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.

***

The insanity over the COVID-19 pandemic knows no bounds, as one major newspaper editorial board is calling for the National Guard to be deployed against unvaccinated Americans.

In a piece headlined, “Utah leaders have surrendered to COVID pandemic, the Editorial Board writes” the Salt Lake City Tribune board cited the state’s Republican leaders for refusing to implement a mandate that all residents get a COVID-19 vaccine, adding that if Utah were a “civilized place,” GOP Gov. Spencer Cox would implement a mandate and order the Guard to enforce it by preventing the unvaccinated from going “anywhere.”

“Were Utah a truly civilized place, the governor’s next move would be to find a way to mandate the kind of mass vaccination campaign we should have launched a year ago, going as far as to deploy the National Guard to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere,” the editorial board wrote.

The board tried to make it appear as though criticism was ‘bipartisan,’ but in fact, it was very obvious they were singling out Republicans for the lion’s share of the scorn.

“Government officials, mostly but not exclusively Republicans, were apparently determined not to be caught governing in the face of this challenge. Any move or recommendation to mask up or, when safe and effective vaccines became available, to make vaccination a requirement of admission to public places and society in general was shouted down as an unwarranted imposition on individual freedoms,” the editorial said.

“Cox and so many others have not carried the courage of their convictions. Cox, state legislative leaders, our congressional delegation and Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes have so proudly stood against the kind of vaccine mandates that civilized society has used for generations to effectively wipe out everything from polio to diphtheria to the measles,” the editorial continued.

Not surprisingly, the board’s criticism of Joe Biden was extremely light in comparison and even lauded the president for trying to implement a nationwide vaccine mandate — without any regard to the unconstitutionality of his act or noting that Biden said during his 2020 campaign he would never do so.

“President Joe Biden tried to pull a couple of useful levers by ordering vaccine mandates for health care workers and vaccine-or-test rules for workplaces of more than 100 employees. The U.S. Supreme Court this week upheld the former while quashing the latter, foolishly holding that a communicable disease is not a workplace hazard,” the board wrote.

“Not that Biden is blameless in all this. Seeing the obvious reluctance of so many people to get, or to require, vaccinations has only now moved him to push to make tests and the most effective kind of masks available to everyone. It’s the right thing to do, but months late,” the editorial added.

Also unsurprisingly, critics hopped on social media to blast the Nazism of the editorial board in calling for an element of the U.S. military to target American citizens for the high crime of refusing a vaccine that isn’t working to halt the spread of COVID-19 in the first place.

“The Salt Lake City newspaper wants the Utah national guard to not allow unvaccinated people to leave their homes. This is mindless, anti-science insanity — omicron is infecting everyone — but these ‘journalists’ are demanding totalitarianism. And they think they’re the good guys,” Outkick’s Clay Travis tweeted.

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson (R) chimed in as well:

“The truth is Omicron is out of control everywhere. Even in places with mask and vaccine mandates. We always push vaccines, but even vaccinated ppl [sic] are catching it. It’s easy to take shots from the cheap seats but this is the sort of nonsense that makes editorial boards irrelevant.”

GOP communications operative Matt Whitlock noted:

“Use the national guard to prevent unvaccinated from going anywhere?! That would be more draconian than any state in the country – how do they think things are going in Australia? The Trib editorial board is absolute garbage.”

*

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 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A lawsuit against Bill Gates, the Indian government and others, citing extensive case law, is attracting renewed scrutiny of Gates and his long-term, controversial involvement in India’s vaccine program.

In what may be the first legal case of its kind globally, a petitioner in India is seeking to prosecute Bill Gates, Indian vaccine czar Adar Poonawalla, and Indian government and public health officials over the death of a 23-year-old man who died after receiving AstraZeneca’s Covishield vaccine.

Kiran Yadav late last year filed a criminal writ petition for murder, Smt. Kiran Yadav v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (herein referred to as Yadav v. Maharashtra), with the Bombay High Court of Judicature, on behalf of her deceased son, Shri Hitesh Kadve.

Her son was vaccinated on Sept. 29, 2021. According to the complaint, he died that same day due to side effects brought on by the vaccine.

The complaint alleges Kadve died “due to [an] act of willful commission and omission attributable to some public servants who are misusing their position to bring policies to help the pharma mafia and thereby [are] responsible [for] mass murders.”

The complaint further states Yadav’s son was “unwillingly” compelled to get vaccinated based on the “false narrative” that the vaccine was entirely safe, and because the State of Maharashtra prohibited the non-vaccinated from riding on railroads or entering retail spaces such as shopping malls.

The complaint alleges Maharashtra’s restrictions “are against the Central Government’s policy that, there cannot be any discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.”

Other defendants in the case include the commissioner and director-general of the Maharashtra State Police, the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation and the principal secretary of the Indian Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The complaint also brings charges against Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, CEO of the Serum Institute of India, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer by number of doses produced and sold.

The Serum Institute produces the Covishield vaccine, as well as over half of the world’s vaccines that are administered to babies.

In all, Yadav is requesting 1,000 crores (10 billion rupees, or $134 million USD) in compensation, including 100 crores ($13.4 million USD) in interim compensation.

She is seeking lie detector and narcoanalysis tests from Gates, Poonawalla and others.

According to the complaint, the Indian government admitted the Covishield vaccine may have harmful, and potentially fatal, side effects, but the vaccine was administered despite this knowledge.

The complaint in Yadav v. Maharashtra was filed by attorneys Shivam Mehra and Siddhi Dhamnaskar of Mumbai, and appears to have first been publicized in English by the Indian Bar Association, an informal group of Indian lawyers (the Bar Council of India is the country’s official bar association).

Judges of the Supreme Court of India have generally adopted a pro-vaccine stance. Nevertheless, Yadav’s 265-page complaint stands out for the extensive legal precedent it draws upon, from Indian and common law, calling into question the legality of mandatory vaccination and other compelled medical acts.

The complaint also stands out for the specific allegations made against figures such as Poonawala and Gates, a figure of extensive controversy in India.

Extensive legal precedent casts doubt on legality of Indian state’s mandatory vaccination policy

One of the main court rulings referenced in the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint is that of Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya v. State of Meghalaya (herein referred to as Meghalaya). The central finding of the ruling, issued June 23, 2021, held that vaccination by force or deception, or through the introduction of restrictions on the non-vaccinated, is a violation of fundamental human rights and a civil and criminal wrong.

This judgment overturned an order in the state of Meghalaya that required vendors, taxi drivers, shopkeepers and other individuals to get vaccinated before resuming or reopening their businesses.

In reference to this, the court held that while vaccination was “the need of the hour,” the vaccination policy of a welfare state “can never affect a major fundamental right, i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and livelihood.”

Referring to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the court in Meghalaya addressed the right to health, arguing that when such healthcare is provided through coercive means, it encroaches upon the fundamental right to privacy.

The court also drew from another Indian court ruling, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018), which held the fundamental right to health is violated when individuals are deprived of their right to personal choice, bodily autonomy and integrity, and the overarching right to privacy.

The court in Meghalaya added:

“[V]accination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it. It impinges on the fundamental right(s) as such, especially when it affects the right to means of livelihood which makes it possible for a person to live.

“Compulsory administration of a vaccine without hampering one’s right to life and liberty based on informed choice and informed consent is one thing. However, if any compulsory vaccination drive is coercive by its very nature and spirit, it assumes a different proportion and character.”

The court in Meghalaya also referenced English common law, specifically, the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993), a decision which held that if an unwilling adult is compelled to receive a flu vaccination through force, this action would amount to a crime and to a civil wrong.

Remarking on this, the Indian court found:

“[T]hus, coercive element of vaccination has, since the early phases of the initiation of vaccination as a preventive measure against several diseases, have been time and again not only discouraged but also consistently ruled against by the Courts for over more than a century.”

The court in Meghalaya also referred to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution regarding the “freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business,” and that vaccine-related restrictions were “palpably excessive.”

The court added:

“In this case, there is a clear lack of legitimacy in prohibiting freedom of carrying on any occupation, trade or business amongst a certain category or class of citizens who are otherwise entitled to do so, making the notification/order ill-conceived, arbitrary and/or a colourable exercise of power.”

From an administrative point of view, the court in Meghalaya also found not only had the central Indian government not mandated vaccinations, instead holding that vaccination must remain voluntary, but there was no regulation or directive that allowed state governments to impose vaccination requirements within their own territory.

Yadav case draws upon extensive Indian legal precedent, scientific studies

The criminal complaint in Yadav v. Maharashtra also drew upon several other Indian court rulings, including recent COVID vaccines-related decisions such as Dinthar Incident v. State of Mizoram and Others (2021) and Madan Mili v. Union of India (2021).

These rulings found vaccinated individuals can also get infected with COVID and can spread infection, just as those who are unvaccinated, and accordingly, there cannot be any discrimination between those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated. Such discrimination would contravene Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Yadav v. Maharashtra also references the following cases and English common law:

 “[A]ll adults with capacity to consent have the right of self-determination and autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right to refuse medical treatment … [a] competent person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all treatment or opt for an alternative treatment …

“The best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.”

“Restraining people who are yet to get vaccinated from opening institutions, organizations, factories, shops, etc., or denying them their livelihood by linking their employment … to their getting vaccinated would be illegal on the part of the State, if not unconstitutional.

“Such a measure would also trample upon the freedom of the individual to get vaccinated or choose not to do so.”

“An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.”

Yadav v. Maharashtra also references an Oct. 8, 2021, directive from Satyendra Singh, the undersecretary of the Indian Health Ministry, reaffirming that vaccination remains voluntary, that the Indian government “has not formulated or suggested any policies for discrimination between citizens of India on the basis of their vaccination status,” and that no citizen can be forced to be vaccinated.

The complaint also draws upon Indian legislation, specifically the Disaster Management Act of 2005, which holds that state governments cannot formulate any rules that contravene the guidelines of the national government. Nor can such prohibitions be circumvented indirectly, according to the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint, referring to another Indian court case, Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida (2011).

The complaint also refers to several clauses from UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights (2005), including:

  • Article 3 on human dignity and human rights, which holds that “[t]he interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”
  • Article 6, which holds that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with… prior, free and informed consent.”
  • Article 8 on respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity.
  • Article 11, which states that “[n]o individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The complaint then goes on to name specific individuals, such as Venugopal G. Somani, the Drug Controller General of India, and Randeep Guleria of the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), as individuals who participated in a “dishonesty and cheating campaign” and the “furtherance of [a] conspiracy,” by making the “false and misleading statement” that the COVID vaccines were completely safe.

The complaint accuses Somani and Guleria of following a “one-line agenda to give wrongful profit to the vaccine companies” and goes on to cite Indian case law holding that because “conspiracies are hatched on secrecy … no direct evidence is required to prove it. The offense can be proved from circumstantial evidences.”

A total of 81 research papers were also referenced in the complaint, addressing, among other issues, the higher protection those with natural immunity have against COVID, as opposed to those who are vaccinated, as well as the lower efficacy of the vaccines against variants such as Delta.

The vaccine-related death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat

The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint references the case of Dr. Snehal Lunawat, an Indian doctor from Maharashtra who died March 1, 2021, from complications stemming from the Covishield vaccine he received on Jan. 28, 2021.

This incident gained visibility in India due to the efforts of Lunawat’s family to get an investigation launched regarding her death.

Lunawat, who was 33 years old, experienced a “rare blood-clotting event” after taking the Covishield vaccine.

Subsequently, her family wrote to the Indian government and the Serum Institute, requesting that Lunawat’s death be investigated, as it had not been registered as an adverse event in the country’s “Adverse Event Following Immunisation” (AEFI) database.

However, a satisfactory response was not provided, prompting the family to reach out to the World Health Organization (WHO), which then investigated the incident.

Ultimately, due to the family’s pressure and the intervention of the WHO and the All India Drugs Network, the AEFI committee accepted on Sept. 25, 2021, after nearly seven months, that Lunawat’s death was vaccine-related.

Specifically, the rare blood clotting complication resulted in her blood platelet count decreasing because of increased bleeding in her brain.

This was only the third vaccine-induced death recognized by AEFI. The process of reporting vaccine-related deaths to the AEFI database is reportedly “not easy.”

The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint refers to Lunawat’s death, and its subsequent classification as vaccine-related, as “ex facie” evidence of the “falsity of claims by the … accused officials and doctors” regarding the safety of the COVID vaccines

#ArrestBillGates: Controversy, legal battles in India surrounding Gates and his foundation

The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint makes extensive references to Bill Gates, who is described as a “habitual offender of mass murder by vaccination in conspiracy with Government officials.”

Gates is also referred to as a “mastermind … who is manufacturing ‘Covishield’ in partnership with [the] Serum Institute.”

The complaint seeks lie detector, brain mapping and narcoanalysis tests of Gates, Poonawalla and others to “unearth the complete conspiracy,” and demands the registration of a “first information report” (FIR) against individuals who marketed the vaccines as completely safe.

The request for Gates and others to undergo narcoanalysis tests is considered perplexing by some analysts, as such tests are not legally admissible in Indian courts, as the person being interrogated is in a state of semi-consciousness.

The complaint argues Gates and Poonawalla should be considered “co-conspirators to mass murder” who were “working for the welfare of the vaccine companies only,” charges which would result in them facing the death penalty and confiscation of their assets in India.

The complaint notes that under Indian law, one can be found guilty for false marketing of a product via “commission and omission.”

The complaint also references the activity of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in India, including its alleged encouragement of a partnership between AstraZeneca and Oxford University to develop the Covishield vaccine, which was then delivered to countries such as India.

The BMGF is also noted to have previously committed, in June 2020, $750 million towards the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine at Oxford University, and conditional funding of $150 million to the Serum Institute.

In a posting on his official blog in December 2020, Gates wrote that his foundation “took on some of the financial risk” for the vaccine, so that if the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine was not approved, the Serum Institute “won’t have to take a full loss.”

The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint references prior court rulings against Gates and the BMGF in India. One such example is an Indian Supreme Court ruling in Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India(2018) regarding the death of eight female children who took part in an unauthorized trial of two Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: Gardasil, manufactured by Merck, and Cervarix, produced by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

The trial, which began in 2009, took place in two Indian states, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. It was carried out by an American NGO, the Seattle-based Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), which is connected to the BMGF’s Children’s Vaccine Program.

In reference to these deaths, the Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint refers to a report by an Indian parliamentary committee that found government officials were “involved in the conspiracy,” along with a recommendation that the BMGF and other NGOs associated with Gates be investigated.

According to the complaint, “the evidentiary value” of the report was upheld in the Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India case.

The controversy over the deaths that resulted from the HPV vaccine trial led to a grassroots campaign in India in May 2021, calling for Gates and his foundation to be charged for these deaths, as they had funded the vaccination program.

The #ArrestBillGates hashtag trended on Indian Twitter that month as a result of this campaign, accusing Gates and his organization of using the girls as “guinea pigs.”

Parental consent was in many cases not obtained for the participation of the girls in the trial, which involved 14,000 tribal girls between the ages of 10 and 14, many of whom lived not with their parents but in government-run hostels.

In some instances, parental ‘consent’ consisted of a thumbprint impression from the girls’ poor and illiterate parents, while for many girls, no consent forms whatsoever could be located.

Symptoms the girls experienced included epileptic seizures, early onset of menstruation, heavy bleeding, severe menstrual cramps, severe stomach aches, headaches and mood swings.

An Indian government investigation concluded the girls’ deaths were unconnected to the vaccination, but ethical and regulatory failings in the vaccine trial were discovered, which resulted in the BMGF being restricted from the country’s vaccination program in 2013.

Despite this, the foundation continued to work with the Indian Health Ministry via the latter’s Immunization Technical Support Unit (ITSU).

Nevertheless, the investigative committee’s conclusion that the deaths were not vaccine-related, but instead due to such causes as suicide, accidental drowning, malaria, viral infections and subarachnoid hemorrhage, did not go unquestioned.

Representatives of the Sama Women’s Health NGO visited one of the affected regions, Khammam, in March 2010, on a fact-finding mission. As reported by India’s Economic Times, the Sama report found “HPV vaccine as a possible, if not probable, cause of suicidal ideation cannot be ruled out” for the girls’ deaths.

The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint also calls out the activities of Gates and the BMGF with regard to the administration of polio vaccines in India, funded by the BMGF to the tune of $450 million.

The program foresaw the administration of 50 doses of the vaccine to children below the age of five, via overlapping vaccination programs.

This campaign was blamed for “a devastating non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children [in India] beyond expected rates between 2000 and 2017.”

In 2017, Gates’ involvement in the polio vaccine campaign was “dialed back.” Following this, “NPAFP rates dropped precipitously.”

As detailed in a scientific study published in 2012:

“Nationally, the non-polio AFP rate is now 12 times higher than expected. In the states of Uttar Pradesh (UP) and Bihar, which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month, the non-polio AFP rate is 25- and 35-fold higher than the international norms … children who were identified with non-polio AFP were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.

“The international incidence of non-polio AFP is said to be 1 to 2/100,000 in the populations under 15 … In 2011, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed in the year, over and above the standard 2/100,000 non-polio AFP that is generally accepted as the norm … [t]his large excess in the incidence of paralysis was not investigated as a possible signal, nor was any effort made to try and study the mechanism for this spurt in non-polio AFP.

“From India’s perspective the exercise has been extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.”

The specific vaccine administered to Indian children was the oral polio vaccine. As of Jan. 1, 2000, the CDC withdrew this vaccine from immunization schedules except in “special circumstances,” as the oral vaccine was itself found to be causing polio.

Nevertheless, Gates had reportedly hired a well-known Indian actor, Amitabh Bachchan, to promote the oral polio vaccine via a series of television advertisements.

Gates, Poonawalla at the center of vaccine controversy in India

India has stood out among most of the world’s countries by not offering blanket immunity to manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines.

In 2021, the Indian government’s negotiations with Pfizer fell through when Indian regulators refused to provide it legal protection via indemnity.

Such protection was not provided to the three COVID-19 vaccines that received an emergency use authorization in India: Covishield, Covaxin and Sputnik V.

This did not occur without dissent, however. Poonawalla, as head of the India-based Serum Institute, had called for protection from lawsuits for COVID vaccine injuries.

The Yadav v. Maharashtra complaint describes Poonawalla and other personnel of the Serum Institute, which manufactures the Covishield vaccine, as “complicit” in Kadve’s death, and as “habitual offenders of earning profits by selling vaccines with death-causing side effects,” placing them “in the category of mass murderers.”

However, the controversy over Gates’ and Poonawalla’s vaccine-related work in India spans beyond the Yadav v. Maharashtra case.

In April 2021, for instance, Gates and the BMGF received criticism for their refusal to share COVID-19 vaccine technologies with India and other developing countries.

This criticism prompted the CEO of the BMGF, Mark Suzman, to reverse course and support a temporary waiver on vaccine-related intellectual property.

In 2006, the BMGF co-founded, with the Indian government, the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) as a public-private partnership. The PHFI is funded, in part, by pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Merck.

The PHFI has also been active in producing research related to COVID-19, with at least one such study, titled “Impact of Crop Diversity on Dietary Diversity among Farmers in India during the COVID-19,” also crossing over into the agricultural realm.

In Gates’ aforementioned Nov. 2019 visit to India, he heaped praise on three Indian vaccine manufacturers, including the Serum Institute.

But Gates’ connection to the Serum Institute goes beyond verbal praise. Since November 2012, the Serum Institute has been the recipient of BMGF grants — in that initial instance for the development of an HPV vaccine. Gates toured the Serum Institute earlier that year.

The Serum Institute received a $4 million grant from the BMGF in October 2020 to support research and development as part of the COVID-19 response, while in August 2020, the Serum Institute, in partnership with the BMGF and GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance, agreed to produce up to 100 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines for low- and middle-income countries.

Also known as the “Vaccine Alliance,” GAVI proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

GAVI was established in 1999, with the BMGF as one of its co-founders and one of its four permanent board members.

GAVI then goes on to describe its core partnership with various international organizations, including the WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank and the BMGF.

As previously reported by The Defender, GAVI, through its INFUSE initiative, has called for “innovations that leverage new technologies to modernize the process of identifying and registering the children who are most in need of life-saving vaccines.”

GAVI also closely collaborates with the ID2020 Alliance, founded in 2016, which claims to advocate in favor of “ethical, privacy-protecting approaches to digital ID,” adding that “doing digital ID right means protecting civil liberties.

Microsoft is a founding member of the ID2020 alliance (in 2018) and appears to partner with it, while Kim Gagné, ID2020’s board chairman, is a former Microsoft executive.

Controversy has surrounded GAVI’s activity in India. GAVI, along with the PHFI and the BMGF, have promoted the Pentavalent vaccine, which combines five vaccines – diphtheria, hepatitis B, tetanus, whooping cough, and haemophilus influenza type B (which causes pneumonia and meningitis) – into one.

The Indian Health Ministry found the deaths of three infants in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu to have had “a consistent causal association to immunization” — that is, to the Pentavalent vaccine, while in total, 54 infant deaths were classified with the AEFI as adverse reaction deaths.

GAVI provided a $165 million grant in August 2009 for the phased introduction of Pentavalent in India, in addition to subsidizing each injection for five years thereafter.

Regulatory capture and a “revolving door” between the Indian government and GAVI also appears to exist, as in the example of Anuradha Gupta, formerly an official with the Indian Health Ministry and director of the National Health Mission. Gupta in 2014 was named deputy CEO of GAVI, and remains in the position to this day.

Gates involved in controversial digital ID schemes in India

In 2009, the Indian government launched a national digital identification card system known asAadhaar, now the world’s largest biometric identification system.

The Aadhaar Card contains biometric and demographic data and provides individuals with a unique 12-digit identity number, though it is in and of itself not considered proof of Indian citizenship, just of Indian residence.

The Aadhaar identification number was linked with numerous public and private services, including the opening of bank accounts, verification of electoral identity, filing income tax returns, making digital payments, receiving government pensions, subsidies and welfare payments and registration of mobile SIM cards.

Aadhaar has generated controversy in India, such as over the government’s plans to link it to the national voter database.

And in 2017, it was reported that HIV patients in India were being coerced into submitting their Aadhaar number, leading them to drop out of treatment programs due to privacy concerns.

Chinese hackers also reportedly targeted the Aadhaar database.

Aadhaar also was at the center of legal controversy. A 2013 ruling by the Indian Supreme Court found no person should be denied government services, benefits or subsidies for not possessing the Aadhaar card.

A subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 2018 upheld the constitutionality of the Aadhaar system, but found it cannot be made mandatory for use by private organizations, such as banks or mobile providers.

Civil society groups in India, such as the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, expressed opposition to Aadhaar on the basis of privacy concerns. The National Advisory Council and the Central Employment Guarantee Council of India opposed Aadhaar “on the grounds of civil liberties.”

Nevertheless, Gates, on his personal blog, praised Aadhaar — describing it as “a valuable platform for delivering social welfare programs and other government services” — and Nandan Nilekani, who developed the Aadhaar system and who now works with the World Bank Group to help other countries develop similar schemes.

Gates also dismissed privacy concerns surrounding Aadhaar, stating that “Aadhaar in itself doesn’t pose any privacy issue because it’s just a bio ID verification scheme,” adding that “We [the BMGF] have funded the World Bank to take this Aadhaar approach to other countries.”

In 2020, the Indian government announced the launch of the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission, a system that would complement Aadhaar by providing a unique digital health ID to all citizens and that would be linked to their personal health records.

The program was initially trialed in six Indian regions and was launched nationally on Sept. 27, 2021. As of Nov. 2021, 96% of Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission users were linked with Aadhaar.

The launch earned Gates’ praise. He tweeted congratulations to Indian President Modi, stating the program “will help ensure equitable, accessible healthcare delivery and accelerate progress on India’s health goals.”

Notably, in October 2021, the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission received a $350,690 grant from the BMGF to support its “rollout and strengthening,” raising concerns regarding privacy, informed consent and data leakage.

Freedom of information requests revealed that Indian authorities generated health IDs for individuals who provided their Aadhaar number when receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, enrolling them in the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission without informed consent.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from CHD

Rapidly Growing Economic Inequalities in India

January 21st, 2022 by Dr. Gian Singh

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rapidly Growing Economic Inequalities in India

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.

***

.

.

.

*

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 a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Devastated Parents Talk About How COVID Vaccines Killed or Crippled Their Children

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.

***

In March 2020 the UK Government announced that the country “must stay at home” in order to “protect the NHS” and “save lives”. But little did the public know, the UK Government was in the process of implementing policies that would lead to the unnecessary killing of the UK’s elderly and most vulnerable, who you were told had died of Covid-19, and the “Death Document” proves it.

Between 2 March and 12 June 2020, 18,562 residents of care homes in England died with COVID-19, including 18,168 people aged 65 and over, representing almost 40% of all deaths involving COVID-19 in England during this period.

Of these deaths, 13,844 (76%) happened in care homes themselves; nearly all of the remainder occurred in a hospital. During the same period, 28,186 “excess deaths” were recorded in care homes in England, representing a 46% increase compared with the same period in previous years.

A number of decisions and policies adopted by authorities at the national and local level in the UK violated care home residents rights to life, to health, and to non-discrimination. These include, notably:

Serious illness in Covid-19 presents pneumonia and accompanying respiratory insufficiency. Therefore typical symptoms include breathlessness, cough, weakness and fever. We’re also told that people who suffer deteriorating respiratory failure and who do not receive intensive care, develop acute respiratory distress syndrome with severe breathlessness.

With that in mind here is an important warning applied to Midazolam courtesy of the US National Library of Medicine –

Midazolam injection may cause serious or life-threatening breathing problems such as shallow, slowed, or temporarily stopped breathing that may lead to permanent brain injury or death. You should only receive this medication in a hospital or doctor’s office that has the equipment that is needed to monitor your heart and lungs and to provide life-saving medical treatment quickly if your breathing slows or stops. Your doctor or nurse will watch you closely after you receive this medication to make sure that you are breathing properly.

So can the UK Government explain why the “Death Document” published in April 2020 instructs doctors to treat Covid-19 patients with Midazolam, and why during the same month out of hospital prescribing for Midazolam was twice the amount seen in 2019?

A damning report released by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in November 2020 found that thirty-four-percent of people working in health and social care were pressured into placing ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) orders on Covid-19 patients who suffered from disabilities and learning difficulties, without involving the patient or their families in the decision.

The CQC was commissioned by the Department for Health and Social Care, under section 48 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to conduct a special review of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic (full report can be found here).

After conducting their investigation the CQC found evidence of unacceptable and inappropriate DNACPR’s being made throughout the pandemic and said it was possible that cases of inappropriate DNACPR’s remain in place.

However the CQC investigation found that throughout the “pandemic” this guidance was not being followed as they had received deeply troubling evidence from numerous sources that during the COVID19 pandemic DNACPR notices have been applied in a blanket fashion to some categories of person by some care providers, without any involvement of the individuals or their families.

Almost 10% of people using services or families who responded to their call for evidence told the British Institute of Human Rights that they had experienced pressure or use of DNACPR orders. Thirty-four per cent of people working in health and/or social care said they were under pressure to put DNACPR’s in place without involving the person. In addition, 71% of advocacy organisations and campaigners said they experienced DNACPR orders put in place or pressure to make them without being involved in the decision.

And those DNACPR orders were wrongly used as an excuse to begin end of life care.

Which is why it is not surprising to find that according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), three in every five alleged Covid-19 deaths up to 20th November 2020, occurred in those who suffered learning difficulties and disabilities (see here).

Source – ONS

In relation to deaths of people with learning difficulties the ONS said – ‘the largest effect was associated with living in a care home or other communal establishment.

The Death Document

NICE is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is an agency of the National Health Service and develops guidance and recommendations on the effectiveness of treatments and medical procedures.

NICE claims to be an independent organisation but in truth it seems to be anything but once you look into its structure. On this page HERE you will see the quote “Our Structure – The structure of the organisation and how we work with the government”. Following the link to the “Our Structure” page HERE, and then clicking “Find out more about how we develop guidelines” takes you to a page HERE from which is it clearly stated that “Topics are referred to NICE from the following organisations”:

  • Healthcare topics: NHS England
  • Public health topics: Department of Health and Social Care
  • Social care topics: Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Education.

A copy of the NICE framework is HERE which you can go through at your leisure. As you will see at Clause 4.1 “The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the health system (its “steward”), including NICE”.

All the above information points to NICE not being independent at all. It is clearly part of the UK government, (NICE is funded by and accountable to the Department of Health and Social Care) and operates as an agency of the NHS. Further, and worryingly, given that it does not appear to be an independent organisation, the reach of NICE is extremely wide ranging given their guidance is implemented not only in hospitals, but in GP practices, and care homes and community organisations, along with others, and extends internationally.

It is with all the above in mind, that we must ask the question “Are the UK government, via the Department of Health and Social Care, responsible in any way for NICE guideline NG163 which led to the unnecessary killing of the UK’s elderly and most vulnerable by recommending the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the “treatment” of Covid 19?”

This document is tricky to find. If you search for it on the NICE website, you will reach a page that states that this guidance has been updated by NG191, which supersedes it. There is no library copy of NG163 for you to look at.

Clare Wills Harrison, a lawyer who has been exposing the Midazolam scandal since 2020, found NG163 some time ago along with multiple other documents which have since come to light and are relevant to the Midazolam issue. It is fair to say that NG163 has directly led to the incorrect use of a protocol which Clare and her team call “the death pathway”, and they have come to the conclusion that where the word “pathway” appears in any medical recommendations, this is normally a cause for concern.

You can read NG163 yourself by clicking HERE.

When you read NG163, note the date – 3rd April 2020. This was less than 2 weeks after the UK entered lock down. Even if we concede that NICE, via the government, were working on treatment guidelines from January 2020, when early reports of Covid 19 were circulating around the world, that would have given NICE only 3 months to formulate the guidance in NG163. It is inconceivable that NICE could have the evidence and effectiveness information about the use of Midazolam and Opioids for the treatment of breathlessness and anxiety in Covid 19, within this time frame.

NG163 clearly states, Midazolam did not have a UK marketing licence to be used for breathlessness or agitation at the date of its publication. If prescribed for the same, it would therefore be regarded as being used off label. A PowerPoint presentation created by Clare Wills Harrison (see here) explains the extra requirements placed on anyone prescribing a medicine off label. You should also consider the consistent refusal by the UK health agencies to allow prescribing off label for other cheap anti-viral drugs to treat Covid.

Source

The GMC regulates doctors in the United Kingdom. They set standards, hold a register, quality assure education and investigate complaints.

On 14th April the GMC put out a “Joint statement: Community-based prescribing for COVID-19 symptoms” which you can find HERE.

The joint statement irrefutably supports the NICE guidance in NG163-

Source

Source

Lawyer Clare Wills Harrison spoke to Dr Bryan Ardis in detail about the “Death Document” and more in the video below –

*

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 InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Death Document – Evidence the UK Government Authorised “Mass Murder” of the Elderly and Vulnerable by Midazolam Injection and Then Blamed COVID-19
  • Tags: , , ,

Dr. Meryl Nass’ Testimony Against Vaccine Mandates

January 21st, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD867 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm”

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism, testified in favor of the bill

All currently available COVID shots in the U.S. are experimental. None is licensed. Comirnaty, which has received full license, is not available in the U.S., and won’t be made available as long as doses of the Emergency Use Authorized Pfizer shot, BNT162b2, remain

Since the COVID shots are experimental, U.S. law requires potential recipients to have the right to refuse. Experimental drugs also cannot be mandated, and potential recipients must give written informed consent. Informed consent cannot be given when reports of side effects are censored and not disclosed

Some foundational safety studies are just now starting and won’t be completed until 2027

*

January 11, 2022, the Health and Human Services Committee of the Maine legislature held a public hearing on LD8671 “An Act to Prohibit Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations for 5 Years to Allow for Safety Testing and Investigations Into Reproductive Harm.”

The American Cancer Society is vehemently opposed to this rational bill.2 In some twisted, incomprehensible logic, the ACS claims that banning mandatory COVID jabs would “place the health of cancer patients at greater risk.” How, one might ask, could that happen, considering the jabbed are just as likely to contract and spread the virus?

Getting the shot in no way, shape or form protects anyone around you. So, what could it be? One can only wonder if the ACS’ opposition has anything to do with their “long-standing partnership”with vaccine maker Pfizer, which in 2020 alone helped the ACS hand out $3.7 million in grants4 — but which also happens to produce one of the COVID mRNA injections?

If vaccine mandates are upheld, ACS’ partner, Pfizer, has lots to gain. But if mandates are banned, they could have plenty to lose. Among those who testified in favor of the bill was Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist with a special interest in vaccine-induced illnesses and expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism.

In her testimony, Nass presented several key reasons for why we need to prevent COVID jab mandates until there’s adequate safety data. Nass’ testimony is posted on her blog, anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com.5 Here, I’ll provide a summary review of her key points.

The COVID Shots Are Experimental

Yes, the COVID shots are still experimental. No, there are no Food and Drug Administration-approved COVID shots AVAILABLE or IN USE in the United States, and experimental drugs cannot claim to be safe and effective. FDA Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Subchapter D Part 312:[3]6defines a medical experiment as “any use of a drug except for the use of a marketed drug in the course of medical practice,” and vaccines are a subset of drugs, per the FDA.

“While FDA licensed Comirnaty … only Emergency Use Authorized (experimental) vaccines are being used,” Nass notes.

What’s more, that term, “safe and effective,” is an FDA term that can only be applied to licensed drugs and vaccines. Since none of the COVID shots given is actually licensed, they are, by definition, experimental or investigational. Besides, trials have not yet concluded for any of the vaccine makers. They’re still ongoing.

“No matter what claims have been made regarding these vaccines, they are not ‘safe and effective,’” Nass says. “Medicines and vaccines are EITHER licensed products or experimental products. There is no gray area between them in U.S. law.

Whether or not research is explicitly conducted, the use of experimental products (including those issued under an Emergency Use Authorization) falls under the Nuremberg Code and under U.S. law regulating experimental drugs. As former FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn himself noted, ‘EUA products are still considered investigational.’”

Informed Consent and Option to Refuse Are Required by Law

So, the EUA COVID shots are, by definition, experimental, and when a person is offered an experimental product, U.S. law requires that they provide written informed consent.

Now, the informed consent requirement was loosened under the PREP Act that created the EUAs, but the law still requires that participants be informed “of the significant known and potential benefits and risks,” and “the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.” Moreover, they must have the option to accept or refuse the treatment.

To this day, participants in this global experiment have NOT been told of the potential risks. They receive no adequate disclosure form before they’re given the shot, and Big Tech in collusion with government has censored any and all discussion and disclosure of adverse effects.

Even those who are reporting their personal experiences are censored and/or deplatformed. For a taste of what those injured by the COVID jabs have had to endure, see Del Bigtree’s interview with three such victims.7

Click here to watch the video.

How Liability Is Being Skirted

Nass then goes on to explain why — seeing how the FDA has approved the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID shot called Comirnaty — this product is not actually being used in the U.S.

In short, it comes down to liability. The two products are not interchangeable (as confirmed in federal court8) because they are not identical in terms of liability under U.S. law. (The liability issue differs from country to country, which is likely why Comirnaty is available in Europe but not the U.S. Everything discussed here applies only to the U.S.)

Indeed, a federal district court judge in November 2021 rejected the U.S. Department of Defense’s claim that Pfizer’s EUA shot, BNT162b2, is interchangeable with the licensed Comirnaty.9 Why would Pfizer give up blanket immunity by withdrawing the remaining EUA lots and replacing them with a product they can be sued for by people who are injured?

The Pfizer-BioNTech EUA product, BNT162b2,10 has very limited financial liability for injuries and deaths, thanks to it being under EUA. This liability shield extends to the manufacturer, distributors, administrators, program planners and just about everyone else involved in the making, distribution and administering of this product.

Comirnaty, on the other hand, as a fully licensed product, does not enjoy this broad liability shield. It is subject to ordinary liability claims. Strangely enough, the FDA extended the EUA for BNT162b2 on the very same day it granted full license to Comirnaty, and Pfizer has no plan to make Comirnaty available in the United States as long as BNT162b2 doses are still available.11

Why didn’t the FDA pull the EUA for BNT162b2 once it licensed Comirnaty? They’re supposed to be identical products, so why the two wildly diverging and contradictory lines of approval?

By law, an EUA can only be granted when there are no other drugs available, so once a COVID shot was licensed, all EUA “vaccines” should actually have been pulled. As stated by the Children’s Health Defense in its lawsuit against the FDA and acting commissioner Janet Woodcock:12

“The black letter law is clear. There can be no biologic license approved to a medical product for diagnosing, preventing or treating COVID-19 if there is also still an Emergency Use Authorization for the same medical product serving the same purpose.”

I recently discussed this issue with Alix Mayer from Children’s Health Defense. If you are interested in more details please review the video below.

Click here to watch the video.

Unethical Bait-and-Switch

One logical strategy that can account for this unprecedented scenario is because the EUA product is liability-free and Comirnaty isn’t, and Pfizer would rather not shoulder the financial liability of this shot, considering the enormous number of injuries being reported.

At the same time, though, government wanted everyone to get the shot. They wanted the ability to push vaccine requirements for work and school. But without a licensed COVID shot, any mandate would be unquestionably illegal, as anyone has the right to refuse an EUA product. Quite the pickle. So, it seems this is the irregular workaround they cooked up. As noted by Nass:

“FDA appears to have been acceding to the White House demand that the vaccine be licensed, in order for it to be mandated for large sectors of the U.S. population. Under an EUA, which specifies that potential recipients have the right to refuse, mandates cannot be imposed.

So, a license was issued, allowing the administration to inform the public that the vaccine was fully approved and licensed. But in fact, the public was unable to access the licensed vaccine. Why was this convoluted regulatory process performed? While under EUA, Pfizer has an almost bulletproof liability shield.”

Why They’re Pushing the COVID Jab on Children

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has offered an additional theory for why the FDA circumvented standard processes. He believes it’s part of a larger scheme that includes expanding the EUA for use in children before Comirnaty is released.

Once BNT162b2 is used in children, they can then push to have Comirnaty added to the childhood vaccination schedule. At present, under the Biologics License Application approval issued August 23, 2021, Comirnaty is only licensed for use in individuals 16 years of age and older.13

Once added to the childhood vaccination schedule, Comirnaty would gain a robust shield against financial liability for injuries — including injuries occurring in adults who receive the shot.

Foundational Safety Studies Are Only Now Getting Started

Nass also points out that the COVID jab trials are far from over — in fact some have not yet begun — and until they’re actually completed, no one can claim that these shots are known to be safe. Nass writes:14

“FDA instructed Pfizer-BioNTech that FDA’s Congressionally-mandated databases are inadequate to assess the danger of myocarditis (and other potential COVID vaccine side effects) and therefore Pfizer-BioNTech must perform studies to evaluate these risks over the next six years15

These studies were to be performed on BOTH products: the licensed Comirnaty and the EUA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Note that they include the requirement for safety study in pregnancy, which will not be completed until December 31, 2025 …

FDA’s admission that it cannot assess these safety risks, and that up to six years will be taken to study them, provides us with additional de facto evidence that the Pfizer vaccines cannot be termed safe, as many of the fundamental safety studies are only now getting started.”

The WHO Does Not Recommend COVID Jab for Children

Lastly, Nass points out that the World Health Organization does not recommend giving the COVID jab to healthy children, as they experience very mild SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to adults.

“More evidence is needed on the use of the different COVID-19 vaccines in children to be able to make general recommendations on vaccinating children against COVID-19 … Vaccine trials for children are ongoing and WHO will update its recommendations when the evidence or epidemiological situation warrants a change in policy,” the WHO states on its website.16

“If the World Health Organization believes there is insufficient evidence to support general vaccination of normal children, why would this committee and the Maine Legislature think otherwise?” Nass asks.

Summary of Key Arguments

In closing, Nass sums up her arguments with the following list:

Maine Medical Board Suspends Nass’ Medical License

On the same day that Nass provided these data to the Maine legislature, January 11, 2022, the state’s medical licensing board voted to suspend Nass’ medical license for 30 days, pending further investigation, on the grounds of her “spreading COVID misinformation,” which included a Twitter post linking to one of my articles. As reported by The Hill:17

“The board reported that it had received two complaints concerning Nass, who is an internist in Ellsworth, Maine, and an active member of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense … The complaints alleged that Nass had spread misinformation about COVID-19.

Nass has reportedly been critical of vaccine effectiveness and supported the use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19, despite insufficient evidence that they are effective in fighting the virus. The board is also looking to conduct a psychological evaluation of Nass …”

It’s hard to believe that this action is anything but a bullying tactic intended to shut her up, because she knows her stuff and she’s not afraid to share the unvarnished truth. In its order, the State of Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine claims that:18

“… the continued ability of Dr. Nass to practice as a physician in the State of Maine constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services, and that it is necessary to immediately suspend her ability to practice medicine in order to adequately respond to this risk.”

In a January 13, 2022, Substack post, Steve Kirsch commented on the Maine medical board’s decision:19

“Dr. Nass is guilty of prescribing FDA-approved drugs that have been shown in dozens of trials to be beneficial in treating COVID20 … Here’s the interesting thing: had she prescribed nothing for these patients, she wouldn’t have been cited.”

Doctors who save lives using drugs proven safe over decades of use are stripped of their licenses and ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation, while doctors who kill patients by either refusing to treat them or by using unproven experimental drugs are “sane” and get to keep theirs. That’s where we’re at. It’s beyond tragic.

In the end, though, Meryl — like the rest of us — will be vindicated, of that I have no doubt. I have had the opportunity to get to know her over the years and have done many interviews with her. I remain confident that although this is clearly a challenge, she will come out better on the other side.

*

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.

Notes

1 Maine LD867

2 Fight Cancer January 10, 2022

3 American Cancer Society Partners Pfizer

4 American Cancer Society Pfizer Community Grants November 17, 2020

5, 14 Anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com January 10, 2022

6 FDA.gov CFR Title 21

7 The Highwire They Don’t Want to See People Like Us

8, 9, 12 The Defender November 30, 2021

10 FDA.gov EUA for BNT162b2

11 Daily Med September 13, 2021

13, 15 FDA.gov BLA Approval BioNTech August 23, 2021

16 WHO.int COVID-19 Advice for the Public

17 The Hill January 12, 2022

18 News Center Maine January 12, 2022

19 Steve Kirsch Substack January 13, 2022

20 C19early.com Real-Time Analysis of Studies

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 @crg_globalresearch.

***

First published on GR in November 2021.

The last surviving architect of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms condemned the “callous” and “unconstitutional” abuses of the 1982 Charter by Canadian governments in the name of the so-called COVID pandemic.

Brian Peckford, the former premier of Newfoundland, spoke out strongly against the transgressions performed against each citizen’s Charter rights via vaccine mandates and other COVID-related measures, in a video seminar hosted by pro-freedom group Action4Canada Wednesday evening.

“I never thought in my wildest dreams, that the day I am now a part of would ever come,” lamented Peckford. “I don’t think anybody … the people at the [1982] conference, ever thought that the day would come … that the governments of this nation would so callously look upon the Charter of Rights today as they are doing, have done in the last two years, and are doing as we speak.”

Explaining the importance and relevance of the Charter in these unprecedented times, Peckford outlined the most important aspects of the 1982 document and described the transgressions occurring today at the hands of Canadian governments.

Section 52 of that Charter says the supreme law of Canada is the Constitution (of which the Charter is a part), no other law supersedes this constitutional law,” Peckford paraphrased. “So, you are on safe ground … when we talk about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we’re talking about the supreme law of Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms are in the Constitution.”

“As mentioned earlier, there are at least four provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are extremely important: Section 2, Section 6, Section 7, and Section 15,” added Peckford. “And [Section] 2 has to do with your freedom of expression, your freedom of conscience, your freedom of religion, your freedom of assembly, your freedom of association. That’s under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Make no mistake about it.”

Emphasizing the importance of the other provisions, Peckford highlights the “Mobility Rights” protected under Section 6. In Canada, various levels of government, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government, have placed restrictions on Canadians’ freedom of movement throughout the coronavirus crisis. Including “stay-at-home” orders in various provinces, barring certain citizens from traveling interprovincially, and most recently, banning the unvaccinated from interprovincial travel via plane, train, or sea.

“You and I, as citizens of Canada, have the right to travel anywhere in Canada, and even leave Canada. That’s a right! Enshrined in the supreme law of Canada,” explained Peckford. “It’s amazing when you look at what’s going on now to think, that the government would even attempt to violate these things.”

Touching on Section 7 regarding the right to “Life, Liberty, and Security of the Person,” Peckford states, “You have a right to freedom, you have a right to your security as a person. In other words, these injections are completely beyond the scope of the Charter and are illegal or unconstitutional.”

Further stressing the point, Peckford explains that Section 15 guarantees that each Canadian, regardless of their status in life, has the “equal” protection of the aforementioned sections outlined in the Charter. Suggesting that any method of medical-based discrimination is illegal and outrighted prohibited by Canadian law.

“Section 15 says everybody has the right to equality before the law. We are all equal. We are all equal before the law of Canada,” said Peckford. “Section 2, Section 6, Section 7, and Section 15, are the ‘gems’ of the Charter from individual rights and freedoms point of view.”

Peckford describes that per Section 1 of the Constitution Act of 1982, the only means in which the government can “override” these fundamental rights in any capacity, is if “they can demonstrably justify” taking those actions.

According to Peckford and Section 1, “demonstrably” justifying the measures has to be done “in law” within “reasonable limits” in accordance with a “free and democratic society.”

Per Peckford,

“not one government: federal, provincial, or territorial, has demonstrably justified what they are doing,” there “is not one cost-benefit analysis, there’s not one study, there’s not one report, by any government, that says, ‘Here is our argument justifying the new measures we are bringing in to fight this so-called pandemic.’ None. Zero. There isn’t any.”

Assessing how the current situation came about, Peckford states, “One of our great problems today, of why we are where we are, is that our government has been sliding down a very slippery slope for 40 or 50 years.”

“This just didn’t happen yesterday, or didn’t happen with the pandemic. It happened long before, where the power of our parliament, and the power of our legislatures, was gradually eroded without a shot being fired, and the movement of that power went from the MP (member of parliament) … to the Cabinet, then … to the Prime Minister’s office.”

Peckford’s evaluation of the Charter and its relevance to Canadian citizens in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis is nearly identical to that of constitutional rights lawyer Rocco Galati.

Galati, in an August press conference regarding his lawsuit against various levels of government with Action4Canada founder Tanya Gaw, also affirmed that many of the actions taken by Canadian governments are “illegal” and “unconstitutional”, including “the ordering of isolation, lockdowns, masking, social distancing and, without making full, true and plain disclosure of the known risks thereof, mandating and promoting dangerous experimental medical injections which they know, or ought to know, cause adverse reactions and death.”

“This is depraved, this is illegal, this is criminal, this is unconstitutional,” added the lawyer. There is “no scientific basis to the measures,” and “[we] can prove that in a court of law.”

*

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: Brian Peckfordscreenshot/YouTube/ CBC NL – Newfoundland and Labrador

Parasite Empire Unravelled

January 21st, 2022 by Hiroyuki Hamada

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.

***

So before Covid, a local school where one of my kids used to attend had prominent race issues. Namely, teachers were being accused of being blind to obvious racist incidences against black students.

The normalized notion of racism was so rampant that the school was forced to embrace some sort of deprogramming sessions by a parent-led committee on the issue.  However, this committee itself was ultimately deemed rather racist in its own way by the school’s black alumni group.

To me, at the end, it became rather obvious that the whole momentum was part of a corporate political campaign for the Democratic Party establishment.  The same people who raised their fists and said “Black Lives Matter” turned out to be the supporters of Joe Biden who has bragged that he was the architect of crime bills and The Patriot Act—the very root of the school to prison pipeline, the racist, colonial “war on terror,” the prison industrial complex and so on.  Is irony completely dead as “reality” continues to be stretched to fit the ruling class interests? In the end, I felt so dirty and violated to be a part of that committee’s activities.

Fast forward to the “Black-Lives-Matter only if you are vaccinated era”, and this school is voluntarily implementing a strict mandatory vaccine policy with few exemptions.  My son doesn’t like to gossip and he never really talks behind anyone’s back. But the other day, he said that the whole school is basically bullying the few kids that have not received the experimental injections.  He was particularly upset about his Black friend being given a hard time, after being subjected to the blatant racism previously.

There are some harsh numbers regarding race related matters and the Covid “vaccines”.  In NYC, where Covid “vaccine” mandates are effectively shutting people out from indoor activities, roughly half the Black people have chosen not to receive the experimental injections.

How can anyone justify segregating half the Black people from indoor activities? What is that?

And what is wrong with businesses that, without a mandate, voluntarily exclude unvaccinated people from entering their premises when statistical risk factors for getting the illness in question range from obesity to old age to having chronic conditions.

To be clear, the efficacy of the Covid injections are being debated by scientists and doctors vigorously, along with their safety issues. Yet, there are business owners who are calling themselves “community leaders” for being medical cheer leaders for big pharma, proud of being brownnosed social climbers at the expense of those who make their own medical choices.  And if we take the whole US,  40% of small Black-owned businesses have been wiped out.  This whole virus event is a giant urban renewal push disguised as war on virus—don’t they realize what people have gone through with war on crime, war on drugs and so on?

The cozy Covid life for privileged, resourced people who can work from home or afford not to work is propped up in many ways at the expense of many who are suffering under the economic restructuring process for the oligarchy.  An unprecedented wealth transfer from the already exploited population to extremely rich and powerful people has been ongoing for the past two years, while the kind of neoliberal restructuring they’ve been dreaming about has been implemented in the name of saving lives.

It’s really demoralizing to really understand that the mechanism of exploitation and subjugation is rather simple.  The power of the wealthy oligarchs is so huge that they own everything.  They own the media.  They own the politics.  They own the governments. They own the scientists.  They own the military.

And the same people who own everything tell us that we have to respect the separation of powers, we have to rely on “representative democracy,” and we have to obey the legal system which is ultimately ruled by Supreme Court judges who are appointed by, well, the same people who own everything. Needless to say, the whole thing is made to divide us and consecrate the rich and powerful as priests of capitalism, because they own everything and all powers are designed to concentrate in their hands, while  the people are effectively deprived of all power.

In the US, the power of the people is represented by two corrupt corporate political parties.  I mean, they don’t really represent people, but they pretend that they do.  The situation is so obvious and blatant that it is tedious to even mention, but the reality is that this mechanism of two corporate entities engaging in ritualistic battles within a strictly curated capitalist framework has been so effective in staging the appearance of “democracy” that it is hard to discuss the social dynamics in the US without it.  No matter what ideological leaning one has as an American, the larger than life theater of historical myths, dramas, glories of wars, nationalistic emotions and the reverence of the American flag are likely to be a part of the internalized authority which builds its footings in the minds and the bodies of those who are born on this land.

Today, many of the rich and powerful are associated with the Democratric Party—for example, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Bill Gates, and so on. This is strange because it is the Republican Party that is supposed to represent business interests.

Recent numbers also indicate the trend:

 “Some recent US figures on the distribution of income by party: 65 percent of taxpayer households that earn more than $500,000 per year are now in Democratic districts; 74 percent of the households in Republican districts earn less than $100,000 per year. Add to this what we knew already, namely that the 10 richest congressional districts in the country all have Democratic representatives in Congress.”

Anyway, it really doesn’t matter because when people play politics—meaning you cheer for one of the corrupt political parties—you are not supposed to talk about how money controls social institutions and how our values, beliefs and norms are determined by the interests of the ruling class, and how the economic caste order effectively enforces capitalist imperatives to perpetuate the reign of money and violence.

Believe it or not, today, this sort of understanding is labeled as “conspiracy.”  Right, you are a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nut case if you happen to call out corporate crimes, their criminal conspiracies and so on and so forth.   How obvious can it get? Rich people dominate corporate politics with the good old righteousness of exceptionalism, and a colonial attitude with the kinder, gentler face of liberal politics, and it is perfectly OK to call a simple Marxist analysis of exploitation a “conspiracy.”

The tendency to obscure the mechanism of capitalism is mirrored exactly among many of those who oppose the overwhelming push for Covid lockdowns, Covid “vaccine” mandates and so on. For many of those who stand on the other side of the virus event, the entire mobilization is described as a “communist takeover.” That’s right.  All those diehard capitalists who have been conspiring to perpetuate their interests through World Economic Forum, IMF, World Bank and so on are communists now. How convenient?  You can’t have capitalism without opportunism.

But the whole thing makes perfect sense. Both ends of the capitalist spectrum, fascists and social democrats, have always struggled to perpetuate capitalist hegemony together. At the end of the day, their ultimate goal is to perpetuate the capitalist caste hierarchy and their righteous positions within it.

One step with the left leg goes forward as the right leg moves forward to balance the momentum of the imperial hegemony — just as the hopelessly corrupt Hilary Clinton gives birth to a Donald Trump Presidency, which, in turn, gives the Democratic Party a reason to exist.  Left, right, left, right, the empire moves forward as it gently shifts its weight left to right.  As they march the imperial-scape together, they sing derogatory smears against any revolutionary momentum.  Both sides are free to argue and fight as long as they adhere to the imperial imperatives of capitalism.  The corporate media ensure that the narratives are told to fit this dynamic.  Those who do not belong to the dynamics are portrayed as “others”–fringe extremists to be demonized from multiple angles.

How does the empire gain its mythical aura of authority?  Easy. They play a good old protection racket scheme against unsuspecting “good people.”

For example, they tell people that terrorists are coming, while “secretly” funding the killers in ways which are not so secret to the people. People get the idea: “Oh I see. we have to pay the protection fee. Otherwise, we get fucked up.” Or, for example, they tell people that plague is coming, and force people to get injected with special medicines.  If the people refuse, their jobs are taken away, their families are split apart, you can’t eat at a restaurant and so on. They can effectively turn everyone into a dangerous element with an infection until proven “healthy” by the designated means of the authority.  There goes the presumption of innocence along with informed consent out of the door.

This is a big deal. There is a huge reason why an authority must prove someone guilty without a reasonable doubt.  Otherwise, people can be arbitrarily accused of committing any crime and then punished for it.  And without informed consent, people can be forced to drink Cool Aid just because they are told to do so. Moreover, as soon as the feudal overloads deal with the life and death of the people, they effectively consecrate themself as gods.  A politician would claim that Covid “vaccines” are sent by God.  Cultural figures would start accusing those who refuse the medication of “defying the law of nature,” defying “science” and so on, effectively turning Bill Gates and the rest of the snake oil salesmen into gods of our times.

So now it seems that even this pretend “democracy” is being taken away by the acceptance of decrees under an “emergency” just like any other fascist take-over.

Colonizing humanity and nature

How is it even possible though?  The capitalist assaults come in stages. First, it attacks to destabilize, infiltrate and tear communities apart.  It destroys the fabric of communities and turns vital institutions useless.  It cultivates the ground on which the invaders can turn themselves into the new providers of artificial social relations, resources and facts. Then the colonizers embark on domesticating people with their own beliefs, norms and values to exploit them and subjugate them.

Social institutions are taken over by capital. As they lose their functions for the people, they are further bought and sold by the oligarchs to transform themselves into machines for the ruling class interests. In every step of the process, people are mobilized to destroy and reassemble their own institutions only to be domesticated by the resulting fake institution for the ruling class. Corporate NGOs, corporate think tanks, paid academics, paid scientists, corporate politicians are always ready to help in this regard.  This is how education has been taken away from the people.  This is how healthcare has been taken away.  This is how politics has been taken away.

The people’s institutions are intentionally deprived of resources so that they must rely on the rich and powerful to function.  Then, privatizing and corporatizing transform the institutions into entities for profit, indoctrination and domestication. The more you struggle financially, the more you are likely to be trapped in a cycle of exploitation—an ironic reality imposed by the capitalist hierarchy in which those who could gain the most by overthrowing the establishment are pressured the most to obey the capitalist imperatives. Meanwhile those with privileged positions are conditioned to protect the status quo.  Hierarchies of ideas, ideologies, religions, and people are formed.  The caste system built by all elements permeates the empire—what’s good for the empire naturally floats as the opposing elements sink systemically and structurally. People are forced to compete in serving the interests of the oligarchs regardless of the ultimate consequences to them.

This is how people are indoctrinated to hate the system that gives power to the people—socialism, and are forced to crave the system that strangles them—capitalism.  Here is a brief summary of how socialism is actively demonized in our society:

  1. Point out results of imperial assaults against socialist countries and claim socialism doesn’t work.Examples:Give them economic sanctions, then call the countries “economic disasters”.

    Send death squads to destabilize their countries, then call the enemies of the western hegemony “strong man,” “dictator,” “butcher” and so on.

    Attempt to overthrow the government by massive propaganda campaigns, then call them oppressive.

    2. Claim that no ideology, country or government is perfect, in order to ignore the injustice and inhumanity systematically and structurally imposed on the entire capitalist hegemony and beyond by the western ruling class.

    Examples:

Claim that socialism and capitalism are the same when they are not historically and in practice.  Capitalism is a system guided by forces of accumulated wealth and power. It manifests as imperialism at the global scale. Historically, socialism has emerged to counter imperial exploitation and subjugation.  Socialist countries have been vehemently assaulted by organized forces of imperialism.  The equation totally dismisses these obvious historical dynamics, while also obscuring the very nature and mechanism of capitalism itself.  This position is often expressed with the use of the word totalitarianism.  Although the term has been largely normalized in the western cultural sphere, historically, this term has been used by reactionary forces to equate fascism (which operates within the framework of capitalism) and socialist countries with the intention of demonizing socialist countries.

Claim that all violence must stop as the capitalist hegemony targets a socialist country, knowing that the imperial hegemony can topple the socialist country by many means if the country stops engaging in self-defense.

Demonize political leaders who defy the western hegemony saying that although the West is atrocious the dictators aren’t worth saving anyway.

  1. Utilize an emotional personal anecdote in demonizing “socialism” in its entirety, totally ignoring its inner workings to forward the interests of the people, imperial dynamics and so on.  Reactionary voices of those who betray their countries of origin in seeking to secure positions within the empire are often promoted by the capitalist media.

Examples:

“My grand dad was killed by communists.”

“My family members were imprisoned by a socialist regime.”

“So and so is killing its own people.  I know because I’m from there and you are not.”

  1. Simply rely on propaganda lies concocted by capitalist social institutions.

Examples:

Just mock, ridicule and demonize socialists.  The notion is fully normalized so there is no need to explain. The burden of proof is on those who defy the notion.

Engage in 1, 2 and 3 using the propaganda lies.

Where is this giant monster swinging right to left, guided by the selfish motives of the ruling class, going?  Is it going to put us all in a digital prison as it continues to digitalize, financialize, and transhumanize, colonizing humanity and nature?  Is it going to declare a war against China?  These are very significant concerns but it is unlikely that they will be on the table for all of us to examine anytime soon.  Our thoughts and ideas are constantly, systemically and structurally beaten into shapes by layers of capitalist institutions over and over so that they fit into the capitalist framework. Then the momentums of pros and cons are safely exchanged within the imperial framework at the expense of the people who struggle to secure their livelihood within it.

When we are beaten by the capitalists, we are put against each other.  As we fight back, we are forced to attack our fellow community members as our institutions are further colonized as I described above. In the corporate political theater billions of dollars are spent in picking between hardened corporatist Joe Biden, and “reality TV show star” Donald Trump, but we cannot embrace the political institution which can truly function as our own—such a drastic shift is firmly demonized, again, as “socialism,” “communism,” Marxism and so on.

Look at how doctors and nurses are forced to be complicit in the ongoing virus event. They are forced to limit treatment options.  Effective early treatments such as Ivermectin or HCQ, which have saved countless lives in other countries, are being ridiculed as snake oil, because as long as there are effective treatments for the virus, the experimental gene therapy drugs can’t have emergency use status.  All this goes on as Covid “vaccine” deaths are blatantly covered up in the US and in other Western countries. The health professionals are forced to put people on deadly ventilators, deadly remdisivir, and deadly sedatives—the real reason why there are so many deaths in the US, along with the fact that obesity is a hidden killer in patients with seasonal respiratory illness.  The more they try to protect their positions within the institution, the more they compromise the whole institution. Doctors, scientists and the rest of the healthcare professionals who wish to protect the institution by speaking the truth about the virus and experimental injections are censored, harassed and fired for doing so, while those who obey are forced to be complicit in failing their patients with profit-oriented protocols.

This is what the system does when it’s driven by and for the oligarchs.

Their exploitive schemes create crises on many fronts—environmental crisis, health crisis, housing crisis, economic crisis, psychiatric crisis, you name it.  The ruling class officially designates a chosen crisis to impose prepackaged corporate “solutions” for more profits, more power grab and readjustment of the capitalist trajectory.  In the process, they destroy vital social institutions and reassemble them for domestication.  Nothing else matters other than the chosen crisis and the associated corporate schemes.

Other crises deepen as the capitalist trajectory is recalibrated and the capitalist hierarchy is readjusted. They will not run out of crises as long as they exploit and subjugate.  Crises are not predicaments for those who can buy their way out of anything, they are opportunities for them.  And they have nothing to lose in the process.  We are forced to do their work of destroying our own institutions.  We are forced to do their work of turning them into our cages.  They can buy most of anything, and if they can’t, they destroy it, then they can simply buy and sell any remaining elements, repackage them as something else and sell them back to the people.

See how it works?

As we further lose our connections to ourselves, to each other, to our community and nature, we are freely subjected to propaganda and indoctrination through ruling class sanctioned entities. Psychology has been applied to adjust individuals to the hardships of capitalist behavioral conditioning. Sociology has been applied to shape collective behaviors within the capitalist framework. Economics has been applied to justify the capitalist domination. Politics has been applied to ritualize the normalization of the feudal hierarchy. Now, we see science being applied to shift the trajectory of exploitation and subjugation.

Our behaviors are largely based on establishment supplied social relations, facts, culture, and so on.  We don’t generally act because we perceive actual events in our lives.  Most of us go through our lives on auto-pilot mode within the structurally sanctioned capitalist framework.  The Covid event clearly shows this aspect of our lives.  People wear masks, social distance and follow lockdown measures when clearly stipulated; however, at the personal level, most of us do not act like there is a deadly plague out there.  The masks, very possibly contaminated with the “deadly virus” are thrown away everywhere without being treated as biohazard materials.  People wear masks only to enter a restaurant, then take them off to eat with strangers stuck in an enclosed space.

As soon as we are born into our society, we learn to perceive the capitalist framework as our guiding principle over our actual perceptions.  This makes us extremely vulnerable to top-down mobilization, as we see with the virus event.  As soon as we are systemically and structurally forced into following instructions, then facts, our perceptions, and experts’ opinions become totally irrelevant before the decrees coming out of the establishment. The process of colonization of humanity and nature has been ongoing for generations, deeply affecting how we are, and it is accelerating.

Being deprived of our actual perceptions based on material reality, and the subsequent manufacturing of our perceptions based on the imperatives of the ruling class interests contributes to acute divisions among dissidents as well.  The urgency of capitalist oppressions together with marginalization of ideological positions has often cornered those who voice their concerns into prescribing “solutions” based on their own condition, regardless of the consequences to others.  This often happens over class lines, or against those who are victims of imperial violence.  The classic example was seen during the imperial war against Syria.

Many anti-war dissidents had taken a position in support of the US military intervention of Syria to varying degrees due to the western demonization of the Syrian government, western propaganda that glorified the US backed terrorists as victims of Syrian violence and etc.  (Those who stand with enemies of the empire are strongly urged to amend their anti-imperial positions. This urging comes from across the spectrum; for instance, Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges and others who are considered “dissidents” adamantly demonized leaders of targeted countries and repeated official propaganda narratives justifying the toleration of violence against those countries–By the way, both Chomsky and Hedges also hold starkly discriminatory opinions against unvaccinated people, echoing their strong condemnations of the middle eastern leaders.)

This has resulted in acceptance of the US military attacks and the US support for violent opposition groups inside Syria.  Those American people who insisted on saving the children of Syria by bombing Syria and by supporting brutal terrorists, who would behead children, failed to see the great sacrifice paid by the majority of Syrian people, who were in support of their government and their military.  Activist communities were split into pieces, while the momentum greatly exacerbated the US led war against the Syrian government.   The situation began to turn as independent journalists—Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett and others—started to report from Syria on the actual situation—in which the majority of the Syrian people have approved the determined government policy against the west backed terrorists and the US colonial policies which had strangled Syrian people on many grounds.

The war on virus, which has directly targeted our entire society, as well as the global dynamics, has presented itself as a great divider among us.  Our alienated perceptions have effectively prevented our ability to understand the course of action taken by others.  The excruciating hardship of those who wear masks 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, or more, to keep their jobs, or the anger and bitterness of those who were forced to be vaccinated against their will to remain employed,  or the predicaments faced by those who chose to be fired for their medical choice, are not shared by those who do not share the circumstances and perspectives.  The virus event kept people away from each other, prevented freedom of speech, and prevented freedom of assembly while deeply dividing people on many grounds.  It is appalling that US media outlets actually told their audience to cut their ties to friends and family members who are not vaccinated.  Anger, frustration, fear and hatred have been boiling in our communities.

Sadly, the situation is not any better among those who oppose the draconian virus measures. For example, some people see anyone who complies with a government mandate as an enemy, even if non compliance would have meant a total loss of livelihood.  I’ve seen a sad instance in which a bar owner, who courageously spoke against the government “vaccine” mandate for his customers, was mocked and ridiculed for complying with the strict mandate, though not doing so could have resulted in loss of his business.  This sort of atmosphere effectively prevents constructive community actions.  It prevents natural growth of genuine social relations among the people based on creativity and practical means.  The real struggle involves real observations of facts and spontaneous reactions to associated events. Ultimately, it cannot be prescribed by those who stand outside of the particular circumstance.

Without the existence of a genuine institution for the people to coordinate overall strategies and educate people about the mechanism of exploitation, this sort of arbitrary behavior of purging would emerge only to exacerbate alienation and division among those who should be united to counter the ruling class assaults. What Lenin said in last century still stands on this regard. It also cultivates a defeatist attitude to embrace martyrdom as the only plausible goal of resistance.

The establishment understands this mechanism very well.  That is why organized efforts of socialists, communists, and Marxists have been vehemently attacked by the US empire.  As long as we stand with the establishment in demonizing any potential to build revolutionary momentum, we are bound to stay within the framework of the exploitation. Our goal is to change the exploitive system to the one that benefits our mutual well-beings.  We are not the enemies of each other.  On this point, we have a lot to learn from the Syrian government, which has been allowing reconciliation between those who took weapons against the people and those who lost their family members by the violence.

Anti-Chinese sentiment

I have already written briefly about China and the virus event here, and here.  This topic continues to be crucial because China continues to present itself as the biggest obstacle to the western capitalist hegemony.  Although China is fully integrated in the global market economy, it continues to resist western domination of its social fabric through western neoliberalization and financialization.  This makes total sense if we understand the very reason why China opened itself to the market economy—it has done so to put its economic activities under the guidance of the Communist Party of China.  It allows China to grow economically in providing for its people while preventing western propaganda infiltration, development of western guided blackmarket, and western capitalist restructuring of Chinese social structure.

That is why we are flooded with anti-Chinese rhetoric today.

All western wars are ultimately imperial in nature.  War on virus is not an exception. Those who operate within the capitalist framework— including those who claim to resist the lockdowns and the experimental Covid injections—express their disdain toward the imperial enemy as a gesture to express their allegiance to the empire even when they must oppose their feudal overlords.

Historically, the western capitalist mobilizations—war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror and so on—that reshape and perpetuate its structural integrity occur in tandem with imperial dynamics. The slogans and talking points have always included anti-communist/anti-socialist elements.

The war on drugs was about destruction of minority communities as much as about destruction of Latin American movements to defy the US hegemony.  The war on terror ended up destroying the middle eastern countries which have cooperated with the US hegemony to varying degrees.  The US simply does not tolerate an alternative system that demonstrates the viability of social relations outside of the imperial framework. Millions have perished.  One out of hundred people became refugees. Countries were destroyed. The momentum of war on terror exacerbated institutionalized racism and structural violence within the US as well, ultimately depriving people of legal rights through the National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, installation of the surveillance state, militarization of police and etc.

China has experienced capitalist onslaughts of colonialism, colonial wars, chemical/biological attacks, proxy wars, propaganda campaigns, regime change operations, trade embargoes, trade sanctions, economic war and more even before it embarked on the path of socialism with its revolution.

China has seen it all.

There is a reason why we keep hearing “China is complicit,” “the Chinese system is coming,” and “China is violating human rights” over and over. Because the war on virus follows the same rule.  It restructures our society to perpetuate the oligarchy, and the momentum of exploitation and subjugation parallels the imperial violence against targeted countries.  This is why hundreds of military bases are surrounding China, while multiple propaganda projects are being carried out—Hong KongTibetUyghur, continued lies about Tiananmen Squareoutright deceptions stating China has killed millions of its own people.

As long as the movement of resistance being built in the west stays within the framework of imperial exploitation and subjugation, ultimately, it will serve the empire very effectively.  The oscillation between fascism and social democracy applies within imperial dynamics as well.  For example, within the imperial framework, Nazi Germany was cultivated by the US industries to assault USSR, its failure to do so then became a justification for the US to construct its imperial hegemony.  Famously, Nazi scientists and even some political figures were absorbed into the US empire (see operation paper clip).  The current atmosphere emerging is not new or any more deadly than the imperial essence itself.  This dynamic is crucial to understand.  Failure to do so would allow another oscillation within the empire which could perpetuate the empire.  On the surface, China seems to be a part of the momentum generally referred to as the “Great Reset.”  However, meanwhile, the western allies in the pacific are also arming themself to encircle China militarily.  China is under tremendous pressure to accept western led financialization and neoliberalization of their social structure.  The situation greatly echoes how USSR and its allies were subjected to containment and encirclement.  China seems to recognize the dynamics very well as I explain shortly.

Or, down the road, the fascist “Great Reset” might grow into a modern day economic Nazi to give a legitimacy to its counterpart within the western hegemony just like how the US achieved its imperial status after the WW2.  The history could certainly rhyme.  Such a possibility can’t be ruled out, but who wants to become another Nazi to be destroyed by the empire?  All players understand these dynamics,  The US won’t allow its own allies to threaten its own interests, while some allies are very eager to please the empire by playing their role in enforcing imperial imperatives—see how draconian measures in pushing big pharma vaccines, along with digitalization, financialization and the rest of the 4th Industrial Revolution, are forcefully forwarded in Australia, Canada and so on.

Perhaps the role of Israel in the imperial dynamics should be pointed out here to illustrate the dynamics.  The violence which has been inflicted by the Israeli regime against neighboring countries and beyond serves the war-based US economy while punishing those who defy the imperial hegemony. Israel plays a violent guard dog for the empire under US protection, takes on the blame for it and sustains itself in this imperial relationship. Israel has been faithfully playing its role in the war on virus by relentlessly vaccinating its people while introducing various associated measures as well.  Again, understanding the war on virus requires understanding imperial dynamics.

Meanwhile, China clearly understands its position within the imperial dynamics.  China is not about to impose on itself a deadly neoliberal restructuring such as the USSR suffered as it was being demolished. China is not about to accept colonial war on its soil in any form including biological attacks, proxy war or economic war.  If China sees its economic sphere as a part of its socialism with Chinese characteristics, it stands to reason that China would have to confront the waves of the western socio-political-economic restructuring associated with the virus event appropriately.

It’s none of western business if China decides to prepare itself for potential western biological attacks with any measures it deems necessary considering that the US owns the biggest pile of WMDs along with hundreds of bio weapon facilities across the globe, along with the history of actually using such weapons during the Korean War and on other occasions.

It’s none of western business if China develops its own Covid vaccines and virus measures in order to protect its financial sovereignty against western waves of Covid related neoliberal restructuring and financialization.

It’s none of western business if China ends up succeeding in all of the above and turning the occasion into an opportunity to strengthen its economic viability, scientific progress and international presence with the overwhelming approval of its people.

Parasites devouring paralyzed hosts

Twisting around fear and putting people against each other in consecrating the unconditional authority of corporate entities over families torn apart, communities destroyed, and individuals rendered hopeless and hateful is not anything nature meant for us humans.

We are looking at parasites devouring paralyzed hosts.  This is the very essence of an inhumane social formation called capitalism described precisely by Karl Marx. It is revealing that the formation is called “communism” even by those who claim to “resist”.

Again, the colonized institutions ultimately act as cages for capitalism. They work together to recalibrate the caste system.

Over and over we’ve been deceived.  We are mobilized to play ritual battles on political theaters. We are mobilized to play “activism” on social theaters.  We are mobilized to play good citizens on cultural theaters. We are mobilized to fight “others” on colonial theaters of war.  As long as we run around within the framework of the oligarchs, we just shift the blame among ourselves and we keep fine tuning the very feudal hierarchy that traps us as expendable beings.

The wealth and power hoarded by the parasitic minority never belong to them. They are blessings of nature and humanity belonging to the harmony among us. Those oligarchs have only one thing—they are astronomically richer than the rest. They monopolize what belongs to us all in order to domesticate humanity and nature. But life can’t be contained by their primitive cage.  So they have been modifying life to fit within the narrowly defined framework of their own kingdom. We became dumber, we are less brave, we are more cynical and hypocritical.  None of it is acceptable from any angle from which we look at it. The current social formation is extremely destructive to our species. If we fail to grasp the situation, gene therapy drugs, psychotropic drugs, behavioral conditioning and so on will be fully used to exacerbate the situation, commodifying our minds and bodies as our lives are more and more digitized and financialized.  If we become the products to be consumed, we are subjected to planned obsolescence, reduced quality, reduced diversity and so on just like any other items around us.  They spread their tentacles in taking over social institutions.  They freely attenuate and amplify the roles of institutions in orchestrating the material reality to suit their interests.  Again, they paralyze people with illusions, lies, deceptions, drugs, carrot and stick and eat us alive.  We do not deserve this parasitic social formation.

We need a system which firmly ensures that the material reality reflects a harmony of man and nature.  For one thing, the ridiculous rituals of corporate politics, corporate slogans for health, and so on have no place in getting us out of this feudalism of money and violence.  How can we all step back a little and take a look at what is really going on, calling out the parasites for what they are?  How can we recognize that the same colonizers who destroyed countries across the globe have embarked on psychological asymmetrical urban warfare against us? We are told that we are all in this together only to find ourselves shooting each other. We are told to flatten the curve only to see our communities flattened to be swallowed by corporate entities. How can we build our communities with social relations based on our needs?  How can we build social institutions which can help us build a social formation that serves us all.

The parasites devour the hosts because they do not have the ability to engage in the creative process of life. They must lie and deceive to imprison the subject population so that the captive beings are forced to construct the kingdom for the parasites. Parasites are not the all-seeing gods which they present themselves to be.  In order to survive and embrace the blessings of the universe as one of the species on our planet, we must recognize this destructive state of being and somehow move beyond it.

We are hardly the only ones screaming.  We are a fraction of a huge momentum of humanity continuing to make a point about our species’ obvious predicaments. The following words came from George L. Jackson shortly before he was murdered in California’s San Quentin Prison (I thank John Steppling for mentioning the quote recently):

“Settle your quarrels, come together, understand the reality of our situation, understand that fascism is already here, that people are already dying who could be saved, that generations more will live poor butchered half-lives if you fail to act. Do what must be done, discover your humanity and your love in revolution.” – George L. Jackson

Like Fred Hampton said, “you can kill the revolutionary but you can’t kill the Revolution”.

*

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.

Hiroyuki Hamada is an artist. He has exhibited throughout the United States and in Europe and is represented by Bookstein Projects. He has been awarded various residencies including those at the Provincetown Fine Arts Work Center, the Edward F. Albee Foundation/William Flanagan Memorial Creative Person’s Center, the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture, and the MacDowell Colony. In 1998 Hamada was the recipient of a Pollock Krasner Foundation grant, and in 2009 and 2016 he was awarded a New York Foundation for the Arts Fellowship. He lives and works in New York.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Anti-Empire

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.

***

The Czech Republic’s new government has dismissed the previous government’s mandatory vaccination plan. The plan required adults over the age of 60 to get vaccinated, as well as people in many professions such as healthcare workers, police officers, and firefighters.

The vaccine requirement from the previous government was set to be mandated in March. However, the announcement of these measures sparked large protests across the country. Only 62.9% of Czechs are considered fully vaccinated, this leaves nearly 4 million people in the country who are considered “unvaccinated.”

The new prime minister Petr Fiala said that the government did not did not see reasons for compulsory inoculation as the previous administration had planned, but also emphasized that they still encourage people to get vaccinated and that it remains, in his opinion, the best way to fight COVID. That being said, he did not want to “deepen fissures in society” because of mandatory vaccination measures.

COVID vaccines have brought about massive protests around the world. Less than half the world’s population has received at least two doses, and approximately 60 percent of the world’s population has received one dose. There are many factors that account for this, including people who desire vaccines but don’t have access to them, as well as those who don’t feel it’s necessary and safe to be vaccinated against COVID.

Senior editor of the British Medical Journal, doctor Peter Doshi has expressed that nearly half of the world’s population may be considered “anti-vaxx” by the recently changed definition of what that means. It now includes anybody who opposes vaccine mandates, including those who are are “fully vaccinated.”

It’s not easy to implement measures that so many people disagree with, and this is exactly why the new Czech government is scraping vaccine mandate measures.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently announced the same for England. The reason for doing so, according to Johnson, is because “of the extraordinary booster campaign together with the way the public responded” to mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns and other ‘Plan B’ measures.

But is this the truth?

Unlike Fiala who is doing so to keep the peace, Johnson is further reiterating the idea that human compliance to authoritarian government measures is responsible for the restoration of freedom. Psychologically this is very dangerous, it simply reinforces the idea that compliance with measures that many have deemed unnecessary, unsuccessful and harmful is necessary to achieve freedom.

The truth is, Lockdowns have been catastrophic, likely killing more people than COVID. The health consequences of prolonged mask wearing have been ignored, not to mention the failure of the vaccine to prevent transmission. We also must look at the vaccine injuries that have been reported but not properly investigated

Fiala’s government has also shortened quarantine and isolation times, while launching mandatory testing of employees at companies starting this week.

Typically when governments seize more control, surveillance and power through a crisis, whether manufactured or real, they do not give those freedoms back to citizens when that ‘crisis’ disappears. Are you still not taking your shoes off at the airport because of 9/11? So no doubt measures that are lifted may once again be put in place in the future, we will see what happens.

Countries that have not implemented these restrictions have not fared any worse than countries who have when it comes to cases, deaths and hospitalizations. When it comes to vaccination rates, Japan has stated that no vaccination mandates will happen, and encourages citizens not to discriminate against the unvaccinated, but still has a very high vaccination rate.

Perhaps government power in such situations should only go as far as recommendations. Perhaps we should not give them the authority and power to impose such a halt on our most basic rights and freedoms.

*

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 123RF

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.

***

At a press conference on Wednesday, President Biden said there is “room to work” with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the guarantees Moscow is seeking on Ukraine.

Putin wants the US to guarantee that it won’t deploy missiles to Ukraine and that Kyiv won’t ever join NATO. Biden said the US and Russia can “work something out” on the missile deployments issue.

Concerning NATO, Biden signaled he wouldn’t make a commitment on Ukraine’s membership but said it’s unlikely Kyiv would be joining the military alliance anytime soon. “The likelihood that Ukraine is going to join NATO in the near term is not very likely,” Biden said.

Russia likely won’t accept a verbal pledge from Biden on NATO expansion considering the US broke a similar promise that was made at the end of the Cold War. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov made it clear on Wednesday that Russia wants “watertight” guarantees on NATO expansion.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva on Friday to continue the dialogue on Moscow’s security concerns.

Biden also continued the narrative that Putin is planning to invade Ukraine, an accusation Moscow denies. “My guess is he will move in, he has to do something,” he said, adding that it would be a “disaster” for Russia to “further invade Ukraine.”

During the press conference, Biden suggested the US might do anything in the event of a “minor incursion” into Ukraine, prompting the White House to release a statement clarifying there would be a response if Russian troops enter Ukraine.

“President Biden has been clear with the Russian President: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies,” the White House said.

*

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 atlanticcouncil.edu

The recent US-Russia strategic dialogue on Ukraine has been anything but successful, only raising tensions between Moscow and Washington. Demands from Moscow fell on deaf ears as Washington escalates its war propaganda which constitutes the pretext for war in the eastern European country. 

Why is Ukraine of geopolitical interest to both major powers? And why should people be worried?

Read the selection below and forward far and wide.

***

Divisions with US Government: Biden’s “Minor Incursion” Remark Reveals a Lot About His Team’s Russia Strategy

By Andrew Korybko, January 20, 2022

US President Joe Biden scandalously quipped during Wednesday’s press conference that NATO might be divided over how to respond in the event that Russia stages a so-called “minor incursion” into Ukraine.

Peeking Past the Pall Put Over Arms Talks with Russia

By Ray McGovern, January 20, 2022

Adamant is the impression being fostered by both Russia and the West (largely for domestic consumption): Russia will continue to oppose NATO membership for countries like Ukraine and Georgia; NATO, for its part, will continue to reject Russian opposition as “none of your business”.

US Could be Planning False Flag Operation in Ukraine to Blame Russia

By Paul Antonopoulos, January 19, 2022

Threats that Washington could impose sanctions directly on Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a demonstration of American strength and capability, but rather a demonstration of desperation. If such sanctions were passed and implemented, it will lead to a serious deterioration of relations between the US and Russia and, possibly, even a severing of ties.

The US Plan of an Afghanistan Inside Europe

By Manlio Dinucci, January 19, 2022

Ukraine, a partner but in fact already a member of NATO, has the role of the first actor as a country under attack. The government denounces, on its word of honor, that it has been hit by a cyber attack, attributed of course to Russia, and NATO rushes, together with the EU, to help Ukraine fight the cyber war.

This Is How the U.S. Does ‘Dialogue’: Triggering Financial Instability against Russia. “This Bill Sounds like a Declaration of War”

By Pepe Escobar, January 14, 2022

Washington will not consider Russian proposals on no expansion of NATO, and has no intention of even discussing the idea. So much for “dialogue”. It was the first high-level Russia-NATO meeting since 2019 – coming immediately after the non sequitur of the U.S.-Russia “security guarantee” non-dialogue dialogue earlier in the week in Geneva.

Black Alliance for Peace Condemns the Policies of the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination in Ukraine

By Black Alliance for Peace, January 13, 2022

As the corporate press presents a one-sided presentation of event in Ukraine as part of a massive propaganda effort to mobilize public opinion to support the reckless positions of the Biden administration, BAP believes that the public must be presented with a counternarrative of the chronology of events in Ukraine.

Where Are the Realists? US Foreign Policy Endangers Americans without Delivering any Benefits

By Philip Giraldi, January 11, 2022

Putin’s recent negotiating positions conveyed initially by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov to step back from the brink of war between his country and the United States over Ukraine are largely eminently sensible and would defuse the possibility that Eastern Europe might become a future Sarajevo incident that would ignite a nuclear war.

Six Things the Media Won’t Tell You About Ukraine

By Ted Snider, January 07, 2022

The catalyst for the crisis today in Ukraine was the 2014 coup. That coup was set up and supported by the US. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was faced with the choice of economic alliance with the European Union or with Russia.

Putin hints at military options in Ukraine

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, December 28, 2021

Putin has, for the first time, explicitly warned that if the US and NATO decline to provide the security guarantees Moscow has sought, his future course of action will be solely guided by “the proposals that our military experts will make to me.” Clearly, there is no more wriggle room left.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Global Research Weekender: Will Ukraine be Russia-NATO’s War Theatre?

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.

***

Dr. Christian Perronne is a Professor of Infectious and Tropical Diseases.

He had major responsibilities within several institutions: Pasteur Institute in Paris, French National Technical Advisory Group of Experts Immunisation (chairman).

He is former Vice-President of the WHO.

He takes on a firms stance in revealing the fraud behind the covid crisis and the imposition of the “vaccine” which he says is not a vaccine. 

The hearing took place on January 12.

*

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 Immunization.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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The war in Yemen continues to heat up with no end in sight. The Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis (Ansar Allah) exchanged several blows as of January 20.

The escalation began on January 17 when the Houthis carried out a large-scale missile and drone attack on the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

During the attack, which was codenamed “Operation Yemen’s Hurricane,” the Houthis targeted al-Musaffah oil refinery, Abu Dhabi International Airport and several other targets with a number of Qudes-2 cruise missiles, Samad-3 suicide drones and one Zulfiqar ballistic missile.

The attack, which caused some serious material losses, claimed the lives of three people and wounded six others.

Operation Yemen’s Hurricane was the Houthis’ response to the UAE support to the Saudi-led coalition’s recent ground operations in the central Yemeni provinces of Shabwah and Ma’rib.

The Saudi-led coalition’s response to the attack on the UAE by targeting the Houthi-held Yemen capital, Sanaa, on January 17, 18 and 19.

F-15 fighter jets of the Royal Saudi Air Force and F-16 fighter jets from the UAE Air Force carried out dozens of airstrikes on alleged positions of the Houthis in the city and its outskirts.

The Saudi and UAE airstrikes killed 14 people and wounded 11 others. While most of the casualties were civilians, some were in fact members of the Houthis or key allies of the group including the director of the Aviation and Air Defense Collage, Major General Abdullah Qassem Al-Junaid.

Saudi-led coalition warplanes also carried out dozens of airstrikes on Ma’rib and Shabwah on January 17, 16 and 19.

To take advantage of these airstrikes, coalition proxies, led by the UAE-backed Giants Brigades, made a new push in the district of Ain in Shabwah and the district of Harib in Ma’rib. However, their offensive was repelled by the Houthis on January 19.

According to the Houthis, 50 fighters of the Giants Brigades and their allies were killed or wounded in the failed offensive.

The Houthis also targeted Saudi-led coalition proxies in Ain and Harib with two ballistic missiles. Many fighters were reportedly killed or wounded in the two strikes.

The fighting in Yemen will likely escalate even further in the upcoming few weeks, especially in Ma’rib and Shabwah where the Saudi-led coalition is doing its best to secure a significant achievement. The Houthis may also escalate by launching more missile and drone attacks on both Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

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.

***

Covidland eventually will be a series of five documentaries, two of which are currently available.

  • COVIDLAND – Part I: Lockdown; and
  • COVIDLAND – Part II: The Mask

And these are MUST-SEE docu-movies.

COVIDLAND – Part I: The Lockdown (7 October 2021)

Click here to watch the movie.

COVIDLAND – Part II: Wearing a Mask (17 December 2021)

Both are extraordinary docu-movies. Even for those who think they know it all – they don’t. Because the presentation adds a new dimension to the COVID saga. Among others – the absolute inhumanity. The human cruelty. How our governments, which we falsely pretend having elected, but still pay their salaries with our taxes, these miserable, cowardly puppet governments, listening to kings without cloths — they keep betraying us every day. And this as long as we, The People, allow it.

The new dimension emanating from these documentaries, prepared with feeling, with heartfelt empathy, is more than one plus one equals two. It’s much more; it’s increased by a factor of dynamics which has no numbers, but in this case a tremendous human impact.

Dynamics also are important in our mind, how we perceive what is going on, and especially what has been going on for the past two years.

We have a tendency to forget.

But we need to understand, to be protected for the future.

Freedom is a slippery asset, always been. If we are not careful and keep taking it for granted, it will be gone in no time. Dark forces are everywhere. They hold us in their fangs.

But, if we are people of the Light, we shall overcome.

They are few and we are many.

And may we learn and never forget, when we started acting out of panic, behaving submissively and obedient, we are becoming their slaves. That’s precisely what happened. Well – very well – planned. It is what Naomi Klein calls the “The Shock Doctrine”.

You create a crisis of enormous scare – and people panic and they will do everything the government tells them to do. That was implemented in the case of “Covid-19”.

Of course, all the governments have to be in tune – they all have to participate in lockstep. Worldwide. As it happened, this was the case. All 193 UN member countries started a general lockdown roughly the same day, mid-March 2020, about a virus, that has never been isolated – I repeat, a virus that has never been isolated. For all practical purposes, a virus that didn’t and doesn’t exist. This clearly points to a higher force that controls by means of untold power everything that moves on Mother Earth.

It is most likely the enormous, accumulated wealth, by a few asset-management companies, like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity. BlackRock and Vanguard are totally intertwined. Together, they control some 20 to 25 trillion dollars-worth of assets – which in turn provide them with a five to 8-fold leverage, thus, conservatively speaking, of at least 100 trillion. Compare this with US$ 85 trillion (world GDP 2020). This alone might be a clear indication, who is in charge.

How was and still is it possible that by and large a world population of 7.8 billion people is being kept captive by a highly propagated but imaginary virus? Exactly this way: Most people who read these lines are still saying, this guy is nuts. He is a conspiracy theorist. This is the most common term for arguments, when they don’t have a valid counter-argument – a term invented by the CIA in the late 50s / early 60s when they defended their Cold War theory against the then Soviet Union, “The Monster behind the Iron Curtain”.

The “new”, invisible and non-existent virus was all based on the SARS virus that hit China in 2002 / 2003, a virus tailor-made for the Chinese genome. The “new virus” was essentially a remake.

The idea was planned and plotted by a long hand, but the final trial-run was the so-called Event 201, taking place on 18 October 2019 in New York City, sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and – who else – the World Economic Forum (WEF). See this and this.

This was then. Just a couple of months before the official outbreak of what at first was called SARS-CoV-2. As this may have been too obvious, it was later renamed by WHO to “Covid-19”.

Imagine! A virus that has mutated since then, since the early 2020’s umpteen times, each time with the strangest new names, each time to scare people even further down the rabbit hole, into believing their life may be at stake if they don’t obey their governments and follow the ever more dictatorial even tyrannical rules imposed by their governments – especially western governments, those of the European Union (EU), the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and England.

With every new mutant the Shock Doctrine was driven a notch further down the people’s spine, and the fear factor in their brain proportionately increased.

All this is very well explained in the docu-videos. Here are some of the highlights of inhumanity shown in the documentaries:

  • The PCR Test – The Plandemic would and could not exist without the totally invalid PCR test. The PCR test was invented by Dr. Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize “for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.” Dr. Mullis himself, long before the “official” outbreak of the plandemic, declared that the PCR method was invalid – repeat invalid – to determine any viral diseases. This was not the purpose of the PCR test. Strangely, Dr. Mullis was found dead in his apartment on 7 August 2019, a few months before the covid-19 “outbreak”. No serious investigation has determined the true reason for is death.
  • The brutality of separating ancient people in hospices and homes for the elderly from their children and grand-children – even if they were at the point of dying. The human cruelty is unbearable.
  • The tyrannical man hunt for the unvaccinated – in Austria literally manhunts are planned. Fines in excess of US$ 4,000 per infraction – escaping mandatary vaccination.
  • Forced confinement in emergency hospital beds – with induced artificial comas from which on average 87% do not wake up (NYC hospital statistics).
  • False declaration / registration as covid patients, even when they suffered other co-morbidity and primary causes for hospitalization and / or death.
  • Incentive payments to hospitals for declaring “covid patients” and for indicating covid on their death certificates.
  • Full hospital beds. How they made and still make people believe that hospital beds are at the brim with “unvaxxed” covid patients – while proven reality shows a completely different picture.
  • The role of coercion, pressure, blackmail and outright threat, in implementing this outlandish lie about full hospital beds.
  • Mask-wearing oxygen deprivation – Damages caused to people – including in some countries children from age 5 – by the lack of oxygen for mask-wearing – the brain damage it may cause especially in young people.
  • Social segregation by imposed mask-wearing and “social distancing” – psychological degradation….

…. And many more.

Please watch the videos. They are telling and instructive – and mind-blowing. How far have humans let themselves be manipulated into fear, into obedience, to the point where according to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the German lawyer, who with a contingent of many hundred lawyers and scientists is pursuing these criminals for Nuremberg 2.0, a People’s Trial.

On the other hand, just in – 19 January 2022:

Boris Johnson, UK’s PM, Announces End of Covid Restrictions (Independent) – 19 January 2022.

In the same vein, Anthony Fauci confirms that the PCR test cannot detect live viruses. Anthony Fauci confirms that neither the antigen test nor the PCR test can tell us whether someone is contagious or not!!! This invalidates all the foundations of the so-called pandemic. The PCR test was the only indication of a pandemic. Without PCR-TEST no pandemic. For all the press workers, doctors, lawyers, prosecutors etc. THIS is the final key, the ultimate proof that the measures must all be lifted immediately!

Yet, this earth-shaking event of the Brits ending all Covid restrictions, and the falsehood of the PCR test, was not mentioned once by the Continental European mainstream media today 20 January, meaning, “they” – the powers of vaxxing – totally ignore it, as the relentless killer steamroller of testing-testing-testing and vaxxing-vaxxing-vaxxing, moves forward, as if it was the abject criminals last chance to maim and kill as many people as possible before the grand awakening.

For example, Austria’s Parliament just declared as the world’s first country a country-wide vaxx-obligation – totally against universal human rights. Those who try to escape the law will be fined by over US$ 4,000 equivalent. This law is to enter into effect as of 1 February 2022 – see this.

Klaus Schwab’s virtual WEF is continuing (17-21 January 2022), with the landmark Brits ending all covid restrictions, seems to be worth not one mention – of course not by Schwab, but not by any of the daily speakers.

This horrendous global-dimension dystopia must come to an end. And it will.

The tide is turning. It may be slow, but turning it is.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from IMDb

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVIDLAND, a Documentary Film: Review and Analysis by Peter Koenig
  • Tags:

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

January 21st, 2022 by Global Research News

Video: Reiner Füellmich and 50 Lawyers: “Different Batches” and “Lethal Doses”, ”The Vaccines Are Designed to Kill”

Reiner Fuellmich, January 13 , 2022

 

Louisiana Nurse Blows the Whistle: “We Have Had More Children Die from the COVID Vaccine Than of COVID Itself”

The COVID World, January 12 , 2022

 

Graphene COVID Kill Shots: Let the Evidence Speak for Itself

Dr. Ariyana Love, January 15 , 2022

 

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: Latest Bombshell About COVID “Vaccines” Will Dismantle Big Pharma

Planet Today, January 18 , 2022

 

Pfizer Trials: All Injected Mothers Lost Their Unborn Babies

Dr. Mark Trozzi, January 19 , 2022

 

FOIA Docs Reveal Pfizer Shot Caused Avalanche of Miscarriages, Stillborn Babies

Celeste McGovern, January 19 , 2022

 

“Bastille 2022”: Building a Worldwide Movement Against “Corona Tyranny”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 17 , 2022

 

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Corona Virus “Vaccines”. Nuremberg Code, Crimes against humanity, War Crimes and Crimes of Aggression”

Hannah Rose, January 15 , 2022

 

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

Dr. Roxana Bruno, January 15 , 2022

 

Count-Down to Apocalypse: Are the US and Russia Finally on Course toward World War III?

Michael Welch, January 15 , 2022

 

Video: Dr. Peter McCullough Speech at the ReAwaken America Tour

Dr. Peter McCullough, January 14 , 2022

 

Video: Digital Tyranny and the Rockefeller-Gates WHO “Vaxx-Certificate Passport”: Towards a World War III Scenario

Peter Koenig, January 18 , 2022

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Covid Pandemic: A “Truth Bomb” Explodes to Illuminate the War on Humanity

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, January 12 , 2022

 

Video: #Yes, It’s a “Killer Vaccine”: Michel Chossudovsky

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 16 , 2022

 

High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. The Vaccinated Suffer from Increased Risk of Mortality

Gérard Delépine, January 11 , 2022

 

Deaths Among Male Teens Increased by 53% Following COVID-19 Vaccination in 2021 and the Death Spikes Correlate Perfectly with the Uptake of Dose 1, 2 & 3

The Daily Expose, January 17 , 2022

 

The “How Bad Is My Batch” Website Provides Access to Data on Vaccine Deaths and Disabilities associated with Each Batch / Lot Number

How Bad Is My Batch, January 20 , 2022

 

Pfizer 6 Month Data Shows COVID Shots May “Cause More Illness than They Prevent”: Canadian Doctors and Scientists

Arjun Walia, January 15 , 2022

 

Hillary Clinton’s Emails Confirm The “Real Agenda” Behind the US-NATO War on Libya

Timothy Alexander Guzman, January 20 , 2016

 

A List of People Who Had Their Leg Amputated Shortly after Receiving COVID-19 Vaccine

The COVID World, January 12 , 2022

The 5G Roll Out: EMF Radiation, Devastating Health Impacts, Social and Economic Implications. Crimes Against Humanity?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, January 20, 2022

The roll out of the new C-Band 5G service by AT&T and Verizon scheduled for January 19, has raised alarms for major airline executives who have warned that it will create “catastrophic” interference with flight navigation systems and pilot safety during take off and landing.

Pfizer Trials: All Injected Mothers Lost Their Unborn Babies

By Dr. Mark Trozzi, January 19, 2022

Please recall our November 23, 2021 post titled “The FDA and Pfizer are a Match Made in Hell”. There we described how the FDA took only 108 days to approve Pfizer’s injection, but wanted 55 years to produce the documents!

Small Percent of Vaccine Batches Responsible for Large Number of Adverse Reactions, Analysts Claim

By Patrick Delaney, January 20, 2022

A recent analysis of public government data reveals very high percentages of adverse events reported as a result of COVID-19 experimental “vaccine” injections, including over 21,000 deaths, have occurred in a small minority of product batches released by pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Before the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Corona Virus “Vaccines”. Nuremberg Code, Crimes against humanity, War Crimes and Crimes of Aggression”

By Hannah Rose, Dr. Mike Yeadon, Piers Corbyn, and et al., January 15, 2022

Based on the extensive claims and enclosed documentation, we charge those responsible for numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries.

Totalitarian Paranoia Run Amok: Pandemics, Lockdowns and Martial Law

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, January 20, 2022

Once upon a time, there was a government so paranoid about its hold on power that it treated everyone and everything as a threat and a reason to expand its powers. Unfortunately, the citizens of this nation believed everything they were told by their government, and they suffered for it.

Blinken Delays US Response to Russia

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, January 20, 2022

A special press briefing in unseemly hurry by the US state department to warn an imminent Russian assault on Ukraine; a surprise call by state secretary Antony Blinken to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov to be followed by an unscheduled meeting in Geneva Friday; a whirlwind tour of Kiev and Berlin through Thursday — US diplomacy has gone into overdrive as the timeline for giving a formal response to Russia’s demands of security guarantee draws closer. 

Worldwide Heart Attack Deaths Among Pro-Footballers in 2021 Were 300% Higher Than the 12-year Average

By The Daily Expose, January 20, 2022

An investigation of available data shows that worldwide professional football / soccer match cardiovascular deaths in 2021 were 300% higher than the 12-year average, with the number of deaths occurring in December 2021 alone equalling the 2009-2020 average.

History of World War II: The Soviet Red Army’s Winter Campaign 80 Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, January 19, 2022

Six weeks into the Soviet Army’s counteroffensive, on 15 January 1942 Adolf Hitler at last agreed that German Army Group Centre could make a gradual, fighting withdrawal to a straighter and shorter line slightly further west of Moscow.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The 5G Roll Out: EMF Radiation, Devastating Health Impacts, Social and Economic Implications. Crimes Against Humanity?

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.

***

Monsanto (now part of Bayer AB) had to pay $78 million in 2018 and $10 billion more in 2020 to settle 100,000 cancer lawsuits. But that won’t stop a company whose 2021 revenues will top $49,991 billion…which is why Roundup is still being profitably sprayed in 160 countries around the world.

A battle royale is ripping through every country against the Monsanto Company’s carcinogenic chemical glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in its most profitable pesticide, “Roundup.” (Monsanto is now owned by the drug and agrochemical multinational corporation, Bayer.)

Advocates of pesticides claim that they increase crop yields, protect the public from insect-borne diseases, and save labor costs by chemically killing “weeds.” Opponents counter that synthetic pesticides harm human beings, animals, beneficial insects, wildlife, and plants;[1] they pollute drinking water and food chains, increase health-related costs, and represent a contemptuous and colonizer’s approach to life and nature. The production and application of pesticides for corporate profit ignores and, in fact, assaults human health and the ecological balance of the natural environment.

For every environmental movement success in pressuring governments to ban an egregious pesticide, the industry spits out a new one and the cycle begins again. Victories over individual pesticides are undermined by a methodology that examines each chemical in isolation from the others; each corporate polluter is seen as an exception to the rule, a “bad apple” in an otherwise benevolent system. Thus, arsenic begat DDT, DDT begat organophosphates, the first wave of organophosphates begat pyrethroids and glyphosate, and now glyphosate begets dicamba.

Jonathan Latham, co-founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project and the Editor of Independent Science News, points out[2] that, although stopping the applications of glyphosate will be a significant victory, it will not be enough; the chemical corporations’ policies will remain unchanged and they will simply substitute another poison.

Movements concerned with stopping the mass applications of pesticides need to go deeper, beyond the usual concerns about a particular chemical or corporation. If each pesticide, banned after years of struggle, is thought of as the exception to the rule, then the system itself is assumed to be fundamentally stable and beneficial, save for those few rotten apples.

The system, though, is fundamentally unstable, unsustainable, and harmful. It reflects—and regurgitates—an approach to nature and to human life in which life is denigrated, and maximization of corporate profits is par for the course (golf courses being one of the prime abusers of pesticides in urban areas).

We will never succeed in saving ourselves, our children and the environment by opposing one pesticide (or pipeline, or corporation) at a time, as corporate capitalism engages in its relentless drive to expand, consolidate smaller companies, centralize production, and exert monopolistic control. Consideration of more radical frameworks and actions is therefore essential if ecological activists are to build upon limited victories and save the interconnected web of life on this planet.

In 2015, rocker Neil Young wrote and belted out the lead song for an album titled, The Monsanto Years:

You never know what the future holds in the shallow soil of Monsanto, Monsanto
The moon is full and the seeds are sown while the farmer toils for Monsanto, Monsanto
When these seeds rise they’re ready for the pesticide
And Roundup comes and brings the poison tide of Monsanto, Monsanto

The farmer knows he’s got to grow what he can sell, Monsanto, Monsanto
So he signs a deal for GMOs that makes life hell with Monsanto, Monsanto
Every year he buys the patented seeds
Poison-ready they’re what the corporation needs, Monsanto

– Lyrics and song by Neil Young,[3] “The Monsanto Years,” (2015)

Monsanto officials attempted to discredit Neil Young. They investigated him, monitored his communications, and posted internal memos about his social media activity and music. The company did the same with Reuters senior correspondent Carey Gillam, who published devastating investigations of the company’s weedkiller and its links to cancer.[4]

And then Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a forty-six-year-old groundskeeper and pest-control manager at Benicia Public School District in Solano County, California, sued Monsanto. Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after he had repeatedly sprayed Roundup, as directed, on school grounds (and thereby unwittingly jeopardized the lives of 5,000 young students in that district as well as his own). After a four-week trial ending on August 10, 2018, a unanimous jury awarded Johnson $289 million.

While San Francisco Superior Court judge Suzanne Bolanos upheld the jury’s verdict finding that Roundup indeed caused Johnson’s cancer, she cut its unprecedented punitive damage award by seventy-five percent.[5]

Some jurors were so upset by the prospect of having their verdict thrown out that they wrote to Bolanos:

“I urge you to respect and honor our verdict and the six weeks of our lives that we dedicated to this trial,” juror Gary Kitahata wrote. Juror Robert Howard said that the jury paid “studious attention” to the evidence and that any decision to overturn its verdict would shake his confidence in the judicial system.[6]“The cause is way bigger than me,” Johnson said. “Hopefully this thing will start to get the attention that it needs to get right.”[7] Indeed, Johnson’s was the first of what has mushroomed into 125,000 lawsuits against Monsanto over cancers, injuries and deaths caused by Roundup.[8] In another legal victory against Monsanto, the Court of Appeal for the State of California affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that “Monsanto acted with willful disregard for the safety of others.…Monsanto’s conduct evidenced reckless disregard of the health and safety of the multitude of unsuspecting consumers it kept in the dark [and was] motivated by the desire for sales and profit.”[9]Dewayne Johnson’s victory against Monsanto—a David vs. Goliath battle—snapped attention to the issue of toxic pesticides, the corruption of regulatory agencies, and notably, the pesticide horrors that thousands of workers are subjected to on a daily basis. It also opened a window onto the sordid history of the Bayer corporation, its involvement with the Nazis in Germany in World War II, and its medical “experiments” done first on Mexican workers at the border before carrying that “research” over the Atlantic, to use on the Jewish population in Nazi Germany.[10]

“We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us”

Along the U.S. southern border, agribusiness conglomerates recruit farmworkers from Mexico and Central America to pick crops for low pay, under wretched conditions. Like the crops, the workers are soaked with pesticides. American folksinger Woody Guthrie’s song, “Pastures of Plenty,” depicts those conditions:

It’s a mighty hard row that my poor hands have hoed

My poor feet have traveled a hot dusty road

Out of your Dust Bowl and westward we rolled

And your deserts were hot and your mountain was cold

I worked in your orchards of peaches and prunes

Slept on the ground in the light of your moon

On the edge of the city you’ll see us and then

We come with the dust and we go with the wind.[11]

Every year, there are ten to twenty thousand cases of farmworker poisonings reported, with different chemicals impacting different areas of the body. For example, workers in the citrus industry have higher incidence of gastric cancer, which is caused by phenoxyacetic acid herbicide 2,4-D; the organochlorine insecticide chlordane; and the herbicide triflurin.[12]

Source: nrdc.org

That spraying is intended to kill insects and rodents, but all too often the health of the workers is of secondary concern, when it is considered at all. We can trace the U.S. government’s mass spraying of migrant workers at least as far back as 1917 when, under the guise of protecting the country from the threat of typhus, U.S. Customs agents began delousing Mexicans who were legally crossing the border at the El Paso-Juarez international bridge and into areas of the U.S. that were formerly part of Mexico.

In 1917 alone, 127,000 workers crossing the border were forced to strip naked and given pesticide showers. By the 1920s, the chemical used at the border switched to the notorious cyanide-based Zyklon B, manufactured by the German chemical conglomerate IG Farben. Border agents tested the gas on Mexican workers, with the results sent to the German affiliate where it was used by the Nazis to exterminate Jews in the gas chambers. Like the Mexican workers, the Jews in Germany were similarly considered “vermin.”

A group of people in a room Description automatically generated with low confidence

Contract Mexican laborers being fumigated with the pesticide DDT in Hidalgo, Texas, in 1956. [Source: zinnedproject.org]

“All immigrants from the interior of Mexico, and those whom U.S. Customs officials deemed “second-class” residents of Juarez, were required to strip completely, turn in their clothes to be sterilized in a steam dryer and fumigated with hydrocyanic acid, then stand naked before a Customs inspector who would check his or her ‘hairy parts’ — scalp, armpits, chest, genital area — for lice. Those found to have lice would be required to shave their heads and body hair with clippers and bathe with kerosene and vinegar.”[13]

Historian/musician David Dorado Romo remembers how his great Aunt, Adela Dorado, “would tell our family about the humiliation of having to go through the delousing every eight days just to clean American homes in El Paso. She recalled how on one occasion the U.S. Customs officials put her clothes and shoes through the steam dryer and her shoes melted.”[14]

In a moment now forgotten from history, one day in 1917 a 17-year-old female migrant, Carmelita Torres, working as a maid in Juarez, crossed the border as she did every day to clean houses and refused to undress and be showered in pesticides. By noon, she was joined by several thousand “refusers” at the border bridge. Carmelita Torres became the Rosa Parks of what would be dubbed “the Bath Riots.”

The Orchestration of Disease—Manufacturing Fear of Immigrants

At the time of the Bath Riots, the mainstream (corporate) press did everything it could to sensationalize the typhus “threat” from Mexican migrants. That disease devastated the Russian working class at the time of the 1917 revolution, along with tens of thousands of Austrian prisoners of war (World War I) in Serbia.[15]

But in the U.S. that year, there was the small total of only 31 typhus cases overall, and only three typhus-related fatalities in El Paso. While public health was certainly a concern, officials used fear of typhus as a vehicle for fomenting repressive migrant and anti-working-class policies. Today, typhus – caused by a bacterium transmitted by some body lice—is readily treated with oral Ivermectin and clean clothing.

As one of the founding corporations in the IG Farben consortium, Bayer had no compunction about testing drugs on unwilling human subjects, such as prisoners, soldiers, and migrants. The U.S. Holocaust Museum describes Bayer’s involvement in Nazi “medical experiments” on Jews and other prisoners who were deliberately infected against their will with tuberculosis, diphtheria, and other diseases at the Dachau, Auschwitz, and Gusen concentration camps. Nazi physician Helmuth Vetter, appointed as the German Reich’s chief doctor by Heinrich Himmler, coordinated the experiments.

The Holocaust Museum notes that in Buchenwald, “physicians infected prisoners with typhus in order to test the efficacy of anti-typhus drugs, resulting in high mortality among test prisoners.”[16] Bayer was central to those “experiments”. The company was particularly active in Auschwitz. “A senior Bayer official oversaw the chemical factory in Auschwitz III (Monowitz). Most of the experiments were conducted in Birkenau in Block 20, the women’s camp hospital. There, Vetter and Auschwitz physicians Eduard Wirths and Friedrich Entress tested Bayer pharmaceuticals on prisoners who suffered from and often had been deliberately infected with tuberculosis, diphtheria, and other diseases.”[17] Following World War II, Vetter was convicted by an American military tribunal at the Mauthausen Trial, and was executed at Landsberg Prison in February 1949.

After the war, some employees of Bayer appeared in the IG Farben trial, one of the Nuremberg Subsequent Tribunals under U.S. jurisdiction. Among them was Fritz ter Meer, who helped to plan the Monowitz camp (Auschwitz III) and IG Farben’s Buna Werke factory at Auschwitz, where medical experimentation had been conducted and where 25,000 forced laborers were deployed. Ter Meer was sentenced to seven years, but was released in 1950 for good behavior. One positive outcome of these subsequent Nuremberg trials was the establishment of the Nuremberg Code, a product of the Nuremberg Doctors’ trial which codified prohibitions against the kinds of involuntary experimentation conducted by Bayer in the concentration camp system.[18]

In the immediate postwar, the victorious allies divided the IG Farben conglomerate into individual companies, but still allowed them to function. Bayer, along with BASF and Hoechst—all part of the IG Farben conglomerate and supporters of the Nazis in World War II—re-emerged as one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies.

Bayer, however, “did little to come to terms with its Nazi past,” the Holocaust Museum notes, and adds this tidbit: “Fritz ter Meer, convicted of war crimes for his actions at Auschwitz, was elected to Bayer AG’s supervisory board in 1956, a position he retained until 1964.”[19]

At the U.S. border with Mexico, the U.S. government policy of spraying Mexican workers with toxic pesticides continued apace thru the late 1950s and into the 1960s. The organochloride insecticide DDT became the pesticide of choice, until the movement inspired by Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, forced out DDT after a decade of mounting protests.

An Aspirin the Size of the Sun

In June 2018, the U.S. Justice Department approved the $66 billion purchase of Monsanto by the German pharmaceutical corporation Bayer, making Bayer-Monsanto the most powerful agribusiness entity on the planet. It now owns and controls more than 25 percent of the world’s seeds, and more than one third of global herbicide sales.

The Bayer-Monsanto consolidation—one of the rotting legs of what physicist and world ecology advocate Vandana Shiva calls “The Poison Cartel”—came on the heels of the merger of the agricultural divisions of Dow and Dupont (now called Corteva Agriscience), and Syngenta’s merger with ChemChina. (Syngenta itself was the outcome of the consolidation of part of Novartis with AstraZeneca.)

As a result of its acquisition of Monsanto, Bayer—no stranger to protecting itself from condemnations of its dreadful record when it comes to human rights and environmental justice—now has to decide how to proceed with the torrent of lawsuits, which have resulted in penalties and fines soaring into many billions of dollars.[20] Bayer could not alleviate this headache even by gulping down the adult-size dose of its other famous drug, packaged in its familiar yellow and brown box. To do so would take, in poet Roque Dalton’s verse, “an aspirin the size of the sun.”

By July 2021, the financial pressures on Bayer forced the company to begin pulling Roundup from the shelves of such companies as The Home Depot and Lowe’s; as of 2023, Roundup will no longer be sold to individual gardeners in the U.S.,[21] a historic victory for enviro-activists and the environment.[22]

But the Biden administration—like those before it (Republican and Democratic alike)—presses on in defense of Monsanto and its attempt to control the agriculture throughout the globe via genetically engineering the world’s food supply, for which its herbicide, Roundup, has been so destructively designed.

Biden has gone so far as to appoint “Mr. Monsanto”—Tom Vilsack—again, as Agriculture Secretary. (Vilsack served in that same capacity for eight years in the Obama administration, despite much protest from environmental activists.[23])

Source: thecommunityword.com

This same Poison Cartel has accumulated trillions of dollars by manufacturing pharmaceutical drugs to “save us” from the cancers and neurological diseases their pesticides are causing. The “revolving door” spins freely between corporate interests and regulatory agency apparatchiks no matter which party is in power.[24] The agencies not only “look the other way” but have now been exposed for having ghost-written Monsanto’s applications for Roundup and other chemicals to those very same agencies.[25]

The entire planet is awash in chemical pollutants that poison our drinking water, food and soil, human breast milk,[26] animals, and ecosystems. Our “leaders” have long and storied histories of groveling before and collaborating with the titans of industry, whose propaganda machines promote self-interested assurances that their products are “safe” and environmentally friendly. They know that truthful information, under the right circumstances, can move people to rebel.

So they contaminate the truth, just as they pollute the natural environment, to foster public acceptance of pesticides and genetic engineering of the world’s food supply. Will activists in the United States and other industrial countries be able to force their governments to reverse course? Will they succeed in challenging the corporate quest for ever-increasing profits and control? To do so requires those reading this essay to be reborn as ecology activists who strive to win society to a different way of looking at human interactions with nature—no easy task, in current circumstances —and to take action based on that transformed consciousness.

Key pieces of information regarding the U.S. government’s worldwide advocacy (including the threatened use of its military) on behalf of Monsanto’s patented seeds exploded onto the internet via thousands of cables “liberated” by current political prisoner Julian Assange. The cables Assange published revealed massive U.S. government attempts on behalf of Monsanto, and its patents, to arm-twist countries throughout the world, along with its attempts to squelch opposition to GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The cables showed U.S. diplomats applying financial, diplomatic, and even military pressure on behalf of Monsanto and other biotech corporations.

In a 2007 cable marked “confidential,” Craig Stapleton, then U.S. Ambassador to France, advised the U.S. to prepare for economic war with countries unwilling to introduce Monsanto’s GM corn seeds. He called for retaliation, to “make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France…[has] told us retaliation is the only way to begin to turn this issue in France.”[27] The U.S. diplomatic team recommended that “we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.”[28]

In another cable, this one from Macau and Hong Kong, a U.S. Department of Agriculture director requested $92,000 in U.S. public funds for “media education kits” to combat growing public resistance to genetically engineered foods. It portrays attempts to mandate the labeling of GMOs as a “threat” to U.S. interests, and seeks to “make it much more difficult for mandatory labeling advocates to prevail.”

The cables released by Wikileaks revealed that officials in the Obama administration, particularly in
Hillary Clinton’s State Department, intervened at Monsanto’s request “to undermine legislation that might restrict sales of genetically engineered seeds.” Under Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department was so gung-ho to promote GMOs that Mother Jones writer Tom Philpott called it “the de facto global-marketing arm of the ag-biotech industry, complete with figures as high-ranking as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mouthing industry talking points as if they were gospel.”

The New York Daily News reported that State Department officials under Hillary Clinton were actively using taxpayer money to promote Monsanto’s controversial GMO seeds around the world.

The fight against GMOs and Roundup is partly a propaganda war; U.S. officials recommended pro-biotech and bio-agriculture DVDs be sent to every high school in Hong Kong.[29]

The cables reveal the joint strategic planning of Monsanto and the U.S. government. In one series, Monsanto concluded that northern Thailand would be an ideal location to cultivate genetically engineered corn for export to other countries, due to the area’s very low labor and infrastructure costs.

In this cable, one country, Peru, is mentioned as recipient, and the U.S. official suggests that even with transportation expenses across two oceans included, it would nevertheless be more profitable to grow and ship GMO corn from northern Thailand than from neighboring Argentina or Brazil, since U.S. “diplomatic efforts” would be used to drive down the cost of production in northern Thailand. The U.S. would press Thailand to drop its opposition to GM cultivation, and the country would be rewarded. The cables provide a fascinating (and terrfying) glimpse into the seemingly mundane mechanisms of global imperialism on a very localized level.

WikiLeaks “acquired” and published a searchable database and unabridged text of the secret 2015 TransPacific Partnership, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and Trade in Services Agreement.[30] The rogue publisher exposed the U.S. government’s pressure on other countries to purchase and plant Monsanto’s patented genetically engineered seeds, which required the concomitant purchase of Monsanto’s patented pesticides in order for the crops to grow.

The treaties limited the ability of one country to legally challenge environmental depradation in trade with another, making it abundantly clear that environmental issues could not be successfully addressed in piecemeal fashion, but must be seen as integrated political, technological, economic, and scientifically packaged warfare. To succeed, movements would be compelled to not only examine the dangers of each pesticide du jour,but the underlying mechanisms by which corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Novartis, BASF and other pesticide and pharmaceutical manufacturers come to determine government policies overall, as well as those of global regulatory agencies, which in turn allow them to get away with masking the truth about their products.

Left activists have always exposed the collaboration between government and corporate expansion, but the details revealed by WikiLeaks’ documents are nothing short of astounding. They reveal the need for ecological movements to develop far more radical strategies for dealing with the immense destruction by capitalism in practice, and not just in theory. For this largely unknown contribution by Julian Assange, ecological activists, along with antiwar radicals motivated by Julian’s “collateral damage” video (obtained from Chelsea Manning), owe him a debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid.

Today, Julian Assange—locked away in a British prison despite judicial findings in his favor—is fighting for his life. The U.S. government seeks to bring this Australian citizen back to the United States for a show trial and then lock him up forever, if they don’t assassinate him en route.[31] The sacrifices Julian Assange has made are profound, and his contribution to ecological as well as antiwar movements is enormous. It is incumbent on all to demand an end to his incarceration and torment by the U.S. and British governments.[32]

And yet, despite worldwide exposure of glyphosate’s dangers and its designation as a “probable carcinogen,” only a handful of governments throughout the world joined with environmental activists and health professionals in banning it. We—people who want to breathe clean air, drink pure water, preserve what’s left of the old-growth forests, protect the many species that share this earth with us, and escape from the epidemics of cancer and neurological disorders—need to grasp why government officials ever allowed it at all?

A strategic question: How significant is the fight to ban individual pesticides, since the industry releases new and equally dangerous ones into the environment, to replace the ones being banned or withdrawn?[33]

The Fight Against Monsanto’s Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides encourages readers to think about the weaknesses and contradictions of the process used to approve pesticides. The purported experts have been proven wrong on so many occasions that we’d be fools to take their acceptance of Roundup at face value, especially since many researchers conceal their financial arrangements with corporate funders, thereby biasing the outcome and reporting of their research.[34]

The 2016 occupation and blockade of an underground oil pipeline under construction at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota offered a wider vision for how to construct effective social movements. The Dakota Access pipeline was to carry oil 1,172 miles from [Canada’s] Bakken oil fields for distribution in the U.S. midwest. More than 10,000 participants took part in an occupation lasting months, and, unlike the politicians in D.C., heroically refused to be divided by the false assurances of those in power.

But even in the face of unprecedented united opposition to the pipeline among Native American tribes and environmental activists, many politicians nonetheless acceded to the assurances of corporate power regarding the safety of their pipelines, just as they had done with regard to pesticides and genetically engineered products.[35]

Those policies, and the politicians who comply with and promulgate them, betray the public good; corporate donations to their campaigns serve to bribe key legislators and government executives to boost Roundup, despite the dangers. And budget-conscious officials—many of them in thrall to the pesticides industry—have decided that it’s more cost-effective for now to lay off workers and replace their labor-intensive but much safer weeding-by-hand with chemical herbicides like glyphosate. In the short run, this reduces public expenditure, until the outsized health and environmental costs are factored in.

The fight for clean water, soil, and air remains just as necessary today, unfortunately, as it was in 1962, when Rachel Carson issued her call to arms not only against chemical pesticides such as DDT but, lest we forget, a plethora of pollutants including (especially) radiation from atomic bomb tests. Today, sixty years after its publication, Silent Spring’s clarion call to fight the corporate and government polluters and defend the environment is more necessary than ever. And to succeed, mass movements need to draw on the insights, efforts, victories, and sacrifices of prior generations.

The spirits of those who came before lead us to becoming aware of the connections between Roundup and the genetic engineering of agriculture. They also help us to connect the issues of hydrofracking, climate chaos, huge dams, mountaintop removal, nuclear power and weapons, oil and gas pipelines, pollution, factory farming, EMF pollution, and wetlands destruction and flooding.

Industrial capitalism is anti-ecological at its core. Rachel Carson bequeathed us a legacy of courage, which impels us to devise new forms of action not only against individual pesticides, but against the systemic wars initiated by the same corporations and governments for labor, land, resources, and geopolitical control. It’s high time that the Left (and I’m talking about the real Left here, not the media-anointed Left) exposes the integrated nature of these technologies and provides the kind of anti-capitalist leadership needed, one that challenges arch-rightwing forces that are misleading well-meaning people into a void filled with reactionary formulations and strategies.

*

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.

This article has been excerpted from the Preface to Mitchel Cohen’s book, The Fight Against Monsanto’s Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides. To learn more about the book and its numerous contributors, please click on https://www.ThePoliticsofPesticides.com.

Mitchel Cohen coordinates the No Spray Coalition in New York City, which successfully sued the City government over its indiscriminate spraying of toxic pesticides. Mitchel can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. Some ecologists believe that all organisms, whether “beneficial” to human purposes or not, have an intrinsic right to exist. Thus, the use of the judgment “beneficial” is considered by deep ecologists, for example, to be anathema to ecological vision. 

  2. “Unsafe at any Dose? Glyphosate in the Context of Multiple Chemical Safety Failures,” a chapter in this book. 
  3. A Monsanto representative had this to say about Neil Young’s song: “Many of us at Monsanto have been and are fans of Neil Young. Unfortunately, for some of us, his current album may fail to reflect our strong beliefs in what we do every day to help make agriculture more sustainable. We recognize there is a lot of misinformation about who we are and what we do—and unfortunately several of those myths seem to be captured in these lyrics.” 
  4. Sam Levin, “Revealed: how Monsanto’s ‘intelligence center’ targeted journalists and activists,” The Guardian, Aug. 8, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/07/monsanto-fusion-center-journalists-roundup-neil-young. Carey Gillam’s exposés can be found on the website “U.S. Right to Know,” https://usrtk.org. Her books include Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2017) and The Monsanto Papers – Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption, and One Man’s Search for Justice (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2021). 
  5. Paul Elias, Associated Press, October 23, 2018. 
  6. Elias, ibid. 
  7. Stephanie K. Baer, “A Jury Has Awarded Nearly $290 Million To A Man Who Says A Popular Weed Killer Caused His Cancer.” BuzzFeed News, Aug. 10, 2018, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/weed-killer-cancer-jury-verdict 
  8. In October 2021, Monsanto – which had been losing case after case – scored a partial win in court against a parent whose child developed cancer as a result of repeated exposures to Roundup. The child’s attorney said the jury doubted that a few exposures to Roundup could have been enough to cause cancer. However, he said the jury did not address the larger question of the alleged carcinogenicity of Roundup overall, and the appeal is currently underway. 
  9. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Pilliod-Opinion.pdf 
  10. So-called “medical experiments,” often amounting to torture, have been done systematically on women in Puerto Rico and elsewhere, prisoners in the U.S., American Indians, soldiers, Black Americans (Tuskegee being just one example of many, as discussed in later chapters in this book. 
  11. © Copyright 1960 (renewed) and 1963 (renewed) by Woody Guthrie Publications, Inc. & TRO-Ludlow Music, Inc. (BMI). For the full lyrics, see https://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/Pastures_Of_Plenty.htm. 
  12. Ariel Wittenberg, “EPA pesticide ban overlooks some farmworkers,” The GreenWire, Sept. 14, 2021. 
  13. David Dorado Romo, “Jan. 28, 1917: The Bath Riots,” Zinn Education Project, https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/bath-riots. The other quotes following in this section are taken from that same article. 
  14. Ibid. 
  15. Microbiology Society, “Typhus in World War I”, https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/world-war-i/article/typhus-in-world-war-i.html. 
  16. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 100 Raoul Wallenberg Place, SW, Washington, DC 20024-2126. 
  17. Ibid. 
  18. Ibid. 
  19. Ibid. 
  20. Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, California, were awarded $2 billion. (Andrew Blankstein and Adiel Kaplan, “California jury hits Monsanto with $2 billion judgment in cancer lawsuit,” NBC News, May 13, 2019.) Another jury in 2019 awarded cancer victim Edwin Hardeman $5.3 million in compensation for his illness and $75 million in punitive damages, which are intended to punish a defendant and deter future misconduct. The jury found that punitive damages were required because Monsanto had failed to warn users about its product. A judge later reduced the punitive award to $20 million. (Maura Dolan, “Appeals court upholds $25-million verdict against maker of Roundup,” Los Angeles Times, May 14, 2021). 
  21. “Bayer Confirms End of Sale of Glyphosate-Based Herbicides for U.S. Lawn & Garden Market,” Sustainable Pulse, July 29, 2021. 
  22. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety (CFS). 
  23. Madeline Knight, “Biden Chooses Tom “Mr. Monsanto” Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary,” Left Voice, December 23, 2020. 
  24. Mitchel Cohen, “Genetic Engineering, Pesticides, and Resistance to the New Colonialism,” Chapter 15, for many more details about the “revolving door”. See also Jordan Schachtel, “The Revolving Door: All 3 FDA-authorized COVID shot companies now employ former FDA commissioners,” in Dossier.substack.com. 
  25. Danny Hakim, “Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents,” The New York Times, March 14, 2017. The documents themselves are available at www.poisonpapers.org. Also, “The Poison Papers Expose Decades of Collusion between Industry and Regulators over Hazardous Pesticides and Other Chemicals,” Bioscience Resource Project, July 26, 2017. 
  26. A study by Moms Across America in 2014 found glyphosate in breast milk, which was especially alarming (https://www.momsacrossamerica.com /glyphosate_testing_results). It’s also accumulating in soybeans. (See T. Bøhn, et al., “Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate Accumulates in Roundup Ready GM Soybeans,” Food Chemistry 153 (June 2014): 207– 15.) 
  27. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07PARIS4723_a.html 
  28. Ibid. 
  29. Anita Katial, Senior Director Europe Operations at USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), is named as the responsible officer for the pro-biotech propaganda effort on behalf of the U.S. government. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09HONGKONG128_a.html 
  30. https://wikileaks.org/tpp-final/ 
  31. Julian Borger, “CIA officials under Trump discussed assassinating Julian Assange – report: Mike Pompeo and officials requested ‘options’ for killing Assange following WikiLeaks’ publication of CIA hacking tools, report says.” The Guardian, Sept. 27, 2021.
  32. Many thanks to Patricia Dahl, an organizer with Stand with Assange NY, for outlining some of the secret involvements of the U.S. government with Monsanto and other corporate polluters that were first brought to light by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. See Michael Ratner, Moving the Bar: My Life as a Radical Lawyer (New York: OR Books: 2021), for an extensive first-hand review of the Assange legal case by his chief attorney. 
  33. A similar question resonates in this one: How significant is the fight, say, for workers in one shop to fight for and achieve higher wages since capitalism keeps offering new low-waged jobs that desperate people around the world are willing to take, under the coercion of the frequently unbearable costs of daily life? (Karl Marx was one of the first to address this question in a small pamphlet, “Value, Price and Profit.”) 
  34. Sheldon Krimsky, Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research, With a foreword by Ralph Nader (2003: Rowman & Littlefield Pubs); also, Krimsky, “Conflicts of Interest In Science: How Corporate-Funded Academic Research Can Threaten Public Health,” (Hot Books, 2019). 
  35. The Standing Rock Sioux and environmental advocates won a temporary victory in July 2020 when a judge ordered that the Dakota Access Pipeline must shut down by August 5, 2020 pending a court-ordered environmental review. Microsoft News called this “a major defeat for the Trump administration and the oil companies that have been on the wrong side of history for years.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/victory-for-standing-rock-the-dakota-access-pipeline-must-shut-down-by-august-5/ar-BB16oYiF. However by May of 2021 the environmental review process had still not been completed, and a judge ruled that oil could flow through the pipeline while such review is pending. Meanwhile, in June of 2021 eco-activists in Hubbard County, Minnesota, chained themselves to a semi truck carrying drilling equipment Monday in an attempt to stop construction of Line 3, a $9.3 billion pipeline meant to transport some of the most climate-destructive oil in the world into the states. (Samir Ferdowsi, “Protesters Chained Themselves to a Semi Truck to Stop the Next Big U.S. Oil Pipeline. At least 500 water protectors were arrested protesting the Line 3 pipeline, which will carry toxic tar sands oil from Canada into the U.S.,” Vice News, June 17, 2021). Earlier that month (June 2021), the Biden administration revoked the permit for yet another pipeline subject to mass protests, the Keystone Xl pipeline. 

Featured image is from Shutterstock

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Monsanto Now Part of Bayer: May Lose a Few Court Fights —But Will Keep on Poisoning People with Its Carcinogenic Pesticide ‘Roundup’
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

It’s clear that the Biden Administration remains divided over what to do but that some members within it are dangerously flirting with the possibility of provoking what they mistakenly think might be a ‘manageable crisis’ with Russia.

US President Joe Biden scandalously quipped during Wednesday’s press conference that NATO might be divided over how to respond in the event that Russia stages a so-called “minor incursion” into Ukraine. This reveals that his team’s strategy towards Russia isn’t fully formed in the context of the undeclared US-provoked missile crisis in Europe that talks earlier this month were aimed at de-escalating. It also follows speculation from American intelligence agencies that the Eurasian Great Power is planning a “false flag” attack in Donbass in order to justify the use of force against its neighbor, which Moscow of course angrily denied. That claim prompted an Eastern Ukrainian militia leader to much more credibly allege that it’s actually British-trained Ukrainian operatives who are plotting a false flag attack there.

It’s objectively the case that tensions are soaring between the US and Russia as a result of recent talks failing to achieve legal guarantees for the latter’s security. In particular, Moscow is requesting that NATO formally declare that it won’t expand any further eastward and that it also won’t deploy strike weapons near Russia’s borders. The Kremlin also requested written replies to all of its very detailed proposals that its representatives recently discussed with their American counterparts. While the anti-Chinese faction of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) has an interest in de-escalating tensions in Europe so as to enable the Pentagon to redeploy some of their forces from there to the Asia-Pacific in order to more aggressively “contain” China, their anti-Russian rivals disagree.

That subversive faction has evidently succeeded in at the very least delaying progress on that front, if not dangerously risking its reversal towards an even more intensified competition between these nuclear powers. There’s also a crucial domestic political context that’s recently come into play too, and that’s the Biden Administration’s latest spree of legislative losses on the home front. Some speculate that the incumbent’s team might try to provoke an international distraction that they might mistakenly believe could be “manageable” in order to rally the country behind its elderly leader. The timing is such that this could proverbially “kill two birds with one stone” by prompting the fearmongered “minor incursion” by Russia during next month’s Beijing Winter Olympics in order to spoil that latter event.

Strategically speaking, this is ominously similar to what the US did during the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics when it encouraged former Georgian President Saakashvili to provoke a similar “minor incursion” by attacking Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia during the start of those Games. History might once again be repeating itself for the above-mentioned self-serving reasons. Just like back then, the US thought that any kinetic proxy crisis with Russia would be “manageable” but the outcome shattered their expectations. So too might something similar happen vis-à-vis Ukraine since any “minor incursion” by Russia would likely be aimed at completely neutralizing the military threat to its national security from that neighboring nation. In other words, the US would suffer a massive strategic setback.

Nevertheless, depending on the scope and scale of the fearmongered “minor incursion” that might be prompted by the US’ anti-Russian “deep state” faction either encouraging Kiev to commence a third round of Civil War hostilities in Eastern Ukraine and/or unthinkably attack Russian forces across the border directly, the US-led West may or may not impose its threatened worst-ever sanctions regime against Moscow. In theory, artillery and missile strikes from within Russia’s own borders against hostile Ukrainian military targets might be sufficient to neutralize imminent threats without its forces having to cross the international frontier. That might enable Russia to respond below the sanctions threshold while still inadvertently spoiling the Beijing Winter Olympics like the US might be hoping.

It would also be enough to provoke the foreign crisis that Biden’s team might have dangerously convinced themselves that he needs for domestic political reasons related to distracting Americans from his failed legislative agenda and getting them to rally behind him on a so-called “patriotic” pretext. Depending on how the sequence of events is spun to average Americans, it could also possibly give the Democrats a fighting chance ahead of the midterm elections later this year. It’s admittedly a gamble, but as the saying goes, “desperate people do desperate things” and the Biden Administration is becoming increasingly desperate as a result of its latest legislative setbacks. The “minor incursion” that their anti-Russian “deep state” faction might be plotting to provoke could therefore be seen as a realistic scenario.

Observers should remember that while the insight shared in this analysis makes sense from the perspective through which the author has lately been interpreting the US’ approach towards Russia’s security guarantees, anything can still happen since its “deep state” dynamics remain opaque by their very nature. This means that the “minor incursion” scenario might not actually come to pass if something changes behind the scenes and thus alters its “deep state’s” calculations. It’s clear that the Biden Administration remains divided over what to do but that some members within it are dangerously flirting with the possibility of provoking what they mistakenly think might be a “manageable crisis” with Russia. The next four weeks till the upcoming Olympics’ closing ceremony on 20 February will be telling.

*

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.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Yesterday, January 19th, 2022, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced an end to forced “masks”, “vaccine” passes, and more.

This is great news! Congratulations to everyone who has fought so hard to get here.

This comes on the heels of UK citizens attending police stations and initiating criminal investigations into public officials and others who have been imposing the covid agenda in England.

We have learned in Canada, and everywhere around the world, that we the people must actively enforce the law and defend human rights.

There are many politicians and bureaucrats still pushing the deceptive and criminal agenda. In Ontario, like many places, the doctors who have risked all to inform and defend the public are still under attack. Please stay in the fight! We can restore human rights, truth, and the rule of law.

Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliot pushes for persecution of honest doctors

Here is Ontario’s current Minister of Health fueling the persecution of doctors who defend the public, and oppose the criminal Nuremberg Code violations. Elliot is also chanting the false covid agenda slogan that their so-called “vaccines” are “safe and effective”. They are not! (See references: One,Two, Three, Four, and Five)

Click here to watch the video.

Notice that she stated that the “vaccines” are “safe and effective”. This evidence will be examined at her trial Nuremberg 2.0.

Regarding Elliot’s attack on doctors free speech, the Honorable Ontario Provincial Member of Parliament Roman Baber wrote:

“Watch. Minister of Misinformation, @celliottability, threatens physicians for expressing a professional opinion on an evolving scientific matter. It’s a chill on speech to be expected of dictatorial regimes. This is after misleading us about hospitalizations for 2 years. #onpoli “

Take action. Stop the criminal injection campaigns.

Very soon, we will have more very exciting news, and opportunities to participate in the grassroots swell of action to take down the criminals, and reclaim our lives and freedom.

*

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: Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a press conference on 16 March, with Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Witty and Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. Picture by Andrew Parsons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK to End “Mask” and “Vaccine” Mandates, and More, Immediately
  • Tags:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

In the parliamentary news of the German Bundestag of 19 January 2022, it can be read in a short message that Germany – i.e. the Federal Government and subordinate organs – has ordered more than half a billion vaccine doses in 2021. This information has not been disseminated offensively by the Federal Government, but is the result of a so-called Small Request (Kleine Anfrage) to the Government. The Bundestag’s message on this:

“Around 554 million vaccine doses ordered

In 2021, Germany has ordered about 554 million vaccine doses in different tranches from the EU contracts for the procurement of Corona vaccine. This is stated in the answer (20/429) of the Federal Government to a small question (20/319) of the AfD parliamentary group.

In the case of Biontech/Pfizer, the order quantity as of 16 December 2021 was around 287.3 million vaccine doses. According to the information, about 120.3 million doses were ordered from Moderna, about 56.3 million doses from AstraZeneca and about 55 million doses from Johnson&Johnson.

In addition, there were smaller order quantities from Sanofi/GSK, Valneva and Novavax. The federal government also bought three million Biontech vaccine doses from Poland in early December 2021, which were delivered in the same month.“

Even if all 83 million inhabitants participated in these “vaccinations“, that would be almost seven doses per inhabitant.

*

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.

This article was originally published on Blauer Bote Magazin – Wissenschaft statt Propaganda.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 554 Million Covid-19 Vaccine Doses Ordered by German Government for 83 Million People: Seven Doses Per Person!
  • Tags: ,

Blinken Delays US Response to Russia

January 20th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

A special press briefing in unseemly hurry by the US state department to warn an imminent Russian assault on Ukraine; a surprise call by state secretary Antony Blinken to his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov to be followed by an unscheduled meeting in Geneva Friday; a whirlwind tour of Kiev and Berlin through Thursday — US diplomacy has gone into overdrive as the timeline for giving a formal response to Russia’s demands of security guarantee draws closer. 

The senior state department official who gave the briefing Tuesday sees something sinister in the planned joint military exercise between Russian and Belarusian militaries and suspects “Belarus could play a role in Russia’s planned invasion of Ukraine.” 

Yet, the official didn’t even know the scale of the exercise or the number of troops involved. In reality, the drill needn’t even be notified under the OSCE’s 2011 Vienna Document since they are below the threshold of 9,000 troops, etc. But Washington would have us believe that with a paltry force of a few thousand troops, Russia plans to stage an invasion of Ukraine across the Belarusian border! 

Now, this is the ostensible backdrop in which Blinken has set out from Washington for a tour of Kiev, Berlin and Geneva through Friday — a hilarious hypothesis.  

However, this is not to underestimate the gravity of the developing situation. Moscow expects by the weekend Washington’s response in writing to its proposal for legally binding security guarantee. Moscow will decide on future course of action depending on the US response.

On Tuesday, Lavrov said in Moscow in the presence of the visiting German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock that any further negotiations with the US would depend on Washington’s response, “as we were promised.”

On Wednesday, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov underscored that a moratorium on NATO expansion for a limited time span would be unacceptable for Russia. He said,

“No, this scenario is unacceptable. We need legally binding guarantees of NATO’s non-expansion in a form of treaties: a bilateral agreement with the US and a multilateral agreement with NATO.”

Ryabkov explained why Moscow needs “bulletproof, 100-percent guarantees of NATO’s non-expansion.” He said, 

“We’ve experienced it many times in the past, when such formulas, lucrative on the outside, were quickly forgotten, turned inside out and transformed into their opposite… We cannot be satisfied with yet another trick.” 

Simply put, the latest contrived war hysteria appears to presage a retraction by the Biden Administration from the commitment to hand over a written response to Moscow by this weekend. 

According to Washington Post,

“It is unclear if the United States will provide a written response to Russia on its key demands from last week, something Moscow continues to insist on to resolve the standoff… The State Department official dodged a question on whether Washington will provide a written response, saying only that the United States remains prepared to engage Russia on “security issues.”

Lavrov and Ryabkov probably smell a rat over Blinken’s whirlwind European tour at this juncture. The heart of the matter is that the European allies have pledged to take tough measures against Russia if it rolls troops into Ukraine, but when it comes to specifics, it is far from clear what they are willing to do. The allies don’t look ringingly united. 

On Tuesday, Germany’s Handelsblatt newspaper reported, citing German government sources, that Western governments are no longer considering cutting Russian banks off from the Swift global payments system. Within hours, Russian rouble gained on the report! 

It means the so-called “nuclear option” in the sanctions package is off the consideration zone. Evidently, Europeans cannot afford to snap economic and financial ties with Russia, given their heavy dependence on Siberian gas. In Berlin, Ministry of Economy has disclosed that as of January 11, Germany only has “a theoretical working gas availability of 17.7 days.” 

Russian gas supplies have stopped since December 21 and Gazprom has not booked any capacity to pump gas to Europe through the Yamal pipeline through February. Overall, European storage facilities were 49.33% full as of January 12. 

Clearly, some major European allies have demonstrated less enthusiasm for imposing huge economic penalties on Russia fearing a blowback could damage their economies, or put in jeopardy the Russian gas supply which is critically needed. 

Basically, how do you sanction a country endowed with such fabulous mineral resources and foreign reserves exceeding US$650 billion? Russia balances its budget if oil sells at $40 per barrel.  

Again, the US threat to punish Russia by holding back the certification for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is simply unrealistic. The government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta commented on Wednesday that Russia is not suffering any financial losses over the delay in the certification since high gas prices compensated all investments into this project and may only prompt Russia now to expand its LNG production and switch to gas conversion so as to create new export potential. 

Addressing the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron said,

“when I look at our oil and gas imports, I see we are not independent from Russia. We will not become independent tomorrow but it does not mean we should severe ties with Russia; on the contrary, they bring many benefits to us.”

Macron proposes to visit Moscow soon. 

Indeed, during her visit to Moscow on Tuesday, German foreign minister Baerbock too conspicuously distanced herself from Blinken’s hyperbolic threats to Russia, his war hysteria and his apocalyptic predictions. Instead, Baerbock’s emphasis was on mapping out paths of cooperation with Russia. She demonstrated her ability to think rationally and offered a civilised dialogue to Russia. 

Militarily, too, a British military flight taking weapons to Ukraine on Monday flew around German airspace rather than taking the most direct route through it, as Berlin is averse to any such direct military aid. 

The US Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who traveled with Republican and Democratic senators to Kyiv last weekend told reporters Monday,

“Right now there seems to be slightly greater interest coming from the United States on implementing tough multilateral sanctions than from Europe. That’s somewhat stunning to me, given the territorial integrity of Europe, not the United States, is at stake.” 

It is an open secret that in October and November, France, Germany and some others in the EU questioned Washington’s warnings that Russia’s military buildup near Ukraine could signal an imminent invasion. France and Germany even opposed activating NATO’s crisis response planning system and had to be persuaded to relent. 

Above all, Europeans have no desire to bankroll Ukraine which is a black hole and failing state. It doesn’t make sense to them when the US intelligence brags in the media that they’d bleed Russian troops in a guerrilla war in the middle of Europe. Fundamentally, all this dovetails into a pervasive scepticism among the European elite regarding the Biden administration.    

Certainly, Blinken is not the Pied Piper of Hamelin. He has to figure out a way forward. In immediate terms, he has to hand over a document putting down a US response to Russia’s demands. The trip to Europe is to create some wriggle room.

At a press conference in Kiev on Wednesday, Blinken said he will not provide Lavrov with a written response during their upcoming meeting in Geneva Friday. But the countdown may have begun in Moscow. President Biden himself has taken the centerstage and proposed that “there is room to work if (Putin) wants to do that.”

But the catch is, Biden could merely be buying time. The US has a long record of zigzagging and not sticking to international agreements. In the highly polarised US politics, there isn’t any certainty that Biden would even get a second term as president.

Moscow cannot but be aware of past experience and that in the toxic atmosphere of Russophobia in the Beltway, an improvement of relations with the US, leave alone a strategic understanding of such profound consequence to global stability — and of existential nature for Russia itself — will remain a pipe dream.

In a recent tweet, Strobe Talbott, the original choreographer of NATO expansion in the post-cold war order, triumphantly congratulated Blinken and Jake Sullivan for cornering Russia! Suffice to say, the Clinton Team of Russophobes is steering Russia relations and their dubious agenda all along has been to finish off Russia!

Valery Garbuzov, the director of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies under the Russian Academy of Sciences,  told TASS on Wednesday, “Firstly, I have no idea, if there will be written replies. That Russia wants to have them in writing does not mean that they will be provided in writing. Secondly, I do not think that there will be answers that will satisfy Russia.”

*

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.

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.

***

We refer Global Readers to:

The How Bad Is My Batch Website

Displays number of deaths and disabilities associated with each batch/lot number = indication of relative toxicity of one batch/lot compared to another

No one currently knows the reason why some batches/lots are associated with excessive deaths, disabilities and adverse reactions (up to 50 x). Until we do know, it is best to be cautious

[“Batch-code” = “Lot Number” = the number they write on your vaccination card.]

*

Check out your batch code (lot number)

Moderna Batch Codes

Pfizer Batch Codes

Janssen Batch Codes

Moderna (outside of USA)

Pfizer (outside of USA)

Janssen (outside of USA)

Latest Info on Boosters

Bad Batches of the Month

Variation in Toxicity

Cumulative Toxicity over Time PDF

VIDEO : Variation in Toxicity between Batches

Death by Lottery PDF

VIDEO : Non-GMP Compliant Batches Associated with Death and Disability

VIDEO : Team Enigma – Covid Vax Variability

VIDEO : VAERS reveals super-toxic batches

Do the Batch Codes Code for Toxicity?

Moderna’s 20A-21A Classification of Toxicity for Covid Vaccines PDF

Moderna : Alphabetic Labelling of Different Toxicities PDF

Pfizer : Alphabetic Labelling of Different Toxicities PDF

VIDEO : Do Pfizer Batch Numbers Code for Toxicity Part 1 ?

VIDEO : Do Pfizer Batch Numbers Code for Toxicity Part 2 ?

VIDEO : Do Moderna Batch Numbers Code for Toxicity ?

VAERS Database

Covid Science Library

Medical doctors talking about VAERS

VaersAnalysis.info

Data Source

USA Data: All data is sourced from VAERS, a public database of over 700,000 adverse reaction reports for Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen Covid 19 vaccines in the USA.

Foreign Data: VAERS database now also includes data for Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen Covid 19 vaccines in countries outside of the USA. This data can be found here – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) – the last table listed. This non-domestic data has been submitted by foreign regulatory agencies and consists of approximately 1,000,000 adverse reaction reports.

Our intention is to present the VAERS data in an accessible and unadulterated form, that can be easily verified using the links below

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

Video Tutorial 1 : Extracting Bad Batch Data from VAERS – Deaths, Disabilities, Hospitalisations

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “How Bad Is My Batch” Website Provides Access to Data on Vaccine Deaths and Disabilities associated with Each Batch / Lot Number
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

An investigation of available data shows that worldwide professional football / soccer match cardiovascular deaths in 2021 were 300% higher than the 12-year average, with the number of deaths occurring in December 2021 alone equalling the 2009-2020 average.

The following table details 36 known deaths of professional footballers to have occurred throughout 2021.

Note – a written version of this table has been presented at the end of this article that allows the links to be accessed.

We restricted the wikipedia table to include only male professional footballers (over 16 years old) who were members of a football club in FIFA countries who died of a cardiovascular problem during a match (training or competitive) or collapsed due to a cardiovascular problem on the pitch or immediately after the game and then died later (did not recover).

But we found another 15 in addition to the 21 presently (2022 January 12) listed

The following table shows the total number of listed Fifa football match deaths and male cardiovascular football match deaths to have occurred every year since 2009.

The data within the table was obtained from the following –

Pro footballers died of cardiovascular problems during games (match or training) at 4 times (31/7.8) the average rate of cardiovascular deaths from 2009 to 2020.

There were more than 15x as many deaths from heart attacks and strokes in 2021 than there were in 2020.

There were 3.5 times as many deaths in December 2021 than there were in the whole of 2020.

There were almost as many deaths in December 2021 (7) as the annual average rate over the last 12 years (7.8 per year).

This does not mean that sporting people are all now 4x more likely to suffer a heart attack. It means that vaccinated sporting people are somewhere around 6 or 7 times more likely to suffer a heart attack than unvaccinated sporting people because only around two thirds of pro footballers are vaccinated, and these are the ones that will be suffering death and making up the numbers.

If you are not particularly athletic then hopefully your chances of getting a heart attack have not increased quite so much.

But that is only a small part of the bad news. The real problem is this…

That is a straight up exponential rise Quarter on Quarter.

Cardio vascular football deaths are doubling every quarter. So by the end of 2022 they will have risen to 320 per quarter (40, 80, 160, 320). The advice given to footballers who collapse but survive is that they should cease all strenuous activity for 3 months. These figures reveal that all athletes who are vaxxed should do the same thing.

All pro footballers and all professional athletes therefore have two choices. Either stop taking vaccines or stop doing sports. If these vaccinations continue we are at risk of becoming a non athletic species.

8.9 million out of 55.4 million deaths worldwide in 2019 were from heart disease. This is 16% of all deaths. So if heart disease deaths went up by a factor of 4 times in all age groups in all activity classes worldwide, then overall deaths (excess mortality) would go up by 48%. Well, interestingly OneAmerica life insurance found that the risk of death for 18-64 years olds in Q4 had gone up by 40% above the 5 year rate. And the age range of 18-64 year olds would contain all the athletes of course.

OneAmerica data is saying that it is not just athletes who are dropping dead of Cardiovascular failure (or other terminal conditions) at 4 times the normal rate due to these vaccines.

Worse still we can expect mortality rates to increase exponentially over the next year, doubling each and every quarter.

We all have the same heart muscle, athletes and couch potatoes alike. It is just that more sedentary people do not use all their heart muscle and so do not hit a brick wall and keel over so quickly. The high intensity cardio athletes are the canaries in the coalmine for us coach potatoes.

What is happening to them very quickly will be happening to us more slowly. They are dying today at 400% of the normal rate. We shall die tomorrow at 400% the normal rate. Because heart muscle does not recover after it is damaged. If a vaccine kills an athlete in a few months it will surely kill a couch potato in a few quarters. Especially if said sofa spud continues to mash himself up with more booster shots.

The media cannot hide the death of a pro footballer during a game and neither can a corrupt government statistics department resurrect him. These deaths are the most accurate and open data set we have. So we should pay them very close attention. They are visible tip of the iceberg of vaccine mortality. Athletes ask as much as it is possible to ask from their hearts. So the day when their hearts cannot answer comes much sooner to them than it does to us.

But vaccines behave in precisely the same way in all heart muscle. They infect heart muscle cells and turn them into spike protein factories having previously trained our immune system to kill spike proteins. So our killer T cells do as they have been programmed to do by the vaccines and kill every vaccinated heart muscle cell (since they recognise it as an spike protein production facility). So the vaccines just destroy our own hearts. In fact they destroy every cell they infect. They are a true cellular poisons.

The recent American Heart Association Paper given in a speech by Dr Steven Gundry to the American Heart Association in Boston on November 12-14 found  that mRNA vaccines more than double your 5 year chances of getting a heart attack as measured by various inflammatory markers  The expose covered this in their article on football deaths of December8. But that data is already out of date since the heart attack risk doubles every quarter in the vaccinated which these FIFA results are declaring.

But Cardiovascular problems are not the only damage that genetic vaccines do to our bodies. Equally dangerous – although quite not so widely publicised is the immune system degradation that they cause which is deliberately misrepresented as vaxines waning in efficiency.

*

Vaccines are not waning. Vaxxed immune systems are waning

Vaccines cannot wane. They are digital. They show your immune system the spike protein antigen and they simulate a systemic attack to convince your immune system to take that spike protein seriously. Then there is NOTHING more for a true vaccine to do. They operate for 2-3 weeks, the normal length of a viral infection. Then they are supposed to leave your body. So they do not, they cannot, wane in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th month in efficiency because they have nothing to do in those months.

By a concerned reader

But genetic vaccines continue to produce spike proteins incessantly. They damage your immune system. It is your immune system therefore that wanes. In the UK they have damaged our immune systems so much that vaccines now have enormous negative efficiencies up to -60% in the latest UKHSA data for the end of 2021 (Vaccine Surveillance Report Week 1). The trouble with the genetic vaccines that NOBODY talks about is that they do not stop producing spike proteins. They continue producing more and more of them. I asked AstraZeneca for how long after vaccination would my cells produce spikes? They said we do not know we are still researching that. I do know because I did cell biology at Cambridge. Every vaccinated cell will continue producing spike proteins until it dies or is killed by your killer T cells.

Vaccination informs your immune system that spike proteins are very dangerous antigens (by simulating a systemic infection coincident with the presentation of the spike protein antigen). So it kills the spike proteins and kills every cell in your body that has been vaccinated because all of those cells are genetically reprogrammed by the vaccine to make spike proteins.

So your body goes into a perpetual civil war in which more and more of your immune resources are spent killing vaccinated cells. Pfizer contains 14.4 trillion 1273 Amino Acid spike protein mRNA copies and Moderna contains 48 trillion – see here. You only have between 6 and 36 trillion cells in your body (depending upon how you count them). Some of these cells such as heart muscle cells and brain cells do not get replaced. If they become vaccinated, you will lose them indefinitely. Myocarditis is caused by Killer T cells removing vaccinated heart cells.

This gets worse at the 2nd jab and worse still at the 3rd. You may think that vaccines are safe but your immune system would beg to differ since it kills every vaccinated cell it can find. In deed it is the vaccine which trains it to do that. It is this civil war which causes the vaccine efficiency to look like it is decreasing. It is not, your immune system response is decreasing. You are developing VAIDS, Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

The genetic vaccines are 3 years out of date

This years flu shot is a combination of last year’s flu virus and as many as possible of the viruses from the years before that. They are inactivated and shown to your immune system by the vaccination. The reason flu shots are not very effective is that
influenza is programmed to produce variants faster than mankind can produce and get approval for new flu shots. So every flu shot is out of date before it is administered. The situation is worse with Covid-19 shots. We are now is 2022. What use is a shot against a spike protein from a virus identified in 2019? It is 3 years out of date. That is why it has almost zero effectiveness against Omicron at first and absolutely zero effectiveness after a few weeks and progressively increasing negative effectiveness after that.

The idea that you should lose your job because you fail to take an immuno destructive, 3 year out of date vaccine for a variant of Covid that no longer exists is beyond absurd.

The wrong vaccine and the right vaccine

The Covid spike protein has 1/8th of the proteins in the entire virus. The Immune system cuts up viruses and makes antibodies for each resulting protein segment. The most pathogenic part of the Covid-19 virus is the spike protein. It is therefore absolutely the wrong part of the virus to use in a vaccination. Dr Richard Flemming has revealed that researchers have already shown that the nucleocapsid part of the virus (the case for the nucleus) produces a more effective vaccination which is not pathogenic. The correct vaccine would actually use segments of all the known variants of Covid and deliberately exclude their spike proteins which are known pathogens. The type of vaccination should be standard (like Sputnik) not genetic.

So in summary the Pfizer and Moderna shots use the wrong part of the wrong variant in the wrong type of vaccination method. They should be using the non spike parts of all the variants in a non genetic vaccine. That would be safe and that would be effective BECAUSE all a vaccination is, is a way of convincing the body that it has had the infection. Then you get, through the vaccine, a poor copy of what you would have got through natural infection. A vaccination can never be as effective as the thing it is trying to simulate or mimic. I mean is an Elvis impersonator ever as good as the king?

“Not only do these vaccines not work if you look at the Emergency Use Authorisations. But the data clearly shows that they are suppressing our immune system. They are suppressing our production of interferon. They are depressing our production of key helper T cells. When people are given Moderna and Pfizer vaccines and then given an influenza vaccine they are not mounting an influenza immune response. It is blunted.

We know that the T cells, the critical cells in the innate system go down after the first Pfizer vaccine shot. We know that natural immunity, person to person immunity, is long lasting provides memory cells up front, it provides not only IgM (Immunoglobulin Mu antibodies) and IgG (Immunoglobulin Gamma antibodies) but it provides the critical IgA antibody for our lungs and our Gastro Intestinal tract.

We know that if you’ve been exposed to influzenza or cytomegalovirus you probably already have some natural immunity. And what we now know most recently is that I have told people these vaccines only picked out the spike protein of the SARS CoV Wuhan HU1 variant (Wuhan alpha) and so the further away we have gotten from that the more we have put a pressure selection on the delta variant and the mu and the lambda variants but here is the thing…

Natural Immunity lasts indefinitely and is 8x more broad based than vaccine immunity

In a natural infection the immune system indeed chops up the entire virus into segments and makes different antibodies for each segment. Natural immunity therefore results in 8x more types of antibody than vaccination which only presents 1/8th of the viral proteins to your immune system. Furthermore the immune system does not have Alzheimer’s. It does not forget what it has learned from a real infection. If it did we would all be dropping dead of measles. Vaccine Passport schemes are a denial of Natural Immunity. They are no different from Ayatollah Knomeini’s abolition of Newton’s laws during the Iranian Revolution and no less futile. Vaccinated people have damaged immune systems and therefore have higher viral loads for Omicron than unvaxxed people and higher infection rates and are more likely to spread Covid than the unvaxxed, many of whom have natural immunity which has not been compromised by VAIDS.

Why are the Government so desperate to vaccinate us all?

1. The economic answer is that the Health Service has now been 100% corrupted by the Pharmaceutical Industry with a lot of help from Fauci Gates Collins etc. A doctor with 10 years of training and 20 years of full on clinical experience is no longer permitted to decide how to treat their patients based upon that training and experience. No. Instead they must follow the treatment protocol prescribed by the relevant regulatory agency, which agency is funded by assorted Billionaires acting as agents for Big Pharma. This becomes the perfect business model for the drugs companies. The perfect customer for Big Pharma has absolutely no immune system at all. I mean what does the human immune system do? Really what does it do? IT REDUCES THE PROFITS  OF BIG PHARMA.

So the more successful drugs companies, having won the battle against the less successful ones, realised that their true enemy was now your immune system. If they could destroy that then you would have absolutely no choice but to be a very regular and very lucrative customer of theirs. Hence the vaccines destroy your immune system with a new form of VAIDS. They are a man made disease sold as a cure for a man made disease.

2. Politicians are not interested in your health. The Lords Witnesses run an orphanage in Africa and one of the kids their was left at our gates suffering from AIDS (his mother having died of HIV). We have to pay for HIV drugs for him. They are not free. If we fail to give Moses the AIDS medication he dies. But nobody has made AIDS medication compulsory. There is no HIV medication mandate. There are no HIV Passports and HIV has killed way more people the Covid will ever kill. The government does not care if you live or die from AIDS which kills so many young people but we are to believe that they do care if you live of die from a far less lethal souped up flu that mainly takes out people at the end of their life who are obese or suffer from comorbidities? And if they really cared about your health or about the NHS would they be sacking highly qualified medical specialists who know more about immunology and virology than any politician ever will and are perhaps the only people in the entire country in a position to give or to refuse an informed consent for a 3 year out of date vaccine with a negative effectiveness? Would they be sacking them in circumstances where the NHS has a huge backlog of cancer and cardiovascular cases?

Rather than sacking Doctors who have made an informed decision to refuse vaccination knowing the risk to their employment future, we should be interviewing them and learning from their expertise and following their example until a full public debate has been heard.

Politicians do not beg you to fix your health. They beg you for your vote. Your vote is what they are interested and it is all that they are interested in. Every vaccination is a vote for the global 4th Reich.

3.  Every castle has several walls for defence and the castle of the demons is no different. Every wall is a deception which people cannot get their minds over. So here is the inner wall of the castle of the demons and may God give your mind the power to scale it. Come on Neo take the Red pill. Escape from the final prison for your mind and body.

Here is the Key question: Why did every single one of the vaccine companies make a vaccine from the spike protein (1/8th of the virus)? Why did nobody make one from the other 87.5% of the pathogen? What are the chances of half a dozen companies choosing the same 12.5% of the virus from which to make a vaccine? If the process was random the chances would be 1 in 8x8x8x8x8x8 = 1 in 262,144. But it was not random. The WHO provided the 1273 Amino acid spike protein and they all used that. But WHY? Well the largest funder of the WHO is a certain Software Billionaire. Here is the WHO funding for 2018-2019

D. J. Trump pulled out in 2020 leaving Bill Gates controlling  9.4% and 6.6% of their funding.

“Second only to the USA, the BMGF is one of the largest donors to the World Health Organization (WHO) and paid it more than $200 million in 2018 – more than Germany, France and Sweden combined in the same period. But this is not the only way in which the WHO is financed by Gates. GAVI, formerly known as the “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization”, provided the WHO with an additional $150 million in 2018. One of GAVI’s main donors is again the BMGF, with $1.5 billion in 2016, for example.”

“It can therefore be said that the BMGF and thus the Gates family and Warren Buffett are the main source of income for the WHO through direct and indirect channels, which raises questions about its independence from these sources of finance. In addition, the BMGF also provided funding for the establishment of the “Coalition for Epidemic Prevention Innovation” (CEPI), which is concerned with the research and development of vaccines, amounting to around $100 million in 2017.”

“In addition, the Foundation regularly supports non-governmental organizations such as PATH, which are involved in the development of vaccination technologies, with millions of dollars in funding. The list of BMGF’s beneficiaries also includes the largest global pharmaceutical companies, such as Pfizer, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Aventis. The comprehensive influence of the BMGF in the vaccination sector is therefore obvious.”

“In the Corona crisis, it is striking that institutions that currently play an important role are likewise supported by the BMGF. For example, Johns Hopkins University which maintains the worldwide corona statistics that are disseminated in all media, regularly receives large donations. In the last ten years only, more than $200 million have been transferred to the university by the Gates Foundation. The purpose of the donations was family planning programs.” –  see this.

So a decision was made through the WHO to make a vaccine from the most pathogenic part of the virus, the protein spike. This decision was not made on health grounds quite obviously. One reason for this decision was immune destruction as we have discussed above.

But there is another reason which is far more lethal and far more insidious than immune system destruction. You may have noticed that governments are acting as if they OWN your body. They are denying you the right to decide what to do with it. They wish to prescribe for you whom you can socialise with.

They wish to be the ones who determine whether you visit your parents or your grand parents when they are sick and in need. They wish to decide who can see your face and whose face you are permitted to see. They wish decide what medical treatments you should have and what pharmaceutical products should be put into your body. Your body – their body is the position they are taking worldwide.

Now if they take that position in legislation, do you think they are not trying to take it in genetics as well?

Read the list of footballers here.

*

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 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

I have long stressed how India, especially its largest state of Uttar Pradesh with about 250 million population, did a great job of attacking the COVID pandemic with the use of freely distributed ivermectin. The high density population received “care packages” that, sadly, the US government and public health system have failed to give Americans. Below is a photograph of the list of ingredients.

The miracle of Uttar Pradesh and other India states is truly helping its citizens. Note all the ingredients given to the public, much more than ivermectin and enormously more than Americans have been getting from all levels of government.

*

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.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment (Paperback)Pandemic Blunder: Fauci and Public Health Blocked Early Home COVID Treatment

By Joel S. Hirschhorn

Publisher: Outskirts Press

ISBN: 9781977238221

Pages: 126

Click here to order.

.

.

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.

***

Totalitarian paranoia runs deep in American society, and it now inhabits the highest levels of government.”—Professor Henry Giroux

Once upon a time, there was a government so paranoid about its hold on power that it treated everyone and everything as a threat and a reason to expand its powers. Unfortunately, the citizens of this nation believed everything they were told by their government, and they suffered for it.

When terrorists attacked the country, and the government passed massive laws aimed at paving the way for a surveillance state, the people believed it was done merely to keep them safe. The few who disagreed were labeled traitors.

When the government waged costly preemptive wars on foreign countries, insisting it was necessary to protect the nation, the citizens believed it. And when the government brought the weapons and tactics of war home to use against the populace, claiming it was just a way to recycle old equipment, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed were labeled unpatriotic.

When the government spied on its own citizens, claiming they were looking for terrorists hiding among them, the people believed it. And when the government began tracking the citizenry’s movements, monitoring their spending, snooping on their social media, and surveying them about their habits—supposedly in an effort to make their lives more efficient—the people believed that, too. The few who disagreed were labeled paranoid.

When the government allowed private companies to take over the prison industry and agreed to keep the jails full, justifying it as a cost-saving measure, the people believed them. And when the government started arresting and jailing people for minor infractions, claiming the only way to keep communities safe was to be tough on crime, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed were labeled soft on crime.

When the government hired crisis actors to take part in disaster drills, never alerting the public to which “disasters” were staged, the people genuinely believed they were under attack. And when the government insisted it needed greater powers to prevent such attacks from happening again, the people believed that too. The few who disagreed were told to shut up or leave the country.

When the government started carrying out covert military drills around the country, insisting it was necessary to train the troops for foreign combat, most of the people believed them. The few who disagreed, fearing that perhaps all was not what it seemed, were shouted down as conspiracy theorists and quacks.

When government leaders locked down the nation, claiming it was the only way to prevent an unknown virus from sickening the populace, the people believed them and complied with the mandates and quarantines. The few who resisted or voiced skepticism about the government’s edicts were denounced as selfish and dangerous and silenced on social media.

When the government expanded its war on terrorism to include domestic terrorists, the people believed that only violent extremists would be targeted. Little did they know that anyone who criticizes the government can be considered an extremist.

By the time the government began using nationalized police and the military to routinely lockdown the nation, the citizenry had become so acclimated to such states of emergency that they barely even noticed the prison walls that had grown up around them.

Now every fable has a moral, and the moral of this story is to beware of anyone who urges you to ignore your better instincts and blindly trust that the government has your best interests at heart.

In other words, if it looks like trouble and it smells like trouble, you can bet there’s trouble afoot.

Unfortunately, the government has fully succeeded in recalibrating our general distaste for anything that smacks too overtly of tyranny.

After all, like the proverbial boiling frogs, the government has been gradually acclimating us to the specter of a police state for years now: Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.

This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that only a militarized government can alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.

It’s happening already.

The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.

We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and  Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.

Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that called on the government to subject right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans to full-fledged, pre-crime surveillance.

Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons, including hollow point bullets, for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.

Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

And then there are the military drills that have been taking place on American soil in recent years.

In the latest “unconventional warfare exercise,” dubbed “Robin Sage,” special forces soldiers will battle seasoned “freedom fighters” in a “realistic” guerrilla war across two dozen North Carolina counties.

Robin Sage follows on the heels of other such military drills, including Jade Helm, which involved U.S. Army Special Operations Command, the Navy Seals, Air Force Special Operations, Marine Special Operations Command, Marine Expeditionary Units, the 82nd Airborne Division, and other interagency partners.

According to the government, these planned military exercises are supposed to test and practice unconventional warfare including, but not limited to, guerrilla warfare, subversion, sabotage, intelligence activities, and unconventional assisted recovery.

The training, known as Realistic Military Training (RMT) because it will be conducted outside of federal property, are carried out on both public and private land, with locations marked as “hostile territory,” permissive, uncertain (leaning friendly), or uncertain (leaning hostile).

This is psychological warfare at its most sophisticated.

Add these military exercises onto the list of other troubling developments that have taken place over the past 30 years or more, and suddenly, the overall picture seems that much more sinister: the expansion of the military industrial complex and its influence in Washington DC, the rampant surveillance, the corporate-funded elections and revolving door between lobbyists and elected officials, the militarized police, the loss of our freedoms, the injustice of the courts, the privatized prisons, the school lockdowns, the roadside strip searches, the military drills on domestic soil, the fusion centers and the simultaneous fusing of every branch of law enforcement (federal, state and local), the stockpiling of ammunition by various government agencies, the active shooter drills that are indistinguishable from actual crises, the economy flirting with near collapse, the growing social unrest, the socio-psychological experiments being carried out by government agencies, etc.

And then you have the government’s Machiavellian schemes for unleashing all manner of dangers on an unsuspecting populace, then demanding additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threats. Almost every national security threat that the government has claimed greater powers in order to fight—all the while undermining the liberties of the American citizenry—has been manufactured in one way or another by the government.

What we’ve seen play out before us is more than mere totalitarian paranoia run amok.

What has unfolded over the past few years has been a test to see how well “we the people” have assimilated the government’s lessons in compliance, fear and police state tactics; a test to see how quickly “we the people” will march in lockstep with the government’s dictates, no questions asked; and a test to see how little resistance “we the people” will offer up to the government’s power grabs when made in the name of national security.

Most critically of all, this has been a test to see whether the Constitution—and our commitment to the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights—could survive a national crisis and true state of emergency.

We have failed the test abysmally.

We have also made it way too easy for a government that has been working hard to destabilize to lockdown the nation.

Mark my words, there’s trouble brewing.

Better yet, take a look at “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command.

The training video is only five minutes long, but it says a lot about the government’s mindset, the way its views the citizenry, and the so-called “problems” that the government must be prepared to address in the near future through the use of martial law.

Even more troubling, however, is what this military video doesn’t say about the Constitution, about the rights of the citizenry, and about the dangers of locking down the nation and using the military to address political and social problems.

The training video anticipates that all hell will break loose by 2030—that’s barely eight short years away—but we’re already witnessing a breakdown of society on virtually every front.

The danger signs are screaming out a message

The government is anticipating trouble (read: civil unrest), which is code for anything that challenges the government’s authority, wealth and power.

According to the Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. government is grooming its armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems.

What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.

The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future—a future the military is preparing for—bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.

And then comes the kicker. Three-and-a-half minutes into the Pentagon’s dystopian vision of “a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes—brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers,” the ominous voice of the narrator speaks of a need to “drain the swamps.”

The government wants to use the military to drain the swamps of futuristic urban American cities of “noncombatants and engage the remaining adversaries in high intensity conflict within.” And who are these noncombatants, a military term that refers to civilians who are not engaged in fighting? They are, according to the Pentagon, “adversaries.” They are “threats.”

They are the “enemy.”

They are people who don’t support the government, people who live in fast-growing urban communities, people who may be less well-off economically than the government and corporate elite, people who engage in protests, people who are unemployed, people who engage in crime (in keeping with the government’s fast-growing, overly broad definition of what constitutes a crime).

In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. military, noncombatants are American citizens a.k.a. domestic extremists a.k.a. enemy combatants who must be identified, targeted, detained, contained and, if necessary, eliminated.

In the future imagined by the Pentagon, any walls and prisons that are built will be used to protect the societal elite—the haves—from the have-nots.

If you haven’t figured it out already, we the people are the have-nots.

Suddenly, the events of recent years begin to make sense: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.

The government is systematically locking down the nation and shifting us into martial law.

This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

As Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering remarked during the Nuremberg trials:

It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

It does indeed work the same in every country.

It’s time to wake up and stop being deceived by government propaganda.

Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. I’m referring to the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.

Be warned: in the future envisioned by the government, we will not be viewed as Republicans or Democrats. Rather, “we the people” will all be enemies of the state.

*

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.

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Two United States envoys from the State Department visited the Republic of Sudan on January 19 in their continuing campaign to neutralize the mass democratic movement which is demanding the exit of the western-backed military forces now ruling the oil-rich country.

Molly Phee, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs along with David Satterfield, Special Envoy for the Horn of Africa, sought to pressure the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) and its affiliates to adopt a Washington-influenced mediation strategy facilitated by the United Nations offices of the Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Yet the resistance committees operating on a grassroots level in several major cities throughout the north-central African state have been steadfast by insisting that any UN-brokered process in Sudan must lead to the establishment of a civilian government. Unrest has persisted in other areas of the country particularly in the eastern region surrounding Port Sudan, an important resource for maintaining the country’s trade with other African states and geo-political regions.

On January 18 and 19, thousands took to the streets in the capital of Khartoum and barricaded key areas of the city and its environs. It was reported that seven people were killed in clashes with the security forces. The Sudanese Communist Party condemned the repression leveled against the popular movement while calling for a broad coalition to overthrow the military regime. (See this)

Image on the right: Former PM Abdalla Hamdok

Another coup which displaced former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok on October 25, 2021 and then subsequently reinstalled him on November 21, could not conceal the role of the repressive military apparatus prompting the resignation of the interim civilian leader in early January. Hamdok has largely remained silent while hundreds of thousands of people have continued to demonstrate on a daily basis.

Over 70 people have been killed by the security forces since October 25 while youth, journalists, rank-and-file workers and other professionals, including healthcare employees, are facing constant harassment by the agents of the military regime. Inflationary spirals and consumer shortages are continuing despite the infusion of funds from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and other sources. Since the beginning of the uprising in December 2018, there has been no sustainable resolution to the conflict between the military and the mass democratic movement led by the FFC, where the Sudanese Professional Association (SPA) plays an important role in setting the political tone and character of the struggle.

U.S. Seeks to Maintain Hegemony in the Region

The purpose of the U.S. interventions is to maintain the Sudanese government and political tendencies within the influence of the western states. Under the previous tenure of President Donald Trump, the military and transitional regime where Hamdok served, were pressured into accepting several policy initiatives from Washington. These included the pledges to pay hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars to the survivors of three bombing attacks carried out in East Africa and the Gulf of Aden between 1998-2000. During this time period, there was a completely different government in power in Sudan which in April 2019 was overthrown by the military in response to mass demonstrations in the streets.

Image below: In this frame taken from video, the head of the military, Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan, announced in a televised address, that he was dissolving the country’s ruling Sovereign Council, as well as the government led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, in Khartoum, Sudan, Monday, Oct. 25, 2021. Burhan said the military will run the country until elections in 2023. His announcement came hours after his forces arrested the acting prime minister and other senior government officials.  (Sudan TV via AP)

The second significant policy shift imposed by the Trump administration in 2020, was the agreement that the Transitional Sovereign Council would on its own “normalize” relations with the State of Israel. This decision championed by Trump as an outcome of the Abraham Accord, was specifically designed to undermine solidarity with the Palestinian national liberation movement. However, this decision by the previous Sovereign Council where Hamdok shared his position alongside military strongman Gen. Abdel-Fattah al-Burhan, was forbidden by law due to the Israeli Boycott Act adopted by the Sudanese parliament in 1958.

According to a report published by the Associated Press:

“U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price said earlier this week that Phee and Satterfield would reiterate Washington’s call for Sudanese security forces to ‘end violence and respect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”’ Before arriving in Khartoum, the two attended a meeting of the Friends of Sudan group in Saudi Arabia to rally support for U.N. efforts to end Sudan’s deadlock. The group includes the United States, Britain and other international governments and world financial institutions.” (See this)

Therefore, the itinerary of the Biden administration envoys reveals clearly the allies that Washington is using to curtail the demands of the Sudanese masses. Britain is the former colonial power in Sudan, while today, the U.S. is attempting to shape the transitional process in the country in order to maintain Sudan within the western camp, utilizing a prospective pliant administration to influence the broader regional dynamics in the Horn of Africa.

The role of Tel Aviv is important to the entire process of an imperialist-engineered political dispensation. Although officially there has been no exchange of diplomats between Khartoum and Tel Aviv, reports indicate that there is substantive collaboration with Israel in suppressing the mass democratic movement in Sudan.

This same above-mentioned Associated Press report notes:

“Also Wednesday (Jan. 19), an Israeli delegation met with top Sudanese military officials in Khartoum, according to a Sudanese military official and Israeli reports. The Sudanese official said the delegation, including officials from the Mossad spy agency, met with Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan, the coup leader and head of the ruling Sovereign Council, and other military officials. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters. The Israeli public TV station Kan also reported the visit and said the plane carrying the Israeli delegation made a brief stop in Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh before heading to the Sudanese capital. Israel maintains close security ties with Egypt, the first Arab country to strike peace with Israel.

Sudan normalized ties with Israel in 2020 as part of a series of U.S.-brokered deals between Israel and four Arab countries. The agreement paved the way for the African country to reintegrate into the international community after two decades of isolation under al-Bashir.

Israel has been silent on the October coup and its aftermath, indicating it intends to maintain normalized ties with Sudan, which formerly was a top critic of Israel in the Arab world.”

These measures were adopted by the Sudanese transitional administration with the understanding that it would result in access to loans provided by international financial institutions and directly from the U.S. and other western capitalist states. Sudan was removed from a list of “state sponsors of terrorism” while being forced into the open arms of the West and the State of Israel.

Yet the purported advantages of “normalization” have not benefitted the Sudanese masses in their quest for a better life. Millions remain discontented and want change now. The FFC and other progressive organizations inside the country are mobilizing the people despite the increasing levels of repression including the interruptions of the internet and the censoring of the mass media.

Imperialism and the Strategic Position of Sudan

The country of Sudan prior to its partition in 2011, which created the Republic of South Sudan, was the largest geographic nation-state in Africa. Even today, more than a decade later, there are approximately 45 million people in Sudan.

Sudan is heavily endowed with natural resources including large deposits of petroleum, natural gas, gold, silver, chromite, manganese, gypsum, mica, zinc, iron, lead, uranium, copper, kaolin, cobalt, granite, nickel, tin, and aluminum. Its geographic location places the country firmly within northern, eastern, central and Horn of Africa regions.

There are seven other contiguous states which border Sudan: Egypt, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Libya. All of these neighboring countries have important natural resources, agricultural commodities as well as waterways and ports.

Therefore, the political, economic and social status of Sudan is important as it relates to the impact of developments inside the country on other neighboring states. The current internal conflict in Ethiopia has further exposed the military regime in Sudan that has objectively sided with the rebel interests fighting the central government in Addis Ababa. A longtime border conflict between Ethiopia and Sudan has provided a rationale for a military build-up in the border areas. Egypt, a close ally of the U.S., has categorically opposed the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), a hydro-electric energy generating project, the largest of its kind on the African continent. Egypt is concerned that GERD will redirect water from the Blue Nile having a negative impact on its access to the river.

The military forces which have ruled Sudan since April 2019 have demonstrated their willingness to follow the imperatives of U.S. foreign policy. Although it is not possible to foresee the political character of a future civilian government, Washington is concerned over the risk having to deal with an administration unbeholden to imperialist interests in the region and internationally.

*

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.

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

Featured image: Sudan mass movement attack by military forces, Jan. 17, 2022 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Intrusion in the Republic of Sudan, “Seeks to Maintain Hegemony in Region”
  • Tags: ,

FOIA Docs Reveal Pfizer Shot Caused Avalanche of Miscarriages, Stillborn Babies

By Celeste McGovern, January 19, 2022

Among the first reports handed over by Pfizer was a ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports’ describing events reported to Pfizer up until February 2021. Netflix reality TV star Maya Vander told her fans last week of her devastating grief after she delivered a stillborn baby at 38 weeks of pregnancy December 9.

Why Do NATO States Commit “Energy Hara Kiri”? Green Zero Carbon Madness. Industrial Collapse?

By F. William Engdahl, January 19, 2022

There is a great paradox in the increasingly aggressive US and NATO military stance towards Russia, and China, when measured against the clearly suicidal national Green Agenda economic policies of the USA as well as the EU NATO states. An astonishing transformation of the economies of the world’s most advanced industrial economies is underway and gaining momentum.

Why the Corporate State Doesn’t Target the American Left

By Ben Bartee, January 19, 2022

When Biden’s executive branch sets its internal security apparatus sights on “domestic extremists” (intelligence jargon for any group or individual who deviates from the corporate state narrative), The Daily Bell was among the first independent media to sound the alarm.

Pfizer Trials: All Injected Mothers Lost Their Unborn Babies

By Dr. Mark Trozzi, January 19, 2022

On the surface this states that of 270 pregnancies, there were 23 spontaneous abortions, 5 “outcomes pending”, 2 premature birth with neonatal death, 2 spontaneous abortions with intrauterine death, 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and 1 normal outcome. But note also “no outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies”.

The Dangers of the Covid “Vaccine” to Pregnant Women: Do Not be a Lab Rat. The Untested Experimentation on Babies and the Unborn

By John Goss, January 19, 2022

Published in early August the UK government is urging pregnant women to take part in these infanticide trials the length and breadth of the country. It is a tall tale the Department of Health and Social Care and Nadhim Zahawi MP are telling women to encourage them to participate in the murder of their unborn.

ASEAN’s Discord Over Myanmar, Could Expose Association to External Dominance

By Paul Antonopoulos, January 19, 2022

The meeting of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers was postponed amid disagreements over Myanmar. The West could use this division within ASEAN to dominate the association and pressure Southeast Asian countries to turn against China.

The Globalization of Human Rights Violations: “The Right to Live a Dignified and Decent Living”

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, January 19, 2022

One of the most popular and regular items of the Western media menu is the demonization of China, Iran and North Korea for their human rights violations. These media have three characteristics.

“False Propaganda” against China: Excellent Xinjiang Health Statistics vs US Alliance Lies

By Gideon Polya, January 19, 2022

The US and its allies are countering the re-emergence of China with a Sinophobic confection of new alliances (the AUKUS and the Quad), military threats, jingoism and false propaganda about a falsely claimed Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang.

Video: Graphene Oxide: A Toxic Substance in the Vial of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine?

By Ricardo Delgado and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 19, 2022

The results of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy are far-reaching. Graphene oxide is a toxin which triggers thrombi and blood coagulation. It also has an impact on the immune system. Graphene oxide accumulated in the lungs can have devastating impacts.

Arise, Pandemic Profiteers

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 19, 2022

With the global surge of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, there were early signs that saving money, notably for large corporations, and earning greater revenue from such a lethal crisis, was possible.  Work remotely as Zoom zombies – if you can.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: FOIA Docs Reveal Pfizer Shot Caused Avalanche of Miscarriages, Stillborn Babies

Peeking Past the Pall Put Over Arms Talks with Russia

January 20th, 2022 by Ray McGovern

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Western media are painting an image of gross failure for Russia at the U.S.-Russia bilateral talks in Geneva, as well as subsequent talks between Russia and NATO in Brussels and the Organization for Co-operation and Security in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna.

Adamant! is the impression being fostered by both Russia and the West (largely for domestic consumption): Russia will continue to oppose NATO membership for countries like Ukraine and Georgia; NATO, for its part, will continue to reject Russian opposition as “none of your business”. (Bear in mind that Ukraine and Georgia are each several years away from qualifying for NATO membership in any case.)

The corporate media takeaway is that Russian President Vladimir Putin abjectly failed to get the West to agree formally on no further expansion of NATO and that, in these circumstances, no one can divine how he might lash out (maybe invade Ukraine?). World War III, anyone?

Did Western pundits really believe that Putin expected early acquiescence to that “non-starter” proposal on NATO expansion? Far easier to make believe he did, show how he went down to defeat, and conveniently ignore signs of real progress with respect to what Moscow’s (and President Joe Biden’s) actual priorities are.

Media mention of those priorities has inched forward into subordinate clauses of lead paragraphs – usually after the word “but.” Here’s how NPR played it: “The United States and NATO rejected key Russian security demands for easing tensions over Ukraine but left open Wednesday the possibility of future talks with Moscow on arms control, missile deployments and ways to prevent military incidents between Russia and the West.”

Likewise, the Washington Post: “The United States and Russia remained deadlocked after crisis talks Monday over Moscow’s desire to block any future NATO expansion to the east, but officials agreed to continue discussions on other high-stakes security issues …”

Other High-Stakes Security Issues?

What strategic challenge does President Vladimir Putin consider most threatening? Watching this 12-minute video – especially minutes 4 to 6:30 – in which Putin tries to get through to Western reporters several years ago, will provide a good clue for Western reporters whose dogs ate their homework.

While Putin has been outspoken for 20 years on the precarious strategic situation following the Bush administration’s tearing up the ABM Treaty that had been the cornerstone of strategic balance, this video is unusually effective in showing Putin’s understandable concern and frustration.

Are dogs the standard excuse? Do Western journalists even do homework? Good question. The NY Times’ Bureau Chief in Moscow Anton Troianovsky has confessed that, after an event-packed week, he, Western officials, and Russian experts are “stumped” to explain Russian behavior. Putin, he says, is to blame for keeping people confused and “on edge”, adding that “the mystery surrounding the Russian leader’s intentions was thick as fog again this week….”. (See: Putin’s Next Move on Ukraine Is a Mystery. Just the Way He Likes It.)

It is precisely in this context that watching Putin explain Russia’s post-demise-of-the-ABM-Treaty concerns five years ago might help lazy or simply inexperienced journalists understand the importance of highly significant events over the past couple of weeks: first and foremost, President Joe Biden’s promise to Putin on Dec. 30 not to emplace offensive strike missiles in Ukraine. And, equally instructive: the importance of the U.S. negotiators’ confirming that Washington takes Moscow’s concerns seriously enough to negotiate about them – and other confidence building measures, as well.

“Progress”: The Forbidden Word

Is it unreasonable, then, to look forward to productive bilateral talks in the coming months that address what might be termed “Putin’s Pet Peeve” (although the issue is dead serious, so to speak, far more serious than the commonly understood “pet-peeve” minor annoyance)? A lot of this comes through clearly in the video, which shows Putin losing his cool watching the sleepy nonchalance on the faces of the Western journalists who are his audience: “I don’t know how to get through to you any more.”

What is important is that Putin got through to Biden on that Dec. 30 telephone call which Putin had called for with some urgency (and which was widely neglected in the Establishment media.) Hours later, the official Kremlin readout included: The presidents agreed to personally supervise these negotiating tracks, especially bilateral, with a focus on reaching results quickly. In this context, Joseph Biden emphasised that Russia and the US shared a special responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe and the whole world and that Washington had no intention of deploying offensive strike weapons in Ukraine. [Emphasis added.]

At the same time as the Kremlin readout, Putin’s main adviser on these issues, Yuri Ushakov, told reporters that Moscow was pleased with the Biden-Putin conversation on Dec. 30, adding that Biden’s pledge not to deploy offensive arms in Ukraine amounted to acknowledgment of Russia’s security concerns. Speaking to Russian media, Ushakov pointed out that this was also one of the goals Moscow hopes to achieve with its proposals for security guarantees to the US and NATO.

Ushakov, actually, is understating the case. The US non-deployment-of-offensive-missiles pledge addresses a key issue embedded in no fewer than five of the eight Articles of the Russian draft treaty on security guarantees. In contrast, only Article 4, which includes: “The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”, addresses head-on the NATO expansion issue.

Back to the Putin Video

The 12-minute video includes subtitles in English courtesy of translator “Inessa S.” Putin was speaking to reporters attending the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, 2016. I have taken Inessa’s subtitles and strung them together below into a full text for those who prefer to read rather than watch.

Putin to Western Reporters, June 17, 2016

Your people, in turn, do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me.

Now, about the missile defense system, listen to me, we are all adults at this table, and experienced [professionals] at that.

But I am not even going to hope that you are going to relay everything, exactly how I said it, in your publications.

Neither will you attempt to influence your media outlets.

I just want to tell you this, on a personal level

I must remind you, though you already know this, that major global conflicts have been avoided in the past few decades, due to the geostrategic balance of power, which used to exist.

The two super-nuclear powers essentially agreed to stop producing both offensive weaponry, as well as defensive weaponry.

It is simple how it works – where one side becomes dominant in their military potential, they are more likely to want to be the first to be able to use such power.

This is the absolute linchpin to international security. The anti-missile defense system [as previously prohibited in international law], and all of the surrounding agreements that used to exist.

It’s not in my nature to scold someone – but when the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty of 1972 they delivered a colossal blow to the entire system of international security.

That was the first blow, when it comes to assessing the strategic balance of power in the world.

At that time [2002] I said that we will not be developing such systems also, because A) it is very expensive, and B) we aren’t yet sure how they will work [for the Americans].

We’re not going to burn our money.

We’re going to take a different option, and develop offensive weaponry, in order to retain said geo-strategic balance.

That was all.

Not to threaten someone else.

They said – “Fine, our defense system is not against you, and we assume that your weaponry is not against us.”

“Do what you like!”

As I already mentioned, this conversation took place in the early 2000s. Russia was in a very difficult state at that time.

Economic collapse, civil war and the fight against terrorism in our Caucasus region, complete destruction of our military-industrial complex …

They wouldn’t have been able to imagine that Russia could ever again be a military power.

My guess is they assumed that even that which was left over from the Soviet Union would eventually deteriorate.

So they said, “sure, do what you like!”

But we told them about the measures we were going to take in reaction. And that is what we did.

And I assure you – that today, we have had every success in that area.

I’m not going to list everything, all that matters is we have modernized our military-industrial complex.

And we continue to develop new generation warfare. I’m not even going to mention systems against the missile-defense system!

No matter what we said to our American partners [to curb the production of weaponry] they refused to cooperate with us, they rejected our offers, and continue to do their own thing.

Some things I cannot tell you right now publicly, I think that would be rude of me.

And whether or not you believe me, we offered real solutions to stop this [arms race].

They rejected everything we had to offer.

4-MINUTE MARK

So here we are today – and they’ve placed their missile defense system in Romania.

Always saying “we must protect ourselves from the Iranian nuclear threat!”

Where’s the threat?

There is no Iranian nuclear threat.

You even have an agreement with them – and the US was the instigator of this agreement, where we helped.

We supported it.

But if not for the US then this agreement would not exist – which I consider Obama’s achievement.

I agree with the agreement, because it eased tensions in the area. So President Obama can put this in his list of achievements.

So the Iranian threat does not exist.

But the missile systems are continuing to be positioned …

That means we were right when we said that they are lying to us.

Their reasons were not genuine, in reference to the “Iranian nuclear threat.”

Once again, they lied to us.

So they built this system and now they are being loaded with missiles.

You, as journalists, should know that these missiles are put into capsules

Which are utilized from sea-based, midrange Tomahawk rocket launchers

These are being loaded with “anti-missiles’ that can penetrate distances of up to 500km.

But we know that technologies advance …

We even know in which year the Americans will accomplish a new missile, which will be able to penetrate distances of up to 1000km, and then even further …

And from that moment on they will be able to directly threaten

Russia’s nuclear potential

We know year by year what’s going to happen – and they know that we know!

It’s only that you tell tall-tales to, and you spread it to, the citizens of your countries.

Your people, in turn, do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me.

How can you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction?

That’s the problem.

Meanwhile, they pretend that nothings going on …

I don’t know how to get through to you any more.

MINUTE 6:30

And they justify this as a “defense” system, not weaponry that is used for purposes of offense. Systems that “prevent aggression.”

That is absolutely not true.

A missile defense system is one element of a whole system of offensive military potential.

It works as part of a whole that includes offensive missile launchers.

One complex blocks, the other launches a high precision weapon, the third blocks a potential nuclear strike, and the fourth sends out its own nuclear weapon in response.

This is all designed to be part of one system.

This is how it works in current, non-nuclear, but high precision missile defense systems.

Well okay, let’s put aside the actual missile ‘defense’ issue.

But those capsules into which ‘anti-missiles’ are inserted, as I’ve mentioned, they are sea based …

On warships which can carry the Tomahawk subsonic cruise missile system

One could deploy it to position in a matter of hours, and then what kind of “antimissile” system is that?

How do we know what kind of missile is in there? All you have to do is change the programme! (non-nuclear to nuclear)

That’s all it would take.

This would happen very quickly, and even the Romanian government itself won’t know what’s going on.

Do you think they let the Romanians call any shots?

Nobody is going to know what is being done-not the Romanians, and the Polish won’t either.

Do you think I am not familiar with their strategies? Ha!

From what I can see, we are in grave danger.

We had conversation once with our American partners – where they said they’d like to develop ballistic missiles, but without a nuclear warhead.

And we said – “Do you actually understand what that might entail?”

So you’re going to have missiles launching from submarines, or ground territories – this is not a ballistic missile, how do we know whether or not it has a nuclear warhead?!

Can you imagine what kind of scenario you can create?

But as far as I am aware, they did not go through with developing these weapons – they have paused for now.

But the other one they continue to implement.

I don’t know how this is all going to end.

What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves.

And I even know how they will package this – “Russian aggression “again!

But this is simply our response to your actions.

Is it not obvious that I must guarantee the safety of our people?

And not only that, but we must attempt to retain the necessary strategic balance of power, which is the point that I began with. Let me return to it in order to finish my response.

It was precisely this balance of power that guaranteed the safety of humanity from major global conflict, over the past 70 years.

It was a blessing rooted in a “mutual threat” but this mutual threat is what guaranteed mutual peace, on a global scale.

How they could so easily tear it down, I simply don’t know.

I think it is gravely dangerous. I not only think that, I am assured of it.

*

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.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

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.

***

There is a great paradox in the increasingly aggressive US and NATO military stance towards Russia, and China, when measured against the clearly suicidal national Green Agenda economic policies of the USA as well as the EU NATO states. An astonishing transformation of the economies of the world’s most advanced industrial economies is underway and gaining momentum.

The heart of the transformation is energy, and the absurd demand for “zero carbon” energy by 2050 or before. To eliminate carbon from the energy industry is not at this time, or perhaps ever, possible. But the push for it will mean tearing apart the world’s most productive economies. Without a viable industrial energy base, NATO countries become a military joke. We cannot speak of “renewable” energy for solar, wind and battery storage. We must speak of Unreliable Energy. It is one of the most colossal scientific delusions in history.

On December 31 the new German coalition government shut down three of the remaining six nuclear power plants permanently. They did so at a point where natural gas in reserves were extremely low entering hard winter, and when any severe cold front could lead to power blackouts. Because of the German refusal to allow import of a second Russian gas pipeline, Nord Stream 2, Germany is facing a 500% increase in the spot price of electricity compared with January 2021.

EU Energy Crisis Preplanned

In 2011 when Chancellor Merkel declared an early end to nuclear power, her infamous Energiewende, to phase out nuclear and go to renewable sources, 17 nuclear plants reliably supplied 25% of all electric power to the country. Now the remaining 3 plants must close by end 2022. At the same time the Green Energy agenda of the government since 2016 has closed 15.8 GigaWatts of coal generation as of January 2022. To make up for the fact that solar and wind, despite glowing propaganda, do not fill the gap, Germany’s electric grid must import significant electricity from EU neighbors France and Czech Republic, ironically much of it from their nuclear plants. Germany today has the highest electricity cost of any industrial nation as a result of the Energiewende.

There is now a problem with the supply of nuclear electricity from France. In December EDF the French state nuclear agency announced a total of four reactors would shut for inspection and repairs following discovery of corrosion damage. President Macron facing April elections is trying to play the nuclear champ in the EU opposing Germany’s strong anti-nuclear position. But the nuclear bridge is vulnerable and France is unlikely to make any major new investment in nuclear, despite recent claims, with plans to shut down twelve reactors in the next few years, along with coal, leaving both France and Germany vulnerable to future energy shortages. Macron’s France 2030 program calls for investing a pitiful $1.2 billion in small plant nuclear technology.

But the nuclear issue is not the only fly in the EU energy soup. Every aspect of the current EU energy plan is designed to wreck a modern industrial economy, and the architects who generously fund green think tanks like the Potsdam Institute in Germany know it. To bring wind and solar, the only two serious options being implemented, to replace coal, gas and nuclear, is simply said, not possible.

Wind Mills and Madness of Crowds

For Germany, a country with less than optimal sunshine, wind is the leading alternative. One problem with wind as the winter of 2021 dramatically showed, is that it does not always blow, and unpredictably so. That means blackouts or reliable backup, which means coal or natural gas as nuclear is being forced out. Wind mills are misleadingly rated in terms of gross theoretical capacity when states like Germany want to boast of renewable progress.

In reality what counts is actual electricity produced over time or what is called capacity factor or load factor. For solar, capacity factor is typically only about 25%. The sun in northern Europe or North America doesn’t shine 24 hours a day. Nor are skies always cloudless. Similarly wind doesn’t always blow and is hardly reliable. Germany boasts of 45% gross renewable energy but that hides the reality. Frauenhofer Institute in a 2021 study estimated Germany must install at least six to eight times present solar to reach 2045 100% carbon free goals, something the government refuses to estimate costs for, but private estimates are in the trillions. The report says from the present gross 54 GW solar capacity as much as 544 GW by 2045 is needed. That would mean a land space of 3,568,000 acres or 1.4 million hectares, more than 16,000 square kilometers of solid solar panels across the country. Add major wind stations to that. It is a suicide recipe.

The fraud of wind and solar as a sensible carbon free option is beginning to be realized. This January 5, Alberta Canada where the government is furiously building wind and solar sites, a severe cold day with temperatures near 45 F minus, Alberta’s 13 grid-connected solar facilities, rated at 736 megawatts, were contributing 58 megawatts to the grid. The 26 wind farms, with a combined rated capacity of 2,269 megawatts, was feeding the grid 18 megawatts. The total from renewables was a piddly 76 megawatts out of a theoretical 3,005 megawatts of supposedly green, renewable energy. Texas during the severe snow of February 2021 had similar problems with solar and wind as did Germany. Also when it snows solar farms are worthless.

As well to reach zero carbon from renewable sources huge acreages of land must be paved with solar reflectors or dedicated to wind farms. By one estimate, the amount of land needed to accommodate the 46,480 solar PV plants envisioned for the US is 650,720 square miles, almost 20% of the US lower 48 territories. This is the areas of Texas, California, Arizona and Nevada combined. Alone in the US state of Virginia a new green law, the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA) has created an enormous rise in solar project applications to date for 780 square miles of solar slabs so far. As David Wojick points out, that is about 500,000 acres of countryside, farmland or forests destroyed and paved over with some 500 separate projects blanketing much of rural Virginia that will need a staggering 160 million solar panels, mostly from China and all destined to become hundreds of tons of toxic waste.

Millions of Jobs?

The Biden administration and Renewables czar John Kerry have falsely claimed their Green Agenda or Build Back Better will mean millions of new jobs. They omit to say the jobs will be in China which produces far the most solar panels, a near monopoly after they destroyed the USA and EU competition a decade ago with cheap subsidized panels Made in China.

Similarly most of wind power is made in China by Chinese companies. Meanwhile China uses record volumes of coal and postpones its pledge for zero carbon a full decade after the EU and USA to 2060. They are not willing to jeopardize their industrial dominance to a climate theory based on fake data and lies that CO2 is about to destroy the planet. The German trade union federation DGB recently estimated that since 2011 that country had lost some 150,000 jobs in the renewable sector alone, mainly as China-made solar panels destroyed leading German solar companies. And Germany is the most green-crazy EU country. Because by definition the less energy-dense renewables of wind or solar drive basic electricity costs far higher, they kill more jobs in the overall economy than they ever add.

NATO Industrial Collapse

Because solar and wind are in reality far more costly than conventional hydrocarbon or nuclear electricity, they drive up overall cost of electric power to industry forcing many companies to close or move elsewhere. Only official statistical fraud hides this. Europe and North America will need huge volumes of steel and concrete to build the expected millions of solar panels or wind parks. That needs huge amounts of conventional coal or nuclear energy. How many E-car electric charging stations will be needed to home-charge 47 million German E-cars? How much more electric demand?

A significant Green Energy think tank in the US, RethinkX ,issued a propaganda study for renewables in 2021 titled Rethinking Energy 2020-2030: 100% Solar, Wind, and Batteries is Just the Beginning. Their answer to the problems of low capacity for wind and solar is to build 500% or even 1000% more than envisioned to make up for the low 25% capacity factor. They make the absurd claim, with no concrete proof that, “Our analysis shows that 100% clean electricity from the combination of solar, wind, and batteries (SWB) is both physically possible and economically affordable across the entire continental United States as well as the overwhelming majority of other populated regions of the world by 2030… this superabundance of clean energy output – which we call super power – will be available at near-zero marginal cost throughout much of the year .” That statement is presented without an iota of data or concrete scientific feasibility analysis, merely dogmatic assertion.

The late Canadian architect of the UN Agenda 21, Maurice Strong, a billionaire oil chum of David Rockefeller was Undersecretary of the United Nations and Secretary General of the June 1972 Stockholm Earth Day conference. He was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. He more than perhaps anyone else, is responsible for the de-industrialization agenda of the zero carbon “sustainable economy.”

At the UN Rio Earth Summit in 1992 he openly stated the blunt agenda of the radical eugenics advocates such as Gates and Schwab: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?That agenda is very much the Great Reset today.

War Now?

If the once-advanced, energy-intensive economies of NATO member countries in Europe and the USA continue on this suicidal journey, their ability to mount a convincing military defense or offense will become a mirage. Recently the corrupt German EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, declared that the high-tech German defense industry and its suppliers should not receive bank credit because they were not “green” or “sustainable” enough. Reportedly banks have already gotten the message. Along with oil and gas now defense production is targeted. Von der Leyen as German Defense Minister was widely blamed for allowing German defense to collapse to a catastrophic state.

In their now one-sided pursuit of their insane Agenda 2030 and Zero Carbon agenda, the Biden Administration and the EU are putting their industry on a deliberate road to destruction well before the end of this decade. Is this in turn driving the current NATO agenda towards Russia in Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and now Kazakhstan? If the NATO Powers that Be know they will lack the basic in depth military industrial infrastructure in the near future, do they think it better to provoke a possible war with Russia now, to eliminate a potential resistor to their de-industrial agenda? Other than China, Russia holds the only potential to deal a devastating blow to NATO if provoked.

Mass Formation Psychosis or Madness of Crowds

In 1852 English historian Charles Mackay wrote a classic titled Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, giving a little-known insight to the mass hysteria behind the religious Great Crusades of the 12th Century, the Witch Mania or the Dutch Tulip Mania and numerous other popular delusions. It is relevant to understand the global irrational rush to economic and political suicide.

The same key actors behind the mass COVID vaccine mandates for an unproven experimental genetic-altering vaccine and the ensuing lockdowns globally, including Bill Gates and Pope Francis, are behind the Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum Great Reset and its UN Agenda 2030 green zero carbon madness, to get the world to accept unprecedented draconian economic measures.

This will require a docile and physically weak population to be railroaded, what Belgian psychology professor Dr. Mattias Desmet and Dr Robert Malone call Mass Formation Psychosis, a crowd psychosis, a kind of mass hypnosis that ignores reason.

It is clear that both the myth of Global Warming and the corona pandemic agenda require such a mass hypnosis—an “extraordinary popular delusion.”

Without the COVID fear hysteria we would never allow the Green Agenda to get so far that our very electric grids are on the verge of blackouts and our economies on verge of breakdown. The ultimate goal of both the COVID WHO pandemic and the Green Agenda is a march to Schwab’s dystopian Great Reset of the entire world economy to the benefit of a corporate dictatorship by a handful of global corporations like BlackRock or Google-Alphabet.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics.

This article was first published by “New Eastern Outlook”  

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

Featured image is from NEO


Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

available in print and pdf

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

 

When Biden’s executive branch sets its internal security apparatus sights on “domestic extremists” (intelligence jargon for any group or individual who deviates from the corporate state narrative), The Daily Bell was among the first independent media to sound the alarm.

However, we didn’t rigorously assess why the populist Right, and not the Left, poses an existential threat to the ruling class.

The “establishment” references the conglomeration of dominant interest groups that sits atop the political food chain.

In a past era (in the Western context, before the original Industrial Revolution), the establishment was a landed aristocracy in collusion with the Church and militaries that ruled nation-states.

In the 21st century iteration of feudalism, the ruling class is a consortium of multinational offshore corporate elites.

Theoretically, regardless of who occupies power, any social group outside of the establishment is a latent threat – hence the oppressive apparatus of state.

In a rough 99% vs. 1% breakdown, if the vast majority or the “ruled” rose up against the tiny minority of “rulers,” their days perched atop the social hierarchy would be finished.

But, if the 99% can be chopped up into all manner of sub-groups – either along pre-existing cultural, racial, or political fault lines or artificial ones engineered by the state –  and then turned against one another, the status quo can be maintained.

The British perfected this method of rule – often called “divide and conquer” –in their management of colonial assets.

Politically, the population at large (outsiders of the establishment) in the United States is divided into two large groups: “Right” and “Left.”

Here is a brief breakdown of why, in the current social configuration, the Left serves as the enforcement arm of the state to suppress the grassroots Right, which is correctly viewed as the only faction that is a threat to the power structure.

#1: International vs. National Orientation

First, it’s imperative to understand that the United States, along with the rest of the West, is now under the effective control of a multinational corporate elite.

Piece by piece, sovereignty over decision-making is chipped away at the national level and handed over to international governing institutions like the UN, World Bank, World Economic Forum, WHO, et al.

We’ve explored this concept in greater detail in several pieces:

Cutting the legs out from insurgent nationalist movements, accordingly, is essential to moving the multinational corporate agenda ahead.

The Right is nationalist in its orientation, not internationalist. This is, as just one example, why the corporate media intently demonized the UK Brexit separation from the European Union as “racist” to taint the nationalist movement.

The inverse is true of the Left – especially as you move further to the fringes – which makes it a natural ally.

#2: The True Anti-Authoritarian, Anti-Establishment Left in America Is Dead

The corporate state certainly would target the Left if it posed a threat to its interests -– except that there is no authentic anti-authoritarian Left still alive in the United States.

Whatever “Left” remains has been thoroughly co-opted to serve the interests of the multinational oligarchy.

Leftist protests used to target multinational trade organizations, as happened in ’99 anti-WTO riots in Seattle.

Then (1999): the “Black Bloc” in ’99, fighting a class war that may have legitimately challenged the multinational corporate state (embodied by the WTO) if it had fostered popular support.

Now (2021): “Antifa” earlier this year showed up to fight the culture war outside of an LA spa where a “transgender woman” flashed her semi-erect penis at a mother and child in the women’s-only section. The “transgender” perpetrator was later charged by the LAPD over the incident and exposed as a convicted sex offender for previous indecent exposure crimes.

The victim (the mother) had the audacity to make a social media video about the trauma imposed on her daughter, which led to a “trans rights” protest against alleged rampant transphobia (in LA, one of the most “progressive” cities in America).

One of these things is not like the other:

  • The former version of the Left targeted the rape of the American economy by multinational corporations that offshore American manufacturing jobs to generate profits (which, also, incidentally, was a centerpiece talking point to Trump’s successful 2016 campaign in which he defeated the entire GOP and DNC establishment)
  • The modern version of the Left targets normal mothers who don’t want their daughters wantonly exposed to men’s genitalia in public spas, fueling a culture war and distracting the population with nonsense while the oligarchs methodically implode the US economy

#3: The Left Is Hyper-focused on Identity ‘Equity’ Politics, Not Governmental or Corporate Overreach

The modern Left can be neutered (quite easily) with language such as “going green” or “promoting [insert protected minority group]’s rights.”

When the Department of Justice requested additional funds to combat “domestic extremism” earlier this year, they pacified any potential resistance from the Left with such fig leaves. These came in the form of a variety of race and gender-based spending proposals:

“[Attorney General] Mr. Garland also said that the department sought $1 billion… [to] fund services for transgender survivors of domestic abuse, support women at historically Black colleges and in Hispanic and tribal institutions….”

Given their unending obsession with identity politics, this stuff is catnip to the Left base.

#4: The Left Will Dependably Enforce the Vaxx/Lockdown Agenda

Action item #1 on the corporate state to-do list is the vaxx/lockdown agenda, the initial stages of the internationally-standardized CCP-style digital control grid.

Reconciliation with far-gone elements of the “Left” is a losing cause – time for the remaining independent, undomesticated elements of civilization to de-rig with our own “Great Reset” parallel society.

*

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.

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is a Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via his blog, Armageddon ProseSubstack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter.

All images in this article are from The Daily Bell

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Outstanding analysis by Dr. John Goss, first published by Global Research on August 19, 2021

 

Last year I warned pregnant women of dangers from the flu vaccine. This warning is likely to amount to little when compared with dangers from the spiked Covid-shots masquerading as vaccines.

Published in early August the UK government is urging pregnant women to take part in these infanticide trials the length and breadth of the country. It is a tall tale the Department of Health and Social Care and Nadhim Zahawi MP are telling women to encourage them to participate in the murder of their unborn.

Following 130,000 pregnant women being vaccinated in the US and no safety concerns being raised, the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were recommended by the independent experts at the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) for pregnant women in the UK. Almost 52,000 pregnant women in England have now been vaccinated – similarly, with no safety concerns reported.

You will see that the government website does not provide a link for this US information. There is good reason. The link is here.

Note: those doing the research were all on the government payroll, with affiliations to CDC (Center for Disease Control and Protection) or the FDA (Federal Drugs Agency).

Further note: by the time the report was published only 21% of pregnancies had come to an end (this includes stillbirths and abortions). And there has not been time to determine post-natal effects on babies.

Partisan research of this nature luring pregnant women to become guinea pigs is far from robust. Follow-up of those vaccinated has not been done. Yet they want more and more innocent victims for their spikes – which once in the body can never be removed. The vaccines introduce only the spike whereas if left to the body’s immune system it produces protection from the whole virus cell.

It is known that placebos are being used in these trials, and suspected that attenuated “vaccines” are also being used. Couple this with the faulty PCR test and the financial influence of Big Pharma companies on those doing the research, expecting mothers must balance a dodgy sales-pitch against the untested experimentation on their babies and the unborn with life-threatening and life-changing concoctions.

Large increases in the deaths of pregnant women have coincided with the “vaccine” rollout in Brazil.

The spike protein from inoculations attack various organs in the body. Lipid nanoparticles concentrate in the ovaries in women (and testes in men).

Watch and listen to Dr. Ryan Cole explain (the part about testes and ovaries starts at 10 minutes 15 seconds). Also disturbing Dr. Cole has seen a 20% increase in uterine cancer since the vaccinations started.

This table shows official UK figures in a programme that has barely started for pregnant women who have gambled with Big Pharma’s poisonous recipes. The actual figures are likely to be much higher.

Nursing mothers have also been finding severe reactions in their babies (including at least one death).

The following US adverse reactions were extracted by Mairead who does the latest Covid-19 statistics for All the Goss.

Harm to babies from nursing mothers

Click on the case number to see the full link in VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System)

Mother received vaccine and after only three breast-feeding sessions her 9 month old baby boy developed diabetes mellitus, gastro-intestinal and therapeutic procedures. Had to go on frozen reserves. Outcome unkown.

A 7 month old baby boy had an anaphylactic reaction and other diagnosed problems from breast-feeding after mother received Pfizer vaccine. Mother not affected.

Mother, herself no adverse reactions, reported fever in 8 month old baby girl after mum received Pfizer vaccine: Baby’s temperature 104 degrees F.

5 month old baby boy died after breastfeeding. Mum received second dose of Pfizer vaccine the day before.

Issues Reported in 11 month old baby boy after mum received Pfizer vaccine:

Morning after mother received Pfizer vaccine baby developed a rash and fever. Recovering – no medical follow-up.

6 month old breast-feeding baby had moderate fever for 3 days following mum’s Pfizer vaccine and about a week to 10 days later developed a rash.

7 month old breast-feeding baby boy after mum received Moderna vaccine had an elevated temperature together with loss of appetite. “The infant had symptoms of decreased appetite, elevated temperature 99.8 degrees, mottled skin, inconsolable crying, and diarrhea all that occurred within 48 hours after the mother received the vaccine . . .”

11 month old baby girl after mum received Pfizer vaccine “developed hives on trunk and extremities. . . The child had a fever 3 days prior to the reaction however the rash was not obvious at that time. If the rash gets worse she has bee[n] told she may need to stop breastfeeding. “

Issues Reported in a 2 month old baby girl after mum received Pfizer vaccine: “Blood test abnormal, Colitis, Inflammatory bowel disease, Maternal exposure during breast feeding”

Study of deaths in children

When babies grow into children they still need protecting from the pharmaceutical giants who have no mercy in trying out their new cauldron brews. If you can stomach more assaults on the innocents you should read this from Children’s Health Defense. It adds to the other deaths of children reported on this blog.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on The Dangers of the Covid “Vaccine” to Pregnant Women: Do Not be a Lab Rat. The Untested Experimentation on Babies and the Unborn
  • Tags: , ,

Video: Ukraine: Calm Before the Storm?

January 19th, 2022 by South Front

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

On January 17, the ex-president of Ukraine, a well-known oligarch Petro Poroshenko, returned to the country. Poroshenko faced a criminal case opened under the articles ‘high treason’ and ‘assistance to the activities of terrorist organizations.’ In particular, it concerns the purchase of coal from the Donbass. According to the investigation, the ex-president created a criminal group and disrupted coal supplies from South Africa in the fall of 2014. A month ago, the State Bureau of Investigation tried to serve a subpoena on the ex-president and summon him for questioning, but Poroshenko evaded receiving the document and immediately fled abroad.

He did not waste time. His team managed to mobilize ultranationalist forces and the masses dissatisfied with the policy of the current Ukrainian president, the former comedian Zelensky.

Apparently, Poroshenko received certain guarantees by Euro-Atlantic elites.

.

The ex-president was not detained before the election of a preventive measure at the airport upon his arrival, as required by law. The judge also refused to make a decision on the pre-trial restrictions on January 17 and postponed the hearing to January 19.

Meanwhile, President Zelensky’s approval rating is rapidly declining. Key members of the president’s office are resigning. The country suffers from a protracted economic crisis accompanied by a demographic catastrophe. The main reasons are widespread corruption and the colonial-styled exploitation of the country’s economy by the Euro-Atlantists. In fact, Ukraine is under the external control of Washington and Brussels.

Today, the most important task for the West is to maintain the status quo in Ukraine. Both Poroshenko and Zelensky are completely controlled by Washington. At the same time, there are high risks of mass protests and even a coup due to the dissatisfaction with the policies of the current president. Poroshenko is seen as a loyal figure who, in case of a crisis, will not allow any third parties to come to power and change the course of the country’s foreign policy.

The events in Ukraine are taking place amid the failure of the dialogue on strategic stability between Russia and NATO, as well as the extreme price volatility in the energy markets.

On January 17, the Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE announced the end of negotiations on security guarantees within the security organization due to their futility. In recent days, there have been reports that Moscow is consistently reducing its diplomatic corps in Ukraine. The Kremlin has also tightened its rhetoric, accusing NATO of preparing aggressive actions against Russia.

In turn, the president of Belarus Lukashenko, a Russian ally, claimed the buildup of Ukraine’s troops near the country’s borders. NATO keeps up similar accusations against Russia.

At the same time, there is a temporary lull in Donbass.

Only sporadic skirmishes with no use of heavy weapons are reported on the frontlines between the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the armed units of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics.

Earlier, the concentration of the UAF shock troops, including armored units, in the immediate vicinity of the contact line was confirmed. Volunteer nationalist battalions, consisting mainly of residents of the Ukraine’s western regions, arrived at the forefront. NATO has increased arms supplies to Kiev. Following the Washington’s example, the head of the British Defense Ministry said that London will send anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. There are a large number of NATO instructors in the UAF ranks.

The constellation of events indicates that the parties consider the outbreak of another armed conflict in Eastern Europe as the most likely scenario in the near future.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Ukraine: Calm Before the Storm?
  • Tags:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

The meeting of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) foreign ministers was postponed amid disagreements over Myanmar. The West could use this division within ASEAN to dominate the association and pressure Southeast Asian countries to turn against China. ASEAN’s differences over Myanmar in the context of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen’s visit to the isolated country is the likely reason why the meeting was postponed.

The meeting should have taken place on January 18-19 in the northern Cambodian city of Siem Reap. It was to be the first ASEAN forum hosted by the country. However, on January 12, Cambodian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Koy Kuong announced the postponement of the meeting. The spokesperson declined to give further details, but it is known that Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines did not fully support Hun Sen’s visit to Myanmar, and even criticized him indirectly.

Hun Sen held talks with the head of Myanmar’s military junta, General Min Aung Hlaing, and did not hold any meetings with opposition representatives, including Aung San Suu Kyi. In an interview with journalists last week, Malaysian Foreign Minister Saifuddin Abdullah suggested that Hun Sen as ASEAN chairman should have consulted other leaders of the association and asked for their views on what he should try and achieve in Myanmar. As the Minister noted, in ASEAN there are different opinions on the visit but that he would judge after the fact whether Hun Sen’s visit to Myanmar was constructive.

Despite the “wait-and-see” position of Malaysia, some countries are concerned that the visit could be seen as regional recognition of the junta and that their views should have been consulted.

Singapore’s Foreign Ministry announced that during talks via video link a day earlier, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong urged the new president of ASEAN to have dialogue with all parties involved in the conflict in Myanmar, including the party of Aung San Suu Kyi. Lee noted that all of Cambodia’s proposals as ASEAN Chair should be discussed in detail by ASEAN foreign ministers. He also expressed hope that Cambodia would take into account the views of Singapore and other ASEAN leaders.

The Philippines expressed a similar stance to Malaysia and Singapore, with Foreign Minister Teodoro Locsin saying on Sunday that he sees Aung San Suu Kyi as an “indispensable” participant of any negotiations between the opposing parties in Myanmar, despite her four year prison sentence. He stressed that the special envoy’s access to all parties concerned should not have any conditions. Locsin also announced his intention to work with his ASEAN counterparts in the coming weeks to reach a dialogue between all stakeholders in Myanmar and make progress on the Five-Point consensus.

The crisis in Myanmar is not new and will certainly not have a quick solution. Despite this reality, some kind of concession in ASEAN will still need to be found. In the worst-case scenario, if the path towards a solution is not opened, a rift, if not even a split, will emerge in ASEAN. If ASEAN countries do not come to an agreement on Myanmar, Western forces could take advantage of the internal crises to dominate the association that is becoming increasingly closer to China.

The West has repeatedly used events in Myanmar to put pressure on ASEAN since the country became a member state in 1997. Washington constantly incites tensions in Myanmar and elsewhere in Southeast Asia in a controlled manner as part of their attempts to stop, or at least limit, Chinese influence from strengthening and expanding in the region.

One of Myanmar’s leading newspapers, The Irrawaddy, noted China’s efforts to support dialogue between Myanmar and ASEAN to resolve the political crisis in the country. The Irrawaddy, founded by Burmese exiles living in northern Thailand but now also based in Rangoon, also acknowledged that Hun Sen’s visit to Myanmar sparked mixed reactions in Myanmar and abroad due to his contacts with the military government.

The newspaper cited Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wen as saying that Beijing supports the creation of favourable conditions that are conduit to resolving issues. The spokesperson also said that for the ASEAN envoy to fulfill its responsibilities, China is working to reach a consensus between Myanmar’s “five-point roadmap” and ASEAN’s “five-point consensus.”

As ASEAN countries rely on China for the development of their infrastructure and economy, Washington wants to break relations that Southeast Asian countries have with Beijing. So long as the Myanmar issue persists, it will deepen differences within the association that can then be exploited by external forces, especially the US.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ASEAN’s Discord Over Myanmar, Could Expose Association to External Dominance
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

First published by Global Research on January 13, 2022

***

Six weeks into the Soviet Army’s counteroffensive, on 15 January 1942 Adolf Hitler at last agreed that German Army Group Centre could make a gradual, fighting withdrawal to a straighter and shorter line slightly further west of Moscow. 

The Nazi hierarchy hoped that this would fortify the Wehrmacht’s defensive position, and enable them to fend off continued Soviet counterattacks; in order to reconstitute German forces for another major offensive in the summer of 1942.

Hitler attributed the failure of his 1941 campaign to destroy the USSR as largely due to “a surprisingly early outbreak of a severe winter in the East” (1). He did not mention the crucial errors himself and the high command made regarding grand strategy, and neither did he give the Soviets credit for putting up a stronger showing than the Nazis had anticipated.

Nevertheless, the Russian winter of 1941-42 was far colder and longer than normal, and indeed was “one of the most severe winters on record”, as noted in a paper co-authored by prominent climatologists (Jehuda Neumann and Hermann Flohn) with the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. (2)

A table produced in this study reveals that the temperature around Moscow, for the month of November 1941, was on average a remarkable 6.8 degrees Celsius colder when compared to November 1940 (3). For December 1941, the temperature in Moscow was 5.2 degrees Celsius lower than 12 months before; and in January 1942, it was 6 degrees colder than January 1941. Even the month of March 1942 was appreciably colder than March 1941, showing a 3.6 degree lower temperature on average, with the thermometer still well under zero.

Map of the Soviet 1941–1942 winter counteroffensive. (Source: Public Domain)

These much colder than typical temperatures are similarly reflected in recordings posted at Leningrad, Soviet Russia’s second largest city (4). However, the appalling weather was not the principal reason behind Operation Barbarossa’s derailing. The Germans were pressed for time, and had been unable to reach their goals, mainly because of the strategic blunders committed by the German high command; such as stretching their forces over too broad a front on 22 June 1941, and two months later when Hitler on his own initiative delayed the advance on Moscow. The Blitzkrieg had slowed in large part because of this.

Military author Donald J. Goodspeed wrote,

“The German high command had attempted too many things at the same time. It had neglected the primary axiom of the single objective [taking Moscow]”. (5)

Considering by late 1941 the Germans were deep inside the western Soviet Union, that they had not been given sufficient warm clothing, were experiencing problems with logistics and supplies, and had received barely any new fighting divisions, their performance that winter was quite incredible. In total during the three months of January to March 1942, the Wehrmacht inflicted 620,000 casualties on the Red Army, according to British scholar Evan Mawdsley; the Germans in that same period lost 136,000 men, equating to 22% of Soviet personnel losses. (6)

It was the ongoing German ability, to exact heavy casualties on the Soviets, which ensured that Hitler and his military command remained confident they would emerge victorious from the war, particularly as the winter progressed and the Wehrmacht’s position solidified. Goodspeed stated,

“It is impossible to withhold admiration from the German achievement in that terrible winter, an achievement much more significant than all the previous German victories. It is impossible to withhold admiration, but it is infinitely sad that men should have been called on to fight so well for so bad a cause”. (7)

On 29 January 1942 General Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets’ top commander, complained that he had so far lost 276,000 soldiers in the winter fighting, and received a mere 100,000 reinforcements (8). In his memoirs, Zhukov unceremoniously labelled the Russian counteroffensive “a Pyrrhic victory”; he criticised how the counterattack is often regarded as a Soviet triumph, calling it an “embellishment of history” and “a sad attempt to paint over failure” (9). The above casualty figures support the arguments of Zhukov.

While Zhukov’s lamentations on not being granted enough replacements also seems justified, in the three months from December 1941 the Soviet Army was bolstered with 117 new divisions, a very high number (10). The leading enemy force, German Army Group Centre, received only 9 fresh divisions from December 1941 to March 1942.

Hitler was relieved to observe that the Germans’ slow retirement of mid-January 1942 was successfully implemented. In the process, the Wehrmacht did suffer considerable losses in men and matériel. By 31 January 1942, total German casualties on the Eastern front came to 918,000, amounting to 28.7% of the original German invasion force of June 1941. (11)

In comparison, the Soviet Army at the end of 1941 had suffered almost five million casualties (12); that is the vast majority of the Red Army’s personnel strength of mid-1941. The halting of the German advance had, meanwhile, breathed new life into anti-fascist guerrilla activities, especially those in Yugoslavia and Greece. The Resistance forces helped to tie down a few German divisions. The Wehrmacht had no such difficulties from the Western European nations under Nazi rule. The French, for example, sent a contingent to fight alongside the Germans against Soviet Russia. (13)

In an unforeseen twist of events, the positive outcome of Hitler’s standfast directive of mid-December 1941 – in which he had ordered German commanders to deploy dynamite and other explosives to blast gaping holes in the frozen ground (14), to be used as defensive strongholds called “hedgehogs” – coupled with the successful action of 15 January 1942, appears to have augmented Hitler’s status as the German Army’s Supreme Commander.

Mawdsley acknowledged,

“Hitler came out better from these winter battles than Stalin did, at least within his own short-range terms. The ‘standfast’ policy saved his Eastern front. Ironically, the disaster at Moscow probably enhanced in the short term his reputation (and his self-estimation), as a war leader, although in a different way from the 1940 campaign in France. He could claim to have saved the German Army from its own errors”. (15)

On 19 December 1941 Hitler appointed himself Supreme Commander, replacing Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch. The latter had resigned due to heart trouble and the deteriorating circumstances in the East. Hitler insisted that,

“Anyone can issue a few tactical orders. The task of a Commander-in-Chief is to educate the army in the spirit of National Socialism. I don’t know any general in the army who could do this as I want it done”. (16)

Hitler’s self-assignment as Nazi Germany’s warlord was not at all bad news for the Russians. Having limited military experience, Hitler was bound to commit errors in the time ahead. In reality, the Nazi leader had been de facto Supreme Commander for months before December 1941.

On 10 January 1942, Joseph Stalin informed his generals in a directive that he expected “the complete defeat of the Nazi forces in 1942” (17). The Red Army’s May Day slogan expounded, “In 1942 we will achieve the decisive defeat of the German-fascist forces”. The Soviet leadership continued to state this aim was achievable “until at least late June 1942”, Mawdsley wrote (18); despite the fact by then, the Germans were hundreds of miles deeper in Russian territory than Napoleon’s Grand Armée had been in 1812.

As opposed to Hitler, however, Stalin possessed an extensive background in top military echelons, which would stand him in good stead as the war continued. English historian Geoffrey Roberts realised,

“Stalin was no general but he did have experience of high command in the field, and of serving in the combat zone, although not on the front line. During the Russian civil war he served as a political commissar, a representative of the communist party’s central committee, responsible for securing and maintaining supplies for the Red Army, a job that involved him in high-level military decision-making”. (19)

In January 1942, the Kremlin sought to inflict a fatal blow on the Nazis by executing a gigantic pincers movement, around the Russian towns of Rzhev and Vyazma. Such a move, had it been successful, would have led to the encirclement and destruction of the largest German force, Army Group Centre. Were the Soviets to achieve this, the war would have been virtually over (20). Partly because of the Russian plan, Hitler had reluctantly ordered his step-by-step withdrawal on 15 January.

The Soviets had already recaptured the Russian city of Kalinin (Tver) on 16 December 1941, 100 miles north-west of Moscow, followed by the strongpoint of Kaluga on 26 December, a similar distance south-west of Moscow. With Kalinin and Kaluga back in Soviet hands, Stalin and the Supreme high command (Stavka) now carried out their enveloping manoeuvre further west, focusing on Rzhev and Vyazma. These towns lie just over 130 miles west of Moscow.

Army Group Centre was not destined to be surrounded and destroyed. In bitter fighting the Germans held on to Rzhev. Their formidable commander, Walter Model, launched sustained and vigorous assaults against oncoming Soviet troops. Mawdsley wrote,

“General Walter Model was appointed to take over the 9th Army on the northern face of the German position… An officer of extraordinary abilities, Model began a meteoric rise, and would establish himself as the German Army’s best defensive specialist, Hitler’s ‘fireman’.” (21)

Hitler repeatedly described Model as “the saviour of the Eastern front”. For his successful action at Rzhev, the Führer personally awarded Model the Knights’ Cross with Oak Leaves on 1 February 1942, and promoted him to Colonel-General (22). Model, trusted furthermore by Hitler because of his pro-Nazi stance, was the only commander who could persuade Hitler to sanction retreats, sweetened with a “Shield and Sword” policy.

Through this stratagem Model would suggest a withdrawal to Hitler, with the general then stressing that it be followed by a bold counterstroke, in which the lost territory would swiftly be recaptured, or so they hoped. German military staffs were frequently amazed, to witness how Model’s Shield and Sword policy promptly convinced Hitler to authorise temporary retreats (23). Other generals risked being sacked for proposing as much.

Towards mid-January 1942, the Soviet 29th and 39th armies bypassed Rzhev, and advanced south-westwards in the direction of Vyazma. Further south again, General Zhukov’s divisions approached Vyazma. Despite these threats, Vyazma remained under Nazi occupation, and the Soviet 29th and 39th armies were cut off behind German lines, as General Model closed the Rzhev gap (24). The Russian advance was halted and the pincers never closed.

A Russian attempt to overcome the German 9th Army was stopped in front of Vitebsk, in north-eastern Belarus. South of Leningrad, a Soviet offensive along the Volkhov river failed to reach its objectives, and resulted in the annihilation of the Soviet 2nd Assault Army (25). On 8 February 1942, six German divisions were surrounded by the Russians at the urban locality of Demyansk, 235 miles north-west of Moscow (26). The encircled Germans fought on, and their survival was made possible by Luftwaffe supplies of food and medicine dispatched from the air.

At the Russian town of Kholm, about 200 miles south of Leningrad, a mix of German Army and police units were surrounded in late January 1942, as the Soviet 33rd and 391st rifle divisions tightened the ring around Kholm (the Kholm Pocket). Over this town the besieged Germans were likewise reinforced with Luftwaffe aerial drops. They clung on to Kholm in spite of repeated Soviet assaults, heavy casualties and a sudden upsurge of exanthematic typhus, a lethal bacterial disease. (27)

The success of the Luftwaffe manoeuvres, at Demyansk and Kholm, may have assured Hitler the following winter that it would be possible to safeguard the German 6th Army trapped at Stalingrad (28). Certainly, the Demyansk and Kholm operations lent credence to the Nazi air chief Hermann Göring, who was heartened by the Luftwaffe showing here. Later, Göring was optimistic the same undertaking would be possible at Stalingrad, until the 6th Army could be relieved.

It did not prove so, for the German airfields were further away from Stalingrad than at Demyansk and Kholm. The 6th Army was also multiple times larger, and more mouths would need to be fed to sustain it.

Outbreaks of typhus in late winter, as had afflicted the Germans in the Kholm Pocket, was expected. Such occurrences were predicted accurately by Hitler’s ally, the Romanian autocrat Marshal Ion Antonescu, who said on 13 November 1941, “In my experience exanthematic typhus breaks out in February. We must organize ourselves by then. We must limit the area of the disease, send bath and delousing trains, because otherwise we will have a wide-scale epidemic in February… The disaster will come in February, when a person is weakened by the winter, because he has not fed himself properly”. (29)

In the south-western USSR, on 31 December 1941 the Soviet 302nd Mountain Rifle Division, led by Colonel Mikhail K. Zubkov, liberated the city of Kerch in eastern Crimea. Over four months later, Kerch would be taken by the Germans again on 14 May 1942. In the Crimea’s far south, General Erich von Manstein’s German 11th Army had “occupied the shore of the Black Sea” and the Germans enjoyed “access to the wheat granaries of the Ukraine”, Leopold Trepper wrote, a top level anti-Nazi intelligence agent. (30)

Manstein’s forces were still stuck outside Sevastopol, the Crimea’s biggest city, which resisted heroically. Sevastopol would not fall to the invaders until the high summer (31). The most promising Russian operation took place near Kharkov, the USSR’s fourth largest city, which had been captured by the German 6th Army on 24 October 1941.

In the middle of January 1942, the Soviets launched twin attacks around Kharkov (32). The Germans managed to halt the northern Soviet arm at Belgorod, 45 miles north of Kharkov; but the Russians manufactured a deep wedge in the German lines near Izyum, about 70 miles south-east of Kharkov. Only after extended fighting was the Wehrmacht able to restore the situation, and prevent the Red Army from advancing southward on Kharkov, possibly retaking the city.

*

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. 

*

Shane Quinn is a Journalist and renowned Historian, focussing on geopolitics and the history of World War II, based in Ireland.  
.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Notes

1 J. Neumann and H. Flohn, Great Historical Events That Were Significantly Affected by the Weather: Part 8, Germany’s War on the Soviet Union, 1941–45. Long-range Weather Forecasts for 1941–42 and Climatological Studies, June 1987, Jstor, p. 7 of 11

2 Ibid., p. 1 of 11

3 Ibid., p. 4 of 11

4 Ibid.

5 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985) p. 403

6 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 147

7 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 405

8 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 128

9 Ibid., p. 127

10 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

11 Jacques R. Pauwels, The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War (Formac/Lorimer; 2nd Edition, 1 Sept. 2015) p. 73

12 Ian Johnson, Stalingrad at 75, the Turning Point of World War II in Europe, Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, 15 August 2017

13 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

14 Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War (Pan; Main Market edition, 21 Aug. 2009) p. 447

15 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 148

16 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 406

17 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953 (Yale University Press; 1st Edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 116

18 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, pp. 118-119

19 Roberts, Stalin’s Wars, p. 12

20 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 407

21 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 123

22 C. Peter Chen, “Walter Model”, World War II Database, April 2007

23 Samuel W. Mitcham Jr., Hitler’s Field Marshals and Their Battles (Guild Publishers, 1988) p. 319

24 Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War, p. 347

25 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 408

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Dennis Deletant, Hitler’s Forgotten Ally: Ion Antonescu and His Regime, Romania 1940–1944 (Palgrave Macmillan; 2006th edition,12 Apr. 2006) p. 176

30 Leopold Trepper, The Great Game: Memoirs of a Master Spy (Michael Joseph Ltd; First Edition, 1 May 1977) p. 132

31 C. Peter Chen, “Battle of Sevastopol, 30 Oct 1941 – 4 Jul 1942”, World War II Database, January 2008

32 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 408

Featured image: German soldiers tend to a wounded comrade near Moscow, November–December 1941 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

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.

***

 

 

 

One of the most popular and regular items of the Western media menu is the demonization of China, Iran and North Korea for their human rights violations. These media have three characteristics.

First, they give us the impression that human rights violation takes place only in those countries which are not friendly to Washington; they try to tell us that Washington-friendly countries do not violate human rights.

Second, the Western media limit their critics to the violation of civil and political rights such as oppression of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. They do no talk about the violation of economic, social and cultural rights (foods, clothing, public housing, public health, public education) which China and North Korea are trying to respect and protect.

What makes me disturbed is that the violation of human rights is globalized and getting worse.

In this paper, I am asking the following question: “What is human rights?” and “How badly is it violated in Asia?” 

Definition of Human Rights

I define human rights in this way:

“Every normal human being has right to live a dignified and decent living.”

Decent living means the access to foods, clothing, housing, a job, health and education. On the other hand, dignified life means independence, autonomy and freedom.

Thus, we have two sets of inseparable human rights. One is the right to be autonomous and free from government intervention. This concept has led to international covenant on civil and political rights.

This concept of civil and political right is much influenced by English philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1558-1670) and John Locke (1632-1701). These philosophers have one thing in common, namely, the sovereignty of individuals and freedom for self preservation. The right to self preservation is a natural right.

However, the major difference between the two philosophers is their perception of the type of political regime. Hobbes goes for monarchy which is likely to better protect human rights. For Locke, non-authoritarian regime also can protect human rights. However, for him, if the government fails its job of protecting human rights, the government deserves to be replaced.

The idea of civil and political rights was enshrined in the Declaration of the French Revolution and that of American Revolution.

The right to individual freedom is called the first generation of human rights or negative human rights in the sense that the state should not infringe on individual freedom.

The concept of decent of economic, social and cultural rights is well defined by James Nickel. These rights are called the second generation of human rights.

“Human rights aim to secure for individual the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life. Public authorities, national and international, are identified as typically best placed to service these conditions.” (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Human Rights)

The idea of economic, social and cultural rights derives from the need for mutual cooperation. This idea is inspired primarily by religious traditions. The Christian love of neighbours, the Muslims teaching of interconnectivity of humans, the respect for all living beings in Buddhism are sources of inspiration for the doctrine of economic, social and cultural rights.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) argues that one’s freedom should not harm the freedom of others. Marx emphasized the recognition and importance of economic, social and cultural rights.

These two schools of thought on human rights have invited a sustained debate, especially the debate on the universality of civil and political rights. One side of the controversy argues that human rights, especially the right to individual freedom, is universal; China’s oppression of individual freedom is human rights violation. James Nickel argues for the universality of human rights.

“The moral justification of human rights is thought to precede consideration of strict national sovereignty.” (James Nickel, 1992)

“Moral universalism posits the existence of rationally identifiable trans-culture and trans-historical moral trust.” (James Nickel 1992)

On the other hand, the argument for relative universality is also convincing. At the World Congress on Human Rights in Vienne in 1993, the Foreign Minister of Singapore said this:

“The universal recognition of human rights can be harmful, if universalism is studied to deny or mask the reality of diversity.”

The localized human rights become more convincing when it comes down to economic, social and cultural rights. These rights are also known as positive rights in the sense that the state has the positive duty to assure decent living or at least produce conditions conducive to such life.

The point is this: all human rights are of universal value, but depending on the local conditions, they cannot be realized everywhere to the same degree. In short, the degree of the guarantee of such human rights cannot be universal.

There are also third generation of human rights which are not covered in operational terms in the first and the second generation human rights; these rights are collective rights designed to protect specific groups of people such as women, religious and cultural minorities, elderly people, children, the disabled and so on. Later in this paper, a partial list of these rights will be shown.

Evolution in the Fight for Human Rights

The first fight for freedom was the Magna Carta of 1215. It was the fight against unpopular king and the protection of the right of the Church and Barons.

The most important battles for the human rights promotion were the Declaration of American Independence of 1776 and the Declaration of Man and the Citizen of the France’s National Constituent Assembly of 1789. The key message of these documents was the idea that “Man is born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

The first important international covenant on human rights was the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR) which was followed by two other international human rights covenants, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 and the International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (UDHR)

Image: The universal declaration of human rights 10 December 1948 (Licensed under Public Domain)

The universal declaration of human rights 10 December 1948.jpg

This was one of the decent things ever done by human beings.

No less than 193 countries adopt the UDHR.

It has 24 articles roughly divided into three parts.

Part 1. (Articles 1 to 11): the judicial system suitable for human rights protection. For instance, Article 5 prohibits torture, while Article 11 argues for innocence before proven guilty.

Part 2. (Article 12 to 17): civil rights. For example, Article 12 is about privacy, while Article 17 is concerned with private property.

Part 3. (Article 18 to 24): political rights. Article 18 is about the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of 1966 (ICCOR)

Adopted by 179 countries.

It has four parts and 53 articles.

Part 1. Article 1 deals with the right to self determination (Article 1-1) and the duty of the State (Article 1-3).

Part 2. State responsibility (Article 4 to 5): Article 4-1 is concerned with racial discrimination. Article 4-1 explains the role of international institutions.

Part 3. (Article 6 to 27): the UN’s human-right related functions. For instance, Article 6-2 asks the abolition of death penalty. Article 18-3 merits our particular attention. It explains the limit of religious freedom:

“Freedom to manifest one’s religious or belief may be subject only to such limitation as are prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or the fundamental rights and freedom of others.”

What this article is saying is that religious freedom is not absolute; it should be contextualized.

Part 4. (Article 28 to 45): the organization of the UN’s human-right related UN institutions including UN Human Rights Committee and Commission. Article 28-2 specifies that the UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) is composed of 18 members. Article 41-1 specifies how inter-government human-right related dispute should be dealt with through the UNHMC.

Part 5. (Article 46-53): The legitimacy of the ICCPR. Article 46 says that the ICCPR does not impair the provisions of the UN Charter and the constitutions of the specialized agencies which define the responsibility of UN agencies. 

The International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 (ICESCR)

Adopted by 171 countries.

It has 4 parts and 31 articles.

Part 1. (Article 1): deals with the right to self determination.

Part 2. (Article 2 to 5): international cooperation, rights of women: Article 2-3 is of particular interest: “Developing countries with due regard to human rights and their national economy may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals.” This allows the developing countries some flexibility in the range of human rights protection.

Part 3. (Article 6 to 15): Labour, education, daily necessities. Articles 6 to 9 are concerned with labour rights. Article 10 is for education right. Article 11 is for the right to food clothing and housing. Article 12 is for public health.

Part 4. (Article 16-31): role of UN agencies for human rights, in particular the role of the UN Economic and Social Council.

List of Human Rights Conventions

In addition to UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR, we have the following international agreements on human rights and national declaration of human rights:

  • The Covenant on the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)
  • The International Convention of the Statute of Refugees (1951)
  • The European Convention on Human Rights (1954)
  • The UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Language Minorities (1966)
  • International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966)
  • The UN Declaration on the Human Environment: The right to freedom and equality in the condition for life of dignity (1972)
  • International Convention against Torture and Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment of Punishment (1984)
  • The African Charter on Human Rights under the auspice of the African Union (1986)

It is interesting to notice that Article 19 guarantees the right to equality; Article 20 is about the right to self determination; article 21 the right to natural resources:

  • The UN Convention of the Right of Children (1989)
  • The UN Declaration on Indigenous People (2007)
  • The La Via Campesina Movement (2008)

This movement had a huge assembly in Jakarta to promote the international convention on the protection of peasants; 200 million peasants support it worldwide; the meeting was attended by representatives of 20 countries. The movement was approved by the UN General Assembly in 2018 supported by 121 countries.

  • The Beijing Declaration on Human Rights. In this Declaration, human rights are the unity of individual and collective rights. To be more precise, individual rights cannot be harmonized, if collective economic and social entitlement is not sufficient (2017).

Western critics think that this is an international blackmail against the West’s attachment to individual rights and freedom. The third world human rights are hostage with the notion that without more economic aid, economic and social rights cannot be enjoyed in the Third World.

This is true, indeed, because the Third World has provided cheap labour and natural resources which have made the West rich.

In recent years, there is a movement for the protection of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC), but there is no international convention.

There is one other group which is not covered by an international convention; it is the right of senior people who may need more protection than other groups.

One of the controversies on human rights is about the proliferation of international human rights agreements, which the former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was quoted to have said:

“Indeed, human rights proliferation is watering down and diluting focus on protecting basic liberty.”

Here, Pompeo is alluding to the individual freedom of American version which values the merciless competition for the sake of efficiency and business profit.

What he is saying is that the government should not interfere with the free action of individuals and businesses; he does not consider the cases where the liberty of one person can harm that of another person.

Take, as an example, the right to free public assembly. Most national constitutions guarantee the right to free expression, even in so-called authoritarian countries like Iran, China, Russia and North Korea.

However, there is one condition for the guarantee of this freedom; such freedom should not threaten national security. But, even in liberal democratic country like the U.S., violent public protest such as the “June 6 Washington protest” is a criminal act; its leaders are expected to be charged for their activities. In fact, as long as we live in a society, absolute freedom cannot be tolerated.

The authoritarian countries especially China and North Korea are criticized for violating  civil and political rights.

In the West, for individual liberty such as individual property, free assembly, free choice of religion, freedom of speech and other civil and political rights, the government should not interfere.

The Western perception of freedom may seem logical, but in reality, it is just impossible for a responsible government not to set up the red line which cannot be ignored. In other words, even in the U.S., individual rights cannot be tolerated without considering the danger of undermining the collective right of the American society.

In China, it is the official position that civil and political rights are vertically structured. The individual right is subordinate to the collective entity; the right of the collective entity is subordinate to the right of the State; the right of the State is subordinate to right of the nation. The basic idea is that individual rights and the collective rights are to be assured simultaneously.

Violation of Civil and Political Human Rights in Asia

The Western opinion makers try to make the world to believe that in Asia, human rights violation is the monopoly of China and North Korea.

Civil rights mean the right to healthy physical and mental life requiring safety, non-discrimination, freedom of opinion, press, religion, association and movement. On the other hand, political rights mean the right to vote, political party membership and other politics-related activities. It is to be noted that political and civil rights can be the same; the distinction is blurred.

What we will see in this section is how difficult it is to find countries that are free from human rights violations. There are always the strong and the weak ones. The strong wants to despise and exploit the weak. Such is human nature. In other words, violation of human rights is a part of human life. No country, whether liberal or authoritarian, can say it is clean. Therefore, what is wise and constructive is to avoid labelling other countries as human violators and rather cooperate to fight against human rights abuse.

None of the Asian countries I discuss here is free from being violator of human rights. I will discuss the human rights violations by types.

I have decided not to mention the names of the violators and the violated to respect their confidentiality.

The Sexual violence: The case of rape of women is particularly high in India. In September 2020, a Dalit woman was raped and murdered by a group of upper-class men in Hathra District in Uttar Pradesh and she was cremated by the police without consulting her family. There are dozens of other reported cases where low-class women were raped by upper-class men.

The crime of rape is not confined to India. In many countries, lot of girls are raped every day by the rich and the powerful. Lots of women are raped by close life-partners in developed countries.

Mass killing of people: Mass killings by the government or large corporations in complicity with corrupt governments are widespread. In India, since the BJP took over the power in March 2017, 77 people were killed and 1,100 were injured by 2020. In the Philippines, a Major General killed thousands of political activists. In Malaysia, on 25th of August 2018, the military assisted by several ethnic groups attacked Rohingya villages, raped and massacred the poor people. More than 362 villages were destroyed, more than one million Rohingya people were excluded from the Census; 12,800 were displaced.

Immunity Killing: In India in February 2020, violence erupted that killed 50 Muslims. On April 18 in Uttar Pradesh, a Muslim man died in a hospital after being beaten by the police. In July 2020 in Kashima, three young workers were killed by the Indian army in an apple orchard. In Cambodia, a prominent political commentator was murdered after a Cambodian general ordered the army to kill anyone who foments turmoil. One of the worst mass immunity killings took place in Indonesia between 1965 and 1966. Millions of Indonesian communists, Chinese, trade union leaders and others were killed.

The violation of the right to freedom of speech, expression, opinion and the press: In India in recent years, 49 people including cinema-related people were convicted of sedition charges for having written a letter to the Prime Minster expressing concern over hate crimes. A journalist with Hindustar was killed for writing about the political leaders.

In Pakistan on the 29th of May 2011, a journalist of the Pakistan Bureau of the Asia times was abducted and killed. In Cambodia, the authorities revoked the license of Mohanokor Radio which broadcasts for Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. In Indonesia in March 2017, two French journalists were deported from Papua for a reporting that may have displeased the authorities. In Malaysia in April, 2017, the government threatened to withdraw the license of a Chinese language newspaper because of the publication of a satirical cartoon about the parliament’s debate on Islamic law.

In Myanmar in December, 2018, the police arrested two reporters for reporting on the violence of the security forces against the Rohingya people. They were charged for possessing leaked documents related to the security forces operations. In Thailand in March 2017, Voice TV, Spring News Radio, Peace TV, TV24 were forced to temporarily close operations because of their critical reporting against the government.

The violation of the freedom of press occurs when government prevents by force the reporting of unfavourable news. But, is the government’s sin of violating the right to free press always bad? Suppose that the press use the freedom of press to topple the good government. In such case, would it not be justified to restrict the freedom of press?

Take the case of South Korea. The government of Moon Jae-in did his best to free the Korean people from injustice committed by the corrupted conservative elite. Under Moon’s government, the press is completely free. But the press does everything to topple Moon’s government so that they can have a part of wealth stolen by the corrupt conservative elite group. To what extent should we allow the right to free press?

In many developed countries, the press abuse their freedom to promote the interests of corrupt privileged groups. Hence, we have to be careful before labelling certain countries for the violation of the freedom of press.

Persecution of human rights activists: The violation of the right to the promotion of human rights is another wrongdoing of many countries. In Cambodia in 2017, the government detained four senior staff member of the Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC). In August 2018, a Women’s Rights defender was arrested during “Black Monday”, day of protest for the release of five ADHOC members. She was sentenced to 30 years in prison. In August 2019, the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs closed the US-funded Democratic Institute and expulsed foreign staff members.

In Myanmar on January 1, 2017, a prominent Muslim lawyer, senior advisor to NLD (National League of Democracy under Aung Saan Suu Kyi) was shot to death. In Vietnam in 2017, 40 human rights activists were arrested under the National Security Law.

Racial/Religious Discrimination: In India in February 2020, the India Supreme Court ruled to evict two million people from tribal communities. In August 2020, the government of India published the National Registration of Citizens excluding three million people mostly Muslims. In Indonesia in March 2017, a Jakarta court handed down 5-year imprisonment to two leaders of non-Muslim religious community. On May 9, former Jakarta governor, a Christian, got 2-year prison life for blaspheming Islam.

In Malaysia in August 2018, the government has ordered to remove a statue of a woman with wings from a park for being atheist. In Myanmar, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and other non-Buddhist religions are threatened on a daily basis. In Vietnam, the Christian Church and Buddhist Temples are under constant surveillance.

The Violation of the Right to Assembly: In Malaysia, the Society Act requires that all organizations of 7 persons or more must register. In Thailand in August 2017, several academic people who attended the International Conference on the Thai Studies in the province of Chiang Mai were charged with the violation of NCPO (National Council for Peace and Order) policy.

On November 27, the Thai police dispersed peaceful protests in a province against the construction of a coal power plant. In Vietnam, no labour union is allowed; no assembly for human rights is allowed. In Singapore, public assembly is allowed only at predetermined place, namely Hong Lun Park, where the “speaker corner” is located; no foreigner is allowed.

Abduction: There are many cases of abduction without trace. In the Philippines in August 2016, a girl was abducted on her way to work with no trace.

In 2019 in Asia as a whole, there were 2,500 cases of enforced or involuntary disappearances. In Thailand in August 2004, it was found out that a Muslim lawyer disappeared since 1980.

Other Violations of Human Rights: There are cases of violations of the rights of children. For example, in Indonesia, thousands of children were working on tobacco fields risking exposure to pesticides.

Unlawful detention seems to be widespread. In Singapore, under the Internal Security Act and Criminal Laws, persons can be arrested and detained for unlimited period without any charge of judicial review. In Thailand, under the law of NCPO (National Council for Peace and Order) the military can detain for 7 days without charge and without a lawyer.

To sum up, the human race has been trying for centuries to promote and respect human rights. An impressive number of institutions and international agreements have been established in order to combat the violation of human rights. The UN has allocated an important amount of scarce resources to the protection of human rights. Furthermore, every country has some sort of mechanism created to uphold and improve human rights.

However, the reality is not encouraging. Every country is a victim of human rights violations.

It is perhaps inevitable as long as there is the strong and the weak; as long as there is the rich and the poor. It is human nature that the strong exploit the weak; the rich despise the poor.

Therefore, it is ridiculous to label a certain country as human rights violator. What we can do is to minimize the destructive effects of human rights violations. For this, we need more international cooperation and, especially, more binding laws.

*

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.

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQAM) and member of the Study Center on Integration and Globalization (CEIM) of UQAM. 

He is Research Associate of the Center of Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of Human Rights Violations: “The Right to Live a Dignified and Decent Living”
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The US and its allies are countering the re-emergence of China with a Sinophobic confection of new alliances (the AUKUS and the Quad), military threats, jingoism and false propaganda about a falsely claimed Uyghur Genocide in Xinjiang. The UK Uyghur Tribunal admits that there have been no mass killings in Xinjiang but absurdly asserts that application of globally-praised Chinese family planning in Xinjiang is “genocide”. However excellent health, infant mortality, maternal mortality, life expectancy, population growth, per capita GDP, education, literacy and birth rate outcomes in Xinjiang and China contradict Sinophobic US, UK and Australian claims of a Uyghur Genocide.

Below are some key relevant data on China and Xinjiang (42% Han Chinese, 58% ethnic minorities), and by way of comparison data for the US, UK, Australia, and Apartheid Israel (serial war criminal occupier countries), Indigenous Australians (socio-economically disadvantaged survivors of a 2-century Australian Aboriginal Genocide), Occupied Palestine and Occupied Afghanistan (war criminally occupied countries), and India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (major impoverished but democratic neighbours of China).

  • Annual population growth: 0.2% (Australia) 0.3% (China), 0.4% (the US), 0.6% (UK), 1.0% (Bangladesh), 1.0% (India), 1.8% (Apartheid Israel), 1.8% (Xinjiang), 2.0% (Pakistan), 2.1% (Indigenous Australians), 2.3% (Occupied Afghanistan), and 2.5% (Occupied Palestine).
  • Life expectancy in years: 83.9 (Australia), 83.5 (Apartheid Israel), 81.8 (UK), 79.1 (US), 77.5 (China), 74.7 (Xinjiang), 74.6 (Occupied Palestine), 73.6 (Indigenous Australians), 73.6 (Bangladesh), 70.4 (India), 67.8 (Pakistan), and 66.0 (Occupied Afghanistan).
  • Under-1 infant deaths per 1,000 births: 3 (Australia), 2.5 (Apartheid Israel), 3.5 (UK), 5.5 (US), 6 (Indigenous Australians), 6.8 (Xinjiang), 9 (China), 16.5 (Occupied Palestine), 24.5 (Bangladesh), 29.5 (India), 48.5 (Occupied Afghanistan), and 58.5 (Pakistan).
  • Under-5 infant deaths per 1,000 births: 3 (Apartheid Israel), 3.5 (Australia), 4 (UK), 7 (US), 7 (Indigenous Australians), 10.9 (Xinjiang), 11 (China), 19 (Occupied Palestine), 29 Bangladesh, 36 (India), 62.5 (Occupied Afghanistan), and 71.5 (Pakistan).
  • Maternal deaths per 100,000 births: 3 (Apartheid Israel), 6 (Australia), 7 (UK), 17.9 (Xinjiang), 19 (US), 20 (Indigenous Australians), 27 (Occupied Palestine), 29 (China), 140 (Pakistan), 145 (India), 173 (Bangladesh) and 638 (Occupied Afghanistan).
  • GDP per capita: $65,134 (US), $54,763 (Australia; perhaps about 2 times lower  for the socio-economically disadvantaged Indigenous Australians), $46,376 (Apartheid Israel), $41,855 (UK), $10,001 (China), $8,575 (Xinjiang),  $3,424 (Occupied Palestine), $2,116 (India), $1,846 (Bangladesh), $1,187 (Pakistan), and $470 (Afghanistan).
  • Adult literacy:  99.0%  (US), 99.0% (Australia), 99.0%  (UK), 97.1% (Apartheid Israel), 96.7% (Occupied Palestine), 96.4% (China), 96.3% (Xinjiang), 72.2% (India), 61.5% (Bangladesh), 56.4% (Pakistan), and 38.2% (Occupied Afghanistan).
  • Annual births per 1000 of population: 12.4  (US), 12.0 (Australia), 12.0  (UK), 12.1 (China; as per (1) higher for Uyghurs), 17.9 (Apartheid Israel), 18.6 (Bangladesh), 18.7 (India), 21.6 (Pakistan), 28.3 (Occupied Palestine), and 37.5 (Occupied Afghanistan).

These data show that Xinjiang is performing as well as or better than China in most of these parameters but has a much higher birth rate and population growth rate. Conversely, the shocking data on Indigenous Australians, Occupied  Palestine  and Occupied Afghanistan show that the genocidal Occupiers (Australia, Apartheid Israel and the US Alliance, respectively)  are grossly violating  Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War (the Fourth Geneva Convention) that unequivocally state that the Occupiers are inescapably obliged to provide their conquered Subjects with life-sustaining food and medical requisites “to the fullest extent of the means available to them”.

A holocaust involves the deaths of a huge number of people. However genocide is precisely defined by Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide thus:

“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.

In Xinjiang there have been no mass killings or expulsions, and birth control policies are much less restrictive for Uyghurs than for Han Chinese. Deaths from violence and imposed deprivation total 2.2 million (the WW1 onwards Palestinian Genocide) and 6.7 million (the 2001 onwards Afghan Genocide; it is worsening under deadly US and US Alliance sanctions, and through the US crippling impoverished Afghanistan by freezing $9.5 billion in Afghan reserves).

Here is a shocking testament to massive lying by Western Mainstream journalist, editor, politician, academic and commentariat presstitutes – if you Google the terms “Uyghur Genocide”, “Palestinian Genocide” and “Afghan Genocide” you obtain the following results (deaths in brackets): 221,000 (“Uyghur Genocide”; 0 deaths), 11,200 (“Palestinian Genocide”; 2.2 million deaths) and 6,960 (“Afghan Genocide”; 6.7 million deaths). Similarly, searches of the mendacious ABC (the Australian taxpayer-funded equivalent of the mendacious UK BBC) for these terms yield the following results: 95 (for “Uyghur Genocide”), 0 (“Palestinian Genocide”) and 0 (“Afghan Genocide”).

The Sinophobic claims made by US and US Alliance politicians and propagandists of “genocide” in Xinjiang are patently false. China  can and indeed must be legitimately criticized for the one party state, air pollution, the death penalty, censorship, the surveillance state, harsh treatment of Uyghurs, Hong Kong pro-democracy activists, and dissidents in general, and the harshness of its de-radicalization measures and associated human rights abuses in Xinjiang. However set against those harsh treatments are avoidance of the entrenched deadly jihadi extremism found in Muslim countries from West Africa to South East Asia.  It should be noted that the China-threatening US has an appalling record of covertly supporting non-state terrorism (including jihadi non-state terrorism) from Latin America to South East Asia.

For a detailed and documented analysis see Gideon Polya, “Excellent Xinjiang Health, Growth & Education Outcomes Contradict Sinophobic US Lies”, Countercurrents, 16 January 2022. Peace is the only way but silence kills and silence is complicity. Please disseminate this to everyone you can.

*

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.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003).

Featured image is from United World International

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “False Propaganda” against China: Excellent Xinjiang Health Statistics vs US Alliance Lies
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Over the past few months, U.S. lawmakers, the Afghan government, and the international community have called on Washington to stop strangling the Afghan economy as its people continue to suffer from a U.S.-created humanitarian crisis. On December 22nd, the Biden administration effectively rejected those calls, opting instead for half-measures that will do little to counter the effects of stringent economic sanctions imposed on the Taliban or to improve the material well-being of the Afghan people.

Sanctions in Context

Contrary to the narrative of U.S. politicians and journalists, the August 2021 withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan did not mark the end of the United States’ so-called “forever war” but rather a shift in U.S. policy—from direct military intervention and occupation to one based on economic sanctions and indirect political subversion. Although the tactics changed, the goal is the same: the accumulation of wealth and power through class warfare against the Afghan people.

Just days after Kabul fell to the Taliban on August 15th, Washington took measures to turn off the flow of funds to the new government and paralyze the Afghan banking system. The Treasury Department quickly issued a freeze order on nearly $9.5 billion of the Afghan Central Bank’s assets held in U.S. financial institutions, including the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Although the Taliban was entitled to receive more than $460 million from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in currency reserves known as Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, the U.S. directed the IMF to block those funds as well.

President Biden has also ensured that $1.3 billion of Afghan funds held in international accounts remain frozen, including funds denominated in euros and British pounds and those held by the Swiss-based Bank for International Sanctions.

People hold banners before marching on the street during a protest in Kabul on December 21, 2021, as the country struggles with a deep economic crisis. (Photo by Mohd RASFAN / AFP) (Photo by MOHD RASFAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Protests against U.S. sanctions outside U.S. embassy in Kabul. [Source: theintercept.com]

Notably, these punitive measures are in addition to the pre-existing economic sanctions that the U.S. has imposed on the Taliban, which began in 1999 under President Bill Clinton and which President George W. Bush ramped up following the 9/11 attack as part of the U.S.’s newly created counterterrorism sanctions program, known as the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. The Obama and Trump administrations followed suit by imposing over 100 and 23 sanction orders, respectively, against Taliban-related targets.

Despite purported exemptions for humanitarian aid, the lack of clarity under U.S. law deters financial institutions from processing such transactions out of fear of violating U.S. sanctions—which not only freeze all assets associated with the Taliban; they subject any individual or entity that conducts a transaction involving the Taliban to criminal liability. The ubiquity of U.S. dollars and financial institutions in international commerce provides the U.S. with virtually global jurisdiction.

Horrific Consequences of Sanctions

Decades of U.S. occupation and war have left Afghanistan a poor country dependent on external sources to fund public spending. No longer able to rely on brute military and political force to protect the interests of Western capital in Afghanistan, U.S. strategists understand that seizing the central bank’s money and cutting all international aid gives Washington powerful leverage against the Taliban, all while inflicting maximum pain on the Afghan people, who continue to be relegated to “starving pawns in big power games.”

The horrific and totally foreseeable consequences of these sanctions have, so far, been well documented by international humanitarian organizations, even if they are reluctant to depict the United States as culpable.

On October 25th, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization and World Food Program published a report urging humanitarian assistance, warning that Afghanistan is on a “countdown to catastrophe.” According to the report, more than 50% of Afghans will face “crisis” or “emergency” levels of acute food insecurity, including over 3 million children under the age of five.

On November 22nd, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) published a report warning that Afghanistan’s financial and bank payment systems are “in disarray” and on the verge of collapse. The UNDP report, citing the IMF, predicts the Afghan economy could contract by 30% for 2021-2022.

A picture containing person, outdoor, people Description automatically generated

Afghanistan is teetering toward famine under Taliban rule. [Source: asiatimes.com]

On December 6th, the International Crisis Group issued a more scathing report, warning that the “hunger and destitution” caused by “economic strangulation,” imposed by the West in response to the Taliban takeover, could “kill more Afghans than all the bombs and bullets of the past two decades.”

In other words, U.S. policy of intentionally starving the Afghan people through economic sanctions on Afghanistan is going as planned. As many predicted, blocking funds from the Taliban and curtailing foreign aid and assistance would lead to a rapid financial meltdown and exacerbate the ongoing famine plaguing Afghanistan.

U.S. Retaliates for Taliban’s Military Success

Despite the Taliban’s success in forcing the U.S. government to the negotiating table in Doha and then ousting the U.S. military from Afghanistan, or rather, because of that success, Washington has made it clear that it has no plans to respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty. Indeed, the Biden administration’s response to pleas that the asset freeze be lifted demonstrates the hypocrisy and callousness of U.S. foreign policy.

On November 17, 2021, as reported by Tolo News, Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, sent a letter to the U.S. Congress calling for the return of Afghan assets, correctly noting that “the fundamental challenge of our people is financial security, and the roots of this concern lead back to the freezing of assets of our people by the American government.”

The U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan, Thomas West, rejected the Taliban’s request in a series of revealing tweets. West’s remarks effectively admitted that the dire situation pre-dates the Taliban takeover and confirmed that the United States was preventing “critical” international aid from reaching Afghanistan as retribution for the Taliban’s military success, while recognizing that Afghanistan’s “economy [is] enormously dependent on aid, including for basic services.”

Further, in a fashion typical of bourgeois idealism, which values words and appearances over substance and material reality, West condescendingly lectured the Taliban that “[l]egitmacy and support must be earned” and confirmed that the United States would consider lifting the murderous sanctions if the Taliban only learned to “respect the rights of minorities, women and girls.”

The irony of Washington’s position of respecting humanitarian rights by denying humanitarian aid was not lost on Muttaqi, who, in response to West’s tweets, questioned the tortured logic: “The U.S. froze our assets and then told us that it will provide us humanitarian aid. What does it mean?” Muttaqi reiterated the demand to release Afghanistan’s assets: “The assets should be freed immediately. The Americans don’t have any military front with us now. What is the reason for freezing the assets? The assets don’t belong to the Mujahideen (Islamic Emirate) but to the people of Afghanistan.”

In tacit acknowledgment that the state needs legitimacy to stabilize its rule, the U.S.-driven humanitarian crisis has prompted members of Congress to ask the Biden administration to reconsider certain aspects of its sanctions policy in light of the dire warnings issued by the UNDP and World Food Program.

A picture containing person, child, outdoor, little Description automatically generated

Children collect food waste in dumpster near Kabul airport. [Source: English.aawsat.com]

On December 15th, a bipartisan group of 39 lawmakers wrote a letter to the State and Treasury departments calling on the Biden administration to “allow international financial institutions to inject the necessary economic capital into Afghanistan while avoiding the transfer of money to the Taliban-led government” and designate a “private Afghan or third-country bank” as a central bank. The lawmakers also recommended, among other things, the release of the $9.5 billion of Afghan assets—but only if sent “to an appropriate United Nations agency” and only if used “to pay teacher salaries and provide meals to children in schools, so long as girls can continue to attend.”

On December 20th, a group of 46 lawmakers led by House progressives wrote a similar letter to President Biden, explicitly linking the “U.S. confiscation of $9.4 billion” of Afghan assets to “contributing to soaring inflation” and “plunging the country…deeper into economic and humanitarian crisis.” Although the House progressives struck a harsher tone, they made the same requests as the December 19th letter, urging President Biden to allow Afghanistan’s central bank to access its reserves, consistent with proposals by “[c]urrent and former Afghan central bank officials appointed by the U.S.-supported government” and supported by “private sector associations such as the Afghan Chamber of Commerce and Investment and the Afghanistan Banks Association.”

This congressional pushback, tepid as it is, also reflects an inherent tension in the U.S. use of sanctions: While economic warfare is a necessary tool of U.S. foreign policy, sanctions are not always good for business in the short term. Afghanistan had been a source of wealth for the imperialist bourgeoise for the past two decades, and now certain sectors of the capitalist class apparently want back in.

Still, the Biden administration has shown no sign of easing the sanctions. In fact, the Biden administration is considering permanently depriving the Afghan people of the funds needed to combat the current humanitarian crisis, by transferring those funds instead to U.S. plaintiffs with outstanding default judgments against the Taliban. That is what two groups of judgment creditors have argued to U.S. federal judges. (Those cases are captioned Havlish et al. v. Bin-Laden et al., No. 03 Civ. 9848, and Doe v. The Taliban et al., No. 20 Misc. 740, and are pending in the Southern District of New York before Judges Daniels and Failla, respectively.)

Although its formal statement is not due until January 18, 2022, the Biden administration seems willing to go along with the plan—the only apparent obstacle is how to seize the Afghan funds without recognizing the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government. Press Secretary Jen Psaki has twice cited that ongoing litigation as the primary reason for maintaining the asset freeze.

Following its imperial playbook, the U.S. sanctions imposed on Afghanistan are aimed at destabilizing Afghan civil society, making daily life so unbearable that the Afghan people eventually blame the Taliban for their misery, providing the United States and its proxies an opening to enact regime change.

Similar to sanctions imposed on Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Nicaragua, and many others, the sanctions on Afghanistan are having their intended effect, which is to deprive the masses of essential goods and services as punishment whenever a government refuses to surrender its nation’s resources and sovereignty to the demands of U.S. and European capital.

Now more than ever, those in the imperial core must demand the end of U.S.-imposed sanctions against the Afghan people and oppressed people all over the world.

*

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.

Zachary Scott is an attorney, activist, and member of Black Alliance for Peace Solidarity Network and the Sanctions Kill coalition. He can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image is from theintercept.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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Threats that Washington could impose sanctions directly on Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a demonstration of American strength and capability, but rather a demonstration of desperation. If such sanctions were passed and implemented, it will lead to a serious deterioration of relations between the US and Russia and, possibly, even a severing of ties.

Senior Democratic senators, led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez, unveiled a fresh package of sanctions last week to target Putin and other high-ranking Russian officials – if Washington determines that Russia started a war with Ukraine.

It could be speculated that this is really about trying to stop the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline project that will deliver Russian gas to Germany and other parts of Europe.

 

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned that sanctions on Putin are “an unprecedented measure tantamount to severing ties.” Although such an action by the US would be drastic, news of possible sanctions, especially at a time when security negotiations were underway last week between Russia and the US/OSCE, should be seen as a desperate attempt to pressure Moscow into submission.

Perhaps the threats were made to strengthen the American negotiating position during last week’s discussions. There is nothing particularly new about sanction threats against Russia, except now the emphasis has been placed on personal sanctions on Putin. This is being spearheaded by the anti-Russian lobby linked to the part of the Democratic Party that is unhappy with what they perceive to be President Joe Biden’s soft policy towards Russia.

Another problematic aspect is what kind of sanctions the Americans might be able to impose on the Russian president given that he has no assets or bank accounts in the West. Since no one publicly knows what sanctions US senators have devised, it is likely the sanction threats against Putin were empty given in the hope of strengthening US negotiating power with Moscow. This does not negate though that the US could sanction other individuals or perhaps even the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

In addition, new sanctions are being prepared in case the situation escalates in Ukraine. This is despite the fact that Moscow insists it has no intention of invading Ukraine. This has not stopped the US from disseminating disinformation, with the latest being that Russia has been “laying the groundwork to have the option of fabricating a pretext for invasion” by blaming Ukraine.

“We have information that indicates Russia has already prepositioned a group of operatives to conduct a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine,” said Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary on Friday.

Despite Russia desperately trying to avoid war, the US is painting a picture that the country is nefariously seeking ways to justify an invasion of Ukraine. Given the US’ long history of false flag operations, perhaps Ukrainian provocations are being prepared to be presented as a Russian false flag operation to justify sanctions and perhaps coerce Russia into a destructive and costly war.

The sanctions proposed by the Democrats could also include the prime minister, the foreign minister, the defence minister, the chief of staff of the Armed Forces and other military figures. Sanctions could also target key banks and the SWIFT system. Washington believes that such threats send a clear signal about its readiness to devastate the Russian economy.

None-the-less, if there really is a desire to reduce tensions, then Washington should speak the language of diplomacy and not of threats that can be considered a brazen and cynical method to trade on what is needed and important to the US side in the negotiations. However, it was for this very reason that controlled leaks during last week’s negotiations sent the message that sanctions have been prepared if Russia does not capitulate to American demands.

Sanctions undoubtedly affect the Russian economy, but it certainly has not destroyed it. Take for example the fact that Russia used to be an importer of agricultural products, but today it is a major exporter despite sanctions. The same could happen in other sectors of the economy where sanctions could be imposed.

In this way, threats of strengthened sanctions, especially against Putin, is nothing more than a desperate attempt to force Russia into capitulation and abandon the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. As Moscow will not capitulate or be dragged into war with Ukraine, the biggest threat is not whether Washington will impose strengthened sanctions against Russia, but if it is preparing a false flag operation in Ukraine to blame the Kremlin.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst and a frequent contributor to Global Research

Featured image is from OneWorld

Who Will be the Next King of Saudi Arabia?

January 19th, 2022 by Steven Sahiounie

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.

***

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has jailed everyone who poses a threat to his path to becoming King. King Salman’s brother, his brother’s son, Mohammed bin Nayef, and two sons of the previous monarch, King Abdullah, remain under arrest, while a Princess was released from prison recently.

King Abdullah died on January 23, 2015, and the throne passed to Salman, one of the two living sons of the founder of Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz Al Saud, while on the same day King Salman named Muhammed bin Nayef as the Crown prince.

Salman’s younger full brother, Prince Ahmad bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, is the other son of the founder of Saudi Arabia.

In March 2020, Prince Ahmad was detained in Saudi Arabia in what can be termed as house arrest after returning from London, with assurances that he would be free.

The government of King Salman is solely run by Crown Prince Mohammed, his young son, otherwise known as MBS.  It was MBS who issued the orders to arrest his Uncle, Prince Ahmad, and the former Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, his cousin.

Both Prince Ahmad and Prince Mohammed bin Nayef received their higher education in America, and both had formerly held the position of Minister of the Interior.

Prince Ahmad opposed MBS becoming Crown Prince, while Mohammed bin Nayef held the position in 2017. Prince Ahmad sits on a Royal family body which is charged with the approval of the accession to the throne of Saudi Arabia.

In February 2017, Mike Pompeo, as head of the CIA, awarded Mohammed bin Nayef the George Tenet Medal in recognition of his “excellent intelligence performance, in the domain of counter-terrorism”.

On 21 June 2017, Crown Prince Muhammed bin Nayef was replaced as the heir to the Saudi Kingdom by MBS in a move considered to be “upending decades of royal custom and profoundly reordering the kingdom’s inner power structure.”

He also lost his position as interior minister. He had been crown prince and first deputy prime minister of Saudi Arabia from 2015 to 2017 and the minister of interior from 2012 to 2017.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst, and counter-terrorism expert served for 29 years until his retirement in 2006.  He recalled Vice President Al Gore’s visit to Saudi Arabia in May 1998, when Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and his father Prince Nayef had prevented a plot by Al Qaeda to attack the US consulate in Jeddah while Gore was there.

Riedel said of Mohammed bin Nayef’s imprisonment, “He has not faced any judicial process that we know of. The charge of treason is absurd. He is in prison because he is the symbol of a viable, competent alternative to the reckless and dangerous crown prince. Mohammed bin Salman wants to eliminate the leading candidate for leading Saudi Arabia away from its current perilous course and back to being a responsible partner. The Biden team, especially its new intelligence leadership, should press for MBN’s freedom.”

In November 2017, MBS ordered his relatives to be rounded up like criminals and locked up dozens of Princes at the luxurious Ritz Carlton Hotel in Riyadh. MBS billed the shake-down as an anti-corruption operation while draining his relatives of much of their money.

On June 21, 2018, Ben Hubbard, NYT journalist and author, received an Arabic text message on his cellphone which looked suspicious.  After consulting with technology researchers at Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School, it was confirmed that Hubbard was the first US journalist targeted by powerful software sold by NSO Group, an Israeli company, and deployed by hackers working for Saudi Arabia.

Jeff Bezos, the owner of Amazon and the Washington Post, had similarly been hacked by the same Pegasus software on orders from MBS, in an intimidation tactic for the Washington Post’s reporting that their journalist, Jamal Khashoggi had been executed in 2018 on orders of MBS.

Agnes Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur on summary executions and extrajudicial killings, and Gina Haspel, the head of the CIA, both concluded that the order to murder Khashoggi came from MBS.

In March 2020, Muhammed bin Nayef was arrested along with his Uncle Prince Ahmed. The move to arrest the former Crown prince along with the younger brother of King Salman was an obvious tactic to remove potential rivals to the future succession to the throne after the current King Salman should die.  MBS wants to secure his seat on the throne of the only absolute monarchy.

The Wall Street Journal reported there were claims made by Saudi authorities that the two men were plotting a coup against King Salman and his son MBS, but no proof was offered.

Mohammed bin Nayef was at first held in solitary confinement, deprived of sleep, and suspended upside down by his ankles, which has left him permanently unable to walk without a cane. He is kept alone with no television or other electronic devices and receives only limited visits from his family. In the fall of 2021, he was moved to a villa inside the complex surrounding King Salman’s Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh.

Besides Muhammed bin Nayef’s success in counter-terrorism and his educational background, he was seen as among the staunchest supporters of the US among the Saudi royals, as was his Uncle Prince Ahmed.  Experts believe this is a further factor why MBS targeted the two for arrest.  MBS is said to harbor disdain for the US and wants to move away from being dependent on Washington.  Trump’s famous speech about the US being the only thing holding the Saudi King on his throne reinforced MBS’s resolve to distance the royal family from the US.

Earlier this month, it was reported Princess Basmah, daughter of Saud, the son of the founder of Saudi Arabia, was released from prison after three years of detention without charges.  She would be the niece of both King Salman and Prince Ahmed.

Her daughter, Suhoud al-Sharif, was also released from Al-Ha’ir prison. The mother-daughter pair’s arrest came in March 2019 after Princess Basmah had planned a trip to Switzerland to receive treatment for a heart ailment.

Princess Basmah had been an outspoken critic of the Saudi treatment of women’s issues.  But, experts also point to the fact she was an ally of Mohammed bin Nayef as being another reason MBS locked her up.

While speaking to BBC Arabic in 2018, Princess Basmah accused MBS of refusing to accept those who did not support his overhaul plans, known as Vision 2030.  “He has a vision, Vision 2030, and I see that in that vision, there is a direction toward a type of isolation of all those who do not agree with that vision,” she said.

The future King of Saudi Arabia may want to keep his distance from Washington, but that doesn’t mean that the US isn’t interested in who takes up the throne in the kingdom in the sand.

*

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.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Who Will be the Next King of Saudi Arabia?
  • Tags:

Arise, Pandemic Profiteers

January 19th, 2022 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

History’s annals are filled with war profiteers and hustlers for the opportunistic return.  They come in the form of hoarders, arms manufacturers and wily business folk making a steal on slaughter and mayhem.  But the other conflict – that of battling a pandemic – has also shown that profits exist for those willing to exploit the crisis.

With the global surge of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, there were early signs that saving money, notably for large corporations, and earning greater revenue from such a lethal crisis, was possible.  Work remotely as Zoom zombies – if you can.  Retreat to the second or third abode, preferably in a remote location – if you have them.  The sardine-packed proles toiling and providing essential services could endure the heavier burden of suffering.

Other historical periods also suggest sharp social inequalities in the face of disease and despair.   That sublime Italian writer, Giovanni Boccaccio, who wrote The Decameron, a collection of 100 tales, gives us more than just a bird’s eye view into the horror of plague and affliction.  The Black Death gathered somewhere between 40% to 50% of the European populace between 1347 and 1351.  While Boccaccio cites the proverb that, “It is inherently human to show pity to those who are afflicted”, his colourful spread of characters suggests something quite different.  The wealthy find fine seclusion amidst their provisions; the essential workers of the time go about their doomed labours, contracting the plague and dying in the process.

In October 2021, Americans for Tax Fairness and the Institute for Policy Studies Program on Inequality (IPS) found that billionaires in the US had seen their wealth balloon by 70%, or a mighty $2.1 trillion.  The number of billionaires in the country had also spiked: from 614 to 745.  During that same time, there were 89 million job losses among the less fortunate, 44.9 million attributable to COVID-19 illness, not to mention 724,000 deaths.

The culprits for such a huge wealth distortion are now familiar to us.  The burgeoning online market during times of lockdown and stay-at-home orders enormously enriched the megalomaniacs of Silicon Valley and other industries.

There were some in the same income bracket who did not even need to lift a finger before seeing eye-wateringly improved accounts; asset prices shot up with jittery regularity, occasioned by enormous injections of taxpayer cash.  In some cases, with the knowledge of government financial support, figures such as Australian billionaire Kerry Stokes could rake in corporate welfare while cutting the wages of workers.  The spirit of pandemic generosity is rarely invoked.

In December 2021, the World Inequality Report, authored by a number of social scientists, estimated that the share of global household wealth owned by billionaires had risen that year from 2% at the start of the pandemic to 3.5% that year.  “Contemporary global inequalities,” the authors of the report suggest, “are close to early 20th century levels, at the peak of Western imperialism.”

The one ray of reassurance in the otherwise discouraging report is the fact that government support, notably in wealthier states, did mitigate the more brutal effects of impoverishment.  As lead author of the report, Lucas Chancel remarks, “in rich countries, government intervention prevented a massive rise in poverty”.  The pandemic had demonstrated “the importance of social states in the fight against poverty.”

Oxfam has now added more material to the heaving shelves of inequality with a report released to coincide with that gathering of wealthy natterers known as the World Economic Forum.  Not a smidgen of Oxfam’s dark revelations are original, but this does not make them any less relevant.  The picture, filled in, shows a world of brutal, stratified inequality that promises to grow.

The opening is dramatic enough. “The wealth of the world’s 10 richest men has doubled since the pandemic began.  The incomes of 99% of humanity are worse off because of COVID-19.”  Good to throw the men into this, but it is also worth noting that there are some worthy representatives of the female sex, not least Australia’s wealthiest figure, iron ore magnate Gina Rinehart.  This most unsympathetic of characters saw her own wealth soar from AU$16 billion to AU$36 billion.  Not a bad return for someone who specialises in ruthlessly renting the earth while attributing this to hard work and genetic ingenuity.

All in all, 2,755 billionaires are raking it in globally, having received more in terms of their fortunes in the past two years than the previous 14 combined.  “This is the biggest annual increase in billionaire wealth since records began,” the Oxfam report notes glumly.  No wonder the hot-headed conspiracy theorists are champing at the bit, feverish at the prospect that plots have been hatched, and are being acted upon, in Davos and other champagne drenched venues.

The Oxfam account adds more texture to the arguments.  As with other accounts about the increasing wealth disparity in pandemic times, the rise in revenues have occurred because of dizzying rises in stock market prices, “a boom of unregulated entities,” a greater prevalence of monopoly power, ongoing privatisation and that ongoing pattern of lower corporate tax rates and easing regulations.  Workers’ rights and wages have also suffered, though Oxfam also makes the point that “the weaponization of racism” has its role to play.

Another parallel of the Black Death is worthy of note.  The plague was so disruptive as to cause its own alterations of the feudal order.  The wealthy might have scurried to their places of ornate and padded seclusion, but they were by no means guaranteed survival.  Around them, aggressive depopulation fed the fulcrum of change.  It emboldened the peasantry, resulting in a range of riots and a challenge to social and economic circumstances.

The likes of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg have yet to see a modern version of a peasant insurrection.  Perhaps it’s time they did.

*

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.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Arise, Pandemic Profiteers

Myocarditis Tops List of COVID Vaccine Injuries Among 12- to 17-Year-Olds, VAERS Data Show

By Megan Redshaw, January 18, 2022

Of the 9,936 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 7, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

The US Plan of an Afghanistan Inside Europe

By Manlio Dinucci, January 19, 2022

Soldiers in war gear and armored fighting vehicles have been deployed by Sweden on Gotland, the island in the Baltic Sea 90 km from its eastern coasts. The Ministry of Defense declares that it has done so in order to defend the island from threatening Russian landing ships crossing the Baltic Sea.

Dr. Meryl Nass: My Side of the Story, and the Constitutional protections that I believe are being abridged by the Misinformation Witch Hunt

By Dr. Meryl Nass, January 18, 2022

States and state agencies are not allowed to abridge these rights, which have been granted to all US citizens.  However, my state’s Medical Board is trying hard to abridge them.  The Board has apparently realized they do not have the evidence to convict me of anything, so they are now going on a fishing expedition, asking for a list of every patient I have seen during the past six months, and much more.

Up to 65% Increase in Deaths Among 18-49 Year Olds in the U.S. During 2021, the Year of the Experimental COVID “Vaccines”

By Brian Shilhavy, January 18, 2022

Earlier this month (January, 2022), Scott Davison, the CEO of OneAmerica, a $100 billion insurance company based out of Indiana, made headline news in the Alternative Media when he announced that the death rate on life insurance claims skyrocketed an unprecedented 40% among those between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021.

In Kathmandu, a Struggle for Water Amid Worsening Floods

By Johan Augustin, January 18, 2022

Stuffed garbage bags float gently down the Bisnumati River in the western part of Kathmandu. The river, sacred to Nepal’s Hindu and Buddhist populations, is one of the main waterways running through the Kathmandu Valley. Brownish water empties from pipes directly into the river: unfiltered sewage from households and factories.

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich: Latest Bombshell About COVID “Vaccines” Will Dismantle Big Pharma

By Planet Today, Reiner Fuellmich, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, and Kevin Hughes, January 18, 2022

International trial lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich said on Dec. 31 that the latest “bombshell” about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines will dismantle the big pharmaceutical companies that have pocketed billions of dollars during the pandemic.

As Protests Erupt, Some Countries Backtrack on COVID Mandates While Others Double Down

By Michael Nevradakis, January 18, 2022

As protests grow in EU countries and worldwide against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and so-called “vaccine passports,” some countries appear to be backtracking or at least harboring second thoughts about enforcing such measures, while others are digging in their heels and moving forward with punitive restrictions on the unvaccinated.

Cyberspace Close to Become New Focus for NATO-Ukraine Joint Actions Against Russia

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, January 18, 2022

Once again, the West seems to be creating arguments to justify the implementation of coercive measures against Russia. A cyberattack against Kiev allegedly occurred last week has been making headlines around the world. Now, the Ukrainian government claims to have proof that the attack has Russian involvement – although no details have been provided so far as to what such “proof” would be.

The Dollar Has Entered a Death Spiral, and a Lot More Inflation Is on the Way

By Michael Snyder, January 18, 2022

Did anyone out there actually expect things to turn out differently?  When the federal government kept borrowing and spending trillions upon trillions of dollars that we did not have, we were warned that this day was coming.  And when the Federal Reserve kept pumping trillions upon trillions of fresh dollars into our financial system, we were warned that this day was coming.

“No Dialogue Has Begun. Washington Could Not Care Less About Russia’s Security Concern.”

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and GEOFOR, January 18, 2022

Russians are always looking for a silver lining, this time that the US condescended to talk with Russia on equal terms.  The US did no such thing. Washington used the talks to elevate the propaganda against Russia as, for example, Undersecretary of State Nuland’s denunciation of Russia.

Get Well Soon Rocco Galati!

By WholeHearted Media, January 18, 2022

It took some time but we finally finished editing the “Knowledge is Liberating” course put on in the summer time with Rocco. The course is jam packed with info and real life scenarios. Many people were asking where they could access it. Pls go to WholeHeartedmedia.ca and click on courses for more info or follow this link.

Confirmed: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Can Cause Severe Liver Damage

By Paul Anthony Taylor, January 18, 2022

A recent Letter to the Editor published on the Journal of Hepatology website adds to the growing evidence that the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 can cause severe liver damage. Entitled ‘Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine, no longer a coincidence but confirmed’, the letter – written by four hospital doctors from the UK – summarizes the case history of a patient who received two doses of the vaccine.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Myocarditis Tops List of COVID Vaccine Injuries Among 12- to 17-Year-Olds, VAERS Data Show

The US Plan of an Afghanistan Inside Europe

January 19th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

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.

***

Soldiers in war gear and armored fighting vehicles have been deployed by Sweden on Gotland, the island in the Baltic Sea 90 km from its eastern coasts. The Ministry of Defense declares that it has done so in order to defend the island from threatening Russian landing ships crossing the Baltic Sea. Thus Sweden also contributes, as a partner, to the frantic US-NATO campaign which, inverting reality, presents Russia as an aggressive power preparing to invade Europe.

130 km east of Gotland, Latvia is on alert, together with Lithuania and Estonia, against the invented enemy that is about to invade. As a “defense against the Russian threat”, NATO has deployed four multinational battalions in the three Baltic republics and in Poland. Italy participates in the one in Latvia, with hundreds of soldiers and armored vehicles.

Italy is also the only country that has participated in all NATO “air police” missions, from bases in Lithuania and Estonia, and the first that has used F-35 fighters to intercept Russian aircraft in flight in the international air corridor over the Baltic. The F-35 and other fighter jets, deployed in this region close to Russian territory, are aircraft with dual conventional and nuclear capabilities.

However, the three Baltic republics do not feel sufficiently “protected by NATO’s enhanced advanced presence.” The Latvian Minister of Defence, Artis Pabriks, has requested a permanent US military presence in his country: the US forces – experts explain according to a Hollywood-movie scenario – would not be in time to arrive from Germany to stop the Russian armoured forces that, after having overwhelmed the three Baltic republics, would cut them off from the European Union and NATO, occupying the Suwalki corridor between Poland and Lithuania.

Ukraine, a partner but in fact already a member of NATO, has the role of the first actor as a country under attack. The government denounces, on its word of honor, that it has been hit by a cyber attack, attributed of course to Russia, and NATO rushes, together with the EU, to help Ukraine fight the cyber war. Washington denounces that Ukraine is now surrounded on three sides by Russian forces and, in anticipation of the blockage of Russian gas supplies to Europe, is generously preparing to replace them with massive supplies of US-made liquid natural gas.

The Russian attack – informs the White House on the basis of news whose veracity is guaranteed by the CIA – would be prepared by a false flag operation: Russian agents, infiltrated in eastern Ukraine, would carry out bloody attacks against the Russian inhabitants of the Donbass, attributing the responsibility to Kiev as a pretext for the invasion. The White House does not remember that in December the Russian Minister of Defense, Sergei Shoigu, had denounced the presence in eastern Ukraine of US mercenaries with chemical weapons.

The United States – reports the New York Times – have told the Allies that “any quick Russian victory in Ukraine would be followed by a bloody insurgency similar to the one that forced the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan” and that “the CIA (secretly) and the Pentagon (openly) would resist”. The United States – recalls James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe – know how to do it: at the end of the seventies and in the eighties they armed and charged the mujahidin against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, but “the level of US military support to a Ukrainian insurrection would make appear as a trifle what we did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union”.

What Washington’s strategic design is evident: to precipitate the Ukrainian crisis, deliberately provoked in 2014, to force Russia to intervene militarily in defense of the Russians in the Donbass, ending up in a situation similar to the Afghan one in which the USSR got bogged down. An Afghanistan inside Europe, which would cause a permanent state of crisis, to the benefit of the U.S., which would strengthen its influence and presence in the region.

*

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.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Stars and Stripes

The Constitutional amendments I have excerpted below are the premier law of the land. 

States and state agencies are not allowed to abridge these rights, which have been granted to all US citizens.  However, my state’s Medical Board is trying hard to abridge them.  The Board has apparently realized they do not have the evidence to convict me of anything, so they are now going on a fishing expedition, asking for a list of every patient I have seen during the past six months, and much more.

The reason my story has gotten so much press is because the Board ordered a neuropsychological evaluation of me–which leads to mandatory reporting to a national physician database, and makes my case accessible to the media.

Since the Maine Medical Board wanted to “out” me publicly, I feel no compunction about telling my side of the story to the public, and I will continue to do so.

For those who feel there must be a fire where there is smoke, and that I may in fact be a danger to my patients, I would like you to know my history and the facts as I see them.  I was probably one of the safest and most careful physicians in the state:

1.  There has not been a single complaint to the Board by a patient in this case.  Not one.

2.  I have never been accused or charged with malpractice, in 41 years of practicing medicine.

3.  I have only ever had one complaint to a Medical Board, about 15 years ago, and the complainant apologized to me after the investigation, once he learned my treatment was excellent. The Board found in my favor then.

4.  I am well known for successfully treating very challenging cases of chronic, undiagnosed illnesses.

5.  I am listed in Who’d Who in America and Who’s Who in the World for my accomplishments, which included the first scientific analysis of an epidemic that proved it was due to biological warfare.

6.  I have spent most of my career trying to serve patients who were ‘left behind’ by the prevailing medical system. This included soldiers being forced to receive a dangerous anthrax vaccine, and those who were injured by it; veterans with Gulf War syndrome; patients with chronic fatigue syndrome; with Lyme disease; and patients with puzzling illnesses that other doctors were unable to diagnose and/or treat.  I pivoted my practice to focus on the best care of COVID precisely because other doctors failed to prescribe treatments that would keep the vast majority of patients out of the hospital.

7.  I charged a one-time fee of $60 to treat COVID–this included as much treatment as needed for no additional cost.  I am flabbergasted that the Board is criticizing my charting of many text messages, phone calls and emails, and calling them “telemedicine visits” as if each one deserved a history and physical.  Don’t other doctors chat briefly with their patients outside the office any more?

I spoke to patients nights and weekends, and made brief notes of these many encounters, which I think is exactly what other doctors do.  The Board has tried to turn my exemplary care of patients and one missed phone call (the doc had left the hospital when I called back) into a charge of negligence.  And then into a charge of cognitive decline or psychiatric illness.

It seems that if you do not support vaccinations that the CEOs of Pfizer and BioNTech have now deemed practically worthless, and you treat patients with usually effective, legal medicines like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, then you must be stopped, whatever it takes.

And what about the patients who want their COVID treated with methods other than those prescribed by the NIH of Tony Fauci, Francis Collins and Lawrence Tabak,* all of whom conspired to cover up the lab origin of COVID and furthermore ‘take down’ the esteemed physicians who wrote the Great Barrington Declaration? In other words, unindicted criminals are responsible for our government-authorized COVID treatments. 

What is the Board doing to serve these patients?

The Board wants to cut off these patients’ access to cheap, safe and effective COVID medicines, and deny them any choice.  It even wants to cut off their access to treatment information.

I do not intend to roll over while the Board trashes the First Amendment, imposes government-designated medical care on patients, and destroys the sacred bond between patients and their physicians.

Meryl Nass

*Tony Fauci is the Director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Francis Collins just stepped down as the Director of the National Institutes of Health.

Lawrence Tabak is the current Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health.

All three are shown in numerous emails to have covered up the role of the NIH in funding research in Wuhan through a pass-through organization, created a fake scientific paper designed to kill the lab origin hypothesis (without disclosing their role), and worked to get articles published to destroy the Great Barrington Declaration and its 3 prominent authors.  Fauci has also perjured himself to Congress on multiple occasions.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT XIV – Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Meryl Nass: My Side of the Story, and the Constitutional protections that I believe are being abridged by the Misinformation Witch Hunt

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.

***

Earlier this month (January, 2022), Scott Davison, the CEO of OneAmerica, a $100 billion insurance company based out of Indiana, made headline news in the Alternative Media when he announced that the death rate on life insurance claims skyrocketed an unprecedented 40% among those between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2021.

See: Crisis in America: Deaths Up 40% Among Those Aged 18-64 Based on Life Insurance Claims for 2021 After COVID-19 Vaccine Roll Outs

The usual corporate media “fact checkers” quickly published articles trying to contain the damage, and I received a few emails from gullible people who don’t bother researching things for themselves and didn’t bother to fact check the “fact checkers” to see if in fact they actually did debunk the story.

They didn’t, of course, but in typical fashion they setup a straw man to knock down in most cases, by stating that Scott Davison never blamed the excess in deaths on the roll out of the COVID-19 shots in 2021.

But that hardly debunks the numbers from the life insurance industry that was truly a major news story, clearly showing that deaths dramatically increased in 2021, the year of the COVID-19 experimental “vaccine” roll out.

I did my own investigation to corroborate what he was reporting, and examined the number of deaths the CDC was reporting through December, 2020, before they revised their website and changed the total number of people who died in 2020, the year the pandemic scam started, which clearly showed that total deaths in 2020 were about the same as the previous two years, and that all they basically did was eliminate most of the flu deaths and blame those on COVID-19.

The result of this investigation was that we saw about an additional 400,000 deaths in 2021, the year of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out. See: 2021: COVID Deaths Increase, Flu Deaths Disappear, 400,000+ More Total Deaths than 2020

Since publishing that report, Petr Svab of the Epoch Times has also done an investigation on this issue, looking at death certificates from the CDC website of people between the age of 18 and 49 in 2021.

He examined the data by state, and he found that in some states the deaths in this age group had increased by as much as 65% compared to the same period in 2018 and 2019.

Here are the two articles he published that report this:

EXCLUSIVE: Nationwide Surge In Deaths Among People Aged 18-49: A State by State Overview and EXCLUSIVE: States Investigating Surge in Mortality Rate Among 18–49-Year-Olds, Majority Unrelated to COVID-19

If you hit a pay wall, ZeroHedge News has also published them:

Nationwide Surge In Deaths Among People Aged 18-49: A State By State Overview and

States Investigating Surge In Mortality Rate Among 18–49-Year-Olds, Majority Unrelated To COVID-19

Some excerpts:

Deaths among people aged 18 to 49 increased more than 40 percent in the 12 months ending October 2021 compared to the same period in 2018–2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, according to an analysis of death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by The Epoch Times.

The increase was notable across the country and in no state was COVID reported in more than 60 percent of the excess deaths. Some states experienced much steeper hikes than others.

Nevada was the worst with a 65 percent prime-age mortality surge of which only 36 percent was attributed to COVID. Texas was second with a 61 percent jump of which 58 percent was attributed to COVID. Arizona and Tennessee recorded 57 percent increases with 37 percent and 33 percent attributed to COVID respectively. Not far behind was California at 55 percent and 42 percent attributed to COVID as well as New Mexico (52 percent, 33 percent), Florida (51 percent, 48 percent), and Louisiana (51 percent, 32 percent).

Health departments in several states confirmed to The Epoch Times that they are looking into a steep surge in the mortality rate for people aged 18 to 49 in 2021—a majority of which are not linked to COVID-19.

Texas saw the 18 to 49 age mortality jump 61 percent, the second-highest increase in the country. Of that, less than 58 percent was attributed to COVID-19.

“Our Center of Health Statistics is looking at the data,” said Chris Van Deusen, the head of Media Relations at the Texas Department of State Health Services, via email. “We’ll get back with you.”

Florida, which saw an increase of 51 percent, 48 percent of that attributed to COVID-19, is also probing the matter.

I am looking into it to see if there is some sort of correlation/causation,” said Jeremy Redfern, spokesman for the Florida Department of Health via email.

Petr Svab was careful to not link or blame the excess in deaths to the COVID-19 shots, probably to try and avoid the same “fact checkers” trying to discredit his investigation.

But the correlation to the COVID-19 shots now is irrefutable, just from using the U.S. Government’s own data from the CDC, and also from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

This is a national catastrophe of the magnitude that this nation has never before faced, and the total collapse of the United States now seems inevitable.

*

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 HIN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Farmer’s Movement in India: Looking at the Larger Picture

In Kathmandu, a Struggle for Water Amid Worsening Floods

January 18th, 2022 by Johan Augustin

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In Kathmandu, a Struggle for Water Amid Worsening Floods

Il piano Usa di un Afghanistan dentro l’Europa

January 18th, 2022 by Manlio Dinucci

Soldati in assetto di guerra e veicoli corazzati da combattimento sono stati schierati dalla Svezia su Gotland, l’isola nel Mar Baltico a 90 km dalle sue coste orientali. Il ministero della Difesa dichiara che lo ha fatto per difendere l’isola da minacciose navi da sbarco russe che incrociano nel Mar Baltico. Così anche la Svezia contribuisce, in veste di partner, alla frenetica campagna Usa-Nato che, rovesciando la realtà, presenta la Russia quale potenza aggressiva che si prepara a invadere l’Europa. A 130 km a est di Gotland, la Lettonia è in stato di allerta, insieme a Lituania ed Estonia, contro il nemico inventato che starebbe per invaderla. Quale «difesa contro la minaccia russa», la Nato la schierato nelle tre repubbliche baltiche e in Polonia quattro battaglioni multinazionali.

A quello in Lettonia partecipa l’Italia, con centinaia di soldati e mezzi corazzati. L’Italia è inoltre l’unico paese che ha partecipato a tutte le missioni di «polizia aerea» della Nato, da basi in Lituania ed Estonia, e il primo che ha usato caccia F-35 per intercettare aerei russi in volo nel corridoio aereo internazionale sul Baltico. Gli F-35 e altri caccia, schierati in questa regione a ridosso del territorio russo, sono aerei a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare. Le tre repubbliche baltiche non si sentono però abbastanza «protette dalla presenza avanzata rafforzata della Nato».

Il ministro lettone della Difesa, Artis Pabriks, ha richiesto una presenza militare Usa permanente nel suo paese: le forze Usa – spiegano gli esperti in base a uno scenario da film hollywoodiano – non farebbero in tempo ad arrivare dalla Germania per fermare le forze corazzate russe che, dopo aver travolto le tre repubbliche baltiche, le taglierebbero fuori dall’Unione europea e dalla Nato, occupando il corridoio di Suwalki tra Polonia e Lituania. L’Ucraina, partner ma di fatto già membro della Nato, ha il ruolo di primo attore quale paese aggredito. Il governo denuncia, in base alla sua parola d’onore, di essere stato colpito da un cyberattacco, attribuito ovviamente alla Russia, e la Nato si precipita, insieme alla Ue, ad aiutare l’Ucraina a combattere la guerra cibernetica.

Washington denuncia che l’Ucraina è ormai circondata da tre lati dalle forze russe e, in previsione del blocco delle forniture di gas russo all’Europa, si prepara generosamente a sostituirle con massicce forniture di gas naturale liquefatto statunitense. L’attacco russo – informa la Casa Bianca sulla base di notizie la cui veridicità è garantita dalla Cia – sarebbe preparato da una operazione false flag: agenti russi, infiltrati in Ucraina orientale, compirebbero sanguinosi attentati contro gli abitanti russi del Donbass, attribuendone la responsabilità a Kiev quale pretesto dell’invasione. Non ricorda la Casa Bianca che in dicembre il ministro russo della Difesa, Sergei Shoigu, aveva denunciato la presenza in Ucraina orientale di mercenari Usa con armi chimiche.

Gli Stati uniti – riporta il New York Times – hanno comunicato agli Alleati che «qualsiasi rapida vittoria russa in Ucraina sarebbe seguita da una sanguinosa insurrezione simile a quella che costrinse l’Unione Sovietica a ritirarsi dall’Afghanistan» e che «la Cia (segretamente) e il Pentagono (apertamente) la sosterrebbero». Gli Stati uniti – ricorda James Stavridis, già Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa – sanno come farlo: alla fine degli anni Settanta e negli anni Ottanta armarono e addestrarono i mujahidin contro le truppe sovietiche in Afghanistan, ma «il livello di sostegno militare Usa a una insurrezione ucraina farebbe apparire come un’inezia quello che demmo in Afghanistan contro l’Unione Sovietica».

Quale sia il disegno strategico di Washington è evidente: far precipitare la crisi ucraina, volutamente provocata nel 2014, per costringere la Russia a intervenire militarmente in difesa dei russi del Donbass, finendo in una situazione analoga a quella afghana in cui si impantanò l’Urss. Un Afghanistan dentro l’Europa, che provocherebbe uno stato di crisi permanente, a tutto vantaggio degli Usa che rafforzerebbero la loro influenza e presenza nella regione.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Il piano Usa di un Afghanistan dentro l’Europa

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.

***

International trial lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich said on Dec. 31 that the latest “bombshell” about the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines will dismantle the big pharmaceutical companies that have pocketed billions of dollars during the pandemic.

In a video presented by OVAL Media-Prevent Global Genocide channel and shown on Brighteon.com, Fuellmich discussed with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg the latest game-changing findings by researcher Craig Paardekooper of Kingston University London.

(Article by Kevin Hughes republished from NaturalNews.com)

*

Vaccine batches marked by varying toxicity

According to Wodarg, a German medical doctor and epidemiologist specializing in lung diseases and environmental medicine, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data shows vaccine batches are sequentially marked by varying toxicity.

He added that this has now been statistically graphed out and will prove that the COVID vaccine manufacturers have worked in a coordinated fashion with the intent to purposely kill and maim people who have taken their vaccines.

“It’s not the vaccinations. It’s not true that there is the same stuff in each in each shot. And we have a very hard evidence with the batches that are different, shaped differently, have different effect,” Wodarg explained.

Wodarg took note of the lots and batches in the U.S. where there were no cases, while other batches showed many people dying. He explained that in some batches you can see that something is happening and this is where cases of toxicity expressed in deaths are seen. The German doctor added that the Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have a horrible accumulation of cases in certain batches.

Fuellmich pointed out that once “intent” has been proven, there is no immunity or liability protection for anyone or any organization involved in these crimes against humanity.

“If you look at the totality of the evidence, there’s more than enough evidence. A very recent presentation done by [former Pfizer vice president] Dr. Mike Yeadon shows precisely how they use these different batches in order to have an experiment within an experiment in order to try out what kind of dosage is needed in order to kill people and maim people,” said Fuellmich, who has successfully indicted big companies like Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank.

“And it is inescapable evidence of premeditation and once you have premeditation, there is no immunity for anyone anymore. Not even in the United States.”

Wodarg: Vaccines made to kill thousands intentionally

Wodarg said the vaccines were a planned, obscure trial and were made to kill thousands of people intentionally.

Fuellmich added that it was done in a coordinated effort and synchronized way with Pfizer taking the lead and followed by Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. He noted that these pharmaceutical companies all knew about this mass serial killing.

“This is a legal problem. But this [graph] makes it a whole lot easier for any lawyer in this world to show intent. There is an inescapable conclusion from these graphs,” Fuellmich said. “You can show intent. They are deliberately using different dosages coordinated with each other so that they won’t interfere with each other in order to try and find out what kills the best or what maims the best.”

Dr. Sam White, a doctor from the United Kingdom who was suspended by the National Health Service (NHS) in June 2021 for raising concerns about the safety of the COVID injection, said that everything has been done to disguise the true figures and that the reporting systems were never robust enough for an outright clinical trial of millions or even billions of people.

“If we can prove criminal intention, or even gross negligence, manslaughter, it may well be that those who’ve been harmed, or those who’ve lost a loved one can actually get some form of compensation,” White said.

“At the moment, it’s basically impossible in the U.K. and worldwide. And that’s been the case with vaccines for a long, long time. It’s almost like unbelievable, that there’s some sort of synchronized effort.”

Fuellmich said that the findings will have immense legal repercussions when it is proven that the vaccines were deliberately and intentionally done to harm people.

“You have to draw the legal conclusion and the legal conclusion is its intent. And from its intent, you can get punitive damages. You can go up to 21 times the actual damage, which is added on top of the actual damage. In these cases, I would think you can go up to thousand times because these people got so badly injured. I think this is going to be enough to dismantle the entire industry,” Fuellmich concluded.

Watch the video below to learn more about the latest bombshell regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.

*

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 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.

***

It might not be quite within the bounds of good taste to compare military calculations of a bridge too far – the title used in Cornelius Ryan’s work on the disastrous Allied airborne operation during the Second World War – with the latest foolish, mendacious and buffoonish efforts of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, but on some level, the analogy works.

Throughout the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020, the Prime Minister was pressing his own assault on the pandemic fortifications developed in response to SARS-CoV-2.

He had already shown himself incapable of understanding, let alone following health directions, shaking hands with infected patients, and furnishing the British public with inscrutable information.

But then came those libation, food-ladened parties held during the lockdown phases, gatherings which often eschewed social distancing.

The interest last December was initially on Christmas gatherings that had taken place in 2020.  The Mirror first noted that a Christmas Party had taken place at 10 Downing Street on December 18, 2020 under lockdown conditions that prohibited indoor social and household mixing.  The rest of the UK was told at the time that Christmas lunches or parties were deemed primarily social activities and “not otherwise permitted by the rules in your tier.”

The party was the subject of discussion in a clip released by  ITV featuring a former spokesperson for Johnson, Allegra Stratton, who, giggles and all, is found conducting a mock press conference with colleagues.  The video’s release pushed Stratton to a tearful resignation, but few others walked the plank.  Johnson was certainly not going to be one of them, concluding “that guidelines were followed at all times”.

Evidence of more parties in government offices emerged, resulting in the establishment of an investigation led by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case.  This mild effort, designed to distract and dissuade any investigations that might be conducted by the Metropolitan Police, went awry with revelations that the investigator had held two events in his own private office last December.  Chase’s replacement, Sue Gray, once described by Labour MP Paul Flynn as “deputy God”, has been given more room to wander.

In the new year, Johnson finds himself facing a threat that promises to be graver to him than others, as if that was possible.  It concerns yet another 2020 festive gathering that took place at Downing Street.  Taking place in May that year in the Downing Street garden, the drinks gathering was held during the first lockdown and described by Johnson as a “work event”.  This implausible understanding was reached after the PM’s Principal Private Secretary Martin Reynolds invited more than 100 Downing Street staff to “make most of the weather”.  No. 10 has also claimed that it was “untrue” to claim that Johnson was “warned about the event”.

This is not deemed credible by Johnson’s former top advisor, Dominic Cummings, himself a seasoned breaker of lockdown rules and a master of the elaborate fib.  Opining ever darkly, and with keen malice, he is of the view that Johnson “knew he was at a drinks party cos he was told it was a drinks party and it was actually a drinks party.”  In his blog, Cummings claims that both he and one other advisor warned that such a gathering would “be against the rules and should not happen.”

At the start of prime minister’s questions in parliament, Johnson tried to sound contrite.  “I want to apologise.  I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months.”  He claimed to know “the anguish they have been through”, acknowledging that there were things “we simply did not get right.”

Other parliamentarians were incredulous.  Labour’s Keir Starmer called Johnson a “man without shame” and asked whether the PM could “see why the British public think he’s lying through his teeth”.  Chris Bryant, also of the Labour Party, proved cuttingly unsympathetic.  “So the prime minster didn’t spot that he was at a social event?  Come off it.  How stupid does the prime minister think the British people are?”

The PM’s reactive strategy to being found out is one born in the cribs of privilege.  Why take the blame for your own actions when you can find the locus elsewhere?  According to the veteran news reporter Robert Peston, a scorched earth policy is being considered against certain allegedly culpable civil servants.  Once they have been cleared out, Johnson intends to “live securely ever after at No. 10.”  Little wonder that Whitehall is both outraged and suffering a decline of morale.

Any hope of placing Johnson’s head on the block, politically speaking, will have to come from within the Conservative Party.  So far, six Tories have publicly made their case that they lack confidence in the PM.  In a functional sense, any leadership contest can only feasibly take place if 54 Tory MPs write to the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the powerful backbench body chaired by Sir Graham Brady.  Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross is one MP who has promised to do so.

Despite the Tory rumbles, Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi is strumming the tune of “he’s human and we make mistakes.”  To BBC Radio 4’s Today program, Zahawi claimed that Johnson had done enough.  “He came to the despatch box and apologised and said he will absolutely submit himself to Parliament, because that’s our parliamentary democracy.”

Much stock will be placed on Gray’s report and how it goes down among the Tory faithful.  Downing Street has chosen to neither confirm nor deny a Daily Telegraph account that Johnson has been interviewed by Gray.

As a former minister told Peston, the findings by the civil servant will define “the rest of her life”.  She will hardly be remembered well for sacrificing her own colleagues to avoid the scalping of Johnson.  The PM’s response then is bound to be something he has adopted during the entire course of his public life: apologise and hope it all vanishes.

*

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.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

The following article entitled: US promises ‘robust response’ to Russia if it invades Ukraine – White House

NATO will work to put Moscow in a “weaker strategic position,” senior official warns, confirms that that the CIA rules America.

If Russia invades Ukraine, the US will move strongly to damage Moscow’s strategic position and employ measures that take aim at the country’s economy, a top White House official threatened on Sunday.

… Just last week, [National Security Advisor] Sullivan accused Moscow of preparing to “fabricate a pretext” for justifying a military incursion into Ukraine, following accusations that Russia has placed more than 100,000 troops on the border to prepare for war. Later, a CNN report citing anonymous sources in the US intelligence community suggested that operatives have been placed in eastern Ukraine to stage a false-flag operation.

The Russians called a security conference with Washington and NATO. The Russians explained that security is a joint undertaking and that security only exists if every country feels secure. The CIA responded with accusations against Russia handed to the CIA-puppet Biden regime and the CIA-puppet US media. The national security advisor read the script to us peons: Russia intends a false flag attack on its own troops so that it will have an excuse to invade Ukraine.

The national security advisor is so stupid that it does not occur to him that if Russia wants to invade Ukraine Russia will. Russia needs no excuse, and there is no one in Washington or NATO who can do anything about it.

The Russians explained that they do not feel secure. They are constantly demonized, sanctioned on the basis of accusations in the Western press, and their president insulted.

Military maneuvers are conducted on their borders, and the US Navy is in the Black Sea where it has no purpose to be. Washington broke its word given to Gorbachev and has not only moved NATO to Russia’s borders but also established missile bases in Poland and Romania.

Washington has overthrown the Ukraine government in an attempt to evict Russia from her Black Sea naval base, established a puppet Ukrainian government hostile to Russia and to the Russian population of eastern Ukraine, and is gradually invading Ukraine economically and militarily with Americans on the ground training Ukrainians in the use of the American supplied arms.

On top of all of this, Washington and NATO are talking about making Ukraine, formerly a province of Russia, and another former province of Russia, Georgia, members of NATO which shows indications of ringing Russia with bases in preparation for war.

Russia explained that the situation is so threatening that it is unacceptable. During the long Cold War the two powers tried to reduce tensions by stabilizing the relationship, but in the 21st century Washington has disavowed all the arms control agreements that were accomplished in the 20th century, and has behaved aggressively toward Russia.

Russia explained that she will no longer tolerate the implied threat of US/NATO bases on her borders and most certainly will not permit Ukraine and Georgia to be members of NATO. Any move by the West in this direction will result in “dire consequences.”

As an old cold warrior as a member of the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger and as a member of a secret presidential committee that helped Reagan end the Cold War, I can tell you that I am astonished that Washington has not heard what the Russians have, in all frankness, told them.

If the Committee on the President Danger had heard the Russians say this in the 1980s, we would have told President Reagan to acknowledge their concern and reduce the tension.

Today the situation is so different that to an experienced cold warrior such as myself it is extremely scary. But the idiots in Washington, who face a far more powerful Russia armed with weapons that Washington can only dream about, have no fear. Washington, the collection of the most stupid and arrogant people in the world, is exposing human life to untold risk on the sole basis of Washington’s belief in its own omnipotence.

Washington is so lacking in omnipotence that its belief in it is a sign of insanity.

According to Russian news reports, Russia is moving four entire armies from the far east to the Western fount. These four armies, even without those already present in western Russia, are sufficient to instantly destroy any force NATO and the US can muster and overrun all of Europe in a few days.

Moreover, Russia can likely mobilize 10 million troops quickly, and China, whose president has stated publicly that China has more than a treaty agreement with Russia, can mobilize 50 million soldiers. NATO, for all the bluster of its idiot Secretary General, has zero prospect of withstanding Russia in non-nuclear war.

This means, and the Kremlin knows this, that to save face Washington would have to go nuclear. This would mean the total destruction of the US and Europe. They would cease to exist.

For Russia with its extensive anti-missile defenses and nuclear bunkers for 40-50% of targeted populations, the war would be disastrous, but Russia would survive.

Russia does not want such a war. Russia doesn’t want to destroy anyone, not even Ukraine. Russia has asked for a security guarantee. That is all.

If we experience Armageddon, it will be only because Washington refused a security guarantee to Russia.

*

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.

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

As protests grow in EU countries and worldwide against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and so-called “vaccine passports,” some countries appear to be backtracking or at least harboring second thoughts about enforcing such measures, while others are digging in their heels and moving forward with punitive restrictions on the unvaccinated.

As protests grow in EU countries and worldwide against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and so-called “vaccine passports,” some countries appear to be backtracking or at least harboring second thoughts about enforcing such measures.

Some policymakers point to evidence COVID is here to stay and we need to live with it, since Omicron is similar to the common cold or seasonal flu. Others appear more willing to accept natural immunity in lieu of vaccination.

Still, other governments are digging in their heels and moving forward with punitive restrictions on the unvaccinated.

Here’s a look at the latest shifting policies outside the U.S.

 

 

Austria, citing ‘technical complications,’ won’t enforce mandates until at least April

Austria garnered much attention in November 2021 when it became the first country in the world to impose an all-encompassing vaccine mandate for its entire adult population and minors 14 years old and up.

This mandate, set to take effect in February, would be accompanied by fines of up to 3,600 euros per quarter. To that end, Austria recently reportedly began hiring “headhunters” to track down those who continue to remain unvaccinated.

The mandate has resulted in frequent large-scale protests against the mandate, as well as a political movement opposing this policy.

An open letter recently sent to Austria’s Interior Minister, Gerhard Karner, signed by 600 police officers, also expressed opposition to mandatory vaccination.

This opposition may be having an impact. Recently, the firm responsible for the technical implementation of the mandate announced that due to “technical complications,” the mandatory vaccination law cannot be enforced until at least April.

This news came amidst calls in Austria that the mandate should be reevaluated in light of the spread of the Omicron variant.

Germany struggling with mandate implementation; support not unanimous

Similar concerns over the feasibility of rapid implementation of a vaccine mandate have been raised in Germany, which has also mulled the implementation of compulsory vaccinations and has already approved such a mandate for healthcare workers.

In December 2021, Germany’s Ethics Council also gave its stamp of approval for vaccine mandates.

Nevertheless, concerns have been raised in Germany that parliamentary debate and subsequent technical implementation of a vaccination database cannot be completed before June at the earliest, calling into question the feasibility of the mandate in light of rapidly changing conditions.

Such hesitation comes despite renewed calls from German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier for an immediate full parliamentary debate on a potential vaccine mandate, and from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz for COVID vaccines to be mandated.

Similarly, German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach recently suggested vaccine mandates, not natural herd immunity stemming from the rapid spread of the Omicron variant — which he described as “dirty vaccination” — represent the only way “out” of the crisis.

In November 2021, Lauterbach’s predecessor, Jens Spahn, publicly predicted that by the end of the coming winter, everyone would be “vaccinated, recovered, or dead” — due to the Delta variant.

Soon thereafter, in December 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden made a similar warning, predicting a winter of “severe illness and death” for the non-vaccinated.

Despite these public proclamations from German politicians though, recent reports suggest support for a vaccine mandate in Germany’s three-party governing coalition is far from unanimous.

Nevertheless, some localities in Germany are moving ahead with their own innovative means of confirming individuals’ vaccination status.

The city of Saarbrücken will soon launch a system where individuals who received a COVID vaccine or who have recovered from infection can voluntarily wear a colored wristband to indicate their status.

Greece pushes ahead with age 60+ mandate policy, threatens fines for unvaxxed

Greece was one of the first countries in Europe to implement a vaccine mandate for a portion of its general population when, in December 2021, it imposed such a policy for everyone age 60 and over.

The policy is set to take effect Jan. 16, with fines of 100 euros per month levied against anyone who doesn’t comply.

Despite this policy, which has received broad and highly sensational media attention in Greece, and despite the burden the policy would place on pensioners in a country where the average pension is just over 700 euros per month, a significant number of individuals 60 and older appear to have opted to remain unvaccinated.

In late December 2021, it was reported that 400,000 people in this age group had not received the COVID vaccine.

In a televised appearance on Jan. 11, Greek government spokesperson Giannis Oikonomou stated that 200,000 people aged 60 and over had gotten vaccinated as a result of this mandate, touting this as a “big success.”

However, this would suggest approximately half of the relevant population in question had chosen to remain unvaccinated, despite the looming threat of a financial penalty.

It is perhaps, for this reason, the Greek government reportedly “froze” any further discussion of expanding the mandatory vaccination policy to those aged 50 and over, while it has been suggested the measure is unconstitutional and may eventually be struck down judicially.

However, despite rumors that the enforcement of fines against individuals 60 and older who have not been vaccinated would be postponed, Greece’s far-right Interior Minister Makis Voridis announced the policy would be enforced as originally planned.

Nevertheless, the Greek government will now extend existing measures, which include a midnight curfew and ban on music for dining and entertainment venues, and a 1,000-spectator capacity limit at sporting events, for at least an additional week past the original sunset date of Jan. 16.

In Balkans, protests lead to standstill on mandates

Major protests against the so-called “Green Pass,” or vaccine passport, took place recently in both Bulgaria and Romania.

In Bulgaria, protesters on Jan. 12  stormed the parliament building in opposition to the “Green Pass” and other restrictions. Attempts to enter parliament resulted in clashes with police and multiple arrests.

Similar events transpired recently in Romania, where on Dec. 21, 2021, protesters attempted to enter Romania’s parliament as part of a protest against proposed legislation making the “Green Pass” mandatory for workers.

Disagreements that have since followed between the parties which comprise Romania’s governing coalition have resulted in talks on this proposed policy coming to a standstill.

Notably, Bulgaria and Romania have the lowest and second-lowest COVID vaccination rate in the EU as of this writing.

Herd immunity as official policy?

As attempted moves toward wide-ranging vaccine mandates and broader implementation of vaccine passports appear to be floundering in Europe, such hesitation has increasingly been accompanied by ever more vocal suggestions that a form of herd immunity, via natural infection stemming from the rapid spread of the milder Omicron variant, should be considered at the policymaking level.

In Israel, for instance, a country that was among the first to move forward with a mass vaccination and booster campaign against COVID, health officials are mulling a “mass infection model.”

On Jan. 11, EU regulators, who had previously supported the administration of COVID booster shots every three months, had a sudden about-face, warning about the dangers the continued administration of boosters could pose for the human immune system.

That same day, the World Health Organization issued a remarkably similar warning, stating that “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”

Just one day prior, on Jan. 10, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez suggested European officials should move towards treating COVID as an endemic illness, calling for a debate on the issue and for a move away from the detailed pandemic case tracking system in place since early 2020.

Dr. Clive Dix, former chairman of the UK’s vaccine task force, Nick Moakes, chief investment officer of the Wellcome Trust (Britain’s largest independent funder of medical research) made similar remarks. Moakes suggested coronavirus be treated like the common cold.

Meanwhile, certain European countries appear to be shifting away from considering a mandatory vaccination policy for their populations. Irish Prime Minister Michael Martin said his country will maintain a system of voluntary vaccination, while Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said his intention to give people a “free choice” on the matter.

This shift is occurring despite remarks made on Dec. 1, 2021, by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission, who said it is time to “potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union” and to have a “discussion” about this possibility.

Punitive measures continue elsewhere

The gradual shift away from vaccine mandate policies in Europe and elsewhere is far from uniform, with punitive restrictions and policies continuing to be implemented in several countries.

In Italy, for instance, mandatory vaccination was expanded on Jan. 5 to everyone age 50 and older. The unvaxxed will face a potential fine ranging from 600 to 1,500 euros.

French President Emmanuel Macron made waves in an interview with the Le Parisien newspaper on Jan. 4, justifying the implementation of his country’s “Green Pass” by stating “I really want to piss them off, and we’ll carry on doing this — to the end” and that “irresponsible people [the unvaccinated] are no longer citizens.”

Despite uproar and protests that his comments generated, Macron later doubled down on these remarks.

On Jan. 11, the premier of the Canadian province of Quebec, Francois Legault, stated adults who refuse the COVID vaccine will face a “significant” financial penalty.

This statement came on the heels of remarks made on Jan. 7 by Canadian Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos. When asked whether mandatory vaccination was on the horizon in Canada, Duclos stated, “I personally think we will get there at some point.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau previously stated, in May 2021, that “[w]e’re not a country that makes vaccination mandatory.”

Other countries have resorted to more extreme, albeit “temporary,” measures.

Non-vaccinated individuals in one Australian state, the Northern Territory, were recently required to stay home for a four-day period, with limited exceptions. The conclusion of this four-day ban coincided with the launch of vaccine passports in the territory.

And in the Philippines, the country’s president, Rodrigo Duterte, called for the arrest of non-vaccinated citizens who venture outside their homes, in light of what he described as the “galloping” spread of the coronavirus.

This nevertheless may represent a milder stance on the part of Duterte, who in April 2020, empowered the police and military with shoot-to-kill orders against lockdown violators.

*

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.

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

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Once again, the West seems to be creating arguments to justify the implementation of coercive measures against Russia. A cyberattack against Kiev allegedly occurred last week has been making headlines around the world. Now, the Ukrainian government claims to have proof that the attack has Russian involvement – although no details have been provided so far as to what such “proof” would be. Apparently, NATO and Kiev are ready to turn cyberspace into a new focus of their anti-Russian campaigns.

An alleged cyberattack against Ukraine took place in the early hours of Friday last week, leaving several official government systems inaccessible. For a few hours, the websites of several Ukrainian ministries were absolutely offline. On some of the hacked sites, some messages appeared warning Ukrainians to “expect the worst”. In addition to ministries, virtual databases of many government offices were hacked, but according to information published by the Ministry of Digital Transformation, there was no leakage of personal data of government officials, being the damage limited to the operability of the websites.

The alleged “attack” generated immediate worldwide repercussions. Governments and international organizations around the world have published notes repudiating the hackers’ attitude. The European Union, the US, pro-Western governments, and NATO reinforced their desire to “help” Kiev to strengthen its cyber defense system.

NATO’s Secretary Jen Stoltenberg published the following words about the case:

“I strongly condemn the cyber attacks on the Ukrainian Government. NATO has worked closely with Ukraine for years to help boost its cyber defenses (…) In the coming days, NATO and Ukraine will sign an agreement on enhanced cyber cooperation, including access to NATO’s Ukrainian malware information sharing platform. NATO’s strong political and practical support for Ukraine will continue”.

In the same sense, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki also commented on the case, saying:

“We are also in touch with Ukrainians and have offered our support as Ukraine investigates the impact and nature and recovers from the incident”.

In Europe, on the other hand, the comments were more aggressive and tried to blame Russia. EU top diplomat Josep Borrell said:

“We are going to mobilize all our resources to help Ukraine to tackle this cyber attack. Sadly, we knew it could happen (…) It’s difficult to say (who is behind it). I can’t blame anybody as I have no proof, but we can imagine”.

By saying “we can imagine”, Borrell was certainly referring to Russia. Also, something similar has been said by Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Lind, who commented directly on the possibility of Russian involvement, saying words in a threatening tone:

“we have to be very firm in our messages to Russia: that if there are attacks against Ukraine, we will be very harsh and very strong and robust in our response”.

Later, on Sunday, Kiev definitively adopted the rhetoric that had been previously promoted by Europeans, blaming Russia. Ukrainian digital transformation ministry Mykhailo Fedorov said that “all the evidence points to Russia being behind the cyber-attack”. Evidently, this is a suspicion that could arise at any moment, considering that the attack took place amid tensions between Russia and Ukraine and that cyber operations are a common military tactic in contemporary warfare. The problem in this case is that no details were provided on what such “evidence” would be. Kiev simply believes that Moscow operated the attacks because it is a “plausible” suspect, considering the fact that these are rival countries, but no material evidence has been presented so far, which makes the narrative very weak.

If Kiev and the West accuse Russia of involvement in the attack, it is up to them to prove the allegations. The burden of proof for the accuser is a universal principle of justice that cannot be ignored in diplomatic relations. Furthermore, in the same way that cyber-attacks are common practice in contemporary warfare (which would make the Russian involvement narrative plausible), self-sabotage operations and “false flag attacks” are also constantly practiced in current conflicts between states, which makes it plausible that Kiev or some other western government operated the hacking attack in order to blame Russia and tighten security measures against Moscow – and the fact that there was no data leakage in the attack can be considered an evidence in this regard, as such leakage would not be of interest in a false flag operation.

Indeed, there are many possibilities, and it would be wrong to accuse either side without prior investigations. However, unfortunately, what we can expect going forward is that the anti-Russian narrative, despite being weak, will be considered sufficient for NATO to harden the measures against Russia and start a campaign of cyber warfare. Increasingly, cyberspace can be considered a new battlefield, as important as land, sea, air, and outer space.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

Did anyone out there actually expect things to turn out differently?  When the federal government kept borrowing and spending trillions upon trillions of dollars that we did not have, we were warned that this day was coming.  And when the Federal Reserve kept pumping trillions upon trillions of fresh dollars into our financial system, we were warned that this day was coming.  So why is anybody surprised by what is happening at this point?  On Wednesday, it was being reported that in December the U.S. consumer price index rose at the fastest pace in nearly 40 years…

Inflation rose at the fastest pace in nearly four decades in December, as rapid price gains fueled consumer fears about the economy and sent President Biden’s approval rating tumbling.

The consumer price index rose 7% in December from a year ago, according to a new Labor Department report released Wednesday, marking the fastest increase since June 1982, when inflation hit 7.1%. The CPI – which measures a bevy of goods ranging from gasoline and health care to groceries and rents – jumped 0.5% in the one-month period from November.

They keep telling us that the consumer price index was actually increasing at a faster rate back in 1982, but whenever the corporate media makes such a claim they are not being honest.

The way that the consumer price index is calculated has been changed more than two dozen times since 1980, and every single time it has been changed the goal was to make the rate of inflation look smaller.

According to John Williams of shadowstats.com, if the consumer price index was still calculated the way it was back in 1990, the official rate of inflation would be above 10 percent right now.

And if the consumer price index was still calculated the way it was back in 1980, the official rate of inflation would be above 15 percent right now.

But 7 percent sounds a whole lot better than 15 percent, doesn’t it?

We can get a better picture of what is really going on out there when we start looking at individual categories.  The following category numbers were posted earlier today by Citizen Free Press

  • Gasoline up 56%
  • Heating oil up 42%
  • Used cars: 37.3%
  • Car rental: 36%
  • Natural gas up 31%
  • Hotels: 27.6%
  • Beef: 18.6%
  • Pork: 15.1%
  • Furniture: 13.8%
  • New cars: 12%

Unfortunately, it looks like the price of gasoline will soon go even higher.

In fact, Reuters is telling us that some analysts are projecting that the price of oil could soon exceed 100 dollars a barrel

Oil prices that rallied 50% in 2021 will power further ahead this year, some analysts predict, saying a lack of production capacity and limited investment in the sector could lift crude to $90 or even above $100 a barrel.

It takes energy to transport virtually all of the goods that we purchase on a regular basis, and so a higher price for gasoline will cause inflationary pressure throughout our entire economy.

Some companies are responding to this crisis by giving their customers less for the same price that they were charging before.

For example, if you order chicken wings from Domino’s Pizza you will only get a package of eight from now on

Domino’s Pizza customers ordering chicken wings will soon get fewer of them for the same price.

The pizza chain said it’s cutting the number of wings in its $7.99 carry out offer from 10 pieces to just eight because of rising food and labor costs. Wings will also become an online exclusive, meaning customers can no longer order them via phone.

All around us, there is evidence that our standard of living is rapidly going down.

The cost of living is increasing much, much faster than paychecks are, and that is an extremely alarming trend.  According to Zero Hedge, real average hourly earnings have now declined for 9 months in a row

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for Main Street, real average hourly earnings fell (down 2.4% YoY) for the 9th straight month…

So the next time a politician tries to tell you to be grateful that your wages are going up or you can move to a new higher paying job, just remind him that the surge in the cost of living is outpacing wage gains, thanks to The Fed’s money-largesse and Congress’ lockdown policies and helicopter money have crushed the quality of life for millions.

In other words, most Americans are getting poorer.

Meanwhile, the appalling nationwide shortages that have erupted continue to make headlines all over the nation.

According to USA Today, the following are some of the most severe shortages that we are witnessing right now…

  • Baby formula shortage
  • Cream cheese shortage
  • Aluminum shortage
  • Cat food, dog food shortages
  • Chicken tender shortage
  • Lunchables shortage
  • Toilet paper shortage
  • Beer shortage

And it turns out that fear of Omicron has also sparked a really bad shortage of cold medicine

Stores in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are facing cold medicine shortages as flu season picks up and the omicron variant of the coronavirus continues.

“The new toilet paper shortage,” an employee at an East Dallas pharmacy told Fox 4 of the empty shelves.

One pharmacist at a CVS location in East Dallas said that customers with symptoms appearing to be the coronavirus or flu have been buying up cold medicine and cough syrup, while others are coming in to just stock up.

So if you were thinking of stocking up on Benadryl for some reason, I would go out and grab some while you still can.

The corporate media seems absolutely stunned that our politicians in Washington and the magicians at the Federal Reserve have lost control of our economy.

But we were warned for years that what they were doing would kill the U.S. dollar, and the death spiral that we have now entered is going to become exceedingly painful.

What we are experiencing now is not just another short-term economic crisis.

This truly is the beginning of the end for the U.S. economy, and I would recommend that you prepare accordingly.

*

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.

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. 

Featured image is from TEC

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.

***

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was interviewed by GEOFOR on US-Russia talks.

GEOFOR: Dear Mr. Roberts, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. So, the Russian-American diplomatic marathon, which lasted for a whole week, is over. And as many, including yourself, predicted, the bilateral meeting and negotiations in the format of NATO and the OSCE ended in nothing. The parties simply fixed their positions. However, some Russian analysts believe that the only result of these contacts was that the united West and, first of all, the United States, for the first time in thirty years, still “condescended” or were forced to condescend to talk with Russia on equal terms. What, in your opinion, prompted Washington and its satellites to do this?

Paul Craig Roberts: Russians are always looking for a silver lining, this time that the US condescended to talk with Russia on equal terms.  The US did no such thing. Washington used the talks to elevate the propaganda against Russia as, for example, Undersecretary of State Nuland’s denunciation of Russia.

The talks did not end in nothing. The talks confirmed the Kremlin’s belief that Washington would not accommodate Russia’s security concern and that Russia would be forced to look for solutions outside of diplomacy.

GEOFOR: It seems that the world is no longer preparing to enter, but is entering a new geopolitical reality, where Russia has learned to quickly resolve crises in different parts of the world, be it Syria, Belarus or Kazakhstan. What do you think is the reason for such transformations – is it a consequence of Moscow’s “muscle building” or the result of a reduction in the capabilities of the United States?

Paul Craig Roberts: It is a consequence of the Kremlin awakening to the fact that Russia’s role for Washington is to serve as the necessary enemy for the profits of the US military/security complex and as the threat that guarantees Washington’s control over Europe. For too long Russians believed all the nice democratic slogans that Washington expresses but does not believe.

GEOFOR: Although Russia has made its position public well in advance, moreover, it has made available a draft document listing Moscow’s demands point by point, as well as the obligations that it is ready to assume, it seems that the United States and its NATO partners have not taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with them. At least, judging by the statements for the press, instead of discussing security issues on the European continent, the American side tried with all its might to reduce the discussion to the issue of Ukraine’s accession to the alliance and the deployment of offensive weapons on its territory. What is the reason for this, if we may say so, misunderstanding? Is it the desire to delay negotiations? If so, for what purposes? Or is the problem something else?

Paul Craig Roberts: It most certainly is not a misunderstanding. It was a propaganda opportunity for Washington and its NATO puppets.  Russia is the necessary enemy. Therefore, Washington will never acknowledge that Russia has a valid case about anything.

GEOFOR: Speaking of the Ukraine, which was the top priority topic for American negotiators. Do you rule out that Washington is playing out a scenario under which Kiev would decide on a military conflict in the Donbas or Crimea, and Moscow would be forced to respond with the use of force? In this case the United States and its allies, on the one hand, would increase the volume of military assistance (this week the Congress authorized the allocation of an additional $ 500 million), but at the same time they have declared that neither the United States nor NATO would go to war for the Ukraine. For the current Ukrainian leadership, with the country going through a deep economic and political crisis, an armed conflict might be the last chance to retain power and regain the favor of the West. Moreover, regardless of who would unleash the conflict, Russia would immediately be declared an “aggressor”.

Paul Craig Roberts: For Washington Ukraine is a tool to be used against Russia. Whether Ukraine becomes a member of NATO and hosts missile bases on Russia’s border or whether Ukraine invades Donbass and causes Russian intervention makes little difference to Washington. If the former, then Washington has more ability to intimidate Russia. If the latter, Washington has a result that proves its propaganda and solidifies its hold on Europe and strengthens  Americans’ belief that Russia is a dangerous threat.

GEOFOR: And now on the background against which the Russian-American discussion took place. Speaking politely, Washington was not shy in their expressions. We are not talking about the press and political pundits, the Lord is their judge. But some officials were not inferior to them. For example, after the talks in Geneva, Victoria Nuland blamed Moscow for fomenting the crisis between Russia and the United States, simultaneously accusing it of lying and misinforming. And after the Brussels meeting, the same lady, who holds the post of Under Secretary of State, said that Washington was working with Germany and the EU to slow down the commissioning of Nord Stream 2. But this did not seem enough for her, so she said that the United States was ready to discuss with Finland and Sweden the issue of their accession to NATO, which, judging by the reaction of Helsinki and Stockholm, caused some consternation in these countries. Why and who needs it? Raising the stakes on the eve of negotiations is a common thing for politicians and diplomats. But why do it when negotiations have already begun? Or is it just a deficit or lack of professionalism and, we are sorry to say, culture and education?

Paul Craig Roberts: Washington cannot make it any clearer that Russia is in the way of US hegemony and that Washington intends to remove the Russian constraint on US hegemony via intimidation and destabilization.  It seems that this has finally been realized by the Kremlin if not by the Russian media.

GEOFOR: Currently, the Russian leadership is waiting for a written response from the American side to its proposals, which, as promised, should be provided next week. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the members of the same party as President J. Biden have prepared a draft of new sanctions, including ones against President Vladimir Putin, as well as the Ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs, major banks, etc. As the Russian Ambassador to the United States Mr. Antonov noted in this regard, if they are adopted, it will mean the rupture of diplomatic relations between our countries. In these circumstances, what could be the response from the White House and the State Department? Is it possible to expect at least something constructive in it, giving a reason to continue the dialogue that has begun?

Paul Craig Roberts: No dialogue has begun.  Washington used the talks to make completely clear to Russia that Washington could not care less about Russia’s security concern, that Washington wants and intends Russia to be insecure and will be working to make Russia more insecure.

*

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.

This article was originally published on GEOFOR.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, and is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from magyarhirlap.hu

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “No Dialogue Has Begun. Washington Could Not Care Less About Russia’s Security Concern.”
  • Tags:

Get Well Soon Rocco Galati!

January 18th, 2022 by WholeHearted 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 at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

 

Thank you all for your love and prayers, they are working! Please keep them coming.

It took some time but we finally finished editing the “Knowledge is Liberating” course put on in the summer time with Rocco. The course is jam packed with info and real life scenarios. Many people were asking where they could access it. Pls go to WholeHeartedmedia.ca and click on courses for more info or follow this link.

Lastly, thank you for the concern. Please refrain from worrying and sending us personal DM’s asking about Rocco’s condition. That info is private. Keep in mind medical privacy is a large part of what is and has been fought for the last 2 years.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Get Well Soon Rocco Galati!

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.

***

Everyone knows that James Earl Ray shot Martin Luther King, Jr., right? The U.S. government says so. All the school textbooks say so. And it is enshrined as unquestioned gospel in the pages of Wikipedia.

But the official story is full of holes. Instead, mounting evidence suggests that King may have been murdered as part of a conspiracy planned and/or abetted by the FBI in coordination with local Memphis police personnel. In this scenario, Ray served as a patsy, like critics allege Lee Harvey Oswald was in the JFK assassination. The real shooter, according to these accounts, struck King not from the boardinghouse bathroom—allegedly from where Ray shot him—but from bushes behind the Lorraine Motel—the King assassination’s version of the grassy knoll.

This article lays out that evidence—as it may soon be laid out in court and a congressional committee—if the King family’s demands to reopen the murder investigation continue to gain traction. What follows is a reconstruction of the events leading up to King’s murder, and the subsequent purported attempts by local and national government officials to cover up their involvement and pin it on a patsy named James Earl Ray.

At 6:01 p.m. on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., was struck in the face by a bullet as he was leaning over the balcony of his room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee.

An hour later he was declared dead at nearby St. Joseph’s Hospital.

King had come to Memphis as part of his poor people’s campaign to support a sanitation workers strike. The civil rights leader was increasingly promoting socialist views, had become more outspoken in criticizing the war in Vietnam and had been running for president on an anti-war ticket with Benjamin Spock.[1]

MLK and Rev Ralph Abernathy in Memphis, on March 28, 1968 supporting striking Sanitation Workers

King marching with striking sanitation workers in Memphis on March 28, 1968. [Source: ratical.org]

After King had given a speech denouncing the Vietnam War at New York’s Riverside Church one year before his assassination, U.S. Army spies recorded Black radical Stokely Carmichael warning him: “The man don’t care you call ghettos concentration camps, but when you tell him his war machine is nothing but hired killers, you got trouble.”

Carmichael, unfortunately, was right.

Lone Assassin?

Police authorities fingered James Earl Ray—a career criminal from Alton, Illinois, who had escaped from the Jefferson City, Missouri, penitentiary in April 1967—as the lone assassin.[2]

On May 6, 1968, syndicated columnist Drew Pearson wrote that the FBI was conducting “perhaps the most painstaking, exhaustive manhunt ever before undertaken in the United States. Its G-men have checked every bar ever patronized by James Earl Ray, every flop house he ever stopped at, every cantina in Mexico, he ever visited. It has collected an amazing array of evidence, all linking Ray with the murder.”[3]

Ray was supposedly motivated by race hate. He allegedly began stalking Dr. King on the weekend of March 17 in Los Angeles, arriving in Memphis on April 3 with the murder weapon and booking into a seedy rooming house owned by Bessie Brewer above Jim’s Grill right across from the Lorraine Motel.[4]

MLK Crime Scene — TPAAK

Photo of rooming house above Jim’s Grill. [Source: tpaak.com]

Just before 6:00 p.m., Ray barricaded himself in a communal bathroom from where he pointed his rifle outside the window and shot King.

Afterwards in haste, Ray neglected to eject the spent cartridge. Back in his room, he wrapped his rifle along with an overnight bag in a bedspread and ran outside.

Ray was then spotted by another tenant in the rooming house, Charles Quitman Stephens—the state’s chief prosecution witness—who said that he saw Ray running out.

When Ray saw a stream of police cars rushing to the scene, he panicked, and dropped the bedspread with the rifle in the doorway of the Canipe Amusement Company on South Main Street.

A person holding a baseball bat Description automatically generated with low confidence

Bedspread with rifle dropped by Ray allegedly in panic outside the Canipe Amusement Company. [Source: tpaak.com]

He then fled in a white Mustang, making his way first to Atlanta, where he ditched the car, and then to Toronto, where he hid for a month, and then to Portugal and England, where he was apprehended two months later by authorities trying to board a flight to Brussels.

Ray’s fingerprints had been found on the gun that allegedly killed King, scope, binoculars, beer can, and a copy of the Memphis Commercial Appeal dropped in the bundle.

At his trial, Ray pled guilty and was sentenced to 99 years in prison.

House Select Committee on Assassinations and 1999 Civil Trial

The 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)—which was convened to investigate the King and Kennedy assassinations—alleged that Ray carried out the killing to collect a bounty from two St. Louis racists, both dead at the time.

A group of people sitting in a room Description automatically generated with low confidence

House Select Committee on Assassinations. [Source: wikiwand.com]

In 2012, G. Robert Blakey, staff director to the HSCA, said, however, that he had been deceived by the CIA—which had failed to inform him that a government liaison to the HSCA, George Joannides, had a CIA background. Blakey told the Jackson, Mississippi,Clarion-Ledger that “thoughtful people today, not just nuts, think that more people than James Earl Ray were involved [in King’s killing].”[5]

In 1999, a mixed-race jury presiding over a wrongful death civil suit by the King family in Memphis reached a unanimous verdict that King was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving the U.S. government.

King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, said afterwards that “there is abundant evidence of a major, high-level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband.” The jury found that the mafia and various local, state, and federal government agencies “were deeply involved in the assassination…. Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.”[6]

Case Not Closed

Three days after his sentencing, Ray fired his mob-connected attorney, Percy Foreman, and said that he was pressured into pleading guilty and had been set up as a patsy.[7] Foreman was given 60% royalty rights on a book about Ray by William Bradford Huie, which would not have sold if it were about a non-assassin.[8]

The FBI was never able to match the bullet that killed King with the rifle allegedly left by Ray on the steps of the Canipe Amusement Company.

A picture containing text, sky, sign, outdoor Description automatically generated

Remington rifle that allegedly killed King; the bullets, however, were never matched to the fatal one that killed King. [Source: gunsamerica.com]

Ray’s fingerprints were also never identified in the room he had rented at the rooming house.

A well-known crime scene investigator determined that the shot from the rooming house bathroom could not have struck King unless Ray had hung out the window or smashed a ten-inch-deep hole in the wall for his rifle to fit into—the angles were all wrong.[9]

Memphis police officer Vernon Dollahite said that he arrived on Main Street within one minute and fifty seconds of King’s shooting and did not see a fleeing Mustang or hear screeching tires, raising doubt that Ray could have gathered his stuff, dropped it in front of the Canipe Amusement Company—a detour from his car—and gotten away to escape notice by Dollahite.[10]

Ray’s decision to drop the bedsheet supposedly resulted from his panic at seeing a parked police car after exiting the boarding house. However, the car would have been blocked by a hedge which was cut down the day after King’s death.[11]

According to Guy Canipe, the bedsheet was dropped on the steps of Canipe Amusement Company approximately two to five minutes before King was shot. Canipe described the person dropping the bundle as having a “chunky build”—which did not match Ray.[12]

Ray’s old prison radio—which could be seen outside the bundle—supposedly fell out when the bundle was tossed in the doorway; however, it was not on its side, visibly cracked or broken.[13]

The rifle was also packed tightly—which a panicked killer in a hurry to get away could not have done.[14]

The prosecution’s main witness, Charles Quitman Stephens, had been arrested 155 times mostly for alcoholism and was dead drunk at the time of the shooting, according to his wife, landlady, a homicide detective who interviewed him (Tommy Smith) and a cab driver who picked him up.[15]

He was looking to obtain a $100,000 reward for identifying the slayer of King. Later, when shown a photo of Ray by a CBS journalist, Stephens said that he was not the man he had observed running out of the boarding house.[16]

Stephens’s cab driver, James McCraw, said the hall bathroom was open and bathroom empty as he approached and left Stephens’s room—indicating that the shots did not come from there.[17]

Stephens’s common-law wife, Grace Walden, also said that she heard the shot come from outside her window in the rooming house, which opened onto the bushy area between the rooming house and motel.[18] The only man she saw coming out of the rooming house was short with “salt and pepper hair,” wearing an open army jacket and plaid sports shirt—which did not fit Ray.[19]

Two Mustangs and Ray’s Alibi

When he was picking up Stephens, James McCraw said he noticed a delivery van and two white Mustangs parked within 50 yards of each other, one in front of Jim’s Grill, the other just south of the Canipe Amusement Company.[20]

Another witness, Charles Hurley, told Ray attorney William Pepper that, after arriving to pick up his wife at the rooming house at 4:45 p.m., he pulled up behind a Mustang with Arkansas plates parked in front of the rooming house and south of the Canipe amusement store.

Ray’s Mustang had Alabama plates and was parked north of the Canipe store.[21]

Ray said that he got into the car between 5:45 and 5:50 p.m. and went to a local service station to have a spare tire repaired—meaning that he was not at the rooming house when King was killed.

However, his brother, John Larry Ray, said that James lied and was waiting in his Mustang for his handler Raoul at the time King was shot, believing he was to be the getaway driver for some job.

Shortly after he heard the shot that killed King, Raoul jumped into the backseat of his vehicle and put a sheet over his head, and Ray drove off. After a few blocks, Raoul jumped out of the car and fled and Ray drove all night to Atlanta.[22]

After making his way to Canada, Ray was assisted financially by a mysterious “fat man,”who provided him with money in Toronto. Researcher Peter Dale Scott suggests that it was planned for Ray to be apprehended after Robert Kennedy’s assassination to enable a restoration of confidence in the government in the wake of such a tragic event and the rioting that had followed King’s killing.

An Unlikely Assassin

Ray did not have a clear motive for killing King apart from a possible financial one. He could never have survived on the lam after his prison escape and in the two months after the King assassination without outside support. Ray had received money not only for travel and lodging, but also for fake identities, plastic surgery, and even dance and bartending classes and hypnosis.

A strong anti-communist who was otherwise apolitical, Ray was painted in the media as a racist. However, people close to him said he had had a Black girlfriend, and that evidence was planted by police to make him appear to be a racist when he was not.[23]

Most significantly, Ray had no expertise in firearms. During a stint in the Army, he was trained with an M-1 and obtained only the lowest level of ability.[24] The salesman who sold him the alleged murder weapon in Birmingham—which he had been told to buy by the mysterious Raoul (discussed below)—said that Ray “did not seem to know anything at all about firearms, I mean nothing.”[25]

Shot from the Bushes

King’s chauffeur Solomon Jones and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) attorney Chauncey Eskridge, who were both looking at King when he died, said they saw King’s body lurch upwards when he was shot—and not downward—indicating that the shot could not have come from the rooming house bathroom.

Instead, it must have come from the bushes behind Jim’s Grill and between the rooming house and motel.

A picture containing text, outdoor Description automatically generated

View from Lorraine Motel balcony that shows brush area from where witnesses claimed the shots were fired. [Source: tpaak.com]

Ray’s first lawyer, Arthur Hanes, Sr., noticed tree branches that would have been a formidable obstacle to shooting King from the rooming house bathroom—though these branches were cut down the next day by police to try to cover this up.[26]

Several eyewitnesses reported seeing a man crouching in the bushes and running away afterward, and a sound like a firecracker coming from the bushes.[27]

Harold “Cornbread” Carter, who was drinking wine in the bushes, told investigators that he saw a man wearing a high-necked white sweater run away after with a long gun in his handafter he had heard a loud bang from the bushes.[28]

Olivia Catling said that she saw a fireman standing near the wall below the bushes yelling at the police that the shot came from the clump of bushes above the area where he was standing—but the police ignored him.[29]

Diagram, engineering drawing Description automatically generated

Source: muckrock.com

Reverend James Orange said that he saw smoke “rise from the bushes right by the fire station” seconds after the shot.[30] The smoke was most likely sonic dust rising from the bushes caused by the firing of a high-powered rifle in the heavily vegetated area.[31]

Orange and a reporter, Kay Black, also alleged that the brush area was cut and cleared back the morning after the shooting, along with the inconveniently placed tree branch that blocked a clear shot from the rooming house.

The pre-dawn clean-up request, according to Maynard Stiles, deputy director of the Memphis City Public Works Department in 1968, came from the Memphis Police Department early on the morning of April 5.[32]

Suspicious Happenings

The night before King’s killing, the only two Black firemen in the Memphis Fire Department (MFD), Norvell E. Wallace and Floyd E. Newsum, were ordered not to report the next day to their posts at Fire Station No. 2 overlooking the Lorraine Motel.[33]

The Memphis Police Department (MPD) failed to form the usual security squad of black detectives for Dr. King and withdrew other key police security units to a position five blocks away from the Lorraine Motel on April 4—a key factor that enabled the assassin(s) to get away.[34]

Black detective Ed Redditt was removed from his surveillance post about an hour before King’s shooting and placed in home confinement after the FBI had warned MPD of an assassination attempt directed against him—by the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party—which proved to be phony and served as a diversion.[35]

Just before King was shot, someone else called in a hoax from downtown that drew police attention to the northeastern side of the city.[36]

This hoax indicated an organized plot and that Ray could not have been a lone assassin.

Loyd Jowers and Jim’s Grill.

Taxi driver James McCraw told William Pepper that, on the morning after the shooting, Loyd Jowers, the owner of Jim’s Grill, showed him a rifle in a box on a shelf under the counter, which he said he had “found out back after the killing.”

This account was corroborated by Betty Spates, a young Black waitress at Jim’s Grill who implicated Jowers, her former lover, in the murder.

Spates said that, after hearing what sounded like a shot, she saw him run into the kitchen from the brush carrying a rifle. His hair was in disarray, and the knees of his trousers were wet and muddy as though he had been kneeling in the soggy grass or brush areas.[37]

Jowers then wrapped his rifle in a tablecloth, put it under his apron, and slipped into the café behind the counter where he discreetly placed the rifle under a shelf and then asked customer Harold Parker, a taxi driver, if he heard anything.

The shooting had only happened one minute earlier. Subsequently, a sheriff’s deputy came in and ordered Jowers to lock Jim’s Grill and keep everyone inside.

Jowers later admitted to Willie Akins, his right-hand man, that he was the figure in the bushes—though he said someone else was the shooter.[38] Akins said that his job was to kill this shooter who ran off to Florida before he could “pop him.”[39]

Jowers had been a Memphis police officer from 1946 to 1948 who went into business running clubs and then bars and restaurants.

Bill Hamblin, James McCraw’s roommate, testified at the 1999 civil trial that McCraw had told him that Jowers had not only showed him the rifle that killed King but told him to get rid of it. McCraw in turn said that he drove on to the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge and threw it off.[40]

Frank Liberto and Carlos Marcello

In an ABC television interview in 1993, Jowers said he had received $100,000 from Frank Liberto, president of the Liberto, Liberto and Latch Produce Company in Memphis, to arrange Dr. King’s murder.

John McFerren, a civil rights leader in 1968, told William Pepper how he heard Frank Liberto from the back of his store before King’s death say, “I told you not to call me here. Shoot the son of a bitch when he comes on the balcony.”[41]

Liberto—a member of the Carlos Marcello crime family—told the caller he should collect his money—$5,000 was mentioned—from Liberto’s brother in New Orleans.

Frank Holt, a Black produce truck unloader whom Jowers had falsely tried to blame at one point for the murder, heard Liberto say to one of the “big-wheels” at the M.E. Carter Produce Company during the sanitation strike that “King is a trouble-maker and he should be killed. If he is killed, then he will cause no more trouble.”[42]

Lavada Whitlock Addison, the manager of a pizza parlor near Liberto’s home, said that, one day between 1976 and 1982, Liberto leaned forward and told her, “I had Dr. Martin Luther King killed.”[43]

Earl Clark and Marrell McCollough

Jowers identified the assassin as Memphis Police Lieutenant Earl Clark—who was regarded as the best shot on the MPD and was close to Liberto.[44] Afterwards, Clark allegedly scaled down a wall adjacent to the Lorraine Motel before jumping into an escape vehicle.[45]

Clark was involved in planning sessions at Jim’s Grill to prepare for the assassination with five other men, only two of whom Jowers could identify.

One of the men, unbeknownst to Jowers, was an undercover police officer and agent provocateur, Marrell McCollough, who was assigned to the MPD from the 11th Military Intelligence Group.

Born in Mississippi, McCollough had served in the military police in Vietnam and went on to work for the CIA in Central or South America. At the time of King’s slaying, McCollough was posing as a member of the Invaders, a militant Black political group, which gave him access to King and his circle. He was identified as the mysterious figure kneeling over Dr. King after he was shot.[46]

Frank Strausser

In April 2003, Lenny Curtis, a custodian at the MPD shooting range, identified King’s killer to William Pepper as MPD patrolman Frank Strausser. Curtis said that about four or five months before King’s death, he heard Strausser—a Vietnam veteran with a reputation for beating up Black people—say in the lounge of the rifle range that “somebody was going to blow [King’s] motherfucking brains out.”

Curtis identified Strausser as being in the gun range firing a rifle all day the day before and day of King’s assassination. At around 2:30 p.m., Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb (D), MPD Chief Frank Holloman (discussed below) and a number of MPD officers including Earl Clark—whom Curtis identified as the spotter in King’s shooting—went into a meeting in a room in the rifle range. Strausser then left around 3:30 p.m. wearing a white shirt and pair of sunglasses carrying the assassination rifle in a red Chevrolet convertible.[47]

After the killing, investigators identified a size 13 shoe print in the bush behind the Lorraine Motel. In October 2013, Pepper interviewed Strausser and got him to admit that he wore a size 13 shoe.[48]

Ray’s Intelligence Background

Ray’s brother John Larry believes that his brother’s role as a patsy in the King killing had been planned for many years and originated with his Army service at the end of World War II.

After enlisting in 1946 at the age of 17, Ray served in the 7892nd Infantry Regiment and as a military policeman with the 382nd Military Police Battalion in Nuremburg, Germany. Subsequently, Ray was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He told John Larry that, “when you join the OSS, it’s like joining the Mafia, you never leave.”[49]

Researcher Lyndon Barsten was told by an intelligence officer that four-digit Army units like the 7892nd Infantry Regiment were “often used for cover.”[50] The unit was based in Frankfurt, Germany—the European headquarters of the CIA, housed in the old I.G. Farben building which had been spared during the Allied bombing. Ray was given two serial numbers—which further indicated he was involved in something secret.[51]

According to John Larry, James was haunted by an incident when he was in the military police when he shot a Black soldier named Washington who was accused of beating up Jews and raping an officer’s family member—which was not true. James had been given lumbar punctures (or spinal taps) by Army doctors which can be used to administer drugs.

Gaps in Ray’s military record further lead to suspicion that he was an unwitting victim of mind-control drug experiments carried out under the CIA’s MK-ULTRA—which may have caused him to shoot the Black soldier.

FBI documents show that Ray saw two hypnotists in Los Angeles after his Army service was completed, one of whom, Xavier von Koss, had been an Army intelligence officer and was likely brought over under Operation Paperclip (which brought Nazi scientists to the U.S.).[52]

James had told his family that the Feds were “messing with his mind,” and his father felt that he had been drugged.[53]

Between 1949 and 1952, James served as an undercover operator for FBI investigations into communists in Chicago, earning him the nickname “the Mole.”[54]

When Ray was arrested after committing a robbery, an intelligence operative was spotted in the rooming house where he was staying. There is a possibility that he was there because the government wanted Ray locked up so they could use him in a later operation—knowing he was a controllable personality.[55]

Jeff City Escape

There is no better patsy than an escaped prisoner because he cannot go to the police for assistance and is dependent on his contacts for survival.

On April 23, 1967, Ray escaped from the Missouri State Penitentiary at Jefferson City, where he was serving a 20-year sentence, by hiding in a breadbox in the back of a bakery truck.

The director of the Missouri State Prison system at the time, Fred T. Wilkinson, was a U.S. intelligence operative who handled the famous May 1960 spy exchange between U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers, whose plane had been shot down over the Soviet Union, and a Soviet Colonel, Rudolf Abel, who had been imprisoned for setting up a spy network in the U.S.[56]

The warden at Jeff City, Harold Swenson, also had an intelligence background. His predecessor, E.V. Nash, was said to have committed suicide—though the gun that killed him was found in a separate room in his house than his body.[57]

After a failed escape attempt, Ray was seen by Dr. Donald B. Peterson, head of psychiatry for the Army’s Far East Command during the Korean War, the height of the brainwashing era. Peterson prescribed Ray with Librium, a drug listed in government documents as one used to strengthen narco-hypnosis.[58]

Gene Barnes, a former inmate at Jeff City, signed an affidavit in the late 1970s which said that he had been told by Warden Donald Wyrick that Wyrick, Wilkinson and Swenson had allowed James to escape Jeff City so that the feds could later use him as the fall guy in King’s assassination.[59]

The fingerprints the prison sent out after James’s escape were not his; they had been switched by Wilkinson and Swenson with another man’s—meaning that if Ray had been captured, the police would have had to set him free.

When Wilkinson retired, the inmate who talked Ray into escaping, Ronnie Westberg, committed “suicide” by hanging himself, though he was discovered with broken arms and legs, pointing to foul play.[60]

The Mystery of Raoul

After James’s escape, he came in contact with a mysterious figure named Raoul, who provided Ray with phony documents in Montreal, Canada, after the two met at the Neptune Bar.

In exchange for the documents, Raoul had Ray assist him in smuggling contraband across the border and then sent Ray to Birmingham, Alabama, where he purchased a 1966 white Mustang and a telescopic rifle that appears to have served as the fake murder weapon.[61]

In Montreal, Ray was given the identity of Eric St. Vincent Galt—who happened to be a highly placed Canadian operative of U.S. Army intelligence.[62]

Galt ran a warehouse for Union Carbide which housed a top-secret munitions project funded by the CIA, the U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, and the Army Electronics Research and Development Command.[63]

At 3 p.m. on April 4, Ray met Raoul at Jim’s Grill where he was told to go to the rooming house next to the Lorraine Motel. He then waited for him after the shooting and helped him flee from the scene, before Raoul jumped out of the car and abandoned him to his fate.[64]

Raoul’s real name may have been J.C. Harden, a man Ray had been in contact with and was believed to be an FBI snitch, or Raoul Coelho, a Portuguese immigrant identified by Glenda Grabow, or Raoul Esquivel whose number Ray called.

Esquivel was tracked by a Los Angeles Times reporter to a Louisiana State police barracks in the New Orleans-Baton Rouge area, a well-known staging ground for CIA-sponsored guerrilla operations against Fidel Castro.[65]

Jules Ricco Kimble, a convicted killer who worked for organized crime, the Klu Klux Klan and CIA in the French separatist struggle in Quebec, told investigators that he flew Ray to Montreal and brought him to a CIA identities specialist who provided Ray with his aliases.

A retired CIA agent later said that the CIA identities specialist in Montreal was named Raoul Miora.[66]

Ewen Cameron and MK-ULTRA

While serving as Ray’s handler in Montreal, Kimble said that the two were ordered to go to McGill University’s Memorial Institute to undergo hypnosis.[67]

The Memorial Institute was the home of subproject 68 of the CIA’s MK-ULTRA brainwashing program run by Dr. Ewen Cameron—the lead CIA mind-control expert in Canada.[68]

An Inside Job

Kimble said that the assassination was carried out by a team of covert intelligence operatives who had an unmarked van with sophisticated electronic radio equipment that could oversee the crime scene and monitor and broadcast on police radio channels.

Two snipers with the team used rifles identical to Ray’s, while other members obtained Memphis Police Department uniforms. The two snipers concealed themselves in the bushes behind the boarding house; one was a backup, the other shot King. The rifles were then concealed in a prearranged hiding place behind the boarding house where they were retrieved by other operatives.

The two snipers afterwards jumped down onto the sidewalk from the bushes and mingled with the other uniformed officers who were rushing about. A voucher had been established for the police imposters. If anyone asked who they were, they were told to call a certain police captain who would vouch for the “new men on the force.”[69]

Secret Army Intelligence Team

The 902nd Military Intelligence Group under the command of Colonel John W. Downie—LBJ’s CIA Vietnam briefer—had been deployed to Memphis at the time of King’s visit with orders to shoot to kill him and aide Andrew Young [later mayor of Atlanta] on command.[70] King was considered “a Negro who repeatedly preached the message of Hanoi and Peking.”

The 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been involved in gun-running with mobster Carlos Marcello; weapons stolen from Army bases were delivered to Marcello and the proceeds were used to help fund black operations.[71] According to two sources, the 902ndincluded “Klan guys who hated niggers.” A Green Beret said that nobody in it had “any hesitancy about killing the two sacks of shit [King and Young].”[72]

Another Green Beret who participated in a clandestine training course in riot control and surveillance identified a CIA/NSA agent whom he had recognized from his time in Vietnam climbing down a wall behind the Lorraine Motel just after King was shot.[73]

A contact in the CIA had given Downie’s team a detailed area of operations map, pictures of cars used by the King group and Memphis police radio frequencies. It carried camera equipment and took up positions overlooking the Lorraine Motel and monitored King’s telephone conversations from Room 306 and other communications. They obtained pictures that caught the shooter as he was lowering his rifle and Jowers running back toward the rooming house. These were given to Colonel Downie and never revealed publicly.[74] The secret agent who snapped the photos said that the shooter was not Ray.[75]

Ties to Dallas ’63?

In the days after King’s killing, FBI agent Don Wilson came across a 1966 Mustang with Alabama plates in Atlanta and opened the car door. An envelope and some papers fell out, which he kept hidden for the next 29 years.

One piece came from a 1963 Dallas telephone directory. The telephone numbers on the page included those of the family of H.L. Hunt and had the name Raul, the letter J, and a Dallas telephone number, which turned out to be the number of the Vegas Club which, at the time, was run by Jack Ruby, the killer of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The second paper was a payoff list and included Raul’s name and a date for payment. A third piece of paper had a telephone number and extension of the Atlanta FBI field office.[76]

FBI’s War Against King

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg swore in an affidavit that, during a 1978 conversation with Brady Tyson, then an aide to UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Tyson said that a group of off-duty and retired FBI officers, including a sharpshooter, working under the personal direction of J. Edgar Hoover, killed King and then covered it up.[77]

According to Ron Adkins, Hoover’s right-hand man, Clyde Tolson—who allegedly was routinely given money by Hoover to perform criminal deeds including local contract killings—planned King’s assassination beginning in May 1964 on a cruise to Southampton, England, with Russell Adkins, Sr., Ron’s father and a Memphis city engineer, Klansman, and fixer for the Dixie mafia.[78]

Part of the plot involved Tolson’s providing envelopes of money to be paid to informants and $25,000 to the warden of the Missouri state prison, Harold Swenson, to arrange for Ray’s escape.[79]

Hoover had considered King an enemy of the state. In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, FBI officials had met in Washington to explore ways of “neutralizing King as an effective Negro leader.”[80]

Hidden microphones were placed in Dr. King’s hotel rooms in an attempt to pick up evidence of extramarital sexual activity, break up his marriage, or blackmail him.

The Bureau also engaged in surreptitious activities and burglaries against Dr. King and SCLC.[81] In a letter sent to King in 1964 calling King a “colossal fraud,” the FBI even encouraged him to commit suicide.

FBI-MPD Links

The FBI enjoyed very close connections with the Memphis PD.

E.H. Arkin founded MPD’s intelligence unit in 1967 under the tutelage of FBI agent William Lawrence, who headed the FBI Memphis Field Office’s domestic intelligence operations which surveilled King.[82]

The head of the MPD at the time of King’s assassination, Frank Holloman, was a 25-year FBI veteran from Mississippiwho was in charge of director J. Edgar Hoover’s Washington office from 1952 to 1959. In the mid-1960s, Holloman headed the FBI’s Atlanta office when it was the nerve center of surveillance and skullduggery directed against King.[83]

A law-and-order conservative who railed against “long-haired, foul-smelling hippies” and “hostile forces in Black Memphis,” Holloman promoted aggressive police tactics against Blacks during the sanitation workers strike whom he accused of adopting “guerrilla warfare” and oversaw an expansion of MPD’s internal security division.[84] The Tri-State Defendercalled Holloman an “advocator of genocide of Black people,” and included a cartoon depicting him firing his pistol under the shelter of hooded Klansmen.[85]

Holloman said that his first priority as police chief was to ensure that “there was always a ‘two-way street in terms of the flow of information’ between the MPD and FBI.”[86] He was the one to move the Black firemen and pull Black detective Ed Redditt away from protecting King—and, according to witnesses interviewed by William Pepper, was involved in numerous other aspects of the planning of King’s death.[87]

FBI Gets King to Stay at the Lorraine Motel—and Switch His Room

On March 29, 1968, the FBI issued from headquarters a COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program) memorandum, written by G.C. Moore, chief of the racial intelligence section, to William C. Sullivan, Assistant Director in charge of the intelligence division, that was designed to influence King to stay at the Lorraine Motel when he returned to Memphis on April 3.

The memo recommended placement of a news item with the Bureau’s friendly sources which would read as follows:

The fine Hotel Lorraine in Memphis is owned and patronized exclusively by Negroes but King didn’t go there after his hasty exit [from] the demonstration of March 28. Instead, King decided the plush Holiday Inn Motel, white-owned, operated and almost exclusively white patronized, was the place to “cool it.” There will be no boycott of white merchants for King, only for his followers.[88]

National Civil Rights Museum at the Lorraine Motel – US Civil Rights Trail

The FBI made sure that King stayed at the Lorraine Motel during his visit to Memphis so that the assassination plot against him could be consummated. [Source: civilrightsall.com]

A retired New York Police detective later uncovered that King was initially supposed to stay in a secluded room in the motel, #202, but was moved to Room 306 with an exposed balcony after the concierge received a call supposedly from SCLC in Atlanta asking for the change in room. According to William Pepper and Phillip Nelson, the caller was actually an FBI infiltrator inside SCLC who acted under the orders of police chief Holloman and had been paid through an intermediary. The infiltrator or possibly infiltrators also had the task of getting King out of his room onto the balcony before 6 PM and making sure he was wearing a tie so he could be identified by the assassin.[89]

Coverup

After King’s death, the FBI took charge of the investigation from the MPD, even though the murder was a state and not federal crime. There was an inexplicable 30-minute delay—which enabled the killers to get away. Obvious leads and significant witnesses were subsequently ignored or dismissed, and the Bureau’s files sanitized.[90] An autopsy of King—amazingly—was never conducted.[91]

To help convince the public of Ray’s guilt, the FBI had William Bradford Huie—editor of The American Mercury[92] literary magazine—write a book on Ray that depicted him as a deranged lone gunman.

A conservative Alabaman, Huie had known J. Edgar Hoover since the 1930s. He claimed that Ray was a vicious southern racist who had stalked King, which was untrue. Huie was given access to Ray by his first lawyer, Arthur Hanes, Sr.– a former FBI and CIA agent and the mayor of Birmingham when Eugene “Bull” Connor ordered the use of police dogs and fire hoses against civil rights protesters.[93]

Cartha DeLoach, the FBI agent placed in charge of the investigation, had written a memo to J. Edgar Hoover suggesting that the FBI “quietly sponsor a book” that would tell the “true story of the King case” and “advise friendly newsmen” on a “strictly confidential basis” that Coretta Scott and Ralph Abernathy “were deliberately trying to keep King’s assassination in the news by pulling the ruse of maintaining the King murder was definitely a conspiracy and not committed by one man in order to keep the money coming to Ms. King.”[94]

Captain Ed Atkinson, an aide to Memphis PD chief Frank Holloman, said that he overheard the discussion of two FBI agents at the bathroom window at the rear of the rooming house after the killing in which one of the agents said that the tree branch would have to be cut because no one would ever believe that a shooter could make the shot from that point with the tree in the way.

After undergoing hypnosis, Atkinson identified Memphis police Captain Earl Clark as the one who called for the cutting down of the tree branch.

Drawing King to Memphis

The sanitation workers strike in Memphis started after two Black sanitation workers, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, were crushed to death in the back of a garbage truck on February 1st after taking temporary shelter from a hard rain by kneeling inside the back of the truck.

According to Ron Adkins, whose father Russell ran the Memphis city garbage dump, Cole and Walker did not die because of an accident; “somebody pulled the hammer, pulled the lever on the truck and mashed them up in there.”[95]

The motive behind the killings was to precipitate the strike that would draw King to Memphis—the ideal place for him to be killed. Memphis was ideal because of the close connection between J. Edgar Hoover and Memphis police Chief Holloman and the hostility toward King exhibited by Memphis Mayor Henry Loeb—a segregationist whose family had made a fortune in the dry-cleaning business exploiting Black labor.

Furthermore, Tennessee’s governor, Buford Ellingtone, was a close friend of President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Hoover ally who also wanted King dead.[96]

Ellington’s involvement in the coverup was demonstrated when he fired the state’s commissioner of corrections, Harry S. Avery, after he had begun to investigate King’s death when he came across a letter to Ray typed on McGill University letterhead, which Avery believed might have been related to how Ray was able to obtain his aliases and some Canadian passports.[97]

Ghouls in White Smocks

After more than four decades, Johnton Shelby came forward relaying the story of his mother, Lula Mae, who was a surgical aide at St. Joseph’s Hospital that took part in Dr. King’s emergency treatment.

The morning after King’s death she had gathered her family to tell them that, as doctors were working to save King, one of the orderlies, John Billings, following doctors instructions, left the room to “find the men in charge.” When he returned with them, the doctors said there was nothing more they could do to save King and then instructed the rest of the staff to leave the room and not talk about what had occurred.

According to Lula Mae, who was the last to leave the room, King was still alive at that time. As she made her way out of the room, the head of surgery—Dr. Breen Bland, a pioneer in blood transfusions and polio vaccinations—and a couple of men in suits told the doctors to “stop working on that nigger and let him die.”

She also heard spitting sounds and turned around just in time to see doctors spitting on King and removing his ventilator tube while putting a pillow over his face to ensure that he died.

Ron Adkins, under oath, stated that he had been with his father, and after he died, his older brother Russell Adkins Jr., when his father and brother discussed the plan with Dr. Bland and Frank Holloman regarding the need to take King to St. Joseph’s Hospital if he had not been killed. Ron recalled that Dr. Bland was prepared to give King a certain lethal injection if it became necessary.[98]

Poor Buddy

On the night of April 4, cab driver Louis Ward went straight to the airport after hearing of King’s shooting and met a fellow driver he knew as Buddy, who said he had gone to the Lorraine Motel shortly before 6 p.m. to pick up a passenger with an enormous amount of luggage.[99]

As they finished loading up his taxi in the Lorraine parking lot, Buddy—who was in his early sixties—turned to look to the area of dense brush and trees opposite the motel. The passenger then punched him on the arm to distract him and told him to look up at King on the balcony where he appeared to be a sitting duck for any would-be assassin.

At that precise moment, King was struck by the fatal bullet, Buddy saw a man [thought to be Earl Clark] come down the wall from the balcony empty handed and get into a black and white Memphis PD car which was stopped at the middle of the intersection between Mulberry and Huling.

The passenger at this time became irritable, saying he had to leave immediately because otherwise the ambulance and other cars would box them in, and he had a plane to catch.

When Ward asked about Buddy a few days later, three or four other drivers in the main taxi office told him they understood he had fallen or been pushed from a speeding car from Route 55 on the other side of the Memphis-Arkansas Bridge late in the evening of April 4 and was dead.[100]

A Pile of Corpses

John Larry Ray—who spent 18 years behind bars after being framed for a crime he says he did not commit—wrote that “the coverup of the King assassination left a pile of corpses in its wake.”[101]

Three months after Jimmy Hoffa’s lawyer, Z.T. Osborn, Jr., decided to help James Earl Ray with his case, he abruptly committed “suicide”—which his wife did not believe.[102]

Two judges considering Ray’s request for a retrial—W. Preston Battle and William E. Miller—died of suspicious heart attacks.[103] Just before he died, Battle had received a request for a new trial from one of Ray’s new attorneys, Richard J. Ryan, which was refused by Battle’s successor, Judge Arthur Faquin, Jr., in contradiction to existing Tennessee law.[104]

The Church Committee hearings later revealed that the CIA had developed a “heart attack gun” which could deliver a tiny frozen needle that, upon entering the body, would deliver a toxin that induced a heart attack but then became undetectable at autopsy.[105]

In July 1969, King’s brother, the Reverend Alfred Daniel King, was found dead in his home after an apparent swimming pool accident (“accidental drowning”). By all accounts, he was a fantastic swimmer.[106]

The emergency responders said upon arrival, “Ain’t no water in his lungs, he was dead before he hit the water.” King’s wife, Naomi, said “Absolutely, he was murdered. He was an excellent swimmer. There was no water in his lungs. He was in the fetal position. He had a bruised forehead. Rings around his neck. And he was in his underwear. He was murdered.”

In 1971, Bill Sartor, a 32-year-old writer for Life and Look magazines on the trail of the Marcello/Liberto organized crime connection to King’s death, was murdered in Waco, Texas, the night before he was to interview a nightclub owner linked to Marcello. Sartor was given a lethal dose of methaqualone—slipped into his drink.[107]

Six years after Sartor’s death, former FBI assistant director of intelligence William Sullivan was shot and killed by a man (Robert Daniels) who mistook him for a deer while deer-hunting. The killing occurred shortly before he was scheduled to testify before the HSCA about his former boss, J. Edgar Hoover’s, hatred of King.[108]

Getting Away with Murder

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination was a major negative turning point in American history.

It sparked riots that played into Richard Nixon’s call for law and order, deprived the civil rights and Vietnam anti-war movements of its greatest leader, and destroyed prospects for an inter-racial movement of the poor. Afterwards, two U.S. Army brigades were until 1971 stationed on permanent standby to deal with domestic unrest as part of Operation GARDEN PLOT.

King had prophesied that a world starved of love—in which human caring and the spiritual dimension are de-emphasized—would become one of material scarcity, massive inequality, overly stressed environmental systems, and social disintegration.

The men who killed King were very clearly starved of love. The evidence indicates that they continue to enjoy impunity for their crime because the U.S. government will never admit that it was behind the killing of a national treasure.

*

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.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. See Michael K. Honey, Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King’s Last Campaign (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007); Michael Eric Dyson, I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: The Free Press, 2001); William F. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2016), xvi, xvii. The Johnson administration disbanded the National Conference for New Politics which promoted the King-Spock ticket by having infiltrators adopt an anti-Israel platform that alienated Jewish financiers.
  2. On Ray’s background, see Clay Blair, Jr., The Strange Case of James Earl Ray: The Man Who Murdered Martin Luther King (New York: New York Times Company, 1969); William Bradford Huie, He Slew the Dreamer: My Search for the Truth about James Earl Ray and the Murder of Martin Luther King (W.H. Allen/Virgin Books, 1970); and James Earl Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? The True Story by the Alleged Assassin, with foreword by Jesse Jackson and Mark Lane (Washington, D.C.: National Press Books, 1992).
  3. William F. Pepper, Orders to Kill: The Truth Behind the Murder of Martin Luther King (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), 39.
  4. Ray used the alias John Willard and rejected a room in the south of the house for one with a view of the Lorraine Motel.
  5. Phillip F. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? The Case Against Lyndon B. Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, with new foreword by Edgar F. Tarro (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2018), 210.
  6. William F. Pepper, An Act of State: The Execution of Martin Luther King (London: Verso, 2003). Martin Luther King III holds the same view as his mother, telling reporters in 1986 that “in my opinion it had to be a conspiracy of some kind. It’s probably a fact—but that’s just my opinion—that the intelligence community played a role. I know whatever happened it was a serious, massive effort.” Philip H. Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination: New Revelations on the Conspiracy and Cover-up, 1968-1991 (New York: Shapolsky Publishers Inc., 1989), 185.
  7. Foreman told a woman he was attracted to named Gloria that Ray was innocent but “had to be sacrificed.” Pepper, An Act of State, 56. Ray had been subjected to inhumane prison conditions, deprived of access to fresh air, natural light, privacy or basic hygienic or toiletry functions—which was designed to coerce from him a guilty plea.
  8. Jeff Cohen, “The Assassination of Martin Luther King,” in Government by Gunplay: Assassination Conspiracy Theories from Dallas to Today, Sid Blumenthal and Harvey Yazijian, eds., with introduction by Philip Agee (New York: Signet, 1976), 50. Foreman began negotiating for a guilty plea before undertaking an investigation of the evidence in the case.
  9. John Larry Ray and Lyndon Barsten, Truth at Last: The Untold Story Behind James Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (Guilford, CT: The Lyons Press, 2008), 162, 183. The crime scene investigator was named Herb McDonnell who had also analyzed the murders of Fred Hampton and Robert Kennedy. The bathroom wall was too close to have allowed the Remington rifle enough room to sit at an angle that could fire to Room 306 at the Lorraine. In 2012, during a $27.5 million renovation to the Lorraine Motel and Bessie Brewer’s rooming house, the bathroom was remodeled to make it appear more like a sniper’s nest from where the shot that killed King could have been legitimately fired.
  10. Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 169. Memphis PD officer J.E. “Bud” Ghormley also went from Fire Station #2 behind the Lorraine Motel to South Main along with a patrolman named Gross in under two minutes and saw nobody running from the flophouse—even though it surely would have taken Ray longer than two minutes to put his bundle together—containing the rifle, radio, cans of beer and other assorted items—and flee. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 115.
  11. Pepper, An Act of State, 48. Witnesses saw no police cars parked in that spot. The drop would have been a detour of time and motion for Ray who was unlikely to have willfully incriminated himself. Besides the murder weapon, the bedsheet included his prison radio with his inmate number on it. Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 113.
  12. Pepper, An Act of State, 227; Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 134; Pepper, Orders to Kill, 137; Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 110, 111.
  13. Harold Weisberg, Frame-Up: The Assassination of Martin Luther King, with a postscript by James Earl Ray, rev. ed. (New York: Skyhorse, 1993), 440.
  14. The bedsheet was filled with beer bottles and some bobby pins, which a fleeing killer would never likely have taken pains to try and preserve.
  15. Pepper, An Act of State, 15, 116; Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 11; Weisberg, Frame-Up, 160, 161.
  16. Pepper, An Act of State, 196. Roy Davis said that “he would not like to rely on him [Stephens] as my only witness.” [NOTE: Who is Roy Davis?]
  17. Pepper, An Act of State, 15; Pepper, Orders to Kill, 153.
  18. Walden said that Ray was not the man who emerged from the bathroom after the shooting, and that she had been offered $100,000 to lie and pinpoint Ray as the man she saw. When she refused to do so, she was whisked away to an insane asylum outside the city, which she claims was an attempt to silence her. She had no history of psychiatric problems and later won release from court after ten years of incarceration. Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 11. Gerald Posner—in Killing the Dream: James Earl Ray and the Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Random House, 1995), 234—claims that Walden was an alcoholic and uncredible witness who was admitted to the psychiatric hospital after she had been taken to the hospital because she hurt her foot. Riddled with anxiety, she was examined by a staff psychiatrist who said she found her to be suffering from psychotic depression and was suicidal. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia, chronic brain syndrome induced by alcoholism and delusional behavior and suffered from confabulations, or a desire to concoct stories to fill a gap in her memory. Lawyer Mark Lane, however, discovered that a series of illegal actions by the police and hospital was the basis of Walden’s confinement and that the real reason, according to her attorney C.M. Murphy, was to “safeguard their case against Ray”—meaning that it was about forcibly preventing exculpatory evidence that would point to Ray’s innocence.
  19. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 94. The man she saw went out the rear door and not front.
  20. Pepper, An Act of State, 15; Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 160.
  21. Pepper, An Act of State, 15.Curiously, Ray’s Mustang getaway car was found overflowing with ashes and cigarette butts though Ray had been a lifelong non-smoker and was a fanatic for cleanliness. Michael Newton, The King Conspiracy (Los Angeles, Calif.: Holloway House Publishing, 1987), 8.
  22. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 113, 114. Two eyewitnesses, William Reed and Ray Hendrix, who had earlier looked at Ray’s Mustang, claimed to have seen it driven by a man resembling Ray turn the corner on South Maine Street in front of them around 5:45 p.m.
  23. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last; Blair, Jr., The Strange Case of James Earl Ray, 97. Posner, Killing the Dream, 91, 135, includes interviews of people Ray was in jail with who said he was a racist and pointed to Ray’s valorization of Hitler during World War II and Northern and Southern Rhodesia to where he tried to escape after King’s killing. The credibility of these testimonies has been put into question, however, and other of Ray’s cellmates in prison and others who knew him insist he was not a racist and could not have killed King. Posner claims that Ray once said, after watching King in the Jefferson City prison on television, that he would kill King. However, it was later confirmed by the warden that prisoners could only watch tv starting in 1970. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 242, 243.
  24. Ray never fired a gun in any of the robberies in which he participated and never upgraded his marksmanship skills from his days in the U.S. Army. Researcher Philip Melanson writes that there was no evidence that Ray “had ever shot at another human being much less killed one, or that he was violence prone. Yet he allegedly became a cold-blooded killer for hire.” Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 123.
  25. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 159.
  26. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 136, 210. Jim Reid, a Memphis Press-Scimitar reporter and photographer, took a picture of the cutting.
  27. Pepper, An Act of State, 12; Jesse Ventura, with Dick Russell, American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies and More Dirty Lies That the Government Tells Us (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010), 57. One of those witnesses was Andrew Young.
  28. Newton, The King Conspiracy, 50. The man, according to Carter, then threw the gun into the bushes, put the barrel into his jacket and melted into the crowd.
  29. Pepper, An Act of State, 115. Catling said that she was never interviewed by any law enforcement officials. She lived close to the scene of King’s death for 32 years though, inexplicably, nobody knocked on her door until Ray’s attorney, William Pepper, did in November 1999. At the time, she said she was relieved to get the information off her chest and had been burdened all these years because she knew that an innocent man was in prison. Catling also said that right after the shooting she witnessed a white man running from an alley halfway up Huling Street, which ran to a building connected to the rooming house. He arrived at a car parked on the south side of Huling and facing east, got in, and drove quickly away, turning left onto Mulberry and going right past her and the Memphis police officers opposite her who were manning the barricade. She was surprised that the police paid no attention to him and did not try to prevent him from leaving the area. The man, she said, was not Ray, as he was heavier than Ray.
  30. Pepper, An Act of State, 12.
  31. Pepper, An Act of State, 117. Memphis police dog officer J.B. Hodges discovered footprints from the bushes to the rooming house which were never identified or explained.
  32. Pepper, An Act of State, 18, 132, 133.
  33. Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, Code Name “Zorro”: The Murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1977), 279.
  34. Pepper, An Act of State, 18, 193; Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 172.
  35. The FBI had told Redditt that he was under the threat of assassination but then cabled the MPD that this threat was a mistake. Despite being told the latter, the MPD still kept Redditt under home confinement. The source of the alleged threat—the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party—gives indication of the underlying political agenda at play.
  36. Pepper, An Act of State, 18. Something else unexplained was that the Invaders, a black group trying to address local needs in the city, was given an order to leave the motel ten minutes before King was shot.
  37. Pepper, An Act of State. A skeptical view of Spates’s claims about Jowers is found in Posner, Killing the Dream, 282. Posner claims that Spates, who was only seventeen at the time, never worked at Jim’s Grill and was not reported by police as having been at the grill at the time of King’s killing when they had interviewed patrons and staff there just after the killing. He also claims that Jowers was motivated by the potential for financial gain and that his story was false.
  38. Pepper, An Act of State, 23, 32, 33, 47, 160. The customers were talking, drinking and playing shuffleboard and barely noticed Jowers.
  39. Pepper, An Act of State, 26, 214. Akins also allegedly threatened Betty Spates and her sister Bobbi who knew too much about the killing. Posner, Killing the Dream, 282. Jowers told Akins about his involvement in the assassination after he had been drinking. An FBI agent told Bill Hamblin that the CIA had ordered King’s killing.
  40. Pepper, An Act of State, 119.
  41. Pepper, An Act of State, 26. The HSCA inexplicably failed to interview McFerren.
  42. Pepper, An Act of State, 28.
  43. Pepper, An Act of State, 145.
  44. Clark died in 1987. His wife concocted an alibi for Earl that broke down under scrutiny. Pepper, An Act of State, 152, 153.
  45. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King.
  46. Pepper, An Act of State, 13, 94; Pepper, Orders to Kill, 130, 152; Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 171; Honey, Going Down Jericho Road, 405. McCollough supplied Lt. Eli Arkin, his MPD intelligence division control officer, with regular reports on the Invaders. One police officer later said that he was so strident in his statements that officers who did not know he was an agent “would have given their eye teeth to have him locked up.” The Invaders promoted violence and participated in provocative acts during the sanitation workers strike as part of an effort to discredit King.
  47. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King, 223, 224, 227, 228. Curtis was intimidated into silence after the killing.
  48. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King, 232, 234.
  49. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 18, 19, 20.
  50. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 20. Barsten found that some of the men listed as being part of the unit were not actually there. In 1970, when Congressman L. Mendel Rivers (Dem.-S.C.) tried to access Ray’s Army records, he was stonewalled and told there were sensitive medical aspects that could not be disclosed. In Ventura, American Conspiracies, 62.
  51. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 96.
  52. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 23, 103. Barsten found one surviving 7892nd Regiment medical file indicating that a soldier named Neal Thompson was given the hypnotic drug phenobarbital. John Larry Ray believes the shooting of Washington may have been part of a drugging operation and asks whether James’s psychological makeup was the reason he was chosen to be a patsy years later in the murder of Martin Luther King, Jr.
  53. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 27.
  54. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 28.
  55. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 50.
  56. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 53.
  57. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 54. Members of Nash’s family blamed his death on U.S. intelligence agencies.
  58. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 56, 57, 62. Peterson wrote a book on hypnosis. In the early 1970s, Freedom magazine published an article asserting that mind-control operations were being run in the Fulton, Missouri, prison where Ray was treated.
  59. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 62.
  60. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 73; Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr. Ray’s brother John Larry was told through the criminal grapevine that his brother’s escape from prison was orchestrated by Richard Helms and the CIA and its agents, such as Wilkinson, who ran the prison.
  61. Not knowing anything about rifles, Ray bought the wrong one and had to go back. He was also sent by Raoul on undisclosed missions to Los Angeles and Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.
  62. Pepper, An Act of State, 77. Galt had a top-secret security clearance. Union Carbide was, at the time, engaged in high-security research projects controlled by its U.S. parent.
  63. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 435; Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, ch. 5.
  64. Ray had been told to go to Memphis for a gun-smuggling operation that Raoul said would make him rich.
  65. Joe Davis, “The King Assassination: Was James Earl Ray a Patsy?” Ann Arbor Sun, January 22, 1976, https://aadl.org/node/200647; Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 104. Perhaps not coincidentally, Grace Walden identified the man leaving the rooming house as a Louisiana State trooper, who may have been the same Raoul.
  66. Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 177, 178, 179; Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 84. When Melanson questioned Ray about Kimble, he became very nervous. Kimble reportedly had contacts with CIA flyer David Ferrie who was allegedly implicated in the Kennedy assassination.
  67. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 28. Kimble’s claims are partially corroborated by his then-girlfriend Marcelle Mathieu. A Canadian reporter, Andy Salwyn found witnesses who placed Kimble in Montreal in the summer of 1967, at the same time as Ray, and he provided this information in a detailed report to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).
  68. See Alfred W. McCoy, A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2005).
  69. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 104. He also said that someone other than Ray dropped the bundle in front of the Canipe Amusement Company. Adding some credence to Kimble’s theory, in 1975, Memphis PD officer Eddie Redditt was flown to Washington to identify Memphis PD officers at the scene—and left to wonder why he had to fly all the way to Washington to do so. The trip would make sense if the FBI was nervous that the identities of the police at the scene of King’s death could be revealed or fraud uncovered.
  70. Stephen G. Tompkins, “Army Feared King, Secretly Watched Him: Spying on Blacks Started 75 Years Ago,” The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, Tennessee, March 21, 1993, https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ArmyFearedKing.html. Army Intelligence opened its file on King in 1947 with a photograph showing him and other Morehouse College students leaving a meeting of Mrs. Dorothy Lilley’s Intercollegiate Council. Lilley was a suspected Communist. In 1917, Army intelligence had spied on King’s maternal grandfather, Reverend A.D. Williams, who was a founder of the Atlanta chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which army intelligence officers believed was “an agitative pro-Soviet organization for propagandizing the Negroes,” according to a 1926 report by Lt. Col. Walter O. Boswell, Army Intelligence executive officer at the War Department.
  71. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King, 135.
  72. Pepper, An Act of State, 68. Downie had advised LBJ to get out of Vietnam, prompting LBJ to pound the table and say, “I cannot get out of Vietnam, John, my friends are making too much money.” These friends included Texas oil barons H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison and George Brown, CEO of Brown & Root.
  73. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 432. Memphis police who participated in the clandestine training course in riot control and surveillance believed it was a cover for a covert intelligence operation run by its instructor, nicknamed Coop, who dropped out of sight just before King’s assassination.
  74. Pepper, An Act of State, 161; Pepper, Orders to Kill, 419-430. Downie was commander of the 902nd Military Intelligence Group, a unit based inside the Department of Defense. Posner disputes the existence of this team in chapter 32 of Killing the Dream. CIA operative Jack Terrell, a whistleblower in the Iran-Contra scandal, testified at the 1999 civil trial that his friend J.D. Hill was part of an army sniper team deployed to Memphis on April 4, though their mission was canceled. Hill died suspiciously in a murder that was blamed on his wife but had the appearance of a professional killing. Hill was known to drink heavily and may have begun to talk to others about the Memphis operation.
  75. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 434. After the assassination, police picked up a man named Ted Andrews wearing a dark suit who looked like Ray and was staying in Bessie Brewer’s rooming house. He had a background in the U.S. Navy—which the FBI deleted information about. Andrews never established a proper alibi and remains a figure of suspicion. Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 117-123.
  76. Pepper, An Act of State, 101.
  77. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 89.
  78. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King, 238; Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 82, 83. Russell Adkins, Sr., died in 1967. His son Russell, Jr., a 30-year Marine Corps veteran, took over in the planning of King’s killing after his death. Ron served six years in the U.S. Marine Corps. He said that, until he was nine years old, his father took him to meetings including with Tolson, Mayor Henry Loeb, and mobsters Frank Liberto and Carlos Marcello.
  79. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 84; Pepper. The Plot to Kill King, 40. Adkins witnessed the $25,000 payoff to Swenson.
  80. Pepper, An Act of State, 11.
  81. Pepper, An Act of State; David J. Garrow, The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.: From “Solo” to Memphis (New York: W.W. Norton, 1981).
  82. Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 74.
  83. Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 248; Pepper, Orders to Kill, 14; Melanson, The Martin Luther King Assassination, 74; Lane and Gregory, Code Name “Zorro,” 144. Holloman said he was a good friend of Hoover. When the FBI’s Atlanta office that Holloman had headed, heard news of King’s assassination, they yelled “we got Zorro.”
  84. Honey, Going Down Jericho Road, 388.
  85. Honey, Going Down Jericho Road, 360, 370. The MPD killed a Black teenager, Charles Payne, and mercilessly beat many protesters and looters during the sanitation workers strike, invaded people’s homes and called Blacks the n-word. Holloman said that there was a war in the streets of Memphis and that the police had used restraint.
  86. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 68.
  87. Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 248; Pepper, The Plot to Kill King; Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 162.
  88. Pepper, An Act of State, 186, 187.
  89. Pepper, An Act of State, 190, 240; Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr.,162, 203-206.
  90. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 482, 483. Pepper notes that the drunkenness of the state’s main witness, Charlie Stephens, was concealed. Pepper asks where are: the interviews conducted of yellow cab driver Paul, the photographs of the bullet removed from King’s body, the photographs of the scene of the crime as it was at the time, before the bushes at the back of the rooming house and the hedge between the parking lot and the fire station had been cut down?
  91. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., xxix.
  92. Founded by H.L. Mencken, The American Mercury was once a great magazine that featured essays by luminaries like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Langston Hughes, William Faulkner, W.E.B. DuBois and Carl Sandburg. According to Phillip Nelson, however, Huie managed to turn the Mercury into an FBI/CIA rag whose roster of writers included J. Edgar Hoover. Before its ultimate demise, it became a chronicle of racism and anti-semitism.
  93. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 104, 105, 380, 381. The FBI additionally sponsored Gerold Frank’s book, An American Death: The True Story of the Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Greatest Manhunt of Our Time (New York: Doubleday, 1972) and a book by George McMillan who had long connections to the CIA.After leaving the FBI in 1959, Hanes became a security officer with the Hayes Aircraft Corporation in Birmingham while doubling as a CIA agent. The CIA recruited Hayes employees as pilots for the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco, and when four. of them died in an abortive raid, Hanes drew the assignment of warning their widows to keep eternal silence. Newton, The King Conspiracy, 174.
  94. Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr.? 250; Pepper, Orders to Kill, 53.
  95. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 70. Ron called Clyde Tolson “Uncle Clyde.”
  96. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 77.
  97. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 77.
  98. Pepper, The Plot to Kill King, 261, 274; Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 197, 198.
  99. William Pepper refers to Buddy as Paul. Buddy’s last name was thought to be Butler.
  100. Pepper, An Act of State, 51, 52; Pepper, The Plot to Kill King, 113. Buddy’s killer was reportedly Chester “Chess” Butler, a master killer used sometimes by Russell Adkins, Sr. Ron Adkins observed the scene in which Buddy’s cab was being loaded with heavy bags and said that he heard Butler confess to killing Buddy in front of his wife, Mildred, the night that he killed him. Adkins said that Chess had been told to take care of Buddy by either Holloman or Russell Jr or Earl Clark, one or the other. Clark was concerned because he thought the driver saw him come down from the wall and turned to face him, and therefore could have identified him.
  101. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 136. 137. John Larry believes that the feds may have killed his friend Margie, who died of a heart attack in her mid-twenties. She had been a liaison between him and the FBI. King’s mother, Alberta, was tragically murdered in a church shooting at Ebenezer Baptist Church in 1974 which was also suspicious.
  102. Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 136.
  103. Ray, Who Killed Martin Luther King Jr. 138-140, 163; Ray and Barsten, Truth at Last, 168.
  104. Ryan attributed Faquin’s decision to an FBI-CIA conspiracy.
  105. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 260.
  106. The week after his brother’s death, Alfred had given a powerful sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta entitled “Why America May Go to Hell.”
  107. Pepper, Orders to Kill, 239; Ventura, American Conspiracies, 58. Sartor, who was on the staff of the Birmingham News, had reported on an alleged meeting between Ray and an associate Charles Stein with members of the Carlos Marcello crime family in New Orleans before King’s assassination. Sartor’s original death certificate was evasive, stating that the cause of death was undetermined. After 21 years, it was acknowledged that he died from an overdose when Sartor was not known to use drugs of any kind. The Waco district attorney had characterized his death as a homicide. Louis Lomax, a Black journalist who was investigating the deaths of both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., also died in a suspicious car accident.
  108. Nelson, Who REALLY Killed Martin Luther King Jr., 400. Gary Revel, who worked on the HSCA investigation, wrote to author Phillip Nelson that his “brother and cousin’s husband, Ivan Riley, as well as Sullivan and five other FBI officials who could have been valuable to my investigation died mysteriously or were simply killed during 1977.” Sullivan was a liberal Democrat who came to work one day in 1971 to find the lock on his door changed and nameplate removed. He had begun to speak out, saying that Hoover had greatly overemphasized the threat to national security posed by the American Communist Party while devoting less attention than was warranted to violations of Federal civil rights laws in the South.

Featured image: MLK as target. [Source: biography.com] Right: J. Edgar Hoover firing a rifle. [Source: theguardian.com] Artwork courtesy of Steve Brown.

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.

***

 

Dr. Meryl Nass is an outstanding medical doctor.

She is a regular contributor to Global Research. To consult her articles click here.

This is a report by London’s Daily Mail presents the facts in a biased way, intimating (without a shred of evidence ) that Dr. Meryl Nass was  involved in malpractice and misinformation regarding Covid-19.

The truth is that she has courageously confronted Big Pharma and the vaccine mandate.

To see her detailed response, click here

What is featured below are the first three paragraphs of the Daily Mail article.

***

A medical board in Maine has suspended the license of an MIT-educated doctor and ordered a psychiatric evaluation after she was accused of treating some of her patients with Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine and spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

Maine’s Board of Licensure in Medicine voted last week to conduct a deeper investigation into Dr Meryl Nass, from Ellsworth. The board also voted to suspend her license for 30 days and have her undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The board stated in its January 12 order that allowing Nass to continue practicing medicine ‘constitutes an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of the public who might receive her medical services.’

Nass, 70, is an internist who is active in Children’s Health Defense, a group that agitates against vaccines and vaccine mandates.

Read full article here

*

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 Facebook via DMO

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.

***

VAERS data released Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 21,745 deaths and 170,446 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today released new data showing a total of 1,033,994 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 1, 2022, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.

The data included a total of 21,745 reports of deaths — an increase of 363 over the previous week — and 170,446 reports of serious injuries, including deaths, during the same time period — up 3,840 compared with the previous week.

Excluding “foreign reports” to VAERS, 723,042 adverse events, including 9,936 deaths and 64,406 serious injuries, were reported in the U.S. between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2022.

Foreign reports are reports foreign subsidiaries send to U.S. vaccine manufacturers. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.

Of the 9,936 U.S. deaths reported as of Jan. 7, 19% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

In the U.S., 516 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Jan. 7, including 303 million doses of Pfizer, 197 million doses of Moderna and 18 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

From the 1/7/22 release of VAERS data.

Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 5- to 11-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 7-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1975356) from Minnesota who died 11 days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine when she was found unresponsive by her mother. An autopsy is pending.

  • 14 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation).
  • 22 reports of blood clotting disorders.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

The most recent death involves a 15-year-old girl from Minnesota (VAERS I.D. 1974744), who died 177 days after receiving her second dose of Pfizer from a pulmonary embolus. An autopsy is pending.

  • 62 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
    attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 589 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis with 578 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
  • 149 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.

U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Jan. 7, 2022, for all age groups combined, show:

26-year-old man dies from myocarditis caused by Pfizer COVID vaccine

A 26-year-old South Dakota man died Nov. 12, 2021, of myocarditis, just four days after receiving a booster dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Joseph Keating had no idea he was experiencing a rare and supposedly “mild” heart problem after the shot.

His only warning signs were fatigue, muscle soreness and an increased heart rate, family members said.

In an exclusive interview Jan. 11 with The Defender, Joseph’s father, mother and sister said the CDC had not investigated Joseph’s death, nor did the agency contact the pathologist who performed the autopsy or request the documents which confirmed Joseph’s death was caused by the Pfizer vaccine.

According to the autopsy report and certificate of death, Joseph died from severe heart damage from “myocarditis in the left ventricle due to the recent Pfizer COVID-19 booster vaccine.”

Supreme Court strikes down OSHA mandate, allows healthcare mandate to proceed

​​The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued two opinions on the Biden administration’s COVID vaccine mandates on whether to stay or to grant temporary injunctions requested by plaintiffs in a number of lawsuits challenging the emergency mandates for millions of Americans.

First, the justices rejected the Biden administration’s mandate requiring employees of large businesses to be vaccinated against COVID or undergo weekly testing and wear a mask indoors while working.

​​The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) vaccine-or-test rule on U.S. businesses with at least 100 employees.

In a second ruling, the justices said the mandates for workers in healthcare facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding could stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through the lower courts.

The mandate is estimated to affect 10.3 million healthcare workers in the U.S., but allows for religious and medical exemptions.

Pfizer CEO says 2 shots offer ‘very limited protection, if any’ against COVID

During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said two doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — initially referred to as a full regimen — “offers very limited protection, if any” against the Omicron variant.

When a third, or booster dose, is administered the vaccine offers only “reasonable protection” against hospitalization and death from Omicron and “less protection against infection,” Bourla said.

Bourla previously claimed a two-dose regimen was “100% effective.”

EU regulators, WHO call for end of boosters

European Union drug regulators on Tuesday warned frequent COVID boosters could risk overloading the immune system and said there are currently no data to support repeated doses.

This comes a month after the regulators said it made sense to “administer COVID-19 vaccine boosters as early as three months after the initial two-shot regimen,” amid concerns over the Omicron variant.

The World Health Organization’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition on Jan. 11 also warned, “a vaccination strategy based on repeated booster doses of the original vaccine composition is unlikely to be appropriate or sustainable.”

The group said giving additional doses of already existing vaccines as new strains of the virus emerge is not the best way to fight a pandemic, as currently available COVID vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission and the current composition of COVID vaccines need to be updated.

Djokovic’s visa canceled second time over unvaccinated status

Australian authorities today revoked Novak Djokovic’s visa due to his unvaccinated status, in the latest twist in the ongoing battle over whether the nine-time Australian Open champion will be allowed to defend his title.

As The Defender reported, Australian Minister Alex Hawke used his ministerial discretion to cancel the No. 1 ranked Tennis player’s visa citing “health or good order grounds,” just three days before the Australian Open begins and four days after a federal judge ordered Djokovic be released from hotel detention when his visa was revoked the first time.

Djokovic’s lawyers are contesting the visa cancellation in court, in an attempt to allow him to play in the prestigious tennis tournament. If unsuccessful, Djokovic will face deportation.

*

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.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

Violence Increasing in Yemen

January 18th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg.

***

 

Day after day, the tensions worsen in Yemen. Recently, the Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for a series of explosions that hit the capital of the United Arab Emirates, damaging places of great strategic value, such as Abu Dhabi airport. In response, a new coalition’s offensive began, with violent bombings being operated in Sanaa.

The Arab coalition has launched a major bombing campaign in the Yemeni capital. The attack, according to information provided by the alliance’s spokespersons, is “in response to threat and military necessity”. Such “necessity” refers to recent attacks operated by the Houthis against targets outside the Yemeni territory.

The numbers of dead and injured people so far are imprecise, but it is known that many people have been hurt during the coalition’s maneuvers. According to information provided by Al Masirah, a pro-Houthi Yemeni TV channel, four people died and five were injured during the alliance’s operations. Later, some sources began to report that more than ten people had already died, including women and children. As expected, the pro-coalition media channels point to data in the opposite direction, emphasizing the number of dead left by the Houthis attacks in Abu Dhabi and ignoring the victims of the military actions carried out by the Arab group.

In an official statement this week, coalition’s spokespersons wrote the following words about the attacks: “The coalition air force is conducting a round-the-clock operation in the skies over Sanaa (…) We urge civilians to stay away from military camps and Houthi gatherings for their safety”. Some details about the targets hit by the maneuvers were also provided. Apparently, coalition’s F-15 fighters hit “two ballistic missile launchers that were used on Monday to strike the territory of the UAE”.

Following the coalition’s operations, UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah Bin Zayed contacted his US counterpart Antony Blinken in order to ask the Biden administration to reestablish US recognition of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. This type of measure would help those interested in tightening actions against the Yemeni rebels as it would allow the US government to treat the Houthis as terrorists both in American territory and abroad, making it possible to establish, for example, joint actions between American military and the coalition.

No response has been given on the case so far, and the matter is unlikely to have any relevance to the US government at the present time. Washington revoked the Houthis’ “terrorist organization” status to improve the system for the sending of humanitarian aid to Yemen. Until last year, it was difficult for the US to send humanitarian aid to the country as the Houthis benefited from part of that aid while being considered terrorists. In 2021, Biden revoked terrorist status for the Houthis and improved the humanitarian support system, reinforcing the US image as a humanitarianly committed nation. This measure was very positive for both the US and the Yemeni population and is unlikely to be reversed now.

In fact, the anti-Houthi coalition has a common interest with the West in Yemen: to stop the growth of Iranian influence. Considering that the Houthis are an ethnic minority of Shia faith, their victory in Yemen would represent an immediate alliance with Tehran – which is why Western governments support the coalition. But this support has become increasingly limited. For the pro-humanitarian image that Biden tries to express in his government, it is very serious that the country maintains ties to a conflict that is considered the greatest humanitarian crisis of recent times. European governments follow a similar trend in this regard. And, with that, the coalition loses more and more strength internationally, becoming an isolated group of little global relevance.

The Yemen conflict needs an immediate end as the humanitarian situation in the country has escalated out of control. The civil war has already left almost 400 thousand dead, four million internally displaced and more than twenty million people in need of humanitarian aid. The imminence of a humanitarian collapse is evident, and this creates discomfort for all governments with some degree of involvement in local disputes.

Recommendations from all sides are for the crisis to be resolved as fast and pacifically as possible. Contributing to a humanitarian disaster is extremely harmful and (at least publicly) out of discussion for the West.

Certainly, international coercion through sanctions would be a viable way for the coalition to accept to reduce its incursions, respecting the Yemeni right to self-determination. But that would mean opening the way for an Iranian advance, which the West is also unwilling to deal with. Therefore, the Western position on the coalition’s maneuvers is likely to remain the same that has been so far: a veiled, discreet, and masked support with a humanitarian discourse whose function is to hide the real interest in undermining Iranian expansion in every possible way.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Violence Increasing in Yemen
  • Tags:

Confirmed: COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Can Cause Severe Liver Damage

January 18th, 2022 by Paul Anthony Taylor

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.

***

A recent Letter to the Editor published on the Journal of Hepatology website adds to the growing evidence that the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19 can cause severe liver damage. Entitled ‘Immune-mediated hepatitis with the Moderna vaccine, no longer a coincidence but confirmed’, the letter – written by four hospital doctors from the UK – summarizes the case history of a patient who received two doses of the vaccine. The doctors say the case provides “conclusive evidence” that the first dose led to immune-mediated hepatitis, with a rapid onset of liver injury. A second dose resulted in the development of acute severe autoimmune hepatitis. The patient was previously completely well with no other health problems.

The letter describes how the patient, a 47-year-old Caucasian man, received his first dose of the Moderna vaccine in April 2021. He noted malaise and jaundice three days later. Blood tests showed abnormal liver function, with his serum bilirubin around ten times normal and alanine aminotransferase more than twenty times normal. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) and alcohol use were ruled out as potential causes.

The patient’s jaundice and liver function tests had improved by late June but were still abnormal. He was subsequently given a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in early July, despite reporting the jaundice to the vaccination center. A few days later he became deeply jaundiced, with a bilirubin level approaching twenty times normal and numerous other liver abnormalities. The doctors say the pattern of injury was consistent with acute hepatitis, with features of autoimmune hepatitis or possible drug-induced liver injury, triggering an autoimmune-like hepatitis.

As the doctors point out in their letter, the onset of jaundice associated with the vaccine was unusually rapid. Significantly, therefore, and as they also acknowledge, this case is hardly the first in which COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have been associated with liver damage. Even prior to the publication of their letter, the doctors say at least seven cases of immune-mediated hepatitis linked to mRNA vaccines had already been reported in the scientific literature. Three of these cases related to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and four to the Moderna vaccine.

The doctors say they reported this latest case in order to encourage vigilance for such reactions, as well as to raise awareness for vaccination centers to incorporate them into their routine checks before administering second doses of mRNA vaccines. They stress that long-term follow up of affected individuals will be essential in determining the prognosis of this type of immune-mediated liver injury.

Ultimately, of course, the fact is that liver damage is only one of many serious side effects reported in connection with the mRNA vaccines used against COVID-19. Others include very low platelet counts (thrombocytopenia); high rates of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions (anaphylaxis); inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis); blood clots (thrombosis); and even death.

Twenty-four centuries ago, the Greek physician Hippocrates is said to have exhorted the medical practitioners of his time to “first, do no harm.” While in conventional medicine this principle was already widely flouted in the pre-COVID era, with the ultrarapid authorization of mRNA vaccines it has essentially been almost completely abandoned. The time has come for political leaders and medical authorities to suspend the use of these experimental injections, pending a full and independent investigation into their dangers.

*

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.

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

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

Featured image is from DRHF