plans to schedule a meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to discuss the EUA request with the FDA’s panel of outside scientific and medical experts.”

The company published its clinical data in the New England Journal of Medicine soon after filing its EUA application on Jan. 31, but still has not received a date for its FDA advisory committee meeting.

Nass said similar to trials for other COVID vaccines, the Novavax trial followed participants for only 70 days post-“full vaccination” status — not long enough to identify the waning efficacy and determine how well the vaccine really works over 6 to 12 months and more.

“The bottom line is that with yet another brief-duration trial, we can’t say anything about the long-term safety or efficacy, which are the only measures that really matter,” Nass said.

By comparison, the other three vaccines available in the U.S. were authorized prior to publication of their clinical data.

Also, the vaccine applications of Pfizer and Moderna in late November 2020 were authorized by the FDA in just over three weeks.

“It’s been far too long since Novavax has asked for authorization and I think the FDA has been slow-walking it,” said Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University.

Another vaccine option is important for the U.S., Gostin said.

“The FDA should authorize it and it should be another vaccine in the toolbox for the United States and the world,” he said.

In an interview with CBS affiliate WUSA9 just days after filing for emergency use, a Novavax official said unlike Moderna and Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines, many people are holding out for Novavax’s protein-based shot, which is very similar to many childhood immunizations.

“We think that our vaccine can be an important option in making people feel more comfortable and confident in getting their vaccination,” said Silvia Taylor with Novavax Global Corporate Affairs.

Clinical trials have shown Novavax to be 90% effective against COVID infection. If approved, those 18 years and older would be eligible for the shot.

“It may not be that there will be a very large uptake of Novavax, but there’s a certain segment of the population that really wants to use a much more traditional vaccine and not a messenger RNA vaccine,” said Gostin.

In January, Dr. Anthony Fauci seemed to dismiss Novavax’s potential to jump-start a nationwide vaccination effort largely stalled since last October.

“It just seems rather unusual that people are waiting for something else when you have vaccines that have been given to 9 billion people,” Fauci told Yahoo Finance. (The global population is estimated to be only about 8 billion people.)

“I’m not sure what people are waiting for when you say they’re waiting for something else,” he said.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky was more optimistic, noting that Novavax’s “approval could help address [vaccine] hesitancy.”

Japan authorizes Novavax COVID vaccine

Meanwhile, Japan’s health ministry on Tuesday joined a list of more than 40 countries that have approved Novavax’s COVID vaccine, announcing the purchase of 150 million doses.

Japan in recent days reported a resurgence of the fast-spreading omicron BA.2 variant.

The ministry approval came the day after its expert panel endorsed use of Novavax’s protein vaccine, which is designed with vaccine technology similar to that used in vaccines for the flu and hepatitis B.

Health Minister Shigeyuki Goto told reporters the Novavax product adds variety to the choices available and could appeal to those who are hesitant to use COVID vaccines such as Pfizer’s and Moderna’s, which are designed with newer technologies.

Shots are expected to be available in Japan as soon as early May.

In March, the country lifted all COVID restrictions as infections slowed significantly, but experts noted signs of a resurgence in a number of prefectures during a season of traveling and parties marking graduation and the start of the academic and business year.

The government is trying to expand businesses and put the pandemic-hit economy back on track. Japan slowly eased the border controls following sharp criticisms for its longtime restrictions on non-resident foreign students, scholars and business people, but Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said Japan is not considering restarting inbound tourism anytime soon.

*

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.

David Charbonneau, Ph.D. is a fellow for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD

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

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

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

***

Incidence of early puberty has surged since the start of the COVID pandemic, and is affecting children at ages that are historically unprecedented

Many children diagnosed with slow-progressing early puberty also experienced an acceleration of pubertal progressing during and/or after lockdown

Early puberty can have serious consequences for those affected. It’s been linked to a higher risk for depression, eating disorders, substance abuse and antisocial behavior

The cause for the unprecedented rise in early puberty is unknown, but experts suspect it has to do with lifestyle changes related to lockdowns, such as stress, elevated electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, an unhealthy diet, low physical activity, increased obesity, elevated exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the home and poor sleep

Several COVID-19 clinical trials have involved anti-androgen drugs, with many showing positive results in terms of blocking the progression of infection. Some have suggested the influence of androgen on SARS-CoV-2 infection may be why young children have such a low incidence of COVID-19, as they have low androgen levels

*

According to recent data, incidence of early puberty has surged since the start of the COVID pandemic.¹ It’s also affecting children at ages that are historically unprecedented. What could possibly account for this phenomenon?

Rare Condition Has Suddenly Become More Prevalent

Early puberty, also known as precocious puberty, has historically been rare, affecting approximately 1 in 5,000 to 10,000 children. The female-to-male ratio of incidence is about 10-to-1 in favor of girls.

But for some as-yet unknown reason, since early 2020, doctors around the world have seen a surprising increase in cases, predominantly if not exclusively among girls, with girls as young as 5 sprouting breasts and menstruation starting in girls younger than 8. Typically, breast development begins around age 10 to 11, with menstruation starting two years later.

Dr. Vaishakhi Rustagi, a pediatric endocrinologist in Delhi, India, told The Fuller Project² that he normally sees about 20 cases of early puberty each year, but since June 2020, he’s seen more than 300 such patients.

In Italy, a survey³ of five pediatric endocrinology sites found 328 girls had been referred for suspected early puberty between March and September 2020, up from 140 during the same seven-month period in 2019. Another Italian study⁴ found patients previously diagnosed with slow-progressing early puberty experienced an acceleration of pubertal progressing during and/or after lockdown.

Similar findings have emerged from Turkey, where early puberty cases reported between April 2020 and March 2021 were more than double that of any of the preceding three years⁵ (58 cases during the pandemic year compared to a total 66 cases for the previous three years combined).

Early Puberty Can Have Serious Consequences

While on the surface this may not seem like a catastrophe, it can in fact have serious consequences for those affected. Early puberty has been linked to a higher risk for depression, eating disorders, substance abuse and antisocial behavior, for example.

Early puberty may also be caused by a more serious condition, such as a central nervous problem, or an ovary, adrenal, pituitary or brain tumor, so these conditions need to be ruled out as causative factors before hormone treatment is considered.

Early puberty (provided it’s not caused by some underlying condition that needs to be addressed) is typically treated with a monthly injection of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH analogue therapy⁶), which delays further development. Once the child reaches the appropriate age for puberty, the hormone treatment is stopped, and the process of puberty then restarts.

Did Lockdowns Trigger Early Puberty?

The authors of the Italian study⁷ hypothesize there might be an association between early puberty in girls and “the complex lifestyle changes related to the lockdown.” But how?

One possibility is stress. Dr. Adiaha Spinks-Franklin, a pediatrician at Texas Children’s Hospital, told The Fuller Project,⁸ “From 9 to like 15, you’re going through this process, but the stress of the pandemic sped up that physiological process. Meanwhile, socially and emotionally, they’re still children.” Rustagi agrees, saying, “I think it’s directly related to the amount of stress that the children have gone through.”⁹

Other suspects include elevated electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, an unhealthy diet, low physical activity, increased obesity, elevated exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the home and poor sleep^10,11 — all of which were exacerbated during the lockdowns as children were cooped up indoors and had to study remotely.

Additionally, pervasive exposure to plastics and microplastics loaded with phthalates and BPA, which are known endocrine disrupters, certainly haven’t helped the situation.

Separately, none of these are sufficient to explain the sudden explosion of early puberty, but taken together, they might trigger changes in central nervous mediators and an increase in catecholamines to set off the pubertal process.

A Curious Connection

Curiously, at the same time as precocious puberty was skyrocketing, researchers at Penn Medicine published preclinical trial results^12,13 suggesting anti-androgen drugs could disrupt the ACE2 and TMPRSS2 receptors that SARS-CoV-2 uses to gain entry into the cell.

The study,¹⁴ which was funded by the National Institutes of Health and a U.S. Department of Defense award, was published March 19, 2021.

In it, the authors noted that the two receptors are regulated by androgen hormone — the same hormone responsible for premature adrenarche¹⁵ (sexual maturation and libido) — and by blocking the receptors with Camostat and other androgen inhibiting drugs, viral entry and replication were prevented. According to a Penn Medicine press release:¹⁶

“The findings provide more insight into the molecular mechanisms of the virus but also support the use of anti-androgen therapies to treat COVID-19 infections, which are currently being investigated in clinical trials and have produced promising results. They also support data showing increased mortality and severity of disease among men compared to women, who have much lower levels of androgen.

‘We provide the first evidence that not only TMPRSS2, which is known to be regulated by androgen, but ACE2 can also be directly regulated by this hormone,’ said senior author Irfan A. Asangani, PhD, an assistant professor of Cancer Biology in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

‘We also show that the SARS-CoV-2 spike relies on these two receptors to impale and enter cells, and that they can be blocked with existing drugs. That’s important because if you stop viral entry, you reduce the viral load and disease progression.’”

Other research¹⁷ has found ACE2 receptors are present on nearly all testicular cells. This raises the question of whether male fertility and/or gonad function might be adversely affected by SARS-CoV-2 infection. It’s also been shown that estrogen regulates the expression of ACE2 in pulmonary epithelial cells.¹⁸ So, sex hormones appear to play a role in SARS-CoV-2 infection in more ways than one.

Puberty Versus Adrenarche

For clarity, while premature adrenarche and early puberty are similar, they’re not the same. Adrenarche refers to the activation of the adrenal glands, resulting in the production of sex hormones such as androgens, which are responsible for public hair, oily skin and hair, body odor, acne, sexual desire and increased libido.

Puberty, on the other hand, is the maturation process of sexual reproduction. Brain signals are sent to the testes and ovaries, triggering the development of sperm and eggs respectively, as well as secondary characteristics such as the deepening of the voice in boys and breasts in girls.

Is This Why Children Aren’t Susceptible to COVID?

While we haven’t heard a whole lot about it in the news, several COVID-19 clinical trials over the past year or so have involved anti-androgen drugs, with many showing positive results in terms of blocking the progression of infection. Some have also suggested that the influence of androgen on SARS-CoV-2 infection may be why young children have such a low incidence of COVID-19, as they have low androgen levels.

As explained in the paper, “The Resilient Child: Sex-Steroid Hormones and COVID-19 Incidence in Pediatric Patients”:¹⁹

“Androgens upregulate the protease TMPRSS2, which facilitates efficient virus-host cell fusion with the epithelium of the lungs, thus increasing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and development of severe COVID-19. Owing to low levels of steroid hormones, prepubertal children may have low expression of TMPRSS2, thereby limiting the viral entry into the host cells.”

That said, there’s something quite curious about the timing of this information, because all of a sudden, the health care system has become very focused on normalizing transgenderism. Is it possible that they’re thinking of dosing children with sex hormones as a treatment for COVID and need a cover story? As noted in the Penn Medicine study:²⁰

“Together, our data provide a strong rationale for clinical evaluations of TMPRSS2 inhibitors, androgen-deprivation therapy / androgen receptor antagonists alone or in combination with antiviral drugs as early as clinically possible to prevent COVID-19 progression.”

Could treating children with anti-androgens cause changes in how they feel about their sexuality? And if so, could it be that the medical industry wants to “get ahead” of the trend and quench questions by indoctrinating everyone into thinking transgenderism and gender confusion is completely normal? That’s pure speculation, of course, but perhaps something to tuck into the back of your mind for later on.

Precocious Puberty Triggers

While there’s no direct evidence EMF exposure during childhood can trigger early puberty, one animal study²¹ did find Wi-Fi and cell phone radiation during pregnancy increased the risk of early puberty in the offspring.

So, it’s possible that generational effects are at play, and/or that this susceptibility is worsened by other environmental factors such as diet, lack of exercise, obesity, stress and exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals and foods high in estrogen.

Without a clear cause, it’s difficult to prescribe a remedy. But I believe it’s safe to say that parents would be wise to pay close attention to what their children are doing and being exposed to — pandemic or not. For example:

*

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 MD Edge April 4, 2022

^{2, 8, 9, 10} The Fuller Project March 28, 2022

^3, 7 Endocr. Connect. February 14, 2022; 11(2): E210650

⁴ Italian Journal of Pediatrics 2020; 46: article number 165

⁵ Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism December 8, 2021 DOI: 10.1515/jpem-2021-0565

⁶ Mayo Clinic Early Puberty

¹¹ Frontiers in Pediatrics 2021; 9: 734899

^12, 14, 20 iScience March 19, 2021; 24(3): 102254

^13, 16 Penn Medicine Press Release March 22, 2021

¹⁵ Childrens Hospital Premature Adrenarche

^17, 18 Hormones 2021; 20: 259-268

¹⁹ Journal of the Endocrine Society September 2020; 4(9): bvaa106

²¹ Biological Trace Element Research 2013; 156: 221-229

²² Sports Mom Survival Guide, 12 Bodyweight Exercises Your Child Can Do From Home

²³ Endocrine.org Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

It all just seems a grotesque waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The good news, upgrades to mRNA vaccines might be considered “New Vaccines”, as I’ve proscribed earlier. We’ll see.

According to CNN, CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) continue to “mull over” what’s next for Covid-19 boosters, and indeed are even considering what the “upgrades” Covid-19 vaccines. There are indications that they know that “entirely different vaccine formulations could be needed”.

Currently, additional booster doses are recommended only for certain people with weakened immune systems and adults 50 and older.

CDC quoted Dr. Sara Oliver, one of CDC’s epidemic intelligence service officers with the Division of Viral Diseases, who provided a robust soundbite:

“Policy around future doses require continued evaluation of Covid-19 epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness, including the impact of both time and variants, and the ability of doses to improve this protection.”

The specifics CNN cited Oliver as seeing CDC needing to take into account include recent case counts, hospitalization rates, and vaccine effectiveness in the US, and also – shocking – including whether it’s waning over time. They also cited that she thought CDC should weigh “the impacts of circulating coronavirus variants”.

We know vaccine effectiveness is unacceptably low – and given Dr. Fantini’s results may actually be negative, indicating disease enhancement.

Oliver stated that the evolution of the virus will be an important consideration for considering “platforms” for future COVID-19 vaccinations.

It’s not hard to read between the lines here. Readers of #PopularRationalism already know that the mRNA vaccines have proven to be worse than a dismal failure. This is CDC putting the word out that a second round of vaccine development is expected, and is about the closest we’ll ever see to CDC admitting the vaccination program has flopped.

And it’s surprising to see ACIP being focused on future “effectiveness”. Clearly, if newly formulated vaccines are proposed, they will be a square one in terms of the regulatory stage of development, and we should be seeing data on efficacy, which is a measure of a vaccine’s ability to reduce transmission in a prospective randomized clinical trial, not effectiveness, which is measured using real-world data.

As the real-world data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness came in, it was quite bad, so the net was lowered from “preventing transmission” and “reducing new infections” to “producing an antibody response”.

So far, according to USASpending.Gov, the US has now spent over 3.63 trillion dollars in its response to COVID-19. According to the US Center for Economic Studies, the US suffered record-smashing loss of -9.5% of its GDP in 2020, and over 30% shrinkage in economic growth.

Nevertheless, both Pfizer and Moderna are taking a stab at vaccines meant to be available against Omicron, but it is doubted whether the variant will be around long enough to even be targeted by the new vaccines. Pfizer is hoping for a vaccine that will remain effective for more than a year, while Moderna’s non-peer-reviewed preprint containing data from their internal study of the efficacy of their bivalent vaccine was cited by CDC with the careful caveat that the preprint had “not been peer-reviewed or published in a professional journal.”

In the heyday of the pandemic, Pfizer and Moderna could get away with sending FDA assurances that they would share data mentioned in press releases once the FDA gave EUA or full-out approval. Now that the fog of the pandemic has lifted, it seems that the standard practice of labeling press releases, such as Moderna’s recent one on their bivalent vaccine as “Forward Looking Statements” is in place, so I suspect Moderna, Pfizer and the SEC got my memos.

Due to evidence of lack of efficacy and need, FDA, Pfizer and Moderna have delayed further consideration of COVID-19 vaccines for young children until June, according to Politico (SeekingAlpha, Politico).

Unfortunately, the companies are still communicating “success” as equivalent with “antibody response” when we all know (or at least my immunology students know that they really should be measuring and reporting memory B-cell responses and the degree of match between the antibodies produced by B-cells upon reinfection and whatever variant or variants have taken over after Omicron is a distant memory.

CDC also shared that Kaiser Permanente – which profits from vaccine sales – was in the driver’s seat of the CDC’s ACIP committee, with Dr. Matthew Daley, ACIP Vaccine Working Group Chairperson and senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Research issuing “marching orders” to the rest of ACIP to be “be more proactive than reactive” on the future of Covid-19 vaccinations.

This article is just a reminder to those who need it that #ParentsAreWatching, and that #ScientistsAreWatching, too.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

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

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

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

***

A major new study adds more evidence that Moderna’s high-dose mRNA shots are more dangerous than Pfizer’s smaller jabs; will public health bureaucrats acknowledge reality as they push more boosters?

A huge new study shows mRNA shots sharply raised the risk of dangerous heart damage in Scandinavians who received them last year, and that Moderna’s 100-microgram shot was significantly more dangerous than Pfizer’s 30-microgram dose.

For young men, who are at particularly high risk of post-jab heart inflammation, the gap was especially significant.

Data from the study, published in a peer-reviewed journal called JAMA Cardiology, show that giving 1 million men aged 16-24 two doses of Moderna’s vaccine would lead to almost 300 hospitalizations for myocarditis and a related illness called pericarditis. Most would come after the second dose. Using Pfizer’s shot instead would lead to about 100 hospitalizations. SOURCE

An appendix in the paper also showed a trend towards deadlier outcomes in myocarditis patients who had received Moderna’s shot as opposed to Pfizer’s jab or no vaccination, though the trend was not statistically significant.

Almost 5 percent of people who were hospitalized for myocarditis after receiving Moderna’s shot died, compared to under 1 percent who received Pfizer’s shot or were unvaccinated. (SEE ETABLE 11)

Sweden, Norway, and Finland halted the use of the Moderna shots in people under 30 last October. The United States has no similar restrictions, though regulators have so far refused to approve Moderna’s jab for people under 18.

The higher risk of Moderna’s shots found in the paper add to growing evidence that the dangers of mRNA rise with dosing. Moderna scientists themselves acknowledged the potential problem in a paper the company posted last month.

In turn, that evidence raises the question of whether pushing people to take additional “booster” doses to shore up the vaccines’ failing protection may bring new risks. Because so few clinical or safety studies have been conducted on boosters, at this point regulators and scientists are essentially guessing about the dangers of repeated dosing.

But that lack of knowledge has not stopped a relentless push for the boosters, which temporarily raise antibodies to the coronavirus before their protection again fades.

In the new paper, published Wednesday, researchers drew on exceptionally thorough health and vaccination records from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. They examined thousands of myocarditis and pericarditis cases in the four Scandinavian countries from late December 2020 to early October 2021, checking them against vaccination dates.

Myocarditis is an inflammation of the heart muscle itself, while pericarditis results from the inflammation of the sac around the heart. They generally resolve with rest and anti-inflammatory treatment, but in some cases they can lead to permanent heart damage or even be fatal.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

The UN Security Council held an extraordinary event on April 6 under the rubric Arria Formula Meeting on Biological Security regarding the biological activities in countries including Ukraine. Predictably, the US and UK representatives didn’t show up at the event and the western media also blacked out the proceedings. But that does not detract from the profound significance of what transpired. 

The highlight of the Security Council proceedings lasting over two hours was the disclosure by General Igor Kirillov, chief of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defense Forces of the Russian Armed Forces, that Washington is creating biological laboratories in different countries and connecting them to a unified system.

He said the US has spent more than $5 billion on military biological programs since 2005 and detailed that in territories bordering Russia and China alone, about 60 facilities have been modernised during this period. The Ukrainian network of laboratories is designed to conduct research and monitor the biological situation consisting of 30 facilities in 14 populated locations.

Highly sensitive materials from the Ukrainian biological laboratories were exported to the US in early February just before the Russian special operation began, and the rest were ordered to be destroyed lest they fell into Russian hands. But the cover-up was only partially successful. Indeed, Russia is in possession of highly incriminating evidence. 

Previously also, Russia had released a number of documents related to the biological military activities of the Pentagon, which pointed toward a worldwide project to set up biological laboratories in rival countries with the goal of developing targeted viral weapons against those countries. 

The proceedings of the Security Council conference on April 6 are in the public domain and are accessible. See the video below: 

Russia has made specific allegations, pointing finger at: 

• Pentagon funding for the bio-labs in Ukraine; 
• Location of these bio-labs(not only in Ukraine but in 36 countries around the world); 
• Diseases and epidemics on which research work is going on, focusing on the means for their release, the countries where they are being tested (even without the knowledge of the governments of these countries); and, of course, 
• Experiments relating to coronavirus (and bats used to transmit this virus). 

However, the US has so far point-blank refused to accept any supervision and verification of such incriminatory evidences and has stonewalled the demand for a verification mechanism. It is unlikely that the US will permit an international verification process that holds the potential to expose it as indulging in crimes against humanity — although there are appropriate frameworks in place including the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the UN, to hear the clarifications from the relevant country in a fair and impartial manner. 

A mind-boggling “discovery” that Russian forces in Ukraine stumbled upon is the use of numbered birds by the Pentagon-funded labs. This almost falls out of science fiction and Sir Alfred Hitchcock could have made an epic movie out of it where deception mixes with innocence and man’s cruelty to nature becomes unbearably grotesque. The project works like this: 

To begin with, the Pentagon accesses the scientific data available with environmental specialists and zoologists after studying the migration of birds and observing them throughout the seasons, relating to the path these birds take each year on their seasonal journey from one country to another and even from one continent to another. 

On the basis of this data, groups of migratory birds are caught, digitised and capsules of germs are attached to them that carry a chip to be controlled through computers.  They birds are then released to the flock of the migratory birds in those target countries toward which the US intelligence has malevolent intentions. 

Of course, these migratory birds travel great distances. The wandering albatross, for instance, is known to migrate at least 8500 km eastward across the South Pacific to the coast of South America, and many shy albatrosses migrate westward across the Indian Ocean to the coast of South Africa.

During the long flight of the birds that have been digitised in the Pentagon bio-labs, their movement is monitored step by step by means of satellites and the exact locations are determined.  The idea is that if the Biden Administration (or the CIA) has a requirement to inflict harm on, say, Russia or China (or India for that matter), the chip is destroyed when the bird is in their skies.  

Plainly put, kill the bird carrying the epidemic. Sadly, my mind goes back to the novel by the American author Harper Lee To Kill a Mocking Bird, the haunting story of innocence destroyed by evil. 

To return to reality, once the “digitised” bird is killed and the capsule of germs it carries is released, the disease spreads in the “X” or “Y” country. It becomes a highly cost-effective method of harming an enemy country without any need of war or coup d’état or colour revolution.

The Russians have made the shocking claim that they are actually in possession of such migratory birds digitised in the Pentagon’s bio-labs. 

International law expressly forbids the numbering of migratory birds because they freely criss-cross the blue sky and air of other countries.  By supplying them with germs, these birds become weapons of mass destruction. What human ingenuity! But the US enjoys total immunity from international law.

The bottom line is that only the US intelligence — and President Biden, perhaps, if he remembers — would know where all humans have been infected so far in this century by the Birds of Mass Destruction. Was Ebola that devastated Africa a test case and precursor of things to come?

What about Covid-19, which is known to have originated from funded laboratories that were administered by the US? It is very likely that the US might have used migratory birds to kill Chinese citizens. Clearly, the US in its desperation to reverse its global decline is pulling out all the stops to restore its hegemony in a world order that is inexorably moving toward multipolarity.

*

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: Albatross, famous migratory bird, is also a love bird. It is known for being monogamous, forming long-term bond with one partner that is rarely broken. Mated pairs never split up until one bird dies.  (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

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

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

***

Just as the first rally in Peshawar, these two rallies are among the largest political gatherings in the country’s history. Significantly, they show that PTI is the first real *national* political party in the country’s history – the other major ones are province/ethnicity-based.

Whether the rallies are pro-Khan or simply a rejection of the return of the ancien regime, it’s interesting how the military has not moved in on them yet – despite millions of these demonstrations outrightly condemning the generals for their collaboration with the corrupt political mafias and Washington.

It’s pretty clear that the primary reason for the high command/top brass’s reluctance is because they know fully well that Khan commands overwhelming support in the ranks of soldiers and junior officers (those who don’t get the perks of American largesse designed to keep Pakistani generals on America’s side).

*

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.

Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Religion, Law, and Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decoloniality. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

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

***

Political polarization in Germany continues to increase. Currently, there is strong pressure for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to take a more incisive stance on the Ukrainian issue. The opposition insists on the need to send weapons to support Zelensky, endorsing the speech spread by NATO and the EU. It is evident that by refusing to take such positions, Scholz is trying to look for the interests of his country, but it remains to be seen whether he will be really strong enough to deal with the pressure coming both externally, from Brussels and London, and internally in Berlin.

Recently, Scholz met in London with his British counterpart Boris Johnson to discuss the Ukrainian conflict. During the conversation, Johnson clearly pressed Scholz to go along with the UK and the rest of the West in their stance of absolute opposition to Russia in the conflict. The Chancellor, however, avoided giving clear answers and maintained his ambiguous position on the possibility of supporting Kiev militarily, preventing from doing more incisive statements and preferring silence.

What happened next was even more remarkable and symbolic: the British prime minister traveled to Kiev to meet with Zelensky while Scholz returned to Germany in order to promote electoral campaign. The international mainstream media took advantage of the fact to intensify its pro-NATO propaganda, claiming that Scholz is concerned only with his internal political condition, ignoring the current international situation, while the Western world is supposedly “concerned” and takes the Ukrainian issue as a “humanitarian” priority.

In Germany, Scholz’s opponents are also increasingly agitated to criticize the chancellor, taking benefit of international pressure to intensify polarization and generate a crisis of legitimacy against him. Obviously, this was a predictable attitude on the part of opposition groups, but the main problem currently is that Scholz is losing support within his own coalition. The Free Democratic Party (FDP) and the Green Party are deeply dissatisfied with Germany’s unwillingness to send weapons to Kiev and use the case as a pretext to point to Scholz as a “big problem” to be solved through an electoral overthrow. And, in this sense, his situation is really worsening day after day.

In general, Scholz’s enemies demand that he takes a more active stance on the German role in the conflict. The chancellor is characterized by an extremely passive posture, avoiding making decisions until they become inevitable. Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, a member of the FDP and head of the Defense Committee in parliament, for example, recently commented that Scholz needs to “take the baton in his hand and set the rhythm.” In other words, opponents are asking Scholz to guarantee Germany a leading role on the European stage, as might be expected from the continent’s greatest economic power.

The central problem in this topic is that Scholz already seems to have realized that the most strategic thing for Germany is to remain as neutral as possible and away from any involvement in activities that harm the partnership with Russia, which is a very important commercial pillar for Germany. Scholz did not want to adhere to large-scale economic sanctions, especially regarding the SWIFT ban and the energy boycott. But he was forced to slowly accept such measures as other Western countries implemented them. This has been his typical behavior: postponing but, in the end, passively adhering to all Western measures when he finds himself “isolated”.

In this sense, the opposition is right on one point: Scholz has to change his attitudes and assume a leadership position, since this is what is expected from a country like Germany, which for years has consolidated itself as one of the “leaders” of the European bloc. The oppositionists’ problem is that they are pressuring Scholz to assume a leadership stance that is as damaging to German interests as his current indecision and passivity.

It is naive to think that sending heavy weapons to Ukraine benefits German interests in any way. On the contrary, it only extends the abyss between Moscow and Berlin even further, and with practically no benefit in return for the Germans: neither Ukraine will be sufficiently strengthened to win the conflict by receiving such heavy weaponry, nor will Germany reassume a supposed role of “leadership” in Europe.

It is not by chance that the greatest pressure on the Germans so far has been exerted precisely by Boris Johnson. The UK is not part of the EU and therefore does not care about the German role in the bloc, but, on the other hand, it is one of the most important members of NATO and tries to elevate its status in the military alliance as a way of boosting its international image in this post-Brexit context. In fulfilling British requests, Scholz would only be pursuing non-German and non-European interests.

It is obvious that there is also pressure within Europe and within Germany itself, but this pressure belongs to an outdated view of what the role of Germans and Europeans in the Western world should be. Scholz’s opponents apparently still expect a totally submissive stance on NATO from Berlin. This is also a very active thought in Brussels, with a strong tendency to see the entire European continent as a mere annex of the American military umbrella, ignoring that Europe has its own interests, which can often collide with those of the Western military alliance. That is why, in trying to prevent Germany from getting actively involved in the Ukrainian case, Scholz proves to be a really pragmatic politician who prioritizes the interests of his own country, but without the political force necessary to guarantee them.

In addition, there is a topic that needs to be mentioned, which is the German military passiveness of the last seventy years. Although it is active within NATO and has been trying to reform its defense forces in recent years, Berlin remains a virtual-demilitarized country, with an army of low offensive potential, outdated weaponry and a low-investment war industry.

In order to send heavy weapons to Ukraine, Germany would have to start a broad military industrial investment, which would cost it not only millions of euros, but a change in its international image, returning to being a nation of effective participation in international conflicts. Of course, improving its military status is a German right, but it must be taken into account in the name of what Berlin intends to do so. Would it really be strategic to break with seventy years of pacifism to defend the interests of the Maidan Junta in a conflict where Russian victory is highly predictable?

Scholz needs to be strong and active in defending German interests. His posture of passivity and silence demonstrates weakness and damages the image of both him and his country. But his stance must not be to subject Germany even more to foreign interests: on the contrary, he must assert what is in Berlin’s interests and pragmatically defend it, even if he has to clash with the NATO’s plans to do so. If Germany is interested in neutrality and maintaining good relations with Russia, Scholz must not only refrain from adhering to the new Western sanctions but also revoke those taken so far.

*

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 Strategic Culture Foundation

A full EU ban on Russian crude oil and gas imports could have unintended economic consequences for the United States and its Western allies, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told reporters in Washington on Thursday.

A UK magistrates’ court has recently announced a decision on the extradition of Julian Assange to the US. A definitive endorsement from the UK Home Secretary is expected to be released in mid-May.

Should Priti Patel move to extradite Assange, the WikiLeaks founder and publisher will face numerous counts of criminal acts in the US and will be subjected to torture while in detention. There will be disregard for Assange’s human rights, narrowly defined.

While Assange has suffered enormously from publishing information that is of public interest, the very war criminals he exposed remain unpunished. This is travesty of justice.

Forward this selection to family and friends.

***

#FreeAssange: Sign to Urge UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to Reject Julian Assange’s Extradition to the United States!

By Reporters Without Borders, April 21, 2022

If extradited to the United States, Assange could face up to 175 years in prison on 18 charges related to Wikileaks’ publication in 2010 of hundreds of thousands of leaked classified military and diplomatic documents, exposing war crimes and human rights violations and informing extensive public interest reporting around the world. RSF fully believes that Assange has been targeted for this important contribution to journalism.

UK Home Secretary Priti Patel Was Part of CIA-linked Lobby Group with Husband of Assange Judge

By Matt Kennard, April 22, 2022

Priti Patel sat on the Henry Jackson Society’s (HJS) advisory council from around 2013-16, although the exact dates are unclear as neither the HJS nor Patel responded to Declassified’s requests for clarification. She has also received funds from the HJS, and was paid £2,500 by the group to visit Washington in March 2013 to attend a “security” programme in the US Congress.

“Wiki-Gate”: Julian Assange Was Framed by the People Who Supported Him

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 21, 2022

Statements by US prosecutors suggest that Assange would not be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act. What is contemplated are accusations of conspiring “to commit unlawful computer intrusion based on his alleged agreement to try to help Ms. Manning break an encoded portion of passcode that would have permitted her to log on to a classified military network under another user’s identity.” (NYT, April 11, 2019).

Julian Assange Has Been Imprisoned in British Guantanamo for Three Years. It’s a Crime Against Us All

By DiEM25, April 13, 2022

The UK and US governments rightly express outrage over reports of war crimes in Ukraine. Yet while doing so, they make an example of Assange for revealing, with definitive proof, their own war crimes. While the media decries the spread of disinformation and attacks against journalists, most stay silent as an actual journalist slowly dying in prison for doing his duty of informing the public.

Assange Extradition: On to the Next Hurdle

By Craig Murray, March 17, 2022

The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable, were that the USA government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed, is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.

War, Dissent and Julian Assange: Why We Must Stop this Extradition

By Morning Star, March 16, 2022

Assange is not a US citizen, let alone an employee of the US military. He is not accused of having leaked classified information. He is accused of having published classified information that was passed to him. The airwaves are now full of the horror being inflicted on Ukrainians by Russian bombers and artillery. So we should think back to the content of the Afghan and Iraq war logs published by Wikileaks.

Rotten Rulings: Julian Assange and the UK Supreme Court

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 15, 2022

District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser initially ruled on January 4, 2021 against the US, finding that Assange would be at serious risk of suicide given the risk posed by Special Administrative Measures and the possibility that he would end his days in the ADX Florence supermax facility.  It took little to read between the lines: the US prison system would do away with Assange; to extradite him would be oppressive within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Treaty.

The Political Persecution of Julian Assange: Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture

By Saturday Morning, February 21, 2022

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being made an example of by the US government to deter investigative journalists from exposing state abuses, the current UN Special Rapporteur on torture says. Nearly 12 years ago Wikileaks published the Afghan War Diary, one of the biggest leaks in US military history. More documents would folliow, exposing state secrets and allowing journalists to scrutinise and hold politicians to account.

The ongoing extradition case against Julian Assange is a crucial indicator of the demise of Freedom of the Press. Don’t let your news be chained to Big Money. Uphold freedom of the Press as a cornerstone of democracy. 

As we ride the waves of censorship, we remain grateful to our readers for getting us through the day. Your support is necessary and we would need more of it as we fight the smears directed against us and the attack against independent media.

Help us maintain our online presence by:

• Crossposting Global Research articles on your blog sites,
• Forwarding articles to emails lists,
• Posting on social media, and
• Bringing the Globalresearch.ca Newsletter to the attention of friends and colleagues.

Follow us on and share our posts from our social media accounts: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Further, to maintain our complete independence, we do not accept government or corporate funding. Therefore, we ask you, our readers, to show some support by making a donation and/or starting a membership (which includes a free book offer):

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

---

Thank you very much for supporting independent media!

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

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

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

***

The United States is facing a mental health crisis, experts say, noting we’re in dire need of more mental health professionals

Nearly 1 in 3 — 27.3% — of American adults now struggle with depression and/or anxiety

This is the price society is paying for ill-conceived, irrational pandemic measures and nonstop fearmongering

To treat everyone, each of the 33,000 practicing psychiatrists in the U.S. would have to see approximately 3,000 patients a year — a patient load that simply isn’t feasible

Those of us who have not succumbed to irrational fear (or worked our way out of it) can act as a lifeline to others by sharing information that empowers rather than enforces fear, and by being role models in the way we live our lives

*

The United States is facing a mental health crisis, experts say, noting we’re in dire need of more mental health professionals. Christin Drake, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, writes:¹

“Every day, people call my office looking for help: A loved one has not left their bed in a week. A father is experiencing panic symptoms while preparing his children for school. A young woman is using substances in a way that feels dangerous to her. These are not the worried well. They are people in crisis.

Their conditions are complex and acute, and require the expertise of a psychiatrist who can talk with them, assess possible medical causes for their problems, manage withdrawal, prescribe medications when needed, and connect with other providers … Before the pandemic, I could almost always help. I would be able to find time to meet someone for a consultation, or make a few calls to secure the right referral.

But now, my every available hour — even those that jut into my ability to meet my obligations to my family — is full. My colleagues tell me the same. They are starting work earlier, working later, contending with long waitlists and their own limits. All the while, patients in crisis are going without psychiatric help.”

Depression and Anxiety Are at All-Time Highs

According to the most recent Household Pulse Survey,² conducted by the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, 27.3% of American adults now struggle with depression and/or anxiety, and that’s in addition to the 40 million Americans who report substance use disorders³ and the 14 million who have more serious mental illnesses.⁴

“There are about 33,000 practicing psychiatrists in the U.S.⁵ By my back-of-the-napkin math, if all of us were treating only people with depression or anxiety, each of us would have to see more than 3,000 patients a year,” Drake notes.⁶

In short, there aren’t enough practicing psychiatrists to handle the burgeoning tsunami of mentally unwell Americans. There also aren’t enough residency positions available to significantly expand the profession any time soon.

The Price of Fearmongering

While Drake doesn’t go into the causes behind the mental health crisis, it’s fairly obvious that this is the price society is paying for our government’s ill-conceived and irrational pandemic measures and the nonstop fearmongering. NPR contributor Kat Lonsdorf describes the constant fear of kidney transplant patient Jullie Hoggan:⁷

“While the surgery was successful and Hoggan is now vaccinated and boosted, she is still severely immunocompromised and has to take significant safety measures.

‘I’m so nervous. Like, my heart rate is through the roof when I’m out for anything,’ she said. ‘And I wonder if I’m ever able to be out safely again and be normal and go out to a store. Am I going to be feeling that forever?’

Hoggan works from home, rarely leaves the house, and when she does, it’s incredibly stressful. Her husband and college-age daughter both wear masks at home and have to be extremely careful about who they see and what they do.

Hoggan’s pandemic experience carries no violence and there have been no explosions or assault, which is why she has a hard time calling it trauma. But Arthur Evans, CEO of the American Psychological Association (APA), says viewing the world as unsafe can be a symptom of trauma.”

A Nebulous and Hard-to-Define Trauma

As noted by Lonsdorf, trauma typically involves some kind of life-threatening event or something that leaves you feeling fearful and/or helpless. Many who have religiously followed mainstream news over the past two years have clearly been traumatized, feeling as though death is imminent and there’s no escape. The death-dealing blow — in the form of an invisible virus — could come from anyone, including loved ones. No one was “safe” to be around.

What’s more, the pandemic wasn’t an isolated incident that could be processed and recovered from. Roxane Cohen Silver, a psychologist with expertise in collective trauma, likens the pandemic to a “slow-moving disaster” that “escalated in intensity over time” — and to this day doesn’t have a clear endpoint.⁸

Not everyone agrees that what we’re seeing is the result of collective trauma, though. Dr. Bessel van der Kolk, author of “The Body Keeps the Score” — one of the most-sold books on Amazon during the pandemic — is hesitant to categorize the pandemic as a collective trauma.

He tells Lonsdorf,⁹ “We need to be very precise … because if we don’t know what we are treating, we may give the wrong treatment.” He believes we need “a new term, a new language” to accurately define our circumstances. “That’s really what I’m encouraging us to do — to really identify what is making us all feel like we’re barely hanging on,” he says.

Officials Are Unwilling to Let Go of the Fearmongering

Whatever we end up calling it, it’s clear that our government’s and media’s response to the pandemic has been a key causative factor behind this mental health crisis. It’s also notable that even though COVID-19 has become endemic in most parts of the world, causing few deaths, the pandemic has not officially been declared “over.”

In early March 2022, the World Health Organization said discussions about when and how to declare an end to the pandemic were underway, but that “we are not there yet.”¹⁰

Denmark, the Netherlands and the U.K. have functionally declared an end to their national emergencies by lifting all or most restrictions, but other countries, such as New Zealand and Hong Kong, are moving in the opposite direction, renewing lockdown orders amid fresh surges in COVID cases (i.e., positive PCR tests, which doesn’t mean people are dying or even getting seriously ill).¹¹

Meanwhile in the U.S., April 13, 2022, the CDC extended for another 90 days the public health emergency that’s been in effect since the pandemic began. In tandem, President Biden extended the mask mandates for airplanes and public transportation until May 3.¹²

In alternative media circles, fear of the virus has been tempered by more clearheaded analyses of statistics and data, showing that the real-world risk is actually quite limited, and that there are highly effective early treatments available even if you do get infected.

My guess is that those who now, two years in, are still struggling with overwhelming feelings of fear and anxiety about the virus are the ones who for whatever reason weren’t exposed to these comforting data, or chose to dismiss them (which is what mainstream media told them to do).

And, if they persist in following the legacy media, there’s really no relief in sight for them. While many now accept COVID-19 as another version of, or addition to, the seasonal flu, and are going about their lives more or less as usual, the mainstream media are trying to pump up the fear level yet again with — you guessed it — another variant.¹³

This one is called “Xe.” It’s said to be a combination of two previous subvariants of Omicron and the most contagious form yet. “COVID-19 Could be Surging in the U.S. Right Now and We Might Not Even Know It,” a headline for Time magazine announced April 11, 2022, adding:¹⁴

“… as the country tries to move on from the pandemic, demand for lab-based testing has declined and federal funding priorities have shifted. The change has forced some testing centers to shutter while others have hiked up prices in response to the end of government-subsidized testing programs.

People are increasingly relying on at-home rapid tests if they decide to test at all. But those results are rarely reported, giving public health officials little insight into how widespread the virus truly is.”

Truth Is a Big Part of the Remedy

This fearmongering is again based on the lie that the PCR test can identify an active infection (it can’t), and the false idea that asymptomatic spread is a driver of infection (it’s not). Time magazine also promotes the false idea that the COVID shot is “extremely effective at preventing severe disease” and that Omicron causes milder symptoms only in “healthy, vaccinated people,” even though real-world data suggest otherwise on both accounts.

There’s no mention of the fact that the COVID shots may be responsible for more than 1.2 million injuries¹⁵ and are, by any metric, the most dangerous drugs ever to be released. There’s also no mention of the fact that most people are likely immune to Xe at this point, as it arose right on the heels of a major Omicron surge.

Even questions about remasking have popped up again. “Is It Time to Start Masking Again?” The Atlantic asked April 8, 2022.¹⁶ According to The Atlantic, in the face of new variants, we ought to prepare “by having good masks on hand — and being mentally ready to put them on again.”

It’s that kind of mental preparation to face death every day and the useless ritual of donning a mask that is driving people to the brink of their mental endurance. Masking was futile from the start, but that doesn’t stop the mainstream media — which gets its talking points from those trying to figure out how to shove The Great Reset down our collective throats — from pushing this worn-out and wholly unscientific narrative.

Totalitarianism Is Built Through Fear

Let’s face it, they need us to be fearful because, otherwise, they know we won’t comply with what’s coming next — digital identities, biosensors and emotional monitors, vaccine passports, the green new deal (which will virtually eliminate your ability to travel any significant distance), programmable central bank digital currencies (which will give the issuers complete control over your spending) and much more.

For The Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution to come to pass, the great masses must be willing to give up their freedoms and submit to more invasive surveillance and control, and for that, their fear of imminent death must eclipse all other concerns. For a description of how large swathes of society can be made mentally ill, on purpose, see the After Skool production above.

The good news is about half the population (in my estimation) have worked their way through the propaganda and no longer fret unnecessarily. Around the U.S., people are standing up to tyrannical and irrational COVID measures, be it mask and vaccine mandates or inhumane COVID rules in the hospitals.

In Tennessee, for example, a new state law will force hospitals to allow end-of-life visitations for COVID patients, so that they won’t have to face death alone.¹⁷ As noted by Dr. Jason Martin, an ICU doctor who’s been on the frontlines since the beginning of the pandemic, “End-of-life care in an ICU with COVID is terrible,” and watching patients die all alone, separated from their families “is a life-changing experience.”

Be a Role Model

There are no simple answers to the mental health crisis facing us, but putting an end to unnecessary fearmongering, I think, is a task that needs to be shouldered by those who still chose to work in mainstream media. On an individual level, it may mean shutting off MSM news altogether.

Those of us who have not succumbed to irrational fear (or who have worked our way out of it) can also act as a lifeline to untold numbers of people by sharing information that empowers rather than enforces fear, and by being role models in the way we go about our lives.

Don’t wear a mask to appease people’s fears. Let people see you smile. Be friendly and optimistic when in public. You never know how seeing you enjoy life might benefit someone who feels the world has become an unsafe and scary place.

In the long term, we need additional solutions — we need more qualified psychiatrists and therapists, for example — but in the meantime, we must do what we can, on an individual level, to ease the collective pressure, and we can begin by simply demonstrating that a different reality is possible.

The collective has been squeezed, mangled and brought to the precipice by a few in power. Many have been broken down in this process. It’s now time for the rest of us to take the reins and steward our fellow humans back to reality, back to sanity, by being firm yet kind, principled, ethical, truthful, rational and optimistic.

*

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, 6 STAT News April 12, 2022

² CDC National Center for Health Statistics Household Pulse Survey

³ 2020 National Survey on Drug Use and Health

⁴ NAMI Mental Health 2020

⁵ Physician Specialty Data

^7, 8, 9 NPR April 7, 2022

¹⁰ Bloomberg March 11, 2022

¹¹ Science March 4, 2022

¹² US News & World Report April 13, 2022

¹³ Daily Beast April 7, 2022

¹⁴ Time April 11, 2022

¹⁵ OpenVAERS

¹⁶ The Atlantic April 8, 2022

¹⁷ WKRN November 17, 2022

Featured image is from iStock

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

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

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

***

While almost the entire world is criticizing China and accusing her of human rights abuses for locking down all of 26 million Shanghai citizens, when only some 26,000 positive-tested “Covid-19” cases were detected. At first sight, that indeed seems abnormal, or even a vast exaggeration. At first sight.

But let’s look again.

Remember the 2002 – 2004 SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak?

It infected about 8,000 people and caused 774 deaths. By far, most of the cases and of the deaths were found in mainland China and Hongkong, some in Taiwan, and even a few in Japan, the US, and apparently in some more than 20 countries around the globe.

What is remarkable is that all of the “cases” were people with the Chinese genome. In other words, the virus attacked specifically the “Chinese race”, i.e. it was tailor-made to target China and her citizens.

“Coincidentally”, a few years earlier, in 1999 and 2000, the Chinese government detected hundreds of western “scientists”, typically from Harvard and other western reputed learning institutes and laboratories, collecting DNA samples from people in rural China, mostly in the north western provinces of China.

These “scientists” hired Chinese citizens to help them collect blood samples in isolated regions for pay. The westerners were, of course expulsed, once detected. However – too late. They had already smuggled out of China thousands of DNA samples taken from native Chinese. See this.

These samples would later serve to design a special corona virus targeting the Chinese genome. The resulting 2002-2004 SARS outbreak in China was a trial – for worse to come.

Remember also Event 201 that took place in NYC on October 18, 2019? sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security which also hosted the event.

During this event, all the important world actors, such as the World Bank, IMF, the UN and many of the UN specialized agencies, including UNICEF – and of course WHO – as well as key banking and financial institutions – major US health institutes, like CDC, FDA, and even China’s CDC – and many more – participated in this desk-top simulation – which was to produce worldwide more than 60 million deaths in the span of about two to three years. See this.

As the Chinese authorities were well aware of the genetically targeted virus, they were alert when SARS-Cov-2 hit Wuhan in early 2020. Their reaction was logical, immediate and severe. They locked down not only Wuhan (pop. 11 million) at once, but a large portion – some 50 million people – of Hubei Province, of which Wuhan is the capital. Subsequently more areas within China, where SARS-Cov-2 was detected, were locked down. It meant the beginning of zero-tolerance for what later was conveniently renamed by WHO as Covid-19. Also remember, Covid-19, alias SARS-Cov-2, was never isolated or identified as a new virus.

Knowing the background of genetic- or race-designed viruses, China’s reaction to protect her citizens was logical and immediate. In fact, with this policy China mastered the disease largely within about six to eight months. During those harsh lockdowns, some 80% of the Chinese industrial complex was paralyzed. But by the end of 2020 most of the Chinese production apparatus, factories, shipping lines, agricultural production were humming again – and back on stream.

This is among the main reasons why the Chinese economic growth hardly suffered during this new covid outbreak. In fact, against IMF projection of 1.2% growth in 2021, and the Chinese own projection of 3.5% economic expansion in 2021 – actual Chinese growth in 2021 was registered as 5.5%. This growth and resulting export potential has helped many countries, especially on the Asian Continent, to reduce their covid-induced losses and to move their economies forward.

Ever since Chairman Mao Zedong’s communist revolution in 1949, China was a persistent thorn in western capitalist eyes. As China has gradually grown into a super-power, economically as well as strategically speaking, attacks and western sanctions on China have also grown. No matter how illegal, against international law and against human rights – led by the US, the west is relentlessly imposing economic sanctions on China – and of course also on China’s closest ally, Russia.

Despite these sanctions, China will soon – within the next 3 to 4 years, if not before – surpass the US economy. In fact, when measured according to the only real economic indicators, namely the PPP-factor (Purchasing Power Parity – meaning the value of goods a currency may purchase), China has surpassed the United States already several years ago.

China is a supply chain of vital interim production and / or end-use production parts, the west needs to make its consumer goods work, and consumers happy. Russia, on the other hand, supplies most raw materials available on her vast territory to produce these goods the west covets.

Both China and Russia are economically and strategically crucial for the west. Thy are also close allies. They represent a threat to western supremacy. The west does not tolerate this, as domination is in the west’s genes. Just look back at thousand years of western colonies in the Global South.

Instead of seeking cooperation agreements with these vital Should-Be Partners, the west seeks to dominate and annihilate them, with sanctions and with physical warfare. The west’s top war-institution, NATO, doesn’t miss a beat to threaten and attempt to intimidate Russia and China – by encroaching on the borders of these two allies, as well as by playing out their military might in close-to-their borders armed maneuvers. No wonder, China has recently joined Russia in opposing further NATO expansion, as the two countries move closer together in the face of Western pressure.

*

Now comes the Ukraine war with Russia, of which NATO expansion is just one reason. By now most of the world know – even the mainstream doesn’t make a secret of it anymore – that then US Secretary of State James Baker III, and Washington’s European allies promised at the capitulation of the Soviet Union in 1991, then Soviet / Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, not to move NATO an inch further east of Berlin.

This was a promise made in return for allowing Germany to re-unite with East Germany and to integrate East Berlin into West Berlin, remaking the combined city of Berlin again Germany’s capital.

As we all know, this promise has been broken miserably. In 1991 NATO counted 16 member countries, of which 2 in the Americas (the US and Canada) and 14 in Europe. Today, some 30 years later, NATO counts 30 members. All of the 14 new ones are in Europe, many moving ever closer to the borders of Russia. Ukraine was the next NATO candidate. This, Russia could not tolerate.

Just imagine, Russia or China were to build military bases in Mexico or Central America – how the US would react. We have a livid example of the 1961 Bay of Pigs crisis, when then US President JFK and Russian President Nikita Khrushchev avoided a potentially all-destructive nuclear war, through negotiations in a Vienna meeting.

President Putin’s worries today are more than understandable – and they explain partially his intervention in Ukraine. This is not justifying a war by any means, but partially explaining Russia’s reaction.

Connecting the Dots to the Shanghai Lockdown

However, possibly an even more important reason than the NATO threat for President Putin’s intervention in Ukraine are the 20 to 30 war-type (grade 3) US-funded bio-labs in Ukraine. They were built during the past 20-some years, most of them after the western-instigated Maidan Coup in February 2014 which led to the current state of affairs with Ukraine, and between Ukraine and Russia.

For reasons of national security, Russia has to control and possibly destroy these deadly labs. To do so, an intervention was necessary. The timing of the western aggressions to trigger the Russian intervention, especially the Azov-Nazi battalions’ killings of civilians in the separatist Donbas region, is not a coincidence. In 8 years since the Maidan Coup, 14,000 civilian deaths, of which about a third are children, were recorded. It fits the narrative of the WEF’s Global Reset which aims at global domination of the total world population, all of the 193 UN member countries, through many means.

This is all part of the infamous UN Agenda 2030. The beginning was the false Covid-war of fear, lowering peoples’ immune system and willingness to resist; thus, leading them like a heard of sheep to the so-called vaxx-chambers, where they were injected with what the lie-narrative calls anti-covid-19 vaccines, when in reality they are mRNA – DNA-modifying – test jabs.

Different vials of western produced vaxxes contain different bio-chemical compositions, including graphene oxide to eventually facilitate electro-magnetic brain manipulations – coinciding with Klaus Schwab’s dream of the 4^th Industrial Revolution where ultimately the remaining surviving world would be fully digitized.

According to Mike Yeadon, former Vice President and Chief of Science of Pfizer, these fake vaxxes further reduce humans’ immune system. The first jab by about 30%, the second by another 30% and the third jab, the so-called booster, by another 20%. That leaves about 20% of men and women’s auto-immune system intact. In other words, within one to three years of being vaccinated people could die from a variety of diseases, including aggressive cancers and different types of heart ailments which would be difficult to trace back to the vaxxes. As examples see this, Covid jabs to sterilize women and this Covid jabs to include HIV ingredients.

What if the 4^th and 5^th and-so-on “boosters” – all programmed, will be let loose and imposed on humanity within the coming 7 or 8 years to completion of UN Agenda 2030?

In addition, the constant western media-indoctrinated vaxx-narrative leaves many people – today still a majority – in a state of cognitive dissonance; meaning, they cannot admit to themselves having been lied to by their government which they purportedly elected and paid with their taxes to protect them. Such betrayal is too much to believe and admit to themselves. The dark Cabal behind this plan and behind the tyrannical UN Agenda 2030 knows that. That makes it all the more difficult to waking people up – and bringing them into a solidarity opposition.

Back to the Ukraine Virus Labs

These Grade-3 war-type bio-labs are capable of producing genome-specific viruses that can be directed to attack different Russian genomes and Chinese-DNA people, as well as others, if programmed accordingly. Numerous such tests of tailor-made viruses have been carried out during the last two to three decades. Not least the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa (2014-2016), affecting mainly Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, the epicenter of the outbreak. Over the duration of this Ebola epidemic, there were 28,616 suspected, probable, and confirmed cases from these three countries and 11,310 deaths, leading to a horrendous death-to-case rate of some 40% – see this. Compare this to the so-called Covid-19 death rate of about 0.07 to 0.1%; a flu-like incidence.

Who knows whether a genome-targeted Ebola or any other deadly virus is or was being lab-produced in one of the US-funded bio-labs – that Russian forces “intervened” to destroy for the sake of humanity?

There is of course no assurance that none of such deadly, population decimating bio-war germs have “escaped” or been target-released before the Russian intervention – in line with the Great Reset and Bill Gates predicted new and much more dangerous epidemic outbreak.

A similar warning about a possible Marburg outbreak (internal bleeding similar to Ebola) was made earlier this year by French Prime Minister, Jean Castex, when he warned that the French elections in early April 2022 may have to be postponed… it did not happen, so far. But who knows, whether and when such an outbreak may occur….

And who would be the prime targets of such viruses? – China and Russia?

While there is no concrete evidence of a biological attack, perhaps China’s “zero covid tolerance” – and the full lock-down of Shanghai – is now better understood?

We, the people, in solidarity with each other, within and with all nations, must do whatever we can to bring down this “dark agenda” and bring on the Light, even if it requires temporary sacrifice. – In the end, be sure, Light conquers darkness.

*

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. 

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

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

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

***

Covid lockdowns may partly explain the mysterious spate of hepatitis cases which has sickened dozens of British children, experts claim.

Some 108 youngsters under 10 have been struck down with the inflammatory liver condition in Britain so far since January. Eight have needed a liver transplant.

Sick children have also been reported in the US, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain — but scientists are still unsure what is behind the cases.

The UK Health Security Agency believes adenoviruses — a family of common viruses which usually cause mild colds, vomiting and diarrhoea — may be playing a role.

Around 77 per cent of the cases in Britain also tested positive for adenovirus, the agency said today.

Experts tasked with investigating the spate of illnesses believe the endless cycle of lockdowns may have played a contributing role, weakening children’s immunity and leaving them at heightened risk of adenovirus.

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.

Featured image is from Adobe Stock

Video: Nationwide Protest in Pakistan in Support of Imran Khan: Largest Rally in the History of Peshawar City, in the History of the Province of the Pashtun People

Junaid S. Ahmad, April 14, 2022

Digital Tyranny: The EU Digital Covid Vaccine Certificate Framework

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 11, 2022

The Vaccine Death Report: Evidence of Millions of Deaths and Serious Adverse Events Resulting from the Experimental COVID-19 Injections

David John Sorensen, April 11, 2022

Dutch Journalist: ‘We are here, in Donbass, to awaken Westerners deluded by propaganda’

Ekaterina Blinova, April 14, 2022

Ukraine: The Moment of Truth

Prof. Ivaylo Grouev, April 17, 2022

540 Athletes Die After Receiving COVID Injections, Hundreds More Develop Serious Health Conditions

Kevin Hughes, April 14, 2022

Ukraine: The Fakes of Anti-Russian Propaganda

Manlio Dinucci, April 18, 2022

The Lies…and the Eyes…of Ukraine. Reporting from Lviv

Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 19, 2022

Renowned Virologist Warns of ‘Collapse of Our Health System’ Due to Complications from COVID Vaccines

Patrick Delaney, April 19, 2022

NATO-Exit under Art. 13: Dismantle NATO, Close Down 800 US Military Bases, Prosecute the War Criminals

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 17, 2022

Bhakdi/Burkhardt Pathology Results Show 93% of People Who Died After Being Vaccinated Were Killed by the Vaccine

Steve Kirsch, April 12, 2022

The Hidden Truth Behind War with Russia

Martin Armstrong, April 19, 2022

Ukraine-Russia: Towards a “Hot War”? Advancing the Agenda of the Great Reset?

Peter Koenig, April 15, 2022

Human Microchip Implants and the “Internet of Bodies” (IoB)

Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 19, 2022

The COVID Crime Continues Full Speed. Don’t be Fooled by the War. “Watch the Water”

Peter Koenig, April 16, 2022

The Shanghai Covid Lockdown. Who Was Behind It?

Emanuel Pastreich, April 18, 2022

Biggest Lie in World History: There Never Was A Pandemic. The Data Base is Flawed. The Covid Mandates including the Vaccine are Invalid

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 19, 2022

More Than 1 Million COVID Vaccine Injuries, Nearly 27,000 Deaths Reported to VAERS, CDC Data Show

Megan Redshaw, April 18, 2022

Towards A New Global Financial System: Sergey Glazyev

Pepe Escobar, April 18, 2022

US-NATO Sanctions and the Coming Global Diesel Fuel Disaster

F. William Engdahl, April 12, 2022

UK Home Secretary Priti Patel Was Part of CIA-linked Lobby Group with Husband of Assange Judge

By Matt Kennard, April 22, 2022

Home Secretary Priti Patel, who will soon decide whether to extradite Julian Assange to the US, has been a political adviser to – and been funded by – a right-wing lobby group which has attacked Assange in the British media for a decade.

Who Are the War Criminals? The Nightmare: The Iraq Invasion’s Atrocities, Unearthing the Unthinkable

By Felicity Arbuthnot, April 22, 2022

I have a deeply held belief that the duty of a commentator is, to the best of one’s ability, to record, to shine light in often dark places, to act as a voice for those whose own voice, fears, plights might not be heard or known. To write about the emotions one sometimes feels when doing it, is an anathema and anyway a redundancy.

#FreeAssange: Sign to Urge UK Home Secretary Priti Patel to Reject Julian Assange’s Extradition to the United States!

By Reporters Without Borders, April 21, 2022

On 20 April, the Westminster Magistrates’ Court signed an order confirming the alarming next step in the more than decade-long case against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. Following more than two years of extradition proceedings in UK courts, Assange’s fate has once again become a political decision for the Home Secretary – the very office that made the political decision to green-light the US extradition request in 2019.

Israel’s Fortress State Is the Model for the UK’s New Asylum Policy

By Jonathan Cook, April 21, 2022

There is nothing innovative or humanitarian about Britain’s new policy of shipping asylum seekers, “on a one-way ticket“, thousands of miles to central Africa. Nor is there anything surprising about the choice of destination: Rwanda. Boris Johnson’s government has simply copied wholesale a programme established by Israel eight years ago.

Deadly: COVID Vaccine Smoking Gun; AstraZeneca CEO Reveals the Secret

By Jon Rappoport, April 21, 2022

Project Veritas has just released a leaked recording of a December 2020 Zoom call, during which AstraZeneca CEO, Pascal Soriot, stated that millions of people, whose immune systems are compromised, cannot receive the COVID vaccine.

“Wiki-Gate”: Julian Assange Was Framed by the People Who Supported Him

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 21, 2022

We must act decisively in support and in solidarity with Julian Assange. In this regard, we must understand the history: On how Assange was betrayed and misled by those who allegedly supported him.

UK Government Refuses to Publish Further COVID-19 Cases, Hospitalisations and Deaths

By The Daily Expose, April 21, 2022

The UK Health Security Agency is refusing to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status because previous figures show that the triple vaccinated population are on the verge of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.

Destination Ukraine: Will Poland Go Rogue? Warsaw’s Ulterior Motive? The Lviv Connection

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 21, 2022

While NATO, the US military and Ukrainian president Zelensky have to this point been thwarted by the nuclear realities in their goal of fomenting World War III in Ukraine it may be that Poland, due to its own ulterior motives, will do the dirty work on their behalf.

British Brinkmanship: Boris Johnson’s “Clandestine” Visit to Kyiv, Amidst Secrecy

By Nauman Sadiq, April 21, 2022

Two British citizens, Shaun Pinner and Aiden Aslin, who went to Ukraine to fight for the now-disbanded “international legion” of foreign mercenaries created by Kyiv in early days of the war and were fighting alongside neo-Nazi Azov militia in Mariupol, were captured by Russian forces and fervently appealed to the British prime minister for their immediate release.

Video: Censorship and Free Speech: The TWA 800 Crash and Musk’s “Twitter Takeover”: Kelly O’Meara

By Kristina Borjesson and Kelly O’Meara, April 21, 2022

In the first edition of her “Don’t Ask That Question” podcast program, investigative reporter Kelly O’Meara talks to Kristina Borjesson about the shut-down of their investigation of TWA 800 crash & current attempts to shut down Musk’s Twitter takeover.

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

After supplying equipment and emboldening a militarized Ukraine, Britain has now started arming Kosovo’s Albanians with Javelin and NLAW anti-tank missile systems. The British Embassy in Belgrade said that some Serbian media published fabricated claims of arms exports from the United Kingdom to Kosovo and claimed that there was no truth to those allegations. However, Serbian Minister of the Interior Aleksandar Vulin insists that the UK did transfer weapons to Kosovo, stating:

“You are creating an army, arming them, giving them armored vehicles, anti-tank systems, drones, conducting training, we hear that you are sending them to trial courses in Turkey and Albania,” adding that the integration of Kosovo into NATO is only intended to “provoke Serbia.”

London seemingly wants to use the situation in Ukraine to increase pressure on the Serbs over the issues in Kosovo and Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH). Before the Russian military operation commenced in Ukraine, Britain was already heavily involved in security issues in the Balkans. It is recalled that Boris Johnson warned of an extremely dangerous situation in the Balkans as early as December last year and appointed Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy to the Western Balkans.

Following Brexit, the UK did everything it could to keep its presence in Europe, including in the Western Balkans where the roots of conflict already exist and threaten to boilover. The UK advocated for the maximum strengthening of Operation Althea (formally the European Union Force Bosnia and Herzegovina), the strengthening of the NATO contingent in the country, and even coordinated the unilateral arrival of British contingents and forces on the territory of BiH.

Such British (and NATO) militarization awakens anxieties and counters the security of both Serbia and the Balkans, with the violent wars of the 1990’s still fresh in the memory. The UK will likely continue to deliver equipment to the Balkans and also encourage other NATO members to strengthen anti-Serbian militaries in the region.

This comes as Montenegro seems synchronised in terms of Russophobia and pointing to Serbia as a disruptive factor in the region. This is ironic when considering Montenegro has no independence itself and follows the interests of the UK and US instead. Albania is also another key to Anglo designs over the Balkans, especially as they enthusiastically express their willingness to take practical steps to strengthen NATO forces in the Balkans.

The Western arming of Kosovo, bolstering of BiH, and encouragement for Montenegro and Albania to militarize is a warning to Serbia that it should not be so close to Russia, especially in the context of the Ukraine War.

The fact that foreign instructors are arriving with military systems in Kosovo is not a novelty because they have so far trained Kosovo Albanian soldiers in special forces, support units, telecommunications, anti-armour, PVO systems and more. However, this is likely just elementary training and an incomplete process with a future aim of fully equipping Kosovo’s forces with much more powerful weapon systems.

London is making such a decision to arm Kosovo even though there is no complete consensus in NATO regarding the status of the territory, with Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain refusing to recognize its illegally declared independence from Serbia. Despite a consensus not being reached, London and Washington are working timelessly to assist Pristina and construct some kind of Kosovo Army.

In effect, the Anglo Alliance are further radicalising Kosovo’s Albanians and encouraging destabilisation in the Balkans. Instead of punishing Kosovo’s de facto Prime Minister Albin Kurti for banning Kosovo Serbs from voting, they reward him with weapons and further integration into NATO.

Lightweight anti-missile and Javelin anti-tank systems, most commonly mentioned as part of a Western “support” package for the Ukrainian Armed Forces against Russia, have become part of the arsenal of Kosovo’s so-called security forces. The acquisition was agreed at a meeting between Albin Kurti and Boris Johnson in February this year, and according to Serbia but denied by the UK, the first contingent of 50 systems was delivered in April.

At the same time, the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee will hold a session to discuss a draft resolution that will invite Serbia to harmonise with EU decisions in foreign and security policy, including sanctions on Russia. A draft resolution proposed by EP rapporteur for Serbia, Vladimir Bilczyk, expressed regret over the fact that Serbia failed to comply with EU sanctions following Russia’s military operation in Ukraine and urged Serbian authorities to show “a real commitment to EU values.”

The draft resolution reminds Serbian authorities that progress in the dialogue on normalising relations with Kosovo will determine the pace of EU accession negotiations. The proposed text is to be adopted by the European Parliament at a plenary session this year.

In effect, the EU and the Anglo Alliance are working in tandem to move Serbia away from Russia. The EU provides the carrot of bloc membership while the Anglo Alliance provides the stick by arming, training and militarizing Kosovo’s Albanians against Serbia. Given that Serbia has already experienced the full horrors of NATO and could do little as Europe divided the Serbian people by establishing new countries and not allowing them to be in the borders of Serbia, it is unlikely that Belgrade will be intimidated into abandoning its long, tried and tested relationship with Moscow.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image: Aleksandar Vulin, Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia (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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

First published on March 31, 2022.

***

Home Secretary Priti Patel, who will soon decide whether to extradite Julian Assange to the US, has been a political adviser to – and been funded by – a right-wing lobby group which has attacked Assange in the British media for a decade.

Priti Patel sat on the Henry Jackson Society’s (HJS) advisory council from around 2013-16, although the exact dates are unclear as neither the HJS nor Patel responded to Declassified’s requests for clarification.

She has also received funds from the HJS, and was paid £2,500 by the group to visit Washington in March 2013 to attend a “security” programme in the US Congress.

Patel, who became an MP in 2010 and was appointed Home Secretary in 2019, also hosted an HJS event in parliament soon after she returned from Washington.

After the UK Supreme Court said this month it was refusing to hear Assange’s appeal of a High Court decision against him, the WikiLeaks founder’s fate now lies in Patel’s hands. He faces life in prison in the US.

The HJS, which was founded in 2005 and does not disclose its funders, has links to the CIA, the intelligence agency behind the prosecution of Assange and which reportedly developed plans to assassinate him.

One of the HJS’s international patrons is James Woolsey, CIA director from 1993-95, who was in this role throughout the period Patel was advising the group. Woolsey’s affiliation to the HJS goes back to at least 2006, soon after it was founded.

In 2014, the group hosted General David Petraeus, CIA director from 2011-12, at a UK parliament meeting from which all media were barred.

Three years later, in 2017, the HJS organised another event at parliament with General Michael Hayden, CIA director from 2006-9, to “discuss the current state of the American Intelligence Community and its relationships with foreign partners.”

Hayden described “the relationship within the Five Eyes community as strong as ever, despite potential concerns over recent intelligence leaks between members.” Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance comprising Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US.

‘Perception of bias’

During a visit to the UK in July 2020, then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke at a roundtable hosted by the HJS with what the Washington Post referred to as a group of “hawkish” members of the Conservative Party.

As director of the CIA in 2017, Pompeo had launched a blistering attack on WikiLeaks calling the media organisation a “hostile intelligence service” that makes “common cause with dictators”.

Pompeo did not provide evidence but added a threat: “To give them the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

On the HJS advisory council at the same time as Patel was Lord James Arbuthnot, a former Conservative defence minister. His wife, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, was Westminster Chief Magistrate from 2016-2021.

For part of her tenure, she was in charge of the Assange case and made two key rulings against him in 2018. Lady Arbuthnot eventually stepped aside from ruling on the case because of a “perception of bias” but never declared a conflict of interest.

The links between Patel and Lord Arbuthnot go further. In 2010, soon after becoming an MP, Patel was appointed one of five parliamentary officers of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) when the group was chaired by Lord Arbuthnot.

CFI has been described as “beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups”. It also does not disclose its funders.

Patel was forced to resign as Secretary of State for International Development in November 2017 after it was revealed that she had held more than a dozen undeclared meetings with Israeli ministers and organisations while on holiday in the country.

Many of these were arranged by CFI’s honorary president, Lord Polak. Patel’s resignation letter accepted that her conduct “fell below…standards of transparency and openness”.

Lady and Lord Arbuthnot attend the Queen’s garden party at Buckingham Palace in May 2017. Anonymisation by Declassified. (Photo: Instagram)

‘Bonkers and paranoid’

HJS staff have been repeatedly critical of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks in the British media since 2011 when its then associate director, Douglas Murray, engaged in a combative debate with Assange.

The following year, the HJS posted a video of Murray stating on media channel Al-Jazeera English:

“There is not a witch-hunt of WikiLeaks. An organisation illegally obtained, or stole as we used to call it, a whole set of government documents and published them with consequences which are still not fully understood.”

Murray continued:

“I think Mr Assange has been bonkers and paranoid for years, it’s part of his alleged political makeup, and indeed I would allege that of many of his supporters.”

Over the following years, the HJS and its staff continued to be among the most active civil society voices for impugning the motives and reputation of Assange.

This stands in contrast to nearly all human rights and press freedom organisations which argue that extraditing the WikiLeaks publisher to the US would be a grave blow to media freedom.

‘Conspiracy theories’

In October 2016, the HJS released a statement to the media, which claimed:

“Mr Assange has a long track record of stealing and distributing information, peddling conspiracy theories, and casting aspersions on the moral standing of western democratic governments. He has done this whilst supporting, and being supported by, autocratic regimes.”

No evidence was supplied to support the assertions.

A number of other HJS staff—including spokesperson Sam Armstrong and then chief of staff Ellie Green—have made anti-Assange interventions in the British media.

In April 2019, after Julian Assange was seized from the embassy by British police, HJS executive director Alan Mendoza was put up as the counterweight against Assange’s lawyer on BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme.

Posted to the HJS Youtube channel, Mendoza told the national broadcaster:

“Journalists are not allowed to break the law in obtaining their materials.”

He added:

“I think it’s quite clear Mr Assange has spent many years evading justice, hiding in a room in Knightsbridge…Isn’t it time he actually answered questions in a court of law?”.

Secrecy

In October 2019, as home secretary, Patel visited Washington again to meet William Barr, the US Attorney General who was then in charge of the Assange case as head of the Department of Justice.

Together they signed the Cloud Act which made it easier for American and British law enforcement agencies to demand electronic data on targets as they undertake investigations.

Assange’s defence team had previously raised the concern in court that Barr may be using Assange’s extradition case in the UK for political ends.

In August 2020, Declassified requested basic information about Patel’s 2019 trip to Washington. The Home Office confirmed it held the information but refused to release it because the department considered “that disclosure of some of the information would prejudice relations between the UK and the United States”.

In May 2020, Declassified also requested information about any calls or emails made or received by Patel since she became Home Secretary which concerned the case of Julian Assange, or mentioned his name.

The Home Office told us “we can neither confirm nor deny whether we hold the information you have requested” because “to do so either way would disclose information that constitutes the personal data of Julian Assange”.

The same request for Sajid Javid’s tenure as Home Secretary from 2018-19 was rejected because the department said “we have carried out a thorough search and we have established that the Home Office does not hold the information that you have requested.”

This was despite the fact Javid signed the initial US extradition request for Assange in June 2019. The shadow home secretary at the time, Diane Abbott, opposed approving the US extradition request.

Declassified previously revealed that before signing the US request, Javid had attended six secretive meetings, some attended by former CIA directors, which were organised by a US lobby group which has published calls for Assange to be assassinated or taken down.

The Home Office recently admitted it had eight officials working on Operation Pelican, the UK government campaign to seize Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

The department, however, claimed it did not know which other UK government ministries were involved in the operation.

Priti Patel and the Henry Jackson Society did not respond to requests for information and comment.

*

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.

Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt

Featured image: Priti Patel (R) meets Alejandro Mayorkas, US Secretary of Homeland Security, Washington DC, 17 November 2021. (Photo: Priti Patel / Twitter)

March 19 2022 marks 19 years since the US-UK led war on Iraq in 2003. But that war did not start in 2003. It is an ongoing 31 years wars. It is part of a broader war against humanity. 

This article by Felicity Arbuthnot was first published on October 9, 2010. Felicity was for several years a war correspondent in Iraq.

***

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” François-Marie Arouet -“Voltaire” (1694-1778.)

I have a deeply held belief that the duty of a commentator is, to the best of one’s ability, to record, to shine light in often dark places, to act as a voice for those whose own voice, fears, plights might not be heard or known. To write about the emotions one sometimes feels when doing it, is an anathema and anyway a redundancy.

The purpose is to attempt to draw attention to wrongs, not to whinge about the effects they can have – and any way, a private life should be just that. If politicians wish to strip themselves of their dignity and allude to everything from their sex life, to using private grief to gain sympathy votes, those with a shred of self-respect do not wish to emulate them. Here, I am breaking my taboo, for a reason.

Over the last several weeks I have again researched in depth, invasion’s atrocities in Iraq, unearthing the unthinkable, switching off emotion and reading of terror, torture, monstrous wickednesses, word after sickening word. Then, Fallujah revisited (1) with document after document revealing the depth of the darkest depravities towards others, which can be plumbed, by “some mother’s son” – or daughter. Indeed, some child’s father or mother, able to shoot the children, toddlers, babies of others, in cold blood, drive over them in tanks, leaving the pathetic remains to be eaten by stray dogs.

 

Photographs viewed have included many which even hardened investigators have deemed: “too disturbing to view.” This is not a view I hold.

If family members who have survived, emergency workers (when not incinerated by U.S., troops themselves) medical staff, if not shot, imprisoned, tortured, or tied up with a bag over their head) can view, identify, bury with love and respect – or in the case of medical staff, carefully photograph, and note time, location of finding, then number, wrap and retain for a period, before burial, hoping a relative will claim the charred, mutilated, or worse, remains. It is a duty for those with any “voice”, from countries responsible for this first documentable U.S., U.K., genocide of the 21st century, to draw attention to it, in the memory of and in tribute to, the voiceless, nameless, uncounted victims, in the hope that eventually, legal recourse might result.

In fact it was compassion which over came all – bodies and faces burned near beyond recognition, or the eviscerated, the all with the eyes, often, still staring out in a desperate silent plea for help, combined with utter bewilderment. “We have the scumbags on the run”, wrote a marine on his website. “We lit them up”, wrote another, as many took photographs of these lost souls – and sent them to porn sites in exchange for free viewing. And between the U.S., occupiers (now, surreally, re-branded “advisors” – same car, new paint) and what Hussein al-Alak of the Iraq Solidarity Campaign has called: ” the U.S., imposed Vichy government, with their foreign passports ..”, who will fight for justice for the Iraqis?

And, as since 1991, this is also a war against the unborn, new born and under fives. After the bodies and the rubble, the gore, blood and limbs, there are the deformities. The fledgling life, born without eyes, brain, with one cyclops eye,  with no head, with two heads, with no limbs, or fingers – or too many.

A biblical land turned to genetic and ecological Armageddon, for current and future generations, till the end of time. “Mission accomplished”, said George W. Bush, in his ridiculous little flying suit, on the USS Abraham Lincoln on 1st May 2003. “Let freedom reign”, he scribbled, after the first, corrupt, murderous, corpse-littered “elections”. Result: “Let genocide commence.”

The U.S., appointed “Viceroy” in Iraq, J. Paul Bremer, dressed for the part, Hollywood style, in ridiculous desert, or army boots, depending on your perception, arrived shortly after the invasion, seemingly believing in population reduction. Reportedly asking what the population of Iraq was, he was told, about twenty five million. His response was allegedly : “Too many, try five.” But then, he had been Kissinger Associates’ man.

As I read, I listened to the great and the good in various world legal bodies discuss whether the Congo and Rwanda should be “classed” as genocide. In July 2004, as U.S., troops were training for the Fallujah massacre, the coming November, the U.S., House of Representatives passed a unanimous resolution calling the tragedy of Darfur: “Genocide.” They asked the administration to consider “Multilateral or even Unilateral” action, to end this genocide. Reluctance to take proactive steps to prevent further loss of human life was “criminal”, they opined.

Seemingly genocides these days are only committed by Africans or Eastern Europeans, not those great bastions of democracy, U.S., U.K., and the “only democracy in the Middle East”, ally Israel. The Israeli Defence Force, trained U.S., troops for the two week November 2004, Fallujah pogrom. (2) “If it moves, shoot it”, was the order of the day. As two world wars, as Korea, Vietnam, the face of liberation never changes.

“Their tactics basically involve massive fire power … bringing in tanks and helicopters to fire on targets … demolishing buildings, establishing snipers on roofs, smashing holes in walls (and) shooting anything that moved.” This in addition to:  ” … aerial bombardment and shell fire from large field guns.”

The plight of Fallujah:

“Was not fully understood in the West, save by some of the survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto … they were trapped (like) rabbits in a cornfield”, being circled to be mown down and dismembered by combine harvesters.(3)

The photographs are testimony to the chilling description. The unsung heroes are those who determined to record them, so some time, some where, the crimes would be known and legal retribution sought. These terrible, pathetic images, are the silent testimony to the first known Western genocide of the 21st century. Sadly, it is a near certainty that Iraq and Afghanistan will, in time, produce proof of more.

On visits to Iraq during the embargo years, when there was the silent genocide over nearly thirteen years of the U.S.-U.K.,- driven U.N., embargo’s prohibition of all necessary to sustain the basics of life, with children dying of “embargo-related causes”, at an average of six thousand a month, witnessing the heartbreak, the bafflement at their plight, the terrible guilt was always leaving. One saw and shared to some extent, the unimaginable, being perpetrated in one’s name, then one left. Across the border, in Jordan, the lights were on, the towns bustled, clean water came out of the taps, and the illegal American and British bombs were not dropping. Yet so near, the children were dying, the people were dying, in the name of “We the people …”

Looking through the photographs, reading of the near incomprehensible depths of sadistic destruction of their fellow human beings, men and women in uniform can uniformly sink to, I could also escape at the end of the day. I could make a meal, go and listen to live jazz at a favorite jazz pub, or simply pour a glass of wine and listen to music, surrounded by numerous books, collected pictures and loved items, in a home I enjoy, before seeking the warmth of the duvet and a comfortable bed.

But if the conscious mind can switch off, clearly the sub-conscious does not. One night the nightmare, one was sure was not a nightmare, but reality, struck. In the surreal world of nightmares, I “woke”, to find myself saturated, blood pouring from under my arms. Wondering what was happening and what to do about it, I did, in nightmare-land, what I often do when working something out (though not usually at 3 a.m.,) and got the tools together and went out in to my garden. As ever, to trim and nurture plants, and bushes, mostly grown from tiny, often quarter inch cuttings, cosseted indoors, until clement weather, then planted outside, in sheltered warmth, and further fed and tended until suddenly seemingly overnight, a vibrant, colored addition, standing on its own roots, is ready to face all seasons. But my garden, with its protective hedges, (white flowers in summer, orange berries in winter and thorns to deter the trespasser …) had gone. There were just bulldozer tracks, deep, ruining, not a leaf, stem or bloom left – just a wasteland.

Then, in nightmare-world, in my nightclothes, blood covered, I realised I had no keys to get back in. What if anyone found me in this state? I turned to the front door to try and figure a plan – but the building had gone. I was alone, bloody, near undressed and all had vanished, turning back to other familiar buildings, suddenly there was nothing. Just ruin, rubble and wasteland, as far as the eye could see. My life, my books, my comfort zone, were no more. Just the bloodied clothes I stood in remained.

Like walking away, I, of course, woke up – soaked and shivering. To a hot bath, a washing machine and a warm airing cupboard full of clean bed linen – my garden still intact. The people of Iraq, with their destroyed homes and gardens, fruit groves, date palm groves, or their vibrant plantings on balconies or flat roofs; the Palestinians, suffering the same plight for sixty two interminable years, and the people of Afghanistan in their flattened compounds, destroyed with their scented groves and gardens of blossoms and apricots, live a nightmare from which they never awake.

I thought again of the Iraqi child, whose parents had a beautiful garden, who showed a friend and I her drawing book, before the invasion. One picture had an abundance of flowers, carefully colored, in numerous hues,  on the side were American soldiers – shooting at the flowers. “Why are the soldiers shooting the flowers?” We asked. “Because Americans hate flowers”, she replied solemnly. It was a deeply saddening moment, that she represented so many children, who saw American as representing only wrath, fear and deprivation. She knew nothing of those Americans who had worked tirelessly to reverse the situation. If she has survived, she will be a young adult. She is unlikely to have changed her views.

In the U.K., Scottish parliamentarian, Dr Bill Wilson (4) is ploughing a determined path to bring Tony Blair to justice. In furtherance of this, he has now written to Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond and Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, calling for Scotland to adopt the recently agreed international definition of the crime of aggression into its legislature. His letter reads:

“The International Criminal Court’s Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala (5) earlier this year adopted a resolution by which it amended the Statute so as to include a definition of the crime of aggression and the conditions under which the Court could exercise jurisdiction with respect to the crime.  The actual exercise of jurisdiction is subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.  However, I believe that there is now no legal obstacle to individual countries adopting the new definition of the crime of aggression into their own legislatures.  I hope you will agree with me that it would be to Scotland’s credit if we could be one of the first countries to do this, and it would be a fine legacy for the present Scottish Government to leave as it nears the end of its term.”

He commented that, further, since the The International Criminal Court has now  agreed on a definition of the crime of aggression: “I believe that although the ICC itself cannot prosecute on the basis of this for the time being, there is no impediment to individual countries adopting the definition into their own legislatures immediately.  If Scotland did so, it would be an excellent example to the rest of the world and would send the clear message that we respect international law here.  It would also create a powerful incentive for present and future UK Governments to think carefully before embarking on warfare.

“I think most Scots would not wish to see a repeat of the tragedy we have seen unfold in Iraq. This might be a way of preventing such misguided ventures in the future.” Dr Wilson, is adamant: Scotland is in a position to: “… lead ethically in adopting the crime of aggression definition”, and has legal advise which concurs. Dr Wilson plans to use Fallujah as an example of this aggression, but also points out there there are surely numerous others, undocumented, as yet.

As John Pilger reminds, Blair promised that the (illegal) invasion of Baghdad would be ” … without a bloodbath and that Iraqis in the end would be celebrating … In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities such as Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a ‘model.’ ” (New Statesman, 30th September, 2010.)

As Pakistan, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, now seem to be in would be imperial sights, a precedent which will flag a up a warning sign to leaders of ill intent, is surely needed. Dr Gideon Polya, who’s work on excess deaths from invasions since 1950, states, in Afghanistan: “The annual death rate is 7% for under-5 year old Occupied Afghan infants, as compared to 4% for Poles in Nazi-occupied Poland, and 5% for French Jews in Nazi-occupied France.”

The U.S., and U.K., whose leaders have trumpeted the dangers of the latest “new Hitler” in the countries they planned to decimate, have outdone the Nazis. Enough.

Felicity Arbuthnot, distinguished journalist, Veteran War Correspondent, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Associate Editor of Global Research.

Notes

1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=212121

See also : www.billwilsonmsp.org

2. “War Crime or Just War”, Nicholas Wood, South Hill Press, 2005.

3. See 2.

4. See 1.

5.http://www2.icc-cpi.int/menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/review%20conference%20of%20the%20rome%20statute%20concludes%20in%20kampala

March 19 2021 marks 19 years since the US-UK led war on Iraq in 2003.

This article by Felicity Arbuthnot first published on September 22, 2010 recalls the atrocities and crimes against humanity committed against the people of Iraq, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and many more.

***

When the horrors of the sadistic, near necrophile behaviour of U.S., personnel at Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad, first showed the tip-of-the-iceberg-lie of “liberation”: cruelty, depravity and bestiality on a scale which apparently dwarfed all that Saddam Hussein’s regime had been accused of, President George W. Bush said: ” This does not represent the America I know.”

He should have. It was under the watch of his father, George Bush, Snr., that in 1991, thousands of Iraqi conscripts were buried alive in southern Iraq, by US army tanks and bulldozers. “What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches, with peoples arms and things sticking out of them”, said Colonel Anthony Moreno who participated.(1)

Sixteen years earlier, in 1975, Bush Snr., with Henry Kissinger and Vernon Walters, set up “Plan Condor”, under which CIA-enlisted exiles, orchestrated : “.. the torture and assassination of leftist leaders (under which) Latin American military rulers, also ‘disappeared’ thousands of their opponents.” (2)

This followed in the bloody footsteps of the CIA 1966 Phoenix Project, designed to “cleanse” South Viet Nam of Communists (Viet Cong.) “Specially designed torture chambers were constructed in all forty four provinces. Rape of women suspects, electric shock, water torture, and hanging from ceilings were standard methods during interrogations.” (3) Further: “The U.S.’s Phoenix Program killed tens of thousands of Vietnamese.

Vietnamese prisoners were thrown into ‘tiger cages’ – built by Texas military conractor RMK-BRJ, the forerunner of Halliburton subsidiary KBR .. and routinely tortured.” (See 2.) Halliburton has, of course, hit financial bonanzas in Iraq and Afghanistan, along the occasional slightly bumpy legal path.

Fast forward to the revelations this month that twelve soldiers from (U.S.,) 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division have been charged with seventy six crimes, ranging from murder, to taking or appropriating pictures of the dead, keeping body parts, including fingers, a skull, a leg bone and a tooth. Allegations also include: “..hitting, kicking, strangling, dragging and spitting on ..” a colleague with one, the highest ranking accused, a Staff Sergeant, also allegedly showing him fingers from a corpse to dissuade him from going to the army authorities.(4) Bodies were “cut up and photographed”, states the (UK) Telegraph.

An army spokeswoman said the, as yet, unproven charges were: ” .. an aberration in terms of the behavior of our forces, if true … I don’t believe the allegations here, against those few individuals, are representative of the behavior or the attitudes of the entire force.”

Sadly, history, recent and earlier, hardly supports this sanguine view. A few quickly collected reminders, from the uncountable include:

In Vietnam :

The “elite” Tiger Force : U.S. troops tortured and executed prisoners and cut off their ears as souvenirs and to make into necklaces. “There was a period when just about everyone had a necklace of ears,” one soldier remembered.

“When women and children in one village crawled into a bunker to try to hide, GIs threw grenades into the bunker and ignored the pleas and screams of the wounded until all were dead. Such actions were not limited to this one unit–they were typical of U.S. forces in Vietnam.

The widespread murder and torture had a strategic purpose–to terrorize the people, drive them away from the revolutionary fighters, and to force them to follow U.S. orders.” (5)

“Of the tens of thousands of South Vietnamese detained, at least twenty thousand were summarily executed … the severed heads of those executed were frequently displayed in the villages. Even more common was collecting the ears of dead Communist troops.” (6)

In a terrifying overview: “Torture is an American Value”, S. Brian Willson gives some salutary background to U.S., policy:

“I became aware of torture as a U.S. policy in 1969 when I was serving as a USAF combat security officer working near Can Tho City in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. I was informed about the CIA’s Phong Dinh Province Interrogation Center (PIC) at the Can Tho Army airfield where supposedly ‘significant members’ (of Viet Cong) were taken for torture as part of the Phoenix Pacification Program. A huge French-built prison nearby was also apparently utilized for torture of suspects from the Delta region. Many were routinely murdered.

“Naive, I was shocked! The Agency for International Development (AID) working with Southern Illinois University, for example, trained Vietnamese police and prison officials in the art of torture (“interrogations”) under cover of ‘public safety.’ American officials believed they were teaching ‘better methods’, often making suggestions during torture sessions conducted by Vietnamese police.”

A chilling sleight of hand, Willson points out, was that: “Instead of the recent euphemism ‘illegal combatants’, the United States, in Vietnam, claimed prisoners were ‘criminal’, and therefore exempt from Geneva Convention protections.” Think Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, think “renditions” and the uncounted, unknown secret prisons and secreted away human beings.

Far from being an “aberration”, Willson states: “The use of torture as a function of terror, or its equivalent in sadistic behavior, has been historic de facto U.S. policy.” (7)

And, lest forgotten: “From 1981 to 1985, John Negroponte was President Reagan’s ambassador to the bloody U.S.-backed regime in Honduras. Negroponte oversaw the training of the Honduran army. According to the Baltimore Sun,a secret CIA-trained Honduran army unit, Battalion 316, used “shock and suffocation devices in interrogations…. Prisoners often were kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves.”

“Negroponte also oversaw the brutal Contra war against Nicaragua. The CIA supplied the Contras with a manual titled ‘Psychological Operations In Guerilla Warfare.’ It called for the use of assassinations, kidnappings, extortions, and other violence for propagandistic effect. ” (8)

Willson scales the decades in tracing the parallels in behaviour, the linguistics are depressingly familiar : “When indigenous Nicaraguan resistance fought against the occupying U.S. forces in the late 1920s, the Marines launched counterinsurgency war. U.S. policymakers insisted on “stabilizing” the country to enforce loan repayments to U.S. banks. They defined the resistance forces as “bandits,” an earlier equivalent to the “criminal prisoners” in Vietnam and “illegal combatants” in Iraq. Since the United States claimed not to be fighting a legitimate military force, any Nicaraguan perceived as interfering with the occupiers was commonly subjected to beatings, tortures, and beheadings.”

In Nick Gier’s “Beheading, Hooding and Waterboarding: Torture in Viet Nam, Latin America and Iraq”, the America unrecognised by Bush Jnr., walks tall. An Abu Ghraib Military Intelligence e-mail, dated 17th August 2003, reads of the prisons inmates: “The gloves are coming off . . . Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken.”(9)

In fact the 6th March 2003, Defense Department “Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism” requested by Donald Rumsfeld, read:

“In order to respect the President’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign, (prohibition of torture) must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.”

On 20th March Iraq was illegally invaded and in April: “Rumsfeld issues a final policy approving twenty four special interrogation techniques, some of which need his permission to be used.”(10) With yet again, so little regard for international law or the U.S., Constitution, at the top, it is little wonder there is often either scant or none for either, leading to a culture of depravity down the chain of command..

In a supreme irony, John Negroponte was named U.S., Ambassador to Iraq in April 2004, just as the enormity of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal was becoming known.

It is widely reported that the aspect most concerning Commanders regarding the latest alleged depravities by troops, is that it might cause widespread anger, further turning the Afghans against the U.S., presence. It is hard to find shame, surprise, humility or regret expressed up the chain of Command.

A recent report in to standards in the U.S., army cites an increase in drug abuse and bad behavior, seemingly coming at the same time that the Army enlisted thousands of recruits who, in previous years, would have been ruled ineligible because of drug abuse or other criminal convictions. According to the report, nearly twenty percent of the soldiers who’ve enlisted in the Army since 2004 — perhaps as many as ten thousand — would “not have been eligible for entry into the Army before.”

“I think we’ve got to understand that the force we have today is different from the force we had ten years ago,” said Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the vice Chief of Staff of the Army, who oversaw the study. “We’ve got kids that are going to have some behavioral health issues.” He pondered on whether he had ” .. a force capable of doing whatever the nation asks it to do? “

Cheer up General, the good news is that it is hard to spot the difference.

Felicity Arbuthnot, distinguished journalist, Veteran War Correspondent, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Associate Editor of Global Research.

Notes

1. War Crimes, Ramsey Clark and Others, Maisonneuve Press, 1992.

2. http://revcom.us/a/1241/ustorture.htm

3. http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/9930/  )

4. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/09/100321/stryker-brigade-soldiers-kept.html#ixzz0zm70e384

5. See 2

6. See 3

7. http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=579

8. See 2

9. See 2.

10. http://www.counterpunch.org/stephens05132005.html

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

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

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

***

*

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

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

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

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

***

A British magistrates court ordered the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to the United States and sent the request for his extradition to Home Office Secretary Priti Patel for approval.

The order came a little more than a month after the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom refused to hear Assange’s appeal. In December, the UK High Court of Justice granted the US government’s appeal and overturned a district court decision that spared Assange.

Chief Magistrate Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring contended he was “duty-bound” to send the extradition request to Patel. Goldspring also told Assange he had a right to appeal if the Home Office approved the extradition before issuing the order.

Mark Summers QC, an attorney for Assange, asserted there were “fresh developments” in the case and bemoaned the fact that the defense was not permitted at this stage to raise this evidence, according to Computer Weekly’s Bill Goodwin.

Assange’s legal team has until May 18 to submit evidence to the Home Office and argue why the department should block the extradition request. In two months, Patel is expected to make a decision.

If approved by Patel, attorneys for Assange may request permission to appeal to the British High Court of Justice. His attorneys may appeal the decision of the district judge to send the case to the Home Office for approval and may also appeal the Home Office secretary’s order.

While the defense for Assange objected to District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s ruling on January 4, 2021, particularly as it related to issues of press freedom, they never had an appropriate opportunity to raise their objections. She denied the extradition request after determining it would be “oppressive” for mental health reasons.

His attorneys would likely challenge many of Baraitser’s conclusions about Assange if Patel allowed the request. (Note: Baraitser is no longer a district judge at the Westminster Magistrates Court.)

Assange is detained at Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh. He faces 18 charges brought against him by the US Justice Department, 17 of which are under the Espionage Act. All the charges relate to documents WikiLeaks released in 2010 and 2011, which were provided by US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

The prosecution makes Assange the first publisher to be charged under the 1917 law, and globally the case has been condemned by virtually all reputable civil liberties, human rights, and press freedom organizations.

Patel and the Home Office support an expansion of the Official Secrets Laws in the UK, which Elmaazi reported “would expand possible imprisonment for leakers, recipients of leaks and secondary publishers–including journalists–from the current maximum of two years to as high as 14 years in prison.”

The Home Office contends there is no longer much of a difference between “espionage and the most serious unauthorized disclosures.” That includes what Patel would call “onward disclosure.” The department treats journalism as an act capable of “far more serious damage” than traditional espionage.

In the UK, the Office for Security and Counterterrorism is a part of the Home Office. The division is responsible for MI5 (Britain’s FBI) and anti-terrorism police operations.

Operation Pelican, the name for the pressure campaign to force Assange out of the Ecuador embassy in London, was supported by the Home Office. But as Declassified UK chief investigator Matt Kennard noted, the Home Office claims it does not “hold” any records containing details related to the operation, even though eight officials from the department were involved.

Kennard also reported that Patel was on the advisory council for a right-wing group linked to the CIA called the Henry Jackson Society, which has attacked Assange in the press for over a decade.

“[Prime Minister] Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, don’t extradite Julian to the country that conspired to murder him,” Stella Assange declared. “They can stop this nightmare today and return to Julian to his family. They can do the right thing and enforce Article 4 of the US/UK extradition treaty, which prohibits extradition for political offenses.”

“This is a political case, and with the signature of the magistrate, this now passes squarely into the political domain,” Stella added.

“The next four weeks will prove crucial in the fight to block extradition and secure the release of Julian Assange,” stated Rebecca Vincent, the director of operations and campaigns for Reporters Without Borders (RSF). “The Home Secretary must act now to protect journalism and adhere to the UK’s commitment to media freedom by rejecting the extradition order and releasing Assange.”

RSF, a global press freedom organization, launched a “Free Assange” petition urging supporters to sign on before May 18, the last day Assange can make any submissions to the Home Office.

The National Union for Journalists (NUJ) in the UK renewed their call for his release from Belmarsh prison and charges to be dropped.

Assange defense groups and a coalition of civil liberties, human rights, and press freedom organizations will build on prior work and use the next several weeks to ramp up their campaigning. Their intent will be to make the extradition request a political issue in the UK and throughout Europe.

He will remain in detention at Belmarsh until Patel’s decision and during any appeal.

*

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: Westminster Magistrates Court in the United Kingdom, where Julian Assange’s extradition hearing was held. (Photo by Ludhi85)

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

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

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

***

There is nothing innovative or humanitarian about Britain’s new policy of shipping asylum seekers, “on a one-way ticket“, thousands of miles to central Africa. Nor is there anything surprising about the choice of destination: Rwanda. Boris Johnson’s government has simply copied wholesale a programme established by Israel eight years ago.

When Israel introduced the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda in 2014, it did so in secret, fully aware that it was breaking the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention it ratified.

When the policy came to light, Rwanda initially tried to spare Israel’s blushes by denying its involvement. Israel, meanwhile, falsely claimed the deportations were happening on a voluntary basis.

The British government, by contrast, is being far more brazen. It has trumpeted its similarly abusive treatment of asylum seekers, making a feature of the compulsion. According to reports, the British scheme will deport refugees first, then force them to apply for asylum in Rwanda. If they succeed, they can remain in Rwanda. If they fail, Rwanda can forcibly return them to the place from which they fled.

Johnson presumably hopes the policy will play well with British voters in the run-up to local elections in May, as they tire of the seemingly endless deceptions and bottomless cronyism of his ruling Conservative Party. Last week the British prime minister was among those fined for breaking Covid lockdown rules his own government set.

With the mood against Johnson souring, however, he may have been caught off-guard by the backlash. The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, condemned the Rwanda plan in an Easter Sunday address, saying the failure to take responsibility for refugees was “the opposite of the nature of God”.

On Tuesday night Johnson was reported to have attacked Welby and the BBC’s coverage at a meeting of Tory party backbenchers, accusing them of being “less vociferous” of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine than the government’s Rwanda scheme.

Dangerous journey

Some are dismissing the scheme as the prime minister’s latest wheeze to deflect attention from his political troubles. But that would be to ignore a growing confidence on the British right towards treating asylum seekers inhumanely – especially those who are not white. Johnson’s government has even been reticent to ride a wave of public sympathy towards those seeking sanctuary from the war in Ukraine.

The Conservative Party is amplifying deep-rooted nativist tendencies in the UK – and drawing inspiration from Israel, which has long experience of turning itself into a fortress state.

In a sign of the continuing need to pay lip service to humanitarian concerns, Johnson’s government has publicly dressed up the new asylum policy as a move to prevent people-smugglers from endangering the lives of refugees by transporting them in inflatables across the Channel from France. Dozens have died, including at least 27 people who drowned in November when a single boat capsized.

But Britain’s real motive – barely disguised – is the same one that drove Israel to adopt the policy. It wants to wash its hands of its legal obligations towards refugees by outsourcing responsibility to far poorer countries whose services can be easily bought.

Bad as that is, there is an even uglier ambition. The UK understands that Rwanda, one of the most densely populated and poorest countries in Africa, is unlikely to make serious efforts to treat the refugees with dignity or resettle them. Britain’s goal is to make an example of them. The refugees’ likely mistreatment is part of the programme, serving to deter others from following in their footsteps.

Britain is trying to make clear that anyone arriving on its shores will face not a warm welcome or British justice but the very oppressive conditions from which they fled in the first place. The vagueness of the policy – and who it applies to – is the point. Why make the hugely dangerous and costly trip to the UK if you are likely to end up effectively back where you started?

Johnson is demonstrating that post-Brexit Britain has the freedom to reinvent itself as the most hostile corner of Europe to refugees.

Dissent crushed

Rwanda is an ideal destination. Helped by western leaders like former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Rwanda has largely succeeded in whitewashing its image with western publics following the Rwandan genocide of the mid-1990s.

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

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

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

***

Most judges and lawyers agree that the war on drugs in the past 50 years has seriously diminished the right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

Now a small group of legal academics is arguing that the war in Ukraine should be used to diminish property rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

Here is the backstory.

The Fourth Amendment was written to guarantee that the government may only search and seize persons, houses, papers and effects pursuant to a search warrant issued by a judge after the presentation under oath of evidence demonstrating that the place to be searched more likely than not contains evidence of crime. And the warrant itself must specifically describe the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

These requirements — the work of James Madison, who was the scrivener of the Constitution in 1787 and the author of the Bill of Rights in 1791 — were intended to have two effects.

The first effect was to uphold the quintessentially American right to be left alone. The second was to compel the government to focus its law enforcement personnel and assets on crimes for which there is probable cause, not fishing expeditions or hunches.

Madison’s language prohibited absolutely the use of general warrants, a favorite tool of the British government against the colonists. General warrants were based on whatever the government wanted or claimed it needed.

The colonists were tormented by, and driven to revolution over, general warrants, as they authorized British agents to search wherever they wished and seize whatever they found. Surely, the dreadful colonial experience with general warrants was a driving force behind the wording and ratification of the Fourth Amendment.

Sadly, during the war on drugs, prosecutors and police persuaded judges to craft “emergency” exceptions to the Fourth Amendment. These included allowing police to look for whatever they wanted in cars and homes, and using the CIA for warrantless surveillance, lest the drugs supposedly being sought be destroyed before capture.

The effect of this was to destroy a fundamental liberty in deference to easing police work; that’s the definition of a police state. The courts effectively ruled that somehow the Constitution prefers liberty — rather than evidence of crimes — to be destroyed.

The Fifth Amendment protects the life, liberty and property of all persons from destruction or aggression by the government without due process of law. Due process requires a jury trial at which the government must prove fault.

Thus, property cannot be seized temporarily or taken permanently without either a search warrant or a jury trial.

Now back to the war in Ukraine.

I have argued in this column and elsewhere that the Biden administration sanctions imposed on Russian and American persons and businesses are profoundly unconstitutional because they are imposed by executive fiat rather than by legislation and because the sanctions constitute either the seizure of property without a warrant or the taking of property without due process.

When the feds seize a yacht from a person whom they claim may have financed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rise to power, they are doing so in direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Similarly, when they freeze Russian assets in American banks, they engage in a seizure, and seizures can only constitutionally be done with a search warrant based on probable cause of crime.

As well, when the feds interfere with contract rights by prohibiting compliance with lawful contracts, that, too, implicates due process and can only be done constitutionally after a jury verdict in the government’s favor, at a trial at which the feds have proved fault.

As if to anticipate these constitutional roadblocks to its interference with free commercial choices, Congress enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and the Magnitsky Act of 2016. These constitutional monstrosities purport to give the president the power to declare persons and entities to be violators of human rights and, by that mere executive declaration alone, to punish them without trial.

These laws turn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on their heads by punishing first and engaging in a perverse variant of due process later. How perverse? These laws require that if you want your seized property back, you must prove that you are not a human rights violator.

As if to run even further away from constitutional norms, a group of legal academics began arguing last week that the property seized from Russians is not really owned by human beings, but by the Russian government. And, this crazy argument goes, since the Russian government is not a person, there is no warrant or due process requirement; therefore, the feds can convert the assets they have seized and frozen to their own use.

To these academics — who reject property ownership as a moral right and exalt government aggression as a moral good — the argument devolves around the meaning of the word “person.” The Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect every “person” and all “people,” not just Americans.

And in American jurisprudence, “person” means both human beings and artificial persons — corporations and governments capable of owning property. Property ownership is defined by the right to use, alienate and exclude. Only persons can exercise those rights.

Madison and his colleagues clearly sought to protect property rights from government aggression, no matter the legal status of the owner. We know this from the judicial opinions involving foreign property that preceded and followed the ratification of the Fifth Amendment. If this were not so, then nothing could prevent the feds from seizing and converting the property of states or local governments or international religious institutions to federal use.

War is the health of the state and the graveyard of liberty. The drug war was a disaster for freedom. The war in Ukraine will be so as well, only if we permit 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.

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

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

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

***

THE TRUTH COMES OUT.

Project Veritas has just released a leaked recording of a December 2020 Zoom call, during which AstraZeneca CEO, Pascal Soriot, stated that millions of people, whose immune systems are compromised, cannot receive the COVID vaccine:

“If you have an immune disease, lupus or some other immune condition, you cannot – or multiple sclerosis, you can’t be vaccinated. So, there are millions of people in the world that will need a protection that cannot be coming from a vaccine.”

The reasoning is very simple. I explained it early in 2020. A vaccine is supposed to provoke a reaction from the immune system. But if the system is weak and can’t respond, the vaccine functions as a SUPER-high toxic invader and overwhelms the body.

The AstraZeneca CEO does not fully understand the scope of what he is referring to—because the number of people in the world whose immune systems are compromised are on the order of 700 million; and that may be an underestimate.

I base this estimate on my 1987-88 research (see my book “AIDS Inc: Scandal of the Century”), which turned up the fact that the largest cause of immune T-cell depletion in the world is severe malnutrition/lack of nutrition. Chronic hunger, for example. And you can add in people who are routinely eating a diet of empty calories.

ALL these people have compromised immune systems.

Then you also have people who, for other reasons, have weak immune systems. For instance, as a result of pollution, pesticides, and toxic medical and street drugs and vaccines.

Worse yet—almost all the 700 million or more people whose immune systems are compromised DON’T KNOW IT. They don’t think in those terms. Therefore, they don’t know how harmful the COVID vaccine (or any vaccine) will be to them.

Now here is the kicker. Don’t imagine that the AstraZeneca CEO’s statement above is shared by public health agencies. It isn’t. These agencies have no concern for people whose immune systems are compromised.

For instance, referring to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine (Vaxzevria), the European Medicines Agency, an agency of the European Union, states:

“There are limited data on immunocompromised people (people with weakened immune systems). Although immunocompromised people may not respond as well to the vaccine, there are no particular safety concerns. Immunocompromised people can still be vaccinated as they may be at higher risk from COVID-19.”

And then, shockingly, we have this, from a World Health Organization advisory:

“SAGE [Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization] recommends that severe and moderately immunocompromised persons should be offered an additional dose of vaccine.”

In other words, the usual highly destructive effects of the vaccine would not be enough. People should be more deeply injured. Those who die should be deader.

*

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.

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

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 Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

 

“Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—a website that published secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources—was arrested on April 11, 2019, on charges of helping U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning access and leak more than 700,000 classified military documents that portray the U.S. government and its military as reckless, irresponsible and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

Included among the leaked Manning material were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011).

The Collateral Murder leak included gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.”

This article was first published on February 20, 2022

***

In true Orwellian fashion, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.

“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”— George Orwell  

The U.S. government, which speaks in a language of force, is afraid of its citizenry.

What we are dealing with is a government so power-hungry, paranoid and afraid of losing its stranglehold on power that it is conspiring to wage war on anyone who dares to challenge its authority.

All of us are in danger.

In recent years, the government has used the phrase “domestic terrorist” interchangeably with “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” to describe anyone who might fall somewhere on a very broad spectrum of viewpoints that could be considered “dangerous.” The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

In the government’s latest assault on those who criticize the government—whether that criticism manifests itself in word, deed or thought—the Biden Administration has likened those who share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” to terrorists.

The next part is the kicker.

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s latest terrorism bulletin, “These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”

You see, the government doesn’t care if what you’re sharing is fact or fiction or something in between. What it cares about is whether what you’re sharing has the potential to make people think for themselves and, in the process, question the government’s propaganda.

Get ready for the next phase of the government’s war on thought crimes and truth-tellers.

For years now, the government has used all of the weapons in its vast arsenal—surveillance, threat assessments, fusion centers, pre-crime programs, hate crime laws, militarized police, lockdowns, martial law, etc.—to target potential enemies of the state based on their ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that might be deemed suspicious or dangerous.

For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.

Moreover, as a New York Times editorial warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that the government is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy is about to collapse and the government will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number of political and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.

According to one FBI latest report, you might also be classified as a domestic terrorism threat if you espouse conspiracy theories, especially if you “attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others” and are “usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events.”

In other words, if you dare to subscribe to any views that are contrary to the government’s, you may well be suspected of being a domestic terrorist and treated accordingly.

This latest government salvo against consumers and spreaders of “mis- dis- and mal-information” widens the net to potentially include anyone who is exposed to ideas that run counter to the official government narrative.

You don’t have to be a Joe Rogan questioning COVID-19 to get called out, cancelled and classified as an extremist.

There’s a whole spectrum of behaviors ranging from thought crimes and hate speech to whistleblowing that qualifies for persecution (and prosecution) by the Deep State.

Simply liking or sharing this article on Facebook, retweeting it on Twitter, or merely reading it or any other articles related to government wrongdoing, surveillance, police misconduct or civil liberties might be enough to get you categorized as a particular kind of person with particular kinds of interests that reflect a particular kind of mindset that might just lead you to engage in a particular kinds of activities and, therefore, puts you in the crosshairs of a government investigation as a potential troublemaker a.k.a. domestic extremist.

Chances are, as the Washington Post reports, you have already been assigned a color-coded threat score—green, yellow or red—so police are forewarned about your potential inclination to be a troublemaker depending on whether you’ve had a career in the military, posted a comment perceived as threatening on Facebook, suffer from a particular medical condition, or know someone who knows someone who might have committed a crime.

In other words, you might already be flagged as potentially anti-government in a government database somewhere—Main Core, for example—that identifies and tracks individuals who aren’t inclined to march in lockstep to the police state’s dictates.

As The Intercept reported, the FBI, CIA, NSA and other government agencies have increasingly invested in corporate surveillance technologies that can mine constitutionally protected speech on social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in order to identify potential extremists and predict who might engage in future acts of anti-government behavior.

Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention.

In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, or appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom.

And then at the other end of the spectrum there are those such as Julian Assange, for example, who blow the whistle on government misconduct that is within the public’s right to know.

Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—a website that published secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources—was arrested on April 11, 2019, on charges of helping U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning access and leak more than 700,000 classified military documents that portray the U.S. government and its military as reckless, irresponsible and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

Included among the leaked Manning material were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011).

The Collateral Murder leak included gunsight video footage from two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters engaged in a series of air-to-ground attacks while air crew laughed at some of the casualties. Among the casualties were two Reuters correspondents who were gunned down after their cameras were mistaken for weapons and a driver who stopped to help one of the journalists. The driver’s two children, who happened to be in the van at the time it was fired upon by U.S. forces, suffered serious injuries.

In true Orwellian fashion, the government would have us believe that it is Assange and Manning who are the real criminals for daring to expose the war machine’s seedy underbelly.

Since his April 2019 arrest, Assange has been locked up in a maximum-security British prison—in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day—pending extradition to the U.S., where if convicted, he could be sentenced to 175 years in prison.

This is how the police state deals with those who challenge its chokehold on power.

This is why the government fears a citizenry that thinks for itself. Because a citizenry that thinks for itself is a citizenry that is informed, engaged and prepared to hold the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law, which translates to government transparency and accountability.

After all, we’re citizens, not subjects. For those who don’t fully understand the distinction between the two and why transparency is so vital to a healthy constitutional government, Manning explains it well:

When freedom of information and transparency are stifled, then bad decisions are often made and heartbreaking tragedies occur – too often on a breathtaking scale that can leave societies wondering: how did this happen? … I believe that when the public lacks even the most fundamental access to what its governments and militaries are doing in their names, then they cease to be involved in the act of citizenship. There is a bright distinction between citizens, who have rights and privileges protected by the state, and subjects, who are under the complete control and authority of the state.

This is why the First Amendment is so critical. It gives the citizenry the right to speak freely, protest peacefully, expose government wrongdoing, and criticize the government without fear of arrest, isolation or any of the other punishments that have been meted out to whistleblowers such as Edwards Snowden, Assange and Manning.

The challenge is holding the government accountable to obeying the law.

A little over 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in United States v. Washington Post Co. to block the Nixon Administration’s attempts to use claims of national security to prevent The Washington Post and The New York Times from publishing secret Pentagon papers on how America went to war in Vietnam.

As Justice William O. Douglas remarked on the ruling,

“The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.”

Fast forward to the present day, and we’re witnessing yet another showdown, this time between Assange and the Deep State, which pits the people’s right to know about government misconduct against the might of the military industrial complex.

Yet this isn’t merely about whether whistleblowers and journalists are part of a protected class under the Constitution. It’s a debate over how long “we the people” will remain a protected class under the Constitution.

Following the current trajectory, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable is labeled an “extremist,” relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, watched all the time, and rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

We’re almost at that point now.

Eventually, we will all be potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government.

Partisan politics have no place in this debate: Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of allindividuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

The right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, once again, we find ourselves reliving George Orwell’s 1984, which portrayed in chilling detail how totalitarian governments employ the power of language to manipulate the masses.

In Orwell’s dystopian vision of the future, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.”

Much like today’s social media censors and pre-crime police departments, Orwell’s Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the other government agencies peddle in economic affairs (rationing and starvation), law and order (torture and brainwashing), and news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda).

Orwell’s Big Brother relies on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary.

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

The UK Health Security Agency is refusing to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status because previous figures show that the triple vaccinated population are on the verge of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, and the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.

Back in October 2021, The Expose exclusively revealed how the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data was showing that the Covid-19 injections has a real-world effectiveness against infection of minus-109%.

Source

Not long after this, the UKHSA added a note to their reports stating ‘case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection‘

Click to enlarge

This was clearly done in response to our report, and also because they could no longer use their own data to show that the Covid-19 injections are effective. But it was perfectly okay when Pfizer used this exact method to falsely claim their mRNA Covid-19 injection was 95% effective of course.

Now, as we quitely predicted, the UKHSA have gone one step further, and have announced that they will no longer publish the number of Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths by vaccine status.

The reason?

The UKHSA claims this is because the UK Government has ended free universal Covid-19 testing and this therefore affects their “ability to robustly monitor Covid-19 cases by vaccination status”.

However, this doesn’t explain why they’re no longer able to publish the data on Covid hospitalisations and deaths. If someone is hospitalised with Covid-19 then we’re pretty sure the doctors and nurses are going to know about it, and if someone dies of Covid-19 we’re pretty sure a doctor is going to know about it.

There’s a good reason though as to why their excuse falls short, and it’s because they are lying. The UK Health Security Agency has been looking for an excuse for months to stop publishing the data because it clearly shows that the triple vaccinated population are on the cusp of developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and the double vaccinated population are suffering Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) and Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE).

The Evidence

The UKHSA claims that vaccine effectiveness wanes substantially over time and this is why it’s important to get a booster dose.

Source

But this is a lie. Vaccine effectiveness doesn’t wane. Immune system performance does.

Vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.

Vaccines allegedly help develop immunity by imitating an infection. Once the imitation infection induced by the vaccine goes away, the body is left with a supply of “memory” t-cells and antibodies that will remember how to fight that disease in the future.

So, when the authorities state that the effectiveness of the vaccines weaken over time, what they really mean is that the performance of your immune system weakens over time.

A vaccine effectiveness of -50% would mean that immune system of the vaccinated is now performing at a worse rate than the natural immune system of the unvaccinated. It would mean the Covid-19 vaccines have damaged the immune system.

With that being said it should come as no surprise to anyone as to why the UKHSA no longer wish to publish the Covid-19 data by vaccination status, because it clearly shows in all areas that the Covid-19 injections are proving to have a negative vaccine effectiveness that is declining by the week, and therefore a negative immune system performance, which implies the fully vaccinated are developing Covid-19 vaccine induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

The following table showing the number of cases by vaccination status between week 9 and week 12 of 2022, is taken from the UKHSA Week 13 – 2022 – Vaccine Surveillance Report, the very last report to contain figures on Covid-19 by vaccination status –

Source – Page 40

As you can see from the above, the triple vaccinated population accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases in each age group by an extremely concerning amount, except for the under 18’s.

The highest number of cases in those four weeks was recorded among triple jabbed 50-59-year olds, with 210,265 confirmed cases. This compares to just 7,669 cases among unvaccinated 50-59-year-olds.

The UKHSA also used to conveniently provide the case-rates per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status in their vaccine surveillance reports, and the following table has been stitched together from the case-rate tables found in the Week 3, Week 7 and Week 13 Vaccine Surveillance Reports –

Source

As you can see from the above the case-rates per 100k have been highest among the triple vaccinated population over these 3 months, except for the 18-29-year-olds in the week 3 report only, and the under 18’s in all 3 months.

However, it is worth noting the rapid decline in rates among unvaccinated children compared to the small decline in rates among vaccinated children. This suggests that in just a few weeks the case rate will be highest among triple jabbed kids. But now we’ll never know because the UKHSA is hiding it.

Now that we know the case-rates we can use Pfizer’s simple vaccine effectiveness formula to calculate the real-world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated.

Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Unvaccinated Case Rate x 100

The following chart shows the Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness among the triple vaccinated population in England in the Week 3, Week 7 and Week 13 reports of 2022 –

This is nowhere near the claimed 95% effectiveness by Pfizer is it?

As you can clearly see the vaccine effectiveness has been falling month on month, with the lowest effectiveness recorded among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-391%. This age group has experienced the sharpest decline, falling from minus-104.69% in week 3.

But one of the more concerning declines in vaccine effectiveness has been recorded among 18-29-year-olds, falling to minus-231% by Week 12 of 2022 from +10.19% in Week 3.

However, vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.

Using the case rates provided by UKHSA, we can also calculate the immune system performance. All we need to do is alter the vaccine effectiveness formula slightly for a negative immune system performance, and use the same formula for a positive immune system performance –

Positive Immune System Performance = Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Unvaccinated Case Rate x 100
Negative Immune System Performance = Unvaccinated Case Rate – Vaccinated Case Rate / Vaccinated Case Rate x 100

The following chart shows the immune system performance of the triple vaccinated population in England by age group in four week periods, compared to the natural immune system of the unvaccinated population –

The lowest immune system performance is currently among 60-69-year-olds at a shocking minus-80%, but all triple vaccinated people aged 30 to 59 are not far behind, with an immune system performance ranging from minus-75% to minus-76%.

Even the 18 to 29-year-olds are within this region at minus-70%, falling from an immune system performance of +11.35% between week 51 and week 2, meaning they have suffered the fastest decline in immune system performance.

AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the name used to describe a number of potentially life-threatening infections and illnesses that happen when your immune system has been severely damaged.

People with acquired immune deficiency syndrome are at an increased risk for developing certain cancers and for infections that usually occur only in individuals with a weak immune system.

If that immune system performance was to hit around the -95% mark then this would strongly suggest the triple vaccinated population have developed some new form of Covid-19 vaccine induced acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and unfortunately based on the current trend seen over the past 3 months, the youngest age groups do not have long to wait.

But we won’t be able to officially confirm it because the UK Health Security Agency have decided to sweep it under the carpet and hide the official data.

That isn’t the only terrible outcome that the UKHSA are attempting to conceal though. Because UKHSA data also suggests the double vaccinated are suffering Antibody-Dependent Enhancement.

Antibody-Dependent Enhancement

The UKHSA have been trying to hide this revalation since the turn of the year, when they decided to stop publishing the rates per 100,000 for the double jabbed and instead only publish the rates for the triple jabbed.

The rates are calculated by dividing the total population size of each vaccination status group by 100,000; and then dividing the total number of cases, hospitalisations or deaths among each vaccinated group by the calculated figure.

e.g. – 3 million Double Vaccinated / 100k = 30
500,000 cases among double vaccinated / 30 = 16,666.66 cases per 100,000 population.

Questions were raised at the time as to why the UKHSA decided to stop publishing the rates for the double vaccinated, mainly because in the weeks prior they were beginning to look terrible for the double vaccinated population. But, as is usually the case, the UKHSA never provided a reason.

However, the UKHSA produces a separate report containing the overall population size by age group and vaccination status, meaning we can take these figures and actually calculate the case, hospitalisation and death rates per 100,000 among the double vaccinated ourselves.

Here’s the table taken from the Week 12 Influenza and Covid-19 Surveillance Report –

The following chart shows the actual double vaccinated population size by age group on the 20th March 2022, based on the figures provided by UKHSA above –

Source – Page 85

Now that we know the population size all we have to do is divide each population by 100,000; and then divide the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths by the answer to that equation, to calculate the case, hospitalisation and death rates.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 hospitalisation rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of hospitalisations provided on page 41 of the same report –

the rates per 100,000 are highest among the double vaccinated in every age group except for the 18-29-year-olds. This data shows that all double vaccinated people aged 30 and over are more likely to be hospitalised with Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.

The following chart shows the Covid-19 death rate per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status between 28th Feb and 27th March 22. The unvaccinated case rate has been taken from page 45 of the UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report – Week 13 – 2022, and the double vaccinated case rate has been calculated with the number of deaths provided on page 44 of the same report –

The death-rate per 100,000 is highest among the double vaccinated in all age groups excluding the 30-39 year olds where the death rate is the same as the unvaccinated, and the 18-29-year-olds where the death rate is lower. This data shows that all double vaccinated people aged 40 and over are more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people.

If the rates per 100,000 are higher among the vaccinated, which they are, then this means the Covid-19 injections are proving to have a negative effectiveness in the real-world. And by using Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula we can accurately decipher what the real world effectiveness among each age group actually is.

Pfizer’s vaccine formula: Unvaccinated Rate per 100k – Vaccinated Rate per 100k / Unvaccinated Rate per 100k x 100 = Vaccine Effectiveness

The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the hospitalisation rates provided above –

This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 30 are between 0.2 and 2 times more likely to be hospitalised, with a minus-1% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-76% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

The following chart shows the real world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness against death among the double vaccinated population in England, based on the death rates provided above –

This data shows that all double vaccinated people over age 40 are between 2 and 3 times more likely to die of Covid-19, with a minus-90% vaccine effectiveness among 30 to 39 year olds, and a minus-156% vaccine effectiveness among the over 80’s.

But why are most double vaccinated people more likely to be hospitalised, and more likely to die of Covid-19 than unvaccinated people?

Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease

Intensive research conducted by health experts throughout the years has brought to light increasing concerns about “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement” (ADE), a phenomenon where vaccines make the disease far worse by priming the immune system for a potentially deadly overreaction.

ADE can arise in several different ways but the best-known is dubbed the ‘Trojan Horse Pathway’. This occurs when non-neutralizing antibodies generated by past infection or vaccination fail to shut down the pathogen upon re-exposure.

Instead, they act as a gateway by allowing the virus to gain entry and replicate in cells that are usually off limits (typically immune cells, like macrophages). That, in turn, can lead to wider dissemination of illness, and over-reactive immune responses that cause more severe illness.

Of the information collated by Pfizer so far from the ongoing study they have conducted, it is plain to see that they are fully aware antibody-dependent enhancement is a possible consequence of their Covid-19 injection, and it looks like they may even know the consequence has killed people.

Pfizer, the company hit with the largest healthcare fraud settlement and criminal fine to date in 2009; which also happens to be the same company behind the first every mRNA gene therapy injection administered to the general public under emergency use authorisation in the name of Covid-19, has admitted in confidential documents, that it desperately tried to keep from going public, that its Covid-19 mRNA gene therapy may cause Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents to their website. The latest drop happened on 1st April 22.

One of the documents contained in the latest data dump is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Table 5, found on page 11 of the document shows an ‘Important Potential Risk’, and that risk is listed as ‘Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED), including Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Reporatory Disease (VAERD)’.

Vaccine-associated enhanced diseases (VAED) are modified presentations of clinical infections affecting individuals exposed to a wild-type pathogen after having received a prior vaccination for the same pathogen.

Enhanced responses are triggered by failed attempts to control the infecting virus, and VAED typically presents with symptoms related to the target organ of the infection pathogen. According to scientists VAED occurs as two different immunopathologies, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated hypersensitivity (VAH).

Pfizer claim in their confidential document that up to 28th Feb 2021, they had received 138 cases reporting 317 potentially relevant events indicative of Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease. Of these 71 were medically signifiant resulting in 8 disabilities, 13 were life-threatening events, and 38 of the 138 people died.

Of the 317 relevant events reported by 138 people, 135 were labelled as ‘drug ineffective’, 53 were labelled as dysponoea (struggling to breathe), 23 were labelled as Covid-19 pneumonia, 8 were labelled as respiratory failure, and 7 were labelled as seizure.

Pfizer also admitted that 75 of the 101 subjects with confirmed Covid-19 following vaccination, had severe disease resulting in hospitalisation, disability, life-threatening consequences of death.

But Pfizer still definitively concluded, for the purposes of their submitted safety data to the Food and Drug Administration, the very data that was needed to gain emergency use authorisation and make them billions and billions of dollars, that ‘None of the 75 cases could be definitively considered as VAED’.

But Pfizer then went on to confirm that based on the current evidence, VAED remains a theoretical risk.

This confidential data proves that the Covid-19 injections should never have been granted emergency use authorisation, and should have been pulled from distribution by the FDA as soon as they sighted the figures.

But the FDA failed to act, and that is precisely why the UK Health Security Agency has been looking for, and found an inadequate excuse not to publish any further data on Covid-19 cases, hospitalisations and deaths by vaccination status.

*

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 Zero Hedge

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

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

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

***

Read Part I:

Destination Ukraine: The Ignorance of War

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 07, 2022

---

Important factors have come into play this past week as reported from the streets here in Warsaw.

While NATO, the US military and Ukrainian president Zelensky have to this point been thwarted by the nuclear realities in their goal of fomenting World War III in Ukraine it may be that Poland, due to its own ulterior motives, will do the dirty work on their behalf.

NATO member countries and the political leaders of each have expressed very public reticence towards crossing into Ukrainian territory with their national armies.

Zelensky’s whistle-stop tour this past week in attempting to solicit the support of these same leaders by shaming them publicly has almost universally fallen on deaf ears, if not created indignation amongst each nation’s media, a media that seems to be quickly turning on Zelensky himself. As mentioned in the recent article, “Destination Ukraine: The Ignorance of War,” it is media derived popular support for war that is essential to furthering NATO goals. To lose that support means peace.

NATO has rarely stood for peace.

However, the singular exception to this sudden western coup that now seems ready to cast Zelensky aside and force him to accept the Russian proposals for peace is Poland.

Judging by the established reports coming from the Donbas of Eastern Ukraine, NATO has mere days to stir the pot of war away from peace via some manner of sudden escalation that will thus allow NATO to enter Ukraine.

Yesterday, Mariupol fell to Russian troops and the remains of the Azov battalion and its generals there are surrounded. The Russian goal of the liberation of the Donbas including Donetsk and Luhansk is now only a matter of days away.

While some reporters suggest that the impetus to draw NATO onto Ukrainian soil may come from Germany or via a bio-weapons attack orchestrated by American military bio-weapons interests discovered there, the more likely player may be right here: Poland.

After five days here in Warsaw this allegation of Poland’s ulterior motive came to my attention first by my translator Andrew and was confirmed during one of my many interviews with local citizens.

Often the most important story is right before one’s eyes and materializes only when paying close attention while attentively walking the streets.

If Poland is not held in check by its NATO brethren, this war is far from over.

*

It was announced two weeks ago that faux-US president Joe Biden would be visiting NATO member countries and the HQ in Brussels to stir up what has been so far a lacklustre- by US standards- support for Ukraine. However, his trip at that time did not include Poland.

Strangely, the news reported that Biden would suddenly be making a speech in Warsaw. Why?

Before arriving in Warsaw, Biden, on March 25 used his first Polish stop to visit the troops of the 82^nd Airborne Division, one of America’s elite military divisions currently based in Rzeszow. They are part of the 10,000 US servicemen already here. I have seen these troops here in Warsaw marching together on the streets near Warsaw’s Central Station.

In keeping with Barack Obama’s warning, “Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up,” while sitting with the 82nd for pizza and a photo op, Biden did exactly that before finishing his first slice. Referring to the situation in Ukraine and presumably US boots on the ground there, in a moment worthy of the 25^thAmendment, said Biden with his chemical grin,

“You’re going to see when you’re there.”

Within minutes, the collective energies of the US State Dept. were in overdrive denying Biben’s faux-pas and attempting to explain it away. But the words stuck. Especially with the Poles.

Next, on Saturday in Warsaw, Biden appeared before a packed outdoor crowd and delivered a very forcefully pro-war speech. There is no space in this article to challenge this speech for what it was:  factually inept. Other journalists will surely take on this task since virtually every sentence was a crafted distortion of history and the on-scene realities of this war to date. It was obviously designed to continue popular Polish enthusiasm for this war, and likely, according to the streets, much more.

But, it was just before the Teleprompter scrolled to a close that Biden, raising his voice and holding his fists and eyes to the heavens, stated to the now rabid crowd,

“For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power,”

Washington and NATO leaders again immediately scrambled to deny this outrageous call for regime change in Russia and explain that it was not so.

The singular exception was Poland. Why?

It should be remembered that just before Biden’s arrival Polish Deputy Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski had offered a Polish idea to Washington. Poland would send a tranche of 28 Russian MIG-29s to Germany so that US pilots could then fly them to airbases within Ukraine. This was not very funny on many levels. For many good reasons, this was summarily rejected by Washington, since this Polish ploy would trigger WWIII.

But Kaczynski was not finished with crafting further lunacy in an attempt to hide its possible ulterior motive, beyond that of driving a NATO entry into the war.

Two weeks ago Kaczynski offered that Poland now intended to seek NATO permission to send its military to the Ukrainian city of Lviv in order to establish humanitarian corridors that would allow Ukrainian refugees who were escaping west to safely enter Poland. There are many problems with this, but the most important, beyond NATO Article 5, is that Lviv is not on the Polish/ Ukrainian border as many western reporters have claimed. Lviv sits eighty kilometres to the east, firmly inside Ukrainian territory.

Lviv’s true proximity makes Kaczynski’s claim of “humanitarian” efforts as duplicitous as was his offer of used Russian fighters the week before. If this was done, and should a single Polish military member be attacked, injured or killed by Russian forces- allegedly or under false pretences, Article 5 would require NATO toimmediately enter the war on behalf of defending, not Ukraine, but Poland!

NATO, again, rejected this madcap plan for obvious reasons. Kaczynski did not. Why?

Reports from the refugees, aid agency workers and journalists who have been embedded in Lviv have told this reporter that although they have seen and heard bombings and rocket strikes in and around Lviv, they have not witnessed or reported any civilian targets being hit or any civilian casualties. The mayor of Lviv confirmed this publicly in a post on Telegram this past Saturday after his city took at least six strikes on Friday night just hours after Biden’s war-torn speech in Warsaw while Kaczynski sat watching in the wings.

Have the Russians also been listening to the streets?

While I Prowled the streets of Warsaw talking to as many people who either spoke English or Polish within the time that my excellent translator Andrew could provide to me, the answer to this most important question, “why Poland?” became more clear.

A Deputy Prime Minister’s Iron Hand

Jaroslaw Kaczynski is deputy prime minister of Poland and leader of the Law and Justice (PiS) party. According to those I spoke with he is far more powerful behind the scenes in Poland than current President Andrezej Duda and exercises a strong, almost authoritarian hand over parliamentarians and particularly all things military.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s twin brother, Lech Kaczynski, was formerly the President but died in a plane crash at Smolensk, Russia, in 2010 along with many other Polish political and military leaders. Evidence indicated this crash was indeed an accident, but in the current Kaczynski’s mind it was a Russian hit, hence he detests all things Russian, in particular Vladimir Putin.

The current plot thickened when, on March 15 from Kyiv, Ukraine Kaczynski stated,

“I think that it is necessary to have a peace mission—NATO, possibly some wider international structure—but a mission that will be able to defend itself, which will operate on Ukrainian territory.”

Kaczynski’s NATO offering called for sending 10,000 NATO troops from the member states to cross the Polish border and occupy Lviv while also imposing a no-fly zone. Like his first offer of MIG-29s NATO turned it down flat. But Kaczynski may go it alone.

During my many interviews with Ukrainian refugees who had arrived from Kyiv and many other western cities and towns via Lviv and then onwards to Warsaw, only one reported being accosted by any of the limited military factions roaming western Ukraine. Ana, with her small son and daughter, had made it out of Kyiv by train in the dead of night just past 2 AM. The train had all its lights out and moved slowly westward. Suddenly, several windows of the train were shot out by rifle fire. This caused all aboard to hit the deck. Fortunately, no other shots were fired and the train and her family made it safely to Lviv and then on to Warsaw.

Regarding the journey from Lviv to the Polish border, I did not speak to anyone who had problems along the way. Humanitarian aid flows in regularly while refugees flow out. To the East, it is quite another matter.

So, Kaczynski’s desire to provide “safe passage” corridors seems merely a ruse to serve other intentions. Why?

Regardless, Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed his idea as NATO did as well.

According to the Poles I spoke with, Duda and Kaczynski do not agree very much regarding Polish military matters. However, it is Kaczynski who has the real power in Poland which he has built up over many years. Reportedly he has contempt for Duda and works behind his back to affect his agenda. It is the ulterior motive here in Poland that some that I interviewed think may see Kaczynski effect his “Humanitarian Effort” regardless of NATO approval which Duda demanded, but Kaczynski does not think is essential.

Considering Bidens rhetoric that whipped those Poles in attendance into a frenzy on Friday night, this speech certainly served Kaczynski’s agenda, not that of peace.

To understand the possible entry of Poland it is important to consider the last ten years under Kaczynski’s ever-growing power. Certainly, he is far more aligned with the war hawks of NATO than Duda which should not be surprising.

Poland, under Kaczynski’s tutelage, has declared that it wishes to be the strongest military power in Central Europe. In 2020 the Polish government pledged to “radically increase” the country’s defence capabilities and to expand the Polish Armed Forces to a staggering 300,000 personnel. Current numbers are, respectively, 113,000 regular active servicemen and women and 32,000 TDF, the equivalent to the National Guard.

Kaczynski has declared this expansion a state of emergency in national defence saying,

“The security conditions have deteriorated so much that Poland, as a frontline state, has no choice but to radically re-arm itself and become one of the best European armies…”

Accordingly, Poland now plans to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2026, using a funding scheme that includes bonds, loans and leasing options. The PiS-led cabinet already is among NATO’s top spenders (2.2% of GDP in 2022). This year’s military spending stands at 57.7 billion zlotys, or 12.5 billion euros, which will consume 12 per cent of the country’s budget.

As stated by the Defence Ministry, the military modernisation plan until 2035 has a price tag of 524 billion zlotys (115 billion euros), but details have not been made public. The increased spending also does not require parliamentary approval, let alone a referendum, even for the largest procurement items. All that is required is the signature of Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak, one of Kaczynski’s right-hand men.

Blaszczak has routinely signed purchasing requests that include “made in the USA”. Patriot air and missile defence systems, F-35 stealth fighters, HIMARS rocket launchers, Black Hawk helicopters (made in Poland by Lockheed Martin) and even used MRAP vehicles from Afghanistan, all since becoming defence minister in 2018.

An Abrams tank procurement, that has recently arrived, will be the most substantial so far at a cost of 23 billion zlotys (5 billion euros). Tank warfare is perfect for the flatlands of Western Ukraine. In all this, Blaszczak is clearly making Poland dependent on Washington.

Poland’s Ulterior Motive? The Lviv Connection

Image on the right: Jarosław Kaczyński speaking during the inauguration of a monument to his brother Lech Kaczyński (November 2018, Warsaw) (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

760 years old, Lviv City is situated on the crossing of two profitable ancient trade routes. It developed and flourished rapidly and became one of the main trade centers of medieval Europe. It is reportedly a beautiful city full of the architecture of many influences including Austrian, Ukrainian and Polish since at various times in history all three laid claim to Lviv.

Lviv became part of Ukraine when taken by the Ukrainians from Austria in November 1918 with the creation of the West-Ukrainian People’s Republic and the unification with Great Ukraine.

But Lviv became Polish from 1919 to 1939 and Polish culture via immigration put a Polish stamp forever on Lviv that remains strong today. This takeover only served to intensify the resistance of the Ukrainians and consolidate them in the fight for a return of Lviv to Ukrainian sovereignty.

In September 1939, as a result of collusion between Stalin and Nazi Germany, Lviv became a part of the Soviet empire and with Ukraine being a USSR satellite it was returned to Ukraine under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement.

Here lies the rub, or possibly Kaczynski’s ulterior motive in repeatedly dangling a means for NATO to enter Ukraine during the past few weeks.

The Poles have never been happy with the Soviet land grab that included Lviv and this is yet another reason they detest all things Russian. In talking with several Poles they would like to see Lviv returned to Poland, but the reality that this would require war has meant that it was just not worth the sacrifice.

But a return of Lviv has always remained in mind. This was evidenced in 2018 when a fringe Polish political party, The Confederation of Independence and Freedom Party,  managed its historic and largest, yet relatively insignificant, number of seats in the Polish Parliament. Part of their platform is the return of Lviv. Certainly, these parliamentarians do not have the influence to drive Poland to war, but their platform does indeed show that the return of Lviv remains firmly in the minds of the Poles and their politicians.

Until a month ago such grand designs were opposed due to the need for a war to accomplish them. Now, that war is on the border and for the opportunists who may wish to reap the spoils of this war this may be their moment of opportunity. According to the streets, Kaczinsky himself sees this war as a chance not seen since the annexation of 1939.

Should NATO or the Polish military enter Ukraine via Polish borders the eighty kilometres to Lviv will be breached in a matter of hours since there is very little available Ukrainian defence with all forces dedicated already eastwards. Similar to 1939 the Polish/ Ukraine border could be redrawn once the current war turns into an armistice.  Possession being 9/10^th of the law during any ceasefire, this advent could see Lviv sit again on newly re-marked Polish soil.

Cease-Fire? Or, Not?

When closely examining the news that a cease-fire and peace negotiation are going well, this is as much a lie as the war has brought to bear so far. The news seems more designed to placate Wall Street and the current economic disasters of war rather than accurate reporting.

Yes, negotiations in Turkey has seen both sides sit down together but news that the Russian contingent has “accepted” Ukraine terms turn fact on its head while at the same time torturing the definition of the word.

The Ukrainian terms are laughable and it is not possible that Russia will approve them since to do so is an admission of defeat and a waste of military, political and human capital that would shame Russia before the world community. Its citizens who have been watching the body bags pile up for thirty- four days would be outraged.

It is far more accurate to say that the Russian contingent has received the Ukrainian proposals and is laughing all the way back to Moscow for further instructions. It is important to note that Russia, beyond its oft-repeated terms for a cease-fire has not at this point, delivered its own proposal to the Ukrainian side.

The Russian response will most certainly be summed up by using only the sixth and twenty-first letters of the English alphabet.

In the meantime, Russian troops will be getting R&R while resupplying and thankfully so will the refugees across Eastern Ukraine. As to the Ukrainian military, they will remain surrounded or under siege across the Donbas from Mariupol, to Luhansk, to Donetsk.

Meanwhile, NATO will continue to attempt to find an avenue for legitimizing its escalation and entry into Ukraine.

For the reasons stated on the streets of Warsaw and in this article, it is more than mere conjecture that the “Hot Phone” sitting on the desk of Deputy Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski may soon be ringing off the hook!

*

Read Part III:

The Lies…and the Eyes…of Ukraine. Reporting from Lviv

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 19, 2022

---

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.

Dedication: For Andrew. (Proof that good never rests until the evils of war are vanquished.)

Brett Redmayne-Titley has spent the last decade travelling and documenting the “Sorrows of Empire.” He has authored over 200 articles all of which have been published and often republished and translated by news agencies worldwide. An archive of his many articles can be found at watchingromeburn.uk. He can be contacted at live-on-scene ((@))gmx.com.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Two British citizens, Shaun Pinner and Aiden Aslin, who went to Ukraine to fight for the now-disbanded “international legion” of foreign mercenaries created by Kyiv in early days of the war and were fighting alongside neo-Nazi Azov militia in Mariupol, were captured by Russian forces and fervently appealed to the British prime minister for their immediate release.

Image on the right: Viktor Medvedchuk (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

The Britons appeared on Russian state TV on Monday and asked to be exchanged for Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian politician who is the leader of Ukraine’s Opposition Platform and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He was charged with “high treason” and “aiding terrorism” by the Zelensky government and was placed under house arrest, from where he escaped and was rearrested last week. He is currently being held at an undisclosed location by the SBU, the fearsome Ukrainian intelligence agency being used as a tool for political persecution by the autocratic regime.

One of the captives wearing a T-shirt bearing the emblem of Ukraine’s infamous Azov battalion, Aiden Aslin, made a direct appeal to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson:

“If Boris Johnson really does care like he says he does about British citizens then he would help pressure Zelensky to do the right thing and return Viktor to his family and return us to our families.”

Asked on Sky News whether a possible swap was something the government would get involved with, Britain’s Northern Ireland minister Brandon Lewis said on Tuesday: “We’re actually going through the process of sanctioning people who are close to Putin regime, we’re not going to be looking at how we can help Russia.” Reading between the lines, neither would the Boris Johnson government be looking at how to help British citizens.

“We always have responsibility for British citizens, which we take seriously. We’ve got to get the balance right in Ukraine and that’s why I say to anybody: do not travel illegally to Ukraine,” Lewis added while conveniently overlooking the fact British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss publicly acknowledged she supported individuals from the United Kingdom who might want to go to Ukraine to join an international force to fight.

She told the BBC on Feb. 27, days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, it was up to people to “make their own decisions,” but argued it was a “battle for democracy.” She said Ukrainians were fighting for freedom, “not just for Ukraine but for the whole of Europe.” The British government is as criminally culpable for inciting citizens to join NATO’s crusade in Ukraine as gullible volunteers who actually joined the fight in the war zone on the call of the government.

Favoring providing lethal weapons only instead of deploying British mercenaries as cannon fodder in Ukraine’s proxy war, Defense Secretary Ben Wallace took a nuanced approach and said with diplomatic overtones Ukraine would instead be supported to “fight every street with every piece of equipment we can get to them.” In other words, Ukraine would be made an “ordnance depot” of NATO powers on Russia’s western flank.

On April 9, Boris Johnson undertook a clandestine visit to Kyiv amidst much secrecy and tweeted a picture sitting beside Zelensky after the visit. Johnson’s trip came a day after the EU’s top executives, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell, publicly visited Kyiv and met with Zelensky.

British media hailed the “daredevil feat” of taking the train journey in the war zone by the prime minister and compared him to the fabled British secret agent, James Bond 007. During the visit, he pledged 120 “armored vehicles” and new “anti-ship missile systems” to Ukraine.

The British government also announced it would be sending £100 million of military equipment, including more Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles, helmets, night-vision devices and body armor. The United Kingdom guaranteed an extra $500 million in World Bank lending to Ukraine, taking the total loan guarantee to up to $1 billion.*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation

Too Much to Ignore: COVID Vaccines Cause 16,633% More Miscarriages Compared to Flu Vaccines

By Mary Villareal, April 20, 2022

There had been an increase in the number of women who have lost their unborn or newly born children in the United States following their Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination. The number has now surpassed 4,000, just 16 months after the first COVID vaccine was given emergency use authorization.

The World Health Tyranny: Towards the WEF “Great Reset of Misery”

By Peter Koenig, April 21, 2022

On 1 December 2021 the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached a consensus to begin the process of drafting and negotiating a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

To the Home Office We Go: The Extradition of Julian Assange

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, April 21, 2022

It was a dastardly formality.  On April 20, at a hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court, Julian Assange, beamed in via video link from Belmarsh Prison, his carceral home for three years, is to be extradited to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 based on the US Espionage Act of 1917.

“Police Terrorism” in America: Patrick Lyoya Chased and Shot in the Back

By Abayomi Azikiwe, April 21, 2022

Over two weeks after Patrick Lyoya, 26, was stopped, chased, tackled and shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids patrolman,killing him instantly, there still has not been any punitive action taken against the white officer responsible for the death of the Congolese immigrant.

The Art of Transformation: Vasily Kandinsky at the Guggenheim

By Prof. Sam Ben-Meir, April 21, 2022

Through September 5, New York’s Guggenheim Museum is hosting “Around the Circle,” an immense retrospective of this extraordinarily innovative and influential painter – one that invites us to rethink Kandinsky’s contribution in light of his anarchist social thought, his interest in the emancipatory potential of synesthetic experience, and his determination to explore the possibilities of mon-representational forms.

Canada Must Condemn Israeli Violence at Al-Aqsa

By CJPME, April 21, 2022

On Friday alone, Israeli forces injured at least 153 Palestinians, and videos have emerged showing the use of brutal violence against journalists and medics. Yet in her response to the incident, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly failed to directly criticize Israeli actions. More than 5,000 Canadians have written to Prime Minister Trudeau, urging him to respond by condemning Israeli violence and suspending military trade.

From Syria to Ukraine, Western Media Is Practicing the Same Lies. Eva Bartlett

By Manar Salameh and Mazen Eyon, April 21, 2022

Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett affirmed that the crimes of terrorist organizations in Syria and cover-up of the Western media have been repeated again since the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, noting that the hands of the West and its media machine are stained with the blood of innocent civilians in the two countries.

“Preemptive Nuclear War”: The Historic Battle for Peace and Democracy. A Third World War Threatens the Future of Humanity

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 21, 2022

The underlying US nuclear doctrine consists in portraying nuclear weapons as a means of “self defense” rather than as a “weapon of mass destruction”. Moreover, there are powerful financial interests behind the NPR which are tied into the $1.3  trillion nuclear weapons program initiated under President Obama.

European Feed Stocks Expected to Run Out Soon

By Free West Media, April 21, 2022

The situation for Europe’s farmers is getting worse. Prices are rising and feed stocks are starting to run out. Animal breeders around Europe are deeply concerned. At the same time, the EU and the governments of some countries in various ways prevent farmers from maintaining or increasing their production.

Babies Are Saying Less Since the Pandemic: Why That’s Concerning

By Sarah D. Sparks, April 20, 2022

 New studies from Rhode Island Hospital and the nonprofit LENA Foundation find that infants born during the pandemic vocalize significantly less and engage in less verbal “turn-taking” behaviors found to be critical for language development. As those babies grow, experts worry they will need significant supports to be ready for school.

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

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

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

***

In the first edition of her “Don’t Ask That Question” podcast program, investigative reporter Kelly O’Meara talks to Kristina Borjesson about the shut-down of their investigation of TWA 800 crash & current attempts to shut down Musk’s Twitter takeover.

Kelly O’Meara is a valuable addition to the podcast community of investigative reporters.

\We worked together investigating the Flight 800 crash and talk about our bizarre experiences that included her car being broken into and her TWA investigation documents and laptop being stolen and the press censoring and doing hit pieces on our TWA 800 coverage.

–

*

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On 1 December 2021 the 194 members of the World Health Organization (WHO) reached a consensus to begin the process of drafting and negotiating a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

An intergovernmental negotiating body was constituted and held its first meeting at the beginning of March 2022, with the purpose of agreeing on the process and the timelines for reaching consensus on a so-called “Pandemic Treaty”. A second meeting is planned for 1 August 2022 to discuss progress towards an agreement on the contents and legal bearing of such a treaty. The interim result will then be presented to the 76^thWorld Health Assembly in 2023, with the aim of adopting the new instrument, the so-called infamous “Pandemic Treaty” by 2024.

Why infamous Pandemic Treaty?

In a recent European Parliamentary session, Ms. Christine Anderson, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), from the German party an “Alternative for Germany”, made the following very pertinent comment and posed an appropriate question –

“Many who favor the treaty believe that it offers the best way to increase political commitment from states to reform global health governance. However, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that this proposition has no basis in fact. Government responses to COVID-19 have purportedly violated or manipulated many treaties, including human rights agreements.”

“To what extent will the Commission ensure that the citizen, who has no direct vote in a body such as the WHO, is not bypassed in the decision-making process and that a shift of competence further and further away from the voter does not lead to an increasing ‘de-democratization’ of our society?”

See the full 6-min. video below.

This was indeed a benign question – one that underscores the gravity of the new Pandemic Treaty. If approved by the World Health Assembly, the Pandemic Treaty will be above and overarching the sovereignty of the 194 WHO member countries.

WHO could declare a pandemic whenever it decides, or gets instructions from the dark Financial and Power Cabal pulling the strings behind the UN-curtain.

The World Health Organization could decide on international lockdowns, mask wearing, social distancing – and much worse, like forced vaccination – with, as we now know from the covid-19 vaxxes, causing disease or even death. By now the world knows or ought to know, that these vaxxes are not vaccines, but experimental mRNA injections – injections containing varying bio-chemical and mostly poisonous, even deadly concoctions.

WHO could declare a worldwide pandemic for the common flu – pretty much what they did with the so-called Covid-19, a virus that was never isolated, never identified as anything else than the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) virus that hit China from 2002 to 2004. SARS was, in fact a trial, for what was to follow 17 years later – on a worldwide scale.

The SARS virus was tailor-made in a class-3 US bio-lab. The virus was based on extensive blood samples taken from Chinese rural populations, to target the Chinese genome. Chinese authorities learned about this western blood-harvesting by “scientists” of famous US learning institutes, such as Harvard and others, in the 1990s.

See section ”The Human Genome Diversity Project (HGD project) in China” of this text.

This was the reason for China’s extraordinary preparedness at the first announcement of the “new” / old virus, the Covid-19 virus, hitting again China (the city of Wuhan) first, in the early days of 2020.

Because China knows that bio-war labs can design specific DNA-directed viruses, and because China is also aware of the 20-some war-grade (grade 3) US-funded bio-labs in Ukraine which Russia in her ongoing military intervention in Ukraine is aiming at dismantling, and China is also aware of the risks that viruses may have been intended to again attack the Chinese genome, like the SARS virus in 2002-2004 – therefore, China’s authorities are proceeding with a “zero covid” policy. Therefore, is the current Shanghai lockdown a severe precautionary measure?

As was demonstrated by the Ebola outbreak – 2014 – 2016 in West Africa – Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone – fatality rates of Ebola and similar epidemic diseases can be as high as 40% when compared to the infection rate. See this. That’s a stark contrast to the low covid death rate of 0.07 to 0.1%.

*

Under the new “Pandemic Treaty” WHO would have the authority to vaccinate children, babies right after birth, when their immune system is still basically zero and damages could be lasting or even killing newborns.

WHO could mandate general vaccination against any disease deemed “dangerous” by the powers that be, with an injection that is not really a vaccination but an “experimental jab” – possibly leading to millions of deaths, if the current covid crisis and “covid-vaxxes” are any indication. Exponentially more deaths are caused by the fake and criminal covid-19 vaxxes, than by the covid infections which have similar symptoms to those of the common flu.

As we now know, the purpose of the covid-vaxxes is not the prevention of a disease, quite the contrary – it’s the wanton promotion of massive disabilities and death caused by experimental substances injected into human bodies.

The “Masterminds” behind WHO, as well as their invisible handlers, are eugenists, interested in a drastic reduction of the world population. The new Pandemic Treaty is an ideal tool for an eugenist agenda.

*

Under the New Pandemic Treaty, the WHO would convert into the World Health Tyranny, the WHT.

That’s where we are at today. WHO, alias WHT, today is funded by two thirds to three quarters by interest groups, like the pharma industry and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Only about a quarter or one third (variable by year) of the WHO budget is funded by the member countries. The bulk of WHO funding comes from interest groups.

The Gates Foundation is a key donor, the largest after United States. Gates also appointed the current Director General of WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. He was before the head of GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, housed just next door to WHO in Geneva. GAVI is also a Bill Gates creation. Dr. Tedros is WHO’s first DG, who is not a medical doctor.

See this 5-min video interview of Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a former World Health Organization (WHO) scientist, describing how the WHO is months away from overriding the U.S. Constitution and those of all 194 WHO member countries.

If this new WHO “Pandemic Treaty” is adopted by the World Health Assembly, then national laws, those of sovereign countries, made to protect their citizens from diseases and pandemic outbreaks, are overruled and made worthless.

*

Logically, an agency in charge of world health, should basically focus on disease prevention. WHO is wired as a curative agency, mostly staffed by medical doctors and scientists, thereby playing into the interests of the pharma-industry.

For those who are not yet aware, how WHO came into being as a specialized UN agency, just a quick reminder who invented and created WHO – and with what purpose.

WHO was created by the Rockefeller foundation in 1948 – and following the pattern of the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), in existence since 1902 and integrated in 1948 into the new World Health Organization. The motto: Who decides over health and disease, decides over life and death. Sounds like a suitable axiom for eugenists.

At that time, the Rockefeller magnate also owned Standard Oil, a worldwide hydrocarbon corporation, mostly a petrol monopoly. Up to the 1950’s medicines were largely plant-based. Rockefeller’s petro-clan geniuses felt medication or modern pharma might as well be “crafted” from petro-chemicals. Thus, grew a new pharma-industry – exponentially. The drugs available today are an umpteen-multiple of those available when medication was plant-based. Today plant-based medicines are almost exclusively used by indigenous people.

Petrochemical-based pharma produces generally also myriad of side effects. These side effects have to be fought with new medication with other side effects – some of them deadly. And so, the spiral spins along.

The new medical apparatus – to which Rockefeller gave the impetus – has produced a medical labyrinth – a mill of health and disease, once caught in it, escaping from it is not easy. So-called health services have become an important economic growth factor. U.S. health care spending grew 9.7 percent in 2020, reaching $4.1 trillion, or 19.7% of GDP. Once-upon a time a patient, has become an income-producing client in today’s medical factory.

The new Pandemic Treaty of the WHO might render the world health system in a prison-like spiral, to the point where people are totally in the hands of one tyrannical world organization – in charge of health and disease, or life and death.

We the People, must not allow the creation of a health tyranny as envisaged today, and supported by the WEF and its henchmen of darkness.

We must stop WHO from becoming a World Health Tyranny. In fact, we should collectively deny the authority of WHO, requesting our governments to exit WHO. We do not need or want a Global World Health Tyranny. By dismantling it, we the People, would also put a nail in the WEF’s coffin.

*

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

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

***

The Ulster Defence Regiment, the largest in the British army, fueled the conflict in Northern Ireland and was a sectarian weapon in Britain’s counter-insurgency strategy, shows a new book drawing on declassified files.

Say ‘UDR’ to the vast majority of Britons and, despite the increasingly totemic status of ‘our boys’ in the military, eyebrows will universally raise.

Yet the Ulster Defence Regiment was active throughout most of the recent conflict in Ireland – the longest period of continuous duty of any British military unit.

Successive UK governments lavishly praised its courage and commitment to peace. There were regular visits by members of the royal family to barracks and parade grounds across Northern Ireland from Fermanagh to Belfast.

A recently-published book, however, reveals a quite different story.

UDR Declassified by Micheál Smith relies for hard evidence on declassified internal British memos, position papers and analysis, much of which were retrieved from the UK National Archives over the last two decades by the Pat Finucane Centre.

Successive governments in London, the book argues, fueled the conflict in Northern Ireland by policing and alienating one part of the community (those who are pro-Irish unity, mainly Catholic) while arming, training and providing intelligence information through the UDR to the other section of the community (those who are pro-union, mainly Protestant).

“Writers of books like this”, says Smith, “often get accused of re-writing history.  But history is always rewritten whenever new evidence proves it wrong. This evidence allows us to narrow the permissible lies”.

‘A kind of monster’

The UDR was formed in April 1970, supposedly to replace the discredited “B-Specials”, a quasi-military force. All the UDR’s original seven battalions, however, were led by former B-Special county commandants.

Hardly surprising, then, that the UDR is described by French political scientist, Anne Mandeville, as “a kind of monster”.

While it was supposedly an arm of the British state, she says, in reality it was “deeply in solidarity with the Protestant community”.

Integrated into the British Army, it was also divided from it “organically, geographically and by its specificity”, a toxic recipe for any law-enforcement unit seeking cross-community support.

For many Catholics, the slogan ‘UDR by Day: UVF by Night’ was a lived reality, referring to the oldest loyalist paramilitary group in the conflict, the Ulster Volunteer Force.

Stories abound of people stopped on the roadside in the dead of night – or on the way home from church or Gaelic sporting fixtures – to be insolently abused or worse.

The one-time leader of the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and Nobel peace prize winner, John Hume, described the regiment as a “group of Rangers supporters put in uniforms, supplied with weapons and given the job of policing the area where Celtic supporters live”.

More officially, a 1984 briefing document prepared for the then Northern Ireland Secretary, Douglas Hurd, concluded:

“The regiment is mistrusted, even hated, in much of the Catholic community, and by many Catholic politicians”.

It added:

“More significantly, it is not held in the highest regard by the RUC itself (including the Chief Constable …) even amongst regular soldiers it is not universally popular.”

The UDR was also seen as an impediment to peace. In 1986 a Foreign Office official noted in a memo to a Ministry of Defence colleague that:

“For all its courage and dedication (which I certainly do not underestimate), and despite its incorporation into the British Army, the UDR is an inescapably sectarian body and an obstacle to reconciliation between the two communities in Northern Ireland.”

Counter-insurgency

Smith, while pulling no punches, freely concedes not every member of the regiment was motivated by sectarian hatred. Far from it, he says many of its members wished to end the conflict through patrolling, surveillance and lending their local knowledge to support the police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC).

The main thrust of this book, however, judges the UDR in its structural context, rising well above a day-by-day account of its sectarian and criminal failings. Instead it examines the regiment’s role as a key element of British colonial/post-colonial counter-insurgency strategy in Ireland.

That is not to say the UDR’s dubious record is overlooked. Smith points out that between 1985 and 1989, UDR members were twice as likely to commit a crime as the general public. The UDR crime rate was 10 times that for police officers in the RUC and about four times the British army rate.

The central problem, he says, is that London never viewed the problem in Northern Ireland as rooted in a demand for civil rights, equality and constitutional reform. Instead it blindly interpreted republican violence as a criminal conspiracy that must be crushed.

The book is full of examples where, rather than deal even-handedly with both communities, London concluded that armed republicanism was its only true enemy. Just three examples from the book suffice to show the malign out-workings of this policy.

Shockingly, it points out that the word “collusion” to describe covert collaboration between loyalist paramilitaries and state forces was first used as early in the conflict as September 1971 when a rifle was reported taken and “connivance” suspected.

Even more disturbing was the lack of police inquiries into “missing” weapons such as the “theft” of sub-machine gun serial number UF57A30490, taken from Glenanne UDR barracks in County Armagh, in May 1971.

This weapon was subsequently used to murder 11 people in 11 months, leaving four children orphaned and 19 fatherless.

Heavily infiltrated

London cannot say it was unaware of the dangers. In 1975, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and opposition leader Margaret Thatcher were informed by an official that:

“The Army’s judgment [was that] the UDR were heavily infiltrated by extremist Protestants and that in a crisis situation they could not be relied on to be loyal”.

Stunning evidence, even earlier, of the UDR’s dangerous proclivities is provided in an internal British discussion document entitled ‘Subversion in the UDR’, written in August 1973.

“It seems likely”, says the document, “that a significant proportion (perhaps 5% – in some areas as high as 15%) of UDR soldiers will also be members of the UDA, Vanguard Service Corps, Orange Volunteers or UVF”, referring to loyalist paramilitary forces.

Yet, the document concludes, little should be done about this:

“The discovery of members of para-military or extremist organisations in the UDR is not, and has not been, a major intelligence target” and the UDR remained “wide open to subversion and potential subversion”.

Moreover, the same document concludes that “some soldiers are undoubtedly leading double lives” and that “the UDR is the single best source of loyalist weapons and their only significant source of modern weapons”.

Rather amazingly, there is even doubt over the very legality of the UDR. A 1981 memo, only recently discovered in the archives, notes concerns amongst Ministry of Defence legal advisers as to whether UDR soldiers were legally ‘on duty’, as the formal call-out procedures had not been followed since the early 1970s.

As a result, officials were concerned about the legality of arrests, search operations and other actions.

Technically, it may yet be possible for people to challenge pre-1981 arrests by the UDR through the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Convictions of persons for failing to answer a question or for resisting arrest might also be called into question.

But the book’s central focus is what the UDR did while its soldiers were let loose on the populace, legally or otherwise.

Blame for this deplorable and deadly lack of action, Smith concludes, should not be laid at the door of individual UDR members but at those who devised a policy of using it as a counter-insurgency weapon for three decades and who continue to escape detection and accountability of any kind.

The price, he points out, was paid by the UDR’s many victims whose lives continue to be blighted by its existence and because of its shameful record.

*

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.

Anne Cadwallader has been a journalist in Ireland, North and South, for the last 40 years, working for the BBC, RTE, The Irish Press, and Reuters. She is an advocacy case worker at the Pat Finucane Centre, a non-party political, anti-sectarian human rights group advocating a non-violent resolution of the conflict in Ireland.

Featured image: Soldiers of 11 UDR on a patrol break in the South Armagh area. The soldier on the right is carrying a jamming device to prevent the detonation of radio-controlled improvised explosive devices. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The situation for Europe’s farmers is getting worse. Prices are rising and feed stocks are starting to run out. Animal breeders around Europe are deeply concerned. At the same time, the EU and the governments of some countries in various ways prevent farmers from maintaining or increasing their production. This is in addition to the already alarming shortage of seeds and fertilizers.

Only this autumn will the catastrophic impact be witnessed due to a sharp reduction in grain production. Moreover, meat and milk producers could see large parts of their businesses eliminated long before that. Western leaders have issued warnings about food shortages, but have offered no solutions.

The news agency Reuters recently interviewed the Italian farmer Carlo Vittorio Ferrari, who runs a farm with his brother near the town of Cremona in northern Italy. Among other things, they have about two thousand pigs, which it is now becoming unsustainably expensive to raise. He fears that their fourth-generation family business will be lost due to the conflict in Ukraine, which more and more people believe could be the death knell for global food security. This is because war-ravaged Ukraine and sanctioned Russia, in addition to being major exporters of wheat, maize and fertilizers, were also major suppliers of animal feed globally. Europe’s import-dependent feed stocks have recently declined rapidly and are likely to run out soon.

Michele Liverini, vice president of the Italian feed producer Mangimi Liverini SPA, said that the combination of all negative factors and most recently the war in Ukraine has created a “perfect storm”. Liverini is also sounding the alarm that soon their supply of animal feed will run out.

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

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

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

***

Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett affirmed that the crimes of terrorist organizations in Syria and cover-up of the Western media have been repeated again since the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, noting that the hands of the West and its media machine are stained with the blood of innocent civilians in the two countries.

In an exclusive interview with SANA, Bartlett, who worked as a war correspondent in Syria and is present today in Donbas to cover the special military operation, pointed out the similarity between the political and media disinformation practices carried out by US and its allies during the crisis in Syria and what is currently happening in Ukraine.

She stressed that the Western media are participating in the crimes committed against civilians in Ukraine, as they were doing in Syria, through their lies and covering up of the facts.

Bartlett added that the Western media’s coverage of what is happening in Ukraine and its description of the Russian operation as an invasion was just an expected issue, just as the media in the West and the US have whitewashed the page of terrorist organizations in Syria since their occurance in 2011 and covering up the atrocities they committed over many years.

Bartlett said that the scenes that show Ukrainian civilians welcoming the Russian forces are similar to what the world saw in Syria when the Syrian Arab Army entered to liberate the areas where terrorists were deployed.

Bartlett went on to say that most Western media deny the existence of Nazism in Ukraine and lie about what is happening, noting that BBC and other media promoters in the West were not satisfied with such behavior only, but also reached the point of manipulating video footages and removing images that appear Nazi slogans.

*

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 Silent Crow 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This is a link to the police bodycam video of the encounter with Patrick Lyoya which led to his death:  (18) Bodycam footage from fatal Grand Rapids police shooting of Patrick Lyoya – YouTube. Or watch video below.

Over two weeks after Patrick Lyoya, 26, was stopped, chased, tackled and shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids patrolman, killing him instantly, there still has not been any punitive action taken against the white officer responsible for the death of the Congolese immigrant.

The City of Grand Rapids has refused to even release the name of the officer since he has not yet been charged with a crime.

This incident in a major midwestern municipality clearly illustrates the systematic refusal by the local, state and federal government agencies to address the ongoing deaths at the hands of the police. Two years after the brutal shooting deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and many others, the relevant authorities responsible for the funding and oversight of law-enforcement have refused to take any action to reform the operational culture of the police.

Lyoya’s family immigrated to the United States from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 2014, according to quotes cited in the press from his father. Both of his parents are demanding justice in the case.

A videocam from the police officer illustrates the aggressive questioning and posture of the white Grand Rapids patrolman. After Lyoya attempted to get away from the officer, he was pursued and tased. Later the videocam shows Lyoya being tackled and further abused physically. At the instance that the fatal shot was fired to the rear of the head, the police videocam appears to have been turned off by the officer. An independent autopsy requested by the Lyoya family confirmed that he died from a gunshot wound to the back of the head.

Since the killing of Lyoya, people in Grand Rapids have demanded the release of the officer’s name and that he be terminated from the police department. They are also insisting that prosecutors file criminal charges against the unnamed law-enforcement agent. The case has gained international attention due to the fact that Lyoya was an immigrant from Africa and was unarmed.

The government of the DRC and its Prime Minister Jean-Michel Sama Lukonde discussed the killing of Lyoya at a cabinet meeting on April 15 in Kinshasha, the capital of the central African state. The U.S. has extensive business interests in the DRC which is a major producer of strategic minerals.

An article published in the Guardian from the Agence France Press (AFP) said of the situation that:

“During a government meeting on Friday (April 15), DR Congo Prime Minister Jean-Michel Sama Lukonde ‘forcefully condemned the cowardly assassination by a white police officer in the United States of a citizen of Congolese origin Patrick Lyoya, unarmed, during a traffic stop,’ according to the minutes of the meeting. He said the U.S. ambassador in DR Congo had expressed ‘his deep regrets and his government’s condolences following this despicable act.’

U.S. (Grand Rapids) police have released four videos from the incident, one of which shows the officer — who has not been named — lying on top of Lyoya as the two scuffled, and then appearing to shoot him in the head.”

This incident has revealed the actual social character of the U.S. to not only the Lyoya family but to over 1.3 billion Africans living on the continent. The U.S. promotes itself as the paragon of democracy, human rights and peace. However, the country is one of the most violent in the world with thousands killed annually.

A CBS report on the incident notes:

“The father of Patrick Lyoya said his son was ‘killed like an animal’ after recently released videos showed the 26-year-old Black man being fatally shot by a police officer during a traffic stop. The family fled from the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2014 for a safer life in the U.S. ‘I came here to save my family,’ Peter Lyoya told CBS News. ‘My son has been killed like an animal. The one [who] was supposed to be protecting Patrick’s life, is the one [who] killed Patrick and take Patrick’s life away,’ he added.”

U.S. Role in the Historic Destabilization of the DRC

The region where the DRC is today has been for centuries a center for exploitation and national oppression. During the period of African enslavement, the Angola and Congo areas were victimized by the Portuguese and French role in the Triangular Trade in human beings and natural resources.

By 1876, the Belgian monarchy had seized large swaths of territory in order to force Africans to engage in rubber production. The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 awarded the Congo area to Belgian colonial corporations. Conditions were so brutal that millions of Africans died under the rule of colonial agents at the direction of the monarchy. In 1908, the colonial project in Congo was brought under the tutelage of the government in Brussels.

Between 1908 and 1960, Africans were denied education, equal employment, the control over their land and natural resources as well as political rights. A rebellion during 1959 created the conditions for multi-party elections which led to national independence on June 30, 1960.

The first elected leader was Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, a Pan-Africanist and anti-imperialist with a mass base among the Congolese people. Since Lumumba wanted to end Belgian domination over the resources of his country, he was targeted for liquidation by the U.S. administration of then President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Lumumba was overthrown just three months into his tenure as prime minister. He attempted to flee to the eastern region of the country where his supporters had taken control of several cities and provinces.

However, he was captured with the complicity of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in January 1961. He was held illegally by the puppet collaborators of the U.S. and other imperialist states. By late January he was tortured to death along with two other cabinet ministers in his government.

A series of neo-colonial surrogate regimes were imposed on the vast country for 36 years until Mobutu Sese Seko was forced out of office in May 1997. Nonetheless, the continued domination of the resources of the DRC has hampered its capacity for a much-deserved political stability and economic prosperity.

Consequently, the underdevelopment in the DRC and in other African states, can be linked directly to the ongoing interference into the internal affairs of these mineral rich countries. Therefore, many Congolese nationals have migrated to the U.S. in search of economic opportunities and social stability. However, the U.S. still remains a racist-capitalist and imperialist country. The African American people brought to the U.S. as enslaved persons have been denied full equality, economic justice and self-determination for more than 400 years. Africans from the continent are viewed by the ruling class and their police agencies as being deserving of the same degree of brutality as all Black people.

U.S. Government Guilty of Systematic Brutality and Terrorism

The police execution of Patrick Lyoya is a direct result of the legacy of policing in the U.S. which dates back to the early period of European colonial enslavement. Despite the mass demonstrations and rebellions which swept many municipalities during 2020, the current administration of President Joe Biden maintains a similar position as successive leaders: they are all committed to the maintenance of the status-quo as it relates to the role of police in containing the African American people and other oppressed groups.

Biden made his position clear in the State of the Union Address earlier in the year. He denounced the mass slogans calling for the defunding of the police and instead urged more public money for law-enforcement. Additional funding for police departments has been bolstered by the American Rescue Plan (ARP) which was supposedly designed to assist workers and oppressed peoples suffering from the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Independent activists and mass organizations within the labor and nationally oppressed movements will undoubtedly continue the demands aimed at defunding and dismantling the existing system of policing. This system of policing on a domestic level is reflected in the foreign policy imperatives of the White House and Wall Street.

The Biden administration has pursued the same policies of war and economic domination of the peoples of the world. Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and a host of other states are considered principal enemies of the imperialist ruling class in the U.S. Therefore, the struggle against police terrorism with impunity is inherently linked to broader issues aimed guaranteeing peace and stability from the DRC to the streets of Western Europe and North America.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

The Russian-born artist Vasily Kandinsky (1866-1944) was one of the early pioneers in the field of abstract painting – along with Kazimir Malevich, Piet Mondrian, and Hilma af Klint, among others. Through September 5, New York’s Guggenheim Museum is hosting “Around the Circle,” an immense retrospective of this extraordinarily innovative and influential painter – one that invites us to rethink Kandinsky’s contribution in light of his anarchist social thought, his interest in the emancipatory potential of synesthetic experience, and his determination to explore the possibilities of mon-representational forms.

The historian E.H. Gombrich remarked that Kandinsky “was really a mystic who… longed for a regeneration of the world through a new art of pure ‘inwardness’.” To be sure, Kandinsky’s work is shaped throughout by his conviction that art has the power to transform the individual and society – and to affect the kind of inspiration or awakening which can lead us beyond the psycho-social coordinates embedded in capitalism.

Two thinkers who would greatly influence Kandinsky were the anarchist philosophers Pyotr Kropotkin and Gustav Landauer. Kropotkin (1842-1921) would argue against the social Darwinists who viewed the natural world as ‘red in tooth and claw’ – the war of all against all, as Thomas Hobbes famously put it. In fact, as he took great pains to show, the natural world was predominately based on cooperation, or what Kropotkin would call ‘mutual aid’ – and indeed, he was able to turn to Darwin himself in making this case. The upshot was that such mutual aid could and should serve as the ecological basis for human relations; in contrast to the artificial competitiveness perpetuated by capitalism.

For his part, Kandinsky sought the close collaboration of like-minded artists and would have nothing to do with those whose crass materialism urged them to thrive in the brutal world of capitalist competition – for “hatred, bias, factions, jealousy and intrigue are the consequences of this purposeless, materialistic art,” as he would state in what is perhaps his most well-known book, Concerning the Spiritual in Art (1912).

Gustav Landauer (1870-1919) embraced a kind of mystical anarchism, which went a step beyond Kropotkin who he knew personally, and whose writings he translated into German. The state was not, as Kropotkin thought, an institution that could be wiped out by a revolution – rather, it was “a condition, a certain relationship between human beings… we destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently.” Revolution can only be successful when “we are seized by the spirit, not of revolution, but of regeneration.” As he would write in “Anarchic Thoughts on Anarchism” (1901): “Hence, not war and murder – but rebirth.”

Vasily Kandinsky, Dominant Curve, April 1936

Kandinsky shares Landauer’s view that the authentic artist can provide a sensual expression of this inner renascence, this new life in the face of decadence and profound ‘spiritual darkness.’ Central to the radical ecology of Kropotkin and Landauer was the call for spiritual and ethical renewal; and Kandinsky fully endorsed their view that art could serve as the means to restore the self to wholeness and achieve the regeneration of humanity.

To begin with, Kandinsky was well aware of the effects that pure color could have on our state of mind – the way in which, for example, a bright red could affect us like the sound of a trumpet. Likewise, sounds or music could in their turn produce imagery. This unity of the senses – the experience of having perceptions in one sensory modality triggered by a stimulus from another – is known as synesthesia; and in some individuals it is highly developed, involuntary, and insuppressible. Kandinsky would describe such a synesthetic episode while attending a performance of Wagner’s opera Lohengrin (1850) at the Bolshoi Theater: “I saw all my colors in my mind; they stood before my eyes. Wild, almost crazy lines were sketched in front of me…” The thirty-year old Kandinsky was pursuing a law degree in Moscow at the time; but after that experience he abandoned his law career and left Russia to study painting at the prestigious Munich Academy of Fine Arts in Germany.

In his classic work, The Phenomenology of Perception (1962), the philosopher Merleau-Ponty argued that “synesthetic perception is the rule…” that is, the overlapping and intertwining of the senses is consistent with our primordial and preconceptual experience, which is inherently synesthetic. We have, in fact, “… unlearned how to see, hear, and generally speaking, feel….” Synesthetic experience seems anomalous because we have alienated ourselves from direct experience with the things that surround us. Retrieving this capacity means overcoming our estrangement from the world, with all the implications that has for our social, cultural, and political renewal.

His exploration of the unity of the senses would in time push Kandinsky beyond representation and transform his canvases into ‘compositions’ or ‘improvisations’ (as he called them) ever more akin to music. Just as a deep bass tone would produce a certain emotional response, so a color, or combination of colors (a ‘color chord’) would generate a spiritual vibration or ‘inner resonance.’ The Blue Mountain (1908-09) offers a striking example of Kandinsky’s expressionistic use of color. The lower third of the painting includes six figures, three of whom are astride horses at full gallop (one of his favorite motifs). They are flanked by two large trees that dominate the middle ground and extend to the top of the canvas: the one on the left is predominantly yellow, while on the right the tree is largely red-orange or vermillion. In the background and between them looms the large blue mountain of the title. For Kandinsky, yellow and blue constitute the primordial contrast. Yellow has an eccentric movement and seems to draw closer to us. Blue is concentric, implies depth and movement away from the viewer. But Kandinsky has not painted the mountain blue simply because it is farthest away from us: unlike yellow, which is terrestrial, blue is celestial and awakens our highest spiritual aspirations.

Kandinsky was determined to probe the nature of synesthesia when he became a founding member of Der Blaue Reiter (The Blue Rider) group in 1911, which included, among others, Arnold Schoenberg and Franz Marc. Their aims were ambitious, to say the least: to generate a “große Umwälzung” (great upheaval) that would not only defy traditional modes of artistic production, but awaken us from “the nightmare of materialism, which has turned the life of the universe into an evil, useless game…” (CSA, p. 2); and finally usher forth “a new spirit won by the conquest of one’s inner self,” as Landauer would put it, “We are all waiting for something great – something new.”

Vasily Kandinsky, Women in the Woods, 1907

If we take our time with Kandinsky’s canvasses, we will discover that what at first may appear as mere abstraction, in fact contains representational elements which have been aesthetically transmuted into something altogether different, while still retaining their original reference, as in a kind of dream. “I did not wish to banish objects completely,” as Kandinsky explained in his 1914 Cologne Lecture, “objects, in themselves, have a particular spiritual sound, which can and does serve as the material for all realms of art…” The familiar is defamiliarized and reality becomes like a dream just when our everyday, codified ways of navigating the world are suspended, or bracketed.

Take Small Pleasures (1913) for example: at first glance we may not realize that we are looking at a landscape with the sun in the top left corner and the moon on the right. In the center of the painting, we find something like a large hill with a winding stream and atop which is a kind of citadel with trees, as well as echoes and re-echoes of the sun and moon – almost as if it were a landscape within a landscape. On the right-hand side is a boat with three oars jutting out; and above which an ominous black cloud has gathered.

In Picnic (1916) the representational elements are more clearly delineated, but again one must look carefully to appreciate all the wealth of imagery contained in this relatively small watercolor. There are two women in bell-shaped dresses and hats; the one in green sits upon a picnic blanket, the border of which has been richly designed. Beside her is a yellow wicker basket, out of which has been laid a baguette, an apple, and a decanter of wine. Yet one could easily miss all of these and other fine details, in part because Kandinsky has placed and oriented them unconventionally within the overall composition.

After 1920, Kandinsky’s lyrical abstractions would be succeeded by geometric compositions, which he regarded as more universal in their significance, less bound up with the “particular emotions that are characteristic of man in his individuality.” As the German philosopher Karsten Harries would observe: “Kandinsky’s desire to penetrate to more fundamental levels of reality led him to develop an art which seems less spontaneous, colder, more cerebral.” In seeking to expunge from his work all personal associations, Kandinsky turned to the “impersonal language of geometry and in clearer, less suggestive colors” – but, for all that, his canvasses were no less dramatic or intense.

Kandinsky clearly held the circle in the highest regard – his enthusiasm for it seems almost boundless, not because of its geometric form as such but rather due to its inner force: “I find in circles… inner possibilities.” The circle is at once a symbol of renewal, and wholeness – as well as signifying the Self, the infinite, eternity, fulfillment, cosmic unity, and God. Kandinsky’s imagery drew upon shamanic traditions, and included motifs acquired from Finno-Ugric, Russian and Siberian folklore. For example, in Around the Circle (1940), a red and black circle with a “golden all-seeing eye” dominates the painting and may be regarded as the primary stand-in for the self. Beside it is a form resembling a bird as it ascends toward the upper right corner; and adorning this creature is a serpent and crescent, which may be indications of its potency, including its power to serve as a bridge between worlds, or dimensions of consciousness. In the lower left, three unsupported steps lead to an open doorway through which we can see a moon glowing in the distance. Kandinsky was fond of stairs and ladders, which would reappear in a number of paintings from this period: like the bird they could be viewed as suggesting the capacity for spiritual transition and transformation.

What Kandinsky sought to achieve may seem to us to be beyond the scope of painting or art in general – for we inhabit an era that has come to doubt, if not cynically mock, the radical potential of art to heal the self and transform the psycho-social life of humanity. Fortunately, there is perhaps no greater venue to appreciate this collection of paintings than at the Guggenheim Museum: a body of work that so readily pays homage to the circle – that invests such energy in the inspirational and transmutative power of the circle – is especially at home in Frank Lloyd Wright’s concentrically circular temple to art. Kandinsky’s greatest works function almost like finely wrought keys, designed to unlock the hidden recesses of the self, and reach into “the caverns of our souls,” to quote Landauer once more – so that we may discover our “most authentic and precious inner being and… become one with the world in a mystical union.”

*

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.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from Guggenheim Museum

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

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

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

***

It was a dastardly formality.  On April 20, at a hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court, Julian Assange, beamed in via video link from Belmarsh Prison, his carceral home for three years, is to be extradited to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 based on the US Espionage Act of 1917.

The final arbiter will be the UK Secretary of the Home Office, the security hardened Priti Patel who is unlikely to buck the trend.  She has shown an all too unhealthy enthusiasm for an expansion of the Official Secrets Act which would target leakers, recipients of leaked material, and secondary publishers.  The proposals seek to purposely conflate investigatory journalism and espionage activities conducted by foreign states, while increasing prison penalties from two years to 14 years.

Chief Magistrate Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring was never going to rock the judicial boat.  He was “duty-bound” to send the case to the home secretary, though he did inform Assange that an appeal to the High Court could be made in the event of approved extradition prior to the issuing of the order.

It seemed a cruel turn for the books, given the ruling by District Court Judge Vanessa Baraitser on January 4, 2021 that Assange would be at serious risk of suicide given the risk posed by Special Administrative Measures and the possibility that he spend the rest of his life in the ADX Florence supermax facility.  Assange would be essentially killed off by a penal system renowned for its brutality.  Accordingly, it was found that extraditing him would be oppressive within the meaning of the US-UK Extradition Treaty.

The US Department of Justice, ever eager to get their man, appealed to the High Court of England and Wales.  They attacked the judge for her carelessness in not seeking reassurances about Assange’s welfare the prosecutors never asked for.  They sought to reassure the British judges that diplomatic assurances had been given.  Assange would be spared the legal asphyxiations caused by SAMs, or the dystopia of the supermax facility.  Besides, his time in US detention would be medically catered for, thereby minimising the suicide risk.  There would be no reason for him to take his own life, given the more pleasant surroundings and guarantees for his welfare.

A fatuous additional assurance was also thrown in: the Australian national would have the chance to apply to serve the post-trial and post-appeal phase of his sentence in the country of his birth.  All such undertakings would naturally be subject to adjustment and modification by US authorities as they deemed fit.  None were binding.

All this glaring nonsense was based on the vital presumption that such undertakings would be honoured by a government whose officials have debated, at stages, the publisher’s possible poisoning and abduction.  Such talk of assassination was also accompanied by a relentless surveillance operation of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, directed by US intelligence operatives through the auspices of a Spanish security company, UC Global.  Along the way, US prosecutors even had time to use fabricated evidence in drafting their indictment.

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales Ian Burnett, and Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, in their December 2021 decision, saw no reason to doubt the good faith of the prosecutors.  Assange’s suicide risk would, given the assurances, be minimised – he had, the judges reasoned, nothing to fear, given the promise that he would be exempted from the application of SAMs or the privations of ADX Florence.  In this most political of trials, the judicial bench seemed unmoved by implications, state power, and the desperation of the US imperium in targeting the publishing of compromising classified information.

On appeal to the UK Supreme Court, the grounds of appeal were scandalously whittled away, with no mention of public interest, press freedom, thoughts of assassination, surveillance, or fabrication of evidence.  The sole issue preoccupying the bench: “In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court at first instance in extradition proceedings”.

On March 14, the Supreme Court comprising Lord Reed, Lord Hodge and Lord Briggs, delivered the skimpiest of answers, without a sliver of reasoning.  In the words of the Deputy Support Registrar, “The Court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”

While chief magistrate Goldspring felt duty bound to relay the extradition decision to Patel, Mark Summers QC, presenting Assange, also felt duty bound to make submissions against it.  “It is not open to me to raise fresh evidence and issues, even though there are fresh developments in the case.”  The defence team have till May 18 to make what they describe as “serious submissions” to the Home Secretary regarding US sentencing practices and other salient issues.

Various options may present themselves.  In addition to challenging the Home Secretary’s order, the defence may choose to return to the original decision of Baraitser, notably on her shabby treatment of press freedom.  Assange’s activities, she witheringly claimed, lacked journalistic qualities.

Outside the channel of the Home Office, another phase in the campaign to free Assange has now opened.  Activist groups, press organisations and supporters are already readying themselves for the next month.  Political figures such as former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn have urged Patel “to stand up for journalism and democracy, or sentence a man for life for exposing the truth about the War on Terror.”

Amnesty International’s Secretary General Agnès Callamard has also fired another salvo in favour of Assange, noting that the United Kingdom “has an obligation not to send any person to a place where their life or safety is at risk and the Government must now abdicate that responsibility.”

The prospect of enlivening extraterritorial jurisdiction to target journalism and the publication of national security information, is graver than ever.  It signals the power of an international rogue indifferent to due process and fearful of being caught out.  But even before this momentous realisation is one irrefutable fact.  The plea from Assange’s wife, Stella, sharpens the point: don’t extradite a man “to a country that conspired to murder him.”

*

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

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

Featured image is from Lawyers for Assange

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

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

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

***

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is urging the Canadian government to condemn Israeli violence following a series of repeated raids on the Al-Aqsa mosque over the weekend. On Friday alone, Israeli forces injured at least 153 Palestinians, and videos have emerged showing the use of brutal violence against journalists and medics. Yet in her response to the incident, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly failed to directly criticize Israeli actions. More than 5,000 Canadians have written to Prime Minister Trudeau, urging him to respond by condemning Israeli violence and suspending military trade.

“Like many Canadians, we were shocked this weekend to watch the videos of Israeli forces firing stun grenades and rubber bullets into the Al-Aqsa mosque, and beating Palestinians randomly with batons,” said Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “Canadians have very little patience left for statements which talk about the ‘de-escalation’ on ‘all sides’ without making a distinction between the Israeli perpetrators and the Palestinian victims,” added Woodley. CJPME notes that demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights will be continuing in multiple cities across Canada this weekend.

Within the last week, Israeli occupation forces raided the Al-Aqsa mosque five times, indiscriminately deploying the use of batons, tear gas, stun grenades, and rubber-coated steel bullets. Widely circulating videos depict Israeli soldiers engaging in unprovoked violent attacks against women, journalists, medics, and people with disabilities. On Friday alone, Israel’s raid injured more than 153 Palestinians, and ended in arrests of at least 400. Reports show that those injured in the initial attack include 3 journalists, 3 paramedics, and 2 compound guards, many of whom were shot with rubber-coated bullets. During this attack, medical teams were preventing from accessing the scene. On Sunday, dozens of Palestinian worshippers were trapped for hours inside the mosque’s prayer rooms as more than 700 extremist Israeli settlers were escorted around the compound by Israeli forces.

CJPME notes that Canada’s failure to clearly condemn Israel’s actions gives a green light to further escalation. Since the start of Ramadan, at least 18 Palestinians have been shot and killed by Israeli forces in the West Bank, including 3 children. On Wednesday evening, far-right Israeli settlers were marching through Jerusalem’s Old City; Israeli forces were assaulting Palestinian residents in Sheikh Jarrah; and a rocket fired from Palestinian militants in Gaza heightened the threat of Israeli airstrikes in retaliation.

CJPME has been urging Members of Parliament to respond to Israeli violence by taking action to suspend military trade Israel. As revealed in an in-depth CJPME report published last week, Canada’s arms exports to Israel have been accelerating in recent years, and in 2020 reached their highest level in over three decades. CJPME also recommends the launch of a parliamentary study to determine whether past and current Canadian arms exports have been used against civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) or in airstrikes on Gaza.

*

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: Head band of figure in the poster says “Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades” (Image from 2021)

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

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

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

***

According to a report by Defense News a US-EU initiative is envisaged with a view to integrating strategic and military decision making. What is being negotiated is “a key document on their defense relationship, a so-called administrative arrangement between the U.S. Defense Department and the European Defence Agency”.

This initiative first discussed in December 2021 is slated to be negotiated outside the realm of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Defense News describes the US and the EU as “two global players”, pointing to the coordination of  their respective defense endeavors in a broader framework (which could include related economic affairs including sanctions).

This Partnership would also require the endorsement of all EU member nation states including those which are not members of NATO (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden). How would national sovereignty be affected?

Of significance it would also exclude NATO member states which are not members of the EU. Specifically this pertains to Turkey, a heavyweight within NATO which has a bilateral military cooperation agreement with Russia. This contradictory relationship (cross-cuttng alliance) is an obvious source of division and conflict within NATO.

(The non-EU countries members of NATO include Albania, Canada, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Turkey, the U.K and the U.S.).

At this juncture, the US Department of Defense is not leading this initiative. On the U.S. side it’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his EU counterpart Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Does this initiative point in the direction of a broader process of Western “political integration” between North America and the EU, Beyond the Realm of Military and Strategic Affairs?

How will the national sovereignty of  the 27 member states of the European Union be affected? Are they slated to be inserted into a broader Trans-Atlantic (North America – EU) political and economic straitjacket.

Is this a hegemonic process of American “Colonization” and Demise of the “European Project”. 

“The event is meant to open an additional trans-Atlantic channel on security matters and complement similar communications already happening via NATO, officials have said. Having such a forum specifically for the trade-minded European Union would energize the bloc’s defense ambitions and signal Washington’s link to the continent on yet another level, the thinking goes.” ( “First Ever Defense Talks Between US, EU Near Amid Ukraine War”, Defense News)

How will this new “Trans-Atlantic” relationship affect NATO? Is the North Atlantic Treaty (14 articles) signed in Washington D.C. on April 4, 1949 “Obsolete”?

What is also at stake is the issue of US-EU corporate integration of the military industrial complex.

The pact would allow routine interactions between American and EU institutions on defense issues and open the door for U.S. defense contractors to participate in the bloc’s growing defense spending under certain conditions. Defense News)

*

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

 

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

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

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

***

Amid the stress and disruption of the pandemic, parents and caregivers have had less time and energy to engage their babies and toddlers in conversation—and the lack of talk already shows in their language skills.

New studies from Rhode Island Hospital and the nonprofit LENA Foundation find that infants born during the pandemic vocalize significantly less and engage in less verbal “turn-taking” behaviors found to be critical for language development. As those babies grow, experts worry they will need significant supports to be ready for school.

Since 2010, Sean Deoni, the director of the Advanced Baby Imaging Lab at the INSPIRE Center of Rhode Island Hospital, and his colleagues have tracked more than 1,700 Rhode Island families with infants. The researchers conduct regular cognitive and language development tests as well as brain scans as the children grow and monitor how the children are exposed to language in their earliest years of life.

During the pandemic, the lab was able to continue its assessments, but Deoni said he and his colleagues quickly realized their study population was changing.

“We began to notice anecdotally several months into the pandemic that kids seemed to be having a little greater challenge in doing their cognitive tests,” Deoni said. “Children just seemed to be taking a little bit longer to get through their assessments; they maybe weren’t as attentive or not performing as well as we normally had seen. And over time, those individual anecdotal statements became a chorus.”

By a year into the pandemic, the average cognitive performance of children ages 3 months to 3 years was the lowest it had been since the researchers had begun to measure it in 2010. For toddlers ages 16 months or younger, expressive and receptive language scores fell from about 90 points on a scale of 140 in 2020 to 60 in 2021 on normalized assessments of verbal skills. Moreover, neuroimaging data show babies born during the pandemic have had slower growth in white matter, the communication channels of the brain, compared to infants born in the years before the pandemic.

“It’s not that they start off low and they’ll slowly get back to [normal], but [they] actually seem to be decreasing as time is going on, which means that the cumulative impact of the COVID environment seems to be getting worse,” he said. “And this seems to be across the brain, impacting not just motor systems or later cognitive systems, but almost every neurodevelopmental system. So that’s alarming.”

Gaps of words and conversation

Both Deoni’s research and separate research by the LENA Foundation suggest these developmental delays may be sparked by less language engagement.

Thirty years ago, University of Kansas child psychologists Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley realized that infants’ language development hinges greatly on others engaging them in rich conversation about the world around them. Their landmark study, “Meaningful Differences,” estimated that by age 3, children in professional families heard more than three and a half times as many words every hour as children in families receiving welfare did—leading to a controversial but often-cited gap of 30 million words by the time the children started school.

But even more importantly, adults help infants build language skills by “conversational turn-taking“—speaking in response to a baby’s coos or cries and then pausing to let the baby or toddler vocalize back to them. Parents often use exchanges like these to answer their children’s needs or encourage their interests.

In the three years before the pandemic, a 2-year-old in the Rhode Island study heard, on average, 100-140 words per hour, and had 35-50 conversational exchanges with the adults around them. By contrast, in 2020 and 2021, a 2-year-old heard about 20-70 words an hour and had 15-25 conversational exchanges per hour. Deoni also found toddlers during the pandemic spent a greater portion of their time watching television. (The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no media use for children under 2.)

Jill Gilkerson, the LENA Foundation’s language research director, tracks infants’ language environment through a recording device attached to a harness. The infant or toddler wears the harness at home over several days, and the recorder is triggered by verbal sounds made by both the infant and others around her, screening out nonverbal sounds like burps.

Gilkerson found on average, that while vocalizations fell for all infants born after the pandemic, the drop was greatest for the poorest 25 percent of children. The lowest-income babies and toddlers fell from the 50th percentile to the 25th percentile in the frequency of their vocalizations, and from the 45th percentile to the 25th percentile in the number of conversational exchanges they had with caregivers.

Gilkerson said the pandemic stressed families in ways that could reduce their engagement: more harried parents—often with older siblings home—and fewer children in formal day care programs with teachers trained to engage them. Moreover, in many cases early-education teachers used face masks, which were intended to limit the spread of COVID but also made it harder for babies to see teachers’ expressions and hear their responses.

Gilkerson and Deoni both urged education leaders to partner with local early-childhood educators and parents to provide more language enrichment for children born during the pandemic.

For example, in a separate study, Gilkerson found that after families participated in a 10-week program to learn conversational strategies, their infants had an 8 percent increase in vocalizations and a 30 percent increase in conversational turns.

“The stark reality is we are going to have a generation of children who are going to start less ready for school,” Gilkerson said. “Kids are resilient and we know a lot of them can see a bounce back, but we want to start as early as possible. I worry about the children whose parents have fewer resources. It’s going to be harder to get that bounce back.”

*

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.

Sarah D. Sparks covers education research, data, and the science of learning for Education Week.

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

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

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

***

The Western world has tried to “isolate” and “cancel” Russia, but apparently this plan has failed and Moscow remains absolutely integrated with its major trading and strategic partners. China and India remain willing to cooperate with Russia widely, increasing current levels of bilateral trade. This demonstrates how the current situation in Eastern Europe cannot be resolved by coercive means.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs pledged April 19 that it will strengthen cooperation with Russia, no matter what happens in the international scenario. The message comes in an official statement from the foreign ministry following a meeting held the day before between Chinese deputy MOFA Le Yucheng and Russian ambassador to Beijing Andrey Denisov. The document says:

“No matter how the international situation changes, China will, as always, strengthen strategic coordination with Russia to achieve win-win cooperation, jointly safeguard the common interests of both sides, and promote the building of a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for mankind (…) In the first quarter of this year, the bilateral trade volume between China and Russia reached 38.2 billion US dollars, an increase of nearly 30%, [which] fully demonstrates the great resilience… of cooperation between the two countries”.

Later, commenting on the statement, Ambassador Denisov stated:

“Russia always regards developing relations with China as its diplomatic priority and is ready to further deepen bilateral comprehensive strategic coordination and all-round practical cooperation in the direction set by the two heads of state (…) [Further efforts to strengthen Russia-China ties] will continuously benefit the two peoples.”

Although it is a well-known fact that bilateral relations between Moscow and Beijing have improved substantially in recent years, forming an important axis of economic and diplomatic cooperation, the current message is of enormous importance, as it works as a response to recent US pressure against China.

Last month, US President Joe Biden called his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping and during an hour-long conversation “warned” about the possible “consequences” that would be suffered by Beijing if there was not an immediate end to its economic support for Russia.

Naturally, Xi ignored Biden’s threats and the Chinese foreign ministry maintained its stance of absolute neutrality on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Not mixing political and economic issues is a key point of the Chinese foreign policy tradition and this is exactly what is being applied now. Beijing refuses to maintain positions on any political event outside its strategic environment, which is why it keeps the Russian military operation  off the agenda in Beijing-Moscow bilateral relations, continuing to have projects to improve cooperation, independently of such extra-economic issues.

However, it is not only the Chinese who show interest in cooperating with the Russians, ignoring the Western attempts of “cancellation”. Apparently, India is about to announce its highest ever level of trade cooperation with Russia in oil. According to reliable sources quoted by the Economic Times on April 19, state-owned companies in New Delhi are planning to buy as much Russian oil as possible in the short term, considering the expected availability and low prices of the commodity.

The Indian attitude sounds absolutely pragmatic and not ideological: faced with the conflict scenario, Indians seek to benefit from the availability of Russian oil, which arises as a consequence of the sanctions applied by the West to prevent the oil from entering the European market. With large quantities available and prices dropping, it is in India’s interest to acquire as many Russian barrels as possible and this is what is about to be done.

Obviously, this was not what the West expected from the Indians. The US has always tried to make its military partnership with India – focused on creating an “anti-China axis” – a kind of hierarchical relationship, in which Indians would automatically obey and align themselves with every decision taken by the Americans.

However, despite the pressure in this direction and the constant US threats to cut ties with New Delhi, India remains convinced of defending its interests above all, making it clear that it will continue to cooperate with Russia in terms of both military trade and energy partnership.

It is impossible to look at such news and continue to believe the Western media narrative that “Russia is isolated”. Moscow has lost a part of world trade and even then, not completely, as Western countries have not yet managed to fully break off relations with Russia. On the other hand, it has not only preserved most of the global consumer market in emerging nations but has also boosted its ties with China and India, which indicates great economic support and, even more, the emergence of new intra-BRICS cooperation opportunities.

What all this means is simple to understand: the special military operation in Ukraine will not end through economic pressures, coercive measures and attempts at “cancellation”, but through the Ukrainian willingness to accept the peace terms, which are (as Russia insists) political and military neutrality and recognition of the sovereign republics of Donbass and Russian Crimea. As long as the Ukrainian government is unwilling to do so, Russia seems to continue the operation and have sufficient economic strength to maintain 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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

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

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

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

***

Before his ouster as prime minister in a no-trust motion in the parliament on April 10, Imran Khan claimed that Pakistan’s Ambassador to US, Asad Majeed, was warned by Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu that Khan’s continuation in office would have repercussions for bilateral ties between the two nations.

Shireen Mazari, a Pakistani politician who served as the Federal Minister for Human Rights under the Imran Khan government, quoted Donald Lu as saying:

“If Prime Minister Imran Khan remained in office, then Pakistan will be isolated from the United States and we will take the issue head on; but if the vote of no-confidence succeeds, all will be forgiven.”

During Imran Khan’s historic two-day official visit to Moscow on the eve of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, besides signing several bilateral contracts in agricultural and energy sectors, President Putin reportedly offered Imran Khan S-300 air defense system, Sukhoi aircraft as replacement for the Pakistan Air Force’s dependence on American F-16s and an array of advanced Russian military equipment on the condition that Pakistan abandons its traditional alliance with Washington and forge defense ties with Russia, according to two government officials who accompanied Imran Khan on the Moscow visit.

Alongside China, India and Iran, Pakistan under the leadership of Imran Khan was one of the few countries that adopted a non-aligned stance and refused to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite diplomatic pressure from Washington.

After the United States “nation-building project” failed in Afghanistan during its two-decade occupation of the embattled country from Oct. 2001 to August 2021, it accused regional powers of lending covert support to Afghan insurgents battling the occupation forces.

The occupation and Washington’s customary blame game accusing “malign regional forces” of insidiously destabilizing Afghanistan and undermining US-led “benevolent imperialism” instead of accepting responsibility for its botched invasion and occupation of Afghanistan brought Pakistan and Russia closer against a common adversary in their backyard, and the two countries even managed to forge defense ties, particularly during the four years of the Imran Khan government from July 2018 to April 2022.

Since the announcement of a peace deal with the Taliban by the Trump administration in Feb. 2020, regional powers, China and Russia in particular, hosted international conferences and invited the representatives of the US-backed Afghanistan government and the Taliban for peace negotiations.

After the departure of US forces from “the graveyard of the empires,” although Washington is trying to starve the hapless Afghan masses to death in retribution for inflicting a humiliating defeat on the global hegemon by imposing economic sanctions on the Taliban government and browbeating international community to desist from lending formal diplomatic recognition or having trade relations with Afghanistan, China and Russia have provided generous humanitarian and developmental assistance to Afghanistan.

Imran Khan fell from the grace of the Biden administration, whose record-breaking popularity ratings plummeted after the precipitous fall of Kabul last August, reminiscent of the Fall of Saigon in April 1975, with Chinook helicopters hovering over US embassy evacuating diplomatic staff to the airport, and Washington accused Pakistan for the debacle.

Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley squeamishly described the Kabul takeover in his historic Congressional testimony that several hundred Pashtun cowboys riding on motorbikes and brandishing Kalashnikovs overran Kabul without a shot being fired, and the world’s most lethal military force fled with tail neatly folded between legs, hastily evacuating diplomatic staff from sprawling 36-acre US embassy in Chinook helicopters to airport secured by the insurgents.

Apart from indiscriminate B-52 bombing raids mounted by Americans, Afghan security forces didn’t put up serious resistance anywhere in Afghanistan and simply surrendered territory to the Taliban. The fate of Afghanistan was sealed as soon as the US forces evacuated Bagram airbase in the dead of the night on July 1, six weeks before the inevitable fall of Kabul on August 15.

The sprawling Bagram airbase was the nerve center from where all the operations across Afghanistan were directed, specifically the vital air support to the US-backed Afghan security forces without which they were simply irregular militias waiting to be devoured by the wolves.

In southern Afghanistan, the traditional stronghold of the Pashtun ethnic group from which the Taliban draws most of its support, the Taliban military offensive was spearheaded by Mullah Yaqoob, the illustrious son of the Taliban’s late founder Mullah Omar and the newly appointed defense minister of the Taliban government, as district after district in southwest Afghanistan, including the birthplace of the Taliban movement Kandahar and Helmand, fell in quick succession.

What has stunned military strategists and longtime observers of the Afghan war, though, was the Taliban’s northern blitz, occupying almost the whole of northern Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, as northern Afghanistan was the bastion of the Northern Alliance comprising the Tajik and Uzbek ethnic groups. In recent years, however, the Taliban has made inroads into the heartland of the Northern Alliance, too.

The ignominious fall of Kabul clearly demonstrates the days of American hegemony over the world are numbered. If ragtag Taliban militants could liberate their homeland from imperialist clutches without a fight, imagine what would happen if the United States confronted equal military powers such as Russia and China. The much-touted myth of American military supremacy is clearly more psychological than real.

Imran Khan is an educated and charismatic leader. Being an Oxford graduate, he is much better informed than most Pakistani politicians. And he is a liberal at heart. Most readers might disagree with the assertion due to his fierce anti-imperialism and West-bashing demagoguery, but allow me to explain.

It’s not just Imran Khan’s celebrity lifestyle that makes him a progressive. He also derives his intellectual inspiration from the Western tradition. The ideal role model in his mind is the Scandinavian social democratic model which he has mentioned on numerous occasions, especially in his speech at Karachi before a massive rally of singing and cheering crowd in December 2012.

His relentless anti-imperialism as a political stance should be viewed in the backdrop of Western military interventions in the Islamic countries. The conflagration that neocolonial powers have caused in the Middle East evokes strong feelings of resentment among Muslims all over the world. Moreover, Imran Khan also uses anti-America rhetoric as an electoral strategy to attract conservative masses, particularly the impressionable youth.

It’s also noteworthy that Imran Khan’s political party draws most of its electoral support from women, youth voters and Pakistani expats residing in the Gulf and Western countries. All these segments of society, especially the women, are drawn more toward egalitarian liberalism than patriarchal conservatism, because liberalism promotes women’s rights and its biggest plus point is its emphasis on equality, emancipation and empowerment of women who constitute over half of population in every society.

Image on the right: Bhutto in 1971 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 nl)

Imran Khan’s ouster from power for daring to stand up to the United States harks back to the toppling and subsequent assassination of Pakistan’s first elected prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in April 1979 by the martial law regime of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq.

The United States not only turned a blind eye but tacitly approved the elimination of Bhutto from Pakistan’s political scene because, being a socialist, Bhutto not only nurtured cordial ties with communist China but was also courting Washington’s arch-rival, the former Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union played the role of a mediator at the signing of the Tashkent Agreement for the cessation of hostilities following the 1965 India-Pakistan War over the disputed Kashmir region, in which Bhutto represented Pakistan as the foreign minister of the Gen. Ayub Khan-led government.

Like Imran Khan, the United States “deep state” regarded Bhutto as a political liability and an obstacle in the way of mounting the Operation Cyclone to provoke the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and the subsequent waging of a decade-long war of attrition, using Afghan jihadists as cannon fodder who were generously funded, trained and armed by the CIA and Pakistan’s security agencies in the Af-Pak border regions, in order to “bleed the Soviet forces” and destabilize and weaken the rival global power.

Karl Marx famously said: “History repeats itself, first as a tragedy and then as a farce.” In addition to a longstanding CIA program aimed at cultivating an anti-Russian insurgency in Ukraine by training, arming and international legitimizing neo-Nazi militias in Donbas, Canada’s Department of National Defense revealed on January 26, that the Canadian Armed Forces had trained “nearly 33,000 Ukrainian military and security personnel in a range of tactical and advanced military skills.” While The United Kingdom, via Operation Orbital, had trained 22,000 Ukrainian fighters.

A “prophetic” RAND Corporation report titled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” published in 2019 declares the stated goal of American policymakers is “to undermine Russia just as the US subversively destabilized the former Soviet Union during the Cold War,” and predicts to the letter the crisis unfolding in Ukraine as a consequence of the eight-year proxy war mounted by NATO in Russian-majority Donbas region in east Ukraine on Russia’s vulnerable western flank since the 2014 Maidan coup, toppling Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and consequent annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia.

Nonetheless, regarding the objectives of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, then American envoy to Kabul, Adolph “Spike” Dubs, was assassinated on the Valentine’s Day, on 14 Feb 1979, the same day that Iranian revolutionaries stormed the American embassy in Tehran.

The former Soviet Union was wary that its forty-million Muslims were susceptible to radicalism, because Islamic radicalism was infiltrating across the border into the Central Asian States from Afghanistan. Therefore, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 in support of the Afghan communists to forestall the likelihood of Islamist insurgencies spreading to the Central Asian States bordering Afghanistan.

According to documents declassified by the White House, CIA and State Department in January 2019, as reported by Tim Weiner for The Washington Post, the CIA was aiding Afghan jihadists before the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. President Jimmy Carter signed the CIA directive to arm the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December the same year.

The revelation doesn’t come as a surprise, though, because more than two decades before the declassification of the State Department documents, in the 1998 interview to The Nouvel Observateur, former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, confessed that the president signed the directive to provide secret aid to the Afghan jihadists in July 1979, whereas the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan six months later in December 1979.

Here is a poignant excerpt from the interview. The interviewer puts the question: “And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic jihadists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?” Brzezinski replies: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet Empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Despite the crass insensitivity, one must give credit to Zbigniew Brzezinski that at least he had the courage to speak the unembellished truth. It’s worth noting, however, that the aforementioned interview was recorded in 1998. After the 9/11 terror attack, no Western policymaker can now dare to be as blunt and forthright as Brzezinski.

Regardless, that the CIA was arming the Afghan jihadists six months before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan has been proven by the State Department’s declassified documents; fact of the matter, however, is that the nexus between the CIA, Pakistan’s security agencies and the Gulf states to train and arm the Afghan jihadists against the former Soviet Union was forged years before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Pakistan joined the American-led, SEATO and CENTO regional alliances in the 1950s and played the role of Washington’s client state since its inception in 1947. So much so that when a United States U-2 spy plane was shot down by the Soviet Air Defense Forces while performing photographic aerial reconnaissance deep into Soviet territory, Pakistan’s then President Ayub Khan openly acknowledged the reconnaissance aircraft flew from an American airbase in Peshawar, a city in northwest Pakistan.

Then during the 1970s, Pakistan’s then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government began aiding the Afghan Islamists against Sardar Daud’s government, who had toppled his first cousin King Zahir Shah in a palace coup in 1973 and had proclaimed himself the president of Afghanistan.

Sardar Daud was a Pashtun nationalist and laid claim to Pakistan’s northwestern Pashtun-majority province. Pakistan’s security agencies were alarmed by his irredentist claims and used Islamists to weaken his rule in Afghanistan. He was eventually assassinated in 1978 as a consequence of the Saur Revolution led by the Afghan communists.

It’s worth pointing out, however, that although the Bhutto government did provide political and diplomatic support on a limited scale to Islamists in their struggle for power against Pashtun nationalists in Afghanistan, being a secular and progressive politician, he would never have permitted opening the floodgates for flushing the Af-Pak region with weapons, petrodollars and radical jihadist ideology as his successor, Zia-ul-Haq, an Islamist military general, did by becoming a willing tool of religious extremism and militarism in the hands of neocolonial powers.

*

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.

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.

Featured image is from IRF

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

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

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

***

Nuclear sanity: ultimate (or, God help us, immediate) disarmament.

Nuclear insanity: ongoing development and deployment, endless investment, eventual (either accidental or intentional) use.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., addressing Congress several weeks ago, made a heartfelt and powerful case for nuclear sanity, for a revamping of the system of mutually assured destruction, which gives certain national leaders “Godlike powers known as sole authority to end life on the planet as we know it . . .”

He went on:

“We cannot uninvent the atom, its military applications, and technological knowhow. The nuclear Pandora’s box is sadly forever opened. We must, however, do everything in our power to be able to look the next generation in the eye and say that we did everything — everything —in our power to avert the unfathomable, a nuclear war on this planet; and that includes supporting negotiations that not only end Russia’s war in Ukraine, but also future negotiations to end the budding 21st century nuclear arms race which is spinning out of control.”

Until the other day, I thought all I needed to do was grasp the sanity of nuclear disarmament — help spread the word — and the world would eventually come around. Then, out of the blue, I stumbled upon the “rationality” of nuclear insanity, and it shocked me into a new level of understanding. Suddenly, against my will, I’m starting to get it and, ever since, I’ve been trying (psychologically) to duck and cover. This transcends geopolitics.

Here’s the beginning of a recent, miniscule Reuters story:

“The global market for nuclear missiles and bombs should surpass $126 billion within ten years, up nearly 73 percent from 2020 levels, according to a report by Allied Market Research on Monday, as Russian aggression in Ukraine spurs military spending.”

I could hardly read beyond this paragraph. There’s a “global market” for nuclear missiles? You mean, like there’s a market for oil, for gold . . . for bananas? I had always fathomed nukes solely as geopolitical, as harbingers of hell, birthed by World War II and the Manhattan Project, forever entwined with the words Robert Oppenheimer quoted from the Bhagavad Gita when the world’s first atomic bomb was dropped at Alamogordo, N.M in July 1945.: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

But obviously somebody has to build them. There are more than 12,000 nuclear warheads here and there on Planet Earth, with more coming. Just because their use is suicidal, that doesn’t mean the builders shouldn’t profit from them.

I had no choice but to visit the source of the Reuters article, the Allied Market Research report, which discussed the nuclear arms market with such a creepy-cold objectivity, I started to sense the mental equivalent of nuclear winter (I started calling it cranial winter), e.g.:

“There is expected to be a nuclear arms acquisition race by superpowers such as the U.S. and Russia, to accelerate business opportunism within coming years. In 2021, the U.S. and Russia had 5,550 and 6,255 nuclear warheads and are expected to reach 6,380 and 6,734 in 2030 respectively. The expenditure done by major companies such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Airbus, and Boeing toward research, development, management, conducting exhibitions and seminars to conduct importance and feasibility of nuclear weapons will encourage nations to increase their budget allocation. . . .

“The rise in border disputes among neighboring nations, plans for territorial expansion, and efforts to establish strategic and political dominance at the global level remain primary factors that support the nuclear bombs and missiles market. The ongoing dispute between Ukraine and Russia as of March 2022 will notably impact the business dynamics in the coming years.”

And there you have it: the upside of World War III. The upside of Armageddon. There’s money to be made in border disputes and superpower clashes — lots of money. Keep at it, boys! As The Nation noted:

“In 2015, the defense industry mobilized a small army of at least 718 lobbyists and doled out more than $67 million dollars pressuring Congress for increased weapons spending generally.”

Money makes the world go around, and if you can control its flow, you make the world go around. Or so it seems. And I confess, I’m not sure what the takeaway is on all this. As The Nation story pointed out, nuclear-weapons contracts are welfare-sated. The business model is called “cost-plus,” that is: “no matter how high cost overruns may be compared to original bids, contractors receive a guaranteed profit percentage above their costs. High profits are effectively guaranteed, no matter how inefficient or over-budget the project may become.”

And:

“The continuing pressure of Congressional Republicans for cuts in domestic social programs are a crucial mechanism that ensures federal tax dollars will be available for lucrative military contracts.”

Nuclear winter begins with cranial winter: with a coldly abstracted reality in which profit trumps sanity. Duck and cover won’t save us.

Those of us who want a future have some serious negotiating to do, not with Russia but with Congress — with ourselves.

*

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 South Front

---

“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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Bureau of Land Management announced today that it will resume oil and gas leasing on public lands, violating President Biden’s campaign promise to end new oil and gas leasing and locking in new extraction that thwarts his pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite its pause on new oil and gas leasing and drilling on publicly owned lands and waters, the Biden administration approved more drilling permits in 2021 than President Trump did in the first year of his presidency, according to federal data analyzed by the Center for Biological Diversity.

The oil and gas industry continues raking in record profits while communities pay the price. The watchdog organization Accountable.US reported in February that Shell, Chevron, BP and Exxon made more than $75.5 billion in profits in 2021, some of their highest profits in the past decade.

The communities most at risk from new fossil fuel extraction are primarily Black, Brown and Indigenous peoples, people of the global majority, and those on the frontlines of fossil fuel industry expansion. These are the same communities that turned out in record numbers to get Biden elected in 2020 and who have since been urging Biden to use his executive authority to fulfill his campaign promise and ban new federal fossil fuel projects.

Several analyses show that climate pollution from the world’s already-producing fossil fuel developments, if fully developed, would push warming past 1.5 degrees Celsius, and that avoiding such warming requires ending new investment in fossil fuel projects. Thousands of organizations and communities from across the United States have called on Biden to halt federal fossil fuel expansion and phase out production consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Statements from climate, social justice and environmental organizations:

“As frontline community members in the Permian Basin that have been advocating for putting a stop to new oil and gas leasing on federal lands, Citizens Caring for the Future finds it extremely disheartening that BLM is going forward with these lease sales,” said Kayley Shoup of Citizens Caring for the Future. “Our day-to-day life and health is directly affected by these sales and the subsequent production that comes along with them. It would take a small army to truly enforce regulation here in the Permian, and we know that is the reality in oil and gas regions around the country. We live our lives surrounded by the industry and we understand that in order to take on climate change and make a meaningful dent in emissions the Biden administration must take action that puts a stop to new development.”

“The Biden administration’s claim that it must hold these lease sales is pure fiction and a reckless failure of climate leadership,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s as if they’re ignoring the horror of firestorms, floods and megadroughts, and accepting climate catastrophes as business as usual. These so-called reforms are 20 years too late and will only continue to fuel the climate emergency. These lease sales should be shelved and the climate-destroying federal fossil fuel programs brought to an end.”

“The West is drying up and going up in flames. Between extreme drought, the shrinking of the Colorado River, and now urban wildfires in the winter, how much more death, destruction and devastation do we have to see before this administration takes action?” said Natasha Léger, executive director of Citizens for a Healthy Community. “It’s time for climate leadership and to stop leasing our public lands for oil and gas development. We need heroes to break through the political and economic inertia that has us on a collision course to inhabitability.”

“As the Interior Department announces that it plans on continuing oil and gas leasing on federal land, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic condemns any further extraction, especially within the Arctic,” said Siqiniq Maupin, executive director of Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic. “Our lands are warming at a higher rate than anywhere else in the world, causing detrimental impact to the fragile ecosystems that call it home and directly impacting the rest of the world, as well. With conservative climate models predicting that we have less than 30 years to radically change our relationship with oil and gas, the future rests in the United States’ hands. We can no longer commodify our land and water, especially at the rate climate change is occurring. We are nature fighting back.”

“It is unconscionable that the BLM will go forward with these oil and gas lease sales as we continue to see the devastating effects of climate change, particularly in the Southwestern United States,” said Deborah McNamara, campaigns director at 350 Colorado. “According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s August 2021 assessment, there is ‘high confidence’ that human-influenced rising temperatures are a direct cause of the extension of the wildfire season, increased drought, and decreased precipitation in the southwest United States. In order to curb emissions and do what scientists are telling us we must do in order to avert the absolute worst climate impacts, we need a rapid phase out of fossil fuel production by 2030. Continuing business as usual at the BLM with ongoing oil and gas lease sales will not get us where we need to be in order to solve the climate crisis and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“How much more can Gulf Coast states endure? Most of us weren’t born with a silver spoon to get lawyers all the time to fight these civil laws aka ‘environmental acts,’ or have the luxury of property rights because it was all taken from us so long ago,” said Love Sanchez of Indigenous Peoples of the Coastal Bend. “Now here we are, working class people, simple people, 95% of the time BIPOC people, that just want to protect our land and water. Then, I’m not surprised, we now have the Interior, who decides they want to continue their projects in the Gulf Coast. It’s a very disappointing thing to hear. Fortunately, we will continue to be persistent in protecting these waters.”

“We have heard a lot of rhetoric from President Biden and his administration about the need to take action on climate,” said Kyle Tisdel, climate and energy program director with the Western Environmental Law Center. “But not only is the administration not doing everything it could — it is not really doing anything. Climate action was a pillar of President Biden’s campaign, and his promises on this existential issue were a major reason the public elected him. Achieving results on climate is not a matter of domestic politics. It’s life and death.”

“Candidate Biden promised to end new oil and gas leasing on public lands, but President Biden is prioritizing oil executive profits over future generations,” said Nicole Ghio, senior fossil fuels program manager at Friends of the Earth. “Biden’s Interior Department has even issued permits to drill at a rate faster than the Trump administration. Now, the Bureau of Land Management is preparing to hold its first public lands lease sale, despite having no legal obligation to do so. If Biden wants to be a climate leader, he must stop auctioning off our public lands to Big Oil.”

“This is pure climate denial,” said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians. “While the Biden administration talks a good talk on climate action, the reality is, they’re in bed with the oil and gas industry. Rest assured, with the climate crisis raging, we can and will fight back. We can’t afford not to.”

“The Biden administration fiddles while Rome burns,” said Shelley Silbert, executive director at Great Old Broads for Wilderness. “The most destructive fire in Colorado history consumed over 1,000 homes last December. When your house is on fire, you act immediately. Climate disasters hit us harder each day and we’re out of time. The Biden administration must address the climate crisis now, and a vital step is stopping oil and gas leasing on public lands immediately. There is no other option.”

“Right now, fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters makes up a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions at a time scientists are saying we must move urgently to cut emissions by at least half. Not only does it devastate our planet, it’s a handout to Big Oil at the expense of average Americans, who will bear the brunt of its societal, health and financial ramifications,” said Dan Ritzman, Lands Water Wildlife director at the Sierra Club. “We urge the Biden administration to take advantage of this historic opportunity to make good on campaign promises, fulfill a global commitment to acting on climate, and serve American communities by phasing out oil and gas production on public lands and oceans.”

“Let’s set aside all the niceties and speak plainly on this: Even people in positions of power and authority are fully aware that nothing goes unscathed in the aftermath of creating and maintaining fossil fuel infrastructures,” said Sha Merirei Ongelungel, executive director of Pasifika Uprising. “So whether you’re trying to reopen the Palau National Marine Sanctuary for commercial fishing and potential exploratory drilling or in the United States pushing to resume oil and gas leasing on public lands, the only safe inference is that our leaders are dishonest and hungry for more money and more power. And that is wholly unconscionable. What’s legal isn’t always ethical and too many leaders, the world over, are demonstrating this with their utter disregard for their communities and the climate. Frankly, I’m embarrassed for these so-called leaders. For all their power and authority, they will never have the true power and solidarity needed to lead us into a safer future like grassroots movements.”

“Ramping up exports of liquified natural gas to Europe in response to the invasion of Ukraine is a losing proposition that will take too long to implement to address current energy demands,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “Instead of taking decades to build the necessary export terminals so we can keep burning fossil fuels and turning the Earth into a fiery hellscape, we should be investing in solar production in urban settings where the energy is being used, on rooftops and parking lot awnings, so Europe and the United States can both transition to clean power sources and get that production online a whole lot faster.”

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could not be more clear. It is time to rapidly transition off of fossil fuels. Increasing leasing for fossil fuels on public lands is grossly misaligned with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and ensuring that young people inherit a habitable planet,” said Zanagee Artis, executive director of Zero Hour.

*

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

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

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

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

***

Despite Washington repeatedly saying that the US would not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, the overthrow of Imran Khan from the Pakistani Prime Ministership suggests otherwise if he is to be believed. More alarmingly for Islamabad is that the political instability comes at a time when the Pakistani economy is struggling and Beijing is less willing to mindlessly pour money into the massive China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project.

Khan on April 10 became the first prime minister in Pakistan’s history to lose office through a parliamentary no-confidence vote after attempting to dissolve the national assembly in what some described as a “civilian coup.” Following the Supreme Court’s order for the parliament to vote, which finally led to his downfall, Khan blamed the US for toppling his government because of his refusal to cancel his visit to Moscow in late February.

It is for this reason he urged citizens to take to the streets and express their protest, resulting in a series of mass rallies across the country of 220 million people, but also in Australia, the UK, across Europe including Greece, and several countries in the Middle East where large Pakistani communities live.

According to the former Prime Minister, the Pakistani ambassador to Washington reportedly sent a cable detailing the US Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Assistant Secretary Donald Lu telling him that relations with Pakistan would not be good so long as the government was led by him. Allegedly the term “impeachment” attributed to Lu is mentioned as many as eight times in the cable.

Pakistan, a traditional partner of the US, was very important to the Americans during their 20-year occupation of Afghanistan. Khan is seen by many Pakistanis as a very charismatic politician and has a hero’s status as a famous cricketer who won the World Cup three decades ago as captain of Pakistan’s national team. He is also a strong campaigner for the Palestinian cause, a critic of Israel and one of the sponsors of a UN resolution against Islamophobia.

However, the greatest resentment held by the Americans was because he visited Russian President Vladimir Putin on the day that the Russian military operation in Ukraine began, even though his trip to Moscow had been planned much earlier. Washington was also furious with Pakistan’s position in the UN vote on a resolution condemning Russia’s operation in Ukraine.

Image on the right: Shehbaz Sharif (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Pakistan’s new head of government Shehbaz Sharif is the younger brother of three-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who is living in voluntary exile in London after a Pakistani court sentenced him to ten years in prison for corruption. Less than two years ago, Shabazz Sharif himself was investigated for corruption, and he spent time in an investigative prison. As one of his priorities includes “restoring broken ties with the US”, it remains to be seen how he can balance relations with China and Russia, especially at a time when Washington is imposing pressure on those who maintain good relations with both powers.

On the economic front, Pakistan is nearly entirely reliant on China, but traditionally its geopolitical interests are hinged on American backing and support, such as the initial arming and funding of the mujahideen against the Soviet Union. It is recalled that Pakistan was the cradle of the Taliban, in which the Americans relied heavily on to fight the Soviets.

Although Russian President Vladimir Putin managed to turn around a difficult legacy in the relationship between the two countries, and in recent years Pakistan has played a more significant role in Russia’s foreign policy, Islamabad will never be able to topple Moscow’s prioritised relationship with New Delhi. This is expected since Russia and India maintain consistently friendly ties, regardless of which party or leader is in power.

According to Asia Times, Beijing is reluctant to pump new funds until problems faced by Chinese investors are resolved and previous CPEC-related agreements are fully honoured by Pakistan. It comes as on April 18, Pakistan’s Finance Ministry refused to support a supplementary grant of another PKR 50 billion ($270,000,000) for CPEC power projects. This decision comes as China has already halted some of its projects (when Khan was still in power), over differences in cost estimations and contractual disputes with Pakistan.

Pakistan army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa hinted earlier this month that Pakistan’s military has not had a good experience with some of the Chinese military products they have procured and will likely return to favoring American equipment as it “is the best.” He added that the best way for the Americans to fight against Chinese influence in Pakistan is to offer counter-investments, effectively extending an olive branch to Washington at a time when Khan continues his anti-Western crusade.

It is crucial to highlight that the Pakistani military are the real powerbrokers in the country, much more so than the elected figures. It is partially for the reason that Khan was often in opposition to the military that he found himself ousted. With Pakistan seeking a return to favor in Western eyes, it is now offering small tokenistic openings such as publicly announcing issues with CPEC, expressing preference for American military equipment, and installing a much more Western-friendly Prime Minister.

How this will directly affect Islamabad’s relations with Moscow and Beijing remains to be seen, but it appears for now that Pakistan is returning to the Western fold.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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.

First published by GR on February 28, 2022.

---

Today, the dangers of military escalation are beyond description.

What is now happening in Ukraine has serious geopolitical implications. It could lead us into a World War III scenario.

It is important that a peace process be initiated with a view to preventing escalation. 

Global Research condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A Bilateral Peace Agreement is required.

---

This war must be immediately terminated before it expands and sucks in the European NATO States and the United States. Towards that end, President Biden must publicly announce that NATO Expansion is over for good  and that Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova will not be joining NATO as member States.

President Biden must also call for an international peace conference for the conclusion of a treaty that will establish  the permanent neutrality of Ukraine which will be guaranteed by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. Then negotiations can take place between the United States and Russia over the de-nuclearization of Europe including the removal of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons from NATO States that are there in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a restoration of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty that was so foolishly and recklessly terminated by the Trump administration.

Then a new round of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty Negotiations should be conducted in order to substantially lessen the tensions on land, sea and air between Russia and the U.S./NATO States including over the emplacement of alleged U.S. ABM sites in Europe that threaten Russia.

Make no mistake about it: The Origins of both the First World War and the Second World War hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity!

*

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

Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Among his many books is “Destroying World Order.”

---

“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.

Human Microchip Implants and the “Internet of Bodies” (IoB)

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, April 19, 2022

Implantable microchips are marketed as the ultimate in convenience, but the goal is to create the Internet of Bodies (IoB), described by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an ecosystem of “an unprecedented number of sensors,” including emotional sensors, “attached to, implanted within, or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyze and even modify human bodies and behavior.”

Jackboots Policing: No-Knock Raids Rip a Hole in the Fourth Amendment

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, April 20, 2022

Brace yourself, because this hair-raising, heart-pounding, jarring account of a no-knock, no-announce SWAT team raid is what passes for court-sanctioned policing in America today, and it could happen to any one of us.

Video: America’s Nuclear Weapons: “Our Strategy to Preserve Peace…”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux, April 20, 2022

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.

The Lies…and the Eyes…of Ukraine. Reporting from Lviv

By Brett Redmayne-Titley, April 19, 2022

The realities of this war, as I expected before arriving two weeks ago, have been slowly found on the faces, in the voices and deep in the penetrating eyes of those affected by it. These are the innocents, mostly, those who have a tale to tell and parse no words in telling it.

Dangerous Crossroads: NATO’s ‘Weapons for Peace’ Program Conducive to Escalation of Ukraine War

By Nauman Sadiq, April 19, 2022

Karen DeYoung reported for the Washington Post Thursday that Russia sent a formal diplomatic note to the United States on Tuesday, accusing Washington and its NATO clients of insidiously subverting the peace process with Ukraine initiated at the Istanbul talks on March 29, and the subsequent withdrawal of Russian forces from the outskirts of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, thus ending the month-long offensive in Ukraine.

COVID Persists, but the COVID Vaccine Mandate “Does Not Prevent The Spread”

By Dr. Meryl Nass, April 19, 2022

There has been so much bad news about the vaccines in the last few months, it even leaked into the mainstream media.  I think the cabal’s plan, at least in the US but probably everywhere, is to stop propping the ludicrous vaccine claims up and allow them to die a natural death. I explain why below.

“One Less Traitor”: Zelensky Oversees Campaign of Assassination, Kidnapping and Torture of Political Opposition

By Max Blumenthal and Esha Krishnaswamy, April 19, 2022

While claiming to defend democracy, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has outlawed his opposition, ordered his rivals’ arrest, and presided over the disappearance and assassination of dissidents across the country.

Joys of Western Democracy: American Victory and Loss of Political Sovereignty in Pakistan

By Dr. Ejaz Akram, April 19, 2022

After committing the shameful atrocities of direct colonization against the non-West, the West felt it was necessary to invent methods of indirect colonization. Other than institutional controls, they would incarcerate and assassinate many of the non-Western leaders who disobeyed the West.

Thinking Harder About False Flags and Other Fables

By Philip Giraldi, April 19, 2022

In my own experience as a CIA operations officer, I once “developed” a relationship with a Libyan intelligence officer using the false identity of an Italian businessman. The Libyan was amendable to an information sharing relationship with an Italian to line his own pockets, but would have balked at the treasonous implications of having a connection with an American.

The Hidden Truth Behind War with Russia

By Martin Armstrong, April 19, 2022

The plot behind Ukraine is far deeper than anyone is willing to talk about publically. Yanukovich was corrupt and his sons were acting like a protection racket. Yanukovich was keen on joining the EU but the treaty had a clause in there that would have put Ukraine in NATO through the backdoor.

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

“We’re all potential victims.”—Peter Christ, retired police officer

It’s the middle of the night.

Your neighborhood is in darkness. Your household is asleep.

Suddenly, you’re awakened by a loud noise.

Someone or an army of someones has crashed through your front door.

The intruders are in your home.

Your heart begins racing. Your stomach is tied in knots. The adrenaline is pumping through you.

You’re not just afraid. You’re terrified.

Desperate to protect yourself and your loved ones from whatever threat has invaded your home, you scramble to lay hold of something—anything—that you might use in self-defense. It might be a flashlight, a baseball bat, or that licensed and registered gun you thought you’d never need.

You brace for the confrontation.

Shadowy figures appear at the doorway, screaming orders, threatening violence.

Chaos reigns.

You stand frozen, your hands gripping whatever means of self-defense you could find.

Just that simple act—of standing frozen in fear and self-defense—is enough to spell your doom.

The assailants open fire, sending a hail of bullets in your direction.

You die without ever raising a weapon or firing a gun in self-defense.

In your final moments, you get a good look at your assassins: it’s the police.

Brace yourself, because this hair-raising, heart-pounding, jarring account of a no-knock, no-announce SWAT team raid is what passes for court-sanctioned policing in America today, and it could happen to any one of us.

Nationwide, SWAT teams routinely invade homes, break down doors, kill family pets (they always shoot the dogs first), damage furnishings, terrorize families, and wound or kill those unlucky enough to be present during a raid.

No longer reserved exclusively for deadly situations, SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for relatively routine police matters such as serving a search warrant, with some SWAT teams being sent out as much as five times a day.

SWAT teams have been employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of so-called criminal activity or mere community nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling. In some instances, SWAT teams are even employed, in full armament, to perform routine patrols.

These raids, which might be more aptly referred to as “knock-and-shoot” policing, have become a thinly veiled, court-sanctioned means of giving heavily armed police the green light to crash through doors in the middle of the night.

No-knock raids, a subset of the violent, terror-inducing raids carried out by police SWAT teams on unsuspecting households, differ in one significant respect: they are carried out without police having to announce and identify themselves as police.

It’s a chilling difference: to the homeowner targeted for one of these no-knock raids, it appears as if they are being set upon by villains mounting a home invasion.

Never mind that the unsuspecting homeowner, woken from sleep by the sounds of a violent entry, has no way of distinguishing between a home invasion by criminals as opposed to a police mob. In many instances, there is little real difference.

According to an in-depth investigative report by The Washington Post, “police carry out tens of thousands of no-knock raids every year nationwide.”

While the Fourth Amendment requires that police obtain a warrant based on probable cause before they can enter one’s home, search and seize one’s property, or violate one’s privacy, SWAT teams are granted “no-knock” warrants at high rates such that the warrants themselves are rendered practically meaningless.

If these aggressive, excessive police tactics have also become troublingly commonplace, it is in large part due to judges who largely rubberstamp the warrant requests based only on the word of police; police who have been known to lie or fabricate the facts in order to justify their claims of “reasonable suspicion” (as opposed to the higher standard of probable cause, which is required by the Constitution before any government official can search an individual or his property); and software that allows judges to remotely approve requests using computers, cellphones or tablets.

This sorry state of affairs is made even worse by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have essentially done away with the need for a “no-knock” warrant altogether, giving the police authority to disregard the protections afforded American citizens by the Fourth Amendment.

In addition to the terror brought on by these raids, general incompetence, collateral damage (fatalities, property damage, etc.) and botched raids are also characteristic of these SWAT team raids. In some cases, officers misread the address on the warrant. In others, they simply barge into the wrong house or even the wrong building. In another subset of cases, police conduct a search of a building where the suspect no longer resides.

SWAT teams have even on occasion conducted multiple, sequential raids on wrong addresses or executed search warrants despite the fact that the suspect is already in police custody. Police have also raided homes on the basis of mistaking the presence or scent of legal substances for drugs. Incredibly, these substances have included tomatoes, sunflowers, fish, elderberry bushes, kenaf plants, hibiscus, and ragweed.

All too often, botched SWAT team raids have resulted in one tragedy after another for the residents with little consequences for law enforcement.

The horror stories have become legion in which homeowners are injured or killed simply because they mistook a SWAT team raid by police for a home invasion by criminals. Too often, the destruction of life and property wrought by the police is no less horrifying than that carried out by criminal invaders.

As one might expect, judges tend to afford extreme levels of deference to police officers who have mistakenly killed innocent civilians but do not afford similar leniency to civilians who have injured police officers in acts of self-defense. Indeed, homeowners who mistake officers for robbers can be sentenced for assault or murder if they take defensive actions resulting in harm to police.

Yet the shock-and-awe tactics utilized by many SWAT teams only increases the likelihood that someone will get hurt.

That’s exactly what happened to Jose Guerena, the young ex-Marine who was killed after a SWAT team kicked open the door of his Arizona home during a drug raid and opened fire. According to news reports, Guerena, 26 years old and the father of two young children, grabbed a gun in response to the forced invasion but never fired. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. Police officers were not as restrained. The young Iraqi war veteran was allegedly fired upon 71 times. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

Aiyana Jones is dead because of a SWAT raid gone awry. The 7-year-old was killed after a Detroit SWAT team—searching for a suspect—launched a flash-bang grenade into her family’s apartment, broke through the door and opened fire, hitting the little girl who was asleep on the living room couch. The cops weren’t even in the right apartment.

Exhibiting a similar lack of basic concern for public safety, a Georgia SWAT team launched a flash-bang grenade into the house in which Baby Bou Bou, his three sisters and his parents were staying. The grenade landed in the 2-year-old’s crib, burning a hole in his chest and leaving him with scarring that a lifetime of surgeries will not be able to easily undo.

Payton, a 7-year-old black Labrador retriever, and 4-year-old Chase, also a black Lab, were shot and killed after a SWAT team mistakenly raided the mayor’s home while searching for drugs. Police shot Payton four times. Chase was shot twice, once from behind as he ran away.

“My government blew through my doors and killed my dogs. They thought we were drug dealers, and we were treated as such. I don’t think they really ever considered that we weren’t,” recalls Mayor Cheye Calvo, who described being handcuffed and interrogated for hours—wearing only underwear and socks—surrounded by the dogs’ carcasses and pools of the dogs’ blood.

If these violent SWAT team raids have become tragically widespread, you can chalk it up to the “make-work” principle that has been used to justify the transfer of sophisticated military equipment, weaponry and training to local police departments, which in turn has helped to transform police into extensions of the military—a standing army on American soil.

The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is “not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it’s that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone.”

A study by a political scientist at Princeton University concludes that militarizing police and SWAT teams “provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction.” The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force, reveals that “police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed.”

SWAT teams, designed to defuse dangerous situations such as those involving hostages, were never meant to be used for routine police work targeting nonviolent suspects, yet they have become intrinsic parts of federal and local law enforcement operations.

There are few communities without a SWAT team today.

In 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US.

Incredibly, that number has since grown to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year.

Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these militarized SWAT teams are assigned to carry out routine law enforcement tasks.

In the state of Maryland alone, 92 percent of 8200 SWAT missions were used to execute search or arrest warrants.

Police in both Baltimore and Dallas have used SWAT teams to bust up poker games.

A Connecticut SWAT team swarmed a bar suspected of serving alcohol to underage individuals.

In Arizona, a SWAT team was used to break up an alleged cockfighting ring.

An Atlanta SWAT team raided a music studio, allegedly out of a concern that it might have been involved in illegal music piracy.

A Minnesota SWAT team raided the wrong house in the middle of the night, handcuffed the three young children, held the mother on the floor at gunpoint, shot the family dog, and then “forced the handcuffed children to sit next to the carcass of their dead pet and bloody pet for more than an hour” while they searched the home.

A California SWAT team drove an armored Lenco Bearcat into Roger Serrato’s yard, surrounded his home with paramilitary troops wearing face masks, threw a fire-starting flashbang grenade into the house in order, then when Serrato appeared at a window, unarmed and wearing only his shorts, held him at bay with rifles. Serrato died of asphyxiation from being trapped in the flame-filled house. Incredibly, the father of four had done nothing wrong. The SWAT team had misidentified him as someone involved in a shooting.

And then there was the police officer who tripped and “accidentally” shot and killed Eurie Stamps, an unarmed grandfather of 12, who had been forced to lie facedown on the floor of his home at gunpoint while a SWAT team attempted to execute a search warrant against his stepson.

Equally outrageous was the four-hour SWAT team raid on a California high school, where students were locked down in classrooms, forced to urinate in overturned desks and generally terrorized by heavily armed, masked gunmen searching for possible weapons that were never found.

These incidents underscore a dangerous mindset in which the citizenry (often unarmed and defenseless) not only have less rights than militarized police, but also one in which the safety of the citizenry is treated as a lower priority than the safety of their police counterparts (who are armed to the hilt with an array of lethal and nonlethal weapons).

Likewise, our privacy, property and security are no longer safe from government intrusion.

Yet it wasn’t always this way.

There was a time in America when a person’s home was a sanctuary, safe and secure from the threat of invasion by government agents, who were held at bay by the dictates of the Fourth Amendment, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment, in turn, was added to the U.S. Constitution by colonists still smarting from the abuses they had been forced to endure while under British rule, among these home invasions by the military under the guise of “writs of assistance.” These writs gave British soldiers blanket authority to raid homes, damage property and wreak havoc for any reason whatsoever, without any expectation of probable cause.

To our detriment, we have come full circle to a time before the American Revolution when government agents—with the blessing of the courts—could force their way into a citizen’s home, with seemingly little concern for lives lost and property damaged in the process.

Rubber-stamped, court-issued warrants for no-knock SWAT team raids have become the modern-day equivalent of colonial-era writs of assistance.

Then again, we may be worse off today when one considers the extent to which courts have sanctioned the use of no-knock raids by police SWAT teams (occurring at a rate of more than 80,000 a year and growing); the arsenal of lethal weapons available to local police agencies; the ease with which courts now dispense search warrants based often on little more than a suspicion of wrongdoing; and the inability of police to distinguish between reasonable suspicion and the higher standard of probable cause.

This is exactly what we can expect more of as a result of President Biden’s commitment to expand law enforcement and so-called crime prevention at taxpayer expense.

Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, no matter what the politicians insist to the contrary, militarized police armed with weapons of war who are empowered to carry out pre-dawn raids on our homes, shoot our pets, and terrorize our families are not making America any safer or freer.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: Minneapolis police force entry moments before shooting Amir Locke. Minneapolis Police Department via AP

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable. All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as “a weapon of last resort”, have been scrapped.

Nuclear war is now upheld as a peace-making endeavour:  

“The sensible path to peace starts with the realization that peace can be secured only through strength. Nuclear weapons represent that strength. We must embrace it through funding and rhetoric.

We need new weapons and delivery systems, but, most important, we need a new strategy that recognizes the importance of nuclear weapons to a peaceful future.” (Washington Post, October 2013) 

“This presidential document states that nuclear weapons are the foundation of our strategy to preserve peace and stability by deterring aggression against the US, our allies, and our partners, (National Security Strategy of the United States of America)

The Doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) of the Cold War Era was scrapped and replaced with the Doctrine of Preemptive Nuclear War (PNW), namely the “peacemaking use” of nuclear weapons as a means of “self-defense” against both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states.

One thing was replaced by its opposite. MAD is real, PNW is fake. There is no such thing as “a peace-making use” of nuclear weapons.

Analysis: The Dangers of Nuclear War: Michel Chossudovsky

Comments: Link to Odysee

 

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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

A renowned virologist and former senior officer of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently warned against the dangers of the experimental COVID-19 gene-transfer vaccines, encouraged the un-jabbed to “stay unvaccinated,” and predicted an inevitable “collapse of our health system” due to health complications in the vaccinated.

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, who once worked as a senior program manager for the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) and has been considered one of the most talented vaccine creators in the world, issued a video “Message to Austria” on November 20 to coincide with a large rally in Vienna opposing new lockdown measures.

As a first priority, he advised the public, “Never, Ever — allow anything, or anybody, to interfere or suppress your innate immune system,” which is the first line of defense human beings have to fight off all infections.

According to Vanden Bossche, the “vaccine antibodies,” which are induced by the current COVID-19 vaccines, suppress innate immunity and they “cannot substitute for it” since they quickly wane in their effectiveness and cannot prevent infection or transmission of the virus.

Thus, these experimental injections, in contrast to innate immunity, “do not contribute to herd immunity,” he said.

Vaccinating children ‘an absolute no go!’

This reality is most important in the case of children whose “innate immunity can easily be suppressed by vaccinal antibodies” since their “antibodies are so young and so naïve that they can easily be outcompeted by vaccinal antibodies,” he said.

And since children are protected from many diseases by their innate immunity, including COVID-19, its suppression by these vaccines exposes them to many more dangers, and “could even lead to autoimmune diseases,” the expert warned.

Therefore, injecting children with these biological agents “is an absolute no go!” the virologist said. “We cannot vaccinate our children with these vaccines.”

Booster shots for the vaccinated ‘absolutely insane!’

Turning his attention to the adult “vaccinees,” those who have been vaccinated, the specialist in microbiology said the suppression of innate immunity has already shown itself to be a problem in this population. “They are indeed going to have a difficult time to control a number of diseases,” including COVID-19.

Yet, since their innate antibodies have previously been trained through years of adapting and maturing, he said “they are usually more resilient to the vaccinal antibodies” than those of children.

However, this resilience can be further deteriorated by additional shots, and thus Vanden Bossche warns that giving these jabbed individuals boosters “is absolutely insane! What this will do is just further increase the immune pressure of the vaccinal antibodies on their innate immunity.” Thus, booster shots are “absolute nonsense! It is dangerous and should not be done!”

To the un-jabbed: ‘For God’s sake, stay unvaccinated!’

As for the unvaccinated, the Belgian physician described why they would fare much better, first breaking them down into three categories:

1. Those who have experienced no symptoms, who are “most likely simply protected by their innate antibodies;” 
2. Those who have experienced mild symptoms, not having to stay in bed for any time; and
3. Those who recovered from the disease and may have even had a severe case of it.

Due to what he called the “high infectious pressure” of the Delta variant, the respective innate immunity systems of these unvaccinated may now have to struggle a bit more, and thus the first category may experience mild symptoms, the second, moderate, and the third may have “some higher susceptibility to some other diseases. For example, influenza or the common cold.”

“But very, very importantly, all are protected,” he said. “They all are still protected against severe disease and the majority of them will be protected against very mild or moderate disease.”

This is the case, especially, the virologist said, since COVID-19 “is not a disease of healthy people. People who are in good health have a healthy innate immune system that can deal with a number of respiratory viruses without any problem. These people are not only protected against the disease, but they can even in many cases prevent infection.”

Vaccinees ‘serving as a kind of breeding ground for the virus’

Therefore, in order to maintain their healthy innate immune system as protection against COVID-19 and many other diseases, Dr. Vanden Bossche offered the following three requirements to the unvaccinated:

1. “For God’s sake, stay unvaccinated! They should stay unvaccinated;”
2. “Take care of their innate immunity, meaning they should take care of their health … if you do this and you are unvaccinated, you will be spared from severe disease without any vaccine. On the contrary, the vaccine would do the opposite;” and
3.  Those with comorbidities or underlying diseases “should be careful about contacts.” 

For this third category of the more vulnerable, the physician said, “This is not to discriminate against the vaccinees, but [the un-jabbed] should especially avoid contact with vaccinees at this point in time.

“Vaccinees are now the people, and there is no doubt about this, who are really serving as a kind of breeding ground for the virus,” he said. “We need to have an extra protection for those who have underlying diseases. Do not vaccinate them, but in fact prevent them from being exposed to high infectious pressure.”

Health issues in the vaxxed ‘will inevitably lead to a collapse of our health system’

He encouraged his Austrian listeners that the only fight they have is “the fight for your health, [in] not getting vaccinated.” In accomplishing this, all of the other measures will not be sustainable.

Though he expressed great concern for “the vaccinees,” stating “we need to help them as much as we can because they will need extensive treatment in many cases,” he observed that the percentage of this group now being hospitalized “is now steadily increasing. Whereas more and more, with training of the innate immune system, with more exposure to the virus, more and more non-vaccinated people get protected.”

“This will lead inevitably — and I am not a doomsday preacher — but this will inevitably lead to a collapse of our health system. It cannot be otherwise,” he said.

‘Strength is found in serenity’

However, in closing, the virologist had a hopeful message, stating the lockdown measures “are not sustainable” and cannot last “for a long time.” He encouraged them to “stay calm,” sharing a German saying that translates, “Strength is found in serenity.”

*

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

Featured image is from LifeSiteNews

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

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

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

***

Implantable microchips are marketed as the ultimate in convenience, but the goal is to create the Internet of Bodies (IoB), described by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an ecosystem of “an unprecedented number of sensors,” including emotional sensors, “attached to, implanted within, or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyze and even modify human bodies and behavior”

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

Implanted payment chips are an extension of the internet of things; they’re a way of connecting and exchanging data, and the benefits must be weighed against the potential risks

Countries around the world are now working on a system for a central bank digital currency (CBDC), a fiat currency in digital form that is programmable so that you can only spend your money on certain things or in specific places, as desired by the issuer

In the end, everything will be connected to a single implantable device that will hold your digital identity, health data and programmable CBDCs. Your digital identity, in turn, will include everything that can be known about you through surveillance via implanted biosensors, your computer, smartphone, GPS, social media, online searches, purchases and spending habits. Algorithms will then decide what you can and cannot do based on who you are

*

While implantable microchips are marketed as the ultimate in convenience, the goal of this trend goes far beyond allowing you to open doors without keys and buy things without your wallet.

The goal is to create what’s known as the Internet of Bodies (IoB), described by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an ecosystem of “an unprecedented number of sensors,” including emotional sensors, “attached to, implanted within, or ingested into human bodies to monitor, analyze and even modify human bodies and behavior.”¹

Key words in that sentence that the PR machine skips right over is the stated goal to “modify human bodies and behavior.” And who will be in charge of those modifications? They don’t say, but we can safely assume that it will be those who have something to gain from the modification of your actions and behaviors.

Sweden Paves the Way for Microchipping

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

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

An estimated 5,000 to 10,000 Swedes have been chipped so far, although Swedish authorities claim they don’t know the exact number, as there’s no central registry.

At present, it’s claimed that the chips cannot be tracked, but that doesn’t mean they’ll remain untrackable in the future. And, while these early microchips contain only limited amounts of information, we know the WEF dreams of implementing a global digital identification system that would include everything imaginable about you, from your online search history and medical information to your personal banking data, social credit score and more.

Humans Are Becoming Hackable

As noted by financial technology expert Theodora Lau, implanted payment chips are “an extension of the internet of things;” they’re a way of connecting and exchanging data, and the benefits must be weighed against the potential risks.²

This is particularly true if and when more personal information begins to be migrated into them, leaving you vulnerable to hackers and surveillance. She told BBC News:³

“How much are we willing to pay, for the sake of convenience? Where do we draw the line when it comes to privacy and security? Who will be protecting the critical infrastructure, and the humans that are part of it?”

A PBS NewsHour segment from 2019⁴ also reviews some of the concerns surrounding implantable microchips (see video above). Importantly, just about any smartphone can read the chip with the proper scanner installed, and “anybody would be able to hack it,” according to Dr. Geoff Watson, a consultant anesthetist⁵ who has teamed up with the chip’s inventor “to ensure the implant procedure is carried out to a medical standard.”

While many say they have no privacy fears around the current microchips, it’s reasonable to suspect that privacy concerns will rise in tandem with the amount of personal information held on the chips, and with the number of people who have the implants.

Credit card theft was rare in the beginning and typically involved physical loss of the card. Today, you can’t seem to keep a credit card for more than a handful of years before it’s somehow stolen even though the card is still in your possession.

Identity theft is also rampant, and getting worse by the day, as millions of illegals in need of new identities flood across the southern border of the United States.

As noted by the Center for Immigration Studies, illegal immigrants are not “undocumented,” as most will obtain fraudulent documents through identity theft.⁶ In other words, they’re stealing the legal identities of Americans. In 2020, the total cost for identity theft and identity fraud was $56 billion — the highest in recorded history — and affected 39 million Americans.⁷

There’s no reason to believe theft and fraud won’t happen as microchipping becomes more commonplace. And that risk is in addition to the risks involved with government spying on and controlling both your behavior and spending once the microchips are connected to your personal finances and programmable digital currencies.

In a November 2019 interview with CNN,⁸ history professor and adviser to WEF founder Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari, warned that “humans are now hackable animals,” meaning, the technology exists by which a company or government can know you better than you know yourself, and that can be very dangerous if misused.

He predicted that algorithms will increasingly be used to make decisions that historically have been made by humans, either yourself or someone else, including whether or not you’ll be hired for a particular job, whether you’ll be granted a loan, what scholastic curriculum you will follow and even who you will marry.

The Plan to Control the ‘Useless Masses’

1/ Klaus Schwab’s top advisor says advancements in technology will render people useless and worthless. ➡️They’ll need drugs and computer games to cope. https://t.co/dq6HfqQ0Be
https://t.co/dq6HfqQ0Be

— Gigi Sims (@GigiSims10) April 11, 2022

In another interview, Harari discussed what Schwab refers to as The Fourth Industrial Revolution (read: transhumanism), noting that we’re now learning to “produce bodies and minds” (meaning augmented bodies, and cloud and artificial intelligence-connected minds) and that one of the greatest challenges we face will be what to do with all the people that have become obsolete in the process.

How will unaugmented people find meaning in life when they’re basically “useless, meaningless”? How will they spend their time when there’s no work, no opportunity to move up in some kind of profession? His guess is that the answer will be “a combination of drugs and computer games.” I’ll let you decide if that’s a vision of utopia or hell on earth.

Nothing Will Be Private — Not Even Your Bodily Functions

The WEF’s plan for the IoB even includes biosensors that measure and monitor your biological functioning and emotional states. Already, the U.S. Pentagon and Profusa Inc. have collaborated on the development of a tiny implantable biosensor that detects disease by tracking chemical reactions inside your body.⁹

For example, it would be able to determine whether you’ve been infected with a virus like SARS-CoV-2 or influenza long before any symptoms emerge. As explained by Defense One, the biosensor consists of two parts:¹⁰

“One is a 3mm string of hydrogel, a material whose network of polymer chains is used in some contact lenses and other implants. Inserted under the skin with a syringe, the string includes a specially engineered molecule that sends a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection.

The other part is an electronic component attached to the skin. It sends light through the skin, detects the fluorescent signal and generates another signal that the wearer can send to a doctor, website, etc. It’s like a blood lab on the skin that can pick up the body’s response to illness before the presence of other symptoms, like coughing.”

Now, the sensor allows a person’s biology to be examined at a distance via smartphone connectivity, and Profusa is backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world.

Knowing that, it’s hard to imagine that your biological data won’t be used to boost Google’s profits and increase government control. While Profusa was expecting to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021, it doesn’t appear to have been approved yet.

Other Monitoring and Tracking Devices in the Pipeline

Another invention that stands poised to track your health is biocompatible near-infrared quantum dot microneedle arrays. As explained in a 2019 Science Translational Medicine article,¹¹ this novel vaccine delivery system is able to “deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin” that can then be “imaged using modified smartphones.” In short, it would serve as an invisible tattoo of your vaccination record.

Bill Gates has also funded the development of a birth control microchip that can be turned on and off by remote control. The National Post writes:¹²

“The birth control microchip … would hold nearly two decades worth of a hormone commonly used in contraceptives and dispense 30 micrograms a day … The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has given more than $4.5 million to MicroCHIPS, Inc., to ‘develop personal system that enables women to regulate their fertility’ …”

In November 2019, Daré Bioscience, a San Diego-based biopharma company, announced¹³ it had reached an agreement to acquire MicroCHIPS Biotech and would be adding the birth control microchip to its portfolio. Interestingly, back in 2014, MicroCHIPS appeared confident it would be able to get the product to market in 2018, but as of 2022, it’s still in development.

Programmable Digital Currencies Are Next

Countries around the world are now working on a system for a central bank digital currency (CBDC), a fiat currency in digital form that is programmable so that you can only spend your money on certain things or in specific places, as desired by the issuer.

In the video above, WhatsHerFace comments on Canada’s 2021 announcement of its plan for a CBDC that will be universally accessible, even if you don’t have a bank account or a cell phone. What kind of device might fulfill that? An implanted microchip, of course, that has your digital identity and digital wallet on it.

In 2007, American business man and film producer Aaron Russo told “Infowars” that the goal of the New World Order was to create “a one world government, where everybody has an RFID chip implanted in them, and all money is to be in those chips.”

“There will be no more cash, and this [information] was given to me straight from Rockefeller himself,” Russo said. “So, they can take out any money they want, any time they want. They say, ‘You owe us this much in taxes,’ and they just take it out of your chip. Total control. And … if you’re protesting against what they’re doing, they’ll turn off your chip and you have nothing … It’s total control of the people.”

Fast-forward to April 2022, and Canada is now permanently enshrining its government-imposed sanctions against protesters in its new budget.¹⁴ As you may recall, the Canadian government shut down the bank accounts of participants in the trucker protest against vaccine mandates, and even those who donated as little as $25 to the protest.

Crowdfunding platforms will now be more tightly regulated, and the government is also launching a legislative review of cryptocurrencies. Just imagine the control the Canadian government would have had with a programmable CBDC. They could have prevented the donations from occurring at all, and shut down the account of anyone who even tried to give a few dollars to the freedom movement.

A Carefully Crafted Plan for World Domination?

All of this is happening at the same time that the World Health Organization, another deep state technocrat stronghold, is building a global vaccine passport system.¹⁵ Once CBDCs and a global vaccine passport system are up and running, it won’t be long before they’re combined into one — likely in the form of an implantable microchip.

We can predict this because they’ve told us that this is the plan. Just look through the WEF’s website descriptions of The Great Reset¹⁶ and Fourth Industrial Revolution.¹⁷

Read the Rockefeller Foundation’s April 2020 white paper,¹⁸ “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities,” which spells out the direction of social control through the implementation of permanent COVID-19 tracking and tracing measures.

Look into the ID2020 Alliance,¹⁹ a public-private partnership founded by Bill Gates’ GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance, The Rockefeller Foundation, Microsoft, Accenture and Ideo.org.²⁰ Members in the alliance include the Learning Economy Foundation,²¹ founded by the United Nations in 2018,²²Facebook, Mastercard, ShareRing, Simprints and others.²³

ID2020 began as a digital identity program for Bangladesh, and has since expanded to include “the implementation of digital technologies which tie with the [Learning Economy] Foundation’s vision of a world in which learners can map their educational progress to achieve their academic, employment, and life goals.”²⁴

In the end, everything will be connected to a single implantable device. Right now, it’s a tossup as to whether a vaccine passport or a digital identity platform will be the foundation for what’s to come, but what is certain is that whatever it’s called, it will include your digital identity, vaccination status and other health data, and programmable CBDCs.

Your digital identity, in turn, will include everything else that can be known about you through surveillance via implanted biosensors, your computer, smartphone, GPS, social media, online searches, purchases and spending habits. Imagine having an AI listening, watching and scoring every move you make and every heartbeat, and algorithms deciding what you can and cannot do based on your behavior, expression, social contacts and personal views.

Add to that technologies that can modify your behavior and emotional state with or without your knowledge, which is what the WEF’s 2020 briefing document on the IoB describes.²⁵ It may sound like science fiction, but this is what they intend to do. Every new technology, every new surveillance opportunity they bring forward is to further this aim.

For decades, we’ve embraced technologies with our mind set on convenience and/or safety. That’s always how they rope us in. But we will lose everything worth living for if we continue down this path without foolproof privacy safeguards and personal autonomy rights in place.

*

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, 25 WEF, Shaping the Future of the Internet of Bodies, July 2020

^2, 3 BBC April 11, 2022

⁴ PBS January 30, 2019

⁵ New York Post August 3, 2017

⁶ Center for Immigration Studies June 19, 2009

⁷ Privacy Bee How Much Does Identity Theft Cost?

⁸ CNN November 26, 2019

^9, 10 Defense One March 3, 2020

¹¹ Science Translational Medicine December 18, 2019; 11(523)

¹² National Post January 24, 2015

¹³ Xconomy.com November 15, 2019

¹⁴ Reclaim the Net April 9, 2022

¹⁵ The Counter Signal April 11, 2022

¹⁶ WEF Great Reset

¹⁷ WEF Fourth Industrial Revolution

¹⁸ The Rockefeller Foundation, National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities, April 21, 2020 (PDF)

¹⁹ Biometric Update September 20, 2019

²⁰ ID2020 Founding Partners

^21, 22 Gavi.org, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

²³ ID2020 General Partners

²⁴ Biometric Update August 5, 2021

Featured image is from Vaccines.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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Karen DeYoung reported for the Washington Post Thursday that Russia sent a formal diplomatic note to the United States on Tuesday, accusing Washington and its NATO clients of insidiously subverting the peace process with Ukraine initiated at the Istanbul talks on March 29, and the subsequent withdrawal of Russian forces from the outskirts of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy, thus ending the month-long offensive in Ukraine.

The document, titled “On Russia’s concerns in the context of massive supplies of weapons and military equipment to the Kiev regime,” was forwarded to the State Department by the Russian Embassy in Washington, in which Russia accused NATO of trying to “pressure Ukraine to abandon peace negotiations with Russia in order to continue the bloodshed.”

Moscow also warned Washington that US and NATO shipments of the “most sensitive” weapons systems to Ukraine were “adding fuel” to the conflict and could bring “unpredictable consequences.” Russia experts suggested Moscow, which had labeled weapons convoys coming into the country as legitimate military targets but had not thus far attacked them, might be preparing to do so.

“They have targeted supply depots in Ukraine itself, where some of these supplies have been stored,” George Beebe, former director of Russia analysis at the CIA and Russia adviser to former vice president Dick Cheney, told the news outlet.

“The real question is do they go beyond attempting to target the weapons on Ukrainian territory, try to hit the supply convoys themselves and perhaps the NATO countries on the Ukrainian periphery” that serve as transfer points for the US supplies.

If Russian forces stumble in the next phase of the war as they did in the first,

“then I think the chances that Russia targets NATO supplies on NATO territory go up considerably,” Beebe said. “There has been an assumption on the part of a lot of us in the West that we could supply the Ukrainians really without limits and not bear significant risk of retaliation from Russia,” he said. “I think the Russians want to send a message here that that’s not true.”

Among the items Russia identified as “most sensitive” were “multiple-launch rocket systems,” such as Slovakia’s illicit deal with NATO for transferring its Soviet-era S-300 air defense system to Ukraine in return for the transatlantic military alliance delivering four Patriot missile systems to Slovakia, and the Soviet-era Strela-10, SA-8, SA-10, SA-12, SA-13 and SA-14 mobile air defense systems, with range higher than Stingers and having capability to hit cruise missiles, and myriads of other advanced multiple rocket launchers, that NATO covertly provided to Ukraine.

The Czech Republic had delivered tanks, multiple rocket launchers, howitzers and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine among military shipments that had reached hundreds of millions of dollars and would continue, two Czech defense sources confided to Reuters.

Defense sources confirmed a shipment of five T-72 tanks and five BVP-1, or BMP-1, infantry fighting vehicles seen on rail cars in photographs on Twitter and video footage last week. “For several weeks, we have been supplying heavy ground equipment – I am saying it generally but by definition it is clear that this includes tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, howitzers and multiple rocket launchers,” a senior defense official said.

“What has gone from the Czech Republic is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.” The senior defense official said the Czechs were also supplying “a range of anti-aircraft weaponry.” Independent defense analyst Lukas Visingr said “short-range air-defense systems Strela-10, or SA-13 Gopher in NATO terminology, had been spotted on a train apparently bound for Ukraine.”

Russia accused the Western powers of violating “rigorous principles” governing the transfer of weapons to conflict zones, and of being oblivious to “the threat of high-precision weapons falling into the hands of radical nationalists, extremists and bandit forces in Ukraine.”

Washington, the diplomatic demarche said, was pressuring other countries to stop any military and technical cooperation with Russia, and those with Soviet-era weapons to transfer them to Ukraine. “We call on the United States and its allies to stop the irresponsible militarization of Ukraine, which implies unpredictable consequences for regional and international security,” the note added.

Russia’s “paranoid attitude” accusing Washington and its NATO clients of scuttling the peace process with Ukraine and orchestrating a proxy war on Russia’s vulnerable western flank by funding, training, arming and internationally legitimizing Ukraine’s ultra-nationalist militias in order to destabilize and provoke Russia aside, in the spirit of apparent “reconciliation and multilateralism” defining the Biden administration’s approach to conducting international diplomacy, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken handed over the “power of attorney” to the Ukrainian leadership to reach a negotiated settlement with Russia without any pressure, whatsoever, from Washington to escalate hostilities with its arch-rival.

On April 3, confirming in an NBC News interview that Ukrainian President Zelensky had Washington’s full confidence to reach a peaceful settlement with Russia, Blinken, while assuming the air of “magnanimity and rapprochement,” revealed that President Joe Biden’s administration would support whatever the Ukrainian people wanted to do to bring the war to an end.

“We’ll be looking to see what Ukraine is doing and what it wants to do,” Blinken said. “And if it concludes that it can bring this war to an end, stop the death and destruction and continue to assert its independence and its sovereignty – and ultimately that requires the lifting of sanctions – of course, we will allow that.”

Blinken argued with overtones of diplomatic sophistry that although Putin had allegedly “failed to accomplish his objectives” in Ukraine – “subjugating Kyiv, demonstrating Russia’s military prowess and dividing NATO members” – he said it still made sense to pursue a negotiated settlement.

“Even though he’s been set back, even though I believe this is already a strategic defeat for Vladimir Putin, the death and destruction that he’s wreaking every single day in Ukraine … are terrible, and so there’s also a strong interest in bringing those to an end.”

Lending credence to ostensible “American neutrality” and “hands-off approach” to the Ukraine conflict, the Wall Street Journal published a misleading report on April 1 that German chancellor Olaf Scholz had offered Volodymyr Zelensky a chance for peace days before the launch of the Russian military offensive, but the Ukrainian president turned it down.

The newly elected German chancellor told Zelensky in Munich on February 19 “that Ukraine should renounce its NATO aspirations and declare neutrality as part of a wider European security deal between the West and Russia,” the Journal revealed. The newspaper also claimed that “the pact would be signed by Mr. Putin and Mr. Biden, who would jointly guarantee Ukraine’s security.”

However, Zelensky rejected the offer to make the concession and avoid confrontation, saying that

“Russian President Vladimir Putin couldn’t be trusted to uphold such an agreement and that most Ukrainians wanted to join NATO.”

While making the preposterous allegation that the hapless Ukrainian leadership vetoed NATO’s “flexible and conciliatory approach” to peacefully settle the dispute in order to absolve the transatlantic military alliance for its confrontational approach to Russia since the inception in 1949, the Journal report conveniently overlooked the crucial fact that last November, the US and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership.

The agreement unequivocally confirmed “Ukraine’s aspirations for joining NATO” and “rejected the Crimean decision to re-unify with Russia” following the 2014 Maidan coup. Then in December, Russia, in the last-ditch effort to peacefully resolve the dispute, proposed a peace treaty with the US and NATO.

The central Russian proposal was a written agreement assuring that Ukraine would not join the NATO military alliance and, in return, Russia would drawdown its troop buildup along Ukraine’s borders. When the proposed treaty was contemptuously rebuffed by Washington, it appeared the die was cast for Russia’s inevitable invasion of Ukraine.

Following the announcement of drawdown of Russian forces in Ukraine, specifically scaling back Russian offensive north of the capital, by the Russian delegation at the Istanbul peace initiative on March 29, the Ukrainian delegation, among other provisions, demanded “security guarantees in terms similar to Article 5 of the NATO charter,” the collective defense clause of the transatlantic military alliance.

CNN reported on April 1 that Western officials were taken aback by “the surprising Ukrainian proposal.”

“We are in constant discussion with Ukrainians about ways that we can help ensure that they are sovereign and secure,” White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said. “But there is nothing specific about security guarantees that I can speak to at this time.”

“Ukraine is not a NATO member,” Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab told the BBC when asked whether the UK is prepared to become a guarantor of Ukrainian independence. “We’re not going to engage Russia in direct military confrontation,” he added.

While noting that Russian peace negotiations were “nothing more than a smokescreen,” Western diplomats contended that an Article 5-type commitment to Ukraine was unlikely given that the US and many of its allies, including the UK, were not willing to put their troops in direct confrontation with Russian forces. The theory that Russia would not attack Ukraine if it had Western security guarantees appears to still be a bigger risk than the US and its allies are willing to take.

As a way for Russia to “save face in the negotiations,” the Ukrainians even went to the extent of suggesting that any such security guarantees would not apply to the separatist territories in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. However, a number of US and Western officials have taken a skeptical approach to potential security guarantees, with many saying it is still premature to discuss any contingencies as the negotiations proceed.

Contradicting the misleading reports hailing Ukraine’s political and military leadership as purported “masters of their own destinies,” President Joe Biden told the EU leaders at a summit last month in Brussels that “any notion that we are going to be out of this in a month is wrong”, and that the EU and NATO needed to prepare for “a long-term pressure campaign against Russia.”

US and European officials voiced skepticism over Russia’s “sincerity and commitment” towards the peace talks, underlining that only a full ceasefire, troop withdrawal and return of captured territory to Ukraine would be enough to trigger discussions over lifting sanctions on Russia’s economy.

“The notion that you would reward Putin for occupying territory doesn’t make sense … it would be very, very difficult to countenance” a senior EU official told the Financial Times. “There’s a disconnect between these negotiations, what really happens on the ground, and the total cynicism of Russia. I think we need to give them a reality check,” the official added.

Western countries were discussing both “enforcement of existing sanctions” and drawing up “potential additional measures” to increase pressure on Russian president Vladimir Putin, senior EU and US officials told the British newspaper. They were not discussing a possible timeframe for easing sanctions, they said.

Advising Ukrainians to hold out instead of rushing for securing peace deal with Russia, the Sunday Times reported, senior British officials were urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to instruct his negotiators to refuse to make concessions during peace negotiations with Russian counterparts.

A senior government source said there were concerns that allies were “over-eager” to secure an early peace deal, adding that a settlement should be reached only when Ukraine is in the strongest possible position.

In a phone call and subsequently during a surprise visit to Kyiv, Boris Johnson warned President Zelensky that President Putin was a “liar and a bully” who would use talks to “wear you down and force you to make concessions.” The British prime minister also told MPs it was “certainly inconceivable that any sanctions could be taken off simply because there is a ceasefire.” London was making sure there was “no backsliding on sanctions by any of our friends and partners around the world,” he added.

Considering the backdrop of the Russo-Ukraine War that was deliberately orchestrated by NATO powers to insidiously destabilize and internationally isolate Russia, it stretches credulity that the powerless Ukrainian leadership “wields veto power” over NATO’s policy to reach a negotiated settlement with Russia.

Are readers gullible enough to assume the Ukrainian proposals for a peace treaty with Russia were put forth without prior consultation with NATO patrons and the latter cannot exercise enough leverage to compellingly persuade the impervious Ukrainian leadership to reach a peaceful settlement with Russia?

In conclusion, it’s obvious the credulous Ukrainian leadership’s insistence on seeking the EU membership amidst the war and demanding security guarantees in terms similar to Article 5 of the NATO charter instead of imploring for immediate ceasefire to save Ukrainian lives were clearly the deal-breaker stipulations that were deliberately inserted in the draft of Ukrainian proposals by perfidious NATO advisers to the naïve Ukrainian politicians in order to sabotage the peace negotiations with Russia.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports 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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

There has been so much bad news about the vaccines in the last few months, it even leaked into the mainstream media.  I think the cabal’s plan, at least in the US but probably everywhere, is to stop propping the ludicrous vaccine claims up and allow them to die a natural death. I explain why below.

There was just too much bad news, too few getting boosted, too much resistance from parents. Getting 8 or 10 doses into everyone was not going to happen.  The terrified obedient masses were becoming fewer and fewer.

For example, here is one story that got lots of traction: ABC News covered the fact that “At least 72 COVID cases in the fully vaccinated resulted from the Gridiron dinner.”  Not only did Nancy Pelosi test positive, but several other members of Biden’s Cabinet and many other Washingtonian glitterati did too.  All of whom had to have been vaccinated in order to attend.

There was plenty of happy talk that the afflicted politicians in DC had only mild COVID cases. Good for them. But, if vaccinations caused them to become asymptomatic spreaders instead of spreaders with symptoms, who would know to stay home while sick, the vaccines could actually be doing more harm than good in terms of transmission. They could be causing more COVID cases, not less.

By now, it has to be apparent to everyone who walks by a newsstand or turns on the TV that the media are begging much too hard for more shots.

It must be obvious to all that the shots do not prevent spread and therefore there is no logical way you can mandate them.  Because if my shot does not protect you (and only with lots of fairy dust will it protect me) why would you have any interest in whether or not I am vaccinated?

Once you stop caring about my vaccination status, the cabal’s nexus of control starts to fall apart. That was their ace in the hole. Time for them to move on to something else.

The kicker for childhood vaccines: the NY state Department of Health study of vaccine efficacy in children.  After 2 months, efficacy in the 5-11 year olds had fallen to 12%.

In other words, 7 out of 8 vaccinated kids derived no benefit after 2 months, only risk.  The data were derived from 365,000 children, and apparently there was no way CDC could spin them, or 12% was the best spin they could put on the data. This report is a huge obstacle to universal child vaccinations. They cabal cannot surmount it.

It is important to mention again–because we keep forgetting–that while the vaccines are nominally licensed for adults, in fact you can only find the EUA (unlicensed) product in the US, and legally an EUA is experimental–and therefore forcing someone to be vaccinated is a Nuremberg violation and a violation of federal law.

The imposition of mandates for these experimental gene therapy products is therefore a crime, being committed by states, federal government and certain companies and other institutions.  It seems that because US law was not designed for situations in which the government is the criminal, it has been very difficult to use the judicial system to change what is happening.  But surely if this persisted much longer an honest judge somewhere would finally rule that the vaccines are experimental and the COVID mandate house of cards would then collapse. Like Humpty Dumpty (it is Easter today after all):

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Couldn’t put COVID mandates together again

What else has been happening that undermines the vaccine story?  Well, in addition to all the collapsing athletes, there is now a large collection of mayors suddenly dropping dead throughout Germany.

In Australia, Queensland’s health minister just admitted that ambulances are being summoned for a lot more calls for cardiac events and sudden deaths:  40% more to be exact.  Thanks to Igor Chudov for following this story, and including a video of the clueless minister admitting it, but having no idea why…

Then there were the 3 insurance companies, one each from the US, India and Germany, that admitted there were about 40% more deaths than expected in working-age people in the second half of 2021.  The German official who blew the whistle, a CEO or VP, was immediately fired, which is a strong indication he was telling the truth.

Three doctor whistleblowers released a large cache of data from the military’s DMED database showing huge increases in service-member deaths.  There has been a lot of confusion about these data.  In part, that is because the military then reissued its data for the preceding several years, making the 2021 comparison look less dire.  Mathew Crawford has some ideas about what really happened to the data.  The only thing that is absolutely clear so far is that there has been a coverup, and the health of vaccinated members of the military appears to have taken a dive. But we don’t know how deep.

Everyone in the world must have heard the term ‘myocarditis’ by now, and knows that it is a vaccine injury.  A lot of people also know that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said post-vaccination myocarditis was extremely “rare but mild,” except it isn’t and she lied. The rate of myocarditis she cited is at least 10 times too low.  About 1 in 2000 young men aged 18-24 sought care for this diagnosis after getting their second mRNA shot.

In fact, CDC was so intensely worried about blowback regarding its recommendation to vaccinate teens (despite the risk of myocarditis) it got the heads of about 20 professional medical organizations to sign on to a declaration supporting CDC’s recommendation.  Wonder how much CDC paid for that. Getting such back-up was an unusual move, but perhaps unsurprising for risk-averse bureaucrats who worry about their own butt but not anyone else’s. Rochelle even mentions these “cosigners” from many medical organizations in her ABC-TV interview.  Collecting a bunch of “co-signers” is actually the proof that CDC knew its vaccine recommendation was going to considerably harm children.

While no one in a federal health agency has admitted it, many people must be aware that myocarditis is only the tip of the COVID vaccine injury iceberg.  Myocarditis got attention because it’s life-threatening and almost always happens within 4 days of the second shot–it can’t be written off as coincidence, the way heart attacks, strokes, pulmonary emboli, sudden deaths and perhaps many other diagnoses have been.

As if there wasn’t enough bad vaccine news, there was information from the Medicare database that FDA posted last July, but it only recently got attention. FDA revealed that heart attacks, pulmonary emboli, disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC, a life-threatening, bleeding plus clotting disorder) and ITP (another bleeding disorder) were related to the Pfizer vaccination in Medicare beneficiaries.  FDA promised to study this rigorously, but instead remained silent, and subsequently has never denied the relationship.

And then there is ivermectin.  So many ivermectin stories have been leaking into the popular press.  Tennessee’s legislature made ivermectin essentially an over-the-counter drug last week.  New Hampshire’s house voted in favor of this as well, while the NH Senate is now taking it up.  Kansas and several other states gave healthcare providers an immunity guarantee for the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine for COVID.  Kansas also strengthened religious exemptions, effectively undermining school vaccine mandates.

Coupled with stories about lawsuits against hospitals for refusing to supply ivermectin to dying relatives, like this one, people are finally realizing there is probably something to this drug, and they have been cheated.  They were given a shot that barely works, is unsafe, and they were stopped from getting the good drug.  And what if they lost their business to the lockdowns? There must be a lot of anger simmering by now.  I imagine the Great Reset cabal must be worried about this, and has decided to loosen its grip for the moment and hopefully let off some citizen steam.

There is more surprising vaccine news.  While many institutions are still imposing mandates (and we need to find out what $ carrots were given to universities and other entities to impose illegal mandates of experimental vaccines) in other, surprising places the mandates are disappearing.  Out west in Woke Land, the Washington state Department of Health said it would not require COVID vaccines to attend school after all.  Despite Gavin Newsom’s 2021 executive order mandating vaccines for school kids as soon as they are licensed, California’s Department of Health has just done the same thing that Washington’s did:  killed the COVID vaccine mandate for the 2022-23 school year.

Finally, Fauci himself and other media now openly admit the vaccines will not take us to herd immunity (no matter how many shots we get).

This is why I am convinced the ship is turning.  Those states’ health departments take their orders from CDC and DC.  I do not think FDA is going to be issuing any more fake licenses for COVID vaccines. [I say fake because a) the vaccines do not meet licensure criteria, and b) after issuing the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines licenses for adults, neither licensed product has been distributed in the US for actual use.]. The unvaxxed kids will be spared.  Hallelujah!

During the April 6, 2022 Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting, which I live-blogged and summarized, both briefers and committee members acknowledged that the neutralizing antibody titers that have been used as a surrogate for immunity in order to issue EUAs, were in fact not valid surrogates.

This had been obvious for awhile, but a recent Israeli study in healthcare workers made it crystal clear.  While neutralizing antibody titers rose tenfold after a fourth vaccination, by 2 months out the Pfizer vaccine had only 30% efficacy against infection, and the Moderna vaccine had only 11%.  So the high antibody titers were, in fact, meaningless.

This is really important, because Pfizer and Moderna have been relying on titers to get their vaccines okayed for the younger age groups, those below 16 and 18 respectively.  They don’t have data showing the vaccines are actually reducing cases by 50% or more, which is the standard FDA said was necessary.  They don’t have data showing that the vaccines prevent serious cases or deaths, another standard.

Up until now, FDA accepted titers in lieu of actual efficacy results from clinical trials to issue its EUAs for children–but with the recent VRBPAC admissions, which must have been planned in advance (otherwise why did multiple people at the meeting discuss it as settled fact when they had never mentioned it before?) FDA can no longer do so.

Another thing that happened at the VRBPAC meeting was that Peter Marks, the head of FDA’s Center for Biologics and highest FDA official there, said that if a new type of COVID vaccine is developed for the next booster, then the current vaccines would no longer be used, because it would be too confusing (according to STAT).  I believe this was another effort to prepare us for the demise of the current mRNA vaccines.

The fall of the vaccines means the fall of the vaccine passports. This ought to slow down the imposition of CBDCs and all-digital money for a bit. If we don’t have to show our vaccine certificate to go shop, eat, etc., (and people stop being fearful of catching something from each Other) people will be a lot less inclined to “show their papers” to go about their lives. It’s our job to explain over and over that this was how the Nazis maintained control.

Here I read the tea leaves

If there is a new vaccine waiting in the wings, FDA and its briefers were not telling us about it at the VRBPAC meeting, which was the time to do so.  For right now, I think the current crop of vaccines and the vaccine passports are going away.  I don’t think the authorities anticipate another severe COVID wave in the foreseeable future…as most people now have Omicron immunity.  The COVID fear will dissipate.

The original Wuhan strain appeared out of nowhere. No natural progenitor could be found.  And the original Omicron strain appears to have also originated in a lab.  If I was a member of the Great Reset cabal, I would be quite hesitant about releasing yet a third lab-engineered virus on the population.  Because millions of people will be looking for one, and it won’t take long before its laboratory provenance is discovered.  Then the pitchforks might really come out.

On the other hand, I do believe the cabal has bet the farm on their Reset, they can’t go back, and they are simply moving on to another means of accomplishing it besides COVID.  The over-the-top WHO Treaty/Constitution and its amendments designed to assume sovereignty over the world in the event of a pandemic is an ambitious Plan B.

But I don’t think it will fly.  Too many people know the WHO was wrong about virtually everything regarding management of this pandemic, not to mention the 2009 swine flu.  And then there was that little matter of WHO undertaking the SOLIDARITY Trial, in which WHO officials deliberately poisoned over 1,000 COVID patients with excessive doses of hydroxychloroquine and in many cases failed to obtain signed informed consents. The WHO could be liable for manslaughter.

Will Russia and China really agree to give up their sovereignty to Tedros?  China, maybe.  Brazil?  India?  Indonesia?  Japan?  Nigeria? Can all of their leaders, and their local power centers, have been sufficiently corrupted to turn over their nations to the cabal?  I think that could be a stretch.

I suspect the cabal will try their best to get a legal OK to take over the world with the upcoming WHO pandemic treaty, but it won’t fly.  Too many people already know about these plans.

After the WHO, the cabal will move on to something else, Plan C.  Climate catastrophe?  Aliens?  I’m guessing it will be a few years before we get hit with another nasty bug.  By then maybe the fiat currencies will have finally crashed, and the cabal won’t have as tight control of the reins. By then, Fauci, Walensky, Biden, Macron, Johnson, Trudeau, Draghi will hopefully be unpleasant memories.

I am not thinking we will all sing kumbaya. I expect a good deal of misery as the cabal pushes all the levers at its disposal.

The Shanghai city and port closure (China’s largest city and the world’s largest port) seems to me a deliberate attempt to interfere with worldwide transit of goods and to reduce food availability. The Chinese know how to treat COVID. They make the drugs and herbs. There is no need for them to lock down.

We are finally understanding that all these awful government policies were deliberate — intended to cement control over and impoverish us. But maybe we can start to build something a whole lot better.

We are shaking loose of the educational indoctrination system, the ruination of our foods, the user-unfriendly and health-damaging healthcare system. We are starting to grasp that our governments acted with malice aforethought to stupefy and eventually enslave us.

People are breaking free and taking responsibility for their future. Where I live, people are learning self-sufficiency skills, creating home-schooling coops, building greenhouses and growing food. The migration to the countryside was deliberate.

A better life? It just takes everybody waking up. Despite all the acrimony we have faced, the time is ripe to help our fellows see things clearly. We have to love them, help them, meet them where they are. Maybe it is just to talk about the Gridiron dinner. Or ivermectin. They won’t get it in a day. But keep trying. It is our only solution.

*

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 Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Decades of unsanctioned wars and foreign interference have proved devastating for Baghdad, as Iraq continues to struggle with political instability, economic collapse, and widespread social unrest.

When the city of Baghdad was founded by Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaafar al-Mansur in 762 CE, it was given the epithet of “Madinat ul-Salam” – in English, the City of Peace.

While it certainly experienced long periods of peace, such that it was able to contribute to the rise of the Islamic Golden Age during the reign of Harun al-Rashid in the 9th century, it was always a victim of its own success.

As the Islamic seat of power and learning, it attracted the avarice of marauders and invaders. Most notably, it was sacked by Mongol invaders led by Hulagu Khan in 1258 CE, who proceeded to destroy the famed House of Wisdom that was home to the likes of the 9th century’s polymath al-Kindi or his contemporary al-Khwarizmi, whose algorithms are now essential to all modern technology.

Of course, since the departure of the Mongols, Baghdad has been the focus of numerous conquests and reconquests by rival empires. It has been under the sway of the Ottomans, Seljuks, Safavids, the British Empire and, most recently, the United States as part of its destructive global War on Terror.

Since Baghdad was last subjected to a foreign invader in 2003, it has yet to rise again and continues to suffer the after-effects of an unsanctioned American-led war based on lies.

The lie of WMDs

It is an established part of the historical record that former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, possessed chemical and biological weapons. These weapons were openly used by his government during the war with Iran in the 1980s, with the Iraqis themselves also coming under Iranian chemical weapon attack.

However, it has since been established beyond all doubt that Iraq’s stockpiles of such weapons and its wider weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) programme had been decommissioned ever since Saddam’s forces were defeated and expelled from Kuwait following the US-led Operation Desert Storm in early 1991.

As part of the ensuing “peace”, Iraq had to submit itself to extensive United Nations weapons inspections which, as is now undeniable, succeeded in its mission of disarming Saddam’s regime.

Nevertheless, and in the hasty run-up to the war, the White House under George W. Bush and the British government under Tony Blair began a wholesale campaign of deceptions and exaggerations in an attempt to amp up the public’s fears of Iraqi WMD deployment against the West.

This was partially effective as large segments of the media parroted their governments’ line without question. On the other hand – and despite the very recent memory of 9/11 – it was wholly ineffective with the public themselves, leading to some of the biggest protests in global history, with three million descending on the streets of Rome alone, and one million people demonstrating in London.

Still, the cries of millions in the West went entirely unheard by their respective governments and a “coalition of the willing” was formed because the United States was unable to get their upcoming war on Iraq sanctioned by the United Nations, thereby breaching international law when US-and UK-led troops invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Iraqi brain drain

Conventional military operations against the Iraqi armed forces did not last long, and Baghdad itself came under a ferocious “shock and awe” aerial bombardment campaign before falling on 9 April – the latest in a long line of destructive conquests of the unfortunate city.

Image on the right: At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.” (Source: Consortiumnews)

Very few things were spared, and very few living creatures emerged unscathed. Widespread looting of priceless cultural and historical artefacts took place – with US forces themselves often implicated – and this included the torching of the Iraqi National Library and National Archives, containing manuscripts that were millennia old and part of the cultural and intellectual heritage of humanity. Even animals were not spared, as hundreds of captive animals died of starvation at Baghdad Zoo.

But perhaps worse of all is that the ongoing nightmare of violence that was ushered in from the fall of Baghdad continues to this day.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, Iran-backed Shia militias – many of whom worked for the interior ministry that was under the control of the Badr Brigades – began a concerted campaign to specifically target Iraq’s intelligentsia for assassination.

Countless academics, scientists, engineers, and medical doctors were abducted and murdered. This led to such fear that many took their families and left their country, leading to an Iraqi brain drain.

This marked a dark hour for Iraqi academia as, despite the oppressive nature of the regime, Saddam’s Baathist government encouraged education and almost totally eradicated illiteracy by making refusal to learn to read, write, or learning numeracy a criminal offence.

Education was not only totally free, but it was also open to any citizen of any Arab League country as part of the Baathists’ pan-Arab nationalist agenda.

Now, however, Iraq’s education system is in dire straits. Not only are about one-fifth of the entire population illiterate, but UNICEF says that school enrolment rates are low and dropping, as children are forced out of education in order to work to support families that have lost their main breadwinners to the incessant internecine conflicts that have wracked Iraq since 2003.

Clearly, and considering Iraq’s rich intellectual heritage, such a state of affairs ought to be cause for not only national concern, but also international.

A lack of education is known to lead to greater social inequality, which increases poverty and also contributes to allowing radical organisations such as the Shia militias or the Islamic State (IS) group to easily recruit desperate people.

What’s next for Baghdad?

Although IS was declared defeated in 2017 and Iraq is technically at peace, the country’s problems cannot be limited to one extreme group alone.

Arguably, the main reason why Baghdad has failed to stagger to its feet once more after the destruction wrought upon it since 1990 and especially since 2003 is the state of the country’s wider political situation.

Iraq is under the sway of competing global powers, particularly the United States and Iran. However, Tehran has almost certainly won the tug-of-war for influence and control in Baghdad’s halls of power, with Iraq slowly drifting towards becoming a theocratic rump state at Iran’s beck and call.

Iran not only influences Iraqi politics, but habitually uses Iraqi territory to settle scores against its rivals. This has included firing salvos of rockets against US targets, engaging its militia proxies to assassinate dissident academics, and openly bombing targets in northern Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, claiming to target Israeli interests.

Tehran successfully does all this while the Iraqi authorities do very little – a marked departure from relations between the two countries in the run-up to the Iran-Iraq War.

While the government may do very little, the Iraqi people themselves have held a series of protest movements, most recently one that began in 2019 that led to a brutal crackdown. More than 600 demonstrators calling for reforms and an end to foreign – especially Iranian – interference were killed by Iraqi security forces and allied Shia militias.

In all likelihood, and as Iraq’s economy continues to freefall despite windfall profits generated from fears of oil scarcity due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is almost certain that we will continue to see periodic protest movements. Even with economics aside, the politicised judiciary, sectarianism, and lack of accountability for corrupt officials will also provide fuel for demonstrations.

The more protesters see their peacefulness is being met with deadly violence and torture, the less peaceful these protests are likely to be.

In a country where IS managed to make it to Baghdad’s city limits in 2014, a large-scale, armed insurrection similar to that seen in other Arab Spring countries such as Syria will pose an existential threat to the state set up by the US in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion.

This could either lead to a popular revolt that overthrows decades of foreign interventionism, finally restoring Baghdad to its status as the City of Peace, or it could drown the city in blood as powers like Iran pour resources into the conflict to ensure they do not lose their most valuable imperial possession.

*

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 TNA

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

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

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

***

While claiming to defend democracy, Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has outlawed his opposition, ordered his rivals’ arrest, and presided over the disappearance and assassination of dissidents across the country.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has framed his country’s war against Russia as a battle for democracy itself. In a carefully choreographed address to US Congress on March 16, Zelensky stated, “Right now, the destiny of our country is being decided. The destiny of our people, whether Ukrainians will be free, whether they will be able to preserve their democracy.”

US corporate media has responded by showering Zelensky with fawning press, driving a campaign for his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize and inspiring a flamboyant musical tribute to himself and the Ukrainian military during the 2022 Grammy awards ceremony on April 3.

Western media has looked the other way, however, as Zelensky and top officials in his administration have sanctioned a campaign of kidnapping, torture, and assassination of local Ukrainian lawmakers accused of collaborating with Russia. Several mayors and other Ukrainian officials have been killed since the outbreak of war, many reportedly by Ukrainian state agents after engaging in de-escalation talks with Russia.

“There is one less traitor in Ukraine,” Internal Affairs Ministry advisor Anton Geraschenko stated in endorsement of the murder of a Ukrainian mayor accused of collaborating with Russia.

Zelensky has further exploited the atmosphere of war to outlaw an array of opposition parties and order the arrest of his leading rivals. His authoritarian decrees have triggered the disappearance, torture and even murder of an array of human rights activists, communist and leftist organizers, journalists and government officials accused of “pro-Russian” sympathies.

The Ukrainian SBU security services has served as the enforcement arm of the officially authorized campaign of repression. With training from the CIA and close coordination with Ukraine’s state-backed neo-Nazi paramilitaries, the SBU has spent the past weeks filling its vast archipelago of torture dungeons with political dissidents.

On the battlefield, meanwhile, the Ukrainian military has engaged in a series of atrocities against captured Russian troops and proudly exhibited its sadistic acts on social media. Here too, the perpetrators of human rights abuses appear to have received approval from the upper echelons of Ukrainian leadership.

While Zelensky spouts bromides about the defense of democracy before worshipful Western audiences, he is using the war as a theater for enacting a blood-drenched purge of political rivals, dissidents and critics.

“The war is being used to kidnap, imprison and even kill opposition members who express themselves critical of the government,” a left-wing activist beaten and persecuted by Ukraine’s security services commented this April. “We must all fear for our freedom and our lives.”

Torture and enforced disappearances “common practices” of Ukraine’s SBU

When a US-backed government seized power in Kiev following the Euromaidan regime change operation of 2013-14, Ukraine’s government embarked on a nationwide purge of political elements deemed pro-Russian or insufficiently nationalistic. The passage of “decommunization” laws by the Ukrainian parliament further eased the persecution of leftist elements and the prosecution of activists for political speech.

The post-Maidan regime has focused its wrath on Ukrainians who have advocated a peace settlement with pro-Russian separatists in the country’s east, those who have documented human rights abuses by the Ukrainian military, and members of communist organizations. Dissident elements have faced the constant threat of ultra-nationalist violence, imprisonment, and even murder.

The Ukrainian security service known as the SBU has served as the main enforcer of the post-Maidan government’s campaign of domestic political repression. Pro-Western monitors including the United Nations Office of the High Commission (UN OHCR) and Human Rights Watch have accused the SBU of systematically torturing political opponents and Ukrainian dissidents with near-total impunity.

The UN OHCR found in 2016 that “arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment of such conflict-related detainees were common practice of SBU… A former Kharkiv SBU officer explained, ‘For the SBU, the law virtually does not exist as everything that is illegal can be either classified or explained by referring to state necessity.”

Yevhen Karas, the founder of the infamous neo-Nazi C14 unit, has detailed the close relationship his gang and other extreme right factions have enjoyed with the SBU. The SBU “informs not only us, but also Azov, the Right Sector, and so on,” Karas boasted in a 2017 interview.

Kiev officially endorses assassinating Ukrainian mayors for negotiating with Russia

Since Russia launched its military operation inside Ukraine, the SBU has hunted down local officials that decided to accept humanitarian supplies from Russia or negotiated with Russian forces to arrange corridors for civilian evacuations.

On March 1, for example, Volodymyr Strok, the mayor of the eastern city of Kreminna in the Ukrainian-controlled side of Lugansk, was kidnapped by men in military uniform, according to his wife, and shot in the heart.

On March 3, pictures of Strok’s visibly tortured body appeared. A day before his murder, Struk had reportedly urged his Ukrainian colleagues to negotiate with pro-Russian officials.

Anton Gerashchenko, an advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, celebrated the mayor’s murder, declaring on his Telegram page (see below): “There is one less traitor in Ukraine. The mayor of Kreminna in Luhansk region, former deputy of Luhansk parliament was found killed.”

According to Geraschenko, Strok had been judged by the “court of the people’s tribunal.”

Telegram post by Anton Gerashchenko, advisor to the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, celebrating the assassination of “traitor” and Kreminna Mayor Volodymyr Struk

The Ukrainian official therefore delivered a chilling message to anyone choosing to seek cooperation with Russia: do so and lose your life.

On March 7, the mayor of Gostomel, Yuri Prylipko, was found murdered. Prylipko had reportedly entered into negotiations with the Russian military to organize a humanitarian corridor for the evacuation of his city’s residents – a red line for Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who had long been in conflict with the mayor’s office.

Next, on March 24, Gennady Matsegora, the mayor of Kupyansk in northeastern Ukraine, released a video (below) appealing to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration for the release of his daughter, who had been held hostage by agents of the Ukrainian SBU intelligence agency.

Then there was the murder of Denis Kireev, a top member of the Ukrainian negotiating team, who was killed in broad daylight in Kiev after the first round of talks with Russia. Kireev was subsequently accused in local Ukrainian media of “treason.”

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement that “there would be consequences for collaborators” indicates that these atrocities have been sanctioned by the highest levels of government.

As of today, eleven mayors from various towns in Ukraine are missing. Western media outlets have been following the Kiev line without exception, claiming that all mayors been arrested by the Russian military. The Russian Ministry of Defense has denied the charge, however, and little evidence exists to corroborate Kiev’s line about the missing mayors.

Zelensky outlaws political opposition, authorizes arrest of rivals and war propaganda blitz

When war erupted with Russia this February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky issued a series of decrees formalizing Kiev’s campaign against political opposition and dissident speech.

In a March 19 executive order, Zelensky invoked martial law to ban 11 opposition parties. The outlawed parties consisted of the entire left-wing, socialist or anti-NATO spectrum in Ukraine. They included the For Life Party, the Left Opposition, the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, the Socialist Party of Ukraine, Union of Left Forces, Socialists, the Party of Shariy, Ours, State, Opposition Bloc and the Volodymyr Saldo Bloc.

Openly fascist and pro-Nazi parties like the Azov National Corps were left untouched by the presidential decree, however.

“The activities of those politicians aimed at division or collusion will not succeed, but will receive a harsh response,” President Zelensky stated.

As he wiped out his opposition, Zelensky ordered an unprecedented domestic propaganda initiative to nationalize all television news broadcasting and combine all channels into a single 24 hour channel called “United News” to “tell the truth about war.”

Next, on April 12, Zelensky announced the arrest of his principal political rival, Viktor Medvedchuk, by Ukraine’s SBU security services.

Medvedchuk’s face is clearly bruised, apparently a result of beatings from Zelensky’s SBU goons. Don’t expect any questions about this image to appear in the pages of the NYT or in CNN’s 24 hour media circus. Can’t allow anything to undermine the pro-war narrative. pic.twitter.com/A0qhhmeaj8

— Dan Cohen (@dancohen3000) April 12, 2022

The founder of the second largest party in Ukraine, the now-illegal Patriots for Life, Medvedchuk is the de facto representative of the country’s ethnic Russian population. Though Patriots for Life is regarded as “pro-Russia,” in part because of his close relations with Vladimir Putin, the new chairman of the party has condemned Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine.

Members of the state-sponsored neo-Nazi Azov Battalion’s National Corps attacked Medvedchuk’s home in March 2019, accusing him of treason and demanding his arrest.

In August 2020, Azov’s National Corps opened fire on a bus carrying representatives of Medvedchuk’s party, wounding several with rubber-coated steel bullets.

Zelensky’s administration escalated the assault on his top opponent in February 2021 when he shuttered several media outlets controlled by Medvedchuk. The US State Department openly endorsed the president’s move, declaring that the United States “supports Ukrainian efforts to counter Russia’s malign influence…”

Three months later, Kiev jailed Medvedchuk and charged him with treason. Zelensky justified locking away his leading rival on the grounds that he needed to “fight against the danger of Russian aggression in the information arena.”

Medvedchuk escaped house arrest at the onset of the war between Russia and Ukraine, but is a captive once again, and may be used as collateral for a post-war prisoner swap with Russia.

Under Zelensky’s watch, “the war is being used to kidnap, imprison and even kill opposition members”

Since Russian troops entered Ukraine on February 24, Ukraine’s SBU security service had been on a rampage against any and all iterations of internal political opposition. Leftist Ukrainian activists have faced particularly harsh treatment, including kidnapping and torture.

This March 3 in the city of Dnipro, SBU officers accompanied by Azov ultra-nationalists raided the home of activists with the Livizja (Left) organization, which has organized against social spending cuts and right-wing media propaganda. While one activist said the Azov member “cut my hair off with a knife,” the state security agents proceeded to torture her husband, Alexander Matjuschenko, pressing a gun barrel to his head and forcing him to repeatedly belt out the nationalist salute, “Slava Ukraini!”

“Then they put bags over our heads, tied our hands with tape and took us to the SBU building in a car. There they continued to interrogate us and threatened to cut off our ears,” Matjuschenko’s wife told the leftist German publication Junge Welt.

The Azov members and SBU agents recorded the torture session and published images of Matjuschenko’s bloodied face online.

The torture of left-wing activist Alexander Matjuschenko on March 3 in Dnipro, recorded by Azov members and posted on Telegram by the city of Dnipro

Matjuschenko was jailed on the grounds that he was “conducting an aggressive war or military operation,” and now faces 10 to 15 years in prison. Despite enduring several broken ribs from the beating by state-backed ultra-nationalists, he has been denied bail. Meanwhile, dozens of other leftists have been jailed on similar charges in Dnipro.

Among those targeted by the SBU were Mikhail and Aleksander Kononovich, members of the outlawed Leninist Communist Youth Union of Ukraine. Both were arrested and jailed on March 6 and accused of “spreading pro-Russian and pro-Belarusian views.”

In the following days, the SBU arrested broadcast journalist Yan Taksyur and charged him with treason; human rights activist Elena Berezhnaya; Elena Viacheslavova, a human rights advocate whose father, Mikhail, was burned to death during the May 2, 2014 ultra-nationalist mob attack on anti-Maidan protesters outside the Odessa House of Trade Unions; independent journalist Yuri Tkachev, who was charged with treason, and an untold number of others; disabled rights activist Oleg Novikov, who was jailed for three years this April on the grounds that he supported “separatism.”

The list of those imprisoned by Ukraine’s security services since the outbreak of war grows by the day, and is too extensive to reproduce here.

Oleg Novikov—opposition activist from my city, Kharkov, persecuted in the past by the Zelensky regime—was kidnapped 5/04/22 at 6am by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and taken to an unknown place. Oleg is disabled and has 3 young children. (Pic is from a previous arrest) pic.twitter.com/KSeHYC7DWJ

— Gonzalo Lira (@realGonzaloLira) April 9, 2022

Perhaps the most ghastly incident of repression took place when neo-Nazis backed by the Ukrainian government kidnapped Maxim Ryndovskiy, a professional MMA fighter, and brutally tortured him for the crime of training with Russian fighters at a gym in Chechnya. Ryndovskiy also happened to be Jewish, with a Star of David tattooed on his leg, and had spoken out on social media against the war in eastern Ukraine.

In Kyiv, local [I don’t know to fucking call them] extremists caught and brutally torture a famous Ukrainian athlete, MMA fighter, Maxim Ryndovsky. All his fault is that he trained with the Chechen club "Akhmat". pic.twitter.com/og1Psly7SE

— Maria Dubovikova (@politblogme) March 5, 2022

Ukraine’s SBU has even hunted opposition figures outside the country’s borders. As journalist Dan Cohen reported, Anatoly Shariy of the recently banned Party of Shariy said he was the target of a recent SBU assassination attempt. Shariy has been an outspoken opponent of the US-backed Maidan regime, and has been forced to flee into exile after enduring years of harassment from nationalists.

This March, the libertarian politician and online pundit received an email from a friend, “Igor,” seeking to arrange a meeting. He subsequently learned that Igor was held by the SBU at the time and being used to bait Shariy into disclosing his location.

For his part, Shariy has been placed on the notorious Myrotvorets public blacklist of “enemies of the state” founded by Anton Geraschenko – the Ministry of Internal Affairs advisor who endorsed the assassination of Ukrainian lawmakers accused of Russian sympathies. Several journalists and Ukrainian dissidents, including the prominent columnist Oles Buzina, were murdered by state-backed death squads after their names appeared on the list.

Common Ukrainian citizens have also been subjected to torture since the start of the war this February. Seemingly countless videos have appeared on social media showing civilians tied to lamp posts, often with their genitals exposed or their faces painted green. Carried out by Territorial Defense volunteers tasked with enforcing law and order during wartime, these acts of humiliation and torture have targeted everyone from accused Russian sympathizers to Roma people to alleged thieves.

Roma people (“gypsies”) left Kiev as refugees and went to border town, Lviv, where they are facing discrimination by Ukrainians. Like here, tied to poles. A popular Ukrainian Telegram channel celebrates this action and mocks the victims.#Kyiv #Ukraine #Russia #Nazi pic.twitter.com/3cWZ9a78uA

— Global Politics (@Geopol2030) March 21, 2022

This is the human rights that Zelensky brought to Ukrainian civilians#Mariupol #StandWithUkraine #RussiaUkraineWar pic.twitter.com/EWFC048M2q

— UN voice of Justice (@TheUN_voice) April 3, 2022

Ukraine’s SBU studies torture and assassination from the CIA

Vassily Prozorov, a former SBU officer who defected to Russia following the Euromaidan coup, detailed the post-Maidan security services’ systemic reliance on torture to crush political opposition and intimidate citizens accused of Russian sympathies.

According to Prozorov, the ex-SBU officer, the Ukrainian security services have been directly advised by the CIA since 2014.

“CIA employees have been present in Kiev since 2014. They are residing in clandestine apartments and suburban houses,” he said. “However, they frequently come to the SBU’s central office for holding, for example, specific meetings or plotting secret operations.”

Below, Russia’s RIA Novosti profiled Prozorov and covered his disclosures in a 2019 special.

Journalist Dan Cohen interviewed a Ukrainian businessman named Igor who was arrested by the SBU for his financial ties with Russian companies and detained this March in the security service’s notorious headquarters in downtown Kiev. Igor said he overheard Russian POWs being beaten with pipes by Territorial Defense volunteers being coached by SBU officers. Pummeled to the sound of the Ukrainian national anthem, the Russian prisoners were brutalized until they confessed their hatred for Putin.

Then came Igor’s turn.

“They used a lighter to heat up a needle, then put it under my fingernails,” he told Cohen. “The worst was when they put a plastic bag over my head and suffocated me and when they held the muzzle of a Kalashnikov rifle to my head and forced me to answer their questions.”

Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, the first head of the SBU after the Euromaidan regime change operation of 2013-14, nurtured close ties to Washington when he served as general consul to the Ukrainian embassy to the US during the George W. Bush administration. During that time, Nalyvaichenko was recruited by the CIA, according to his predecessor at the SBU, Alexander Yakimenko, who served under the Russian-oriented government of deposed President Viktor Yanukovych.

In 2021, Zelensky appointed one of Ukraine’s most notorious intelligence figures, Oleksander Poklad, to lead SBU’s counterintelligence division. Poklad is nicknamed “The Strangler,” a reference to his reputation for using torture and assorted dirty tricks to set-up his bosses’ political rivals on treason charges.

This April, a vivid illustration of the SBU’s brutality emerged in the form of video (below) showing its agents pummeling a group of men accused of Russian sympathies in the city of Dnipro.

Ukrainian SBU is arresting civilians in Dnipropetrovsk.

pic.twitter.com/bbHFeADnqg

— Vera Van Horne (@VeraVanHorne) April 5, 2022

“We will never take Russian soldiers prisoner”: Ukraine’s military flaunts its war crimes

While the Western media has focused squarely on alleged Russian human rights abuses since the outbreak of war, Ukrainian soldiers and pro-Ukrainian social media accounts have proudly exhibited sadistic war crimes, from field executions to the torture of captive soldiers.

This March, a pro-Ukrainian Telegram channel called White Lives Matter released a video of a Ukrainian soldier calling the fiancee of a Russian prisoner of war, seen below, and taunting her with promises to castrate the captive.

Ukrainian soldiers’ use of the cellphones of dead Russian soldiers to mock and hector their relatives appears to be a common practice. In fact, the Ukrainian government has begun using notoriously invasive facial recognition technology from Clearview AI, a US tech company, to identify Russian casualties and taunt their relatives on social media.

#ukraine soldiers calling family of deceased to mock and swear at them. Knowing modern phones – the soldier in question must’ve been alive before they unlocked his device. That’s another POW #warCrime to their repertoire. pic.twitter.com/D55T6Hu0se

— Lukasz Raczylo 🐭 🅨 (@raczylo) March 27, 2022

This April, a pro-Ukrainian Telegram channel called fckrussia2022 posted a video depicting a Russian soldier with one of his eyes bandaged, suggesting it had been gouged during torture, and mocked him as a “one-eyed” pig.

Perhaps the most gruesome image to have appeared on social media in recent weeks is the photo of a tortured Russian soldier who had one of his eyes gouged before he was killed. The accompanying post was captioned, “looking for Nazis.”

Photos distributed by pro-Ukraine Telegram channels showing captured, tortured and executed Russian soldiers

Video has also emerged this April showing Ukrainian soldiers shooting defenseless Russian POWs in the legs outside the city of Kharkov. A separate video published by Ukrainian and US-backed Georgian Legion soldiers showed the fighters carrying out field executions of wounded Russian captives near a village outside Kiev.

Ukrainian and Georgian Legion fighters celebrate after executing captive Russian soldiers on video

It is likely that these soldiers had been emboldened by their superiors’ blessings. Mamula Mamulashvili, the commander of the Georgian Legion, which participated in the field executions of wounded Russian POW’s, boasted this April that his unit freely engages in war crimes: “Yes, we tie their hands and feet sometimes. I speak for the Georgian Legion, we will never take Russian soldiers prisoner. Not a single one of them will be taken prisoner.”

Similarly, Gennadiy Druzenko, the head of the Ukrainian military medical service, stated in an interview with Ukraine 24 that he “issued an order to castrate all Russian men because they were subhuman and worse than cockroaches.”

Ukrainian officials present woman tortured and killed by Azov as victim of Russia

While Western media homes in on Russian human rights violations at home and inside Ukraine, the Ukrainian government has authorized a propaganda campaign known as “Total War” that includes the planting of bogus images and false stories to further implicate Russia.

In one especially cynical example of the strategy, Ukraine 24 –  a TV channel where guests have called for the genocidal extermination of Russian children – published a photo this April depicting a female corpse branded with a bloody swastika on her stomach. Ukraine 24 claimed that it found this woman in Gostumel, one of the regions in the Kiev Oblast that the Russians vacated on March 29.

Lesia Vasylenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament, and Oleksiy Arestovych, the top advisor to President Zelensky, published the photo of the defiled female corpse on social media. While Vasylenko left the photo online, Arestovych deleted it eight hours after posting when confronted with the fact that he had published a fake.

In fact, the image was pulled from footage originally recorded by Patrick Lancaster, a Donetsk-based US journalist who had filmed the corpse of a woman tortured and murdered by members of the Ukrainian Azov Battalion in a Mariupol school basement they had converted into a base.

At 2:31 in Lancaster’s video, the woman’s corpse can be seen clearly.

Ukrainian political operative @lesiavasylenko is spreading an especially cynical fake:

The original image was captured by @PLnewstoday and showed the corpse of a woman tortured and murdered in a Mariupol school basement by Ukrainian Nazis – the allies of Vasylenko. pic.twitter.com/gRnURAAaQ9

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) April 4, 2022

As weapons pour into Ukraine from NATO states and the war intensifies, the atrocities are almost certain to pile up – and with the blessing of leadership in Kiev. As Zelensky proclaimed during a visit to the city of Bucha this April, “if we do not find a civilized way out, you know our people – they will find an uncivilized way 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.

The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

Featured image: Above: The torture of left-wing activist Alexander Matjuschenko on March 3 in Dnipro, recorded by Azov members. Below: President Volodymyr Zelensky poses during a media engagement.

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

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

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

***

In 2009 the Guahibo Indigenous community of El Trompillo was forced to move from what members say is their ancestral land.

The official owners of the land are reportedly connected to former senator Alfonso Mattos, and plantation companies affiliated with Mattos have been developed in the territory; sources say they are polluting the land, water and air.

El Trompillo community members hope the higher courts rule in their favor and return them to their land – but in the meantime they live in cramped, impoverished conditions.

This story is a collaboration between Mongabay Latam and Rutas del Conflicto in Colombia.

*

Nearly 13 years have passed since the Guahibo Indigenous community El Trompillo was allegedly forcibly relocated from their territory. Members report persistent hunger and overcrowding in makeshift dwellings cobbled out of green canvas and garbage bags in the municipality of La Primavera in the Colombian department of Vichada. They say they still have hope of someday returning to their ancestral land 30 kilometers (19 miles) away, land that is officially owned by a former Colombian senator and his family and allocated for oil palm plantations.

“We are waiting for [agencies] to tell us that we can return, but in the meantime, they are damaging the land, our sacred places,” said one community member, who wished to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation.

Like this individual, almost all sources contacted for this story asked for their identity to be protected due to the violent conditions that exist in this part of Colombia. Over the past year, the presence of paramilitary-linked armed groups has increased, according to the Department of Protection of Citizens’ Rights; in their March 2021 report, the agency stated these groups include Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia[Gaitanista Self-Defense Forces of Colombia] and the Puntilleros Libertadores del Vichada [Liberators of Vichada]. Alleged murders of land claimants in other parts of the eastern plains region of Colombia has also caused fear among Indigenous communities.

A typical dwelling in the El Trompillo community. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

El Trompillo’s claimed territory is located in the Altagracia, an extensive savannah of 130 square kilometers (50 square miles) between the Negro and Elvita rivers and surrounded by gallery forests and wetland ecosystems called morichales. The formal owners of the land are relatives and close associates of former senator Alfonso Mattos and their oil palm estates are managed by the companies Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada, which also belong to Mattos and his family. Alfonso Mattos is the brother of Carlos Mattos, who has a Spanish extradition request against him for bribing a judge, and the livestock farmer Edward Mattos, who has been accused of murder and links to paramilitarism in the departments of Cesar and Meta.

Indigenous community members say they have witnessed the mismanagement of waste by the oil palm companies occupying their land.

“They have a very large garbage dump; in some parts the water is very dirty because of the liquids they put on the oil palm, while other parts are full of bags and plastic,” said one person who requested anonymity for safety reasons. A local official said he was able to verify waste management complaints, but requested that his name be withheld due to fear of reprisal.

Mongabay Latam and Rutas del Conflicto reporters observed discarded waste such as bags, tarpaulins and empty plastic containers in the Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada oil palm plantations. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

An environmental engineer who has worked for other oil palm companies in Colombia’s Altillanura region confirmed evidence of solid waste mismanagement.

“There are regulations for the management of such waste,” said the engineer, who requested anonymity. “From what these images [of Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada] show, they [the companies] are not complying with Decree No. 1076 of May 26, 2015, which provides directives for oil palm crop cultivation.”

Complaints against the oil palm project first began in 2016. According to environmental regulatory agency Corporinoquia, Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada were sanctioned on May 16, 2016 and ordered to immediately suspend operation of its palm oil extraction plant “for not having environmental permits relating to atmospheric emissions.” Corporinoquia also found the companies responsible for “dumping industrial wastewater without prior treatment.” In August 2017, Corporinoquia representatives returned to the area and again found irregularities, for which it filed charges as part of an environmental sanctioning process.

Both Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada are owned by the family of former senator Alfonso Mattos, which includes his wife Ana Cecilia Lacouture and his children David Alfonso, Catherine and Stephanie Mattos Lacouture, per Chamber of Commerce records.

Indigenous children from the El Trompillo community. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

In the mid-1990s, when the Guahibo community were still practicing a traditional semi-nomadic life, the 16th Front of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) arrived in San Teodoro, a town neighboring Altagracia, quickly turning it into a key location for drug trafficking.

Altagracia was divided into 14 plots by the Colombian Institute of Agrarian Reform (Incora), which are currently being exploited by Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada. Among the farms operating in the area are San Cayetano and Judea, which are now reportedly owned by people with close links to former senator Alfonso Mattos.

Altagracia (brown area) is the Guahibo ancestral territory. The green area bordering it to the north is land cultivated with oil palm. Image from Google Earth.

The Guahibo territory has been divided into 14 plots. Image by the National Land Restitution Unit.

On May 3, 1999, a group of about 200 paramilitary members arrived in San Teodoro, a neighboring town of Altagracia, killing five people, including Eduardo Ríos, president of the Community Action Board of San Teodoro.

Rumors spread that the armed group wanted to kill the Guahibo people: “They said that they were going to kill us, we were afraid at that time,” said a Guahibo community member who wished to remain anonymous for safety concerns.

Between 2005 and 2006, paramilitary groups in the area demobilized, giving way to the arrival of large agribusiness companies, a move promoted by the government of former president Álvaro Uribe Vélez.

Aerial shot of the Agrícola El Encanto oil palm plantation. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

Guahibo community members said that they continued to live in Altagracia until 2008, when 20 armed men appeared and told them that the land had an owner and they were required to leave. Community members say the men said they represented Alfonso Mattos.

The incident prompted some from the community to move to Puerto Carreño, the capital of Vichada. But community members who stayed said that armed men returned, this time with Alfonso Mattos, to demand that those who remained leave the territory.

“We didn’t leave, but in August [2009] unknown individuals arrived and set fire to some farms. We couldn’t put up with it anymore so we came to La Primavera,” said a Guahibo community member.

Indigenous leaders, legally represented by Corporación Claretiana Norman Pérez Bello, have requested that the National Land Agency revoke the awarded plots. They also requested that the Land Restitution Unit formally hand over the 14 plots occupied by the companies to the Guahibo community.

Afternoon in El Trompillo. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

In 1989, Colombia signed Convention No. 169 of the International Labor Organization (ILO), which protects and recognizes the collective property of Indigenous peoples’ ancestral territories.

“From then on, several laws have been approved to give these communities titles for the land on which they have historically lived and developed their cultural practices,” said Brayan Triana, a lawyer at the Land Observatory of the University of Rosario in Bogotá.

Mongabay Latam and Rutas del Conflicto contacted Alfonso Mattos by phone and WhatsApp to ask for his version of the story and also about the environmental protocols of Agrícola El Encanto and Aceites del Vichada. Messages were also sent to the emails of the two companies registered with the Chamber of Commerce. No responses were received.

In 2020, a judge ruled in favor of the Guahibo community’s claim. However, those who claim ownership of the land opposed the ruling and the case will go to a higher court to ultimately determine to whom the land belongs. It is expected that this next step of the legal process will take several years.

In the meantime, the 32 displaced Guahibo families continue to hold on in El Trompillo. There they are joined other displaced Indigenous communities, including other Guahibo communities and groups such as the Cuiba and Piapoco. In total, 636 people live on 0.23 square kilometers (0.09 square miles).

The El Trompillo settlement is not the only one of its kind in this part of Colombia. Several other such as Puerto Gaitán and Puerto Carreño dot the region, creating belts of poverty in urban areas.

Overcrowding and hunger is rife. The Guahibo of Altagracia survive on the little work community members can find in La Primavera and on the sale of woven goods. “Sometimes there’s work for one day, but it’s not permanent. We also sell what the women make, but it’s not enough to provide food every day,” one community member said.

Crafts made by the weavers in the El Trompillo community. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

A representative of Corporación Claretiana, who wished to remain anonymous, said agro-industrial and oil development for the region is sponsored by the State itself and completely excludes Indigenous residents. He said communities have been subjected to systematic violence to remove them from their territories for decades.

Sources said displacement may also have a detrimental impact on Indigenous cultures and exposes residents to public health and social problems such as drug addiction.

“We hope that our ancestral territory will be returned to us, along with our sacred sites, the animals, the streams, the trees – everything,” said a Guahibo community member who requested anonymity. “We can’t accept that they are damaging where we have lived for so long.”

*

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: Aerial shot of the Agrícola El Encanto oil palm plantation. Image by Juan Carlos Contreras Medina.

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

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

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

***

After committing the shameful atrocities of direct colonization against the non-West, the West felt it was necessary to invent methods of indirect colonization. Other than institutional controls, they would incarcerate and assassinate many of the non-Western leaders who disobeyed the West. But killing was bloody and messy, reminiscent of their colonial atrocities. Hence a new mode of injustice was perfected, that of the regime change. Advances in information technology and impact of corporate and social media on human consciousness, brought about more subtlety to the science of regime change. This icing on the cake of international institutions such as UN, FATF, IBRD & IMF, are all used to bring down representative and pro-people governments. Methods used for regime changes are bribery, threat, extortion and blackmail. If the above observation be true, then who says that the West is civilized? If the populations of EU and USA claim that it is them who vote such governments into power who are against self-determination in the developing world, then West’s democracy is opposed to universal self-determination to which they are signatories inside the UN. Law of the jungle, brutality and injustice are ways of uncivilized barbarians.

This is what the barbarians have done once again in Pakistan. The West has successfully conducted ‘operation regime change’ in Pakistan in an attempt to steal Pakistan away from its family of Asian nations. Instead, Pakistan has been by force shoved back into its old role, as NATO’s minion. Imran Khan’s elected government was struck down in a campaign in which a weak state and a weak civil society were bought out with money. Opposition political parties, PTI’s turncoat members, an extremely poisonous, seditious and anti-people media, dishonorable judges, US-subservient Army top leadership, all collaborated to take down an honest leader and replaced him with well-known thugs, a staggering number of whom are either indicted or convicted for crimes ranging from corruption, treason and murder.

If homegrown governments are replaced with foreign imposed rule, then Pakistan can never be sovereign enough to make its own policies. This means that China cannot pledge its future to an uncertain Pakistan and must help Pakistan in bringing about political stability. If CPEC is existential for BRI and BRI is existential for China, then bringing stability to Pakistan by counter-intervention is China’s only option. If the US is not ready to let go of Pakistan, then China should consider ‘buying’ more influence in Pakistan in order to defeat the Indian and American influence in Af-Pak-Iran region.  As a Pakistani I say that with shame that since our ruling elite gets sold so cheaply that it may not be an expensive proposition for China to beat America in its dirty game by out-bidding the US in Pakistani parliament’s horse-trading. However, it is against the Chinese principles of governance to do such a thing.

So, why did the US do that?

It is public knowledge that the West has been openly against CPEC and BRI. West’s regional agent, India, has made dozens upon dozens of statements against the Chinese plans of connectivity and threatened to invade Gilgit-Baltistan to cut off Pakistan from China. Imran Khan was in favor of CPEC and Eurasian integration. He was also in favor of good bilateral relations with Russia. Particularly, he was in favor of promoting more connectivity and cooperation amongst the Muslim countries. This is a necessary prerequisite of the BRI since the Muslim world occupies the central and the biggest landmass without which no land connectivity would be possible between Europe and East Asia. This is also why FM Wang Yi made a statement last month that China wants to help the Muslim world to bring about peace. This statement was diametrically opposite of America’s ‘war policy’ in the Muslim world. The Western imperialism doesn’t allow intra-Muslim cooperation at all because of its necessity to oppose self-determination in the Muslim World. They killed Liaqat Ali Khan, Z. A. Bhutto, Zia, Shah Faisal, Gaddafi, Nasser, and many others whom they found guilty of promoting solidarity and cooperation among Muslim countries. This is why the West constantly promotes the three phobias; while Imran Khan spoke against Islamophobia, and rejected Sinophobia and Russophobia.

What Should Pakistan Do?

Out of the formerly colonized world, only China escaped West’s iron cage because they cleverly negotiated a political system for themselves which suited their needs. I cannot go into the details for this system here, but I will focus on just one aspect of it which is its one party system. In addition to the ‘one party’, there are numerous small parties that work in tandem with the CPC inside China. However, the biggest party that leads all aspects of life in China is the CPC. More importantly, to call the CPC a ‘party’ is perhaps too narrow of a description. It is much more than just a ‘party’ because of how the word ‘party’ is understood in the Western world. For lack of another term for now, we can call it a single party system.

In a book length discussion elsewhere I have argued that single party systems with state based governance which are pro-people have more in common with the essence of Islamic political thought than does Western democracy which thrives on divisive individualism rather than society’s need for inner unity across different levels. Pakistan should consider a state based single party system of governance which is based on the widest understanding of the Islamic tradition. From a purely traditional point of view, Western democracies defy the principles of Islamic political thought in a way that state-based single-party systems which affirm transcendence may not. From an Islamic point of view, Western democracies may not be permissible because of their deep secularism is tantamount of denial of transcendence.

More importantly, after trying and failing for 75 years, it is the call of common sense that Pakistan should abandon its overall Westernization project in favor of its own traditions. Pakistan should carefully analyze the Chinese path of development and security to see how it worked for China.

The Problem with Western Democratism:

The West presents itself that it has political and ideological diversity because of its multiple party or two party democracies, but in reality they are only superficially pluralistic because their puppet masters are the same. The corporations and bankers who bankroll the campaigns of both political parties wield the decisive influence on state policies. Many Western governments of EU and America are deeply influenced by this international establishment.

In an effort to protect itself from Western regime changes, China conceived of a single party system, which has served it well, so much so, that when the CPC took over China, the Western history books soon added a chapter to their history of China books titled ‘loss of China’. The West lost China because it came up with a system which made infiltration difficult for the outsiders and very dangerous for the inside collaborators. This is why the West is always sulking about China’s ‘dictatorship’. Whereas in reality, China’s pro-people system is more democratic than the elite-privileging democracies of the West whose people are falling by the wayside at a fast pace.

Some scholars of contemporary history and social sciences have argued that China is unique, hence not copyable. I dispute that China is unique. In one sense all people are unique and in another sense, all people are similar. The ability to relate across cultures lies in the latter principle, otherwise there would be no intercultural understanding, interfaith dialogues and inter-civilizational harmony. I believe it is possible that people, cultures and civilizations have learnt from each other. There is historical evidence for this. Therefore, if Pakistan failed in its experiment with Western democracy (like China did from 1900 to 1949) it is alright. It can try something new and off the beaten path of backward Western ideologies of 300 year old enlightenment and 200 years old modernism. Pakistan should not hesitate to consult with friendly neighbors to see what has worked for them. It is my claim that considering elements of China’s journey to development and security will be very useful for Pakistan.

How can Pakistan prevent such a thing from happening again?

Foreigners are in control of the Pakistani parliament with the help of the insiders. This is nothing new for Pakistan, as in the case of many developing nations. History has reminded Pakistan again; Pakistan institutions are weak because its system is faulty. Large swaths of state officials and civil society can be easily bought. Civil bureaucracy, media, judiciary; all of them become compromised. Importantly, out of all the institutions, Pakistani military is more functional than other sectors of the state and it is dearly loved by its people. How could officers like Bajwa make it to the top who are willing to sacrifice national interest under the US influence? It is common knowledge in Islamabad that in 2016, most army officers in Pakistan thought that Gen. Zubair Mahmood Hayat was more competent and deserving than Bajwa for the position of the army chief. But the American influence inside the senior military elite was so strong, that it prevented the smooth meritocratic functioning of our military.

In a paper titled “Is there an Islamic Theory of Civil-Military Relations?” I have argued that civilian rule is superior to military rule because of the very nature of military command. This is why in China a civil president is head of the military commission. Since militaries are powerful, their presence is bound to be political. But Western democratism opposes political role of military in theory, but often supports military rule elsewhere as in Pakistan. In Pakistan the size and strength of the military makes it the most powerful and the most political out of all institutions. But under the influence of Western ideas our military claims that we have nothing to do with politics, which isn’t true. However, since that is the official stance, military can easily evade accountability of their political actions. If military’s political calculus is right, they claim applause from the nation. If their political calculus is wrong, they say we are neutral to national politics. This gives our military plausible deniability while transgressing an important principle: if you have political power, you must also have political accountability.

To pretend that militaries will never be political is a daydream. This is why President Xi Jinping routinely speaks to his military and encourages them to play their ‘political role’ with dutiful diligence and responsibility. Pakistan needs the same. It needs a system which give our military due space to play their political role, but openly and responsibly.

Pakistan is a country of intelligent, well-meaning and hospitable people, a strong military, but it has a weak political system that cannot protect itself against foreigners. The West not only proposes but also disposes an archaic system of governance for us. Like most psychologically colonized societies of South Asia, their Westernized ruling elites accept the ‘white man’s gospel’ uncritically and naively to think that Western democracy is the only legitimate form of government. Even if they follow the dictates of their Western masters, the masters are still not happy. As demonstrated in Musadeq’s Iran, Morsi’s Egypt, French overthrow of democracy in Algeria, all of these cases indicate that the West is not serious about either proposing a democratic system, let alone respecting one if one has come about.

China’s situation during Guomingdang period was somewhat similar. Only after having a single party system could they come out of under the Western thumb. The Western critics often say that the single party system doesn’t allow for choice and dissension. This is propaganda. All dissension in a single party system is shared on the widest platform. This type of rule keeps the foreigners out. Despite this, the West created problems for China in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang. But laws in China are tough enough and it doesn’t take CPC’s judicial system very long to send the corrupt to the gallows. Pakistan should seriously consider it. First Pakistan should go for system change, second it should go for cultural change, which means saying no to all forms of westernization which is harmful for our civilization, and secondly, delving into intelligent understanding of Islam while doing socio-political reforms to replace westernization.

Rahul Gandhi, the head of India’s opposition political party tweeted: “Modi should explain to the nation why he spent billions of USD to purchase expensive weapons in the name of fighting Pakistan, when whole Pakistan can be bought in less than 1 billion USD”. But regime change in Pakistan according to some estimates may have only taken a few million dollars. If modest amount of money can overthrow our regimes, then certainly our security is compromised. Who is responsible for our security? It is not only the military but our civil society institutions and public too. A political system that better protects one’s state is more superior than the one that is ready to sell the state for personal gains. The path of Western democracy is disastrous for humanity. Many Muslims disagree with the Taliban’s understanding of Islam, but for 20 years they could not be decisively infiltrated by the US and the Indians. US and NATO forces spent trillions of dollars in Afghanistan, but could not infiltrate to their core. One of the biggest reasons for this was that the Taliban do not believe in westernization of their political system.

The new regime is ready to do for the West what Imran Khan was not prepared to do. They don’t want us to support Kashmiris’ human rights. They want us to give the US military bases to kill our brothers in Afghanistan and our tribal areas. They want us to become part of wars of global fascism against humanity. They want to weaken our military, tarnish its image. They want us to accept the Indian hegemony (like Bangladesh), they don’t want us to be close to China and Russia and eventually they want to go for our nuclear weapons (like Ukraine).

Pakistan needs help in form of counter-interference from China. Only 1,500 people have taken hostage the future of 220 million people. The cost of losing Pakistan to the US is prohibitive for China in the long run.

*

Ejaz Akram is an Associate Professor of Religion and Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences.

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 OneWorld

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

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

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

***

More than 769 athletes have collapsed on the field during a game from March 2021 to March 2022

The shocking statistic was revealed by One America News Network (OAN), which also found the average age of the athletes who suffered cardiac arrest is just 23 years old

An updated report by Good Sciencing, a team of investigators, news editors, journalists and “truth seekers,” has detailed 890 cardiac arrests and other serious issues among athletes, including 579 deaths, following COVID-19 shots

With cases like these becoming impossible to ignore, even a mainstream media sports channel in Australia speculated that the health issues could be linked to COVID-19 shots, and one of the hosts acknowledged that multiple players have suffered from heart issues and Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 booster shots

*

More than 769 athletes have collapsed on the field during a game from March 2021 to March 2022. The shocking statistic was revealed by One America News Network (OAN), which also found the average age of the athletes who suffered cardiac arrest is just 23 years old.¹ The unprecedented surge in cardiac arrest and other heart issues among elite athletes coincides with the rollout of COVID-19 jabs.

The Miami Open made headlines in early April 2022 after 15 players — all of whom had reportedly received COVID-19 injections² — dropped out. Among them were favorites Paula Badosa and Jannik Sinner. Badosa left the court in tears after becoming unwell, and Sinner’s opponent said he saw him “bend over” on the court, noting “it was very strange.”³ Even the fans were confused, with one stating, “What is going on?”⁴

As Pearson Sharp of OAN explained, “These are just two of more than 769 athletes who have collapsed during a game, on the field, over the last year.” He continued:⁵

“How many 23-year-old athletes were collapsing and suffering heart attacks before this year? Do you know any 23-year-old people who had heart attacks before now? And these are just the ones we know about. How many have gone unreported? Nearly 800 athletes — young, fit people in the prime of life — falling down on the field. In fact, 500% more soccer players in the EU are dropping dead from heart attacks than just one year ago.

Coincidence? When the Pfizer vaccine is known to cause heart inflammation? No. In fact, many doctors treating these players list their injuries and deaths as being directly caused by the vaccine … This is not a coincidence.”

VAERS May Not Show the Whole Picture

As of April 1, 2022, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is where adverse events caused by COVID-19 jabs in the U.S. are supposed to be collected, lists 26,693 deaths along with 147,677 hospitalizations in association with the COVID-19 shot.⁶ There are also 13,677 heart attacks and 38,024 cases of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the tissue sac surrounding the heart).

Myocarditis and pericarditis cause symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath and a fluttering or pounding heart. Cases have occurred most often after mRNA COVID-19 injections (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults, according to the CDC. Further, myocarditis occurs more often after the second injection, usually within a week.⁷

Past investigations have shown only between 1%⁸ and 10%⁹ of adverse reactions are ever reported to VAERS, which is a passive, voluntary reporting system, so the actual number could be much higher. Kyle Warner is one athlete who filed a VAERS report about his own health injuries following the COVID-19 jab. It took him 45 minutes to complete — a length of time that many doctors can’t or won’t devote when it comes to reporting adverse vaccine reactions seen among their patients.

Warner, who is 29 years old, was at the peak of his career as a professional mountain bike racer when, in June 2021, he got his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot. He suffered a reaction so severe that, months later, he was still spending days in bed, easily overwhelmed by too much mental or physical exertion.

“I believe where there is risk, there needs to be choice,” he said.¹⁰ Instead, “People are being coerced into making a decision based on lack of information versus being convinced of a decision based on total information transparency.”¹¹ Despite the rising number of adverse effects being reported in VAERS, top government officials, such as NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, have attempted to discredit it.

Most notably, this occurred during a Senate hearing when both individuals implied that if a person had received the jab and was then killed in a car accident, it’s possible it could be recorded in VAERS as a vaccine injury.¹² However, while anyone can make a report to VAERS — a component that critics use to claim that VAERS can contain errors and even false claims — due to the lengthy and complicated submittal process, adverse events are notoriously under- — not over- — reported.

Shocking Stories of Athletes Harmed by COVID-19 Jabs

Warner developed pericarditis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and reactive arthritis following his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot.¹³ Again, he’s a young, world-class athlete whose life has been sidelined by the shots.

Unfortunately, many doctors are unwilling to acknowledge that the COVID-19 shots might be related to patients’ injury complaints, and many who have been injured find their stories have remained hidden from public view, with YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and other social media platforms censoring their personal stories and videos. Some, however, have made it through to mainstream media, including:

U.K. football legend and sports commentator Matt Le Tissier, featured in the video above, is among those who have been speaking out about the large number of athletes who have collapsed or died on the field — and he lost his job as a commentator because of it. In an interview with Red Voice Media, Le Tissier is asked about his thoughts on the surge of cardiac events in the sporting world, to which he responded:¹⁷

“I’ve never seen anything like it. I played for 17 years. I don’t think I saw one person in 17 years have to come off the football pitch with breathing difficulties, clutching their heart, heart problems …

The last year, it’s just been unbelievable how many people, not just footballers but sports people in general, tennis players, cricketers, basketball players, just how many are just keeling over. And at some point, surely you have to say this isn’t right, this needs to be investigated.”

By December 2021, 300 reports of athletes collapsing, and some dying, had already been collected,¹⁸ including high-profile European Soccer star Adama Traore, who clutched his chest and collapsed on the field. An updated report by Good Sciencing, a team of investigators, news editors, journalists and “truth seekers,” has detailed 890 cardiac arrests and other serious issues among athletes, including 579 deaths, following COVID-19 shots.¹⁹

They’re maintaining a “nonexhaustive and continuously growing list of mainly young athletes who had major medical issues in 2021/2022 after receiving one or more COVID vaccines” and note:²⁰

“It is definitely not normal for so many mainly young athletes to suffer from cardiac arrests or to die while playing their sport, but this year it is happening. Many of these heart issues and deaths come shortly after they got a COVID vaccine. While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause.

… Initially, many of these were not reported. We know that many people were told not to tell anyone about their adverse reactions and the media was not reporting them. They started happening and ramping up after the first COVID vaccinations.

The mainstream media still are not reporting most, but sports news cannot ignore the fact that soccer players and other stars collapse in the middle of a game due to a sudden cardiac arrest. Many of those die — more than 50%.

We also note that many posts in Facebook, Instagram, twitter, forums and news stories are being removed. So now we are receiving some messages saying there is no proof of the event or of vaccination status. That is partly because this information is being hidden.”

Gary Dempsey, a professional soccer player with a nearly two-decade career, also tweeted just how unusual the recent wave of cardiac events among athletes is:²¹

“Was a professional for nearly 20 years. From 1996. Played nearly 500 games. Club and international level. Never ever was there 1 cardiac arrest. Either in the crowd or a player. It’s actually quite scary.”

Heart Issues and Bell’s Palsy ‘Through the Roof’

This is from a main stream sports channel in Australia pic.twitter.com/HJHWAlEpRg

— Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) April 11, 2022

The video above is from a mainstream sports channel in Australia,²² detailing another professional athlete, Ollie Wines, who is out of the game due to nausea, dizziness and heart palpitations.

With cases like this becoming impossible to ignore, the “Sunday Footy Show” panel speculated that the health issues could be linked to COVID-19 shots, and one of the hosts acknowledged that multiple players have suffered from heart issues and Bell’s palsy following COVID-19 booster shots. “Wards filled with people suffering the same issues,” he said.²³

Former professional footballer Matthew Lloyd, who was recently diagnosed with Bell’s palsy, stated, “Heart issues and Bell’s palsy have gone through the roof since the boosters and Covid issues.”²⁴

During phase 3 clinical trials of mRNA COVID-19 shots, more cases of facial paralysis occurred in the vaccine groups (seven out of 35,654) compared to the placebo group (one out of 35,611), leading the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recommended monitoring vaccine recipients for facial paralysis.²⁵

Lloyd also said that he’s heard of many cases of heart issues similar to Wines’. “We had [sports journalist] Michelangelo Rucci on … and he said that there’s a ward filled with people with similar symptoms to Ollie Wines — nausea, heart issues — so there has to be something more to it.”²⁶

It’s well known that toxic spike proteins can circulate in your body after infection or COVID-19 injection, causing damage to cells, tissues and organs. As your heart beats faster during intense athletic activity, the spike proteins are able to circulate faster throughout your body, pointing to a potential reason why so many athletes are collapsing on the field.

It’s important that these stories are heard, so if you or a loved one has been injured by a COVID-19 injection, please share your story with us and encourage others you know who have a story to share theirs as well.

*

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 The Gateway Pundit April 8, 2022

² Need to Know News April 3, 2022

^3, 4 Principia Scientific International April 7, 2022

⁵ OAN News April 10, 2022, 3:51

⁶ Open VAERS, COVID-19 Vaccine Data

⁷ U.S. CDC November 12, 2021

⁸ The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

⁹ BMJ 2005;330:433

¹⁰ YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021, 1:01

^11, 13 YouTube, Dr. John Campbell, Kyle’s Vaccine Complication October 21, 2021, 41:51

¹² YouTube, January 11, 2022, Min 2:49:30

¹⁴ Newsbreeze November 6, 2021

¹⁵ Sport24 September 24, 2021

¹⁶ Banned News October 27, 2021

¹⁷ Rumble, February 1, 2022, Minute 23:30 – 24:35

¹⁸ The Gateway Pundit December 6, 2021

^19, 20, 21 Good Sciencing, Real Science

²² Twitter, Luke Rudkowski April 11, 2022

^23, 24, 26 Mail Online April 10, 2022

²⁵ JAMA Internal Medicine April 27, 2021

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com