Il 9-10 dicembre il Presidente Biden ospiterà il «Summit per la Democrazia» che riunirà, in collegamento mondiale online, «leader di governo, società civile e settore privato».
La lista degli invitati comprende 111 paesi. Tra questi 28 dei 30 membri della Nato: mancano Turchia e Ungheria ma, in compenso, ci sono Israele e Ucraina, insieme a 26 dei 27 membri della Ue salvo l’Ungheria. Per intenderci: c’è la Polonia sotto tiro della Ue perché viola lo stato di diritto.
Il Summit «fornirà loro una piattaforma per difendere la democrazia e i diritti umani all’interno e all’estero, per affrontare attraverso una azione collettiva le più grandi minacce che hanno di fronte oggi le democrazie».
Verrà in tal modo avviato «un anno di azione per rendere le democrazie più reattive e resilienti», che culminerà con un secondo Summit in presenza per «costruire una comunità di partner impegnati nel rinnovamento democratico globale».
Joe Biden mantiene così quanto annunciato nel programma elettorale (il manifesto, 10 novembre 2020): un Summit globale delle «nazioni del mondo libero», anzitutto per «contrastare l’aggressione russa, mantenendo affilate le capacità militari della Nato e imponendo alla Russia reali costi per le sue violazioni delle norme internazionali» e, allo stesso tempo, per «costruire un fronte unito contro le azioni offensive e le violazioni dei diritti umani da parte della Cina». In tal modo gli Stati uniti ritorneranno a «svolgere il ruolo di guida nello scrivere le regole». «La difesa dei valori democratici – ha ribadito Joe Biden in veste di presidente – è impressa nel nostro Dna come nazione».
Che cosa sia impresso nel DNA degli Stati uniti lo dimostrano le circa cento guerre di conquista che hanno caratterizzato la loro storia.
Secondo un documentato studio di James Lucas (il manifesto, 20 novembre 2018), soloi la serie di guerre e colpi di stato – effettuata dagli Stati uniti dal 1945 ad oggi in oltre 30 paesi asiatici, africani, europei e latino-americani – ha provocato 20-30 milioni di morti, centinaia di milioni di feriti (molti dei quali restati invalidi), più un numero inquantificato di morti, probabilmente centinaia di milioni, provocati dagli effetti indiretti delle guerre: carestie, epidemie, migrazioni forzate, schiavismo e sfruttamento, danni ambientali, sottrazione di risorse ai bisogni vitali per coprire le spese militari.
Nelle guerre più sanguinose – Corea, Vietnam e Iraq – le forze militari Usa furono direttamente responsabili di 10-15 milioni di morti.
Il colpo di stato più sanguinoso fu organizzato nel 1965 in Indonesia dalla Cia: essa fornì agli squadroni della morte indonesiani la lista dei primi 5 mila comunisti e altri da uccidere. Il numero dei trucidati viene stimato tra mezzo milione e 3 milioni.
Lo stesso Joe Biden, promotore del «Summit per la Democrazia», ha avuto un ruolo da protagonista in parte di questa storia.
Nel 2001, in veste di presidente della Commissione Esteri del Senato, sostenne la decisione del presidente Bush di attaccare e invadere l’Afghanistan e, nel 2002, promosse una risoluzione bipartisan che autorizzava il presidente Bush ad attaccare e invadere l’Iraq.
Nel 2007, fece passare al Senato un piano di smembramento dell’Iraq in tre regioni – curda, sunnita e sciita – funzionale alla strategia Usa.
Nel 2009-2017, in veste di vicepresidente dell’amministrazione Obama, ha compartecipato alla pianificazione ed esecuzione della guerre contro Libia e Siria e del putsch di fatto in Ucraina, in cui Biden ha svolto un ruolo diretto e determinante.
Riguardo alla democrazia interna, basti ricordare che, secondo le statistiche ufficiali, la polizia uccide ogni anno negli Usa circa 1.000 inermi cittadini, soprattutto neri e ispanici. Basti ricordare che gli Stati uniti vogliono condannare a 175 anni di carcere il giornalista Julian Assange che ha portato alla luce i loro crimini di guerra.
Probabilmente tra qualche giorno la magistratura britannica deciderà sulla sua estradizione negli Usa. Intanto, il 6 dicembre, la Gran Bretagna ha co-ospitato un evento preparatorio del Summit, intitolato «Difendere le democrazie dalla disinformazione», focalizzato sulle «migliori pratiche per promuovere un sistema informativo aperto e trasparente».
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.
Hospitals in Queensland, Australia, may deny potentially life-saving surgeries to patients who haven’t been vaccinated.
Queensland Health unveiled the new policy over the weekend, claiming the rule was necessary because patients requiring those types of surgeries typically have weakened immune systems.
The policy imposes a “minimum requirement of two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine prior to receiving a kidney, lung or heart transplant,” according to7News.com.au.
In a statement regarding the new policy, Queensland Health claimed the vaccines would help surgery patients who are already immunocompromised immediately following operations.
“A recipient is highly immunosuppressed post-transplant, which is why it’s incredibly important for the person to be vaccinated prior to transplant. Queensland Health prioritizes safety before, during and after a transplant,” the government health authority stated.
“That is why the Queensland Kidney Transplant Service has endorsed a minimum requirement of two doses of an approved COVID-19 vaccine prior to receiving a kidney, lung or heart transplant.”
“Prior to transplant and as per normal process, the recipient must ensure all of their vaccinations are up to date,” stated Queensland Health, adding, “The COVID-19 vaccination is no different.”
Unvaccinated people who require surgeries, meanwhile, will be hung out to dry until the policy comes up for review next February.
Despite the Australian government’s claims that the vaccines provide an immune boost, independent lab tests conducted by a US doctor showed how the Covid vaccine suppresses the body’s adaptive immune system, leaving vaccinated individuals more susceptible to illness.
The absurd vaccine requirement is just the latest Orwellian move by Australian authorities, who’ve been leveraging the Covid hysteria to clamp down on the freedoms of its citizens.
Is it only a matter of time until these same types of requirements are imposed on Americans?
*
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.
A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of a major energy crisis. While much has been talked about Lebanon’s own energy crisis, there is in fact already an European crisis today.
By October there had already been a 600% increase in gas prices in 2021, and in early October at one point there was a 37% rise in UK wholesale prices within 24 hours only. The crisis has halted production in some industries and has impacted societies as a whole. Europe’s gas production has been on decline, and the continent relies on gas imports – gas still being the biggest vulnerability. On top of that, European de-carbonization efforts are still very shy – which is ironic considering that the EU has been the frontrunner in climate action topics.
A crisis is rarely if ever caused by a single factor alone, as structural and conjunctural factors converge: the pandemic hasn’t helped and carbon prices are up also, and that drives electricity prices even higher, too. The hard truth however is that such dramatic European energy price rises (at least partially) could have been avoided if Nord Stream 2 had not been delayed.
Nord Stream 2 is a complex of natural gas pipelines that runs from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea. This project in fact serves both European and Russian interests well, providing them energy security and also lower costs. It has been however the target of an intense American boycott campaign in a complex plot that combines private and geopolitical interests. German members of parliament even suggested, in May, that Berlin should retaliate by sanctioning Washington.
American interests are easy enough to understand: it wishes neither to lose leverage on Europe nor to have Moscow having more leverage there. Russia is literally at the “doorstep” of the continent and yet Washington would have Europeans buying plenty of American liquified natural gas (LNG), which is actually more expensive – the bulk (83%) of all American LNG exports goes to two regions: 46% of it goes to the Asian continent, followed by Europe, with 37%. Even though Asia has become the main export destination, in 2020, LNG exports to Europe saw an increase in 0.6 bcf/d, compared with 2019 – according to data from the US Energy Information Administration.
Moreover, Washington can influence Russian exports to Europe through Ukraine, which has been described as becoming an “American colony” – Nord Stream 2 would eliminate the middleman. Thus, from an American perspective, it is about commercial interests as well as soft power.
Besides the obvious economic interests, there are also deeper geopolitical issues at play, as exemplified by the Arctic question – which is indeed about energy, but is also about something else as is so with pretty much anything pertaining to Russia in Washington’s foreign policy today. Last year, the US Department of Energy re-established its Arctic Energy Office and, this month, the Biden administration launched a series of events aimed at exploring Arctic potential for clean energy, such as the ArcticX online event. This is yet another case of the West antagonizing Russia over energy issues, but there is more than meets the eye.
The Arctic plays an important role in the global energy market – even in terms of potentially providing alternative routes for global shipping – and so this region is bound to become the stage for geopolitical competition. For example, the Yamal LNG project, a Russian-Chinese partnership, has opened a new shipping route to Asia, and a second project, Arctic 2 is also very promising. Meanwhile, American endeavors in Alaska have not produced much, mostly due to lack of consensus amongst US policy-makers. So, even though Washington has not had much success in developing hydrocarbons in its own Alaskan territory, and even though Alaskans have been trying to commercialize gas since at least the seventies (with only modest success), the US still wants to compete with Moscow in the energy sphere at the whole Arctic region, traditionally a Russian zone of influence. Alaska itself was purchased from Imperial Russia by the US in 1867.
Russia needs Arctic energy for a number of reasons – for example, sanctions have weakened its own capacity for developing oil. In the case of the US, there are plenty of options – not much has advanced within Arctic Alaska due to America’s own lack of ability to forge a consensus on the need to doing so, according to Nikos Tsafos, who is a Washington DC energy expert and a senior fellow at the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The lack of infrastructure in Alaska is also a problem and this has limited American hydrocarbon extraction there. And yet Washington seems to pay a lot of attention to the rest of the polar region, outside of Alaska, and has been dangerously increasing its military maneuvers with allies there, in a clear provocation to Moscow. One could say Russian Arctic goals are mostly economic, while Western initiatives in the region have been mainly military.
Be it Nord Stream 2 or the Arctic, the US apparently can’t have any kind of Russian development going on or any active Russian-European gas cooperation for that matter. Instead, Washington actively works to explore and deepen EU-Russia contradiction, often with dangerous consequences for its own bilateral relations with European countries, such as Germany – and for world peace even, as exemplified by the American take on the nuclear issue. To sum it up, Washington’s energy initiatives overseas are about Nord Stream 2 and about creating obstacles to it – in order to promote the US own resources to the European markets.
*
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.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
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.
South Africans will find out this week whether President Cyril Ramaphosa will consign 60% of them to proxy house arrest by restricting public spaces to the Covid-19 “vaccinated”. It is a fraught decision; one that sets the terrifying powers of Big Pharma and the new class of warrior-scientists against African reality. It also risks the possibility of sparking one of the bitterest of vaccine wars.
Only 40% of the South African population has been jabbed against Covid — a slow take-up which is euphemistically described as “vaccine hesitancy”. It is anything but: it is enraged rejection.
There are a number of reasons why it is so hard to get South Africans to take the umjovu, the injection: appalling technical management of the outbreak, a prevailing scepticism towards science, wariness about the Government and a wide-spread apprehension by the poor and marginalised that this is at best another form of repression and at worst witchcraft. It is a dangerous brew in a country already in a state of great political, social and economic instability.
In common with the rest of the world, South African epidemiological estimates of fatalities at the outset of the coronavirus outbreak verged on the fantastical. Initial predictions were for between 87,000 and 350,000 fatalities in the first phase. There were 103. Two years later, with the virus in retreat, fatalities attributed to Covid (but by no means vouchsafed) are only now beginning to touch the lowest initial estimates.
Yet the South African Government imposed one of the longest and most severe lockdowns, supported by a baying national and social media. The decision has proved inappropriate in nature, premature in timing and catastrophic in impact. In a country where many depend on ad hoc daily or weekly subsistence wages, the sudden cessation of economic activity wreaked havoc amongst the poor and self-employed. A failing state was unable to deliver on its promise of subsidies, responsible policing or effective containment.
It took more than a year for the first subsidies to individuals or small businesses to start coming through. And even then they were erratic, corruption-prone, inadequate, and according to many attested reports, distributed on a racially biased basis. Nearly a quarter of small businesses have gone to the wall and unemployment has rocketed.
An entire section of the population was effectively criminalised: in the first four months of the outbreak, 230,000 citizens, 0.4% of the population, were charged with infringement of the Disaster Regulations for breaking the restrictions, 311 of them policemen. All the charges were later dropped: the criminal justice system simply could not cope.
For every reported infection to the end June last year, seven citizens were arrested for breach of regulations; for every 100 infections, one police officer was arrested; and for every 1,200 infections there was a High Court urgent application. Seven people had been killed in heavy-handed enforcement.
When two doctors working in a Government hospital were forcibly interned in one of the state’s make-shift rural isolation camps, the High Court ordered they be allowed to self-isolate at home: it accepted the doctors’ deposition that they stood more chance of dying from the conditions of incarceration than from the virus.
Small surprise, then, that the general population, particularly the poor, headed for the hills. Take-up of the crucial HIV-Aids retroviral dropped from 95% to 30%; malaria medication showed the same path. Attendances for tuberculosis screenings dropped by two-thirds, while consultations with GPs were down 60% and tens of thousands of urgent surgery procedures were postponed for the coronavirus patients who never arrived.
Emergency procurement of personal equipment, meanwhile, opened the door to the corruption lurking in every interstice of the State. The heir-presumptive to President Ramaphosa has resigned: a state investigatory agency accuses him of directing a R350 million (£16.6 million) Personal Protection Equipment account to friends. The Gauteng Health Department, industrial heartland of the nation, is embroiled in a R560 million (£26.5 million) fraud inquiry. The female whistle-blower was assassinated within days of the inquiry’s launch.
The begging question, whether President Ramaphosa, a decent man, is presiding over a ruling party in the throes of a Robert Kennedy versus The Mob has at least been definitively answered.
At the same time, a public service already perilously compromised by patronage, corruption, incompetence, and the dismissal of key white personnel for affirmative action reasons, went into a long recess. Two years later it has still not properly returned.
Enforcement of traffic licencing rules have also been in abeyance for 18 months as 500,000 drivers’ licences await clearance. Estates cannot be closed, forensic inquiries completed, crimes prosecuted (including culprits in the so-called State Capture project of former President Jacob Zuma) and property transferred. More than half a million school children have quite simply not returned to school.
As for the burden of this failure of service delivery, it has been carried disproportionately by the poor, mainly black but increasingly also by white citizens, judged by the street corner beggars. There is little doubt that the effect of the containment strategies advocated by South Africa’s warrior scientists facilitated the July Troubles this year, which claimed 357 lives in a scourge of looting, arson and violence and has directly accounted for the drastic decline in ruling party support in last month’s municipal elections.
South Africans have endured, if never condoned, the absurdities and atrocities of this misjudged, exploited and needless panic to date. The ebb and flow of the global debate about the course of the pandemic has been intensely watched here by the literate and online portion of the community.
They have followed, like many others in the world, the way the arrogant scientific certainties that locked up the world are dissolving in the face of measured science and empirical fact. They understand one cannot follow a “science” when the scientists are hopelessly at odds. They are aware of the abuse of both language and statistics, particularly the new phenomena of snatch-stats whereby mortality from other causes is snatched for Covid-19, or the natural path of an expiring virus is used to justify the efficacy of an antidote or Excess Deaths are annexed to justify a lost cause.
They note the irony whereby their government, correctly, tells the world not to be alarmed by the Omicron variant, while it simultaneously contemplates a grievous assault against the rights of its citizens to contain it, egged on by the usual howling suspects who demanded total lockdowns. Citizens have minutely followed recent reports of how Pfizer arm-twisted their desperate government into signing legal indemnities for its product: who ever heard of citizens being forced to be vaccinated when the supplier is absolved of any responsibility for the consequences?
Most South Africans are not conspiracy theorists but their history teaches them one certain thing: uncontained power always gets one screwed. And many feel screwed now by a confluence of forces (not a conspiracy) that — from Big Pharma, to Big Tech to authoritarian governments — seeks rent from this incomparable tragedy.
But another, far more important constituency of hesitaters and rejectionists exists. Those who take the time to talk to the black poor and marginalised are astonished by the extent to which, scarred by their lockdown experiences, they regard the current scare as yet another means to oppress them. Curfews, liquor and tobacco bans and the outlawing of political meetings under the guise of fighting Covid-19 support their case. And, for many, the umjovo is nothing less than ubuthakathi or witchcraft.
President Ramaphosa enters dangerous territory here. Take-up of vaccines is higher among the minorities for a variety of reasons and it is a section of the white minority who are the most vociferous supporters of vaccinate-at-all-costs. Banning access to public spaces will instantly translate, as it always does, into a political and racial rumpus. Pieces of paper that permit or restrict certain people’s movements have a terrible record in this country’s history: a bitter resonance for every black person.
Proven and restless forces in South Africa are today looking for chances to reignite the insurrection of July. These are people who do not protest by way of orderly marches, posters and pram-pushing. They seek only opportunity; the consequences brought by the human attempts to contain the pandemic is a revolution.
But revolutions always eventually consume their children. Time will certainly consume the reputations of the architects of this epochal tragedy: the scientists, pharmaceutical companies, politicians and media. And if Ramaphosa isn’t careful, it could also consume the fragile nation of South Africa.
*
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.
Brian Pottinger is an author and former Editor and Publisher of the South African Sunday Times. He lives on the KwaZulu North Coast.
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.
An article originally published by the BBC on December 5, 2020 reports on President Elect Joe Biden’s commitment not the enforce a vaccine mandate.
Excerpts below
President-elect Joe Biden says Americans won’t be forced to take a coronavirus vaccine when one becomes available in the US.
Speaking in Wilmington, Delaware, the US president-elect said it would not be necessary to make a coronavirus vaccine mandatory.
“I will do everything in my power as president to encourage people to do the right thing and when they do it, demonstrate that it matters,” he said.
The Pew Research Center says just 60% of Americans are currently prepared to take a coronavirus vaccine, up from 51% who said the same in September.
On Thursday Mr Biden told CNN he would be happy to take a vaccine in public to allay potential concerns about its safety. Three former presidents – Barack Obama, George W Bush and Bill Clinton – have said they are also prepared to be inoculated publicly.
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.
Grocery stores in New Brunswick, Canada have been given the power to ban unvaccinated people from entering, meaning the unjabbed could be prevented from conducting the essential activity of buying food.
Yes, really.
The province’s health minister Dorothy Shephard said businesses will be given the option to either enforce physical distancing or check for proof-of-vaccination.
Those businesses include “malls and grocery stores.”
Shephard said the measure, part of the region’s three-level action plan to curb the spread of COVID-19 during the winter, is necessary to reverse a “very concerning” rise in cases.
“According to a guide by Public Safety Canada, food is among the ten critical infrastructure sectors, and its delivery and preparation is considered an Essential Service and Function,” writes Ken Macon.
“Provinces have been allowed to implement their own restrictions, but grocery stores have remained open to all, regardless of vaccination status.”
The measure appears to be a fundamental violation of human rights and now must surely be challenged in the courts.
This is yet another example of how, while authorities claim the vaccine isn’t mandatory, every basic existence and lifestyle function are being removed for those who don’t take the shot.
The federal government has already banned unvaxxed Canadians from using domestic or international air and rail travel.
If this is allowed to pass, expect the next stage to be fitting unvaccinated people with electronic ankle bracelets to ensure they don’t leave their homes, or failing that just throwing them in prison.
There really is no depth to which this abyss cannot sink.
*
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.
This link takes you to the “Post-Authorization Adverse Event Report from Pfizer (note, it will open a browser window and then a PDF dialogue box will appear where you’ll direct it the the program you want to open the file.
You can then mark it up yourself, save it and share it with others).
Video
*
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.
The purported novel coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2, has not been proven to exist in nature and has not been established as the cause of “COVID-19”, the pandemic disease concocted by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Likewise, there are no variants of the “virus”, which also only exist hypothetically in computers, and in online gene banks.
This COVID-19 fraud has enabled the widespread use of highly experimental and dangerous injections that contain a computer-generated spike protein mRNA sequence that instructs the body to poison itself. These injections also contain undeclared non-biological substances for unknown purposes and are killing many thousands of people worldwide and seriously harming many more.
Virological fraud enables these crimes against humanity because SARS-CoV-2 has never been physically isolated or shown to be the causal agent of COVID-19.
The genome of a “virus” that hadn’t been isolated and purified, was published in early January 2020, named SARS-CoV-2 by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses on 11 February, the same day the WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, announced its supposed resultant disease (COVID-19) with symptoms that are indistinguishable from other respiratory diseases.
The vast majority of the public and the medical profession are unaware that modern virology uses anti-scientific methods to claim the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus as well as other viruses. Most people would be surprised to learn that the “virus” has never been found inside a human or shown to be the cause of any disease.
The COVID-19 fraud requires the absence of this virus so there is no material reference against which the computer-generated genome can be cross-checked.
Virology’s double deception is as follows:
1) The substitution of the dictionary and scientific meaning of the noun isolate for the opposite meaning. Isolate (real definition): Chemistry, Bacteriology. to obtain (a substance or microorganism) in an uncombined or pure state.
2) The substitution of the proxy of inducing cytopathic effects (CPEs) by inoculating abnormal cell lines in vitro for the established proxy of infecting a non-diseased host in vivo to determine causality between the proposed pathogen and the disease.
Even using “normal” healthy cell lines would not establish causality by Koch’s postulates or any other scientific postulates used to establish causality, because they are only in vitro observations involving alleged viruses.
The production of CPEs is central to modern virology’s fraudulent claims of isolation and pathogenicity: a sample (e.g. a nasal swab) is taken from a person and added to some cells in a test tube, if the cells die, it is falsely declared that a virus has been “isolated”.
By definition, a virus is an infectious particle that can cause a disease in a living host. None of these defining properties have been demonstrated in any of the virological experiments describing supposed isolation and pathogenesis.
Virologists spent several decades attempting this unsuccessfully but instead of admitting to a problem with the whole virus theory, they just changed the meaning of the word isolate in the 1950s. Virologists do not actually isolate viruses, they just falsely claim that they do.
The process virologists use to claim “isolation” can be summarised as follows:
From the mixed biological “soup” taken from a patient’s lungs or nose swabs containing all sorts of material including human cells, innumerable commensal microbes, and potential contaminants (bacteria, fungi), de novo assembly platforms search for short genetic fragments.
After finding millions of unique fragments in the soup, the software programmes then piece together one long piece (a “genome”) based on parameters set in the programme. There is some cutting-and-pasting of sequences and if pieces are “missing” other ready-made templates can be added to fill the gaps. The man-made algorithms, probability models and arbitrary selections cannot determine its physical existence in nature, because any coronavirus “genome” used as a template in its production will also be hypothetical.
This methodology provides no confirmable connection with the material or physical world, which makes the newest member of the Coronavirus genus just another product of virology’s self-referential processes. This is how virologists keep inventing viruses to stay in business, providing pharmaceutical companies with the justification for producing lucrative vaccines.
The anti-science of virology and the perversion of the word “isolation” is delusional, dishonest and highly misleading. It is not a sound basis for the health and well-being of individuals or whole populations.
Fan Wu et al. were the first inventors of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and used a patient’s lung fluid sample for de novo sequencing assembly platform analysis to search for short genetic fragments or “reads”. It is important to understand that the samples sequenced were not physically isolated viruses but crude samples containing millions of genetic fragments from the patient himself, and the numerous different microbes (bacteria, fungi) that make up the microbiome, as well as potential environmental contaminants.
It’s not clear how Fan Wu et al. knew which “genome” to choose when all of the options were hypothetical computer constructs, but they chose the longest (30,474 nucleotides), because it had a nucleotide identity of 89.1% with the in silico (computer-generated) bat coronavirus genome (SL-CoVZC45) that was invented in 2018. It was subsequently reduced to 29,875 nucleotides in the next version on GenBank perhaps to make it look more like the 29,802 nucleotides of the bat model genome. The final model was redrawn with a completely different terminal sequence featuring 23 consecutive adenine bases, thereby making it look more like the bat model which featured 26 consecutive adenine bases on its tail.
On the basis that RNA of unknown origin was part of the culture in which many cells died (perhaps due to induced starvation and stress with cytotoxic substances), Fan Wu et al claimed that they had successfully isolated the 2019-nCoV BetaCov virus.
This fraud was rewarded with grants in 2020 totalling US$900,000 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation made to the two institutions with which 14 of the 19 co-authors of the fraudulent paper were affiliated.
Peng Zhou et al. then made their contribution to the fraud by publishing a paper that fulfilled none of the postulates to identify a virus or confirm it as being causative of any disease. The supposed virus was not physically isolated and purified for biochemical characterisation and so remains entirely theoretical.
The Chinese Academy of Sciences, with which 24 of the 27 co-authors were affiliated, were rewarded with a 2020 COVID-19-related grant totalling US$359,820 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Na Zhu et al. also claimed isolation of the virus, but it is clear that the authors do not mean “isolation” in the dictionary scientifically postulated sense but virology’s substituted antonymic meaning and the substitution of diseased for non-diseased host cells to establish causality between a purported virus and the patient’s symptoms.
Unlike Fan Wu et al. and Peng Zhou et al., Na Zhu et al. did produce images of what they called “2019-nCoV particles” but without any verification of their biochemical composition from a purified specimen. It is not possible to establish from their images that the particles are infectious disease-causing viruses or that they contain the alleged SARS-CoV-2 genome.
“Although our study does not fulfil Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence of implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak.” Na Zhu et al
This claim is based on pictures of extracellular vesicles of unknown composition and origin which the authors have named “2019-nCoV”.
The National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, with which 13 of the 18 co-authors of the Na Zhu et al paper were affiliated were rewarded with US$71,700 in 2020 from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for this fraudulent research.
Caly et al. claimed that Vero cells (monkey kidney cells)“showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles”, but were not able to see typical “virions” with the spike protein. They added more protein-digesting trypsin to the cell cultures which digested the outer protein layer of a 100 nm spherical “virion” to manufacture “the characteristic crown-like fringe of spike proteins”, thereby they “immediately improved virion morphology.” In other words, when the vesicles (possibly exosomes) did not look like their expectations of a coronavirus, they artificially engineered it with an extra-large dose of the enzyme trypsin.
These supposed virions were not purified so their biochemical composition could not be confirmed. The “genome” was in fact put together after generating “approximately 30,000,000 reads” from the tissue culture mix. As with all other papers of this nature, no explanation was provided as to how these particles are known to cause disease or whether these same particles exist inside humans. Scientifically speaking they can only be called extracellular vesicles of unknown significance, produced by stressed abnormal monkey kidney cells in vitro.
Despite the deceptions permeating virology, virologists still adhere to their non-scientific beliefs. This is scientism not science.
Scientism is the uncritical application of technical methods which becomes a secularised belief system relying for its authority on its own presupposition and performativity. Assumptions, hypotheses and abstractions are considered to be conclusive and real.
In contrast, the scientific method includes the following:
1) Objective observation: Measurement and data.
2) Evidence.
3) Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses.
4) Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples.
5) Repetition.
6) Critical analysis.
7) Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment.
Virologists claim that they have elucidated the entire genomes of viruses such as “SARS-CoV-2” and they upload this onto databanks. They claim that they have an “isolate” of the virus but this is declared after they have constructed the genome from their mixed brew containing genetic fragments of unknown origin using computer algorithms.
Virologists do not work with a complete genome because they do not work with a complete virus. They work with random bits of biological material and then claim that it constitutes evidence of a virus. When their experiments are examined carefully there is no material proof of a virus.
No virus called SARS-CoV-2 has ever been properly isolated and purified as a whole unique structure. What happens is the shotgun sequencing of crude samples that contain numerous mixed genetic fragments of unknown origin. Shotgun sequencing is a method used for sequencing random DNA strands which is named by analogy with the semi-random shot grouping of a shotgun. There is no evidence whatsoever that the resulting in silico “genome” actually exists in nature or has anything to do with a “virus”. The invention of the “virus” is presented as a discovery, its faux status is secured through the act of naming it into existence.
The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) can only amplify selected nucleotide sequences but cannot determine their provenance or significance. The Virology PCR fraud relies on the attribution of meaning to the amplified sequences:
1) Reference to the imaginary in silico genome but not to a proven physical entity called SARS-CoV-2.
2) Reference to a “disease” that with absurd circular reasoning has been defined by the PCR result itself.
The faudsters disingenuously refer to the PCR as the “gold standard” test but in reality, at best it is merely a surrogate test for a whole virion and at worse, it is a false positive artifact generating test.
When PCR is performed badly and/or at high cycle numbers (as has been common) the target sequence may not even be present in the sample and a “positive” result is simply an artefact of the PCR process. The PCR cannot diagnose the infectious status of a person in any proven way and no consistent link has ever been found between a disease state and the PCR results.
The misapplication of a completely inaccurate PCR means that COVID-19 is a scientifically meaningless construct that is nothing more than a self-referential illusion.
Christian Drostenet al. published non-peer reviewed PCR assay sequences designed to detect the purported virus “without having virus material available” in January 2020.
The Drosten paper was published in Eurosurveillance on 23 January which was only two days after submitting the manuscript. Drosten who is facing charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title did not declare that he was a member of the Eurosurveillance editorial board.
Chantal Reusken a co-author, also failed to declare that she was on the Eurosurveillance editorial board. Olfert Landt another of Drosten’s co-authors who is CEO of TIB the maker of a lucrative PCR kit based on the published assay sequences didnt declare his conflict of interest until 29 July 2020.
Mass PCR testing using the Drosten protocol quickly resulted not in a viral pandemic but a PCR pandemic. The university hospital of Charité Berlin where many of the Drosten PCR authors were based subsequently received a 2020 “covid” grant totalling US$249,550.70.
The PCR has been designed to detect genetic sequences of a “virus” that has not been proven to exist in nature but instead is detecting sequences of unknown origin and generates high numbers of false positive results.
As a result of PCR testing, medical tyranny has been imposed on most of the world, based on scientism disconnected from the real world and so absurd that detecting a few genetic fragments of something in one person can be used as the excuse to lock up an entire country.
The completely useless PCR test generated astronomical case numbers which then formed the basis of “COVID-19” outbreak computer models. Outbreak modelling is notorious for its inaccurace predictions and produced “COVID-19” numbers that were preposterous and all based on worthless numbers.
Lockdown flouting Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London (ICL) has a long history of producing doom mongering wildly inaccurate speculative nonsense with his computer modelling.
In 2001, the ICL team did the modelling on foot and mouth disease which led to a cull of six million sheep, pigs and cattle costing the UK approximately £10 billion. The ICL work on this has been described as ‘severely flawed’ by real experts.
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from mad cow disease which he claimed could rise to 150,000 if sheep were involved. In the UK, the total number of deaths was 177.
In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people could be killed by bird flu. The total number of deaths was 282 worldwide.
In 2009, Ferguson and the ICL team claimed that swine flu would kill 65,000 people in the UK. In reality, swine flu killed 457 people in the UK.
Ferguson was the lead author of an ICL Report, published without peer review on 16 March 2021, predicting that 550,000 people in the UK and 2.2 million people in the US would die from COVID-19 within approximately three months.
When the Ferguson reports programming was eventually released for public scrutiny it was ridiculed by academic experts. It relied on 13-year-old computer coding intended to model flu which was a “buggy mess that looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming” according to one expert. Scientists at the University of Edinburgh reported that it failed “the basic scientific test of producing the same results given the same initial set of parameters”.
The ICL was rewarded with Gates Foundation grants for 2020 totalling US$91,494,791. Since 2002 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have provided ICL with grants totalling US$302,164,640, which is US$16,000,000 per year for the last 19 years.
Inaccurate computer models based on false case numbers have resulted in fear and confusion leading to heated debates about why the “virus” behaves so differently in different places, whether or not there is excess mortality, and whether or not the “vaccines” are effective.
The aggressively marketed remedy for this alleged deadly virus is a spike protein produced by a genetic sequence that is not found in nature but in a US patent from 2007. The “vaccines” based on this sequence have killed many thousands of people around the world and injured millions more.
If these anti-science methods continue to be believed and accepted, we are likely to see even more pseudo pandemics requiring more “vaccines”, continuing indefinitely as part of the “new normal”. We are already seeing this with a steady stream of “variants of concern.”
There is nothing normal about the pharmaceutical industry and globalist organisations creating demand for unnecessary gene therapies through fear and the creation of pseudo-pandemics. There is nothing normal about the unprecedented censorship of scientific debate and the prevention of medical practitioners providing real advice and informed consent.
The virus isolation fraud, the artificial viral genome fraud (including new variants), the pathogenicity fraud, the PCR fraud, and the experimental gene therapy “vaccine” fraud are crimes against humanity enabled by virology’s unscientific self-referential scientism.
*
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.
Sources
1 Fan Wu et al. “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China”, Nature, Vol 579 (3 Feb 2020).
2 Peng Zhou et al. “A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin”, Nature, 579 (12 Mar 2020).
3 Na Zhu et al. “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019”, The New England Journal of Medicine, 382 (20 Feb 2020).
4 Leon Caly et al. “Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia”, MJA, 212/10 (1 Jun 2020).
5 Victor M Corman, Christian Drosten et al “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, Eurosurveillance, 25/3 (23 Jan 2020).
6 THE COVID-19 FRAUD & WAR ON HUMANITY Dr Mark Bailey and Dr John Bevan-Smith
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.
On December 9-10 President Biden will preside over an online “Summit for Democracy,” which claims it will “bring together leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action.”
What a joke. This is not about promoting democracy. It’s really about undermining democracy worldwide with US interventionist foreign policy.
Yes, the conference is anti-democracy, not pro-democracy.
The countries whose elected leaders do the bidding of the United States – disregarding the wishes of those who elected them – are to be favored with an invitation to this “virtual” event. The countries that pursue domestic and foreign policy that is independent from the demands of the US State Department and CIA are not allowed into Washington’s sandbox to play.
Much of the world has seen through the pettiness of such an infantile approach. It is like the fairy tale of the emperor with no clothes. None of the sycophantic foreign leaders graced with an invitation to the banquet dare point out that the US is in the business of undermining democracy overseas, not promoting it.
Color revolutions, where elected governments are overthrown with US backing, is about the only thing the US exports these days. Ask the Ukrainians how their US-backed overthrow in 2014 has worked out for them. Ask any victim of US anti-democratic “color revolutions” about the US commitment to democracy.
For Washington, democracy means “you elect who we tell you to elect.”
European Union member country Hungary is the only EU country not invited to participate in the “Summit for Democracy” even though it has undeniably held fully democratic elections since the end of communism 30 years ago. There is no question that Hungary is a democratic country, but it is not invited to Biden’s “Summit for Democracy.”
Why? Because the Biden Administration does not like Hungary’s democracy. It does not like the fact that the Hungarian people have voted for a conservative government that occasionally pursues foreign and domestic policies at odds with the dictates of Foggy Bottom and Langley.
The Biden Administration does not like that Hungary resisted the mass invasion of refugees from countries and cultures absolutely alien to Hungary’s history. Biden does not like the fact that Hungarians have voted time and time again for a conservative government that openly professes Christian values. But what they hate most is that when Washington says “jump,” Budapest doesn’t always ask “how high?”.
It’s a petty game that has already backfired like all of Washington’s idiotic interventionist initiatives. For example, in the Hungarian situation, Washington’s childish snub of Hungary has meant that the rest of the European Union cannot participate in the summit as the EU.
Washington’s intervention overseas is always an own-goal. Sanctioning Russia over phony Russiagate has resulted in more Russia-China cooperation. The US tells Iran it must not sell oil anywhere, and similarly-demonized China cuts a good deal for Iranian oil.
It won’t shock anyone that Russia and Iran – which both hold elections no less democratic than those in Ukraine, where opposition parties are outlawed and their leaders jailed – are not invited to Biden’s little party. But no doubt their absence will be more than made up by North Macedonia, Suriname, and Micronesia. Democracy summit? More like propaganda summit! What a joke!
*
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.
Boris Johnson’s government wants to commission an ‘official history’ of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Yet it is itself censoring numerous files showing British army complicity in the deaths of civilians, depriving bereaved families of access to the truth.
Jaws have dropped across Ireland at the British government’s intention to commission an official history of The Troubles. Those that have perhaps dropped fastest and furthest belong to the Livingstone and Whitters families.
In April 1981, Elizabeth Livingstone’s youngest sister, Julie, aged 14, was shot dead walking home in Lenadoon, West Belfast. A soldier from the Royal Regiment of Wales had fired a plastic bullet gun from inside a Saracen armoured vehicle. Julie died a day later from head injuries.
Sixteen days before, Paul Whitters, aged 15, was shot with a plastic bullet in his native Derry. He had such catastrophic brain injuries that his parents were forced to make the heartbreaking decision, ten days after he was shot, to switch off his life support in a Belfast hospital.
Both families discovered, decades after their bereavement, that the British government had decided not to declassify the official records on the circumstances of their deaths.
The file on Julie Livingstone’s death was closed in 2014 and remains so until 2064. Both her parents are already dead but, by 2064, all her 12 brothers and sisters will have died also.
In 2011, the official file on Paul Whitters’ killing was closed until 2059. Since then, half of it has been opened but 93 pages remain closed.
“What possible implications for British national security can there be in the killing of a 15-year-old child in Derry over forty years ago?” asks his uncle, Tony Brown.
Secret because it’s secret
In a development worthy of Alice in Wonderland, it seems to the Whitters family that half the file is officially “secret” and the reason for keeping it “secret” must also remain “secret”.
“The circular stupidity of this argument has left us speechless. This is about my son who was shot at almost point-blank range at 15 years of age and about the cruel death of Julie Livingstone. They were just children”, says Helen Whitters.
She points out that neither family expects the names of those responsible to be released, freeing London from any data protection, health and safety or human rights obligations. The only possible remaining cause, they believe, is the notional one of national security.
While these families, and hundreds of others, are waiting for the truth, London announced it intends to commission historians to write an official account of the conflict. The Daily Telegraph last week revealed the plans were drawn up in response to fears that “IRA supporters are rewriting history”.
The narrative would focus on the role of the British government and army. One might be forgiven for recalling what Winston Churchill once memorably wrote that it would be “better” to leave the past to history “especially as I propose to write that history”.
‘Get stuffed’
Colin Harvey, professor of human rights at Queens University Belfast, said this week:
“The British were protagonists in the conflict …participants. And it seems like for the current British government, the truth hurts: they don’t like what’s emerging about the role of the British state”.
More succinct was Diarmaid Ferriter, professor of modern Irish history at University College, Dublin. Asked on BBC Northern Ireland’s “The View” programme whether he would accept an invitation, if asked to participate, he replied “I think I’d say get stuffed”.
The Belfast Telegraph reports that amongst the historians being considered is Lord Bew, a sponsor of the Henry Jackson Society and inspiration behind the ill-fated Boston College oral history project.
Bew is also a former political advisor to the erstwhile leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, David, now Baron, Trimble.
Meanwhile, the files on Paul Whitters and Julie Livingstone are among dozens of others closed to researchers and historians. Some, most bizarrely, have been opened and then closed again, despite being widely publicised – while others have been opened, closed and then re-opened.
One example is File CJ 4/1647 (January 1976-July 1977) containing documents detailing complaints of brutality against the British army and the then Northern Irish police, the RUC. It has been closed to public access until 2064 – restricting the right of those who alleged brutality at the time to discover what was being said about them.
Another file is CJ 4/2841 (1976-1979) which details meetings and contacts between the British government and the largest loyalist paramilitary gang, the Ulster Defence Association. This was originally closed until 2052 on both health and safety grounds and because it contains personal information.
Closed for 100 years
When Margaret Urwin, of the Justice for the Forgotten group, made a freedom of information request, hoping to get the file opened, her request was rejected and the date of closure was increased from 72 to 100 years.
Such requests are adjudicated by a supposedly independent watchdog at the National Archives. Its members are appointed by the Culture Secretary and include a former deputy head of MI5. They rubber stamp on average 99% of government censorship decisions.
It is worth stating that files such as these can, and often are, lawfully redacted under data protection rules where publishing a name might put someone at risk – but these are at least files known to exist.
In a different category are those whose very existence the British government has sought to conceal. Journalists such as Ian Cobain have written extensively about the Foreign Office unlawfully hoarding more than a million files of historic documents.
Those files are kept at a secret archive in a high-security government communications centre in Buckinghamshire, north of London, where they occupy mile after mile of shelving.
Most of the papers are many decades old – some were created in the 19th century – and document British foreign relations throughout two world wars, the Cold War, withdrawal from empire and entry into the Common Market.
They have been kept from public view in breach of the Public Records Act that requires all government documents to become public once they are 20 years old unless the department has received permission from the Lord Chancellor to hold them for longer.
‘What have they got to hide?’
Meanwhile, families like the Whitters and Livingstones are left to ponder why information on the deaths of their children are being withheld for decades.
“I felt we had done everything we could for Julie after three inquests had ruled she was a completely innocent victim”, said Elizabeth Livingstone of her younger sister.
“But when I found out about the hidden file, it brought all the pain back. Everyone who knew Julie will be dead by the time it is released. Your mind runs rampant. Why are they doing this? What have they got to hide?”
The Whitters family, likewise, has no idea why 93 pages of their file will be closed until 2084. “I’ve written to 22 different Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland asking for information”, says Tony Brown, the dead boy’s uncle, a retired principal social worker.
“…when I found out about the hidden file, it brought all the pain back.”
“We have known the name of the RUC man who shot Paul, the name of the inspector who gave the order to fire and his superior since the inquest. That does not appear to have contaminated national security over the last forty years.
“Nothing will ever hurt us as much as Paul’s death but we are left bewildered by how the killing of a child forty years ago could impinge on national security. We cannot think of any other reason for withholding it.”
The dead boy’s mother, Helen, tells of how – the Christmas after Paul’s death – a police officer arrived at her door “handed us a bloodied bag of clothes, smirked and left”. That, she says, was the entirety of the RUC’s engagement with the family over the years.
“In a society which lays claim to democratic ideals of equality and transparency of government, denying families information on the deaths of their loved-ones makes a mockery of such notions”, Helen said.
The Harvard professor and author of three books on Northern Ireland, J. Bowyer Bell, after a lifetime studying British politics, wrote: “A great deal of care, trouble, intimidation and influence has been expended to keep British secrets secret … Money, force, loyalty, greed, disinformation, the law, patriotism, fear …And if in the end nothing works, then firm denial, regardless of the evidence”.
The leopard does not appear to have changed its spots.
*
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.
Anne Cadwallader has been a journalist in Ireland, North and South, for the last 40 years, working for the BBC, RTE, The Irish Press, and Reuters. She is an advocacy case worker at the Pat Finucane Centre, a non-party political, anti-sectarian human rights group advocating a non-violent resolution of the conflict in Ireland.
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.
All of the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines” (genetic-modification agents) were pulled off the market because of the millions of deaths and horrific injuries they were directly causing. The evidence was so overwhelming, even the do-nothing politicians and corrupt health agencies couldn’t ignore it any more.
With the “vaccines” gone, the vaccine mandates and vaccine “passports” went out the window too. So did the useless lockdowns, the ridiculous disease-causing masks, and the social distancing, all of which had zero basis in scientific fact.
All people who lost their jobs because they had refused the clot-shots were offered their jobs back, with full back-pay and an official apology from their employers. Many of these employers knew how destructive the “vaccines” were all along. Many others had been duped by the complicit Mainstream Media’s propaganda campaign on behalf of Big Pharma. But that did not spare any of the employers from tens of thousands of lawsuits filed by those whose lives and livelihoods they had destroyed.
The companies that manufactured the extremely dangerous genetic “vaccines”—Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, and others—were hit with trillions of dollars in lawsuits because it was abundantly proven that they knew all about the potential “side effects” of the genetic cocktails well in advance and concealed this information from the public, with the collusion of governments and the media.
All of these “vaccine” companies went bankrupt and were on the verge of extinction. Cheap, highly effective remedies to treat COVID-19 and coronavirus illness were being widely prescribed at U.S. hospitals and clinics, with full health-insurance coverage. These medicines have been used in many countries around the world to effectively prevent and cure covid infection.
This development is what the profit-hungry vaccine companies feared most. It helped put them out of business.
The official U.S. death toll for COVID-19 quickly went down to zero, as it should have been all along.
People in every nation under the “New Normal” tyranny rose up and threw off their shackles. Hundreds of millions of very angry people found out how their governments and presstitute media had been lying to them about the virus, the “vaccines”, the fraudulent PCR test which gives up to 97% false-positives, the vastly inflated death counts, and the basically harmless new variants turned into “scariants” by the whore media. People scratched their heads and wondered how they could have ever fallen for the hoax, involving a respiratory virus less deadly than the seasonal flu.
ENRAGED, millions of people took to the streets, cornering the cowardly, paid-off politicians who had allowed the scam to continue for so long. Thousands of politicians resigned, including heads of state. Others went into hiding. Citizens’ arrests were legally made by Citizen Posses deputized by sheriffs or other authorities.
The Nuremberg 2.0 trial was underway. The criminals were in the dock—Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Rochelle Walensky, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Joseph Biden, Klaus Schwab, Jacinda Ardern, Scott Morrison, Alexander Schallenberg, Justin Trudeau, censors Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, and many others faced long prison sentences and possibly execution for their crimes against humanity.
The globalist puppet masters who pulled the strings for these front-men—longtime advocates of depopulation and One World Government—were also being identified, rounded up, and arrested.The trial was being broadcast on television every day, so that the world could see how it had been tricked and deceived by these criminals and mass murderers into obeying the diktats of a fake pandemic that destroyed the middle class, wiped out countless small businesses, drove millions into poverty, hunger, and suicide, and prevented locked-down individuals from getting exercise or badly-needed medical attention.
“The Real Anthony Fauci,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, was an international bestseller, selling more copies in a single year than any other book in history, despite getting no reviews from the corrupt New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Times of London, and other Big Pharma mouthpieces.
“The Real Bill Gates”—RFK Jr.’s sequel exposé, was selling briskly around the world. This well-documented blockbuster exposed the massive crimes of serial killer/psychopath Bill Gates, the vaccine-fanatic who foisted the Plandemic on the world in collusion with his cronies. Gates was busy writing a self-defensive memoir while in custody during the trial.
People who had been tricked or coerced into getting the wholly unnecessary kill-shots now realized the grave harm that had been done to them and the insanity of getting “boosters”. They formed support groups and investigated ways to strengthen their immune systems, to rid vaccine-induced toxins from their bodies, and to reduce the odds of adverse side effects down the road. Unfortunately, many of them died anyway from micro-clots, Antibody-Dependent Enhancement, and other effects of the killer “vaccines”.
Many of these vaccine victims—suffering from paralysis, nonstop convulsions, spinal damage, permanent vision loss, low blood platelet count, heart inflammation, multi-organ system failure, and other conditions—were allowed to tell their personal stories on television. Talk-show hosts on “The View” and elsewhere oozed sympathy toward the vaccine victims in an effort to regain their alienated and awakened fan-base, but without much success. People everywhere were awakened, not “woke”.
Hollywood and pop-music celebrities who had condemned the unvaccinated mostly went silent. Their ratings crashed through the floor as people boycotted their movies and albums, sending the entertainment/media/propaganda complex into a financial tailspin.
Donald Trump, who proudly boasted about the genetic “vaccines” he hazardously rolled out as President under Operation Warp Speed, finally came out against the kill-shots, blaming his advisers and Fauci for duping him. Trump did not seek re-election due to his declining popularity.
“Who’s to say that dreams and nightmares aren’t as real as the here andnow?” –John Lennon
“Dare to dream big dreams; only big dreams have the power to move men’ssouls.” –Marcus Aurelius
*
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.
The good news is that today is Pearl Harbor Day, which brought about the US entry in World War II, a war that never would have been fought if sanity had prevailed among leading statesmen of that era. The lesson-learned for today should be about the steps that could have and should have been taken to avoid war. And there is more good news in that the United States National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that pork laden mish-mosh that pretends to be serious legislation responsive to the nation’s actual defense needs, is hung up in the Senate, something that has not happened for the past sixty years. But then comes the bad news. The bill is being blocked by several Republican Senators who want to make it nastier, using increased sanctions to halt the Russo-German Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline while also banning imports from China’s Xinjiang region, where some administration officials have accused the government of carrying out genocide against Uyghur Muslims.
The GOP Senators also want to sanction the gas pipeline to warn Russia of consequences over possible military action against Ukraine, putting even more pressure on Germany to pull out of the deal, which is already under severe strain due to Washington’s sanctions. The ban on trade with China is likewise intended to send a signal to Beijing that even what it does internally is not off limits if one wants to avoid the wrath of the US Congress.
The bumbling about America’s place in the world is unfortunately bipartisan. Witness how the Joe Biden Administration entered into office with a pledge to fix the alleged lack of confidence in Washington’s leadership due to some of the actions undertaken by his predecessor Donald Trump. To be sure, Trump’s impetuous brand of decision making sometimes confounded friends and while also confusing potential enemies, but Biden, in spite of his commitment to “build back better,” whatever that is supposed to mean, has up until now little enough to show for his efforts.
The president’s team had hoped to recoup the high ground through adroit management of the possible US role in the climate crisis but not many nations will rallied around the American flag when it came to taking actual steps and establishing targets that would cripple their energy dependent economies. In the US, soaring gas and heating fuel prices have already clearly stifled the potential popular support for reducing carbon emissions. As winter closes in on North America it will be interesting to see how voters react to the Biden climate initiatives, whatever they turn out to be.
Even though the media has obligingly stopped its coverage of the continuing immigration disaster along the nation’s southern border, the Biden Administration’s failure to take effective steps to curb the flow is evident to voters. Team Biden has allowed tens of thousands of illegals to enter the country, with the Immigration Service even providing ongoing flights to enable them to be spread throughout the nation. They are supposed to appear before an immigration judge at some future point, but hardly any of them will bother, while the Democrats will do all they can to enable them to vote by mail. New York City has already announced that it will allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. And oh yes, the Biden immigration program came complete with a mooted plan from the White House to compensate some of those who were caught crossing the border illegally if children were separated from their parents. It might be the first time in American history that criminals were so rewarded, possibly to the tune of $1 million per family, but the good news is that the initiative has apparently been dropped as a result of a popular uprising over the issue.
Should one go on? There was a hopelessly bungled evacuation from Afghanistan that is already passing from memory, a process that will be assisted by a Hollywood movie forthcoming featuring the heroism of the soldiers and Marines who risked their lives to get the American citizens and vulnerable Afghans out before the Taliban came in. One wonders if it will include a recreation of the chowderheads in the White House holding the meeting in which they decided to close the secure Bagram Airbase before the evacuation started? Not very likely as Hollywood is called the “Dream Machine” for good reasons and it is overloaded with Democrats.
And should one mention the relentlessly absurd invocation of new variants of the COVID virus, together with a constantly growing vaccination mandate applied to nearly everyone the government can somehow put pressure on to comply? And the printing of money to support Democratic Party promoted social programs that many find wildly excessive and will inevitably fuel inflation and explode the national debt. It has only been a little over ten months and the vultures are gathering! No wonder Biden’s presidential approval rating is the lowest ever, and his dangerously incompetent Vice President Kamala Harris, who has been thankfully largely invisible, ranks even lower.
So, one should not be surprised that Biden is doing what many of his predecessors have done – to divert the criticism, he is looking for enemies to blame. Now make no mistake, there are a lot of countries that don’t like the United States very much, mostly with good reason based on what Washington has been doing, but the countries most frequently surfaced as “problems” continue to be Iran, Russia and China.
The persistence in seeking out enemies is somewhat peculiar as the United States, protected geographically by two oceans, has undoubtedly the most powerful military in the world backing up strategic deterrents including deliverable nuclear weapons that could annihilate any foe. It spends more on “defense” than the next seven countries combined measured by military expenditures do and has an estimated seven hundred military bases worldwide. Nearly half of all the military spending in the entire world is done by the US.
America is the only nation that can project significant military power globally, so why is there extreme paranoia about foreign threats? Some might argue that it is all a sham, that it is done to keep the cash flowing to the defense contractors, but that explanation is simplistic and it may be better to look at how a combination of factors have transformed America into the world’s “arsenal of democracy.” Or perhaps it would be better described as relentless “democracy promotion.”
Looking at the three enemies of choice one observes that Iran, which does not threaten the US at all, is only on the list because of Israel. The powerful Israel Lobby in the United States has a tight grip on Iran policy, dominating the debate in Congress, such as there is one, and consistently placing its proxies in the White House’s national security cabinet. Talks to reinstate the JCPOA, monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, are very much in America’s national interest but are going nowhere by design because Israel objects. Israeli Prime Minister has recently warned that the talks should be ended as Iran is using “threats” to obtain favorable treatment. As Israel is the only nuclear armed power in the Middle East, the argument borders on the ridiculous.
Russia, the only one of the three that could inflict serious damage on the United States, has likewise been a neocon project since the Soviet Union collapsed. Moscow only has one overseas base, in Syria, and has only limited resources or interests to do more than that, though it is very engaged in making sure that its neighboring states do not slip into the Western orbit any more than has already taken place. Russia’s view of the friendship or hostility of its neighbors is a vital interest, unlike Washington’s involvement in the region.
Nevertheless, the US Foreign Policy establishment, largely under the control of neocons and their associated think tanks, has succeeded in depicting President Vladimir Putin and his government as totalitarian monsters when they move troops within their own borders. The notorious Victoria Nuland, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, recently warned after a NATO ministerial meeting that “All of the NATO allies were in solidarity with Ukraine today and making clear that we are resolute in supporting [its] independence, and we are also resolute in sending the message to Moscow that if it moves again to internally destabilize Ukraine or use its forces to enter the country that it will be met with high impact economic measures the likes of which we have not used before from all of us.”
Another recent ridiculous proposal by Barack Obama’s incompetent Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has the US deterring Russia by increasing sanctions while also entering into a virtual military alliance with Ukraine, which, if anything would provoke rather than deter a war. The US media, which could argue against such precipitate action, has gone along with the charade, misrepresenting Russian action vis-à-vis Ukraine, and supporting American and NATO military provocations in the Black Sea and Baltic. Unfortunately, the relentless propaganda campaign has been effective with fully half of the US public willing to commit American soldiers to “defend” Ukraine.
Some Congressmen are already on board with poking the Russian bear, actually calling for US combat troops to be stationed in the Ukraine to deter Moscow. Secretary of State Tony Blinken has recently warned Russia “not to make a serious mistake” over Ukraine. Why? Maybe because Washington spent $5 billion to overthrow Ukraine’s existing government in 2014 and the country now has a Jewish head of state and both its economy and government are largely in the hands of Jewish-Israeli oligarchs. It is the usual tie that binds, and then there is also the Hunter Biden “gets rich in Ukraine” back story which benefits from being hidden by the status quo.
But China, which has of late risen to the top of the enemies’ chart, is a bit harder to understand. China is a legitimate global competitor with an economy now estimated to be larger than that of the US, but it has never suggested in any way that it wants a war. Against that, President Biden has declared that the United States has a “commitment” to defend Taiwan if China should attempt to retake control of the island. If that conflict were to come about and the US engages in a conventional war against Beijing, it would find that the Chinese have considerable advantages in that they would be fighting on interior lines while the modern hypersonic missile technologies that they would deploy could devastate obsolete American aircraft carrier battle groups. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley has described the new Chinese missiles as “very concerning” and “very close” to being a “Sputnik moment,” when a panicked US accelerated its arms and space races against the Soviet Union in 1957.
And one should not forget that China is a major trading partner with the United States, producing many consumer items that are no longer manufactured in America. Beijing also holds tens of billions of dollars-worth of US Treasury bonds. If two countries ever had good reasons not to go to war it would be China and the US, but the threats coming mostly from Washington have been nearly continuous ever since President Barack Obama initiated his tilt to Asia.
The complete ineptness of US diplomacy also contributes to the sense of threat. Logically, Washington should be playing off Russia against China to diminish any danger of war against two hostile great powers but instead it has chosen to antagonize both of them. Whether the Europeans and the South Koreans and Japanese will follow the US on its march to oblivion is debatable. One of the curious aspects of the news coming out of the White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom is just how hypocritical it all is. Witness for example the groupthink assessment made by General Milley, who said “We’re witnessing one of the largest shifts in global geo-strategic power the world has witnessed. They [the Chinese] are clearly challenging us regionally and their aspiration is to challenge the United States globally.” Milley is saying that China in particular, and Russia and Iran as well, cannot develop military technologies and take other steps to defend themselves without Washington’s permission. The absurdity of that position should be obvious to everyone, but it has apparently not yet become clear to those in power in Washington.
*
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 Unz Review.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
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.
December 6 the White House confirmed that the US will not participate officially in the Winter Olympic Games, scheduled for next year, in Beijing. The decision was made based on strictly political issues, with the US government alleging China to be responsible for supposed human rights violations and anti-democratic policies. As a result, international tensions tend to escalate, as an important diplomatic tie is being broken, promoting an unnecessary politicization of sporting disputes.
Confirming a series of rumors and suspicions in recent months, the US government made it clear that the country will not participate in the 2022 Winter Olympics in an official way. In addition to harming the athletic and peaceful nature of the event, the decision also raised the current level of tension between US and China, as the justification given by the American government is based on unfounded accusations, which are constantly denied and refuted by the Chinese government, such as the allegations of systematic extermination of the Uyghur population and invasion plans against Taiwan.
White House Spokesperson Jen Psaki said:
“The Biden administration will not send any diplomatic or official representation to the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games given the PRC’s ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang and other human rights abuses (… ) US diplomatic or official representation would treat these game as ‘business as usual’ in the face of the PRC’s egregious human rights abuses and atrocities in Xinjiang, and we simply can’t do that (…) As the president has told President Xi [Jinping], standing up for human rights in the DNA of Americans. We have a fundamental commitment to promoting human rights and we feel strongly in our position and we will continue to take actions to advance human rights in China and beyond (…)”.
The boycott, according to information provided so far, will only take place on a diplomatic level. The US will not officially participate, but American athletes who want to compete will be able to travel freely to China. These athletes will not be supported by any official representation of the American State, which will not mobilize diplomats or delegates to comply with the formal and ceremonial aspects of the event. The case will certainly also bring great discomfort to the American athletes themselves, who will compete practically without a flag, undermining the patriotic aspect of their performance.
The international tensions due to the boycott have already started. A few hours after the announcement, Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, made it clear that Beijing will apply countermeasures to Washington if the US government does not decline its attempt to boycott the event. The nature of such countermeasures has not been clarified, but there are several possibilities for reaction, both on a commercial and political level.
It is a naive attitude to view international sporting events as occasions of mere entertainment. In fact, the Olympics are also a great display of geopolitical strength, where Nation States demonstrate their soft power potential. However, boycotting an event of this size for purely political reasons seems an attitude of extreme politicization, whose consequences in the medium and long term can be severe. The precedent set by Washington will allow all countries to act in the same way in upcoming events. Considering that practically all States accumulate reports of human rights violations and have geopolitical rivals, every important sporting event could be boycotted by some country from now on.
For example, the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics are scheduled respectively for Paris and Los Angeles. France has several denunciations of human rights violations, mainly in Africa, and has very important nations as direct geopolitical rivals, such as Turkey. The same can be said about the US itself, which has military troops deployed on all continents, gathering reports of abuses and crimes all around the world, in addition to the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the domestic arena, with constant racial and social tensions. If Turkey, China, Russia and other countries decide to boycott events in the US and France due to geopolitical disagreements, for example, the entire structure of global sport would be affected and the Olympics would lose part of its meaning as an opportunity for peaceful and respectful competition between nations. That is why the American precedent is so dangerous.
Even more troubling is the fact that there is no convincing evidence for the US to continue to endorse allegations of human rights violations against China. The alleged “genocide” against the Uyghur population is a conspiracy theory constantly spreading across the West, without any substantial proof. There is no credibility in this type of speech, as well as in the accusations about the existence of a possible Chinese plan to invade Taiwan. However, adopting conspiracy theories as official state discourse has become an increasingly common practice in the West, which has had serious consequences, such as the current Olympic crisis.
The International Olympic Committee should persuade Washington to change its stance, preventing the extreme politicization of sporting events. Otherwise, soon there will be no Olympics as we know them, with the big events turning into mere disputes of flagless individual athletes.
*
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.
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.
Morocco and Algeria are ready to challenge each other for control of Western Sahara. Control of that piece of desert could spark a war between Rabat and Algiers, eternal rivals. In the background, the fate of the Polisario Front, supported by the Algerian government.
For over a year, tension has been growing in Western Sahara. Last year, the Moroccan governament unilaterally declared the sovereignty of Rabat over Western Sahara. Due to the choice of Rabat, Polisario Front and Algeria have declared that they are ready for war. Morocco claims it has no intention of starting a conflict. But in the meantime, it strengthens its defense systems. Over the past year, the Rabat government has spent nearly $ 10 billion on the purchase of attack drones from Turkey, Apache helicopters and F-16 jets from USA.
Moroccan armed forces continue to garrison those disputed territories. And Rabat diplomacy continues to work to bolster US government support. On November 22, the Moroccan Minister of Defense met with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. Washington confirmed its support for Rabat.
A low-intensity war is already being fought in the dunes of the Western Sahara.
The latest incident took place on November 1st. Three Algerian drivers lost their lives while aboard their trucks, which went up in flames and then exploded along the road from Nouakchott, the Mauritanian capital, to Ouargala in Algeria.
Morocco and Algeria both accuse each other of being responsible for that episode. For the Kingdom of Morocco, it would not have been an attack, but an explosion caused by the passage of trucks over a minefield. Those mines, according to Rabat intelligence, were allegedly placed there by Polisario forces.
From Algiers comes a different story. According to the state news agency “Aps” “three Algerian citizens were cowardly murdered by a barbaric bombing of their trucks” accusing the Moroccan armed forces of having conducted an air raid using a drone. The Algiers government has warned: “Their murder will not remain unpunished”.
Abdelmajid Tebboune, president of Algeria, accuses Morocco of being the cause of all the problems in the country. According to the Algiers government, Rabat plots to overthrow the Algerian government. Polisario Front, has made it known that it will not stop fighting for the independence of Western Sahara.
From that distant piece of desert the sound of war drums comes louder and louder. The closure of the Maghreb – Europe Gas Pipeline (MEG) could also be the prelude to an armed conflict.
The dispute over the Western Sahara began in 1975 when, following the withdrawal of Spanish rule, Morocco annexed a part of this area, located on the north-western coast of Africa. In response, in 1976, the Polisario Front (formed as a movement on 1973), announced the birth of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, establishing a government in exile in Algeria and waging a guerrilla war for independence that lasted until 1991, when a ceasefire was declared, promoted by the United Nations.
Now, after thirty years, there is a risk of a new conflict.
*
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.
The story of this fall has been the story of “breakthrough” infections. It turns out vaccines don’t work and nobody actually believes in them. There’s no reasoning, no actual research, no cost-benefit analysis, not a single rational thought from any of the highly-trained and highly-paid professionals who have made themselves the dictators of our lives.
Nobody understands this better than Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, internist, and epidemiologist, who has been a steadfast advocate for alternative Covid treatments like hydroxychloroquine.
*
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.
The Second World War started, at least as far as its “European theatre” was concerned, with the German army steamrolling over Poland in September 1939. About six months later, even more spectacular victories followed, this time over the Low Countries and France. Great Britain refused to throw in the towel but could not threaten a Nazi Reich that looked invincible and predestined to rule the European continent indefinitely. Hitler was thus able to turn his attention to the project that he considered the great mission entrusted to him by providence, namely the destruction of the Soviet Union, the cradle and hotbed of communism, a country he liked to refer to as “Russia ruled by Jews”.
Hitler not only ardently wanted to attack the Soviet Union but felt that he had to do so as soon as possible. Germany was a major industrial power, but underprivileged in terms of access to essential raw materials. Its defeat in World War I, when the Reich was blockaded by the Royal Navy, had demonstrated that without a steady supply of essential strategic raw materials, particularly petroleum and rubber, Germany could not win a long, drawn-out war. This is how the blitzkrieg concept was born, a strategy that called for synchronised attacks by waves of tanks and airplanes to pierce the defensive lines. Deep penetration into hostile territory, followed quickly by infantry units moving not on foot or by train, as in the Great War, but in trucks; and then swinging back to bottle up and liquidate entire enemy armies in gigantic “encirclement battles” (Kesselschlachten).
The blitzkrieg strategy worked perfectly in 1939 and 1940, when it enabled the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to overwhelm the Polish, Dutch, Belgian, and French defenses. Blitzkriege, “lightning-fast wars” were invariably followed by Blitzsiege, “lightning-fast victories.” However, these victories did not provide Germany with much loot in the form of vitally important petroleum and rubber; instead, they depleted the stockpiles built up before the war. Fortunately for Hitler, in 1940 and 1941 Germany was able to continue importing oil from Romania and the still neutral United States. Under the terms of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, concluded in August 1939, the Soviet Union itself also supplied Germany with petroleum, but these deliveries represented merely four per cent of all German oil imports at that time. (Millman, pp. 273, 261–83) And in return, Germany had to deliver high-quality industrial products and state-of-the-art military technology.
The Soviets used this equipment to improve their weaponry in preparation for a German attack they expected to come sooner or later (Soete, pp. 289-90). Hitler found this most troubling, since it made the Soviets defenses stronger by the day. Time was obviously not on Hitler’s side, so he feared that the “window of opportunity” for an easy victory in the east might soon close. Finally, the sooner the Soviet Union would be conquered, the better for Germany, which would then finally be blessed with virtually limitless resources, including the rich Caucasian oil fields.
(The German dictator turned his attention to his anti-Soviet project virtually immediately after the defeat of France, that is, in the summer of 1940. Preparations started after he gave an order to that effect on July 31. On December 18 of that year, the project for an Ostkrieg or “eastern war” received the code-name Operation Barbarossa. Kershaw, p. 14; Ueberschär, p. 39).
The attack started on June 22, 1941, in the early hours of the morning. Three million German soldiers plus almost 700,000 allies of Nazi Germany poured across the border. Huge holes were punched in the Soviet defences, impressive territorial gains were rapidly made and hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers were killed, wounded, or taken prisoner.
According to Western mainstream historiography, reflected in media articles and documentaries, the Nazi host would undoubtedly have marched all the way to Moscow and defeated the Soviet Union, had they not been prevented by doing so by the intervention of General Winter, a.k.a. “General Frost.” Presumably, an unusually early arrival of equally unusually cold weather ruined the plans of the German generals, who had failed to equip their troops with winter gear, and robbed Hitler of a virtually certain victory. In other words, Barbarossa failed because of a force majeure, because of “bad luck” for the Germans and “good luck” for the Soviets. The historical truth, however, is vcry different. The advance of what was then the world’s mightiest army was halted, admittedly at the cost of huge losses, not by General Winter but by the efforts and sacrifices of the Soviet people, civilians as well as soldiers. Let us take a closer look at the facts.
Hitler and his generals were convinced that their “lightning warfare” would be as successful against the Soviets as it had been against Poland, France, etc. They considered the Soviet Union to be a “giant with feet of clay,” whose army, presumably decapitated by Stalin’s purges of the late 1930s, was “not more than a joke,” as Hitler himself put it on one occasion (Ueberschär, p. 95). To win a decisive victory, they allowed six to eight weeks; by the end of August, at the latest, it would be “game over” for the Red Army, so the bulk of the German soldiers would be able to return to their jobs in Germany.
Hitler felt supremely confident, and on the eve of the attack, he “fancied himself to be on the verge of the greatest triumph of his life.” (Müller, pp. 209, 225) In Washington and London, the military experts allowed for a little more time, they believed that the Soviet Union would be “liquidated within eight to ten weeks”; even so, it was predicted that the Wehrmacht would slice through the Red Army “like a warm knife through butter” and that the Soviet soldiers would be rounded up “like cattle.” According to expert opinion in Washington, Hitler would “crush Russia [sic] like an egg.” (Pauwels 2015, p. 66; Losurdo, p. 29)
At first, everything went according to plan: the road to Moscow seemed to lay open, another deadly blitzkrieg appeared destined to produce another brilliant Blitzsieg. However, it became evident within days that the campaign would not be the cakewalk that had been expected. Propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels confided in his diary as early as July 2 that the Soviets suffered heavy losses but also put up a tough resistance and hit back very hard. General Franz Halder, in many ways the “godfather” of the plan of attack, acknowledged that Soviet resistance was much stronger than anything they had faced in Western Europe. Wehrmacht reports cited “hard,” “tough,” even “wild” resistance, causing heavy losses in men and equipment on the German side. Many if not most of the German victories in the early stages of Barbarossa belonged to the Pyrrhic category, so much so, that the soldiers started to react to triumphant communiqués with the sarcastic comment that they were “‘victoring’ themselves to death.” (The German term they used was totsiegen) (Overy, p. 87; Kershaw, pp. 237, 362, 377, 575-77, 581)
More often than expected, Soviet forces managed to launch counterattacks that slowed down the German advance. Some Soviet units went into hiding in the vast Pripet Marshes and elsewhere and organized deadly partisan warfare for which thorough preparations had been made in advance, and this guerilla-style warfare thoroughly perturbed the long and vulnerable German lines of communication. (Ueberschär, pp. 97–98)
The Red Army suffered huge losses but proved able to persevere because it turned out to be much bigger than anticipated, counting about 360 divisions, rather than the 300 estimated by the Germans. It also turned out that the Soviets were much better equipped than expected. The Wehrmacht generals were “amazed,” writes a German historian, by the quality of Soviet weapons such as the Katyusha rocket launcher (a.k.a. “Stalin Organ”) and the T-34 tank. Hitler was furious that his secret services had not been aware of the existence of some of this weaponry. (Ueberschär, p. 97; Kershaw, pp. 173-79, 573; Losurdo, p. 31)
The greatest cause of concern for the Germans was the fact that the bulk of the Red Army managed to withdraw in relatively good order and eluded encirclement and destruction, avoiding a repeat of Cannae or Sedan, which Hitler and his generals had dreamt of. The Soviets appeared to have carefully observed and analyzed the German blitzkrieg successes of 1939 and 1940 and to have learned useful lessons. They must have noticed that in May 1940 the French had massed their forces right at the border as well as in Belgium, thus making it possible for the German war machine to bottle them up. (British troops were also caught in this encirclement but managed to escape via Dunkirk.) The Soviets did leave some troops at the border, of course, and these units predictably suffered the Soviet Union’s major losses during the opening stages of Barbarossa. But — contrary to what is claimed by historians such as Richard Overy (Overy, pp. 64–65) — the bulk of the Red Army was held back in the rear, avoiding entrapment. It was this “defence in depth” that frustrated the German ambition to destroy the Red Army in its entirety. As Marshal Zhukov was to write in his memoirs, “the Soviet Union would have been smashed if we had organized all our forces at the border.” (Losurdo, p. 33; Soete, p. 297)
By the middle of July, some German leaders started to voice great concern. Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Wehrmacht’s secret service, the Abwehr, for example, confided on July 17 to a colleague on the front, General von Bock, that he saw “nothing but black.” On the home front, many German civilians also started to feel that the war in the east was not going well. In fact, unease and concern gradually gave way to pessimism and depression as “the daily papers carried endless columns of death notices.” (Kershaw, pp. 394-96) In Dresden, Victor Klemperer, a Jewish linguist who kept a diary, wrote on July 13 that “we [the Germans] suffer immense losses, we have underestimated the Russians.” (Losurdo, pp. 31–32)
The Germans did indeed suffer “immense losses” during their invasion of the Soviet Union and did so from the start. Within three weeks, the German casualties in the Soviet Union exceeded those of the entire campaign in France in 1940. Before the end of September, they had suffered half a million casualties, the equivalent of 30 divisions. (Kershaw, pp. 377, 577) Between June 22, 1941, and January 31, 1942, material losses would include 6,000 airplanes and more than 3,200 tanks and similar vehicles. And during the same period no less than 918,000 men would be killed, wounded, or gone missing in action, amounting to almost one third — 28.7 per cent, to be precise — of an army of just over 3 million men. (Ueberschär, p. 116)
Less than one month after the start of Barbarossa, the notion that things were not going well on what was to become known as the eastern front was thus already spreading in Germany from the top of the military and political hierarchy to the lowest civilian levels. Worse, already on July 9, generals of Marshal Pétain’s French collaborator regime, meeting in Vichy, received confidential reports that the Wehrmacht was unlikely to defeat the Soviets within two months, as planned. The French generals concluded that a German victory, not only in the Soviet Union but in the war in general no longer belonged to the realm of possibilities. One of them even opined that “Germany would not win the war but had already lost it.” (Lacroix-Riz 2016, pp. 245-46)
Need it be pointed out that these bad tidings date back to the middle of the summer of 1941, not even one month after the start of Barbarossa and long before – according to conventional Western historiography — General Winter would appear on the scene to save the skin of the Soviet bear?
Western historiography tends to focus on the Wehrmacht’s spectacular advances and victories in the opening stages of Operation Barbarossa, while ignoring or minimizing its losses; conversely, the Soviet losses receive plenty of attention, while any Soviet successes tend to be ignored or downplayed. Even though the Wehrmacht’s performance did indeed appear to be very impressive, Hitler’s blitzkrieg in the east started to lose its blitz qualities after only a few weeks. Robert Kershaw, a specialist in the German-Soviet war, has described how “Blitzkrieg momentum petered out” as early as the first week of July, “the tempo faltered” in the following weeks, and the vanguards ceased “sprinting as they had done in the Polish and French campaigns.” (Kershaw, pp. 236, 253) Eventually, as an Italian historian, comparing Hitler’s and Napoleon’s ventures in Russia, has observed, “despite the fast dashes of the panzers, the average speed of the German army ended up being not much higher than that of Napoleon’s troops [in 1812].” (Sansone)
In that same summer of 1941, then, Hitler himself had to abandon his dream of a quick and easy victory and scale down his expectations. He now expressed the hope that his troops might reach the Volga by October and capture the oil fields of the Caucasus a month or so later. (Wegner, p. 653) By the end of August, at a time when Barbarossa should have been winding down, a memorandum of the Wehrmacht’s High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, OKW) acknowledged that it might no longer be possible to win the war in 1941. (Ueberschär, p. 100) Having to keep millions of men in uniform in the eastern killing fields conjured up the spectre of labor shortages that might cripple the German economy, thus further diminishing the Reich’s prospects for victory.
Another major problem was the fact that, when Barbarossa started on June 22, the available supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts, and the like were expected to last for not much more than two months. This had been deemed sufficient because it would supposedly take no more than eight weeks to bring the Soviet Union to its knees, and then that country’s virtually unlimited resources — agricultural and industrial products as well as oil and other raw materials — would be available to the victorious Germans. (Müller, p. 233) However, by late August 1941 the Wehrmacht’s spearheads were nowhere near those distant stretches of the Soviet Union where petroleum, that most precious of all martial commodities, was to be had. If the tanks managed to keep on rolling, though increasingly slowly, into the seemingly endless Ukrainian and Russian expanses, it was to a large extent by means of fuel, imported via neutral Spain and occupied France, from the US. In any event, by the end of August, at the latest, shortage of fuel and spare parts were becoming a major problem. That had a nefarious impact on the morale of the troops, who realized that “the enemy possessed unimaginable huge reserves in men and material.” It was hardly comforting that the diminishing supply of fuel was offset to some extent by diminishing demand, caused by the fact that no less than 30% of the panzers had been destroyed by the end of August. (Jersak; Pauwels 2015, pp. 78-79; Kershaw, pp. 366, 372-73, 375)
The flames of optimism briefly shot up again in September, when German troops captured Kiev and, further north, made progress in the direction of Moscow. Hitler believed, or at least pretended to believe, that the end was now near for the Soviets. In a public speech in the Berlin Sportpalast on October 3, he declared that the Ostkrieg was virtually over. But his bluster could not conceal the nasty reality of developments at the front. In September, when a blitzkrieg victory was already supposed to be in the bag, a correspondent of the New York Times based in Stockholm became convinced that the opposite result was more likely. He had just returned from a visit to the Reich, where he witnessed the arrival of trainloads of injured soldiers, causing him to conclude that “the collapse of Germany could come with dramatic suddenness.” The always well-informed Vatican, initially very enthusiastic about Hitler’s “crusade” against the Soviet homeland of “godless” Bolshevism, had already become very concerned about the situation in the east in late summer 1941; by mid-October, it concluded that Germany would lose the war. (Lacroix-Riz 1996, p. 417; Baker, p. 387) (Clearly, the German bishops had not been informed of the bad tidings since a couple of months later on December 10 they publicly declared to be “observing the struggle against Bolshevism with satisfaction.”) Likewise in mid-October, the Swiss secret services reported that “the Germans could no longer win the war.” (Bourgeois, pp. 123, 127.) Even at that time, when an ominous writing was clearly visible on the Wahrmacht’s wall, General Winter still had not made his appearance in the Soviet Union.
Hitler did not give up. Having convinced himself that the Soviets were already defeated but did not yet realize it, he ordered the Wehrmacht to deliver the coup de grâce by launching Operation Typhoon (Unternehmen Taifun), a drive aimed at taking Moscow, the Soviet capital that was supposed to have fallen months earlier. But the odds for success looked very slim, as Red Army units were being brought in from the Far East to bolster the city’s defenses. Moscow had been informed by its master spy in Tokyo, Richard Sorge, that the Japanese, whose army was stationed in northern China, were no longer considering attacking the Soviets’ vulnerable borders in the Vladivostok area. (Hasegawa, p. 17) (Tokyo had been antagonized by Hitler’s conclusion of a pact with Stalin in 1939 and had switched to a “southern strategy” that was to bring them into conflict with the US.) (Pauwels 2021)
To make things worse for the German side, the Luftwaffe no longer enjoyed superiority in the air, particularly over Moscow. Moreover, sufficient supplies of ammunition and food could not be brought up from the rear to the front since the stretched-out supply lines were severely hampered by partisan activity. (Ueberschär, pp. 99–102, 106–7)
It was now getting chilly in the Soviet Union, though probably no colder than usual at that time of the year. The German high command, confident that their eastern blitzkrieg would be over by the end of the summer, had not deemed it necessary to supply the troops with the equipment necessary to fight in the rain, mud, snow and freezing temperatures of a Russian fall and winter. On the other hand, the onset of winter conditions around the middle of November may be said to have favoured the Germans; Thanks to freezing but still “moderate” temperatures, the ground froze in November 1941, making it much easier for the panzers and other vehicles to advance along frozen roads and across open terrain than before, during the fall’s “rasputitsa” season with its frequent rains and ubiquitous mud. (Egorov)
German soldiers pulling an automobile through the mud during the 1941 rasputitsa (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)
Taking Moscow loomed as an extremely important objective in the minds of Hitler and his generals. It was believed, though probably wrongly, that the fall of its capital would “decapitate” the Soviet Union and thus bring about the country’s collapse. It also seemed important to avoid a repeat of the scenario of the summer of 1914, when the seemingly unstoppable German advance into France had been halted in extremis on the eastern outskirts of Paris, during the Battle of the Marne. This disaster — from the German perspective — had robbed Germany of nearly certain victory in the opening stages of the Great War and had forced it into a lengthy struggle that, lacking sufficient resources and blockaded by the British navy, it was doomed to lose. This time, in a new Great War fought against a new archenemy, there was to be no new “miracle of the Marne,” that is, no faltering just outside the enemy capital. It was imperative that Germany not find itself resourceless and blockaded in a long, drawn-out conflict it was certain to lose. Unlike Paris, Moscow would fall, history would not repeat itself, and Germany would end up being victorious. Or so they hoped in Hitler’s headquarters.
The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves only thirty kilometres from the capital; some patrols reportedly even penetrated the suburb of Khimki, situated at only 20 km from the Kremlin. However, the troops were now totally exhausted and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow, tantalizingly close as the city may have been, and that even doing so would not bring them victory. A defeatism of sorts had started to infect the higher ranks of the Wehrmacht and of the Nazi party. Even as they were urging their troops forward towards Moscow, some generals opined that it would be preferable to make peace overtures and wind down the war without achieving the great victory that had seemed so certain at the start of Operation Barbarossa. Shortly before the end of November, armament Minister Fritz Todt asked Hitler to search for a diplomatic way out of the war, since purely militarily as well as industrially it was as good as lost. (Ueberschär, pp. 107–8)
It is in this context that, on December 3, several Wehrmacht units abandoned the offensive on their own initiative. But within days, the entire German army in front of Moscow moved on the defensive involuntarily. Indeed, on December 5, at three in the morning, in cold and snowy conditions, the Red Army launched a major counterattack that had been well prepared and dissimulated under the auspices of General Zhukov. (Kershaw, pp. 513-14) The Wehrmacht was caught by surprise, its lines were pierced in many places, and over the following days the Germans were thrown back between 100 and 280 kilometres with heavy losses of men and equipment. It was the first time ever that the Wehrmacht had to organize a major withdrawal, and there were no plans for such an operation; it was only with great difficulty that a catastrophic encirclement was avoided and that a defensive line could be established. On December 8, Hitler formally ordered his army to abandon the offensive and move into defensive positions. (Ueberschär, pp. 107–11; Roberts, p. 111)
Which way back to Berlin? German soldiers west of Moscow, December 1941 (CC BY 3.0)
The Germans thus managed to survive the Soviet counter-offensive, which would run out of steam in early January 1942. Hitler ignored his generals’ advice to seek a diplomatic exit of the war and decided to battle on in the slim hope of somehow pulling victory out of a hat. In the spring of 1942, he would scrape together all available forces for an offensive in the direction of the Caucasus, whose petroleum Germany desperately needed. After initial successes, that effort was to result in the catastrophic defeat at Stalingrad, which was to reveal to the entire world that Germany was doomed. But let us stay in 1941. Hoping – in vain, as it turned out – that Tokyo would reciprocate with a declaration of war on the Soviet Union, which would have forced the Red Army to fight on two fronts, Hitler also gratuitously declared war on the US a few days after he received the news of Pearl Harbor, but that is a different story. (See Pauwels 2015, pp. 79-85)
Hitler and his generals had believed, not without reason, that to win the war, Germany had to win it fast. The realization, or at least fear, that a “lightning-fast victory” would not be forthcoming had already dawned on many of the Führer’s military and Nazi party associates for months, starting in July. Hitler himself seems to have refused to acknowledge this reality until December 5, when the Red Army launched its counter-offensive early in the morning. On that day, his generals came to the “Führer’s headquarters” and made it clear that he could no longer win the war. (Hillgruber, p. 81.) As we have seen, the blitzkrieg strategy had been moribund virtually from the moment it had been implemented against the Soviet Union the previous June 22, and its agony has lasted for many months, but December 5 may be viewed as the day that its death was certified. And it is therefore not unreasonable to declare December 5. 1041 to be “major break [Zäsur] of the entire world war,” in other words, the turning point, at least symbolically, of the Second World War II, as Gerd R. Ueberschär, a German expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has done. (Ueberschär, p. 120). However, the importance of December 5 was far from evident to most people in Germany, the Soviet Union, and the rest of the world; it was only much later, in early 1943, after its catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad, that the entire world would realize that Nazi Germany’s bubble had burst.
A sine qua non for a Germany victory not only in the war against the Soviet Union but in the entire war, was that the blitzkrieg in the east would be over within maximum eight weeks, that is, long before the first snowflakes started coming down. However, in a Herculean effort and at the price of unseen sacrifices, the Soviets downgraded Hitler’s “lightning war” to a crawl as early as the summer of 1941, caused it to lose more of its blitz throughout the fall, long after it was supposed to have been concluded victoriously, and finally liquidated it in early December, thus ruining Hitler’s prospects for victory It was only at that eleventh hour, in late November-early December, that General Winter made an appearance. This ice-cold epiphany undoubtedly inflicted yet another torment on the already exhausted and demoralized German troopers at the front. However, the arrival of General Winter was most welcome to the Nazis as it provided them with a rationale for the failure of a blitzkrieg that had been moribund since the summer and was now finally laid to rest.
The myth crediting General Winter may be said to have been concocted by none other than Hitler himself. In the days following that fateful December 5, he explained the fiasco of Barbarossa as a temporary setback caused by the supposedly early arrival of winter, in other words, as a kind of “act of God.” Nazi spin doctors subsequently disseminated this myth throughout Germany, occupied Europe, and the rest of the world. One could hardly expect the Nazis to tell the truth, that is, to admit that they had been beaten, “fairly and squarely,” as the saying goes, by their mortal enemies, the Soviet communists. Something similar can be said about the situation after 1945, when, in the context of the Cold War, the Nazi myth was recycled in the West to minimize the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. After the fall of the Soviet Union the myth has continued to be useful for anti-Russian purposes.
The Nazi invaders were defeated by the Red Army, which proved to be much stronger, better equipped, and much more motivated than the overconfident aggressors had expected. As Robert Kershaw, the author of a thorough history of the Ostkrieg has put it, “‘General Winter’ was not responsible [for the German defeat], . . . the ferocity and doggedness of Russian resistance [was].” (Kershaw, p. 577)
A T-34 tank and Red Army infantry moving into a village (Public Domain)
The Red Army deserved this recognition, but the Soviet success would not have been possible without the support of the majority of the Russian and many other peoples that made up the Soviet nation, except, of course, a not inconsiderable number of collaborators. Of the latter, every country facing the Reich unfortunately had its fair share. The Germans wrongly believed that the Soviet Union would be full of them, so that they would be welcomed with open arms as liberators, but the opposite proved to be the case: they faced widespread resistance, including armed resistance by partisans. It is fair to say that without such massive popular support, the Soviet Union would not have survived the Nazi onslaught.
How about the role of the Soviet leaders, political as well as military? That they also deserve some credit, has been acknowledged in the Western world, at least in the case of a handful of military leaders like Zhukov, the defender of Moscow, who has been lionized almost, but not quite, as much as “Anglo-American” generals such as Eisenhower and Montgomery and even Nazi commanders like Guderian and Rommel. But while the West’s political leaders have likewise been glorified, for example Churchill and Roosevelt, their Soviet counterparts are typically dismissed as criminally incompetent, with Stalin in the role of bête noire. This necessitates explaining the Soviet success as the result of a force majeure such as the hypothetical, deus en machina-like intervention of General Winter and/or massive material aid received from Uncle Sam. The latter argument does note make sense for many reasons. May it suffice here and now to point out that in 1941, when they ruined the blitzkrieg and turned the tide of war, nota bene even before the US entered the war, the Soviets received no American material assistance whatsoever; on the other hand, throughout that same year, American corporations and oil trusts were supplying the Nazis –via production in branch plants in Germany an exports via neutral third countries — with a lot of the trucks, planes and other equipment as well as plenty of the fuel required to wage their blitzkrieg in the east. (Pauwels 2015, pp. 78-79) In light of this, the notion that US aid helped the Soviet Union to survive Barbarossa comes close to being laughable.
While the Soviet political leadership – usually referred to in the West as “Stalin” –made numerous mistakes big and small, just like all other governments at the time, it did a lot to make it possible for the Soviet Union to survive the Nazi onslaught and ultimately to defeat the Nazi monster. Let us briefly focus on three achievements, inevitably totally misrepresented in the Western world. First, the conclusion of a pact with Nazi Germany in August 1939. Via that agreement, the Soviets gained vitally important time and space: time to improve their defences and move vital industries far into the interior; and space in the form of so-called “Eastern Poland”, in reality former Russian territory annexed by Poland; the “starting blocks” of a German attack were thus moved hundreds of kilometres to the west, away from Moscow and other important centres of the Soviet Union. Without the benefit of this “glacis”, the Soviet capital would almost certainly have fallen to the German invaders in 1941. (Pauwels 2021)
Second, in the late thirties, the Soviet authorities discovered a major conspiracy aimed at sabotaging the country’s defense in case of a Nazi attack. This treasonous cabal involved high-ranking Red Army commanders, many of whom had formerly served the czarist army, such as Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, of whom it is now known with certainty that they worked together with the Nazi secret services for the purpose of facilitating a German attack. This episode is typically but wrongly portrayed in the West as a Macchiavellian scheme orchestrated by Stalin, who allegedly sought to eliminate potential competitors who were innocent of any wrongdoing; and this implied a “decapitation” of the Red Army that supposedly helps to explain its poor performance in the early stages of Barbarossa.
However, if this “fifth column” in the Soviet Union had not been eliminated, the Red Army would undoubtedly have done much worse in June 1941 than it actually did; it would probably have experienced a “strange defeat” like the one suffered one year earlier, in May-June 1940, by the French army, which was teeming with generals sympathetic to the Nazis. (Lacroix-Riz 2006) The elimination of the Soviet counterparts of the treacherous French generals was regretted, of course, by all those who wished for the demise of the Soviet Union at the time. That included the Nazi leaders, of course, who had hoped that the conspiracy would succeed and were very disappointed when it was discovered. In October 1943, Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, which was deeply involved in the war (and war crimes) in the Soviet Union, stated in a speech that he believed “that Russia would never have lasted through these two years of war . . . if she had retained the former czarist generals.” (Furr, p. 146)
But less unsympathetic folks understood perfectly well why the leadership in Moscow had eliminated an all too real “fifth column.” Albert Einstein thus wrote to a friend that “the Russians had no choice but to destroy as many of their enemies within their own camp as possible.” (“Thesis: Einstein, H. G. Wells, and Other Leading Figures…”)
Third, during the time gained by the conclusion of the 1939 Pact, the Soviet government managed to transfer untold important factories from areas near the western border to the interior of the country, even to the far side of the Urals. That would prove to be crucially important in 1941, since it made it possible to continue producing all sorts of weapons and other strategic equipment while denying it to the German invaders. With respect to the latter objective, the government’s “scorched earth” policy also proved helpful.
Incidentally, moving a huge part of a country’s industry in little more than two years would have been impossible had the Soviet economy been capitalist, that is, based on private ownership. This and similar considerations have led an American expert in the field, Sanford R. Lieberman, to state unequivocally that it is unlikely that the Soviet Union would have weathered the Nazi storm if its system had not been the one produced by Russian Revolution auspices, that is, a communist one. (Lieberman, p. 71) It is understandable that, in the context of the Cold War, mainstream historians and other social scientists were not keen so subscribe to the idea that the Soviet Union owed its survival in 1941 to a considerable extent to the communist socio-economic system (and the country’s communist leaders) and therefore worked hard to promote the anti-Soviet and anticommunist notion that the land of the Soviets had survived not because but in spite of it (and them), namely, on account of an incredible stroke of luck in the form of an intervention by General Winter – plus some unselfish aid from Uncle Sam.
Had the blitzkrieg worked its magic in the Soviet Union in 1941, Nazi Germany would have conquered the Soviet Union, a cornucopia of strategic resources such as petroleum, and become an invulnerable Behemoth certain to remain the master of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, and probably the Middle East and North Africa as well. There would have been no Stalingrad, no landings in Normandy, no Hitler suicide in the ruins of conquered Berlin. That the nasty scenario of a Nazi “final triumph” (Endsieg) failed to unfold, is something for which we must thank not General Winter but the Red Army, the Soviet people, and the Soviet government. Spassiba!
*
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. Jacques R. Pauwels, renowned author, historian and political scientist, Toronto, Canada. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Baker, Nicholson. Human Smoke: The Beginnings of the Second World War, the End of Civilization, New York, 2008.
Bourgeois, Daniel. Business helvétique et Troisième Reich. Milieux d’affaires, politique étrangère, antisémitisme, Lausanne, 1998.
Furr, Grover. Trotsky and the Military Conspiracy: Soviet and Non-Soviet Evidence; with the Complete Transcript of the ‘Tukhachevsky Affair’ Trial, Kettering, OH, 2021.
Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan, Cambridge, MA, 2005.
Hillgruber, Andreas (ed.). Der Zweite Weltkrieg 1939—1945: Kriegsziele und Strategie der Großen Mächte, 5th edition, Stuttgart, 1989; first edition: 1982.
Tobias, “Öl für den Führer,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, February 11, 1999.
Kershaw, Robert. War Without Garlands: Operation Barbarossa 1941-1942, Hersham, Surrey, 2008.
Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Le Vatican, l’Europe et le Reich de la Première Guerre mondiale à la guerre froide, Paris, 1996.
Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Lechoix de la défaite. Les élites françaises dans les années 30, Paris, 2006.
Lacroix-Riz, Les élites françaises entre 1940 et 1944. De la collaboration avec l’Allemagne à l’alliance américaine, Paris, 2016.
Lacroix-Riz, Annie. Les élites françaises entre 1940 et 1944. De la collaboration avec l’Allemagne à l’alliance américaine, Paris, 2016.
Lieberman, Sanford R. “Crisis Management in the USSR. The Wartime System of Administration and Control,” in: Linz, Susan J. (ed.), The Impact of World War II on the Soviet-Union, Totowa, NJ, 1985, pp. 59–76.
Losurdo, Domenico. Stalin: Storia e critica di una leggenda nera, Rome, 2008.
Millman, Brock. “Toward War with Russia: British Naval and Air Planning for Conflict in the Near East, 1939–40,” Journal of Contemporary History, 29:2, April 1994, pp. 261–83.
Müller, Rolf-Dieter. Der Feind steht im Osten: Hitlers geheime Pläne für einen Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion im Jahr 1939, Berlin, 2011.
Overy, Richard. Russia’s War, London, 1997.
Pauwels, Jacques R. The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, revised edition, Lorimer, Toronto, 2015; first edition: 2002.
Pauwels, Jacques R. The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, revised edition, Lorimer, Toronto, 2015; first edition: 2002.
Ueberschär, Gerd R. “Das Scheitern des ‘Unternehmens Barbarossa’,” in: Gerd R. Ueberschär and Wolfram Wette (eds.), Der deutsche Überfall auf die Sowjetunion. “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 1941, Frankfurt, 2011, pp. 85–122.
Wegner, Bernd. “Hitlers zweiter Feldzug gegen die Sowjetunion: Strategische Grundlagen und historische Bedeutung,” in: Wolfgang Michalka (ed.), Der Zweite Weltkrieg: Analysen — Grundzüge — Forschungsbilanz, Munich and Zurich, 1989, pp. 652–66.
Featured image: Soviet poster: “To the USSR, and back” (Source: Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels)
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.
Despite a disagreement over some amendments in the Senate, the United States Congress is poised to pass a $778 billion military budget bill for 2022. As they have been doing year after year, our elected officials are preparing to hand the lion’s share – over 65% – of federal discretionary spending to the U.S. war machine, even as they wring their hands over spending a mere quarter of that amount on the Build Back Better Act.
The U.S. military’s incredible record of systematic failure—most recently its final trouncing by the Taliban after twenty years of death, destruction and lies in Afghanistan—cries out for a top-to-bottom review of its dominant role in U.S. foreign policy and a radical reassessment of its proper place in Congress’s budget priorities.
Instead, year after year, members of Congress hand over the largest share of our nation’s resources to this corrupt institution, with minimal scrutiny and no apparent fear of accountability when it comes to their own reelection. Members of Congress still see it as a “safe” political call to carelessly whip out their rubber-stamps and vote for however many hundreds of billions in funding Pentagon and arms industry lobbyists have persuaded the Armed Services Committees they should cough up.
Let’s make no mistake about this: Congress’s choice to keep investing in a massive, ineffective and absurdly expensive war machine has nothing to do with “national security” as most people understand it, or “defense” as the dictionary defines it.
U.S. society does face critical threats to our security, including the climate crisis, systemic racism, erosion of voting rights, gun violence, grave inequalities and the corporate hijacking of political power. But one problem we fortunately do not have is the threat of attack or invasion by a rampant global aggressor or, in fact, by any other country at all.
Maintaining a war machine that outspends the 12 or 13 next largest militaries in the world combined actually makes us less safe, as each new administration inherits the delusion that the United States’ overwhelmingly destructive military power can, and therefore should, be used to confront any perceived challenge to U.S. interests anywhere in the world—even when there is clearly no military solution and when many of the underlying problems were caused by past misapplications of U.S. military power in the first place.
While the international challenges we face in this century require a genuine commitment to international cooperation and diplomacy, Congress allocates only $58 billion, less than 10 percent of the Pentagon budget, to the diplomatic corps of our government: the State Department. Even worse, both Democratic and Republican administrations keep filling top diplomatic posts with officials indoctrinated and steeped in policies of war and coercion, with scant experience and meager skills in the peaceful diplomacy we so desperately need.
This only perpetuates a failed foreign policy based on false choices between economic sanctions that UN officials have compared to medieval sieges, coups that destabilize countries and regions for decades, and wars and bombing campaigns that kill millions of people and leave cities in rubble, like Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria.
The end of the Cold War was a golden opportunity for the United States to reduce its forces and military budget to match its legitimate defense needs. The American public naturally expected and hoped for a “Peace Dividend,” and even veteran Pentagon officials told the Senate Budget Committee in 1991 that military spending could safely be cut by 50% over the next ten years.
But no such cut happened. U.S. officials instead set out to exploit the post-Cold War “Power Dividend,” a huge military imbalance in favor of the United States, by developing rationales for using military force more freely and widely around the world. During the transition to the new Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright famously asked Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
In 1999, as Secretary of State under President Clinton, Albright got her wish, running roughshod over the UN Charter with an illegal war to carve out an independent Kosovo from the ruins of Yugoslavia.
The UN Charter clearly prohibits the threat or use of military force except in cases of self-defense or when the UN Security Council takes military action “to maintain or restore international peace and security.” This was neither. When U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Albright his government was “having trouble with our lawyers” over NATO’s illegal war plan, Albright crassly told him to “get new lawyers.”
Twenty-two years later, Kosovo is the third-poorest country in Europe (after Moldova and post-coup Ukraine) and its independence is still not recognized by 96 countries. Hashim Thaçi, Albright’s hand-picked main ally in Kosovo and later its president, is awaiting trial in an international court at the Hague, charged with murdering at least 300 civilians under cover of NATO bombing in 1999 to extract and sell their internal organs on the international transplant market.
Clinton and Albright’s gruesome and illegal war set the precedent for more illegal U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, with equally devastating and horrific results. But America’s failed wars have not led Congress or successive administrations to seriously rethink the U.S. decision to rely on illegal threats and uses of military force to project U.S. power all over the world, nor have they reined in the trillions of dollars invested in these imperial ambitions.
Instead, in the upside-down world of institutionally corrupt U.S. politics, a generation of failed and pointlessly destructive wars have had the perverse effect of normalizing even more expensive military budgets than during the Cold War, and reducing congressional debate to questions of how many more of each useless weapons system they should force U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for.
It seems that no amount of killing, torture, mass destruction or lives ruined in the real world can shake the militaristic delusions of America’s political class, as long as the “Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex” (President Eisenhower’s original wording) is reaping the benefits.
Today, most political and media references to the Military-Industrial Complex refer only to the arms industry as a self-serving corporate interest group on a par with Wall Street, Big Pharma or the fossil fuel industry. But in his Farewell Address, Eisenhower explicitly pointed to, not just the arms industry, but the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”
Eisenhower was just as worried about the anti-democratic impact of the military as the arms industry. Weeks before his Farewell Address, he told his senior advisors, “God help this country when somebody sits in this chair who doesn’t know the military as well as I do.” His fears have been realized in every subsequent presidency.
According to Milton Eisenhower, the president’s brother, who helped him draft his Farewell Address, Ike also wanted to talk about the “revolving door.” Early drafts of his speech referred to “a permanent, war-based industry,” with “flag and general officers retiring at an early age to take positions in the war-based industrial complex, shaping its decisions and guiding the direction of its tremendous thrust.” He wanted to warn that steps must be taken to “insure that the ‘merchants of death’ do not come to dictate national policy.”
As Eisenhower feared, the careers of figures like Generals Austin and Mattis now span all branches of the corrupt MIC conglomerate: commanding invasion and occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq; then donning suits and ties to sell weapons to new generals who served under them as majors and colonels; and finally re-emerging from the same revolving door as cabinet members at the apex of American politics and government.
So why does the Pentagon brass get a free pass, even as Americans feel increasingly conflicted about the arms industry? After all, it is the military that actually uses all these weapons to kill people and wreak havoc in other countries.
Even as it loses war after war overseas, the U.S. military has waged a far more successful one to burnish its image in the hearts and minds of Americans and win every budget battle in Washington.
The complicity of Congress, the third leg of the stool in Eisenhower’s original formulation, turns the annual battle of the budget into the “cakewalk” that the war in Iraq was supposed to be, with no accountability for lost wars, war crimes, civilian massacres, cost overruns or the dysfunctional military leadership that presides over it all.
There is no congressional debate over the economic impact on America or the geopolitical consequences for the world of uncritically rubber-stamping huge investments in powerful weapons that will sooner or later be used to kill our neighbors and smash their countries, as they have for the past 22 years and far too often throughout our history.
If the public is ever to have any impact on this dysfunctional and deadly money-go-round, we must learn to see through the fog of propaganda that masks self-serving corruption behind red, white and blue bunting, and allows the military brass to cynically exploit the public’s natural respect for brave young men and women who are ready to risk their lives to defend our country. In the Crimean War, the Russians called British troops “lions led by donkeys.” That is an accurate description of today’s U.S. military.
Sixty years after Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, exactly as he predicted, the “weight of this combination” of corrupt generals and admirals, the profitable “merchants of death” whose goods they peddle, and the Senators and Representatives who blindly entrust them with trillions of dollars of the public’s money, constitute the full flowering of President Eisenhower’s greatest fears for our country.
Eisenhower concluded, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals.” That clarion call echoes through the decades and should unite Americans in every form of democratic organizing and movement building, from elections to education and advocacy to mass protests, to finally reject and dispel the “unwarranted influence” of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.
*
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.
Forget any notions of juicy carrots; the stick approach of savage punishment is in vogue with the Greek government in pushing vaccination rates. It is far from the only one. Across a number of countries in Europe, governments wishing to drive up levels of COVID-19 vaccination have decided to abandon suasion and the generous supply of medical information in favour of penalties and punishments.
In Austria, Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg was very much a standard bearer for that cause, citing stubbornness on the part of the citizenry of his country. (Only 69% of those eligible have received at least one dose, a rate significantly behind that of other western European states.) “We have enough vaccines,” he told CNN prior to announcing his resignation. “Science gave us the possibility, the exit ticket out of this vicious circle of virus waves and lockdown discussions. And simply not enough people are using this possibility and taking this exit ticket”.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is now openly entertaining the idea, one sparked by the emergence of the Omicron COVID variant. “We have the vaccines,” she told reporters in Brussels this month, “the life-saving vaccines, but they are not being used adequately everywhere. And this costs.” It was time to “encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union”.
Such ideas had already been circulating in legal and political debates for some time. The European Court of Human Rights decision of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic, handed down in April this year, is said to have opened the door. That particular case involved parents in the Czech Republic who had refused to have their children vaccinated for a range of reasons, including religious ones. They were punished by fines, and their children excluded from kindergarten.
The majority found that the mandatory childhood vaccination policy was compatible with Article 8 (the right to respect and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any lawfulness of interference with the physical integrity of a person, the court accepted, would have to have some basis in the domestic law of the country.
The court also found that a policy object of protecting the health of members of society in general, and declining voluntary vaccination rates which would jeopardise the goal of herd immunity, could justify such rules.
Even the dissenting finding of Judge Wojtyczek acknowledged that the Convention did “not exclude the introduction of an obligation to vaccinate in respect of certain diseases, coupled with exceptions based upon conscientious objection.”
The latest experiment along these lines is taking place in Athens, with the Mitsotakis government suggesting that those over 60 will be fined €100 if they refuse vaccination past mid-January. (The number of those unvaccinated in that group hovers at around 520,000.) In doing so, Greece makes itself something of a pioneer in targeting a specific age group. Currently, it has lawsmandating COVID-19 vaccinations for staff working in health care facilities and those involving care of the elderly and disabled
Rather than calling it what it is – a punitive measure that risks being disproportionate – the government prefers another angle. “It’s not a punishment,” claims the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. “I would say it is a health fee.” For the Greek PM, it’s all numbers, age and a few false comparisons. “Experts estimate that the importance of the vaccine in a 70-year-old person is equivalent to 34 vaccinations of younger ones in terms of public health.”
With such sophistry, it is little wonder he is facing trouble. Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek finance minister and current sitting member, is one promising to make things difficult. As a critic of the punitive policy, he blames himself for having mockingly suggested that odious idea to the Prime Minister. “I had the Prime Minister in front of me in Parliament (two months ago) and … I said, ‘Imagine that you were to introduce a $200 fine every month for the unvaccinated… what effect is this going to have?”
Taking the cudgel and baton to the sceptics and the obstinate in the population, Varoufakis observes, is tantamount to feeding their cause in the most divisive way imaginable. Some people are going receive the jab as a result of it, but the nation will be divided and opponents feel “that they are being martyred for being concerned.”
He makes a few important points on the policies of the Mitsotakis administration. The first is the absence of trust citizens have towards government, whose officials have done much to erode. The second is that citizens are generally suspicious what their government might do next – for instance, bribing them, tickling their pleasure tendencies and hoping that they will fall for a vaccination fix. In many countries, this measure has been used in several instances: vouchers, drinks, meals, and straight cash bribery.
An article recently published in Nature emphasises the salient nature of the first point. “In countries with a high level of consensus regarding the trustworthiness of science and scientists, the positive correlation between trust in science and vaccine confidence is stronger than it is in comparable where the level of social consensus is weaker.”
Previous studies on the nature of Greece’s unwillingness to receive vaccinations show that the government has much work to do. A study published in January this year in Global Health and Policy found that, of a sample of 1004 respondents, a mere 57.7% expressed any desire to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The authors found the pressing “need for public health officials to take immediate awareness raising measures.”
Any vaccination policy that calls for exclusions and excommunications is one that can only admit to failure. Authoritarianism, be it in terms of health or any field of government endeavour, comes a distant second to the power of persuasion and reassurance. And history has thrown up some dark precedents, which can provide rich fodder for opponents, when countries decided to violate the physical autonomy of humans for the sake of the broader public good. Sensible if traditional on this score, Varoufakis makes a sound recommendation: present the facts.
*
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 frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Despite Washington’s best effort to derail Nicaragua’s electoral process through hybrid warfare, strong voter turnout resulted in a decisive victory by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), and the reelection of President Daniel Ortega with 75.92% of the votes cast. Nicaragua’s non-partisan, independent Supreme Electoral Council (CSE) reported on Monday, November 8ththat 65.23% of 4.4 million eligible voters (16 years and older) participated in Sunday’s election. Supporters attribute the FSLN’s success to its ability to ensure peace and achieve socioeconomic & political objectives that strengthen the wellbeing of the people of Nicaragua.
This markedly contrasts the widespread neglect and corruption endemic under Nicaragua’s U.S. supported neoliberal period from 1990-2007. It is precisely President Ortega and the Sandinista administration’s showing of evidence-based democracy that threatens the U.S., for Washington in comparison has become unabashedly authoritarian in its futile attempt to maintain its Hollywood-styled democratic image both domestically & abroad.
President Daniel Ortega shown dancing with musicians and supporters at the first public event after his and Vice President, Rosario Murillo’s reelection on November 8th. Songs of struggle and freedom were also performed at the Commemoration of the Assassination of Comandante Carlos Fonseca as well as ones written by Bob Marley and John Lennon—respectively, One Love and Give Peace a Chance. [Source: Lauren Smith]
Failure of U.S. Democracy in Voting
While the United States reports a relatively similar participation rate to Nicaragua—between 59.5% to 66.8% of citizens (18 years and older) voted in elections from 2000 to 2020—in stark contrast, candidates, that actually lost the popular vote, have actually won the U.S. presidency 5 times since 1824. Matter of fact, U.S. elections are so badly discredited by constituents of both its two corporate parties, that the U.S. symbolic seat of power (the Capitol building) was stormed by election protestors in January 2021.
If the United States wasn’t such a bully militarily and economically, the rest of the world might be clamoring for multilateral sanctions against it until the U.S. takes effective steps to hold free, fair, and transparent elections.
Failure of Washington’s Hybrid/Covert Warfare
Even with Washington’s looming threat of using more egregious unilateral economic sanctions than the NICA Act, with the fast tracked RENACER Act (which was signed into law on November 10th) and its full-throttle regime change program RAIN (already underway)—which collectively violate a panoply of international and humanitarian laws—the people of Nicaragua stood resolute in their desire to exercise their sovereign right to choose their own leadership.
Unlike countries in the northern triangle, which includes Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, there are no gangs or drug, human and weapon trafficking in Nicaragua. Additionally, Nicaragua’s national police force is exemplary since its founded on the principles of community policing, unlike that of the United States which is often militarizedand captive to white supremacists. Despite Washington controlled IMF and World Bank, they respectively still released reports in 2018 stating that up until that year Nicaragua had sustained outstanding growth in GDP; improved its social indicators; expanded tourism; and provided regional leadership in public safety and sustainable energy.
Further, unlike Nicaragua, the U.S government also stands in violation of its own Bill of Rights, by virtue of its Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020, an update to the Patriot Act. In contrast to Nicaragua, its judicial-prison-parole-industrial complex is racist, as prisoners are predominately of African-American descent. With 2.12 million people incarcerated in 2020, the United States has the largest per capita prison population in the world at 639 per 100,000. The incarceration rate is now more than 4.3 times what is was nearly 50 years ago. Additionally, there are approximately 50,000 immigrants in detention centers, which are called, even by U.S. politicians, concentration camps. Within this total, there are over 60 political prisoners in its domestic prison system. Torture and inhumane living conditions are routinely cited by human rights organizations in regard to U.S. prisoners and detainees. Additionally, the U.S. has incarcerated and killed an untold number of political prisoners in Guantanamo and its even more abysmal worldwide black sites. In comparison, Nicaragua, has 332 prisoners per 100,000 (half that of the United States) and it is number 24 on the same list.
The longest serving political prisoner in the U.S. is Leonard Peltier. He’s spent 44 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit and was an actual VP candidate on the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) ticket in 2020, unlike the false claims of Nicaragua’s alleged “pre-candidates” that had no viable political party affiliation and are guilty of organizing violent crimes, money-laundering and treason.
Unlike Nicaragua, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011allows Washington to criminalize protest. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to enter or remain in an area designated as restricted (such as a tar sands pipeline on indigenous land) or to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. Unlike Nicaragua, the U.S. military was empowered in 2013 to attack its citizens through changes in the rules of engagement under the Posse Comitatus Act. Further, the United States military routinely practices war games against its civilians, and it acknowledges in its reports that due to the failings of capitalism it is only a matter of time before civil unrest erupts over: scarce resources; disparities in wealth and power; collapsing financial systems; climate change and natural disasters.
Even with Washington’s deletion, through proxies (Facebook and Instagram), of more than a thousand pro-Sandinista accounts just days before the election, voters turned out in droves in support of the FSLN party.
Bilwi, Voting Center 1, Nov 7,2021 [Source: photo by Lauren Smith]
Without compunction, Nicaragua’s 2018 coup-promoters followed the undisputedly illegal and immoral instructions detailed in Washington’s 1980’s Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare handbook. The CIA’s scripted handbook outlines how to use domestic terrorism strategically to destabilize Nicaragua through the hiring of criminals and agent provocateurs (page 11); the destruction of police installations and the kidnapping of Sandinistas (page 28); and the killing of journalists and others to create “martyrs” for the cause (page 71). The 2021 coup-promoters were apprehended planning to again use these same unconscionable tactics.
Even with the placing of anti-government and libelous propaganda in CIA directed press and media such as La Prensa, Confidencial, Radio Corporacion and 100 % Noticias, the voters refused to adhere to coup-promoting opposition’s clarion call to abstain from casting their ballots. To better understand this insidious influence, refer to “Confessions of a Contra” and “CIA and Media Manipulation” in which Edgar Chamorro, family member of the wealthiest Nicaraguan clan, outlines the greed of fellow Nicaraguan exiles; CIA scripted press conferences; his payoff for being a traitor; and egregious passages from the above referenced PSYOP manual which he helped the CIA author.
At roadblocks, set up by a U.S. organized network of criminal mercenaries, women were raped, while passers-by were beaten and robbed. In many instances these horrific acts of domestic terrorism were videotaped, due to the perverse sense of pride and impunity the perpetrators experienced in accomplishing these treasonous and inhumane acts as well as to prove their value and loyalty to their foreign benefactors. Within this context, it is important to further detail the crimes committed and planned that necessitated the arrest of MRS members.
According to State Department cables obtained by the Grayzone, MRS leaders Dora Maria Téllez, Hugo Torres Jiménez, and Victor Hugo Tinoco, were U.S. embassy informants for at least 15 years. The above referenced were charged with “inciting foreign interference” in internal affairs and arrested under Nicaragua’s law 1055, which was approved by the country’s democratically elected National Assembly in December 2020. At the time of writing, MRS president Sergio Ramirez remains at large as he lives in Costa Rica.
Even with the lie that seven “pre-candidates” were arrested to limit competition, voters already had 6 political party options to choose from for the presidency—as clearly indicated on the ballot. And if these supposed candidates had been legitimate presidential hopefuls backed by national political parties (which they were not), they would have further split the opposition vote—which already dwindled down to 1.7% for the Liberal Independent Party (PLI). Further, it is important to note that the arrests were all for various criminal offences linked to continued violent coup plotting activity, in violation of the government granted amnesty to those involved in the 2018 coup attempt, similar to the amnesty granted to Contra forces in the 1980’s.
Bilwi Regional Ballot Nov. 7, 2021. Note the 6 various parties running for President and Vice-President, National Assembly, and that a 7th candidate from the regional Yatam party is listed 3 lines down. [Source: photo by Lauren Smith]
While five of the various people arrested (Cristiana Chamorro, Arturo Cruz, Felix Maradiaga, Juan Sebastian Chamorro, and Miguel Mora) expressed aspirations to run as presidential candidates, none of them are members of any of the seventeen political parties eligible to take part in the elections. And all have long records of collaboration with U.S. and European governments, and agencies funded by those governments and by foreign corporations which render their aspirations to be presidential candidates moot, as Nicaragua’s Supreme Electoral Council explained in a communiqué on the issue on June 3rd this year.
Regarding the false claim that Nicaragua is limiting the role of NGOs, note that Nicaragua’s National Assembly responded to the Washington-sponsored violence and destabilization efforts by passing a law in October 2020 that requires organizations funded by outside governments to register as foreign agents. The legislation is very similar to a law passed by the United States in 1938 known as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Even Washington’s dictates to vassal multi-State organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), from which Nicaragua formally withdrew from on November 19th, and its human rights troll (IACHR) and its marshaling of right-wing priests to commit ungodly acts of torture (captured on video), could not produce any notable traction in the minds or hearts of the people of Nicaragua.
Foreign Election Contingent visit “God’s Blessing” Community Potable Water and Sanitation Committee, Ciudad Sandino, Managua Nov.5, 2021. [Source: photo by Lauren Smith]
Moreover, Washington’s fear tactics not only proved useless in keeping voters away from the polls but also, they neglected to sway voters to select one of the five alternate candidates running against Nicaragua’s sitting president in any meaningful way. The next highest vote count was for the Liberal Constitutional Party at 14.15%.
Bilwi Voting Center 3, Nov. 7, 2021 [Source: photo by Lauren Smith]
Washington’s Plan B—Pretend and Isolate
Thus, Washington moved to Plan B. This involves pretending the election is invalid and refusing to acknowledge the presidency of Daniel Ortega, just like it did in Venezuela with President Nicolás Maduro. Perhaps the White House will pull a rabbit out of a hat, like they did with Juan Guaidó, and anoint it interim president. Keep in mind, Guaidó was never a presidential candidate in Venezuela, and remains just another sock puppet manufactured by the CIA’s cutout mill.
Outside of declaring unilateral war against a relatively tiny country, the second poorest in the Western Hemisphere, one that has no nuclear weapons and presents no terrorist threat and is approximately the geographic size of New York State with a population about 2.5 million less than NYC, it appears Washington must use another strategy in its playbook to maintain the ruse that Nicaragua is “An unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”.
Nicaragua has borne this spurious designation on and off since the Reagan administration. Note, there is no foreign policy difference between former President Donald Trump and current President Joseph Biden when it comes to imperialism and full spectrum dominanceas described by Ajamu Baraka, from the Black Alliance for Peace. So, Washington repeats baseless disinformation until the obvious truth is obscured by its subservient mainstream news media (MSM) and captive “left” media, such as, Democracy Now, The Guardian, The Nation and National Public Radio (NPR). The only issue for Washington is that the truth is the elephant-in-the-room and no one with boots-on-the-ground can be fooled by U.S. lies, irrespective of their ceaseless repetition.
While the situation in Nicaragua is similar today to when the Reagan administration unleashed the illegal Contra force upon it, what’s changed is that alt-media has failed to inform its base. The sad result is that the NICA act passed unanimously in the Senate and RENACER passed with little opposition. Consider how similar the words and policies issued by President Biden are to former President Reagan, a more popular president, and how Reagan’s policy on Nicaragua was still opposed by senators and congresspersons as well as the left.
Foreign Election Contingent
Thus, intelligence agency directed presidential statements and proxy armchair press releases that are outrageously false in regard to the election hold no water when countrywide interviews are conducted by 232 international journalists & electoral accompaniers from 27 countries who traveled to various departments and two autonomous regions, representing all corners of the country: Esteli, Matagalpa, Leon, Bluefields, Bilwi, Chontales, Chinandega, Granada, Masaya, Rivas and Managua. The electoral contingent visited around 50 different voting centers and interviewed voters, poll workers as well as political representatives from the 6 participating parties. I was part of the contingent and personally observed the election process as a correspondent on location for CovertAction Magazine (CAM) in Bilwi, a Miskito municipality formerly known as Puerto Cabezas in Nicaragua’s Northern Caribbean Autonomous Region—it was peaceful and historic.
Bilwi, Declan McKenna, election accompanier from Ireland, explains the Nicaragua voting process, Nov.7, 2021. [Source: Lauren Smith] Click here to watch the video.
Managua, Declan McKenna, election accompanier from Ireland, explains the strength of Nicaragua’s electoral process compared to that used in Ireland, Nov 8, 2021. [Source: Lauren Smith] Click here to watch the video.
In Bilwi, we visited 4 polling sites, met with election officials, and interviewed Myrna Cunningham, a Miskito feminist and indigenous rights activist, and medical surgeon. In Managua, we visited the Bismark Martinez housing development. In Ciudad Sandino, we met with community members from “God’s Blessing” Community Potable Water and Sanitation Committee Trinidad Central and Cuajachillo Number 2 and health care providers with Nueva Vida Clinic. Both projects in Managua are made possible through creative public/non-profit partnerships.
“God’s Blessing” Community Potable Water and Sanitation Committee Trinidad Central and Cuajachillo Number 2
Committee representatives explained the importance of potable water, paved roadways, and electricity for public health. They contrasted the achievements made by President Ortega and the Sandinista administration in providing services to residents of Ciudad Sandino, which was formed by refugees from a series of natural and human disasters since 1968, against the theft of international aid funds by the Somoza dictatorship, and of the theft and neglect of neo-liberal puppet governments from 1990 to 2007.
“God’s Blessing” Community Potable Water and Sanitation Committee Trinidad Central and Cuajachillo Number 2 discuss the impact of U.S. unilateral economic sanctions on the impoverished Nov. 5 2021. [Source: Lauren Smith] Click here to watch the video.
Nueva Vida Clinic
In response to questions regarding abortion access, a litmus test in the United States for women’s rights, Nueva Vida Clinic’s medical staff explained that as a largely Christian country Nicaragua has conservative values in regard to the taking of life (unlike the hypocritical and contradictory United States, Nicaragua abolished the death penalty). Nonetheless, the Morning-After pill is available without a prescription and in practice abortions can be authorized if the bearer’s life is in danger or they have been victimized by rape and/or incest. This policy balances the rights of women within the structure of the overall culture. Both physicians stressed the government’s focus on preventative measures involving family planning and noted the wide and inexpensive distribution of contraceptives.
Additionally, as a testament to both health and personal freedom, there are no vaccine passports or mandates, and the COVID jab is available free of charge to those who want it. This balance achieves economic productivity with personal safety, health, and self-determinism. Additionally, as in other developing countries, preventative health is encouraged by the distribution of packets containing the anti-viral Ivermectin, antibiotics, and vitamins C, D and zinc. Unlike in the U.S., patients are not told to go home without being issued medication and only allowed to return when their lips turn blue from hypoxia. Thus, the U.S. has one of the highest death tolls in the world due to its failure to effectively treat Covid patients.
The providers also spoke about the increased development of hospitals/clinics and improved medical access throughout the country under President Ortega’s Sandinista administration. While Nicaragua is building and renovating hospitals (21 new and 46 renovated) and clinics (1,259 medical posts, 192 health centers and 178 maternity homes), the United States is closing them. As of 2015, 125 hospitals in NYC alone have closed. The infant mortality rate in Nicaragua is 15 out of 1,000 births, whereas in low income zip codes in NYC the rate is up to 27 out of 1,000 births, nearly double.
Nueva Vida Clinic on Birth Control, Nov. 5, 2021. [Source: Lauren Smith] Click here to watch the video.
Nueva Vida Clinic on Sanctions, Nov. 5, 2021. [Source: Lauren Smith] Click here to watch the video.
Bilwi/Puerto Cabezas/Autonomous Region
The autonomous region is comprised of 40,000 indigenous families. Three hundred indigenous communities legally own approximately one third of Nicaragua’s national territory. President Daniel Ortega’s Sandinista administration had granted Nicaragua’s indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples title to 15 territories covering more than two million hectares within four years of his election in 2007. In October this year, the last two indigenous territories pending received their land titles bringing the total to 25 legally registered and formally recognized indigenous and afro-descendant territories in Nicaragua.
As explained by Dr. Cunningham in her interview, President Ortega and the Sandinista administration’s respect for the sovereignty of the autonomous region, stands in stark contrast to that experienced in the neo-liberal years, 1990-2007. The neo-liberal government blocked land titles and ignored them economically. Since President Ortega’s return, Dr. Cunningham noted improvements in critical infrastructure involving water, electricity, and healthcare as well as the construction of a roadway that will connect the autonomous region to Managua, with only 70Km left to be completed out of 522Km.
Additionally, she praised the Sandinista government’s emergency management agency with providing preparation and evacuation of residents during two Category 4 hurricanes (Eta & Iota) that impacted the region in 2020. Namely, Dr. Cunningham attributed the lack of casualties to good planning and the prompt restoration of electricity, phones, internet, and the rapid replacement of roofs stripped from homes during the severe storms. She also spoke about U.S. interference in the arming of Miskitos with weapons to sow discord between them and the area’s Mestizos population to expose the sitting government to false claims of regional instability. Also, Dr. Cunningham explained that the U.S. misuses social media to create problems between peoples to achieve the same sinister objective.
Electoral Contingent Press
Together, our electoral contingent prepared a joint written statement and conducted a press conference on November 9th detailing our first-hand account of Nicaragua’s exemplary election process and the strong participation of its eligible voters, that contrasts foreign media reports made by absent journalists.
Other onsite journalists and election accompaniers wrote articles dispelling the CIA’s repetitive lies/talking points: John Perry, Roger Harris,Nan McCurdy, Margaret Kimberly, Ben Norton, The Grayzone, Stephen Sefton, Rita Jill Clark-Gollub, and Rick Sterling. Additionally, Yoav Elinevsky of Massachusetts Peace Action conducted a webinar on the election with Camila Escalante and Ben Norton. Further, Jimmy Dore’s interview with Convo Couch on Nov. 18th simplifies the U.S. disinformation campaign that attempts to conceal Nicaragua’s enviable voting system.
Essentially, what was revealed to all observers is that what matters most to Nicaraguan voters is national sovereignty and peace, as well as tangible gains in highway connectivity, expanding water & electricity coverage, free healthcare/ education, and the availability of low-cost housing, made possible by President Ortega and the Sandinista administration.
Nicaraguan voters also support the administration’s gender parity law which requires that all electoral lists, from local councils to the National Assembly, must now by comprised by 50 percent women. The percentage of congresswomen now stands at 48.4. According to the World Economic Forum’s 2019 report, Nicaragua ranked 8 in the world for women in parliamentary positions and the United States ranked 75.
The government sponsored “Zero Usury” microloan program, which has allocated US $1,144,491 dollars to train 4,000 women in 92 municipalities to open or expand small restaurants, miscellaneous stores, and tourism services in Managua, is also popular with voters. Since 2007, when the Sandinista government came into office, 23,345 micro and small businesses have been formalized, meaning these workers are now part of the social security system, receiving benefits and paying into their retirement pensions. Small businesses account for 70% of employment and are the backbone of the nation’s economy. Additionally, in the past 14 years, 318,000 members have been inducted into 5,900 new worker cooperatives.
Another success by the President Ortega and the Sandinista administration, that has gotten traction among rural voters, is the guarantee of property titles to small farmers which along with preferential credit programs and enhanced technical assistance for grass roots producers has helped Nicaragua achieve a level of 90% food sovereignty. These policies have given continuity to the massive land reform program of the 1980’s Nicaraguan revolutionary Sandinista government, which distributed about half the country’s arable land (5 million acres) to 120,000 peasant families.
Regarding public housing, the goal set for this year is to deliver 50,000 houses and 50,000 lots. The houses are in the municipalities of Estelí, Pueblo Nuevo, Condega, Granada, Masaya, Rivas, and Granada. In the municipality of Ticuantepe, three blocks of land were acquired to be divided into more than 100 lots, part of the national housing program named after Bismark Martinez which already has approximate 1,400 homes constructed or in the construction phase. Bismark Martinez, a Sandinista militant, was tortured and murdered by U.S. sponsored right-wing opposition forces in 2018. The housing is available to all Nicaraguans, irrespective of political party affiliation, and a typical house costs $40 USD per month.
Attorney, Professor and Human Rights Activist, Dan Kovalik, at Bismark Martinez Housing Development, Nov. 4, 2021. [Source: Lauren Smith] Click here to watch the video.
Contrast this housing initiative with the homeless rate in New York City (NYC) which stands at almost 48,000 and is located in the U.S which is listed as the 7th richest country in the world.
Voting Process
Nicaragua began its voting process with the Supreme Electoral Council (CSE) updating and confirming its voter rolls earlier this year. Voters were able to verify their information and polling locations both in person and on-line. Polling stations are set within 15km of a given voter’s home address with each station staffed and equipped to handle up to 400 voters. Most voter centers, each containing several polling stations, are in schools.
If voters have moved and their home addresses were not updated in time for the election, they must return to the voting center linked to their former address. If voters are not able to vote due to disability, they are assisted by CSE poll station workers upon entry—if family members are not able to help them. I spoke with a couple that included a woman seated in a wheelchair and was informed that they liked to vote early because it becomes too crowded for them later in the day.
A young woman showed me a program on her smart phone operated by CSE that listed her personal information and voting location. For redundancy and ease of access, white and green master lists were also printed and affixed just inside the entrance to each of the four voting centers visited. The white list identified voters that have cast ballots in past elections and the green list identified new or recently relocated voters.
Additionally, smaller lists of registered voters culled from the master list, were reprinted outside each classroom door. These classrooms are referred to Juntas Receptoras de Votos (JRV). Each one is designated to serve between 380-400 voters. At site one, there were 27 JVRs; at site two, 12 JVRs; at site three, 13 JVR; and at site four, 14 JVRs.
Overall, there was a holiday feeling to the voting process as neighbors greeted each other, bought snacks from vendors, and exchanged conversation with the various CSE workers and representatives from the six campaigning parties. Voters were also happy to speak to members from our contingent. The voting areas felt safe, secure and in no way oppressive or intimidating.
After voters have their government-issued IDs verified upon entry (either by scan or by keystrokes) they went to one of predesignated polling station (JVRs) to cast their vote.
Once in the JVR, they again provided their ID to the CSE worker who then checked them off on a paper printout of the voter roll.
After that, voters were given a stamped, numbered, and initialed copy of the ballot by the CSE worker.
Then, the voters were directed to a voting booth by the CSE worker and given privacy.
Then, a CSE worker mark the voters’ thumbs with indelible ink so they cannot vote twice. The ink is impervious to solvents and doesn’t wear off for several days.
Ballots are counted in the JVR, with members from respective political parties present. The number of ballots counted, plus the unused ballots, must match the number of ballots given to that JVR at the beginning of the day. A paper copy of the vote count is submitted to the central CSE, and it is also communicated electronically, but it is the paper trail that prevails in this case which provides the most secure election integrity possible. When the boxes became full, new ones were used. The boxes bore JVR specific information ensuring bulletproof chain of custody, unlike in the United States.
President Ortega and the Sandinista administration’s accomplishments are not only undeniable, but one reason why the U.S. imposes unilateral economic sanctions upon it. Not only does the U.S seek to kill the threat of a good example to other Latin American countries but especially to its residents that are denied access to free healthcare and advanced education and affordable housing. Moreover, U.S. residents are subject to institutionalized inequality based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and preference. In many U.S. states, women lack reproductive rights, and all residents are subject to federal vaccination mandates that deprive them of bodily autonomy.
So, not only do citizens of the U.S. superpower lack faith in their voting system—that is not verifiable and lacks chain of custody—unlike that of relatively tiny Nicaragua, but the fact that the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere has achieved such great socioeconomic & political strides while the seventh wealthiest country in the world has not, is nothing short of revolutionary—as Nicaragua’s evidence-based democracy threatens the very foundation of U.S. oppression both domestically and abroad.
*
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.
Lauren Smith is CAM’s correspondent on location and serves on the Editorial Board of CovertAction Magazine. Lauren’s work has been published by Alliance for Global Justice, Black Agenda Report, Common Dreams, Counterpunch, Global Research, CA, Monthly Review, and Telesur amongst others. She holds a BA in Politics, Economics, and Society from SUNY at Old Westbury and an MPA in International Development Administration from New York University. Her historical fiction novel based on Nicaragua’s 1979 revolution is due out in 2022. Ms. Smith is also a member of the Green Party and Sanctionskill.org.
Featured image: President Daniel Ortega shown dancing with musicians and supporters at the first public event after his and Vice President, Rosario Murillo’s reelection on November 8th. [Source: photo by Lauren Smith]
The CDC itself has told us that in the United States only 66 children under the age of 12 have died of Covid in the past twelve months. The vast majority — if not all — of those unfortunate children suffered from serious life-threatening conditions.
It is possible to actually measure Washington’s dishonesty. How big is it? It’s about 600 miles. In 1990, according to declassified documents, Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch” east of Germany. Thirty years ago, that was Russia’s red line.
That is an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots. And yet, the CDC and FDA continue to recommend these EUA shots for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
On Wednesday, Ursula Van Der Leyen – the chief of the European Union (EU) Commission – told the press that she would like to see the long-standing Nuremberg Code ignored completely in favor of allowing countries to force vaccinate anyone who is refusing to take the experimental jab.
The purpose of this report is to document how all over the world millions of people have died, and hundreds of millions of serious adverse events have occurred, after injections with the experimental mRNA gene therapy. We also reveal the real risk of an unprecedented genocide.
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.”
For the last half of a century, the process of ”depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in numbers of humans living on the Planet, is repeatedly mentioned in corresponding publications, especially among ”techno-fetishists”, as a declared necessity.
Austria was the first country to announce the most severe and drastic covid measures, including compulsory “vaccination” – forcing the public to take the untested gene-therapy jab (or worse), as of 1 February 2022.
John Winston Lennon, self-styled working-class hero, prodigal son of a lower-middle-class fragmented family, may be qualified as the unifier of the sensibility of an era – that 60s “pandemonium with a big grin on,” as Tom Wolfe coined it.
By 1920, America had become by far the world’s richest country, whose strength held sway over much of the Western hemisphere, and was stretching further eastwards. As her influence expanded, the United States was posing a serious problem for the Empire of Japan, a major power with its own territorial ambitions.
The biggest lie, which is firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the WHO is that the RT-PCR test used to “detect” the spread of the virus (as well as the variants) is not only flawed but TOTALLY INVALID.
Detroit, which remains a major industrial center in the sectors of automotive and other sources of production and services, is a focal point for the economic and social transformations of urban areas in the United States and internationally.
By 1920, America had become by far the world’s richest country, whose strength held sway over much of the Western hemisphere, and was stretching further eastwards. As her influence expanded, the United States was posing a serious problem for the Empire of Japan, a major power with its own territorial ambitions.
Unlike Japan, the US had access to some of the earth’s most resource-rich areas while enjoying unequalled security and scope. To justify US claims, pertaining to the Americas, Washington’s statesmen occasionally invoked long-held principles of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.
US president Calvin Coolidge (in office 1923-1929) said, in a White House statement of January 1927, that the Monroe Doctrine has a “distinct place” in US foreign policy – allowing American governments to act as they see fit in countries such as Nicaragua, in Central America. President Coolidge informed Congress on 10 January 1927 that,
“The US cannot, therefore, fail to view with deep concern any serious threat to stability and constitutional government in Nicaragua tending towards anarchy and jeopardizing American interests”.
The US marines once more entered Nicaragua to remove any “outside influence”, in a nation whose capital city Managua is almost 2,000 miles from Washington.
The Monroe Doctrine prevailed with little dispute. Yet in the east Asian and Pacific regions, very different attitudes were at large. An “Open Door Policy” existed for decades with regard to China, the world’s fourth largest country, which allowed elite Western power far from home to encroach upon Japanese regional designs. After all, eastern China is situated just a few hundred miles west of Japan. By the late 1920s, there was also more than 5,000 US marines stationed on Chinese soil.
Resource-laden Manchuria, located in the north-east of China, constituted a land area that became an obsession for the Japanese. By 1931 Manchuria was under threat not only from Chinese nationalists, but from the mighty USSR looming on northern horizons.
Come the early 1930s, Manchuria was home to thousands of Japanese, many of whom were making a livelihood by tilling its rich, fertile soil. Manchuria was pivotal to Tokyo’s aspirations. Without control over Manchuria, a territory more than twice the size of France, Japan would be relegated to an inconsequential state, burdened by a steadily growing populace.
As the American author Noam Chomsky explained in one of his earliest books,
“Manchuria remained independent of the Kuomintang, but Chinese nationalist pressures for unification were increasing. At the same time, the Soviet Union had significantly expanded its military power on the Manchurian border, a fact that could not fail to concern the Japanese military. Japan had a substantial investment in the South Manchurian Railway and, rightly or wrongly, regarded Manchuria as an extremely important potential source of desperately needed raw materials”.
Scanning their eyes seaward, the Japanese were surrounded by great foes: Soviet Russia to the north-west, China to the west and south-west, the US to the south. In the late 1890s, America was embarking upon its conquest of the Philippines, an island country lying less than 1,000 miles southward of Japan. America’s capture of the Philippines was an early example of her saltwater imperialist ventures, and it clearly infringed on Japan’s sphere of interest.
Yasaka Takagi, an expert on US history, outlined that,
“the peace machinery of the world is in itself primarily the creation of the dominant races of the earth, of those who are the greatest beneficiaries from the maintenance of the status quo”.
In the early 1940s America, Britain and “free” France held dominion over approximately 70% of the world’s resources, that is 30 million square miles of territory. The Axis powers of Germany, Italy, Japan and Hungary – who were supposedly winning the war while rampaging across the earth – held dominion over 15% of the planet’s mineral riches, and a mere one million square miles of land.
The US political activist, A. J. Muste, envisaged in 1941 “a new American empire” and that the US “shall be the next nation to seek world domination – in other words, to do what we condemn Hitler for trying to do”.
For many years, America had been well positioned for planetary supremacy. Among the flies in the ointment was Japan, a nation comprising an obstacle to US hegemony over the lucrative Pacific and Asian zones.
Agreements hammered out, like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, were formulated mostly to reduce Japanese power in her own waters, while leaving entirely unharmed American and British capacities. The terms reached here, in the US capital, rendered Japan a second rate imperial power, as intended. However, Tokyo would strictly adhere to the Washington accords through the 1920s.
It was reinforced with the London Naval Treaty of 1930, signed in the English capital, which again compromised Japanese naval freedom in the seas encompassing her shores. With the Great Depression having struck in late 1929, the contingencies of the London treaty were bitterly resented by opposition in Japan; which resulted in Japanese militarists gaining greater control over the country’s civilian hierarchy, which was felt to be endangering national security with its weak-willed strategies.
The capitulation of Tokyo’s political entities in London during 1930 furthermore “was a great stimulus to the fascist movement” in Japan, as the historian Masao Maruyama wrote. Rising fascistic elements within the army, was a pronounced underlying factor behind appalling war crimes later committed by Japanese soldiers.
Image on the right: Osachi Hamaguchi (Source: Britannica.com)
Shortly after the 1930 London treaty, moderate politicians in Japan were assassinated, including the prime ministers Osachi Hamaguchi and Inukai Tsuyoshi; the former killed by a far-right terrorist and the latter shot to death by young navy personnel. These grisly acts deliberately undermined the nation’s civilian infrastructure, and represented another boost for Japan’s diehard military men.
The rise of Japanese militarists, along with its extremist factions, was as an indirect consequence of increased Western pressures.
Analyzing the developments, Chomsky noted,
“it seems clear that the refusal of the United States to grant Japan hegemony in its waters (while of course insisting on maintaining its own hegemony in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific) was a significant contributory cause to the crisis that was soon to erupt”.
On 24 February 1933, Japan caught the world by surprise in withdrawing from the League of Nations, an organization founded in 1920 whose stated primary goal was maintenance of global peace. The League of Nations roundly condemned Japan’s occupation of Manchuria, and later recommended that Tokyo withdraw her troops and “restore the country to Chinese sovereignty”. Not mentioned were Western policies that treated China as a semi-colonial state.
There were no international conferences organized so as to scrutinize US or British claims in the Eastern hemisphere, let alone in the Western half of the planet. Japan’s desire in the early 1930s to absorb Manchuria, and subsequently north-east China, is at least comparable to the US government annexation of about 50% of Mexico’s territory during the mid-1840s.
Tokyo’s foreign actions were often reported in the West as examples of “Japanese aggression”; much as it is recently “Russian aggression” when moves are undertaken by Moscow along her borders which cross US red lines.
Japanese imperialists looked on with growing displeasure as American corporate influence embedded itself within China. In 1931, Japan was overtaken by America as the major exporter of goods to China. Japanese exports destined for America also declined sharply, partly because of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of mid-1930 – signed into law in the US, which ensured protectionist trade initiatives that further stymied Tokyo.
As Japan was an advanced industrial state, hampered by lack of access to natural materials, the decline in world trade was a catastrophe for Tokyo, compounded by the aforementioned Great Depression.
Japan’s future foreign affairs minister, Yosuke Matsuoka (who later met Hitler and Stalin for separate discussions) complained in January 1931 that,
“we feel suffocated as we observe internal and external situations. What we are seeking is that which is minimal for living beings. In other words, we are seeking to live. We are seeking room that will let us breathe”.
On 18 September 1931, the Japanese invaded Manchuria with Tokyo foreseeing the intervention as crucial to her nation’s survival. Manchuria is indeed flowing in riches; from coal, iron ore and steel, to copper, gold, lead, tungsten, etc. Manchuria comprised a windpipe that would allow Japan to breathe somewhat easier.
Matsuoka asked,
“Is it for the United States, which rules over the Western hemisphere and is expanding over the Atlantic and Pacific, to say that these ideals, these ambitions of Japan are wrong?”
In addition, the Japanese viewed Manchuria as a most willing market for her manufactured goods, which by 1931 were largely excluded from Western countries by Depression-era tariffs. As a rapidly growing commercial state, Japan had an insatiable thirst for fossil fuels and other mineral deposits.
Tokyo’s use of “indiscriminate air power” in the early 1930s, such as during the Shanghai Incident of 1932, generated feelings of shock and revulsion in the US and Britain. Just over a decade later, there was little indignation expressed when American and British aircraft were razing dozens of Japanese and German cities to the ground.
In April 1934, Tokyo was expounding on a “Japanese Monroe Doctrine” which “argued for a Japanese mission in East Asia to achieve peace and stability in cooperation with China, and criticized the other powers’ intervention in China”. Japan’s version of the Monroe Doctrine was modest in scope by comparison to its US rival. Still, Tokyo’s aspirations caused a commotion in Washington and London, whose elites felt that their far-reaching aims were threatened.
As late as 1939 Joseph Grew, long-time US Ambassador to Japan, said that Tokyo’s imperial concepts were “depriving Americans of their long-established rights in China” and foisting “a system of closed economy” on the US. Ambassador Grew did not highlight China’s close proximity to Japan and the latter’s understandable concerns, nor did he raise the issue of Chinese independence.
During the autumn of 1939, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull resisted negotiating a new commercial treaty with Tokyo “unless Japan completely changed her attitude and practice towards our rights and interests in China”.
Japanese diplomats were not so bold as to outline Tokyo’s potential “rights and interests” in the Western hemisphere.
On 26 July 1939, Washington gave formal notification to Tokyo that they would terminate the Japanese-American commercial treaty of 1911. This came into effect in January 1940, forcing the Japanese to shift their gaze, such as towards French Indochina and in “gaining independence” for the Philippines.
In July 1940 the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration hit Japan with an embargo on aviation fuel, which the Empire could acquire from no other source – and on 27 September 1940, Washington placed a complete ban on scrap iron against Japan, as Tokyo invaded Northern French Indochina in a bid to bolster her still insufficient resources. Japan’s foreign policy acts were in advance all known in Washington, with the Americans having cracked Tokyo’s diplomatic codes.
On 19 December 1940, Roosevelt sanctioned $25 million in aid to Japan’s neighbour, China, worth over $400 million today; while on 11 March 1941, America’s president introduced the Lend-Lease Act, a program furnishing extensive war materiel to China; and likewise to other states with unfriendly dispositions towards Japan such as the USSR, Britain and the Netherlands.
Even more seriously, on 26 July 1941 Roosevelt froze Japanese assets across America, in response to Tokyo’s move in occupying the southern half of French Indochina.
Roosevelt’s policy amounted to a declaration of economic war on Japan, with Tokyo stripped of a massive nine-tenths of its oil imports, along with three quarters of her foreign trade. Due to American pressures, Japan would run out of oil by January 1943, unless she implemented further invasions of resource-rich states. Washington was in effect stoking the fires of war with Japan, and Tokyo would not need much persuading with her fervent militarists holding key positions of power, such as General Hideki “Razor” Tojo, prime minister for much of World War II.
“The immediate cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor was the recognition, by the Japanese military, that it was ‘now or never’. The Western powers controlled the raw materials on which their existence depended, and these supplies were being choked off in retaliation for expansion on the mainland and association with Germany and Italy in the Tripartite Pact”.
As the 1930s gave way to the early 1940s, there was a widening propaganda campaign to denigrate Japan, stirred up by US government sources and media. Unsurprisingly, there was ongoing public antipathy towards Japan in the West. Paul W. Schroeder, the American historian, noted that the motive for this in part was “selling the anticipated war with Japan to the American people”.
US strategists had long been planning a large-scale conflict with the Japanese. In January 1932 General Billy Mitchell, the “father of the US Air Force”, wrote that
“Japan offers an ideal target for air operations” and that her towns “built largely of wood and paper, form the greatest aerial targets the world has ever seen”.
In November 1940 these opinions were supported by America’s renowned pre-war planner, General Claire Chennault, who revealed how US B-17 Flying Fortresses would destroy “the teeming bamboo ant heaps of Honshu and Kyushu”.
Three weeks before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, US General George Marshall informed journalists in an “off-the-record briefing” that the “Flying Fortresses will be dispatched immediately to set the paper cities of Japan on fire. There won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians. It will be all-out”.
Even had Hitler refrained from initiating a European war in 1939, it is likely that a deadly conflict would have erupted before long with America and Japan, possibly sparking a world war regardless. As seen, tensions between Washington and Tokyo were building for years prior to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland. The breaking point would surely have been reached.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Important documentary on the deadly Plandemic and its devastating impacts Worldwide.
Stop the Indoctrination of our Children
Wake Up from The Media’s Mass Hypothesis
Stop the Ideology which is Dividing Us
Video. Trailer of Plandemic 3
As the only independent movie to reach over one billion views, Plandemic 1 is accredited for being first to warn the world of the crimes against humanity that are now visible. Plandemic 2 set a world record during the livestream premier, with over 2 million people tuning in. Plandemic 3 is currently in production, slated for release summer of 2022. The focus of Plandemic 3 is to stop the indoctrination and trafficking of our children.
It was the uniqueness of the distribution model that allowed Plandemic to reach 1/8 of our global populations.
Produced on 100% donations, Plandemic was gifted to the people. In turn, it was the people who carried the series around the world.
The Plandemic team is currently raising donations for the production and marketing cost of Plandemic 3.
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.
The sensibility of an era may be unified – even though it’s never uniform. Those who forge it are essentially visionaries, incurable romantics, prone to melancholy – an inextricable quality of genius, according to Aristotle.
John Winston Lennon, self-styled working-class hero, prodigal son of a lower-middle-class fragmented family, may be qualified as the unifier of the sensibility of an era – that 60s “pandemonium with a big grin on,” as Tom Wolfe coined it.
For the first time in history, a group of pop musicians – led by such a Nijinsky of ambivalence as Lennon – had metastasized into a social phenomenon that simultaneously reverberated and influenced the planet’s collective unconscious.
We are all now re-living a snapshot of those times – and in countless cases being introduced to it – via Peter Jackson’s The Beatles: Get Back, the three-episode film within the film released on Disney +, culled from 57 hours of footage and 150 hours of audio recorded way back in January 1969.
The plot line is quite straightforward. We are watching the pop Valhalla of a work in progress: the Beatles “with our back against the wall” (Paul) trying to write new songs for a full LP and a live concert, in real time, after concocting stunners such as Sgt Pepper’s and The White Album.
It may be idle to deconstruct in writing what is in effect a stream of consciousness developing in a time machine of gorgeous colors at the end of a musical rainbow: the evolving, artistic creative process as a series of non-sequiturs and – Buddhist – illuminations.
Globalized Beatlemania knows seemingly all the details about the slow-motion disintegration already in effect in early 1969 – from George Harrison sitting on a triple album of fabulous songs being constantly sidelined by the Lennon-McCartney Leviathan to the arguably divisive role of that Japanese woman.
In the end, what really matters is the – glorious – music. George building “Something” out of scratch. Paul building “Get Back” out of scratch (with George soon adding some mean funky licks). And the resolution of the cliffhanger, delivered at the Apple rooftop live concert (here it is, in full): an iconic pop performance for the ages.
So allow me to attempt something different. Let’s talk about John.
The dream is not over
Every baby boomer carries a Dylanesque blood-on-the-tracks memory: the day JFK was assassinated. Generations who followed the first boomers carry another memory: the day John Lennon was assassinated, 41 years ago next week, and 10 years after the Beatles dream, as decreed by the same Lennon, was over.
Yet already at 18 Lennon, a pre-boomer born during WWII, in 1940, carried three blood scars: the deaths of his uncle (the father figure); of his (absent) mom; and of his idol (Buddy Holly). Lennon judged that to protect his future emotional balance he had to build up a barrier of irreverence, aggression and sarcasm.
With fame and fortune, he switched from defense to offense. Yet he only attacked those he didn’t respect. He wore his heart – and his art – on his sleeve, for all to see, like a gallant chevalier.
Lennon could have been a politician, like JFK. Kennedy – Ireland and Harvard, money and macho – had an Apollonian vision of power. Lennon – street kid out of decadent, fuliginous Liverpool, outsider even in art school, that classic English receptacle of misfits – preferred to polish the Dionysian vision of relations between art and power.
Politician and poet, hero and bad boy, sweet and arrogant, Lennon was neither the St Sebastian sold to the world by Yoko during his last decade in this valley of tears nor the demented druggie depicted in a sensationalist biography by Albert Goldman.
In the tortuous initiation voyage that took him from leather-jacked rebel rocker to respectable middle-aged man– a dedicated father absolutely faithful to a mature woman – we find not only the dilemmas faced by at least two generations but also the contradictions inherent in the astonishing influence of rock’n roll as a form of art-commerce.
The Beatles – the quintessential incarnation of the ’60s dream of an Eden-like utopia – could never grow old, because childhood magic and an incurable adherence to the pleasure principle were always central to their appeal.
While Bob Dylan burned in anger and the Stones, ever so calculating, invested in theatrical Satanism, everything related to the Beatles denoted exuberance and effervescence – the practical result of the Lennon-McCartney chemistry, so evident in multiple sections of Get Back.
Lennon had literary and poetic ambitions. In the end. he conferred cultural respectability upon a format that until the ’60s was considered minor: pop poetry. Lennon’s lyrics were a sort of counterpoint to the new journalism of Norman Mailer, Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe.
Like them, Lennon noticed how the novel did not die in the’60s; what died was the mystique of the novel, its critical prestige, its adoring audience and its status as the golden path to success in the Palaces of Culture.
Without eschewing the non-stop gaming between individuality and history, between desire and social determination (after all he had escaped the tremendous English class determinism), Lennon in his lyrics tackled problems of personal identity, private moral choices and the extreme ambivalence of our elective affinities.
Even when he improved his fables and allegories – in the 70s post-Beatles era – he was always emphasizing the perennial quality of these moral questions. His influence on pop poetry is incalculable.
Lennon, on paper, always shone when he referred to human beings in flesh and blood. He was not a T S Eliot, of course, or even a Bob Dylan. His lyrics could be so simple that they would read like nonsense childhood verse (which he wrote very well).
The crystals were always uncovered when he went into a semi-confessional mood: lost love, reminiscences about pain, expiation of personal trauma, the search for a Buddhist Third Way. Rubber Soul and Revolver are the Beatles albums where the Lennon mark is most visible. It’s not an accident that these are the ones that pack maximum emotional power. Much like George’s post-Beatles full bloom in All Things Must Pass.
Lennon never settled for the regal ostentation of selling his image as a Leader – be it of the Beatles, of a generation or of an era. In Get Back, he is largely self-effacing, until he bursts into full life in the rooftop.
With an existentialist faith in the perpetual renovation of personality, Lennon used all possible tools to aspire to transcendence: gurus, drugs, primal scream, political psychodrama, pacifist appeals – and even that itinerant show, sort of an uninterrupted performance, with Madame Ono. After his disappearance from the limelight to raise a child, he was back with the same naked honesty, offering to everyone the dream of a mature man.
He was assassinated exactly when he was trying to suggest possibilities of inventing the non-materialist world he had predicated in Imagine. The Western collective unconscious, in shock, intuitively understood it had been deprived of the stimulating dialogue of a consciousness with itself, a human – all too human – dialogue.
John Lennon had the capacity to project his own psychodrama over all his contemporaries. He lives on, again, with that disarming smile captured in Get Back, not as a martyr, but as a flaming idea, contributing to the self-knowledge of all of us living in these times of trouble. We are all getting back to where we once were, John.
*
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 Asia Times.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: John Lennon in a file photo. Image: Screen shot from Peter Jackson’s Get Back
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.
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.” Such medical professionals are not just bad people, Bourla said, “they’re criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives”
The criminals’ playbook includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of
Pfizer has a long history of criminal activity. The company has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices, bribery in multiple countries, environmental violations — including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste — labor and worker safety violations and more. It’s also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy
Between 2002 and 2010, Pfizer was fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards, including a $2.3 billion fine in 2009, the then-largest health care fraud fine in American history. In 2011, Pfizer paid $14.5 million to settle charges of illegal marketing, and in 2014 they settled charges relating to unlawful marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. None of it deterred future bad behavior
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind
*
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe,1 Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.”2
Such medical professionals, Bourla said, are not just bad people, “they’re criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives.” Bourla is one to talk, being the CEO of a company the name of which is synonymous with corporate crime.
Bourla’s comments were made on the same day Pfizer and its partner BioNTech asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to broaden its authorization for booster shots to everyone over the age of 18.3
Pot Calling the Kettle Black
I guess we can’t be too surprised, though, as the primary defense strategy people like Bourla have is to blame the opposition for their own misdeeds. He even claims the company is being targeted by “dark organizations,” meaning organizations that aren’t transparent about their funding.
This is precisely what the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is, the fabrications4 of which are being used to prop up the official narrative that those who present evidence showing the COVID shots are dangerous are domestic terrorists5 out to worsen the pandemic death toll.
No one knows who funds this group, but it has plenty of connections to war hawks and Great Reset promoters — including the Atlantic Council, to which Bourla is making these statements.
By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, CIA and Event 201,6,7 Microsoft,8 and the Center for American Progress9 (another organization funded by dark money10).
And Bourla wants us to believe Pfizer is under attack from dark money groups? Again, the playbook of these wolves includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of.
More on the Atlantic Council
In August 2018, Facebook claimed an “influence campaign” by Russian “bad actors” had been carried out on its platform leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. However, it turned out these pages weren’t identified by Facebook. They came primarily from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.
In her article, “Hysteria Over Newly Revealed Facebook ‘Influence Campaign’ Doesn’t Fit the Facts,”11investigative reporter Whitney Webb took a deep-dive into this inane propaganda effort, pointing out that:
“… despite the lawmakers’ claims, Facebook has established no links to the Russian government or even Russian nationals.
The only ‘evidence’ to back up the claim of Russian-involvement is that one of the pages identified ‘had an IRA [Internet Research Agency, a Russian ‘troll farm’ named in a Mueller-probe indictment] account as one of its admins for ‘only seven minutes’ and ‘one of the IRA accounts we disabled in 2017 shared a Facebook Event hosted by’ one of the pages.
Beyond the fact that accusations of Russian involvement are highly politicized given the lack of current evidence, there is hardly any indication that this ‘influence campaign’ was even influential at all.
Indeed, most of the ‘bad actor’ pages and accounts had hardly any followers, with most of them having no followers. For instance, only four of the 32 total social-media pages and accounts had more than 10 followers, with all other pages — i.e., the remaining 28 — having between 10 and zero, according to Facebook’s statements.
All of the Instagram accounts identified had zero followers and, among those seven accounts, only one of them had made a single post on the platform. By Facebook’s own admission, only four of the pages named were even remotely significant in terms of followers and thus ‘influence.’”
Why do I mention this? Because this is the same tactic used to frame a small number of individuals with limited social media reach as domestic terrorists, simply for sharing counter-narratives about the COVID pandemic.
False Allegations Used to Quench Freedom of Speech
According to the CCDH,12 a dozen individuals, including me, were responsible for 65% of all anti-vaccine content on social media and should therefore be banned from all platforms. Most social media companies have since complied, deplatforming most of us. This despite a public denouncement of the CCDH’s accusations by Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy, who stated that:13
“… these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.
The report14 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.
They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.
Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”
Information Warfare
Getting back to the Atlantic Council, Webb noted that:15
“Facebook officially partnered with the Atlantic Council this past May in order to tackle so-called ‘fake news,’ adding that the hawkish think-tank would serve as its ‘eyes and ears’ in identifying alleged foreign-influence operations …
The Atlantic Council itself is led by a mix of retired military officers, former politicians, and Western business elites. And the think-tank’s financial sponsors include top U.S. defense contractors; agencies aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; the United Arab Emirates; major transnational corporations; and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
One can think of several reasons why such a group would be interested in fomenting anti-Russian hysteria … The Atlantic Council’s conflicts of interest are certainly worth keeping in mind …”
The same must be said about the CCDH, and Pfizer too. Both are glaringly biased and in no position to judge what is misinformation and what isn’t. But then, this is war, after all. We’re in an information war, and the term “misinformation” is lobbed in lieu of grenades. Discernment and some basic wisdom is required to avoid becoming a victim.
Fact checking organizations are another weapon designed and deployed to control the narrative. They exist as gatekeepers to funnel readers and viewers to the official narrative and away from anything that might raise inconvenient questions. The largest and most influential fact checker is NewsGuard, which hands out “trustworthiness” ratings to websites.
NewsGuard cofounder Louis Crovitz is a member of the Council on Foreign relations — another Great Reset supporter — and primary advisers include Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security, and Ret. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and NSA.16
Knowing that, it makes it easier to understand how everyday people who share information that veers from the official narrative can be labeled and treated as a national security threat.
The COVID pandemic is a militarized operation. We’re at war, and the designated enemy (looking at it from the side that started this war without telling anyone) are the citizens of the world who want to hold on to their freedom and human rights.
Pfizer Has a Long History of Criminal Behavior
Pfizer is on the other side — the side that is seeking to install an unelected technocratic regime based on the idea that we need a global biosecurity, biosurveillance apparatus or we’ll all die.
This is not a new position for them. During the American Civil War, which began in 1862, the need for massive amounts of painkillers and antiseptics allowed Pfizer to flourish and expand during wartime.17 Today, the manufactured “need” for COVID-19 vaccine is allowing Pfizer to make out like a bandit yet again, and as I’ve already stated, we are again at war, albeit an undeclared one.
To achieve that, Pfizer is willing to “blackmail” countries into accepting its COVID shot terms, as reviewed in the Gravitas report above — terms that make sure Pfizer always comes out on top.
A key term is no liability, which is understandable considering the amount of harm Pfizer’s COVID jab is causing. Pfizer went so far as to bully nations into putting up sovereign assets like military bases as collateral to pay for any vaccine injury lawsuits that might result from their COVID jab.
While that might not be illegal, it’s unethical, and so is researching on people without informed consent. Everyone who gets these emergency use authorized injections are part of that research, while simultaneously being prevented from seeing anything but propaganda.
Without truthful and transparent disclosure of both risks and benefits, there is no informed consent. Pfizer is even experimenting on children and pregnant women without informed consent, two categories that historically have been off-limits for drug experimentation.
Whistleblower Claims Data Were Falsified
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified and patients were unblinded. Follow-up on reported side effects also lagged behind.18 This isn’t the first time such unsavory have been levied against Pfizer.
In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.
Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.
The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.
What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.
State Department cables also revealed Pfizer hired spies with a plan to frame a Nigerian attorney general and get him to drop the parents’ lawsuit.20 Pfizer even tried to avoid responsibility by falsely accusing Doctors Without Borders of dispensing the experimental drug.21
An ‘Habitual Offender’
In his 2010 paper,22 “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.”
Pfizer has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices,23bribery in multiple countries,24 environmental violations — including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste25 — labor and worker safety violations and more.26,27,28 It’s also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.29
Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
According to the Global Justice report, “The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Can’t Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:”32
“A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. ‘At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,’ he stated.”
In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34
None of those legal actions deterred future bad behavior. To Pfizer, paying fines to sweep illegalities under the rug has become part of the cost of doing business, and they can afford it. While the fines may sound extraordinary, they’re tiny when compared to the company’s profits.
Pfizer was among the top 30 most profitable companies in the world in 2020, with profits reaching $16 billion, and its COVID jab alone is predicted to make $13 billion in 2021.35
As noted by the law firm Matthews and Associates, “the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled COVID vaccine.”36 The key strategy to boost confidence, unfortunately, is censorship.
What ‘New Way of Life’ Is Pfizer Promising?
The fastest way to get back to normal, Bourla claims in his Atlantic Council interview, is for everyone to get vaccinated.
Considering how little things have changed despite massive vaccination rates, it seems clear the globalists in charge of The Great Reset — and Pfizer is part of that pack — have no intention of allowing anything go back to normal. It won’t matter how many comply, or how many times we comply
Australia is perhaps the clearest illustration of what the whole world will face. Even though a majority are “vaccinated,” their freedoms have not been returned, and now they have to submit to boosters or lose what semblance of freedom the initial round of shots gave them. The Australian government is confiscating and blocking people’s bank accounts, withholding unemployment benefits and more — all in the name of “public health.”
Bourla even indicates that there is no going back to the old normal when he states, “The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life is … hesitancy to vaccinations.”
New way of life. What does this “new way of life” look like? It looks like Australia. It looks like Israel. It looks like Lithuania,37 where your “right” to frequent restaurants, stores, shopping malls, beauty salons, libraries, banks, insurance agencies and universities, and your “right” to inpatient medical care and travel, all depend on your willingness to participate in a medical experiment that can kill or disable you.
The “new way of life” Bourla is talking about involves repeatedly playing lethal Russian Roulette just to “earn” the right to be part of society. No thank you. Bourla can keep his “new way of life.”
*
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.
On Wednesday, Ursula Van Der Leyen – the chief of the European Union (EU) Commission – told the press that she would like to see the long-standing Nuremberg Code ignored completely in favor of allowing countries to force vaccinate anyone who is refusing to take the experimental jab.
Her alarming comments come just days after Germany followed Austria’s lead, mandating an authoritarian lockdown on only the unvaccinated.
In addition to being in full support of the segregated lockdown, von der Leyen said it was “understandable and appropriate” for EU countries to discuss mandatory COVID vaccinations because of the new Omicron variant, which has already been detected in 12 countries in the EU.
“European Union countries should consider mandatory vaccination to combat Covid and the Omicron variant, the head of its Commission has said.
Ursula von der Leyen said vaccines would be crucial in the fight against the “highly contagious” new variant
How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union? This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led.“
Watch:
Forcing individuals to take this experimental and potentially dangerous vaccine against their will would be in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code which was established in 1947 in the immediate wake of the horrific medical experiments and human rights atrocities by Nazis during the Holocaust.
“the voluntary consent of the human subject is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL,”
meaning that the individual is able to
“exercise free power of choice, WITHOUT the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion“ – i.e taking away your right to work if you are not vaccinated.
A leading cause for the code’s creation was the Nazi’s sickening performance of medical experiments on subjects without their consent. These procedures, typically performed under the command of high-ranking officials such as Dr. Josef Mengele, were some of the worst and most deranged ever documented. Since then, full and proactive ongoing consent for any medical procedure has been required by law in western nations that recognize the Nuremberg Laws.
The only way countries in the EU would be able to get away with forced vaccinations for this mild virus, which is an extraordinarily unethical and atrocious violation of human rights, is to do away with the Nuremberg laws, or just ignore them completely.
As esteemed professor, Dr. Jordan Peterson sarcastically notes: “Hey, it’s just the Nuremberg code. Only what we learned from the Nazi atrocities, not least those that were medical.”
Hey, it's just the Nuremberg code. Only what we learned from the Nazi atrocities, not least those that were medical. https://t.co/ZR9T07k7pv
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 images in this article are from Gateway Pundit
Comments Off on On the Heels of Austria and Germany Locking Down the Unvaccinated, EU Leader Calls for Throwing Out Nuremberg Code in Favor of Forced Vaccinating All Dissenters
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.
Every child asks questions. Questions on the why of things, the when, the who, the where and the how.
Adults do not so often ask such questions. Especially not, when these are of utmost significance and urgency – such as in today’s comprehensive crisis pertaining to nature, society, civilization and life itself.
Why not?
One example of this lack of questioing can be seen in the movie ”Technocratic Dictatorship”. This too seems true when it comes to deep reflection and highly critical analysis, offering, one would hope, more than just scepticism on the current situation, but also outrage.
Those interviewed in this movie, myself among them, describe in various ways the dilemma of our times, which is the undisputable progressive destruction of the environment, nature and life on earth.
Primarily, the interviewees analyse modern natural sciences and technology as the main contributors to this destruction. The mechanistic world view of the modern era and its subsequent technology are seen as the major cause of this destruction, its technology being broadly conceptualized in terms of machine-technology.
They agree: contrary to all predictions and promises, so-called progress has not resulted in the improvement for humankind, for life itself, nature and the environment. Quite the contrary, it has instead led to a situation which threatens to become a technocratic dictatorship, as the movie’s title aptly indicates.
From destruction of nature to the destruction of the human being?
Alongside the destruction of nature, the possible destruction of the human being itself seems to be the agenda.
For the last half of a century, the process of ”depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in numbers of humans living on the Planet, is repeatedly mentioned in corresponding publications, especially among ”techno-fetishists”, as a declared necessity. Is this a ”logical” continuation of the hitherto existing destruction of nature and life itself since the beginning of the modern era?
Is the often discussed project of so-called ”transhumanism” a continuation of the technological progress ”beyond” nature and humans?
Is it part of the agenda to abolish humans as a natural occurance and species? To unhinge and transform them via technological inventions so that man may be adapted and custom-made to fit into the ”mega-machine“?
One has to ask oneself: Is this achievable? Can it be possible anyone desiring such an experiment? Is it even possible anyone could have this as an aim? It seems the technological progress of today has led to an altered perspective on life and even human beings that most people are not yet aware of.
What would such a development toward ”beyond human” look like in reality? The current propaganda advertising of such continued progress promises the improvement and higher development of humankind, to become even ”god-like”- a homo deus (Harari). And in continuation of this sort of thinking, the „merging“ of human beings with the machine (Kurzweil) is considered an advanced development, allegedly leading to a new level of ”evolution”.
How is one to imagine this? Or: what does the logic of invention of a ”post” -human ”machine-being” or a ”human machine”, have to do with the sacrifices demanded for centuries from nature and all other life forms in the name of progress?
Are we not experiencing the creation of the promised ”brave new world”, with an equally ”brave new human being” afterall (Sorgner), but rather an actual human sacrifice, being started under the disguise of technological progress by the big players of our civilization themselves, possibly already on a global scale?
What monstrosity! Where have we got to, if we have to ask such a question?
Our movie shows that so far there is no reaction to the planned politics of implementing these depopulation-fantasies and the intended de-, trans- and posthumanisation of the human being.
Are people willing to put up with this? Do they believe – as it is often the case – the promises made from above and / or do they not (yet) understand what is really approaching them?
The movie asks no further questions. It ends with a prospect of a different, more environmentally friendly civilization and world, without having explained or explored WHY we have arrived at exactly the opposite, with or without science.
Furthermore, the question of if and how we can get out of the current state and arrive at an alternative civilization remains unexplored – and that is, still as human beings in the true sense, i.e. as living, creative and self-empowered creatures.
Given the discrepancy between everyday consciousness of ”regular” people and the completely different dimensions in which the latest projects of technological progress are embedded, such a transition with a desired Happy End is obsolete.
Such a Happy End would somehow have required a discussion between the inventors and the objects, i.e. the victims of such progress, a requisite debate in which a solution would have been reached resulting in the ”rejection” of such kind of progress.
First of all, the existing gap needs to be defined as one between the ”wrong” consciousness of the people who are not the least aware of the existential threat they are subjected to, and the consciousness of those who, according to their own ideas have already begun, with supporting propaganda, to implement this threat.
The fundamental ”why”- question is not posed: Why does hostility towards nature and human beings exist in modern civilization? This question is not asked in the movie, nor in the remaining fields of life. It seems no one is even noticing the abscence of this key question.
The impression is given that it is not necessary to ask such a question: the movie states if natural science is oriented towards the dead instead of towards life, then this obviously becomes the reason why no attention is paid to the fact of life, nor to an (ethically) appropriate appreciation of the living world – the animate life.
However, such an argument is a circular one. It is tautologic.
And why is it like this?
Is natural science too ignorant to comprehend that the living also exists and how central it is to everything? If this were the case, it would be relatively easy to solve the problem.
However, the assumption of ignorance or an error on the part of natural science of course cannot count, even though both frequently occur. Because, the long held knowledge and understanding in times before natural science was developed, did not doubt the existence of the living force of nature and its meaning.
So what has happened that has led to the belief that the living force is, supposedly, no longer relevant, that it can be ”omitted” from any consideration and now, even from reality itself – including the reality of the human being?
The anticipated ”machine-being” of natural science and technological progress is precisely not supposed to be an augmentation of human aliveness in its original sense. What kind of development has taken place that allows for and openly anticipates a state of existence that is a false existence, being claimed as the new ”normal”, which can be described as a general state of non-life?
What kind of a strange self-fulfilling prophesy is at play here, that such untruth is now supposed to become a concrete reality?
Might this be because the alleged science of nature is in fact pursuing other interests, other from the investigation of truth and its effects on earthly conditions, and other from its inherent order, preventing those pursuing these other interests from seeing, respecting and honoring the ”whole” – making money with the dead, which by implication also means making profits with murdering?
Is it capitalism, war and profit-making that have narrowed the field of natural science in this way, luring it onto a false path, which cannot easily be admitted to, nor walked away from? In this case, the question should be: why is natural science still considered a science and in fact the science? And finally, why is it the same under conditions of socialism and communism, i.e. in systems that are not profit-oriented per se? So-called ”scientific and technological progress” in these systems is not on a different path, rather the contrary is the case.
Finally, irrespective of the money involved, why are people putting up with the destruction of their earthly environment – their only existing living sphere, to be finally confronted – in a strange logic – with their own extinction in the end?
The old saying ”don’t do something to others that you do not wish to experience yourself…” holds true. Why did it not do so with respect to prpgress?
Could anthropocentrism, i.e. the well-known perception of man being the ”crown of creation” be responsible, an overall claim to power, giving permission to appropriate and destroy everything? So the idea that the same could happen to man himself does not even occur to him? Besides who would put him in such danger? Were people forced to destroy the non-human world, without being able to successfully raise their voice in opposition to this? Or did they do this voluntarily? If so, why?
Anthropocentrism, in complete contrast, could also have consisted of feeling especially responsible for life and could have resulted in even developing stewardship for life everywhere. Why has this, at least in the modern era, rarely been the case?
The reversal: destruction as a way to creation?
Is it possible that the destruction is not being perceived as such? Or could it be that it appears as its very opposite, i.e. serving as the foundation for an ”improved” creation – including the creation of man himself?
Is the ”why-question” on the destruction not asked because it is assumed not to be the case, but rather – the other way around – it is seen as the path to progress, to assumed abundance and betterment, always associated with progressive change?
The economist Joseph Schumpeter states that in capitalism an economically motivated destruction results in an even greater creation, i.e. the economic growth, which supposedly even exceeds the damage done. Accordingly, progress and specifically in this case, economic progress, cannot be achieved without losses, but progress, in principal, would always surpass the latter.
Karl Marx has called it the ”development of the productive forces”, namely those techniques that would guarantee the steady increase of excess in production. However, he also anticipated that ”the wellspring of riches, the earth and the laborer” would eventually run dry. Since that time science and technology have been striving to eliminate the wellspring of riches – named ”laborer ” – in the future, indeed. However, the ebbing of this well would not be left to occur naturally, it would, rather, be created intentionally – the reasons for and consequences of this ebbing being the subject of this debate.
On the whole, it seems to be about defining the problem of destruction and its subsequent measurement – whether as temporary or long-term, wether as collateral damage or a basic problem of the mode of production and of progress the costs of which have so far been ”externalized”. They have been outsourced, moved to an obscure ”external” fieldbecoming invisible and unaccountable. In this way, these costs appear to be non-existent.
In the end, the debate about the problem of the ”necessary” destruction resulted in taking the destruction as such for granted, but not to be taken seriously as a significant objection to the modern era per se and its mode of production, science and technology.
Goethe wrote about this dilemma in Faust II and was the first to grapple with increasing horror, finding the words to describe the consequences of this decision. Then he fell silent, as his interpretor, the philosopher Michael Jaeger noticed (Jaeger). Goethe proved correct. Since then the destruction of the world has advanced rapidly, never to be reversed, halted or at least slowed down, not to mention any larger attempts of reparations. Instead, a radical nihilism has made its way towards all existence and being in the world (Severino) including the related acceptance of human sacrifice. In ”Faust” it is the pre-modern elders, Philemon and Baucis, who had to yield to progress with their death.
Who will have to yield today?
Progress as the spawning of the ”more” and furthermore, of the ”better” remains largely uncontested. No one has successfully blocked its path. Any possible challenging has been declared a global taboo.
This is the reason why the ”why-question” has not been asked and is still not being asked.
Apparently the question is superfluous, because it is allegedly about the common good and advancement. Progress remains beyond being challenged. The ”why-question” would have merely resulted in the answer: one destroys in order to produce something more and better, according to the motto: you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Who would have doubted that in this process the more and the better is achieved?
Or: who would have wanted to abstain from progress, whatever it produces? Progress appeared to be completely without any alternative.
This remains so to this very day. Those who question progress became objects of ridicule.They appeared to be backward, even reactionary, uninformed, romantic, naiv or lost in the stone age.
Thus the question, why this path of development was neccessarily destructive and to what degree, was dropped. Practical alternatives to such progress did not succeed in being implemented or sustained. Most notably, these could not effect any change on the apparent unstoppable path of progress.
The question, why there was such an adamantine clinging to this progress – even when it became increasingly obvious what it really meant for the world, initially called ”silent spring” by Rachel Carsen during the 1960’s (Carson), now commonplace – continued to be swept under the carpet.
The why-question was and is not posed, in spite of all the warning signs, such as the observed rapid extinction of animals and plants or the continual ozone-depletion in the atmosphere, because the preconditions for asking this question are simply renounced. There is massive denial of the situation; that it could have been progress itself responsible for the tremendous destruction, which at this point can no longer be ignored, and which in the meantime has begun to even threaten the very living conditions on earth, including the existence of mankind.
Who is to be blamed? The so-called ”man-made” destruction.
In the meantime, the culprits are being searched for elsewhere, as now there is no longer any way around finding the responsible ones. Since the investigations by the Club of Rome during the 1970’s – e.g. on ”the limits of growth”- all of a sudden the defacto comprehensive destruction is allowed for – however, funnily enough, now from above. Furthermore, this is still taking place without the ”why-question” being asked. Were this not so one could not avoid taking progress itself under scrutiny. Instead, a futuristic and much ”improved” form of progress has been outlined and comes with the intention to abolish most of all previous forms across the board. The reasons, therefore, are not to be found in any possible faults with the progress-project itself. The all-of-a-sudden discovered environmental – and nature – crisis is now blamed on ”man” in general.
The crisis is being defined as a ”man-made” crisis.
This applies to today’s so-called climate crisis and equally to the corona-pandemic as an alleged health crisis since 2020: neither the inventors of progress nor its enforcers and profiteers, since centuries, are accused of having done anything wrong. Instead, it is supposedly now ”the people”, who, because of their sheer numbers, their consumer behavior, or their ignorance and carelessness are to be blamed for each particular disaster.
Supposedly there are too many of them, who consume too much, who do not follow the rules and overburden nature. They are defined as too dangerous because they are alive and in contact with one another and thus, generally suspicious. According to the declared agendas of the ruling elites, progress based on the hitherto existing industrial revolution is supposed to be brought to a halt.
Alongside the UN-agendas 2010 and 2030, the policies of the ”Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the ”Green New Deal” of the EU and the US are openly discussed and explain to us how this is to take place. What is being revealed is an agenda for nothing less than a new world order in the form of a dictatorship (Rifkin 2019; Schwab/Malleret 2020)!
In this process, the why-question is still avoided, but nevertheless apparently answered. The answer is already there, before the question itself is posed.
Were it not so, i.e. the answer coming from above, it would have been noticed that something was wrong with this response. The problem with progress and the destruction it causes is not simply ”man-made” as the answer reads to the unposed question.
But the destruction is inherent in the system, i.e. it is system-made. This in particular should not be revealed because obviously those who run the system are interested in holding on to it – until the very end.
Those who have invented this model of progress and who – as a class – over centuries have enforced it by fire and by sword worldwide, even against strongest resistance, are now applying the brake. This full on brake is to indicate the end of the progress orchestration, the one which caused and operated this destruction in the first place, which now all of a sudden is recognized, but not admitted to as being due to its own failure. Rather it is seen as the failure of the ”people”, who are accused of pushing the planet to the limit of what’s possible, and even beyond. Already humanity is in need of two or three earths, only to keep up with consumption and there is a threat that ”peak oil” will be followed by more peaks, e.g. with rare earths, lithium or coltan, if not even the ”peak of everything”.
It is becoming obvious now, raw supplies are running short. Who, however, was it in the first place who pretended that the production of commodities was supposed to be never ending? Who chased the farmers off their land where they produced their own livelihood, and who ended their mass revolts against this expulsion with arms and wars? Who manoevered them into the factories of the industrial revolution and profited endlessly from their labor in the name of progress, and from controlling the consumption market which replaced the subsistence economy?
And who enforced, via inquisition, torture and burning stakes, that women would lose control of their bodies and reproductive capabilities, rendering them as ”house-wives” to produce ever more laborers-to-be, exploited through this progress, from the colonies to the ”motherlands”? Where else were the profits to come from if not from this labor force? (Werlhof et al. 1983)
This history of excessive violence over centuries, its reasons, methods, institutions and wrong-doers is simply being ommitted from the new narrative of a ”man-made” crisis. The perpetrators are obviously not even considered to be like other human beings even though what they did was also ”man-made”.
Consequently, this term today is reserved for ”the people”, that is the ”masses”.
The ”elite” is exempt from it. ”The people” are now accused of the mistakes, which those human beings belonging to the elite have forced them to commit, by employing all possible means for the last 500 years. In conclusion, ”man-made” is an invention from above – the system of the elite itself.
The information war
There is an information war going on, in which those above decide which questions can be asked, what the problem is and how it may be defined, which ”narrative” and associated explanations belong to it and how this is to be handled. In the meantime, almost everyone adheres to this, official media as well as ”science”, and all those who do not ask or do not allow any questioning. For, questions regarding the behavior of the elite are automatically considered ”conspiracy theories”, because they question this very behavior or could pose questions regarding it. Thus it becomes clear where the term ”conspiracy theory” actually comes from. Included in this is the ”why”- question. In fact, it ranks first place. This question is simply forbidden.
At the moment, according to the official discourse – the one from above – there is a threat of climate-collapse because of a steadily increasing heating up of the atmosphere since the beginning of industrialization, which is now leading to a climate catastrophy which threatens all life on earth. The tailor-made reason for this is supposedly – solely – the emmission of alleged greenhouse gas, CO2, of civil industry and civil consumption, in addition to CO2- increasing population growth. As a consequence, the extend of harmful, damaging climate change is ”man-made” in the sense of being allegedly caused by human behavior today.
Here the circle of blame is closed on the narrative of who is responsible for the alleged problems, and the silenceabout the real problems of today.
CO2, however, cannot develop a greenhouse gas effect because the earth is not a greenhouse. CO2 is rather an invisible plant gas and not some dirty emission as commonly portrayed. It develops during the rotting of organic material and is used by plants for growth alongside oxygen, without which we could not even breathe or live life on earth. Thus, CO2 is a very useful and essential gas.
Currently it makes up only 0,04 % of the atmosphere and of which only a fraction develops from human activities. Man-made CO2, all of a sudden, is deemed responsible for the threat of global warming. In this information war, the fact that in previous times CO2 was observed to be the result of a warming, not its cause, is utterly suppressed.
For over twenty years now, the new narrative is being repeatedly preached from above, especially by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), one of the political organizations closely affiliated with the UN who projects an image of being the purest and most highly developed place in science. The IPCC thereby merely reveals, how much science today – again and again – operates in the service of other interests, different from an alleged pursuit of knowledge and search for the truth (Werlhof 2021).
It is no different in the case of the so-called Corona-pandemic (e.g. Bhakdi 2020; generally globalresearch.ca 2020/2021). This means we have to investigate how the supposedly man-made – instead of system-made – climate and health-crisis is related to progress and its continuation, despite its damaging effects. Or rather, we have to investigate what new forms this progress with its inherent destruction will now take.
Stoppage of the progress to date and the enforcement of a new form of progress – the ”4th industrial revolution”
In the meantime it is deemed to be clarified how the current form of progress is to be brought to a halt, that is through the dismanteling of civil production and its consumption according to the model of the industrial revolution hitherto. Instead, the building-up of a ”CO2-neutral” production and their consumption on the basis of renewable energies,replacing non-renewable, ”dirty” energies is to take place. The old forms, i.e. coal, oil and gas, supposedly lead to too much CO2-production. The new energies are intended to no longer produce much CO2, and should come from sun, wind and water as well as from other sources such a bio-mass.
In this context, it is clear to all participating parties that all forms of power generated in this way will not be available in ample supply. In order for to achieve enough energy-supply, drastic measures for the reduction of global energy demands would be necessary, i.e. of population! As it is the people who, according to the planning strategy, are the ones who would be in need of this energy. Otherwise suitable measures and technologies would need to be also developed and licenced. Instead, the solution seems to be at hand – the path to be taken is the ”depopulation”- project.
The consequence of a corresponding depopulation is openly addressed, e.g. from the group ”Vegans for Future”, a subgroup of Fridays for Future (FFF), which is a youth movement, organized and directed from above (Ripple et al; a critique in pbme 2019).
Depopulation was already recommended when the problem of a ”population bomb ” (Ehrlich) was identified for the first time which, according to the theories of Thomas Malthus, would necessarily lead in the end to human starvation.
Within the controversal debate on vaccination, especially in the context of Covid- 19, depopulation as a possible aim has surfaced again. Last, but not least, through Bill Gates himself (Matters 2021) and his project – via the world health organization (WHO) – to vaccinate, for the first time in history, the entire population of the world. That this is not about a vaccination, but rather about something very different indeed, is becoming increasingly obvious.
Furthermore, the new forms of energy, which are supposed to reduce the alleged climate-damaging effects of production and consumption by the civil population are far from being so ”innocent”, ”clean” and ”green” as propagated. The manufacturing of certain components such as wind turbines and generators require high tech and heavy industry. Their periodic renewal as well as disposal represents an ecological disaster as there is no way to recycle them. Also photo-voltaic installations need to be manufactured industrially and are in need of regular replacement.
The new energy is not really fit for purpose for many reasons, as yet unsolvable problems exist regarding sufficient energy storage and their reliance on weather patterns. Furthermore, from an ecological perspective, water-based power plants are far from being problem-free, and biomass – such as rapeseed and palm-oil – are affecting an alternative land use, such as a possible organic food production.
That is why other countries – except Germany and Austria – continue to use nuclear energy, reasoning that it is also ”green” and ”clean”, i.e. ”CO2-neutral”. This, of course, is not true. One must take into consideration the mining of uranium, not to mention the renewability and the anticipated ”sustainability” issues with this form of energy, depending on a decreasing amount of available uranium. Furthermore, there is the insurmountable and permanent problem of radioactive waste disposal, on a global scale.
Nuclear energy obviously seems indispensable. It was invented by the military and in this context, continues to be in need for various weapon systems and the operation of military ”geo-engineering” installations, such as the ”ionosphere heater”, which is another technological invention of the new form of progress – rarely discussed – as part of the so-called ”4th industrial revolution” (Bertell; Werlhof 2021).
This is already an indication of what the new progress is supposed to look like. Contrary to the previous form of progress, the new one is untruly presented as ”green” and sustainable. After the alleged acknowledgement of the problem of destruction, it is now not at all about introducing non-damaging ways of production. So, the drastic reduction of the consumption amount of resources and nature is indeed intended. Otherwise, the current rate of consumption would soon reach its absolute limits, leaving nothing for later times and the elites.
At the same time there is a new progress announced. For this to take place, however, the new technologies would need a gigantically increased energy supply. Thus, the new progress far exceeds the questionable CO2-reduction and the currently available energy sources as well as dubious renewable energy sources.
This progress is the one of the so-called ”4th industrial revolution” and is intended to reach an even more esteemed reputation than its predecessor.
This way, the successor model of progress vastly surpasses the previous model, not only in energy consumption but also regarding the required machinery.
The 4th industrial revolution is designed to overcome, first and foremost, the hitherto industrial revolutions by dispensing them from the necessity to use a huge amount of human beings as a living labor force. However, this does not mean that human beings will now be liberated from work.
Rather, at the core, this new model of industrial revolution is based on the intention to integrate the still required labor force directly into the machinery. The aim is to transform them in such ways that they become parts of the machine, also by way of feeding their organic, biological force as ”renewable, green” energy into the machine. Apart from that, the idea is to transform them into controllable robots.
This is to take place via a ”convergence-technological” combination of biotechnology (genetic engineering and synthetic biology), articifical intelligence, AI, and nano-technology which also allow for ”mind-control” (Werlhof 2020), i.e. the control of thinking, feeling and behavior of „transhumans“ who would be directly connected to a global AI-cloud.
All this is to be complemented via geo-engineering technologies by the military (Werlhof 2021).
Furthermore, all these technologies can serve and make sure that narratives such as climate change and multiple pandemics can be confirmed time and again. It is now possible to technologically ”deliver” the necessary facts for such crises. Within such a planetary mega-machine of the new system of progress, a human being, if still in existence by then, would de facto cease to exist as a free agent and as a living individual (Werlhof, forthcoming 2022).
Victim of the new progress – the human race itself?
The transformation of human beings from being users of machines into patentable, trans,- and even posthuman partsof a superimposed machinery, i.e. human beings used by the machine, lies ahead of us. It now takes the form of the digital mega-machine, currently in development, called the ”internet of things”, IoT. Humans integrated into themachine in this way, would no longer be considered living beings with their own rights, but rather be defined as patents, i.e. ”things”, or ”information”, usually belonging to a company. This “thing“ by then has become the property of others, much like a slave in previous times, and because of this status, is no longer allowed to have property of its own.
This is what the so-called circular economy of the ”Great Reset” i.e. the ”Green New Deal” is designed for.
Thus, today’s ”green revolution” as a new world order no longer recognizes the homo sapiens, the individual, the owner, the proprietor, or any otherwise independent and free human being – except those on the very top. It would be the utmost of a ”technocratic dictatorship” that is now becoming blatantly clear.
However, 7-8 billion people are not needed for such a transhumanism. This form of ”de-growth” only works via de-population, as a new form of eugenics, even euthanasia. The new progress of mankind now turns directly against mankind itself – it is a complete reversal of the perspective on humanity.
It is this very reversal that is not comprehended, because progress is always supposed to be in the service of the good. That is why no alternative is considered. There is a compulsion to always apply progress in its latest development. So, no ”why”-question is asked about the fact that progress demands ever higher sacrifices.
For instance, the remaining ”new human” preferably would no longer be born of a mother in the hitherto sense of conditio humana, but rather become a product of industrial human-, and chimera-manufacturing. Genetic engineering, synthetic biology and nano-technology as well as AI are already working on the process of incrementally unhinging human beings from nature and creating all kinds of mixed ”life“ forms.
Until then, the new no-longer-human could be produced via an increasing ”merging” of him/it, inwardly and outwardly, with the particular machinery (Kurzweil; Schwab). In the meantime, the IoT with which humans are to be merged, is already praised as the greatest progress of all times.
This very ”progress“ is considered the alleged ”evolution” created by and belonging to, ”a better, higher, all powerful”, but no longer human ”homo deus” within the ”god-machine“ (Harari).
Indeed, ”man-made” problems beyond the elite and its system, would thus no longer in need of being feared. Progress, in such a complete reversal of perspective, is to become ever more our belief system and our religion. In such a scenario, ”why-questions” are altogether superfluous – possibly for ever.
Today’s crisis is a topic that is defined from above. Not only is it laid out in deceptive ways, it is also offering incorrect answers. The opportunity is not taken to create a civilization capable of ”affording” human beings, because of their ability to create life – i.e. to live and to produce without destruction. Such a human being would still be the ”wellspring of abundance”, in the understanding of Karl Marx. For this once existed and continues to still exist, here and there.
But this is not referred to here, even though the terms ”green”, ”sustainable” or ”basic income” as a prospect suggest a connection with former social movements that had expressed a critique of progress from ”below” rather than from above.
Because a truly nature-oriented and egalitarian society would surely not be a machine-oriented one with high-energy consumption and thus not considered to be ”progressive”. Such a society would rather be a ”return” to – or a new advancement to the well-known methods of non-interfering and non-damaging interaction with the earth, in which nobody would generate profit, or achieve any form of power.
Most of all one would not fulfill the alleged human task of establishing a civilization which is to pursue a constant higher and better development, including the subsequent vanishing of humans from the earth altogether, according to the motto: mission accomplished – humans obsolete?!
So far, there is no uprising in sight against the new and shocking plan of making homo sapiens disappear from the earth, a project that is not even concealed (e.g. Kurzweil; Schwab), as the common belief in progress being per se for the good is so powerful everywhere.
One continues to believe in progress, even if life is at stake now – be it life itself, or the autonomous life of a still free human being. It seems that most people have not yet understood what today’s crisis is all about. It is about themselves, or more precisely: it is about a development directed against themselves!
A critique of progressive technologies remains chronically underexposed and, for reasons already outlined above, also unchallenged, because there is a belief in these technologies much like in a fetish. Nothing less than a technological world revolution in favor of man is expected from them.
Men, especially, always identified with the technology of the machine even to the point of ”a mimetic approximation“(Genth), and in their fascination bowed down to them in ”promethean shame” (Anders).
Hence, an ”apocalypse-blindness” (Anders) reigns, which does not allow for the current developments to be experienced as an unveiling or even as a revelation on the actual truth of this civilization. The consciousness of most people has not yet entered the dehumanized, mere machine-logic dimension (Genth) within which technological progress is moving today. In 2008, shortly before his death, Joseph Weizenbaum, a most intimate connoiseur of the 4th industrial revolution declared at a meeting of the WEF in Davos:
“When the 4th industrial revolution is being realized, the living will envy the dead!”
As a scientist who has taught and done research for decades at the hereon specialized, famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, in Boston, in the area of expert-systems, i.e. artificial intelligence systems, knew what he was talking about. Contrary to most of his colleagues, he was a critical thinker who did not become corrupted or blinded. He raised his voice in warning (Weizenbaum).
Furthermore, he clarified that in the case of the new industrial revolution the quality of progress as the alleged generator of a ”better” world does not apply, particularly and notably, not for human beings.
So, how if progress so far has not only damaged nature, but generally did not produce anything better than nature? And what if now the same development would take place with respect to humans?
On the historical deep structure of progress and human sacrifice
Are 500 years sufficient in calling forth and strengthening an unquestionable belief like the one in progress, even under continuously adverse conditions and exorbitant sacrifices, including human sacrifices, which so far have always been an integral part of it ever since its implementation?
Are the developments during the last centuries sufficient in explaining that people today seem to be ready to offer themselves voluntarily in the name of progress – i.e. to sacrifice their very lives or their lives as human beings in the hitherto existing understanding?
Are we approaching a large human sacrifice, whose ritualization is already heralded, considering the propaganda for massive Covid-19 genetic therapy, called „vaccination“ and the beginning diffamation of the unvaccinated, called the ”non solidary ones”? In the summer of 2021, this was still about 40% of the population in Central Europe.
Are we approaching the sacrifice of the lives of people, even the lives of their children, the worst possible sacrifice of all – or will it finally come to a revolt?
It is no coincidence that the moderne era is almost always presented as a civilization sui generis, rarely having roots in a past – except for a few references to antiquity. The modern era does not seem to have a historical depth-dimension. In this way, the view of its old historical roots and what these consist of is obscured.
Issues like a ”creation out of destruction”, the alleged ”improvement” of nature, of life, of matter and of humans, even their ”higher re-creation”, a characteristic feature of the modern era, are ideas, utopias, plans and experiments that are not limited to the current time. On the contrary, these issues have a history of several 1000’s of years, even though initially, these have not been defined as ”progress”.
One could not talk about progress as long as it remained in the imagination and was not able to be put into practice and as long as these attempts kept unsuccessful. Respective experiments have been conducted for a long time, mostly without success.
”Alchemy” as the method of progress – the utopia of a re-creation of the world via its destruction
The name of these experiments was ”alchemy” (Schütt) and this continues to be the name, even though it is nearly nowhere admitted nor identified as such!
This is my hypothesis which I have investigated from a historical perspective and documented in great detail in a comprehensive body of work (Werlhof, forthcoming, 2022). It shows that the supposedly improved neo-creation of the world is a much older project. It is surrounded by an ideology that has shaped humanity for thousands of years and it is one we know since our earliest days. It is also tied to a belief system that is disseminated continuously. Recently, it is propagated with increased intensity.
Initially, the only thing missing was a general, success-promising practice.
Alchemy, pursuing this aim, failed time and again. Only in the modern era has progress as alchemy gained a systematic gestalt and became more successful.
The failure of alchemy as a method is related to the fact that it abandoned its predecessor, an alchemy of a much older source – in translation – alchemy as the „black mud“ from the river Nile, „land of the moon“, the „flow of the Goddess“.
For this older form of alchemy stems from a culture and civilization that essentially honored and imitated the process of nature – in this case the cyclical flooding of the Nile and its effects on the fecundity of the soil on its banks. Such was the custom in all early garden and agricultural communities.
Much later a ”new” form of alchemy was invented, that did not observe nature’s processes, but instead was interested in overcoming nature, desiring to create something entirely new: a neo-creation. This intent was unsuccessful because nature’s process is not meant to be overcome. Later success in the practice of alchemy, which we can observe in modern times, can eventually only be of temporary nature and not be of lasting value.
This in fact is the key question of today:
Did alchemy achieve its final break-through in the modern era or is it approaching its final failure?
To begin with: if one compares the failed alchemical method with today’s progress, then the latter one means:
Progress is the alchemical transformation of the original state of the world into something which is precisely not its natural state, but considered as being better, higher and closer even to god’s desire. It is represented as something that nature itself was allegedly dreaming of ever since.
The belief in progress is the alchemical belief in miracles, in a literal overthrowing of nature’s inherent order, anticipating its complete neo-creation, produced by man, preferably in random ways: it is deemed to be better and good, even god’s desire and anticipated by nature itself.
From an alchemical perspective, the meaning of progress as a form of religion, ideology and utopian project is grounded in the belief that progress is supposedly the raison d’etre of man on earth.
Progress is the ”sacred cow” especially of our times, as it is only now becoming a reality after alchemical experimenting of 500 years. It is supposed to be the realization of an old dream of mankind as well as seemingly the dream of nature itself. That is why it is sacro-sanct. Hence, critiquing progress appears as a kind of lèse-majesty!
Alchemical transformation of the world precisely means: transformation of matter, of the living and all of nature to the point of transforming the earth as a planet and even human beings themselves.
The object to be transformed becomes disected first, then is assembled with new kinds of material and finally is turned into ”machine”. The machine appears as the respective better and higher, as the ”2.”, now truly successful creation and ”nature”. By comparison, god as the alchemical father and „creator“ allegedly was not good enough, yet.
The ”improvement of man” or the creation of a ”new human being” was already undertaken in previous times, e.g. via specific measures in cloisters, dungeons and educational institutions, in factories, in the military, in the field of medicine and in psychotherapy.
After millenia alchemists are now at the point of attempting to substitute the very body of a human being, i.e. no longer being born (in a natural way) from the body of a mother. Thus, they are changing the very conditio humana. So far, experiments were limited to the homunculus: the first attempts of breeding a human being outside the body of a mother, i.e. in retort, have remained unsuccessful for millenia.
The now anticipated, literal ”manufacturing of (human) beings” in an industrial sense is supposed to be the crown of creation, the neo-creation of humans by humans, or rather by man and his machinery – and precisely not by woman, or a mother. In this way, humans would become allegedly better and higher forms of beings, even though – or precisely, because – s/he would no longer be a natural, free and souvereign human being.
Actually, as a ”machine-being” s/he is intended to be more ”godly”. In that case the new god no longer requires women as mater-ial mothers; and the ”father” would appear in the form of the universal ”god-machine”. Overall, this is a utopian, planetary mega-project and its realization is intended to be implemented gradually. In its course the entireworld would literally be turned upside down, taken apart and put together in new and completely different ways, largely independent of nature’s inherent order, evolution, and boundaries. The random composition of its parts would then be propagated as a “higher“ neo-creation – even though the exact opposite would be true.
In alchemy, essential terms for this process include:
1.”mortification”, deriving from morse, death, i.e. the taking apart of/killing of living mater,
2. the ”Opus Magnum” as the result of the new composition of what was mortified, beyond the original, natural appearance, becoming a new and considered a ”higher” form of matter (originally gold), or rather, a ”higher form of life” (machine),
3. ”the philosopher’s stone”, a kind of formula/technique/essence/substance/idea which is to render possible the Opus Magnum everywhere and at all times.
It is about nothing less than the utopian creation of a new world and a new order, which is directed against the current one. The intention is to gradually substitute the latter one by a kind of counter-, or anti-nature-order. This then is propagated as a better and higher ”order of nature”, allegedly intended by nature itself, as nature presumably feels imperfect itself. In order to document this claim, the results ofalchemy are called ”2. Nature“, even though the neo-creation is precisely intended to no longer be nature in its original sense. But it has to be pretended that everything emerging from alchemy is „natural“.
The contradiction of this entire endeavour lies in the treatment of the world and a course of action based on ”destruction as method”. Naturally, the total result in the end cannot produce a ”more” and a ”better”. If at all, the latter one can only be of a temporary nature.
What is the source of such a monstrous utopia, this concrete project which since centuries, keeps the world in suspension with its actions, thoughts and intentions, and in a breathless dynamic of constant change?
In its process it has already transformed and damaged the world to a large extend. For without destruction – mortification – of the world there can be no new one. Hence, those who want a different world will have to sacrifice the existing one.
This is the reason for the continuous destruction of the world, which is reigned by alchemists, approaching essentially the final ”Omnicide”, the destruction of everything, while there is a co-existing belief of witnessing the alleged emergence of a completely new and better world.
That way, the phenomenon of a ”nuclear alchemy“ is celebrating even the atomic mortification as the ultimate creation of a new life, while existing life turns to ashes (Wagner).
On this monstrous path we are on, and we shall soon find out how long original nature will go along with all this. We shall experience whether people, being blind to this apocalypse, are willing to sacrifice themselves, too, in order to become ”improved”, or whether they will finally rise up in protest instead.
At the core – pater arché instead of mater arché – patriarchy as a civilization of ”fathers” instead of mothers
The entire endeavour remains incomprehensible unless the core theme is identified, i.e. the key issue from the onset seems to be locked up in the collective unconscious. The neo-creation shall no longer be natural and born from a mother, as it is generally common – a ”mater arché”, to have a mother as the original source of new life. Arché initiallly means origin, beginning and womb (arché as domination only came about with patriarchy). Nature itself is primarily organized in feminine-motherly-creative ways and women are by nature, much like her, i.e. they are, as it were, nature in its human dimension.
In the alchemical project, nature is to be transformed from a feminine into a ”masculine” one – in the sense of a patriarchal nature, bringing forth a ”fatherly” neo-creation, instead of a motherly one – a pater arché instead of mater arché. (in more detail in Werlhof, forthcoming 2022)
That is the reason why, since then, all ”science” on behalf of the patriarchal system can never be viewed as being ”neutral”, merely ”rational” and allegedly ”not normative” (see Kaiser interview in the movie) – as it were, in the sense of common reason. This was and is merely its claim and self-justification. The truth is, it has always been about the realization of the self-fulfilling prophecy of a world of the fathers against the world of the mothers, which is why it cannot be called a ”neutral” and reasonable project. At some point, however, the discussion of this issue was stopped, namely since modern times. Instead, this project became the unquestioned or unjustifyable cause of a general sine qua non for one’s own acting, thinking, feeling and desiring – i.e. it became part of the collective unconscious.
It is not helpful to embed the resulting technology in an appropriate philosophy (see text of movie) when this philosophy does not identify the patriarchal preconditions of its orgins, not questioning its own foundation. Such an attempt is unsuitable for a (proper) contextualization.
Already in ancient Egypt, the pharao Echnaton had himself depicted as a pregnant man and adopted the name of the former original and all powerful goddess Nut/nouth – via a (sly) reversal of the syllables (!). The aspiration is clear. In this way, the first monotheistic, patriarchal religion, the Aton religion, was founded. From then on, God became the opposite of the Goddess. He became the creator of life, not her. From then on the ”pater arché” was valid.
The neo-creation is to be ”born of the fathers”, man-made, without nature’s creation, an invention beyond nature, an anti-, and counter–nature, an alleged ”2. nature” – allegedly desired even by nature itself. It would be the fulfillment of its own dream, perfected and redeemed from the mother through the pater arché, the fatherly creator.
Likewise, well-nigh, the alchemical mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, which depicts the fight of Marduk against his mother, the all powerful Ur-goddess – ”chaos” – Tiamat. He kills her and from the parts of her dead body he forms the new nature, which he dominates, creating the new order of the ”cosmos”.
This is the key issue at the root of it all, ever since the foundation of patriarchal civilizations. It remains the central theme to this very day. Neo-creation after destruction of the original creation is the utmost goal, to be achieved in everything and everywhere, on a global scale. For a new world, created by the self-proclaimed ”fathers” as opposed to the one of the mothers and by mother nature, would prove the existence and justification of a patriarchal world, a civilization and a new ”nature”, according to the conceptions of those fathers. It would represent their permanent legitimization.
The success of such a project would furthermore be the final prove of the alleged existence of god, who incarnates himself even in human earthly form, i.e. in the ”fathers” and who, in the end, would have found his final gestalt in a god-machine, allegedly representing nothing less than the creation of the universe itself.
In this way, the hubris of patriarchy turns into a mere joke in the end, a joke into which the entire world is now about to be forced to believe in.
Today, we have a definition of patriarchy that allows us to understand what is taking place, what has taken place and what is supposed to happen in the future, as long as the patriarchal civilization exists.This definition far exceeds the regular term of patriarchy as a mere form of domination, which is only a political term. It is about far more than that, namely the concrete technical transformation of the world, to the point where one does no longer need to dominate it, because it has become the way one always wanted to have the world.
From a patriarchal perspective, domination is only necessary as long as the world is still in its primary, original nature, or in one of its corresponding culture. The ideal patriarchal condition however, would be one in which domination is obsolete. ”It does what we want” said Craig Venter, inventor of synthetic biology, in reference to a bacteria he created in order to describe what the new ”life” is supposed to be. From a patriarchal-alchemical perspective, the better and higher life form is one which is no longer an independent life, and hence is no longer in need of being ”dominated”. Ideally, it has its source in the patriarchal system itself and as a pater-arché-product it is apriori perfectly fitted for patriarchy – like the machine. Likewise, the machine’s purpose is to do ”what we want”.
Patriarchy as an ”alchemical war system” against humanity and nature: the Why of it all!
After the invention of the machine during the 18th century, the 4th industrial revolution represents the realization of the alchemical-patriarchal dream per se.
This revolution is based on a ”total” alchemy in the form of segmentation of all matter and non – matter, down to its finest molecular/atomic structures and is supposed to bring forth completely new compositions, neo-creations and inventions of the world and all its creatures, by way of pushing beyond the evolutionary boundaries, previous forms and inherent order.
Its inventors are in an actual state of intoxication and delusion. Now everything seems to be possible. Not only is now apparently proven that God as a creator does exist, but he is among us, and I, the creator of new life, am God. The 2. creation, the new Genesis, is on its way (see Preston). It is about finalizing the complete implementation of patriarchy as the ultimate ”alchemical war system” against all of life, i.e. human and other beings, nature and the earth itself.
Our in essence simple, yet comprehensive definition of patriarchy, which is applicable in complex contexts and able to convert all reversals, has led to the new, pre-disciplinary approach of ”Critical Theory of Patriarchy” (Werlhof forthcoming, 2022).
Patriarchy as explanation came about because the ”why-question” was asked, time and again, and in expansive ways. The ”why-question” was leading to the identification of patriarchy. Perhaps this is the reason why this question is not asked, in order to avoid this very answer.
However, our movie abstained from such a definition of patriarchy. Hence, the following addendum.
Not until this perspective is considered, one can comprehend:
Why is there so much destruction by the ”fathers” against the mothers and mother nature? Without it, there would be no opportunity for a neo-creation by the ”fathers”.
Why is the element of the living in science not considered? Because after its destruction, the scientists want to neo-created it and present it as ”father-made”, as the allegedly better and higher and even godly ”life”.
Why is a human being in patriarchy, on the one hand conceived of as a nothing and on the other hand as God? Because being born of a mother is considered to be lower and not perfect, essentially ”unworthy”. Only being manufactured/“born“ by a ”father” accounts for a ”higher” value, even a godly one.
Why does the belief in progress exist, to the point of being a progress-religion? Because it promises to create a new and better world via neo-creation by the fathers. The world of the mother is considered imperfect and to be of low value.
Why is there no moment of pause (for reflection), why do change and destruction continue? Because everything, according to this patriarchal way of thinking, requires a neo-creation and therefore needs to be destroyed first.
Why has this patriarchal endeavour become a veritable world-war against life, women and mothers, against original nature, and is now even turning against human beings as such themselves? Because all are supposed to vanish, be annihilated and/or be turned into their very opposite – the neo-creation.
Why are the inherent dangers of such a project not identified? Because, in a complete reversal of things, the moment of pause and maintaining nature’s given ways themselves are seen as the danger!
What is the meaning of the machine as a patriarchal technique? It is the epitome of the alchemical bringing forth of a ”better” life, without a living body, without women and mothers, without a gender and a motherly geneology and without the orginal natural occurance of childbirth. The machine represents the ideal of a machine-body, and the natural living body is to be transformed and replaced by it.
Why does science not admit that they are operating from a wrong premise, from a wrong definition of nature? Because they want to destroy – mortify – living nature and substitute it, pursuing a self-fulfilling prophecy, proving they were right by saying all matter is dead matter and life is created from dead matter – with their leading premise of death coming first before there was life.
Why is natural science not ”dumb” when it comes to life? Because it is intentionally committing a crime against life itself and tries to deny this fact.
If destruction – mortifivarion – is ”neccessary”, it is logically impossible that in the long run more and something better will emerge.
Instead, systemic destruction is rampant – up to the point where everything will vanish and the ”Omnicide” appears as „Nothingness”.
The ”top” admits to this by pulling the emergency brake on progress in its current form and by ruthless decimation of its participants, while the idea of progress itself is not given up.
In this way, the problem is only deferred, resulting in ever more destructive forms.
Why is patriarchy and its method, patriarchal alchemy, not abolished?
Because it is collectively unconscious and – as a form of religion – it is a taboo. Even though it is applied with increasing and intentional implementation on an always larger scale, it is not supposed to be identified for what it really is – the destruction of the world, rather than its so-called neo-creation. Abandoning patriarchal alchemy would be equivalent to dismantling patriarchy.
How did the human tragedy, as a result of this, begin? When was this development initiated and when did the fatality start? It began with patriarchy a few thousand years ago. In modern times, it gained steadily momentum with its alchemical development dynamics, reaching a culmination point today.
Why is it so difficult to identify patriarchy? Because then, what was once believed to be true and right, in almost all aspects of life, would need to be questioned as well as everything that was thought, felt, done and desired.
It would culminate in the enormous question of guilt in the face of the destruction of the world and the killing of the living. lt would most likely lead to a comprehensive, socio-somatic as well as psychic-spiritual breakdown of the modern era as civilization of patriarchy (see Renggli 1992).
The Answer – The revolt of life and the people!?
After answering the ”why”- question on the destruction, there could be a spiritual revolt of unknown dimensions. The beginning sacrifice of human life as such could and would instead be followed by a revolt of life and of the people!
A sense of how this might announce itself was palpable during a concert performance of Puccuni’s opera Tosca in Graz, Austria, on August 8, 2021. In his famous aria, Mario, the lover of Tosca, sang these words towards the end of the first stanza, ”…and I never loved as much as I do now – THIS LIFE!” – LA VITA!
At this moment, long before the end of this aria, in the middle of the song there was a sudden outburst among the audience, and for a few minutes the singer, Jonas Kaufmann, the orchestra, the conductor, everybody had to pause.
There was an uproar, calling, clapping, screaming, crying and cheering, as if LIFE itself just found its riverbed in the audience, as if streaming from the depths of their souls into the trembling hearts, hands, eyes, voices and bodies, breaking through… wild and boisterously and full of irrepressable desire, joy, power and certainty!
It was a moment of collective shake-up, LIFE had shown its force. It does not want to be sacrified. A premonition of this sacrifice is already in the air, but LIFE wants to LIVE!
What LIFE really means has to enter people’s consciousness now and not only stream spontaneously through their hearts like in this moment at the opera, only to ebb away again.
The answer to the ”why-question”, i.e. why progress knows no limits and is systemically destructive, needs to be addressed and is urgent like never before.
For today the moment of truth has come. In unfathomable ways, those ”above” have already begun to downright relinquish LIFE, to sacrifice humans, if not humanity and even the children, in the name of progress and according to the intentions of its patriarchal protagonists. The ”mortification” of human beings as their transformation into ”no longer-human-beings” within the ”Opus Magnum ” has already begun on a global scale, too.
Could this have been it? Are these indeed ”the last days of mankind”?
One hundred years after Karl Krauss, this topic is coming up again, and now even for almost everyone, for ”mankind”. Why and how could it come to such a situation? Already in 1986, after the nuclear accident – the MCA , the maximum credible accident – of Chernobyl we, the mothers, appealed in protest ”We will not sacrifice our children to progress!” (Werlhof 1986).
And now it has come thus far, in fact on the entire planet? (see Chossudovsky)
Culmination or the End of patriarchy?
The question today is about the provisional end of a long history – the history of patriarchy. It consisted of building a world, that is less mother-, human-, and nature- oriented, consisting instead of destruction, transformation and substitution of mothers, humans and nature – deemed to be ”capital” (Werlhof 2012). This project was performed with humans, and humans essentially participated in it, either voluntarily or by force. In this respect, patriarchy is truly ”man-made”, most of all, ”elite-made”. It has been extended into a comprehensive system of so-called civilization.
This historical process of a massive ”reversal” of everything (Werlhof 2011) is not being understood to this very day, not to mention, being regretted or put on hold. Things cannot continue in this way. In the face of all this destruction, the earth has reached its limits. Likewise to nature and non-patriarchal cultures, all human beings not yet transformed or not able to be turned into ”capital” are now supposed to give way to patriarchy. In the end, its ruthless, brutal project can only be sustained for a minority of people, due to its destructive nature – unless it is given up. From the perspective of patriarchy, such an idea certainly is not an option (Werlhof 2010).
In the meantime, capitalism has done its part, by mobilising the masses via free enterprise economy into plundering and transforming the world. In socialism this was accomplished via command-economy of the state. Today, this is no longer necessary. On the contrary, it has long become counterproductive for the system, because the consumption of resources, given their finiteness, has become too comprehensive.
Furthermore, in the meantime the system has build up capital in the form of a machinery that no longer requires masses of people, like before.
Similarly to the entrepreneur and the laborer, now even the ”housewife” who was previously in wide demand, is now abraded, in order to diminish or even stop the reproduction of the species (Werlhof 2019).
The system thus transforms itself into a technocracy (see Wood), or rather into one that ”substitutes” nature and society with the mega-machine which makes and distributes its profits no longer in the common form, so far used in the Western world. In the East, these practices had already been different. After all, money can be printed, or rather be ”dished-out” in different forms. This is what is already happening and what has been in the planning for a long time (see Wolff).
In this process, the criterion has shifted, from human beings to the machine, their ”higher” substitute as the alleged ”better life”. That is how its ”fathers” attempt to fulfill their delusion of a complete neo-creation of the world. Will they succeed? What kind of problems will such a transition entail? The key players, e.g. the WEF and UN estimate a period of approximately 10-30 years. By then the last rebels will have passed away, that is, if there are no new ones. That is why nowadays children are targeted, becoming more and more the focal point of the „measures“. Then follows the industrial „creation“ of the human-machine-being still needed. Such seems to be the plan.
In this way, the genuine patriarchal „hate of LIFE“ and of living human beings finally is revealed. Patriarchy no longer wants to tolerate free human beings who are original, surprising, loving, funny, always different, wonderful, clever, graceful, independent, resistant and act with self-authority. For it views humans born by a mother essentially as ”deficient beings”, as evil, low, imperfect and as a permanent ”risk-factor”, in need of being transformed into something supposedly higher, better, according to god, through an alleged fatherly neo-creation. Initially this applied particulary to women as mothers, who were always suitably tormented – but they were still needed. Now, this applies to everyone:
Matricide is on the verge of becoming now global mass-murder!
In time, most people believed in patriarchy and participated in its politics. Recently, also inceasing numbers of women, who were made to believe that the category of ”sex“ or gender would be dropped, by overcoming nature through progress. Thus they would be liberated from patriarchy, in the understanding of being a system to simply mean the domination by men. In reality, however, it is about robbing women of their creative abilities and integrating them into the gender-neutral machinery.
Most human beings no longer know anything different than progress of patriarchy. Patriarchy is ”man-made” insofar as people have increasingly handed over their responsibility to the ones ”above” – or rather, to the machine. Should this behaviour continue, it will become their suicide. They are literally falling prey to their own system – its reversal of everything. Now they will have to recognize this very fact and make a choice.
Do they really want to be ”born of fathers” and become cyborgs, allowing the sacrifice of living bodies, no longer born of a mother, to happen – in the same way they allowed the body of nature to be sacrified? Do they really want to perform an alleged service to the ”grand plan” and contribute with their very lives to progress, thus ”bidding farewell to the concept of man being a part of nature”, as recommended from above? (Schwab)
Or, will they finally ask the ”why-question” – in order to receive the feared and long postponed, but saving answer? Do they want to be saved and will they save nature as well? Or will they continue to abandon nature? Will they, thereupon, finally want to abandon patriarchy and carry this out? (see Projektgruppe)
Patriarchy is the historical deep structure of the modern era as ”capitalist patriarchy”, the ”higher-order” civilization, which imposed itself by means of violence and war on the old world civilization of matriarchy, understood as the order of mater arché. In this process, patriarchy gradually annihilated the previous order almost everywhere.
The inherent life affirming, egalitarian, non-dominating and nature-honoring motherly order and wisdom, which can still be experienced in the living matriarchies of today (Göttner-Abendroth/Derungs) was followed by its exact opposite. Our definition of patriarchy explains why, where, when and how this took place (Werlhof forthcoming 2022).
In the movie, barely any of these issues were explained; its intentions were different. The mention of the term patriarchy alone is not sufficient to comprehend why and how the system of patriarchy is the key to arriving at a true understanding of our times.
The moment of truth
This moment of truth decides who will survive the current demolition of the modern era and, if so, for what purpose. What is at stake, by penalty of one’s own downfall, is to at last understand patriarchy, to abandon this system and to rebuild a nature-honoring civilization.
Saying no is not enough and illusions are counterproductive, as these prevent the recognition of the key issue and a right course of action. One has to really think our current situation all the way through and consider where we are now, and why, what we each have contributed to the situation, leastway by not having prevented it.
Hope would come from the certitude of finally being on the right path. How this is to take place on a political level is unclear, as the means to do so are not in reach, or in decline. On a spiritual level, this would first of all require reparations towards the earth, mother nature and the natural state of humanity.
The purpose of the moment of truth is to eventually arrive at an understanding of patriarchy. This requires a considerable leap of consciousness. Otherwise there will be no corresponding action, feeling and volition. So far, hardly anyone knows why all this happened and is happening. Hardly anyone even wants to know.
The ”why-question” inevitably leads to patriarchy and one would see that almost everyone participated, either voluntarily or out of necessity. This recognition of course had to be prevented. The question of guilt can only be answered by admitting to it, to know its origins, and to immediately stop contributing to it.
The evidence of the existence of patriarchy and the explanatory power of our different definition of patriarchy are resounding. What actually cannot be explained by it?
Patriarchy is the common blockhead that hides in the collective unconscious.
People will take away this blockhead and will be able to see – what a liberation this would be! It will open the door for a revolt of life and of the people…
As with a thirsty person in the desert, the current destitution and threat evoke the memory of the body, the mind and the soul, of LIFE itself. For a long time, their plethora and powers have been betrayed, destroyed, lost, and forgotten.
Today’s first and foremost call is this:
”I will affirm and honor the sacredness of life in myself.
Since eons of time, life is present in every cell of my body.
The body is the place where all that is essential is united.
The body has its own wisdom and I trust it.
I want to become aware of this life, this body and the great source of joy they bring me. I want to honor and appreciate this gift.
I will never render the responsibility for my life, my body, my spirit and my soul to anyone else.
I shall defend body and life wherever they are devalued or threatened.
I shall disapprove with every fiber of my being the abandonment or even sacrifice of my body and my life.
This is the marrow of what I can do in this moment, for myself, for all my loved ones and all others.
I shall commit to this”.
This is only the beginning, all else will follow from 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.
Dr. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.
She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Anders, Günther, 1980; Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, 2 Bde. München, Beck
Carson, Rachel, 1962: Der stumme Frühling, München, Beck
Chossudovsky, MIchel, 2021: The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People. The Covid-19 Vaccine should be Halted and Discontinued Immediately Worldwide, Global Research, August 27
Ehrlich, Paul, 1973: Die Bevölkerungsbombe, Frankfurt a.M., Fischer
Genth, Renate, 2002: Über Maschinisierung und Mimesis, Frankfurt, Peter Lang, www.globalresearch.at, laufend seit 2020
Göttner-Abendroth, Heide und Derungs, Kurt (Hg.), 1997: Matriarchate als herrschaftsfreie Gesellschaften, Bern, Amalia
Harari, Yuval, 2017: Homo Deus. Eine Geschichte von morgen, München, Beck
Jaeger, Michael, 2015: Wanderers Verstummen. Goethes Schweigen. Fausts Tragödie. Oder: Die große Transformation der Welt, Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann
Kurzweil, Ray, 2016: Die Intelligenz der Evolution. Wenn Mensch und Computer verschmelzen, Köln, Kiepenheuer & Witsch
Matters, Ryan, 2021: mRNA “Vaccines”, Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism. https://offguardian.org/2021/08/28/mrna-vaccines-eugenics-the-push-for-transhumanism/
PBME, Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde, 2019: Greta und die große Ver(w)irrung. 2. Offener Brief an Greta Thunberg, www.pbme-online.org, Oktober 2019
Preston, Christopher, 2018: Sind wir noch zu retten? Wie wir mit neuen Technologien die Natur verändern können, Berlin Springer
Projektgruppe „Zivilisationspolitik“ (Hg.) 2009: Aufbruch aus dem Patriarchat – Wege in eine neue Zivilisation? Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang
_____ 2011: Kann es eine ´neue Erde´ geben? Zur Kritischen Patriarchatstheorie und der Praxis einer post- patriarchalen Zivilisation, Beiträge zur Dissidenz, Nr. 28, Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang
Renggli, Franz, 1992: Selbstzerstörung aus Verlassenheit, Hamburg, Rasch & Röhring
Rifkin, Jeremy, 2019: Der Globale Green New Deal, Frankfurt a.M., Campus
Ripple, William et al, 2021: World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021, in BioScience, Vol. 71, Issue 9, September 2021, pp 894-898 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab079
Schütt, Hans Werner, 2000: Auf der Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen. Die Geschichte der Alchemie, München, Beck
Schwab, Klaus und Malleret, Thierry, 2020: Covid-19. The Great Reset, Davos, WEF
Severino, Emmanuele, 1983: Vom Wesen des Nihilismus, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta
Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz, 2018: Schöner neuer Mensch, Berlin, Nicolai publishing
Wagner, Friedrich, 1970: Weg und Abweg der Naturwissenschaft, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta
Weizenbaum, Joseph, 1989: Die Macht der Computer und die Ohnmacht der Vernunft, Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp
Werlhof, Claudia von et al. 1983: Frauen, die letzte Kolonie, Reinbek, Rowohlt
____ 1986: Wir werden das Leben unserer Kinder nicht dem Fortschritt opfern! in Gambaroff, Marina et al.: Tschernobyl hat unser Leben verändert. Vom Ausstieg der Frauen, Reinbek, Rowohlt, S. 8-24
_____2010: West-End, Das Scheitern der Moderne als „kapitalistisches Patriarchat“ und die Logik der Alternativen, Köln, PapyRossa
_____2011: Die Verkehrung. Das Projekt des Patriarchats und das Gender-Dilemma, Wien, Promedia
_____2012: Der unerkannte Kern der Krise. Die Moderne als Er-Schöpfung der Welt. Zur Alchemie des Patriarchats, Uhlstädt-Kirchhasel, Arun
____ 2019: Die „Ver-Schattung“ der Hausarbeit, in Marianne Gronemeyer et al. (Hg.):“Aber ich will nicht in diese Welt gehören…“ Beiträge zu einem konvivialen Denken nach Ivan Illich, Bielefeld, Transcript, S. 165-181
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.
On 9 October 2021 Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (35) resigned from his chancellor position, but said he would remain in politics as a member of Parliament. The media said he was involved in “financial scandals”. His friend and party ally (the conservative ÖVP – Austrian Peoples Party), then Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg, took over as chancellor. Yesterday, 2 December – just two months after taking office, he resigned, but said he would remain in the post until his party agrees on a new leader.
Just hours earlier, Schallenberg’s predecessor and People’s Party leader Kurz said he was leaving politics altogether and would officially step down as party chair on Friday, 3 December. He cited family reasons. Mr. Kurz’s wife just had a baby, and he wanted enjoy being a dad. Schallenberg too, mentioned family reasons.
“Family reasons” are always good reasons to escape politically sensitive jobs. Nobody can or dares to ask personal questions. Mr. Kurz was also said to have already a lucrative private sector job lined up.
What could possibly be complementary reasons? Maybe conscience, ethics? Or Fear? Austria was the first country to announce the most severe and drastic covid measures, including compulsory “vaccination” – forcing the public to take the untested gene-therapy jab (or worse), as of 1 February 2022.
Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. Maybe millions. And protests continue and are expected to further escalate during this coming weekend of 4/5 December. These events and the related police brutality were hardly covered by the mainstream media.
Yes, perhaps family reasons. The two ex-chancellors are better off just sticking to a good life, then having to obey orders from an obscure Power that is manipulating the fate of the entire world – with apparently no way to escape.
Now, a successor has already been found. He is the Interior Minister, Karl Nehammer. He has a military background and a reputation to be a hardliner. He has been voted unanimously by his party as the new head of the ÖVP, and will most likely succeed Schallenberg as the new Chancellor. He may be a good choice for the “outside of Austria” – globalist – Powers that Be. He must implement harsh measures. He knows it and is apparently willing to do so.
Importantly, as a sideline, Germany’s new “red-green-yellow” coalition, is also strongly considering implementing a lockdown for unvaxxed people, as well as compulsory “vaccination”, provided the Parliament approves the move. This latter conditionality sounds rather like a joke, since in a dictatorial government, like what Germany has become, along with most of her European allies, Parliaments only serve to ratify what the dictators decide. See this.
This concept may be pushed and spread to other countries in Europe. That’s when we all know, or should know, that our constitutional and human rights have been trampled like dirt and abolished – that we are mere subjects at the mercy of a heinous and evil super power. Except, of course the elite and government officials that go along and implement the dictated measures. They may be rewarded with placebo jabs.
Germany, where barely more than 50% of the population is vaxxed, has produced probably false public polls, indicating that 71% of the people would support the compulsory (poison) jab. The “new variant Omicron”, emanating conveniently from savage southern Africa. The propaganda is so devastatingly strong and omnipresent in literally every newscast, that people must be scared.
Is Austria at the onset of a major chaos, reminiscent of WWI and WWII which both broke out in Austria? See this and this. Throughout WW II, 950,000 Austrians fought for Nazi Germany’s armed forces.
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian; he was Germany’s dictator throughout the Third Reich 1933-1945. But who put him there? One might be inclined to ask.
Already then, the US, mostly with corporate funds, IBM was one of them, and Federal Reserve (US Central Bank) money funded large portions of Hitler’s war. For example, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, which was destroyed by the USSR, but resulted nevertheless in some 25 to 30 million Soviet deaths.
Are we perhaps at the beginning of WWIII?
Many would say that we are already in the midst of WWIII; that it may have started in March 2020, when on 11 March 2020, WHO declared a Covid-19, alias SARS-CoV-2, pandemic. This led to a global lockdown around mid-March, of all 193 UN member countries, followed by draconian and dictatorial “measures” implemented across the board, throughout the world. This, at first glance must immediately be recognized, can have absolutely nothing to do with health and health protection. A different agenda is behind this extraordinary move – that actually started at midnight on December 31, 2019. It’s a clockwork conundrum, fitting coincidentally the UN Agenda 2030.
A lot of what follows now is speculation and may give rise to “unconventional” thoughts. Ideas, that are often shredded as “conspiracy theory”; and later when they become clearer and actually the conspiracy part disappears under a rush of evidence, then sets in, what is commonly called “cognitive dissonance”. People deny to themselves the truth that they are seeing, but don’t want to accept, as it destroys their (false) image of a safe and comfortable world.
This psychological phenomenon is further pointedly fed by an atrocious and ferocious propaganda fear campaign, funded mostly by the governments, i.e., by tax-payers money and by prominent interest groups, like the pharma industry and the largest wealth and investment financial conglomerates, Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity, plus the IT Super Powers, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple.
They are all interlinked as shareholders and as partners in crime, financial and tech-companies, with the IT Technology conglomerates providing the data needed by the financial superpowers. Their combined assets exceed 20 trillion dollars. For purposes of comparison, the US GDP is about US$ 22 trillion; the European Union’s GDP is about US$ 15 trillion; and Germany’s GDP, Europe’s strongest economy, is about US$ 3.8 trillion equivalent. These are all 2020 values – see this.
The Finance-IT Conglomerate has a combined leverage power exceeding an estimated US$ 80 trillion – the world’s GDP is about US$ 84.5 trillion (2020).
Given this background, it becomes easier accounting for and understanding what is going on. Also, by driving the world economy into the ground, the bankrupted assets are simply transferred to the top, for a penny on the dollar, accumulating further capital for the few billionaires who head this financial cum IT conglomerate.
According to Oxfam, the last 20 months witnessed destruction of medium and small enterprises of at least US$-equivalent of 3.8 trillion worldwide, but mostly affecting developing countries – unemployment, absence of social services – leading to disease, despair and death. Imagine! We are only at the beginning of this abject plan of destruction – what Klaus Schwab (WEF) calls in his “Great Reset” a “Constructive Destruction”.
In other words, this financial and IT Super Power can exert total control over the world, including the entire UN system, and world leaders have to follow, or else. There is hardly anybody on this globe who would have suspected only 2 years ago what has unraveled in warp-speed in the last 20+ months. Except, of course the “leaders” of these 193 UN member governments. They were prepared, and once they accepted, they had to play along.
Austria, being the first country worldwide to impose mandatary vaccination with an untested substance that has already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, may again be at the center of what may become the next World War, i. e. WWIII. At the onset of this enormous vaxx-atrocity – what looks like a massive eugenist scheme – two successive chancellors have for ethical or other reasons, decided they didn’t want to be part of this monstruous tyranny.
Only history will show how these next few years – always part of the infamous UN Agenda 2030 – will unravel. There is already a great awakening of people throughout Europe, especially in those countries where oppressive tyranny is already openly announced. In Austria and Germany people take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, but they remain unreported by the mainstream media. This desperate censoring that has been going on for months, but seems to escalate further, may be an indication that the evil plans are running into serious resistance.
Our battle scream from the heart: We, The People, shall Overcome!
*
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). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Author’s Note: This presentation was written and delivered in part to the New York City People’s Forum during a webinar on the struggle against the opening of an office of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in downtown Detroit. Other panelists were Mike Shane of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Rev. Bill Wylie-Kellerman, retired pastor of the Episcopal Church of Detroit, Crystal Bernard, Michigan State University senior and member of the Poor People’s Campaign and moderator David Chung of the People’s Forum.
Detroit, which remains a major industrial center in the sectors of automotive and other sources of production and services, is a focal point for the economic and social transformations of urban areas in the United States and internationally.
Since the 19th century, the city has been a location for various forms of manufacturing, mining and shipping.
Initially there was the strategic location linked to the Great Lakes and rivers which flow into them. The mining of copper during the mid-to-late 19th century which fueled migration eventually gave way to steam engine manufacturing for shipping and the timber trade.
By the early decades of the 20th century, the first assembly line within auto production was established by Henry Ford. The production of millions of automobiles within a matter of years, created the demand for jobs and the consequent suppression and division of labor.
Significant numbers of Africans were brought into Michigan and Detroit as enslaved persons and later through what became known as the Underground Railroad. The first urban rebellion in the city took place in 1833, when an African couple, the Blackburns, fled to the city from enslavement in Kentucky, taking refuge in Detroit.
When the Blackburns were faced with capture and re-enslavement, the African Americans in the city broke them from captivity, made threats to burn down the city and then transported the couple across the Detroit River to Canada. It was 1833 when African enslavement was abolished in the British crown territories. After this period, Canada became a destination point for thousands fleeing from the slave catchers fueled by the Fugitive Slave Acts.
Detroit Hasting Street under demolition to build Chrysler and Fisher Freeways in the early 1960s (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
We are saying this to note that the current efforts by modern-day exploitative interests are a continuation of policies of containment and repression. The opening of the World Economic Forum (WEF) offices in Detroit inside the headquarters of the worst capitalist expropriators and abusers, Quicken Loans, Rocket Mortgage, and their various iterations, signals to the conscious elements in the city and nationally, that these interests are by no means done in furthering the aims of finance capital within metropolitan areas of the country.
The Housing Question in Detroit
One of the major issues which the Moratorium NOW! Coalition has been engaged is the burgeoning housing crisis in Detroit and throughout the southeast Michigan region. Although there are tens of thousands of abandoned structures and vacant land, these resources, which by right belong to the people of the city, are controlled largely by the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA). The DLBA, which was chaired by Dan Gilbert of Rocket Mortgage, is the largest landowner in Detroit, a city more than 80% populated by Black, Brown and other people of color. What right do these people have to seize land destroyed as housing, commercial centers, community institutions, etc.? This land belongs to the people of the city and not the capitalist ruling class.
The forced removals of people in Detroit have been ongoing for more than a century. For the purpose of this discussion, we can begin in 1935, during the Great Depression and the New Deal of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt came to Detroit in 1935 to announce the construction of the Brewster Projects on the lower east side where tens of thousands of African Americans had settled as a result of the Great Migration.
This act on the part of the Roosevelt administration was viewed as being progressive since it was replacing what was considered “substandard housing”: lacking in-door plumbing, structural deterioration, overcrowding and other problems. There is a long and intricate history of the Brewster and other public housing complexes. Since 1935, there were the so-called Race Riots of June 1943, which occurred during World War II. The third major racial disturbance took place in 1943, 80 years after the 1863 Race Riot during the Civil War.
After the War, the City of Detroit developed and initiated its urban renewal plan which targeted the African American and other oppressed and working class communities. From the mid-1950s through the 1970s, the building of expressways and new upscale housing areas destroyed thousands of homes, apartments, flats, businesses, religious institutions, fraternal organizations, schools, etc.
Of course, by July 1967, the social combustion fueled by displacement, police brutality, de facto segregation, overcrowding in housing and schools exploded into what became the Great Rebellion. The actual violence lasted for six days, yet the aftermath between 1967-1973, was even more dynamic in regard to the efforts to reshape the city which had national and international dimensions.
Independent Political Thinking and Action
The city has been a source of independent and innovative political, social and cultural thinking particularly within the African American community. The Underground Railroad was not only an avenue of escape. It created the conditions for the establishment of African religious institutions, newspapers and new philosophical approaches in the U.S. and Canada to the eradication of the enslavement through mass struggle including emigration.
Mary Ann Shadd who emigrated to Canada after the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was the founder and editor of the Provincial Freeman. She was one of the first women who spoke publicly in the U.S. in defiance of social norms and even laws designed to silence half of the population.
Shadd was reported to have been the only woman to participate in the Colored Convention on Freeman as a speaker and theoretician. She wrote a study on the question of emigration as an avenue of resistance to encroaching enslavement of African people. (See this)
In the 20th century, many of the pioneering and impactful organizations were founded in city of Detroit including the Nation of Islam (NOI), Republic of New Africa (RNA), League of Revolutionary Black Workers LRBW), National Black Economic Development Conference (NBEDC), the Black Manifesto and many others. On a cultural level, Joe Von Battle of JVB Records and Barry Gordy, Jr. of Motown transformed the recording and distribution of urban music.
In 1973, the first African American Mayor Coleman A. Young, a former labor organizer and Leftist, was elected to head the city. Young served for two decades under conditions of increased disinvestment, capital and white flight to the suburbs and other regions of the country along with an ageing and deteriorating infrastructure. Despite these challenges, a struggle to end homelessness, unemployment, police repression and the privatization of education continued among mass organizations.
The HUD Crisis of the 1970s
Some 50 years ago, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) crisis gained national attention through an article published in the New York Times. The failure to implement the 1968 Fair Housing Act, ostensibly designed to eliminate discrimination in the sale and rental of properties, the federal government through benign neglect and inherent institutional racism extended the crisis which arose during Great Migration i.e., the National Housing Act of 1934 and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. These Acts represented the federal rationalization of de jure and de facto residential segregation in the U.S.
“A major scandal involving Federal mortgage programs in Detroit has left the Government the owner of thousands of decrepit homes and may cost up to $200‐million in Federal funds. The Federal programs inadvertently contributed to the decay of troubled neighborhoods, the victimization of the poor who expected homes and the enrichment of real estate speculators. The details of the scandal have been emerging for months in newspaper articles, in local investigations and, this week, in an investigation of the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, which held hearings here today. Similar troubles exist in other cities, but Detroit is believed to be the worst example of the perversion of a program aimed to help the poor. The program, to allow the Federal Housing Administration to help poor people, including welfare mothers, to buy homes, began in 1968.”
Destroying the housing stock of a municipality does not only create a crisis of habitation. There is a huge impact on funding for municipal services, education and job creation. During the mid-to-late 1970s, a decline in credible housing was inherited by the Young administration and all residents of the city.
Consequently, there is a direct line between the depression-era construction of public housing, the 1943 race riot, the post-War urban renewal, the 1967 rebellion and its aftermath, leading into the HUD scandal and the continued loss of jobs and services. By the close of the 20th century, the city was poised for further destabilization and depopulation.
Foreclosure Crisis of the 2000s
After the purported deregulation of the financial industry in the years of the presidency of Bill Clinton, by the close of the 1990s, there was the proliferation of “first time mortgage and refinancing schemes” which had a deleterious effect on Detroit and other cities around the U.S. Although the racist practices reinforced by the FHA and HUD had escalated depopulation in the city, the beginning of the decade of the 2000s was still characterized by a majority of residential home ownership in Detroit. However, that would soon change with the deliberate targeting of homeowners for predatory lending schemes. Moreover, it was workers and impoverished which were forced by acts of Congress to bailout the banks, insurance companies and other corporations responsible for the theft of trillions in monetary resources and services.
The predatory lending practices in housing was also reflected in municipal financing. The fact of the rapid decline in populations and household incomes, drained the treasuries of the city making it prey to the financial institutions. Both the municipality and the communities became drowned in debt to the banks through usurious mortgage deals and monetary obligations designed to refinance payments to some of the same entities responsible for the housing losses.
These sources of profit-making for finance capital are directly related to the illegal imposition of emergency management and bankruptcy during the period of 2013-2014. Those who suffered the impact of these measures included the municipal retirees, active employees–who had negotiated pensions and other benefits reduced–along with community members who previously controlled Belle Isle, the Detroit Public Works and Lighting, the Art Institute, among other public institutions, seize by the State of Michigan and “authorities”. This paved the way for the ascendancy and false legitimacy of the Duggan administration and the usurpation of local control of municipal governance.
We Must Reject the WEF and All It Represents
Consequently, the People Against Corporate Theft (PACT) coalition has come into existence to emphasize the necessity of continuing the struggle against displacement, exploitation and oppression. The WEF has nothing to offer the people of Detroit, the U.S. and the globe other than the current crises of their making: environmental degradation, climate change, the privatization of municipal services and education, state repression, a housing shortage amid the COVID-19 pandemic and other social ills.
After 50 years, when the WEF was formed in Switzerland in 1971, the overall conditions of residents living within urban areas like Detroit have further deteriorated. The only alternative we have as the nationally oppressed, working class and poor is to organize against these adversaries.
Demands for quality housing, education and municipal services for all is key. The end of corporate welfare and the demonization of the workers and the poor is essential. We can only rely on ourselves to resolve these issues and create a society of genuine equality and empowerment for the emerging majority.
*
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: Detroit MLK Day 2011 March Down Woodward Ave. (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
There seems to be an endless refusal by the public health establishment to fight the pandemic with the best science-based tools. Instead, they keep pushing vaccines.
Great German research provides unequivocal medical evidence that the government should be strongly advocating two actions: 1. Take vitamin D supplements and 2. Have your blood tested for vitamin D.
The title for this October 2021 journal article says it all: “COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” [25(OH)D3 refers to metabolite of the vitamin in blood]
In other words, there is clear evidence that the lower your vitamin D level the greater your risk of dying from COVID infection. Moreover, the data clearly show that you need a blood level of at least 50 ng/mL.
Odds are, however, that very, very few people have been tested for their vitamin D level. This is a situation where waiting for testing is not the prudent approach. Vitamin D pills are pretty cheap and it is perfectly safe to take a healthy daily dose to maintain a good immune system. I take 4,000 IUs twice daily.
Here are a number of highlights from this research and other sources; the discussion is aimed at informing people with information not provided by Big Media, Big Government and Big Pharma.
Vitamin D is an accurate predictor of COVID infection. Its deficiency is just as significant, and perhaps more so, than more commonly discussed underlying medical conditions, including obesity.
To be clear, there is a level of vitamin D for an effective strategy at the personal and population level to prevent or mitigate new surges and outbreaks of COVID that are related to reduced vaccine effectiveness and new variants.
In the German study, fifteen other studies were cited that showed low vitamin D levels were related to cases of severe COVID infection, and seven studies that found positive results from treating ill patients with the vitamin.
The German study noted: “The finding that most SARS-CoV-2 patients admitted to hospitals have vitamin D3 blood levels that are too low is unquestioned even by opponents of vitamin D supplementation.”
The German study “followed 1,601 hospitalized patients, 784 who had their vitamin D levels measured within a day after admission and 817 whose vitamin D levels were known before infection. And the researchers also analyzed the long-term average vitamin D3 levels documented for 19 countries. The observed median vitamin D value over all collected study cohorts was 23.2 ng/mL, which is clearly too low to work effectively against COVID.”
Why does this vitamin work so well? The German study explained: A main cause of a severe reaction from COVID results from a “cytokine storm.” This refers to the body’s immune system releasing too many toxic cytokines as part of the inflammatory response to the virus. Vitamin D is a main regulator of those cells. A low level of the vitamin means a greater risk for a cytokine storm. This is especially pertinent for lung problems from COVID.
Other studies
On a par with the German study was an important US medical article from May 2021: Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic. It noted:
“Experimental studies have shown that vitamin D exerts several actions that are thought to be protective against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infectivity and severity. … There are a growing number of data connecting COVID-19 infectivity and severity with vitamin D status, suggesting a potential benefit of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention or as an adjunctive treatment of COVID-19. … there is no downside to increasing vitamin D intake and having sensible sunlight exposure to maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D at a level of least 30 ng/mL and preferably 40 to 60 ng/mL to minimize the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity.”
This confirms the German study and its finding of a critical vitamin level of 50 ng/mL.
Daniel Horowitz has made this correct observation about vitamin D supplementation: “An endless stream of academic research demonstrates that not only would such an approach have worked much better than the vaccines, but rather than coming with sundry known and unknown negative side effects.“
There are now 142 studies vouching for the near-perfect correlation between higher vitamin D levels and better outcomes in COVID patients.
From Israel came work that showed 25% of hospitalized COVID patients with vitamin D deficiency died compared to just 3% among those without a deficiency. And those with a deficiency were 14 times more likely to end up with a severe or critical condition.
Also from Israel, data on 1,176 patients with COVID infection admitted to the Galilee Medical Center, 253 had vitamin D levels on record and half were vitamin D-deficient. This was the conclusion: “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D was associated with increased disease severity and mortality.”
Several studies have come from the University of Chicago. One found that a vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/ml) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19, actually a 7.2% chance of testing positive for the virus. And that more than 80% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient. And Black individuals who had levels of 30 to 40 ng/ml had a 2.64 times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than people with levels of 40 ng/ml or greater.
On the good news side is a new study from Turkish researchers. They focused on getting people’s levels over 30 ng/mL with supplements. At that level there was success compared to people without supplementation. This was true even if they had comorbidities. They were able to achieve that blood level within two weeks. Those with no comorbidities and no vitamin D treatment had 1.9-fold increased risk of having hospitalization longer than 8 days compared with cases with both comorbidities and vitamin D treatment.
Another option
Some people may have absorption problems. The solution is to use the active form of D – either calcifediol or calcitriol – to raise their levels more quickly. This bypasses the liver’s metabolic process very effectively. Studies have shown that people hospitalized with low levels but given the active form of D did not progress to the ICU. Places that sell vitamin D often sell the concentrated active form.
I have a supply of cholecalciferol pills that provide 50,000 IUs, compared to ordinary D pills typically with 2,000 IUs. A reasonable use of the high concentration pills is in the event of coming down with a serious COVID infection. This may be a sensible strategy for those who do not know what their level is or have not taken the normal pills for some period. It can take months to raise a very low level to above the critical level the German study found necessary for the best protection.
Deficiency
Aside from dealing with COVID, two pertinent questions are: Is there an optimal level of vitamin D and are Americans deficient in it? For the first, this has been said: “While blood levels of 30 ng/mL or higher are considered normal, the optimal blood level of vitamin D has not yet been established.” From the Cleveland Clinic is this: “Normal vitamin D levels are usually between 20-80 NG/ML. If supplementation is recommended, remember to take it with a meal and on a full stomach to help absorption. Unfortunately, about 42% of the US population is vitamin D deficient with some populations having even higher levels of deficiency.”
“Vitamin D deficiency is more common than previously thought. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that the percentage of adults achieving vitamin D sufficiency as defined by 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL has declined from about 60% in 1988-1994 to approximately 30% in 2001-2004 in whites and from about 10% to approximately 5% in African Americans during this same time. Furthermore, more people have been found to be severely deficient in vitamin D [ <10 ng/mL]. Even when using a conservative definition of vitamin D deficiency, many patients routinely encountered in clinical practice will be deficient in vitamin D.”
Clearly, personal deficiency can only be determined by a blood test that prudent people will request their doctors to order for a lab test.
Conclusions
Seeing vitamin D as crucial to surviving COVID is supported by solid medical research. There is good data to support a desired level of 50 ng/mL. Whether a person has this level requires a blood test for the vitamin, not something that most physicians normally call for when ordering blood tests for other reasons.
As the US approaches 800,000 COVID related deaths it is reasonable to believe that perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if the government had strongly supported vitamin D blood testing and supplementation if needed. But in the absence of such a COVID policy, people have good reasons to use D supplements if they are not routinely exposed to sunlight without using sunscreen products.
Many physicians have issued protocols for preventing and treating COVID that include vitamin D supplements. For example, the esteemed Dr. Zelenko uses the following: 5,000 IU 1 time a day for 7 days for low risk patients, and for high risk patients: 10,000 IU once a day for 7 days or 50,000 IU once a day for 1-2 days.
However, continuing its stupidity, NIH maintains that “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.” This too was said: “Vitamin D deficiency (defined as vitamin D ≤20 ng/mL) is common in the United States, particularly among persons of Hispanic ethnicity and Black race. These groups are also overrepresented among cases of COVID-19 in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency is also more common in older patients and patients with obesity and hypertension; these factors have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.” Sounds smart to fight deficiency for avoiding COVID health impacts.
Sadly, we cannot count on the public health establishment to take a science-based, aggressive policy on using vitamin D supplements as an alternative to COVID vaccines or expensive medicines. Its up to individuals to protect their own lives by being well informed and proactive.
*
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, podcasts and radio shows 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.
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.
When a faultline breaks open on earth’s surface it reveals the presence of an underlying structural discontinuity that was previously unsuspected by those casually passing by. Those who come across it suddenly realize that things are not what they seem and that powerful forces are at work under their feet which can at any point erupt in scenes of great upheaval.
Sometime even the most adroit deceivers and manipulators commit an act that is so utterly illogical and patently senseless that it breaks open a deep fissure in their narrative which reveals the immensity and depth of their fraud to everyone with eyes to see.
The vaccinators committed one such act when they insisted that children as young as five years old be made to take their injections.
It is widely known that healthy children are at virtually zero risk of severe outcomes from Corona.
The CDC itself has told us that in the United States only 66 children under the age of 12 have died of Covid in the past twelve months. The vast majority — if not all — of those unfortunate children suffered from serious life-threatening conditions. If we generously assume that 10 of those children were healthy, then the probability of a healthy child being struck by lightning is one thousand percent greater than that of dying of Covid 19. (For reference, there were 120 people struck by lightning in 2019 in the United States.)
While the chances of young children dying of Covid are infinitesimally small, the danger of vaccine injury and death are real.
We know by now that the Covid vaccines are by far the most deadly and dangerous vaccines ever unleashed upon mankind. To wit, they are eight hundred times more deadly than the notorious smallpox vaccine which had previously claimed that infamous distinction.
To see just how deadly the Covid vaccines are consider the chart below. This chart presents data from the VAERS database. VAERS, as you may know, stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is a government- run facility that collects information about vaccine side effects.
The chart depicts the number of yearly death reports following vaccination for the last thirty years. As you can see, the numbers held relatively steady from 1990 until 2020, and it was generally under 500 cases per year. This changed dramatically toward the end of 2020 when the Covid vaccines were introduced. At that point we see a rapid explosion of death reports. So exponential is the increase that the graph line shoots up almost vertically.
It is both astonishing and revealing that in the last 11 months there were more reports of vaccine deaths than in the previous 29 years combined.
This should raise red flags all over, because it is a good indication that there is likely something seriously wrong with the Covid vaccines, and that these hastily devised and inadequately tested pharmaceuticals are causing death on an unprecedented scale.
The push to inject these concoctions into children who are for all practical purposes at no risk from the disease itself is thus preposterous on its face.
Myocarditis and pericarditis have been of special concern in young people. The misguided effort is already bearing its gruesome fruit as young children die of heart attacks and strokes in numbers never seen before.
Ernest Ramirez’s healthy 16-year-old son died of a heart attack 5 days after receiving Pfizer vaccine (see Mr. Ramirez’s Twitter feed for updates).
According to a cost-benefit analysis conducted by Toby Rogers, PhD in the 5 to 11 age range, 117 healthy kids will have to die of vaccine-related side effects in order to save one child from perishing of Covid 19. Lest you may be tempted to think that this is the prediction of some fringe conspiracy theorist, we recommend that you check out Dr. Rogers’ credentials. He has professionally specialized in precisely this kind of analysis for a number of years.
Neither will vaccinating children bring any benefits to the community at large.
We now know that the vaccines will not protect children from contracting infection and then passing it onto others. We have this on the authority of no lesser authority than the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky who confessed in her August 5 interview with CNN that the vaccines can no longer “prevent transmission.”
*
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 Notes from the Twilight Zone
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.
The COVID-19 shots cause heart disease, mainly myocarditis and pericarditis, which is destroying the health of our young people.
This is a fact that is no longer in dispute, as even the CDC admits this, as their most recent report states:
As of November 24, 2021, VAERS has received 1,949 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. (Source.)
The only debatable points are, 1, whether or not these cases are “rare,” and 2, if the benefits of COVID-19 mass vaccination of young people outweigh the risk for heart disease.
And it is on these two points that the CDC is lying to the public, as I will conclusively prove in this article.
The second point is actually very easily debunked, by simply looking at publicly available statistics on COVID-19 deaths for this age group.
As of December 1, 2021, out of 779,402 alleged COVID-19 deaths covering almost 2 years now, only 630 of those were under the age of 17.
And even those 630 alleged deaths in this age group are not necessarily caused by COVID-19. It just means that when they died, they tested positive for COVID-19.
So there is no benefit to vaccinating children under the age of 17 for COVID-19 when they have almost a statistically zero percent chance of dying from COVID-19, when it is known that these shots cause heart disease.
As to the claim by the CDC that instances of heart disease caused by COVID-19 shots are “rare,” the factual evidence states otherwise.
I ran a search in VAERS, the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, for all cases of “carditis” following COVID-19 shots for this age group, and from the 11/26/2021 release of VAERS data, it returned a result of 666 cases. (Source.)
Next, I preformed the exact same search for the same age group excluding COVID-19 shots and including all other vaccines listed in VAERS for the past 30+ years, and it returned a value of 40 cases, less than 2 cases per year. (Source.)
Keep in mind that the 666 cases in this age group following COVID-19 shots are for only 6 months for 12 to 15-year-olds in the U.S., as the Pfizer shot was only given emergency use authorization for that age group in May of this year (2021).
Children between the ages of 5 and 11 were just given emergency use authorization last month, November, 2021, but there are already 2 cases of heart disease also reported in this age group, a 6-year-old and 8-year-old, both boys. (Source.)
By whose definition are these cases of heart disease in these children “rare”?
We reported a couple of weeks ago that the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, published an abstract from a cardiologist, Steven R Gundry, that claims getting COVID-19 shots “Dramatically Increases” the risk for heart attacks.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, another cardiologist from the UK, confirmed the results of the AHA study and shared that British authorities in the field of Cardiology confirmed to him that this is happening, that the COVID-19 shots are leading to increased heart attacks, but they are afraid to go public because they will lose their research funding from the Drug Companies.
He called for an immediate end to vaccine mandates. Watch the interview, which is on our Bitchute channel.
Ben Madgen: Former Pro-Basketball Player in Australia. Image source.
The COVID World recently reported that former Australian pro-basketball player Ben Madgen has been diagnosed with pericarditis (inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart) shortly after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
The Australian doctors who treated him apparently disagree with the CDC that this is a “rare” side effect, as they told him that pericarditis is now a common side effect of the Pfizer shot for young males.
There are so many reports now of athletes and other young males suffering from heart attacks since the COVID-19 shots have started, that medical authorities had to try to come up with a different explanation to deflect attention away from the deadly COVID-19 shots.
So they invented a new disease: “post-pandemic stress disorder.”
Up to 300,000 people in the UK are facing heart-related illnesses due to post-pandemic stress disorder (PPSD), two London physicians have warned.
This could result in a 4.5 per cent rise in cardiovascular cases nationally because of the effects of PPSD, with those aged between 30 to 45 most at-risk, they claim.
Mark Rayner, a former senior NHS psychological therapist and founder of EASE Wellbeing CIC, said that as many as three million people in Britain are already suffering from PPSD, thanks to stress and anxiety caused by the effects of Covid-19. (Source.)
You can’t make this stuff up!
If adults want to be stupid enough to believe this nonsense and risk taking a COVID-19 shot, that is their choice.
But minor children are subject to the choices of their parents, so please do NOT give your child a COVID-19 shot!
Heed the warning from these parents who now regret their children getting one of these shots because their child is now dead, or suffering with heart disease.
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.
Comments Off on 666 Cases of Heart Disease in 12 to 17-Year-Olds after COVID Shots – Less than 2 Cases Per Year Following All Vaccines for Past 30+ Years
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.
The latest data dump into the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) happened yesterday (12/3/21) and covers data through 11/26/2021.
That means that 52% off ALL vaccine adverse reaction cases in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.
In addition, 68% of all deaths following vaccines reported in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.
We are on pace to see 21,307 deaths reported in the first year following the experimental COVID-19 shots, while the average yearly deaths reported after FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years is 305 deaths.
That is an astounding 86% increase in reported deaths following the COVID-19 shots, a 70X increase over the average reported deaths following vaccinations for the past 30+ years!
FDA-approved vaccines: 305 deaths per year
COVID-19 EUA shots: 21,307 deaths per year
And as Dr. Jessica Rose has previously reported, the under-reporting factor in VAERS for the COVID-19 shots is 41X, as a conservative number, which means that at least 800,812 people have now died following COVID-19 shots based on the VAERS data.
Most, if not all, of those deaths are being reported in the pharma-owned corporate media as “COVID” deaths, as there are now more recorded “COVID deaths” for the first 11 months of 2021 than there were for the entire year in 2020, when there were no COVID vaccines until December. (Source.)
Record Number of Fetal Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots
As of this most recent update in VAERS, we have now found 2,809 fetal deaths following COVID-19 shots injected into pregnant and child-bearing women for the past 11 months. (Source.)
By way of contrast, using the exact same search parameters in VAERS, but excluding the COVID-19 shots, we found 2,168 fetal deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years. (Source.)
That’s an average of 72 fetal deaths per year following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years, compared to what is on pace to be 3064 fetal deaths in 1 year following COVID-19 shots.
FDA-approved vaccines: 72 fetal deaths per year
COVID-19 EUA shots: 3064 fetal deaths per year
That is an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots. And yet, the CDC and FDA continue to recommend these EUA shots for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
Not only do they recommend these shots for pregnant women, we now have ample evidence that they have known since earlier this year that these shots are dangerous to pregnant women, and causing fetal deaths.
In a March 4, 2021 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting, the CDC submitted a report that contained a section titled: Maternal vaccination safety summary (starting on p. 39).
They stated (emphasis mine – my comments in red):
* Pregnant women were not specifically included in pre-authorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
– Post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways to obtain safety data on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy
* Larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women have registered in v-safe
* The reactogenicity profile and adverse events observed among pregnant women in v-safe did not indicate any safety problems (based on what criteria???)
* Most reports to VAERS among pregnant women (73%) involved non-pregnancy specific adverse events (e.g., local and systemic reactions)
* Miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS; numbers are within the known background rates based on presumed COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to pregnant women (no supporting evidence to backup these claims)
It is important to note through all of this reporting by the CDC that these are based on self-reporting data from pregnant women.
We know that it is politically incorrect to blame any health issue on a COVID-19 “vaccine,” and that doctors and nurses are pressured to NOT report these, so how many pregnant women had an adverse reaction, like a miscarriage, and never even thought to link it to their COVID-19 shot?
So back in March of this year (2021), there were already major concerns about the effects of the shots on pregnant women, as “larger than expected” pregnant women were reporting adverse reactions, and “the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS” was “miscarriage.”
Again, this “data” is dependent on pregnant women “self-reporting” adverse reactions, so we know these reports will be well below what was actually happening in the population, as it is politically incorrect to report any adverse reactions related to the experimental COVID-19 shots. To do so is to be branded an “anti-vaxxer” and shame you for life.
The August update admitted that 13% of the pregnant women who had received a COVID-19 shot reported a miscarriage. The CDC brushed this aside by stating “miscarriage typically occurs in about 11-16% of pregnancies.”
But of course ALL miscarriages are reported somewhere in the medical files, which is why they can even come up with a number range like this. So this figure is based on 100% of the reported data, while the COVID-19 related miscarriages are only based on what was self-reported, and we have no idea how many women never reported their miscarriages because they never related it to their COVID-19 shot.
But on October 14, 2021, they issued a statement stating that some of their data was wrong in the June 17th study. (Source.) It dealt specifically with pregnancies in their 20th week or earlier.
“No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.” (Source.)
In this video we produced in October, Dr. Byram Bridle in Canada and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School discuss the significance of this error made in this study which determined CDC policy on Fox News with Laura Ingraham. (It is in the second half of the video after the examples of adverse events on infants.)
Since then, researchers in New Zealand have conducted a new study on the original data, and concluded:
A re-analysis of these figures indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion ranging from 82% (104/127) to 91% (104/114), 7–8 times higher than the original authors’ results. (Source.)
And yet, the CDC and FDA still continue to recommend the shots for pregnant women, even though a correct analysis on the original data shows that 82% to 91% of pregnant women will suffer miscarriages if their unborn child is less than 20 weeks old. (Source.)
We also have evidence that Pfizer knew about the risk of their COVID-19 shots to pregnant women.
In May of this year (2021), we published a report written by Bud Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico based on a whistleblower who served on a COVID-19 task force and had found documents that Pfizer had submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to authorize the shots in Europe, which included animal trials that showed there were serious birth defects occurring in rat specimens.
The Pfizer factsheets state that pregnant or breastfeeding women should discuss their options with their healthcare providers. Although the U.S. FDA has not released the full study details provided to them for approval of the emergency use authorization (EUA), the European Medicines Agency has.
According to the reproduction toxicity study on the Pfizer product, performed in pregnant rats: “There was an increase (~2x) of pre-implantation (pregnancy) loss”and,“a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities.”
They claim that these pregnancy reductions are within normal histological ranges, however, they were consistently seen, and are likely statistically significant. Gastroschisis is where the intestines grow outside of the body.
Right-sided aortic arch means the heart has basically formed in the wrong direction (the aortic arch should be on the left side). (Source.)
Last month, November, 2021, we published the report written by Attorney Aaron Siri, a Vaccine Injury attorney, who is suing the FDA on behalf of several physicians who are the plaintiffs and have chosen to put their careers on the line to dare to expose vaccine deaths and injuries caused by the experimental COVID-19 shots.
Attorney Siri wrote that Pfizer had requested to take 55 years to supply their trial data on the COVID-19 shots.
The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.
So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for? (Source.)
In a follow up article he published on November 19, 2021, he reported that the judge was forcing Pfizer to start releasing the data, and that they had released the first 91+ pages.
Two months and one day after it was sued, and close to 3 months since it licensed Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, the FDA released the first round of documents it reviewed before licensing this product. The production consisted of 91 pdf pages, one xpt file, and one txt file. You can download them here.
While it is for the scientists to properly analyze, let me share one observation. One of the documents produced is a Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of [the Vaccine] Received Through 28-Feb-2021, which is a mere 2 ½ months after the vaccine received emergency use authorization (EUA). This document reflects adverse events following vaccination that have completed Pfizer’s “workflow cycle,” both in and outside the U.S., up to February 28, 2021.
Pfizer explains, on page 6, that “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritised the processing of serious cases…” and that Pfizer “has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports” including “increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues” and “has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional fulltime employees (FTEs).” Query why it is proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product.
As for the volume of reports, in the 2 ½ months following EUA, Pfizer received a total of 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events.” Most of these reports were from the U.S. and disproportionately involved women (29,914 vs. 9,182 provided by men) and those between 31 and 50 years old (13,886 vs 21,325 for all other age groups combined, with another 6,876 whose ages were unknown). Also, 25,957 of the events were classified as “Nervous system disorders.” (Source.)
So by the end of February of this year (2021), as Pfizer was petitioning the FDA for full approval of their EUA COVID-19 shot, they already had data from 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events,” disproportionately affecting women between the ages of 31 and 50.
In Pfizer’s “postmarketing” report, found here, there is a Table, Table 6, labeled “Description of Missing Information” for “Use in Pregnancy and lactation,” which covers 274 cases and states:
Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:
• 270 mother cases and 4 foetus/baby cases representing 270 unique pregnancies (the 4 foetus/baby cases were linked to 3 mother cases; 1 mother case involved twins).
• Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).
• 146 non-serious mother cases reported exposure to vaccine in utero without the occurrence of any clinical adverse event. The exposure PTs coded to the PTs Maternal exposure during pregnancy (111), Exposure during pregnancy (29) and maternal exposure timing unspecified (6). Trimester of exposure was reported in 21 of these cases: 1st trimester (15 cases), 2nd trimester (7), and 3rd trimester (2).
• 124 mother cases, 49 non-serious and 75 serious, reported clinical events, which occurred in the vaccinated mothers. Pregnancy related events reported in these cases coded to the PTs Abortion spontaneous (25), Uterine contraction during pregnancy, Premature rupture of membranes, Abortion, Abortion missed, and Foetal death (1 each).
• 4 serious foetus/baby cases reported the PTs Exposure during pregnancy, Foetal growth restriction, Maternal exposure during pregnancy, Premature baby (2 each), and Death neonatal (1). Trimester of exposure was reported for 2 cases (twins) as occurring during the 1st trimester.
This was the data that the FDA used to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 shot.
They also provided data to the FDA for breastfeeding babies that clearly indicated the shots were affecting these babies.
Breast feeding baby cases: 133, of which:
• 116 cases reported exposure to vaccine during breastfeeding (PT Exposure via breast milk) without the occurrence of any clinical adverse events;
• 17 cases, 3 serious and 14 non-serious, reported the following clinical events that occurred in the infant/child exposed to vaccine via breastfeeding: Pyrexia (5), Rash (4), Infant irritability (3), Infantile vomiting, Diarrhoea, Insomnia, and Illness (2 each), Poor feeding infant, Lethargy, Abdominal discomfort, Vomiting, Allergy to vaccine, Increased appetite, Anxiety,
Crying, Poor quality sleep, Eructation, Agitation, Pain and Urticaria (1 each).
Breast feeding mother cases (6):
• 1 serious case reported 3 clinical events that occurred in a mother during breast feeding (PT Maternal exposure during breast feeding); these events coded to the PTs Chills, Malaise, and Pyrexia
• 1 non-serious case reported with very limited information and without associated AEs. (Source.)
And this was at the end of February. We can clearly see what the results have been on unborn children since then just based on the limited data reported to VAERS, where there has been an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots.
Now I’m just a reporter sitting behind a computer accessing this publicly available data so that I can report it to you.
You can be certain that the scientists and researchers working at Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC have access to all of this data as well.
This article alone, with all the links to the publicly available data, has more than enough information to immediately issue arrest warrants for Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, Janet Woodcock, the FDA director, and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, for mass murder and crimes against humanity.
But is there an attorney anywhere in the United States who would issue these warrants?
We can pretty much rule out Biden’s Attorney General for the U.S., Merrick Garland.
Are there any attorney generals in the 50 United States who would have the courage and the blessing of their Governor to issue arrest warrants like this?
Not likely, as not a single governor of any state, whether Red or Blue, has taken any actions to protect life and arrest the criminals behind these bioweapon shots.
But since these are federal agencies, the FDA and CDC, that affect every single citizen of the United States, a county District Attorney could issue warrants and try to serve them. They would mostly likely need something like a militia group, perhaps comprising of Sheriff deputies and members of their State National Guard, to be able to attempt something like this.
But if nothing is done at all, these deaths will continue to climb, as they are now injecting children between the ages of 5 and 11, and are getting ready to inject babies soon between the ages of 6 months and 4-years-old, just after the first of the year.
Is this the United States you want to live in and be a part of? How long are we going to stand by and watch innocent people killed to fulfill the Globalists’ eugenic plans to reduce our population?
*
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.
Comments Off on 2,809 Dead Babies in VAERS Following COVID Shots as New Documents Prove Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC Knew the Shots Were Not Safe for Pregnant Women
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.
Laotians continue to be crippled and maimed by unexploded ordnance left over from the Indochina War.
Because of the world’s indifference, only one percent of 80 million undetonated antipersonnel bombs have been cleared.
On a bright Saturday morning, August 2, 2008, Yae Li, a middle-aged rice farmer with six children, was hoeing his rice fields as usual in Xieng Khouang, Laos, on the Plain of Jars when all of a sudden his life was changed forever.
Yae’s hoe struck an undetonated ordnance lodged in the ground, a remnant from the U.S. secret war in Laos lasting from 1964 to 1975.
The bombie exploded and Yae’s body flew backwards. He lost both of his feet, parts of his legs and a hand; at the time he thought he would die.
After his recovery he and his family suffered greatly. Yae could no longer farm his land and his eldest son had to drop out of school to help feed the family. With money tight, the other kids sometimes lacked food, and it was hard to pay for school fees. Yae himself became depressed and lost his purpose in life, asking why he had to “endure this suffering.”
Eventually his fortunes changed when an NGO raised funds to buy him a tractor and help him establish a store in town, though life for him and his family remains very difficult.
The United States dropped more ordnance on Laos during the Indochina War than it did on Germany and Japan during World War II.
The purpose of the bombing was to cut off North Vietnamese communist supply routes to South Vietnam along the Ho Chi Minh trail and terrorize villagers in northern Laos who were supporting the pro-Communist Pathet Lao.
The latter had led the liberation war against France and won elections in 1958 that were sabotaged by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which created a private army among the indigenous Hmong people to fight the Pathet Lao—backed up by the massive bombing.
CIA paramilitary specialist training Hmong tribesmen to fight the Pathet Lao. [Source: readex.com]
The majority of the bombs that the U.S. Air Force dropped were cluster bombs—manufactured by Honeywell Corporation of Minnesota—that were not designed to destroy tanks but human beings.
Some 35,000 Laotians were reported to have been killed during the war, and another 20,000 after from unexploded ordnance which remained buried in rice paddies and fields.
Waiting to Explode includes an interview with Fred Branfman, a U.S. aid worker who helped expose the secret bombing of Laos before the U.S. public in the early 1970s.
Branfman was a hippie adventurer who had come to love the Laotian people after working as an educational adviser in the country beginning in the late 1960s.
He especially admired how the priorities and values of the Laotians were different from most Americans—they had few material possessions but respected and loved nature and treasured time spent with friends and family.
After discovering that the U.S. was secretly bombing the northern part of the country, Branfman recorded the testimony of villagers who had to survive the attacks hiding in caves, often coming out at night to farm their fields.
Many lost loved ones and had to leave their villages which were destroyed. Branfman interviewed kids struck by napalm and who were blinded and maimed by the bombs and traumatized.
Infiltrating the U.S. Air Force base in Thailand where the bombings were carried out, Branfman found the businesslike atmosphere eerie. The attacks, he uncovered, were carried out because U.S. pilots had run out of targets in North Vietnam. Monteagle Stearns, deputy chief of mission in Laos from 1969 to 1972 told Congress: “We had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do.”
In 1971, Branfman tried to alert the U.S. public that major war crimes were taking place by testifying before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a year later published the book Voices from the Plain of Jars, which recorded the experiences of Laotian refugees whom he had interviewed.
Decades later when Branfman returned to the Plain of Jars, he was struck by how many people from the region were still adversely impacted by the bombing. One man, for example, said he had ten water buffalo when he had 100 prior to the Indochina War.
Terrible Human Costs of War
Besides Yae Li, Waiting to Explode spotlights the suffering of numerous other victims of the U.S secret war in Laos. One of them, Chongcher Vue, lost his young son Mai and two nephews when Mai was playing with his friends and picked up an undetonated bomb that exploded.
Another boy, Ka Ying, who was only two at the time, lost his vision and many of his teeth, and had his face deformed, when he was playing in the dirt near his house and picked up a bomb that exploded in his face.
With the help of an NGO, Ka Ying’s family was able after some years to get him medical attention in Thailand, and he is currently doing okay in a school for the blind.
His grandmother, who helped raise the boy, cried every day for months after the accident.
This and other heart-wrenching stories remind us of the terrible human costs of the U.S. war in Indochina—which the public remains largely oblivious to.
*
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].
Featured image: Undetonated ordnance piled up. [Source: nwasianweekly.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.
U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday introduced legislation to require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release, within 100 days, all records of information related to Pfizer COVID vaccines. The FDA had asked to be allowed to take up to 55 years to release the documents.
U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release, within 100 days, all records of information submitted to the agency regarding the Emergency Use Authorization of, or licensing of all Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.
PHMPT, a group of more than 30 scientists, medical professionals, international public health professionals and journalists, asked the FDA for “all data and information for the Pfizer vaccine,” including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and a list of active and inactive ingredients.
“The FDA’s only priority should be the health and safety of consumers. The agency has compromised its integrity by delaying information that belongs to the public. Since the Biden administration is hell-bent on forcing these vaccine mandates on us, the public has every right to know how this vaccine was approved, especially in such a short amount of time.
“After all, the FDA managed to consider all 329,000 pages of data and grant emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine within just 108 days. So it’s hard to rationalize why it now needs 55 years to fully release that information to the public.”
“Hiding the data for 55 years is the opposite of transparency,” Kennedy said. “It’s no wonder Americans no longer trust these vaccines or the governmental agencies that regulate them.”
PHMPT’s lawsuit referenced the Aug. 23 approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine for individual 16 and older. The lawsuit alleges that while the FDA claims the vaccine “meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality,” medical experts and others have questions regarding the data.
According to the complaint:
“The medical and scientific community and the public have a substantial interest in reviewing the data and information underlying the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer Vaccine. Reviewing this information will settle the ongoing public debate regarding the adequacy of the FDA’s review process. Releasing this data should also confirm the FDA’s conclusion that the Pfizer Vaccine is safe and effective and, thus, increase confidence in the Pfizer Vaccine.
“The public’s need for this information is urgent given the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are being mandated to individuals across the country by federal, state and local governments as well as private businesses.”
The FDA responded on Nov. 15 stating there are more than 329,000 pages of documents, which would require the agency to process more than 80,000 pages a month to fulfill the FOIA request.
The FDA asked to be allowed to provide 500 pages a month, which would mean 658 months — or just under 55 years — for the full release.
The FDA said that from its experience with other FOIA requests, “such records can be expected to contain both confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials.”
The FDA said it’s a “specious argument” that the process to release documents can be done in the same timeframe it took the FDA to review the documents for the approval of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — as the agency has only 10 employees who process FOIA requests.
In its response, the FDA said:
“Increasing the volume to more than 80,000 pages per month (if such rate is even possible — and it likely is not), as Plaintiff requests, would result in Plaintiff monopolizing essentially all of FDA’s resources and leaving little resources to process other FOIA requests. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has recognized that another agency’s policy of processing 500 pages per request per month ‘serves to promote efficient responses to a larger number of requesters.’”
Redactions raise questions about what FDA deems ‘confidential,’ attorney says
Aaron Siri, one of the lawyers representing PHMPT, said the lawsuit was filed in September after the FDA “produced nothing” from the August FOIA request.
“So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for?
“The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Everyone who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so. But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure. Certainly not one where the government wants to hide the full information relied upon for its licensure until the year 2076!”
In a Nov. 19 blog post, Siri wrote that the first 91 pages had been produced. However, some information was redacted, raising questions about what the FDA views as “confidential.”
Siri wrote:
“Pfizer explains, on page 6, that ‘Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritized the processing of serious cases …’ and that Pfizer ‘has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports’ including ‘increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues’ and ‘has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional full-time employees (FTEs).’”
Siri also asked why it would be proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product.
*
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.
It is possible to actually measure Washington’s dishonesty. How big is it? It’s about 600 miles.
In 1990, according to declassified documents, Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch” east of Germany. Thirty years ago, that was Russia’s red line.
On December 2, that red line moved from one inch to 600 miles as Vladimir Putin said he would now seek a promise that NATO would not expand further east to Ukraine.
Since these assurances, NATO has wandered its way through Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and Poland. Six hundred miles of broken pledges have brought the U.S. and NATO to the border of Ukraine.
On September 1, President Biden met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Biden used code words for NATO encroachment when he pledged his “support for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations” and American support for Ukraine’s “being completely integrated in Europe.” He then announced “a new $60 million security assistance package” in addition to the $400 million in security assistance the U.S. has already provided Ukraine this year.
Having retreated 600 miles from Gorbachev’s red line, Putin drew a new red line on December 2, seeking “reliable and long-term security guarantees.” Those guarantees “would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory.”
Putin is keenly aware that the red line has moved east 600 miles. At the Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007, Putin asked the world, “And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”
The guarantees were a deception, and the red line has moved hundreds of miles and has become a threat. Seven years later, in its review of 2014, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs would note that the “ongoing eastward expansion [and] successive waves of NATO enlargement [are] contrary to the assurances issued at the highest level.” In 2015, Russia’s National Security Strategy would note that NATO’s “continued expansion and the approach of its military infrastructure to Russia’s borders, all create threat to national security.”
The first guarantee was given on February 9, 1990 when Secretary of State Baker assured Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany and Russia pulled its troops out of East Germany, NATO would not expand east of Germany. Gorbachev records in his memoirs that he agreed to Baker’s terms “with the guarantee that NATO jurisdiction or troops would not extend east of the current line.”
In his book Superpower Illusions, Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was the American ambassador to Russia at the time and was present at the meeting, confirms Gorbachev’s account, saying that it “coincides with my notes of the conversation except that mine indicate that Baker added ‘not one inch.’”
The next day, according to West German foreign ministry documents, on February 10, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his Soviet counterpart Eduard Shevardnadze “‘For us . . . one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.’ And because the conversation revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: ‘As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.’”
Even earlier, on January 31, 1990, Genscher had said in a major speech that there would not be “an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.”
The National Security Archive published the actual documents detailing what Gorbachev was promised on December 12, 2017. According to the late Stephen Cohen in his book, ”War With Russia?” the documents finally, and authoritatively, reveal that, “the truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved — the US, the UK, France, Germany itself — made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways.”
It didn’t have to be this way. Like Gorbachev before him at the end of the cold war, Putin has hoped to help create an international community that, rather than building blocs, featured cooperation among equals. He had even suggested Russian membership in NATO. Even in the speech where he drew Russia’s new red line, Putin was still suggesting a cooperative solution. He said that the “working out specific agreements” should be done “in a dialogue with the United States and its allies.” He added, diplomatically, that “we aren’t demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account.”
While this would obviously be the least confrontational path, it is the least likely to be be taken, as the only assurances being given today come in the form of Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin, who recently reassured Georgia and Ukraine that the “door is still open” to NATO membership, much to the chagrin of Moscow.
*
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.
What has unfolded in the past 24 hours in the US-Russia diplomatic tango can be seen as a foreplay of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden, which is slated for Tuesday evening.
Russia has got what it has been keenly seeking — a meeting between Putin and Biden. Beyond that lies the “unknown unknown”.
In remarks last Friday, top Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov had described the forthcoming meeting as a “follow-up” to the Putin-Biden talks at Geneva in June. But Ushakov ended up conveying that Ukraine tops the agenda and within it, NATO-related issues. Ushakov stressed that Putin intends to propose to Biden “the need to hold joint work with colleagues, with leading countries, on reaching corresponding legal accords that would rule out any further eastward expansion by NATO and the deployment of weapon systems that directly threaten us on the territory of states bordering on Russia, including Ukraine.”
Ushakov said Moscow urgently needs assurances that NATO would not expand in the eastward direction. To quote Ushakov,
“It (NATO expansion) is a very old issue. Both the the Soviet Union and Russia were given verbal assurances that NATO’s military structures would not advance eastward. However, it urned out that those verbal assurances were worthless, although those statements were documented somehow, and there are records of the corresponding conversations.”
“Given the current tense situation, there is an urgent need for us to be provided with appropriate guarantees, as it cannot go on like this. It is hard to say what form this document will take, the main thing is that they must be written agreements,” he said.
Within hours, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken hit back alleging that the Russian president is responsible for the current tensions, being “the decision maker in Russia”, and underscored that there will be “very serious consequences” if Russia “decides to pursue a confrontation course” and Biden himself will “stand up resolutely against any reckless or aggressive actions that Russia may pursue.”
Soon afterward on Friday, President Biden stepped in to say “I don’t accept anyone’s red line,” in an indirect challenge to Moscow. He said, “We’re aware of Russia’s actions for a long time and my expectation is we’re going to have a long discussion with Putin.”
Biden added,
“What I am doing is putting together what I believe to be the most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives to make it very, very difficult for Mr. Putin to go ahead and do what people are worried he’s going to do.” read more
Quite obviously, Biden is not about to agree to negotiate a security treaty with Russia over Ukraine or NATO expansion. Interestingly, the White House readout on Saturday mentions Biden as talking point but leaves out the NATO.
Unlike the brash megaphone diplomacy of his top diplomat, Biden himself has taken a more sophisticated approach hinting at some “most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives” to discuss with Putin. He hasn’t poured oil on the fire, but spoke like Don Vito Corleone in the Mario Puzo novel.
That said, the chances of a US-NATO rollback in Ukraine are virtually nil. The optics of a “retreat” will be simply too negative for Biden, post-Afghanistan. Besides, Ukraine’s transformation as an anti-Russian state is still unfinished business.
In the regime change project in Ukraine in 2013-2014, then vice-president Biden had a hands-on role. When Biden brought back Victoria Nuland into his administration in a key position in the state department he signalled his intention to follow through.
The Ukraine tensions have enabled the US to reassert its trans-Atlantic leadership. The NATO’s future is at stake here, too. The US and allies will ever give Russia a veto over Ukraine’s ambitions to one day join NATO and the EU.
On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said after a meeting Wednesday of allied foreign ministers in Riga, “Only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control (its) neighbours.”
The point is, there is little Washington can offer to meet Russia’s demands without undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which the US and its NATO allies have pledged to support in an “ironclad” commitment.
That said, some NATO Allies are privately sceptical about US warnings of an imminent Russian invasion. An internal analysis prepared for European Commission officials and diplomats, and seen by POLITICO, says, “Due to lack of logistical support, it would take one to two months for the Russian army to mobilise for a full-fledged invasion. (Moreover, its overall logistical weakness prevents the Russian army from serious invasion). Thus, there is no threat of imminent invasion.”
The analysis found “Moscow seems fully understanding [of] the costs of an invasion. So pre-positioning of (Russian troops) is more about delivering the message of discontent about the Western policy vis-vis Ukraine (increasing U.S./U.K. and NATO presence).”
Indeed, Putin’s predicament is no less acute. Putin doesn’t want to start another war in Ukraine but Moscow also cannot accept the increasing US, UK and NATO military ties with Ukraine, as well as Ukraine’s acquisition of new weaponry.
While NATO has no permanent troop presence in Ukraine, the allied nations have built up close mil-to-mil links with Ukrainian forces.
This is where the risk lies. If Russia’s legitimate security concerns over the growing Western military presence in Ukraine and that country’s steady transformation as an anti-Russian state with tacit Western encouragement are not addressed, Russia will have no option but to resort to coercive diplomacy.
As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovput it, further NATO expansion will “unambiguously affect the fundamental interests of our security.” Biden cannot afford to underestimate Russia’s bottom line.
How Biden goes about squaring the circle at Tuesday’s meeting remains to be seen. To be sure, Russia gets the best chance ever today in the post-Cold War era to force the US to the negotiating table on the core issue of its discontent with the West — NATO expansion.
But on his part, Biden also cannot afford to look “weak” at a juncture when his performance and competence no longer instil confidence among the American voters.
Ukraine and Russia per se do not agitate the voter, but in the political environment that Biden and the Democratic Party navigate, negativity and tribalism are what is driving American politics today. A confrontation with Russia could add to the grist of the mill alongside issues of price hikes and shortages, pandemic, education, culture war, Afghanistan and so on.
Russia also happened to be an energy superpower and given Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian energy supplies and the instability in the world oil market, isolating Russia is easier said than done.
Above all, Biden cannot afford to get entangled with Russia and take eyes off China. Make no mistake, China is closely watching how Biden is cutting the Gordian knot on Tuesday. It has implications for China’s “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan.
*
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.
The Russians are up to no good and we must prepare to protect Ukraine. Moscow interferes in US and Canadian elections. That’s what Washington, Ottawa and their media sycophants claim. But is this just another case of accusing others of doing the things you do? An age-old propaganda technique designed to deflect attention away from your misdeeds?
For example, amidst claims the Russians may invade the Ukraine or overthrow its government, Ottawa says it is considering a military response. According to the Globe and Mail, Canada may deploy fighter jets currently in Romania to the Ukraine or send (again) a warship into the Black Sea, which borders the Ukraine and Russia. But 200 Canadian troops, as well as two dozen police, are already based in the Ukraine. Through a memorandum of understanding Ottawa signed with Kiev a Canadian company is also helping build up Ukrainian ammunition production.
As for interfering in the politics of another country, since the mid-2000s Ottawa has provided significant support to right wing, nationalist opponents of Russia in the Ukraine. According to the Canadian Press, opposition protesters were camped in the Canadian embassy for a week during the successful February 2014 rebellion against Viktor Yanukovych, who hailed from the Russian speaking east of the Ukraine. In a paper titled “The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine” University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski reported, “The leader of the [Far right] Svoboda-affiliated C14 admitted that his C14-based Maidan Self-Defense company took refuge in the Canadian embassy in Kyiv on February 18 and stayed there during the Maidan massacre.”
Alongside Canada’s support for the Ukrainian military, over 500 Canadian troops are leading a NATO mission on Russia’s doorstep in Latvia. Thirty countries are currently conducting drills in Latvia as part of NATO Baltic Winter Shield 2021. In a position sure to anger the Kremlin, Latvia’s defence minister recently requested US missiles capable of hitting Moscow and called for a permanent US military presence there. US and British troops are stationed throughout the region.
Canada has sanctions on Russia and the Liberals have repeatedly labeled that country a threat to the “international rules-based order” Canada claims to uphold. In a major June 2017 foreign policy speech minister Chrystia Freeland called, “Russian military adventurism and expansionism … clear strategic threats to the liberal democratic world, including Canada.”
But it is absurd to suggest that growing tension over the Ukraine simply reflects Russian belligerence.
This is not the first time the media and politicians have grossly distorted reality to bash Russia.
Aping Hillary Clinton, cold warriors and other segments of the US establishment, Canadian media and politicians pushed the idea of Russian electoral interference. In December 2018 the front page of The Walrus boldly proclaimed: “The Russian Threat to Canadian Democracy.” The lead article was titled “Could the Russians Decide Canada’s Next Prime Minister? Why the upcoming federal election isn’t safe from manipulation by Moscow.”
Canadian politicians repeatedly beat the “Russiagate” drum. In April 2019 Freeland said she was “very concerned that Russia is meddling” in Canada’s election and claimed there had “already been efforts by malign actors to disrupt our democracy.” For his part, Trudeau opined that “countries like Russia are behind a lot of the divisive campaigns … that have turned our politics even more divisive and more anger-filled than they have been in the past.”
Ten months before the 2019 federal election the government established a special task force to monitor potential threats to Canada’s democracy that included representatives of CSIS, RCMP, Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs’ intelligence branch. It was all for naught. Two days after the 2019 election the Privy Council Office quietly announced no foreign actor attempted to interfere. (Recently the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency reported that CSIS “skirted” the law in its effort to protect the 2019 election from possible foreign interference.)
From the get-go the claim that Russia got Donald Trump elected was silly. But, the “Russiagate” narrative collapsed definitively last month when the Steele dossier was conclusively discredited.
Alongside outlandish claims of electoral interference, Ottawa adopted a sanctions regime based on a highly dubious individual’s criticism of Russia. In 2017 the government adopted sanctions legislation, modeled after the 2012 US Magnitsky Act, designed to demonize Russia. Ottawa immediately targeted Russian officials under legislation that allowed the government to freeze individuals’ assets/visas and prohibit Canadian companies from dealing with sanctioned individuals.
The legislation was named after Sergey Magnitsky who proponents claim was tortured to death for exposing Russian state corruption. The source of the claim was William Browder, an American who got rich amidst the fire sale of Russian state assets in the 1990s. With billionaire banker Edmond J. Safra, Browder co-founded Hermitage Capital Management, which became the largest hedge fund in Russia. Hermitage Capital earned a staggering 2,697% return between 1996 and 2007.
Those who question the western-backed story line say Magnitsky was an accountant who helped Browder claim illicit tax breaks. According to this version of the story, Browder exploited Magnitsky’s death — caused by inhumane jail conditions — to avoid being extradited to Russia on tax fraud charges.
While it’s hard to be completely confident about the truth, it’s difficult to believe that a US capitalist who got rich in Russia in the 1990s would simply turn into a human rights activist. On the other hand, the idea that a wealthy and powerful individual meshed self-preservation with growing Russophobia seems plausible.
Both Browder and partner Safra have dubious backgrounds. Browder worked for Robert Maxwell, a crooked British press baron and Mossad spy, whose daughter Ghislaine Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein’s decades-long sex ring coordinator/partner. Safra’s name is cited in Epstein’s little black book.
A November 2019 Der Spiegel exposé titled “The Case of Sergei Magnitsky: Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions” poked important holes in Browder’s story. Further undermining Browder’s claims, last year Switzerland’sAttorney General dropped a decade-long investigation into Russian money laundering Browder brought to the Swiss authorities’.
There are many good reasons to distrust the media and politicians’ drum beating about Russian belligerence in the Ukraine. Evidence suggests these sorts of accusations are often hypocritical self-justifications for more military/intelligence spending.
*
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.
Russiagate, that fraudulent fable wherein Russian President Vladimir Putin personally subverted American democracy, Russian intelligence pilfered the Democratic Party’s email, and Donald Trump acted at the Kremlin’s behest, is at last dead.
No, nothing sudden. It has been a slow, painful death of the sort this destructive beast richly deserved. But its demise is now definitive — in the courts and on paper. We await the better historians to see this properly into the record.
Three key operatives in the construction of the Russiagate edifice are indicted for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about aspects of the Russiagate tale. The Steele dossier, the document on which much of the case against former President Trump rested, is now exposed as a Nixonesque “dirty trick” authorized and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Some mainstream newspapers — certainly not all — are busy in their archives, editing out the worst of the falsehoods they reported in 2016 and 2017 as unassailable fact.
This is a wholesale collapse now.
There are, as one would expect, those who seem determined to hold out no matter what the factual evidence. These go well beyond MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, whose record I will let speak for itself.
I am thinking of people such as David Corn, the Mother Jones correspondent in Washington, and David Frum, a staff writer at The Atlantic. Both invested big time into the Russiagate junk, and both published books filled with the ridiculous, evidence-free piffle of which it was made.
Corn, Frum and numerous others like them are now industriously throwing good money after bad to go by recent publications. Here is Corn’s latest, and here Frum’s. One finds the same tired combination of presumption, useless innuendo, and spoon-fed, evidence-deficient falsities derived from the intelligence agencies that were key to fomenting the Russiagate hoax. Yes, Messrs. Corn and Frum, it was a hoax.
To these diehards, people such as your columnist, given to rational, disinterested consideration of what is known and what is conjured from thin air, are “denialists.” Strange it is that those denying established facts and truths call those who accept these facts and truths by this name.
But this is a measure of the extent Russiagate has plunged us into Alice–in–Wonderland depths where what is up is down, what is dark is light, what is true is to be buried, what is false is to be held high — where blindness is preferred to sight.
This leads us to the essential question we now face, or one of them. What are the consequences of the Russiagate scam? If it rested on lies start-to-finish, this is not to say it did not exact its price. It did. The price is high, and we are fated to pay it for some time to come.
The Damage Done
Nov. 11, 2017, protest outside the White House, dubbed the “Kremlin Annex.” (Wikimedia Commons/Ted Eytan)
An inquiry of this kind must begin with the damage Russiagate has done to the prevalent American consciousness. The last five years have delivered Americans into a culture of unreason of the kind they have been prone to indulging periodically throughout their history. It is made in equal parts of a native insecurity and anxiety, of paranoia and of irrationality.
This is at once a pitiable and dangerous state. All is reduced to the Manichean distinctions characteristic of the old Westerns (not to mention most of the good guys vs. bad guys Dreck that comes out of Hollywood these days).
No subtlety of thought survives in the culture of unreason. Public space is populated with poseurs, cutouts, and imposters. Public discourse, with some exceptions, is much of the time not worth bothering with.
To understand this condition, we must recognize it as the work of a diabolic alliance comprised of the Democratic Party’s corrupt leadership, the F.B.I. and other law-enforcement agencies, the national security apparatus and its many appendages, and the media. It is no longer in the slightest objectionable to speak or write of a Deep State that controls this country.
The elite minority this alliance represents derives its power from its claim to speak for the majority — an absolutely classic case of the “soft despotism” Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans of 190 years ago. Liberal authoritarianism is another name for what has consolidated itself in the years since Democrats, in mid–2016, first raised the phony specter of Russia “hacking” into its mail systems.
In effect, Russiagate has tipped the American polity upside down. It is the illiberal liberals among us, righteous as the old Puritan ministers of New England, who now prosecute a regime of censorship and suppression of dissent that is at least as severe and anti-democratic as what conservatives had going during the Cold War (and in my view worse).
It is they who seek to cow ordinary Americans into the new, weird idolatry of authority, no matter that those to whom the nation is urged to bow are proven liars, law-breakers and propagandists.
Culture of Unreason
There is, of course, the more dangerous world Russiagate has done so much to create. In the culture of unreason, the Deep State has a discouraging record of success in gaining wide public support for any aggressive campaign against any nation or people it wishes to act against.
In this dimension, Russiagate has destroyed the Democrats as a party willing to stand against the imperial project in its late phase.
A war with China over the Taiwan question is now spoken of as a logical possibility. Washington is now raising the temperature on the Ukraine–Russia border, just as it did when it cultivated the 2014 coup in Kiev, and this is put across as a Democratic administration’s sound policy. Rampant Russophobia is a direct consequence of the Russiagate ruse, Sinophobia its uglier sibling — uglier for its racist subtext.
We have active subversion operations in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Peru, all progressive states in the true meaning of this term, and Democrats of all stripes — including “progressives” with the necessary quotation marks — cheer on every one of them.
We cannot view this as distinct from the elevation of institutions dedicated to campaigns of covert subterfuge — chiefly but not only the C.I.A. — to wholly inappropriate positions of respect.
The damage Russiagate has done to the press … let me rephrase this. The damage the press has inflicted upon itself in the cause of Russiagate is so extensive it is hard to calculate with any precision. We watch now as their credibility collapses in real time.
Those running the mainstream newspapers and networks seem to understand this, as they rush to protect what remains of their reputations with rearguard actions to obscure their grossly irresponsible conduct.
The long list of those who caved to the Russiagate orthodoxy includes some stunning names. Among publications that should have known better we find Mother Jones,The Nation, The Intercept, and Democracy Now! Was it conformity, pressure from donors or Democratic Party ventriloquists, or some combination of ideology, ignorance and inexperience that caused them to flip?
The Atlantic,The New Yorker, the major dailies, the networks — they have all sustained one or another degree of discredit, left either to craven rewrites in their archives, denial in the Corn–Frum mode, or silence. None will do: They will never regain lost ground without first acknowledging what they have done, and this appears out of the question.
Resort of Omission
“The Usual Suspects,” urban art, Norway, 2015. (Anne Worner, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The feature of the corporate-owned press — and the “progressive,” press, as just suggested — that strikes me most now is its resort of omission.
Think about it: Lengthy hearings on Capitol Hill, in which leading Democratic Party Russiagaters admit under oath they never had any of the evidence they long claimed, go unreported. The collapse of the Steele dossier goes unreported in The New York Times and other major dailies.
It is but a short step to all else that is newsworthy but left out — the collapse of the case against Julian Assange (against whom the Russiagate frenzy was wielded), the collapse of the chemical weapons case in Syria, all the above-noted covert subversions.
It is wholesale dereliction of duty now, and it was Russiagate that licensed this betrayal.
Mainstream media are now approaching that point when they leave out more of the world we live in than they report. This is a losing proposition in the medium term — a desperate, last-ditch strategy to defend a “narrative” that simply no longer holds. I put the acceleration of this trend down to the poisoned information environment Russiagate did so much to engender.
There is a positive dimension to the media’s fate since Russiagate, and regular readers of this column may already guess where I am headed. The disaster Russiagate has proven for the corporate-owned press, the networks, and the “left” — with-quotation-marks — press has landed independent media such as Consortium News with large, new responsibilities, and they have by-and-large risen to the occasion. Their role in keeping the truth of the Russiagate fraud on the table cannot be overstated.
We witness, in effect, an historically significant transformation in how Americans get their news and analysis. This, a gradual process, is an excellent thing. In time, independent media stand to play as important a role in repairing the across-the-board damage of Russiagate as legacy media played in hatching and deepening 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.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.
Featured image: TV coverage of 2016 U.S. election results. (U.S. embassy, Kyiv)
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.
US forces continue providing military training to YPG/PKK terrorists in Syria, according to local sources.
Sources said US Special Forces dispatched 70 soldiers to Al-Hasakah through Iraq on Nov. 28 to provide armed training to YPG/PKK members east of the Euphrates River.
The US soldiers, who arrived in the town of Rmelan — where the US airbase is located — started armed training for hundreds of YPG/PKK terrorists on Dec. 1.
In the training, which will last for about a month, the use of light, medium and heavy weapons, raids and infiltration methods in the villages will be taught to the terrorists.
After the training, the sources, who asked not to be named, said that some of the terrorists will be sent to the Ash Shaddadi district in Al-Hasakah and the Omar Oil Field in Deir Ez-Zor, while the remaining terrorists would stay in Rmelan.
The US and France, members of the coalition against Daesh/ISIS, previously supported YPG/PKK terrorists with military training in areas of Al-Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor.
The YPG is the Syrian branch of the PKK, a designated terror group in the US, EU, and Turkey. US support for the YPG-led SDF has significantly strained relations with Ankara.
In its more than 35-year terror campaign against Turkey, the PKK has been responsible for the deaths of at least 40,000 people, including women, children, and infants.
*
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.
Over a thousand victims of Ukraine’s military aggression against Donbass were discovered in unnamed graves. From the summer to the present, an active search for all victims of the Ukrainian military and their allied Far-Right militias has been underway, culminating in the creation of a joint committee which includes representatives of the Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, investigators, forensic experts and others. Investigations into the mass graves will form the foundation of a future tribunal against Kiev. Collected dossiers of Ukraine’s war crimes in Donbass have already been transferred to international authorities.
There is colossal work that needs to be carried out in Donetsk. Since 2014, about 130 burial places of missing persons have been discovered. It is not known how many more there are. According to Daria Morozova, head of the commission for the search of missing persons in Donetsk, more than 3,000 claims have already been sent to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
“There is information that the documents have been accepted for consideration and included in the evidence base,” Morozova said.
According to the head of the DPR forensic medical examination bureau Dmitry Kalashnikov, the investigated graves contain people who died during the Ukrainian military’s artillery shelling. However, there are also remains of people with traces of torture and bullet wounds perpetrated by the Far-Right militias.
“There were cases when people came and knew by their names those who were buried in unknown graves, but they had no death certificates. In such situations, children cannot receive survivor pensions and other social benefits,” Kalashnikov said.
In Luhansk, teams are also continuing to search for victims of Ukrainian aggression. Seven out of 17 discovered mass graves were investigated, 300 bodies of the dead were exhumed and almost 400 people donated blood for DNA examination. The remains of many victims were reburied in November at a cemetery in Luhansk, where a memorial complex is being created.
Anna Soroka, chair of the interdepartmental working group on the search for burials in the LPR, said: “the enemy went so far as to prevent the burial of the dead, cemeteries were mined, people could not send their loved ones on their final journey.”
“As for tortured civilians from the graves, if the places of these graves are put on a map, then they fall on settlements that have been under the control of the so-called Ukrainian ‘volunteer battalions.’ We have information where they were based. It is there that the bodies with traces of torture and execution are located,” she added.
Donbass residents also submitted burial site examination results to the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court. The Commission managed to establish communication with private groups of Ukrainian volunteers and human rights defenders who are looking for missing persons on Kiev-controlled territory.
Meanwhile, Kiev’s authorities completely ignore the Donetsk and Luhansk initiative to establish cooperation in this area. The reasons for non-cooperation are clear: the perpetrators of aggression do not want to admit crimes and be held accountable. Therefore, Kiev is blocking all proposals for a joint search of missing persons and mass graves.
Of the international organizations and bodies, only the Red Cross provides assistance in exhuming bodies in Donbass. Although the OSCE has all necessary information and records, visit morgues and mass graves, and document violations and take photographs, their published reports are emasculated and their conclusions biased.
This manipulation of information was assessed by LPR representative Andrey Marochko: “I have read all their reports from 2015 to this day. […] In general, drafts of OSCE reports leave Luhansk in voluminous terms, and already from their office in Kiev, fairly cleaned up versions are published. […] Sometimes even journalists recorded the mistakes of the OSCE mission representatives who saw violations, but this was not reflected in the reports.” As an example, Marochko cited how an OSCE representative was captured near a Ukrainian tank, but this tank was not listed in the report.
After the kidnapping of Luhansk observer Andriy Kosyak, the Joint Center for Control and Coordination issued a number of statements for the OSCE to influence the terrorist-like behavior of Ukraine. There is still no reaction from the European mission even though a month and a half has passed since the abduction of the Luhansk observer by Ukrainian saboteurs. As a result, the OSCE mission is limited in movement across LPR until Kosyak is released.
In order to break the obvious information blockade, the DPR and the LPR are creating a special site, “The Tragedy of Donbass”, to collect data on Ukrainian war crimes and on those missing. The project aims to process and organize data and provide access for the general public to collate stories of survivors and victims. Just as importantly, it will also provide the names, ranks and other information of Ukrainians suspected of committing crimes against humanity, including mass killings.
Although this resource will assist in highlighting Ukraine’s war crimes, true accountability cannot be made until the OSCE is depoliticized and carries out the work it is expected to do in an apolitical manner. However, there is little evidence that this will occur in the short-term.
*
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.
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.
The WHO and Coronavirus experts are increasingly convinced the new Omicron variant is ‘super mild’ and has, so far, not led to a jump in Covid death rates anywhere in Southern Africa.
The WHO is calling this morning for countries to drop travel restrictions and end the mass hysteria, and instead be cautiously optimistic as more and more reports out of South Africa suggest the new Omicron variant is not more lethal than the previous Delta variant.
In fact, there have been no reports of hospitalisations or deaths as a result of anyone being diagnosed with Omicron.
Most patients merely experience a severe headache, nausea, dizziness and a high pulse rate, according to hospitals and medics across Southern Africa.
However, the news of the new variant, first reported in South Africa, led to mass hysteria around the world: markets thumbed and dozens of countries imposed travel restrictions and additional checks, including the UK, US, EU, Israel, Australia and Japan after the new mutation popped up in the UK, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic and Israel among other countries.
‘A hype’
Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, said this reaction was “medically seen, not justified.”
A GP for over three decades, and chair of the South African Medical Association, she was the first African doctor to suggest to local authorities Covid had mutated into a new strain.
Coetzee called the response from many European countries, including the UK, “just a hype.”
“Looking at the mildness of the symptoms we are seeing, currently there is no reason for panicking as we don’t see any severely ill patients.”
South Africa’s health minister Joe Phaahla also said the majority of cases of Omicron seen by doctors in his country have been “mild”.
Asked what he knows about how unwell people are who have it, Dr Phaahla said: “It is still too early at this stage.
He added he has heard from GPs that the “majority of the people they’ve been seeing are mild.”
“Our clinicians have not witnessed severe illness. Part of it may be because the majority of those who are positive are young people,” Dr Paahla added.
Hundreds of infected people across Southern Africa reportedly complain of nausea, headaches, fatigue and a high pulse rate, but none seem to suffer from a loss of taste or smell, which has been the case with most other Covid mutations.
Moreover, more and more medics across Southern Africa are confirming that most Omicron-infected patients merely have a severe headache, nausea or dizziness.
WHO criticises travel bans
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has also urged countries around the world not to impose flight bans on southern African nations due to concerns over the Omicron variant.
In fact, the WHO fiercely lashed out at the UK and other countries, calling their response “extreme.”
Dr Catherine Smallwood, Senior Emergency Officer at WHO’s Regional Office for Europe, said “these types of interventions are not sustainable. Those types of extreme measures are not our recommendations.”
The WHO’s regional director for Africa, Dr Matshidiso Moeti, called on countries “to follow science” and international health regulations in order to avoid using travel restrictions.
“If restrictions are implemented, they should not be unnecessarily invasive or intrusive, and should be scientifically based, according to the international health regulations, which is a legally binding instrument of international law recognised by over 190 nations, Dr Moeti added.
Cases of the Omicron variant have popped up in countries on opposite sides of the world and many governments rushed to close their borders even as scientists cautioned that it is not clear if the new variant is more alarming than other versions of the virus.
While investigations continue into the Omicron variant, the WHO recommends that all countries “take a risk-based and scientific approach and put in place measures which can limit its possible spread”.
Dr Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, emphasised that there is no data yet that suggests the new variant causes more serious illness than previous Covid-19 variants.
“I do think it’s more contagious, when you look at how rapidly it spread through multiple districts in South Africa,” Dr Collins said.
Omicron could kill off Delta
The high level of contagiousness, paired with very mild symptoms, may make Omicron a blessing in disguise.
Looking at the first data coming out of Southern Africa, virologist Marc van Ranst said this weekend that “if the omicron variant is less pathogenic but with greater infectivity, allowing Omicron to replace Delta, this would be very positive.”
The WHO warned that preliminary evidence suggests the variant has an increased risk of reinfection and may spread more rapidly than other strains, including Delta.
They said there is early evidence to suggest Omicron has an “increased risk of reinfection” and its rapid spread in South Africa suggests it has a “growth advantage”.
“It is extremely important we need to closely monitor the clinical data of Omicron patients in South Africa and worldwide,” Van Ranst stressed.
The variant has more than 30 mutations – around twice as many as the Delta variant – which make it more transmissible and evade the protection given by prior infection or vaccination.
More testing is needed and experts say it can take weeks before a clear picture will emerge.
Nearly two years since the start of the pandemic that has claimed more than 5 million lives around the world, countries are on high alert.
In the Netherlands, 61 people on two flights from Cape Town to South Africa tested positive for Covid upon arrival in Amsterdam.
Novavax said it has “already initiated development of a new recombinant spike protein based on the known genetic sequence of Omicron and will have it ready to begin testing and manufacturing within the next few weeks”.
Moderna said: “Since early 2021, Moderna has advanced a comprehensive strategy to anticipate new variants of concern.
“This strategy includes three levels of response should the currently authorized 50 µg (microgram) booster dose of mRNA-1273 prove insufficient to boost waning immunity against the Omicron variant.”
*
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 video by the late Dr. Andreas Noack pertains to graphene hydroxide contained in the Covid vaccine vial. Dr. Noack explains the devastating impacts of graphene hydroxide on the cardiovascular system.
I compiled all the evidence we have into this article that prove Graphene Oxide, Graphene Hydroxide and other Graphene variants are in fact being injected into people by governments and Big Pharma.
Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, then claim that the resulting concoction is “SARS-COV-2 isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in critical research (including vaccine and test development)?
The doctrine of the inherited aggression drive or aggression instinct is one of the most controversial formulas with the help of which psychoanalysts and animal behaviourists seek to explain problems of the political and social situation, indeed of the history of human coexistence per se.
Welcome to the age of fear. Nothing is more corrosive of the democratic impulse than fear. Left unaddressed, it festers, eating away at our confidence and empathy.
By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of death allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.
In a recent interview with Sarah Westall, Dr. Joe Nieusma, who has a PhD in toxicology, discusses possible ways to detox from the COVID shot. He spends quite a bit of time discussing the merits of chlorine dioxide (chemical abbreviation ClO2) which has been marketed by Jim Humble as Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) for some time.
They produce a lethal spike protein in insensitive organs like the brain or the heart or elsewhere. The spike protein damages blood vessels, damages organs, causes blood clots. So it’s well within the mechanism of action that the vaccine could be fatal. Someone could have a fatal blood clot.
It’s telling us that the vaccine can reduce the flow of blood to the heart, damage heart tissue, and greatly increase the risk of a heart attack. The authors are telling readers point-blank that the vaccine can either kill or severely injure them. Can you see that?
A major new technology known as Gene Editing has gained significant attention in recent months. Its advocates claim it will revolutionize everything from agriculture production to disease treatment.
There are indications that the decision of the WHO Director General to declare a PHEIC was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the Geneva January 22 meeting of the WHO emergency committee on 22 January, 2020.
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.
Stick to the script: owe that duty of care to your population, so the legal experts in government tell you. Self-interest pays, if in small amounts. These rigid, formulaic assumptions have done wonders to harm and deter any spirit of cooperation regarding dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.
History’s record of humanity’s response to plagues, pandemics and disease is one of isolation, marginalisation, and exclusion. The infected shall be kept away and sealed off from the healthy and wealthy. This, inevitably, results in partiality, prejudice and distinctions. Omicron, having been pumped with the prestige of a potential COVID super variant, has given dozens of countries grounds to stop travel, halt movement and stem flights. As always, these measures have been applied unevenly and hypocritically.
First reported by South Africa, the country now has the distinction of being, along with a range of other Southern African countries, pariahs in terms of international travel. Little wonder that individuals such as the Chair of the South African Medical Association, Dr. Angelique Coetzee are alarmed at what was essentially a replay of the initial global response to COVID-19.
In Coetzee’s judgment, Omicron, while seemingly harder to detect, does not deserve a ladle full of fear. “Looking at the mildness of the symptoms that we are seeing, currently there is no reason for panicking, as we don’t see severely ill patients.” The prevailing “clinical complaint is severe fatigue for one or two days, with the headache and body aches and pains.” She also noted instances of a scratchy throat and dry coughing.
South African Health Minister Joe Phaahlasimilarly reported that his country’s “clinicians have not witnessed severe illness. Part of it may be because the majority of those who are positive are young people.”
Vaccine manufacturers such as Moderna have been quick off the mark in sowing seeds of mild panic, claiming that existing COVID-19 vaccines will be less effective against Omicron. According to the company’s chief executive, Stéphane Bancel, the number of Omicron mutations on the spike protein – the part of the virus famed for infecting human cells – and the speed of transmissibility, suggested an imminent “material drop” in effectiveness.
This less than responsible prediction, in the absence of cold hard trials and laboratory results, was marvellous for speculators and someone was obviously making a packet on the sliding of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which slipped 652 points (1.9%) on November 30. The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq also fell 1.9% and 1.6% respectively.
The World Health Organisation has never been partial to the idea of a travel ban in the face of disease. But it finds itself in a difficult position. Closing the borders can inflict harm; but not encouraging closures might result in retrospective condemnation from governments who fear their populace and chances of survival at the ballot box. The stance taken towards Omicron is that the haste on the part of many countries in sealing Southern African countries off has been irrational and disproportionate.
In a statement from WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, concern was expressed that countries such as Botswana and South Africa “are now penalized by others for doing the right thing.” Nation states should “take rational, proportional risk-reduction measures, in keeping with International Health Regulations.”
Suggestions included passenger screenings prior to and after travel, or the use of quarantine for international travellers. “Blanket travel bans will not prevent the international spread of Omicron, and they place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods.”
The Director-General also made the pertinent point that the Delta variant remained pre-eminently dangerous. With the tools already available to combat that mutation, using them effectively would invariably also “prevent transmission and save lives from Omicron.”
These are also views held by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who has also suggested a testing regime for travellers rather than a shutting of the door. “With a virus that is truly borderless, travel restrictions that isolate any one country or region are not only deeply unfair and punitive – they are ineffective.”
On a cooperative and collaborative level, the travel ban on South Africa has also had a discernible effect. As Maria Van Kerhove, the WHO’s lead on COVID-19 remarked, South African researchers, despite being keen to share data, samples and information, find themselves facing obstacles in actually having samples “shipped out of the country”.
As with other pandemics, gross inequality shadows, imposes and manifests in every phase of the response. “We are living through a cycle of panic and neglect,” laments Tedros. Be it the imposition of national quarantines, international closures, restrictions on access to diagnostic equipment, protective equipment, vaccines, the moneyed shall find their way to the top, if only because they were there to begin with. Those without bountiful lucre, few resources other than ambition and little else other than hope, will be squashed, or at the very least find themselves isolated and delayed.
In the whirlwind that is viral change and adjustment, the WHO has uttered some statements of sense. But these are not going to find a home in countries which have invested billions in pandemic infrastructure and restrictions. Vaccine mandates are being retained in some countries with high vaccination rates, which tends to make more than a mild mockery of the vaccination program itself.
The talk of boosters means that those who have not satisfied the next round of regulatory safety will be barred from bar and border; from restaurant and recreation facility. It is also a reminder that wealthier, high-income states will prioritise their own populations, leaving such collective efforts to immunise the globe, such as COVAX, behind. Doing this will only serve to delay the vaccination of poorer countries and encourage the next roaring mutation to stumble onto the world stage. There are many other potential Omicrons in the pipeline.
In the meantime, countries such as South Africa may well rue their candour in disclosing a variant it was so quick to identify and sequence. There is little to suggest that Omicron actually originated there but such details will never get in the way of irrational impulse and shoddy judgments.
*
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 frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
What President Dwight D. Eisenhower dubbed the “military-industrial complex” has been constantly evolving over the decades, adjusting to shifts in the economic and political system as well as international events. The result today is a “permanent-war complex,” which is now engaged in conflicts in at least eight countries across the globe, none of which are intended to be temporary.
This new complex has justified its enhanced power and control over the country’s resources primarily by citing threats to U.S. security posed by Islamic terrorists. But like the old military-industrial complex, it is really rooted in the evolving relationship between the national security institutions themselves and the private arms contractors allied with them.
The first phase of this transformation was a far-reaching privatization of U.S. military and intelligence institutions in the two decades after the Cold War, which hollowed out the military’s expertise and made it dependent on big contractors (think Halliburton, Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI). The second phase began with the global “war on terrorism,” which quickly turned into a permanent war, much of which revolves around the use of drone strikes.
The drone wars are uniquely a public-private military endeavor, in which major arms contractors are directly involved in the most strategic aspect of the war. And so the drone contractors—especially the dominant General Atomics—have both a powerful motive and the political power, exercised through its clients in Congress, to ensure that the wars continue for the indefinite future.
*
The privatization of military and intelligence institutions began even before the end of the Cold War. But during the 1990s, both Congress and the Bush and Clinton administrations opened the floodgates to arms and intelligence contractors and their political allies. The contracts soon became bigger and more concentrated in a handful of dominant companies. Between 1998 and 2003, private contractors were getting roughly half of the entire defense budget each year. The 50 biggest companies were getting more than half of the approximately $900 billion paid out in contracts during that time, and most were no-bid contracts, sole sourced, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
The contracts that had the biggest impact on the complex were for specialists working right in the Pentagon. The number of these contractors grew so rapidly and chaotically in the two decades after the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials did not even know the full extent of their numbers and reach. In 2010, then-secretary of defense Robert M. Gates even confessed to Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and William M. Arkin that he was unable to determine how many contractors worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which includes the entire civilian side of the Pentagon.
Although legally forbidden from assuming tasks that were “inherent government functions,” in practice these contractors steadily encroached on what had always been regarded as government functions. Contractors could pay much higher salaries and consulting fees than government agencies, so experienced Pentagon and CIA officers soon left their civil service jobs by the tens of thousands for plum positions with firms that often paid twice as much as the government for the same work.
That was especially true in the intelligence agencies, which experienced a rapid 50 percent workforce increase after 9/11. It was almost entirely done with former skilled officers brought back as contractor personnel. Even President Barack Obama’s CIA director Leon Panetta admitted to Priest and Arkin that the intelligence community had for too long “depended on contractors to do the operational work” that had always been done by CIA employees, including intelligence analysis, and that the CIA needed to rebuild its own expertise “over time.”
By 2010, “core contractors”—those who perform such functions as collection and analysis—comprised at least 28 percent of professional civilian and military intelligence staff, according to a fact sheet from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The dependence on the private sector in the Pentagon and the intelligence community had reached such a point that it raised a serious question about whether the workforce was now “obligated to shareholders rather than to the public interest,” as Priest and Arkin reported. And both Gates and Panetta acknowledged to them their concerns about that issue.
Powerfully reinforcing that privatization effect was the familiar revolving door between the Pentagon and arms contractors, which had begun turning with greater rapidity. A 2010 Boston Globe investigation showed that the percentage of three- and four-star generals who left the Pentagon to take jobs as consultants or executives with defense contractors, which was already at 45 percent in 1993, had climbed to 80 percent by 2005—an 83 percent increase in 12 years.
The incoming George W. Bush administration gave the revolving door a strong push, bringing in eight officials from Lockheed Martin—then the largest defense contractor—to fill senior policymaking positions in the Pentagon. The CEO of Lockheed Martin, Peter Teets, was brought in to become undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (where he had responsibility for acquisition decisions directly benefiting his former company). James Roche, the former vice president of Northrop Grumman, was named secretary of the Air Force, and a former vice president of General Dynamics, Gordon R. England, was named the secretary of the Navy.
In 2007, Bush named rear admiral J. Michael McConnell as director of national intelligence. McConnell had been director of the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1996, then became head of the national security branch of intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Not surprisingly McConnell energetically promoted even greater reliance on the private sector, on the grounds that it was supposedly more efficient and innovative than the government. In 2009 he returned once again to Booz Allen Hamilton as vice chairman.
The Pentagon and the intelligence agencies thus morphed into a new form of mixed public-private institutions, in which contractor power was greatly magnified. To some in the military it appeared that the privateers had taken over the Pentagon. As a senior U.S. military officer who had served in Afghanistan commented to Priest and Arkin, “It just hits you like a ton of bricks when you think about it. The Department of Defense is no longer a war-fighting organization, it’s a business enterprise.”
*
The years after 9/11 saw the national security organs acquire new missions, power, and resources—all in the name of a “War on Terror,” aka “the long war.” The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sold on that premise, even though virtually no al Qaeda remained in Afghanistan and none were in Iraq until long after the initial U.S. invasion.
The military and the CIA got new orders to pursue al Qaeda and affiliated groups in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and several other African countries, parlaying what the Bush administration called a “generational war” into a guarantee that there would be no return to the relative austerity of the post-Cold War decade.
Drone strikes against targets associated with al Qaeda or affiliated groups became the common feature of these wars and a source of power for military and intelligence officials. The Air Force owned the drones and conducted strikes in Afghanistan, but the CIA carried them out covertly in Pakistan, and the CIA and the military competed for control over the strikes in Yemen.
The early experience with drone strikes against “high-value targets” was an unmitigated disaster. From 2004 through 2007, the CIA carried out 12 strikes in Pakistan, aimed at high-value targets of al Qaeda and its affiliates. But they killed only three identifiable al Qaeda or Pakistani Taliban figures, along with 121 civilians, based on analysis of news reports of the strikes.
But on the urging of CIA Director Michael Hayden, in mid-2008 President Bush agreed to allow “signature strikes” based merely on analysts’ judgment that a “pattern of life” on the ground indicated an al Qaeda or affiliated target. Eventually it became a tool for killing mostly suspected rank-and-file Afghan Taliban fighters in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly during the Obama administration, which had less stomach and political capital for outright war and came to depend on the covert drone campaign. This war was largely secret and less accountable publicly. And it allowed him the preferable optics of withdrawing troops and ending official ground operations in places like Iraq.
Altogether in its eight years in office, the Obama administration carried out a total of nearly 5,000 drone strikes—mostly in Afghanistan—according to figures collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
But between 2009 and 2013, the best informed officials in the U.S. government raised alarms about the pace and lethality of this new warfare on the grounds that it systematically undermined the U.S. effort to quell terrorism by creating more support for al Qaeda rather than weakening it. Some mid-level CIA officers opposed the strikes in Pakistan as early as 2009, because of what they had learned from intelligence gathered from intercepts of electronic communications in areas where the strikes were taking place: they were infuriating Muslim males and making them more willing to join al Qaeda.
In a secret May 2009 assessment leaked to the Washington Post, General David Petraeus, then commander of the Central Command, wrote, “Anti-U.S. sentiment has already been increasing in Pakistan…especially in regard to cross-border and reported drone strikes, which Pakistanis perceive to cause unacceptable civilian casualties.”
More evidence of that effect came from Yemen. A 2013 report on drone war policy for the Council on Foreign Relations found that membership in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen grew from several hundred in 2010 to a few thousand members in 2012, just as the number of drone strikes in the country was increasing dramatically—along with popular anger toward the United States.
Drone strikes are easy for a president to support. They demonstrate to the public that he is doing something concrete about terrorism, thus providing political cover in case of another successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Donald Trump has shown no interest in scaling back the drone wars, despite openly questioning the stationing of troops across the Middle East and Africa. In 2017 he approved a 100 percent increase in drone strikes in Yemen and a 30 percent increase in Somalia above the totals of the final year of the Obama administration. And Trump has approved a major increase in drone strikes in Afghanistan, and has eliminated rules aimed at reducing civilian casualties from such strikes.
Even if Obama and Trump had listened to dissenting voices on the serious risks of drone wars to U.S. interests, however, another political reality would have prevented the United States from ending the drone wars: the role of the private defense contractors and their friends on Capitol Hill in maintaining the status quo.
*
Unlike conventional bombing missions, drone strikes require a team to watch the video feeds, interpret them, and pass on their conclusions to their mission coordinators and pilots. By 2007 that required more specialists than the Air Force had available. Since then, the Air Force has been working with military and intelligence contractors to analyze full-motion videos transmitted by drones to guide targeting decisions. BAE, the third-ranking Pentagon contractor according to defense revenues, claims that it is the “leading provider” of analysis of drone video intelligence, but in the early years the list of major companies with contracts for such work also included Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, and SAIC (now Leidos).
These analysts were fully integrated into the “kill chain” that resulted, in many cases, in civilian casualties. In the now-famous case of the strike in February 2010 that killed at least 15 Afghan civilians, including children, the “primary screener” for the team of six video analysts in Florida communicating via a chat system with the drone pilot in Nevada was a contract employee with SAIC. That company had a $49 million multi-year contract with the Air Force to analyze drone video feeds and other intelligence from Afghanistan.
The pace of drone strikes in Afghanistan accelerated sharply after U.S. combat ended formally in 2014. And that same year, the air war against ISIS began in Iraq and Syria. The Air Force then began running armed drones around the clock in those countries as well. The Air Force needed 1,281 drone pilots to handle as many “combat air patrols” per day in multiple countries. But it was several hundred pilots short of that objective.
To fulfill that requirement the Air Force turned to General Atomics—maker of the first armed drone, the Predator, and a larger follow-on, the MQ-9 Reaper—which had already been hired to provide support services for drone operations on a two-year contract worth $700 million. But in April 2015 the Air Force signed a contract with the company to lease one of its Reapers with its own ground control station for a year. In addition, the contractor was to provide the pilots, sensor operators, and other crew members to fly it and maintain it.
The pilots, who still worked directly for General Atomics, did everything Air Force drone pilots did except actually fire the missiles. The result of that contract was a complete blurring of the lines between the official military and the contractors hired to work alongside them. The Air Force denied any such blurring, arguing that the planning and execution of each mission would still be in the hands of an Air Force officer. But the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Office had published an article in its law review in 2010 warning that even the analysis of video feeds risked violating international law prohibiting civilian participation in direct hostilities.
A second contract with a smaller company, Aviation Unlimited, was for the provision of pilots and sensor operators and referred to “recent increased terrorist activities,” suggesting that it was for anti-ISIS operations.
The process of integrating drone contractors into the kill chain in multiple countries thus marked a new stage in the process of privatizing war in what had become a permanent war complex. After 9/11, the military became dependent on the private sector for everything from food, water, and housing to security and refueling in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2009 contractors began outnumbering U.S. troops in Afghanistan and eventually became critical for continuing the war as well.
In June 2018, the DoD announced a $40 million contract with General Atomics to operate its own MQ-9 Reapers in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province. The Reapers are normally armed for independent missile strikes, but in this case, the contractor-operated Reapers were to be unarmed, meaning that the drones would be used to identify targets for Air Force manned aircraft bombing missions.
*
There appears to be no braking mechanism for this accelerating new reality. U.S. government spending on the military drone market, which includes not only procurement and research and development for the drones themselves, but the sensors, modifications, control systems, and other support contracts, stood at $4.5 billion in 2016, and was expected to increase to $13 billion by 2027. General Atomics is now the dominant player in the arena.
This kind of income translates into political power, and the industry has shown its muscle and more than once prevented the Pentagon from canceling big-ticket programs, no matter how unwanted or wasteful. They have the one-two punch of strategically focused campaign contributions and intensive lobbying of members with whom they have influence.
This was most evident between 2011 and 2013, after congressionally mandated budget reductions cut into drone procurement. The biggest loser appeared to be Northrop Grumman’s “Global Hawk” drone, designed for unarmed high-altitude intelligence surveillance flights of up to 32 hours.
By 2011 the Global Hawk was already 25 percent over budget, and the Pentagon had delayed the purchase of the remaining planes for a year to resolve earlier failures to deliver adequate “near real time” video intelligence.
After a subsequent test, however, the Defense Department’s top weapons tester official reported in May 2011 that the Global Hawk was “not operationally effective” three fourths of the time, because of “low vehicle reliability.” He cited the “failure” of “mission central components” at “high rates.” In addition, the Pentagon still believed the venerable U-2 Spy plane—which could operate in all weather conditions, unlike the Global Hawk—could carry out comparable high-altitude intelligence missions.
As a result, the DoD announced in 2012 that it would mothball the aircraft it had already purchased and save $2.5 billion over five years by foregoing the purchase of the remaining three drones. But that was before Northrop Grumman mounted a classic successful lobbying campaign to reverse the decision.
That lobbying drive produced a fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations law that added $360 million for the purchase of the final three Global Hawks. In Spring 2013, top Pentagon officials indicated that they were petitioning for “relief” from congressional intent. Then the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Republican Buck McKeon, and a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia, wrote a letter to incoming Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on May 13, 2013, pressing him to fund the acquisition of the Global Hawks.
The Pentagon finally caved. The Air Force issued a statement pledging to acquire the last three Northrop Grumman spy planes, and in early 2014, Hagel and Dempsey announced that they would mothball the U-2 and replace it with the Global Hawk.
Northrop spent nearly $18 million on lobbying in 2012 and $21 million in 2013, fielding a phalanx of lobbyists determined to help save Global Hawk. It got what it wanted.
Meanwhile, Northrop’s political action committee had already made contributions of at least $113,000 to the campaign committee of House Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon, who also happened to represent the Southern California district where Northrop’s assembly plant for the Global Hawk is located. Representative Moran, the co-author of the letter with McKeon, who represented the northern Virginia district where Northrop has its headquarters, had gotten $22,000 in contributions.
Of course Northrop didn’t ignore the rest of the House Armed Services Committee: they were recipients of at least $243,000 in campaign contributions during the first half of 2012.
*
The Northrop Grumman triumph dramatically illustrates the power relationships underlying the new permanent-war complex. In the first half of 2013 alone, four major drone contractors—General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing—spent $26.2 million lobbying Congress to pressure the executive branch to keep the pipeline of funding for their respective drone systems flowing freely. The Center for the Study of the Drone observed, “Defense contractors are pressuring the government to maintain the same levels of investment in unmanned systems even as the demand from the traditional theatres such as Afghanistan dies down.”
Instead of dying down, the demand from drones in Afghanistan has exploded in subsequent years. By 2016, the General Atomics Reapers had already become so tightly integrated into U.S. military operations in Afghanistan that the whole U.S. war plan was dependent on them. In the first quarter of 2016 Air Force data showed that 61 percent of the weapons dropped in Afghanistan were from the drones.
In the new permanent-war complex the interests of the arms contractors have increasingly dominated over the interests of the civilian Pentagon and the military services, and dominance has became a new driving force for continued war. Even though those bureaucracies, along with the CIA, seized the opportunity to openly conduct military operations in one country after another, the drone war has introduced a new political dynamic into the war system: the drone makers who have powerful clout in Congress can use their influence to block or discourage an end to the permanent war—especially in Afghanistan—which would sharply curtail the demand for drones.
Eisenhower was prophetic in his warning about the threat of the original complex (which he had planned to call the military-industrial-congressional complex) to American democracy. But that original complex, organized merely to maximize the production of arms to enhance the power and resources of both the Pentagon and their contractor allies, has become a much more serious menace to the security of the American people than even Eisenhower could have anticipated. Now it is a system of war that powerful arms contractors and their bureaucratic allies may have the ability to maintain indefinitely.
*
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.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative. He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
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.
VAERS data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 927,740 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 19,532 deaths and 146,720 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 26, 2021.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today released new data showing a total of 927,740 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 26, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. 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 8,986 U.S. deaths reported as of Nov. 26, 20% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 26% 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., 454 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 24. This includes 264 million doses of Pfizer, 173 million doses of Moderna and 16 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
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 Nov. 26, 2021 for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
2,586 adverse events, including 34 rated as serious and 2 reported deaths. One death occurred in an 11-year-old girl from Georgia vaccinated Sept. 14, prior to the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in the 5 to 11 age group.
The second death (VAERS I.D. 1890705) occurred in a 5-year-old girl who died four days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer.
1,581 adverse events have been reported in the 5 to 11 age group since Nov. 1.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 26, 2021 for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 16-year-old girl from Georgia (VAERS I.D. 1865389) who died reportedly from a heart condition and multi-organ failure two days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
60 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.
563 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 553 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
139 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 26, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.
Athletes experience devastating injuries following COVID vaccines
As The Defender reported Dec. 2, several high-performing professional athletes are facing the end of their careers after COVID vaccines destroyed their health.
World record-holder in static breath-hold freediving, veteran triathlete, professional tennis player, professional mountain biker—all high-performing athletes until COVID vaccines ruined their health + their careers.#TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/L76vBedOOW
Florian Dagoury, a world record-holder in static breath-hold freediving, who once held his breath for a shocking 10 minutes and 30 seconds, was diagnosed with myocarditis, pericarditis and trivial mitral regurgitation after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Dagoury said he now struggles to reach an 8-minute breath-hold, feels an urge to breathe doing 40-minute dives, can’t keep his heart rate low and experienced a 30% decrease in his diving performance.
Veteran triathlete Antoine Méchin, 32, is also facing the potential end to his career after experiencing a pulmonary embolism after receiving Moderna’s COVID vaccine.
The symptoms, which included breathing problems and arm pain, started after the first dose, but doctors brushed off his shortness of breath as related to stress and fatigue.
Jeremy Chardy, a 34-year old professional tennis player ranked 73rd in the world, suspended his season due to a severe adverse reaction to a COVID vaccine, which left him unable to engage in intense activity.
Kyle Warner, a 29-year-old professional mountain bike racer, developed pericarditis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and reactive arthritis following his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Warner’s reaction was so severe that, as of October, he was still spending days in bed, overwhelmed by too much mental or physical exertion.
Two professional soccer players collapse during games
A professional soccer player collapsed suddenly on Nov. 25, during a Real Madrid’s Champions League game with Sheriff Tiraspol, a Moldovan soccer club, ZeroHedge reported.
Adama Traore, 26, a winger for Sherriff Tiraspol, was seen clutching his chest as he slumped to the ground in the middle of the game as medics rushed to revive him. The reasons behind Traore’s collapse and why he was suffering from chest pains have not been confirmed.
Traore’s collapse occurred the night after another player, Sheffield United’s John Fleck, went down during a match against Reading. Fleck was taken off on a stretcher after receiving lengthy treatment.
When a radio pundit questioned whether Fleck had received the COVID vaccine, his live feed to the show was cut.
A major German newspaper, Berliner Zeitung, recently published a report attempting to answer why an “unusually large number of professional and amateur soccer players have collapsed recently.”
The article listed many recent cases of players who experienced heart problems or collapsed on the field — in some cases resulting in death.
Pfizer seeks authorization for boosters shots for 16- and 17-year-olds
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a tweet on Tuesday the pharma giant, along with BioNTech, formally asked the FDA to authorize COVID booster doses for 16- and 17-year olds.
If approved, the shot would be the first booster available to people under 18.
The FDA could approve Pfizer’s booster doses for 16- and 17-year olds as soon as next week, according to people familiar with the matter.
COVID vaccines may be associated with heightened risk of myopericarditis among men
To help determine whether a correlation exists between COVID vaccines and myopericarditis, researchers tracked data from more than 268,000 adults in Massachusetts who received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine between August 2020 and May 2021.
The researchers compared the data to a control group made up of 235,000 of the same patients — from 2018 and 2019, well before they had received any doses of a COVID vaccine.
In a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology, the researchers found the age-adjusted incidence rate of myopericarditis in men was higher in the vaccinated than the control population, while the incidence rate of myopericarditis in women was the same between the vaccinated and control populations.
They also found an increased incidence of myocardial injury in both men and women in 2021 compared to 2019, although they suggested some of the apparent increase in the diagnosis of myopericarditis after vaccination may be attributable to factors unrelated to the COVID vaccines.
Moderna CEO says Omicron COVID booster could be ready by March
Moderna President Stephen Hoge said Wednesday boosters of its COVID vaccine targeting the Omicron variant could be ready for U.S. authorization as early as March.
Moderna is also developing a multivalent vaccine targeting Omicron and three other COVID variants, although the shot will not be available for several more months, Forbes reported.
March is the earliest date an Omicron booster could be approved under current FDA guidelines, though the company can start manufacturing the vaccine during testing.
Hoge said he thinks existing vaccines “will be able to slow down, if not completely stop, the Omicron variant.”
*
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.
A man in Pennsylvania has reported that his niece, Harper, was taken to the ICU recently due to having a stroke and hemorrhaging in her brain, 7 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot.
The uncle, Barry Gewin, does not refer to the shot she received as a “vaccine,” but a “lethal injection” that is “pure evil,” suggesting that he might have a different opinion about the Pfizer shots for children than maybe his brother does, the father of Harper.
At one point he posted an update along with a short video stating that Harper was beginning to walk again.
But in a subsequent comment, he appeared to be reporting that she had lapsed again and was not “eating, drinking, sitting up, or walking,” according to his brother.
He does not state the age of his niece, that I could see, but other comments seemed to mention that she is 7-years-old.
An Obligation and Commitment to the Truth
I am afraid that this is what it is going to take to bring these COVID-19 lethal injection casualties in children to the public. Family members and friends cannot just sit by and watch this happen, especially if the parents are reluctant to go public with their child’s COVID-19 “vaccine” injuries and deaths, as most assuredly the majority of them will be pressured to keep quiet about this, as they deal with their own guilt and shame.
Not a single Governor of either a Red or Blue State has stepped in to stop these bioweapons from being injected into children, even though they have the power to do so, so they are complicit with these injuries and murders, as unaware parents take their children in to get injected and be abused with these shots.
Do not let the blood of these innocent children whose parents are foolishly sacrificing their children to the vaccine gods stain your own hands with blood. Let the public know what is going on, letting this evil see the light of day, and not hiding in the darkness.
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)
You can send their stories to us, and also to The COVID Blog, and The COVID World, who are also publishing many of these stories.
Share this video far and wide showing what parents have already gone through in losing their children to the Vaccine Cult.
*
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.
General Secretary of the UN, Mr António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres UK Prime Minister, Mr Boris Johnson French President, Mr Emmanuel Macron German Chancellor, Mrs Angela Merkel High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles US President, Mr Joe Biden Chinese President, Mr Xi Jinping Russian President, Mr Vladimir Putin
As state officials from the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia are currently meeting with the Iranian delegation in Vienna for a new round of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, we the undersigned note and demand the following:
The United States left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, under the pressure from Israel, when Iran was in verified total compliance with its commitments.
Iran’s nuclear program has proven to be peaceful and no credible evidence has been presented which contradicts the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
The economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and its European allies is an illegal and criminal act of war on the Iranian population. It has killed thousands of innocent people, damaged and impeded critical infrastructure projects and social programmes, and inflicted incalculable suffering on Iranian society.
Iran and Iranians have been constantly targeted with terrorism and threatened with military attack by Israel and the US, in clear violation of the UN Charter.
The negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program have been constantly exploited by the hegemonic powers to pressure Iran to compromise its security and to surrender its rights of independence and national sovereignty.
We demand:
The unconditional return of the United States to the JCPOA as signed in 2015.
Removal of all sanctions.
Stopping the threats of war.
Bringing pressure by the international community upon Israel to join the NPT and for its nuclear arsenal disarmament.
Initial List of Endorsers
Organizations:
Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMI)
Free Palestine Movement
House of Latin America, Research Center
International Action Center
International Solidarity Movement-Northern California
NakbaTour
One State Assembly
Palbox
Palestine Children’s Welfare Fund
Resumen Latinoamericano
Solidarity Iran – SI
Syria Solidarity Movement
Workers World
Individuals
Abdollahi, Mahmoudreza: Translator, Cultural and Peace Activist
Abutalebi, Ali: Publisher, MazmoonBooks, Executive Director
Ahrabi, Fereydoon: Professor of Statistics
Anthony, Navid: Public Health Manager, Political activist
Anthony, Simon: England Green Party, IT College Lecturer
August، Arnold: Canada, Journalist Contributing Editor for The Canada Files & Authors
Azad, Bahman: PhD Sociology, Executive Secretary, US Peace Council
Azin, Kazem: Solidarity Iran SI, US Coordinator
Bahrani, Assadolah H. : Economic Teacher
Bello, Judith, Syria Solidarity Movement, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Clay, Am: December 12th Movement International Secretariat
Edalat, Abbas: Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics, Imperial College, London, Founder of CASMII (Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran)
Edmonds, Sibel: The Founder and Editor-in-chief of the NewsBud
Flounders, Sara: International Action Center
Gharavi, Nureddin: Peace Activist
Golestani, Khosro : Political Analyst and Translator
Gorbani, Mohammad : Translator, Antiwar Activist
Golestani, Mohammad-Ali: Peace Activist
Haghpassand, Marjaneh : Environmental Activist
Kia، Siamak: Peace Activist
Kovalik, Dan: American Labors Rights, Human Rights Lawyer.
Lombardo, Joe: Coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Maguire, Mairead: Irish Peace Activist, Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Marjaee, Fareed: Peace Activist, Writer
Mazarei, Ahmad: Writer and Translator
Moradi, Elmira: Peace Activist
Maupin, Caleb: Journalist, Political Analyst
Nabavi, Badieh: Peace Activist, France
Nabavi, Mir-Mahmoud: Translator, Peace and Cultural Activist
Namdari, Reza: Peace Activist
Omani, Elinor: Cofounder AFIC
Pahlavan, Salome’: Peace Activist
Rashidi, Iraj: Political Analysts
Raoufi-Rad, Vahid: Mainframe Consultant, Sydney, Australia
Rezvi, Sarbaz Roohulla: Peace and Justice Activist, Kashmir, India
Rohani, Ali: Poet, Peace Activist
Rouiniyan, Negar: Peace and Cultural Activist
Rehmani, Tasleem: President of Muslim Political Council of India
Saedi, Anwar: Attorney at Law
Saeedi, Bahman: Political Activist
Sassani, Massoud: Economist, USA
Shahabi, Farhad: Researcher in International Relations, Austria
Shahabi, Mehrdad: Translator, Peace and Cultural Activist
Shahabi, Mehrnaz: Peace and Cultural Activist, Independent Researcher, UK
Shahrabi, Abdolhamid: Solidarity Iran – SI, Coordinator
Shafazand, Azita: Political Activist
Sheehan, Cindy: Prominent American Antiwar Activist
Shiri, Ebrahim: Writer and Translator
Silverstein, Richard: Journalist, USA
Taghavi, Mahdad: Peace and Cultural Activist, UK
Talaee, Ahmad: Political Activist
Tavallai, Majid: Peace Activist
Tchanguizi, Ali: Peace Activist
Teymouri, Hossein: Translator, Cultural and Peace Activist, Canada
Taheri, Sherwin: Media Activist, Journalist
Taherian, Mohammadreza: Political Analyst, Editor in Chief, Danesh O Mardom Journal
Vahedian, Farshid: Translator, Cultural and Peace Activist, USA
Wilayto, Phil: Editor, The Virginia Defender – USA
*
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.
The head of the Indian Bar Association’s legal cell, Dipali Ojha, details the latest developments of her organization’s ongoing pursuit of justice and accountability related to her country’s management of covid and vaccination.
Ojha details a string of wins and talks about the her organization filing the world’s first murder charges against Bill Gates as a vaccine manufacturer. Link to case against Gates.
*
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.
‘When you tell a student, get injected or get expelled, there is no free and informed consent to this vaccine,’ John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms stressed.
The head of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) says Canadian universities with COVID jab mandates are violating the Nuremberg Code by “punishing students who exercise their legal right to bodily autonomy.”
“Universities are blatantly violating the Nuremberg Code, as well as the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights by pressuring students to get injected,” John Carpay said in a JCCF video posted Monday titled “Universities violate Nuremberg Code with vaccine coercion.”
“When you tell a student, get injected or get expelled, there is no free and informed consent to this vaccine.”
Carpay said in his video that the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights provides that any “preventive diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention” should only be carried out with the “prior free and informed consent of the person concerned based on adequate information.”
According to Carpay, universities are also tarnishing their “reputation as institutions of reason and science.”
In August, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released a 2021 Campus Vaccine Index intending to help students and their parents to see what type of COVID mandates each of Canada’s 61 public universities has.
The JCCF index found that around 65 percent of Canada’s public universities did not enact mandatory COVID jab policies for the start of the new school year.
However, this still leaves 35 percent that did mandate the COVID jabs.
Just recently, 22-year-old Canadian engineering student Harry Wade was dragged out of his Western University class by cops because he was not vaccinated against COVID-19. Wade says he is ready to fight his court summons.
Many do not want the COVID injections due to safety concerns surrounding the jabs. There have been reports of thousands of people who have developed tumors after getting their COVID shots.
Also, many Catholics, Christians, and even agnostics object to the novel medical injections because cell lines derived from aborted babies were used either in their development or their testing.
The Nuremberg Code was drafted in 1947 after the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. The trials put a spotlight on Nazi doctors and scientists for their inhumane experiments on people.
The first principle the code lists is that “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” in any type of medical procedure or experiment.
Carpay: Students are being denied their ‘futures’ because of jab mandates
In the video, Carpay said students are being “deprived of their careers, their futures and their success” for refusing to go along with jab mandates, despite facing “no threat from COVID.”
Carpay said the COVID “vaccine has not been subjected to long-term safety testing,” and called out known risks associated with them.
“For young men ages 18 to 24, the vaccine poses a risk of serious heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis. For young men, this risk of vaccine harm is higher than the risk of harm from COVID,” Carpay said.
“Mandatory vaccination policies are based on the disproven idea that the COVID vaccine actually stops the spread of COVID. However, COVID vaccines do not stop individuals from contracting or transmitting this virus.”
Carpay noted that even the vaccine manufacturers “themselves have stated publicly that there is no evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of COVID from person to person.”
“We also know that Israel, Ireland, Gibraltar and other places with very high vaccination rates continue to see plenty of people sick with COVID,” Carpay said.
“Harvard, Cornell and other universities with vaccination rates of 95 percent or higher are still seeing more COVID during the current academic year than they had last year. If the vaccine does not stop the spread of COVID, why force young and healthy university students or anyone for that matter, to take it.”
Canadian Dr. Patrick Phillips, who works in rural Ontario, has for months been calling out COVID jab mandates along with restrictions.
In his opinion, preventive measures such as a higher intake of Vitamin D and C and Zinc are key to beating the virus, as well as the use of Ivermectin.
Phillips told LifeSiteNews earlier in the year that a growing number of doctors in Canada “are a movement of physicians who are going to follow the Nuremberg Code, a diverse group of physicians. We are not anti-vaccine, or even anti-lockdown necessarily.”
Phillips has now had sanctions placed on him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He is barred from prescribing Ivermectin as well as handing out COVID exemptions.
Harvard trained lawyer: COVID jabs being forced on people is ‘Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz all over again’
In a November 29 opinion piece published on LifeSiteNews, Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote about a video interview he did with Dr. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law who has called out lawmakers pushing COVID jabs.
Boyle is a Harvard-trained lawyer, whom Mercola wrote wants COVID pushing-pushing lawmakers held accountable for “murder.”
Mercola wrote that he had interviewed Boyle about “likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 having been engineered in a lab” and that those responsible for the virus need to be held accountable.
“These are the exact same people, the FDA, who are authorizing all of these frankenshots, including last week for kids from 5 to 11. So, they developed this biological warfare weapon and now they’re approving all the frankenshots. This is a one-two punch against the American people,” Boyle said to Mercola.
“What we’re seeing now with these frankenshots for children, this is Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz all over again. That’s where this Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation came from.”
Boyle also said to Mercola that “In the Nuremberg Charter judgment and principles, ‘a crime against humanity’ is defined in part as ‘murder, extermination or other inhumane acts committed against a civilian population.’ That’s what’s going on right now against the American population.”
As for Carpay, he said that the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics “requires that subjects can exercise free power of choice without any force fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”
Despite the Canadian government praising the effectiveness of the COVID jabs, trials have never produced evidence that vaccines stop infection or transmission. In fact, they do not even claim to reduce hospitalization, but the measurement of success is in preventing severe symptoms of COVID-19.
*
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.
South Australian Senator Alex Antic was taken into hotel quarantine under police escort in Adelaide on Thursday night. The senator who has been very vocal against vaccine mandates is now forced to quarantine for two weeks.
The bizarre incident comes after Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted in an interview last Friday that the senator has received both doses of the COVID vaccine.
The senator was asked by ABC Radio Adelaide on Friday why he was taken to a hotel to quarantine for two weeks to which he responded:
“That’s a very good question.
I’ve been a person who has been very, very vocal about mandates, vaccine passports, discrimination, government overreach and bureaucratic overreach.
Now all of a sudden I seem to have been singled out in what appears to be a political stunt and the only inference you can really draw from this is this has been quite premeditated.
My wife and my three-month-child are now at home for another two weeks without me.”
Scott Morrison has revealed he was “surprised” that Antic was detained and locked up in a medi-hotel for the unvaccinated on Thursday night because he believed he had been fully vaccinated.
“It was certainly my understanding that he’d been double vaccinated. And I had discussed vaccinations and made it very clear that that’s what I understood him to be, double vaccinated. So I was surprised.”
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 images in this article are from The COVID World
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.
Citing threats to Honolulu’s drinking water, the Sierra Club of Hawaii and the Oahu Water Protectors have called on President Biden, the Hawaii congressional delegation, and the U.S. military to shut down the leaking fuel tanks.
The long citizen protest underscoring the dangers from the U.S. Navy’s 80-year-old leaking 20 jet fuel tanks at Red Hill each tank 20 stories tall and holding a total of 225 million gallons of jet fuel came to a head over the weekend with Navy families around the large Pearl Harbor Naval Base being sickened by fuel in their home tap water. The Navy’s huge jet fuel tank complex is only 100 feet above Honolulu’s water supply and has been leaking with regularity.
The Navy command was slow to alert the community while the State of Hawai’i quickly issued a notice not to drink the water. Foster Village community members stated that they were smelling fuel after the November 20, 2021 release of 14,000 gallons of water and fuel from a fire suppression drain line a quarter-mile downhill from the fuel tank farm. The Navy has acknowledged that another pipeline fuel leak of more than 1,600 gallons of fuel had occurred on May 6 due to human error and that some of the fuel likely “reached the environment.”
All hell broke loose at four military community town hall meetings on November 30, 2021 when the Navy told housing residents that they should flush the water out of home pipes, the smell and fuel sheen would go away and they could use the water. Residents yelled at military briefers that the State of Hawai’i Department of Health was warning resident not to drink or use the water.
Three wells and water shafts serve the 93,000 military and family members around Pearl Harbor. Water samples have been sent for analysis to a laboratory in California to determine what type of contamination is in the water.
Over 470 persons have made comments on the Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam community Facebook about a fuel smell coming from their water taps and a sheen on the water. Military families are reporting headaches, rashes and diarrhea in children and pets. Basic hygiene, showers and laundry are major concerns of residents.
Valerie Kaahanui, who lives in the Dorris Miller military housing community, said she and her three kids began noticing problems about a week ago. “My kids have been sick, respiratory issues, headaches. I’ve had a headache for the past week,” she said. “My kids have had nosebleeds, rashes, we’ve been itchy after we get out of the shower. It feels like our skin is burning.” Kaahanui added that on Saturday, a smell became noticeable in the shower, and on Sunday, it was “heavy” and a film was noticeable on top of the water.
Hawaii’s 4-person Congressional delegation has finally begun challenging the safety of the U.S. Navy’s Red Hill jet fuel tank complex and met with the Secretary of the Navy. Afterwards they issued a joint statement that read: “The Navy owes the community straightforward communications on all events that occur at Red Hill and a commitment to address concerns with the Red Hill infrastructure no matter the cost. Given the resources and engineering expertise available to the Navy, we made it clear that there is zero tolerance for endangering the health and safety of the public or the environment.”
On December 1, Tanaka stated, “We’ve locked horns with the Navy for the last several years. I’m just trying to get them to acknowledge the risk—existential risks—that this fuel facility poses to our drinking water supply. It’s still unclear how and where fuel flow, if there is a massive leak, how quickly and whether it will actually migrate toward the Halawa shaft, which again would be pretty catastrophic. We all want to make sure that this doesn’t become a harbinger of things to come of what may be impacting a much, much, much broader segment of the population here.”
Dangers from the Underground Jet Fuel Storage Tanks
The facts presented in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club against the Navy presented the evidence of the dangers of the 80 year old tanks include:
1). Eight of the tanks, each containing millions of gallons of fuel, have not been inspected in over two decades; three of these have not been inspected in 38 years;
2). Leaked fuel and fuel components have already been found in the groundwater below the facility;
3). The thin steel tank walls are corroding faster than the Navy anticipated due to moisture in the gaps between the tanks and their concrete casing;
4). The Navy’s system to test and monitor tanks for leaks cannot detect slow leaks that may indicate a heightened risk for larger, catastrophic leaks; cannot prevent human error that has led to large releases of fuel in the past; and cannot prevent an earthquake, like the one that spilled 1,100 barrels of fuel when the tanks were brand new.
In 2014, 27,000 gallons of jet fuel leaked from Tank 5;
In March 2020, a pipeline connected to Red Hill leaked an unknown quantity of fuel into Pearl Harbor Hotel Pier. The leak, which had stopped, started again in June 2020. Approximately 7,100 gallons of fuel was collected from the surrounding environment;
In January 2021, a pipeline that leads to the Hotel Pier area failed two leak detection tests. In February, a Navy contractor determined that there is an active leak at Hotel Pier. The Department of Health only found out in May 2021;
In May 2021, over 1,600 gallons of fuel leaked from the facility due to human error after a control room operator failed to follow correct procedures;
In July 2021, 100 gallons of fuel was released into Pearl Harbor, possibly from a source connected to the Red Hill facility;
In November 2021, residents from the neighborhoods of Foster Village and Aliamanu called 911 to report the smell of fuel, later found likely to have come from a leak from a fire suppression drain line connected to Red Hill. -The Navy reported that about 14,000 gallons of a fuel-water mixture had leaked;
The Navy’s own risk assessment reports that there is a 96% chance that up to 30,000 gallons of fuel will leak into the aquifer over the next 10 years.
Is Human Security Also National Security?
The Navy has warned that the tanks are vital for U.S. national security. Citizen activists, including the newly formed Oahu Water Protectors coalition, have maintained that the real national security issue is the security of the water supply for 400,000 resident on an island 2300 miles from the closest continent and an island considered a key military location for projection of power. If the Honolulu aquifer is contaminated, water would have to be transported from the other aquifers on the island.
It is ironic that the major test of human security vs. national security centers on the drinking water contamination of the military families and military members that provide the human element of the US military strategy in the Pacific..and that the safety of the 400,000 who drink from the aquifer of 970,000 civilians who live on Oahu will be determined on how the State of Hawai’i and the federal government force the US Navy to eliminate the major catastrophic danger to the islands water supply by finally shutting down the Red Hill jet fuel tanks.
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
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.
Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.”
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.
Israel seems to have acquired another formidably biased ally in the latest US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Her Trump era predecessor Nikki Haley once said, “If there’s anything I have no patience for, it is bullies – and the UN was being such a bully to Israel because they could.” Thomas-Greenfield is going down the same route; less fiery language, perhaps, and more diplomatic tact, but subjugating Palestinians to Israel’s colonial violence nonetheless.
During a briefing to the UN Security Council this week, Thomas-Greenfield spoke about Palestinians’ security concerns while invalidating them in the same speech by upholding Israel’s security narrative.
Israeli settlers, she noted, are attacking Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, while settlement expansion is threatening the two-state paradigm. However, Israel has “real and understandable security concerns” about which the UN is not doing enough. That’s if the US narrative is to be believed which, of course, it shouldn’t.
Israelis “interpret the overwhelming focus on Israel in this body as a denial of Israel’s right to exist and an unfair focus on this one country – and they are correct,” Thomas-Greenfield declared. Only a few days ago, the UN Secretary General made sure that the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People did not infringe on Israel’s colonial existence. So how can the US ambassador claim that the UN is denying Israel’s right to exist, when the two-state framework and the 1947 Partition Plan endorsed colonialism in Palestine and has protected it ever since?
The UN’s “unfair” focus on Israel is favourable to the settler-colonial enterprise. Its alleged unfairness has generated unrivalled impunity for Israel, while Palestinians have been begging for their political rights for decades to no avail. While Israel is recognised, endorsed and supported, Palestinians have lost so much territory that recognition of a Palestinian state renders no tangible benefits in terms of state-building. The “unfair focus” to which Thomas-Greenfield refers has allowed a colonial settlement project – with war crimes, as the International Criminal Court determined – to continue without any punitive measures, while Palestinians remain stuck in a perpetual cycle of dispossession. “Unfair focus” has also prioritised Israel’s existence over the Palestinian right of return, which the international community has long since written off as unfeasible and worthy only as a symbolic gesture, as opposed to a necessary political reckoning.
Thomas-Greenfield’s rhetoric takes the purported anti-Israel bias at the UN to a whole new level. The UN does not speak of decolonisation, let alone “a denial of Israel’s right to exist”, as she puts it. On the contrary, the UN affirmed Israel’s existence despite knowing that the creation of the settler-colonial state was based upon the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land.
In fact, so favourable is the UN’s focus on Israel, that Palestine is defined through Israel’s colonial requirements that will only consider complete annihilation of the land and its people as an acceptable end result. Hence the silence on Israel’s de-facto annexation of ever more Palestinian land, while issuing futile reprimands on settlement expansion and promoting dissociation between Israel’s violations of international law to avoid speaking of decolonisation. In light of all the pro-Israel bias at the UN, what else do the US and Israel expect from the international community?
*
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).
Written with foresight, this incisive article by Rudolf Haensel first published by Global Research on August 3, 2021
***
On the fringes of a demonstration against the introduction of the green passport in Italy, a demonstrator described what we citizens can expect in the near future – if we let it happen:
“We will soon see how the vaccinated will attack us. People are being played off against each other.
Last year it was those who had jobs and those who lost them. This year, society will be divided between those who are vaccinated and those who are not.” (1)
Peaceful citizens are thus pitted against each other to advance the eugenics agenda of the ruling “elite”. Those responsible for this diabolical plan will wash their hands of the matter and blame the expected coven – as in every war – on the supposedly innate aggression instinct of man. But this is a myth that has always served tyrants of all stripes as a welcome legitimisation for fratricide or genocide. In truth, man is inherently good and not evil.
“The myth of the aggression instinct”
The doctrine of the inherited aggression drive or aggression instinct is one of the most controversial formulas with the help of which psychoanalysts and animal behaviourists seek to explain problems of the political and social situation, indeed of the history of human coexistence per se. But the self-evidence with which, following Konrad Lorenz (1903-1983), an innate aggression instinct is spoken of is by no means justified. This is shown by representatives of various sciences in the anthology “Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb” (2). Lorenz was an Austrian representative of “animal psychology”. According to the findings of the human sciences anthropology, sociology and psychology, man is by nature good and not evil.
Man has an inhibition to kill, an original aversion to killing. However, in order for him to attack his fellow human being anyway, this inhibition must be eliminated through appropriate explanations. The German philosopher Arno Plack calls it in the above-mentioned anthology from the 1970s:
“Militant leaders always had and have to reckon with the fact that a vital conscience resists carrying out orders to kill. And they took this into account by declaring, as they have done over the centuries, that the people or group they were fighting against were not really human beings at all, but ‘higher animals’ (as Pope Paul III said of the Indians) or ‘beasts’, ‘heathens’, ‘witches’, ‘subhumans’, ‘vermin’ even, which had to be exterminated. Thus manipulation of consciousness on the part of murderous rulers intervenes to bring people who still feel differently up to speed.” (3)
This view of Plack’s is confirmed by more recent specialist literature. For the renowned American social psychologist and violence researcher Philip Zimbardo, it is the power of circumstances that makes people violent criminals and murderers. In his book “The Lucifer Effect” he writes:
“It is not disposition that makes good people do evil, but the situation they find themselves in or are put in.” (4)
The prerequisite for the acts, he says, is that the victims are declared a threat and dehumanised at the same time. In Rwanda, the Hutu government proclaimed that Tutsis were nothing more than “hangovers” and therefore deserved to die. German Nazis portrayed Jews as dangerous “vermin”.
Today, the large group of unvaccinated fellow citizens is declared by the adlates of the ruling “elite” to be a life-threatening danger to the health of the population group of the already vaccinated, which should be urgently fought against or even excluded from the human community. Independent thinkers have long been discriminated against as confused “lateral thinkers”, as incorrigible “conspiracy theorists” and thus as a threat to those in power – and cleared for shooting down by the mass media. Where will this lead, if more and more authority-affiliated, government-loyal fellow citizens join this misanthropic and dangerous view – and the victims of this state discrimination campaign will not put up with it? The worldwide demonstrations and the apparent use of disproportionate force by mandated police forces does not bode well.
Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav: “History repeats itself”
The past histories of past civil, regional and world wars provide enough illustrative material to make one prick up one’s ears and yet still be perceptive. This includes the denigration of the Russian president and Russian citizens that has been going on for years as a method of psychological warfare.
In an article in the Austrian “Wochenblick” of 3 July, the Holocaust survivor, Mrs. Vera Sharav, is quoted as saying: “History repeats itself” (5). It is worth quoting longer passages from this article verbatim:
“Vera Sharav survived the Holocaust as a child. She describes: ‘When I came to New York, I asked myself: where was everyone? Where was everyone when I was in hell?’ Justice and not looking away when injustice happens is therefore a major concern for Sharav. Sucharit Bhakdi was recently accused of being anti-Semitic for calling Israel ‘hell on earth’. But Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav agrees with him: ‘I wish it were not so.’ History is repeating itself. They call for Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Covid ‘crime against humanity’.
Sharav explains,
“The Nazi crimes happened without contradiction to International Law. But the Nuremberg Trials emerged, which provided justice and introduced the concept of crimes against humanity. So that something like what happened in Nazi Germany could never happen again. The Nuremberg Code was introduced in the wake of the Doctors’ Trials (1946) after World War II and was intended to ensure the ethical treatment of people by the media. But nevertheless, history is now repeating itself. (…)
It is terrible for Sharav to witness the decline of democracy now. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom have been suspended, as in Nazi Germany, analyses the Holocaust survivor. This is a great betrayal of trust that the governments are committing against their people. Sharav strongly criticises the Israeli government. She is shocked at how non-vaccinated people are demonised. ‘Under the Nazis, Jews were stigmatised as spreaders of disease and locked up in camps.‘ Now a two-class society would be created again. Society would be divided into the privileged and the underprivileged.” (6)
*
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. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
This incisive and timely article by award winning author Jonathan Cook was published on March 24, 2021,
***
Welcome to the age of fear. Nothing is more corrosive of the democratic impulse than fear. Left unaddressed, it festers, eating away at our confidence and empathy.
We are now firmly in a time of fear – not only of the virus, but of each other. Fear destroys solidarity. Fear forces us to turn inwards to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Fear refuses to understand or identify with the concerns of others.
In fear societies, basic rights become a luxury. They are viewed as a threat, as recklessness, as a distraction that cannot be afforded in this moment of crisis.
Once fear takes hold, populations risk agreeing to hand back rights, won over decades or centuries, that were the sole, meagre limit on the power of elites to ransack the common wealth. In calculations based on fear, freedoms must make way for other priorities: being responsible, keeping safe, averting danger.
Worse, rights are surrendered with our consent because we are persuaded that the rights themselves are a threat to social solidarity, to security, to our health.
‘Too noisy’ protests
It is therefore far from surprising that the UK’s draconian new Police and Crime Bill – concentrating yet more powers in the police – has arrived at this moment. It means that the police can prevent non-violent protest that is likely to be too noisy or might create “unease” in bystanders. Protesters risk being charged with a crime if they cause “nuisance” or set up protest encampments in public places, as the Occupy movement did a decade ago.
And damaging memorials – totems especially prized in a time of fear for their power to ward off danger – could land protesters, like those who toppled a statue to notorious slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol last summer, a 10-year jail sentence.
Police & Crime Bill allows for:-
• Gypsy & Traveller vehicles to be seized; • 3 months jail or £2.5k fine for a nomadic life without a travellers passport; • Banning of “disruptive” protests; • Up to 10 years jail for damage to a statue;
In other words, this is a bill designed to outlaw the right to conduct any demonstration beyond the most feeble and ineffective kind. It makes permanent current, supposedly extraordinary limitations on protest that were designed, or so it was said, to protect the public from the immediate threat of disease.
Protest that demands meaningful change is always noisy and disruptive. Would the suffragettes have won women the vote without causing inconvenience and without offending vested interests that wanted them silent?
What constitutes too much noise or public nuisance? In a time of permanent pandemic, it is whatever detracts from the all-consuming effort to extinguish our fear and insecurity. When we are afraid, why should the police not be able to snatch someone off the street for causing “unease”?
The UK bill is far from unusual. Similar legislation – against noisy, inconvenient and disruptive protest – is being passed in states across the United States. Just as free speech is being shut down on the grounds that we must not offend, so protest is being shut down on the grounds that we must not disturb.
From the outbreak of the virus, there were those who warned that the pandemic would soon serve as a pretext to take away basic rights and make our societies less free. Those warnings soon got submerged in, or drowned out by, much wilder claims, such as that the virus was a hoax or that it was similar to flu, or by the libertarian clamour against lockdowns and mask-wearing.
Binary choices
What was notable was the readiness of the political and media establishments to intentionally conflate and confuse reasonable and unreasonable arguments to discredit all dissent and lay the groundwork for legislation of this kind.
The purpose has been to force on us unwelcome binary choices. We are either in favour of all lockdowns or indifferent to the virus’ unchecked spread. We are either supporters of enforced vaccinations or insensitive to the threat the virus poses to the vulnerable. We are either responsible citizens upholding the rules without question or selfish oafs who are putting everyone else at risk.
A central fracture line has opened up – in part a generational one – between those who are most afraid of the virus and those who are most afraid of losing their jobs, of isolation and loneliness, of the damage being done to their children’s development, of the end of a way of life they valued, or of the erasure of rights they hold inviolable.
The establishment has been sticking its crowbar into that split, trying to prise it open and turn us against each other.
‘Kill the Bill’
Where this heads was only too visible in the UK at the weekend when protesters took to the streets of major cities. They did so – in another illustration of binary choices that now dominate our lives – in violation of emergency Covid regulations banning protests. There was a large march through central London, while another demonstration ended in clashes between protesters and police in Bristol.
What are the protesters – most peaceful, a few not – trying to achieve? In the media, all protest at the moment is misleadingly lumped together as “anti-lockdown”, appealing to the wider public’s fear of contagion spread. But that is more misdirection: in the current, ever-more repressive climate, all protest must first be “anti-lockdown” before it can be protest.
The truth is that the demonstrators are out on the streets for a wide variety of reasons, including to protest against the oppressive new Police and Crime Bill, under the slogan “Kill the Bill”.
There are lots of well-founded reasons for people to be angry or worried at the moment. But the threat to that most cherished of all social freedoms – the right to protest – deserves to be at the top of the list.
If free speech ensures we have some agency over our own minds, protest allows us to mobilise collectively once we have been persuaded of the need and urgency to act. Protest is the chance we have to alert others to the strength of our feelings and arguments, to challenge a consensus that may exist only because it has been manufactured by political and media elites, and to bring attention to neglected or intentionally obscured issues.
Speech and protest are intimately connected. Free speech in one’s own home – like free speech in a prison cell – is a very stunted kind of freedom. It is not enough simply to know that something is unjust. In democratic societies, we must have the right to do our best to fix injustice.
Cast out as heretics
Not so long ago, none of this would have needed stating. It would have been blindingly obvious. No longer. Large sections of the population are happy to see speech rights stripped from those they don’t like or fear. They are equally fine, it seems, with locking up people who cause a “nuisance” or are “too noisy” in advancing a cause with which they have no sympathy – especially so long as fear of the pandemic takes precedence.
My latest: Trump is not the cause of US political woes, he is one obnoxious symptom. For that reason, banning him from Twitter will not heal the US political divide, it will deepen and inflame it https://t.co/Qe5FYwSICN
That is how fear works. The establishment has been using fear to keep us divided and weak since time immemorial. The source of our fear can be endlessly manipulated: black men, feminists, Jews, hippies, travellers, loony lefties, libertarians. The only limitation is that the object of our fear must be identifiable and distinguishable from those who think of themselves as responsible, upstanding citizens.
In a time of pandemic, those who are to be feared can encompass anyone who does not quietly submit to those in authority. Until recently there had been waning public trust in traditional elites such as politicians, journalists and economists. But that trend has been reversed by a new source of authority – the medical establishment.
Because today’s mantra is “follow the science”, anyone who demurs from or questions that science – even when the dissenters are other scientists – can be cast out as a heretic. The political logic of this is rarely discussed, even though it is profoundly dangerous.
Political certainty
Politicians have much to gain from basking in the reflected authority of science. And when politics and science are merged, as is happening now, dissent can be easily reformulated as either derangement or criminal intent. On this view, to be against lockdown or to be opposed to taking a vaccine is not just wrong but as insane as denying the laws of gravity. It is proof of one’s irrationality, of the menace one poses to the collective.
But medicine – the grey area between the science and art of human health – is not governed by laws in the way gravity is. That should be obvious the moment we consider the infinitely varied ways Covid has affected us as individuals.
The complex interplay between mind and body means reactions to the virus, and the drugs to treat it, are all but impossible to predict with any certainty. Which is why there are 90-year-olds who have comfortably shaken off the virus and youths who have been felled by it.
But a politics of “follow the science” implies that issues relating to the virus and how we respond to it – or how we weigh the social and economic consequences of those responses – are purely scientific. That leaves no room for debate, for disagreement. And authoritarianism is always lurking behind the façade of political certainty.
Public coffers raided
In a world where politicians, journalists and medical elites are largely insulated from the concerns of ordinary people – precisely the world we live in – protest is the main way to hold these elites accountable, to publicly test their political and “scientific” priorities against our social and economic priorities.
That is a principle our ancestors fought for. You don’t have to agree with what Piers Corbyn says to understand the importance that he and others be allowed to say it – and not just in their living rooms, and not months or years hence, if and when the pandemic is declared over.
The right to protest must be championed even through a health crisis –most especially during a health crisis, when our rights are most vulnerable to erasure. The right to protest needs to be supported even by those who back lockdowns, even by those who fear that protests during Covid are a threat to public health. And for reasons that again should not need stating.
Politicians and the police must not be the ones to define what protests are justified, what protests are safe, what protests are responsible.
Because otherwise, those in power who took advantage of the pandemic to raid the public coffers and waste billions of pounds on schemes whose main purpose was to enrich their friends have every reason to dismiss anyone who protests against their cupidity and incompetence as endangering public health.
At what point does the UK officially become a banana republic? At the point when its health secretary awards a massive contract for medical supplies to his former neighbour and pub landlord? https://t.co/9DPlVXj5DB
Because otherwise, leaders who want to crush protests against their their current, and future, criminal negligence with extraordinary new police powers have every incentive to characterise their critics as anti-lockdown, or anti-vaccine, or anti-public order, or anti-science – or whatever other pretext they think will play best with the “responsible” public as they seek to cling to power.
And because otherwise, the government may decide it is in its interests to stretch out the pandemic – and the emergency regulations supposedly needed to deal with it – for as long as possible.
Selective freedoms
Quite how mercurial are the current arguments for and against protest was highlighted by widespread anger at the crushing by the Metropolitan Police this month of a vigil following the murder of Sarah Everard in London. A Met police officer has been charged with kidnapping and murdering her.
A reactionary police force full of white men picked chiefly for their physical attributes is not only inherently violent, institutionally racist and hostile towards political protest but also anti-women. Now who would have guessed that? https://t.co/PfCYwwmF1N
In the spirit of the times, there has been much wider public sympathy for a vigil for a murder victim than there has been for more overtly political demonstrations like those against the Police and Crime Bill. But if health threats are really the measure of whether large public gatherings are allowed – if we “follow the science” – then neither is justified.
That is not a conclusion any of us should be comfortable with. It is not for governments to select which types of protests they are willing to confer rights on, even during a pandemic. We either uphold the right of people to congregate when they feel an urgent need to protest – whether it be against the erosion of basic freedoms, or in favour of greater safety for vulnerable communities, or against political corruption and incompetence that costs lives – or we do not.
We either support the right of every group to hold our leaders to account or we do not. Selective freedoms, inconsistent freedoms, are freedom on licence from those in power. They are no freedom at all.
Fight for survival
What the UK’s Police and Crime Bill does, like similar legislation in the US and Europe, is to declare some protests as legitimate and others as not. It leaves it to our leaders to decide, as they are trying to do now through the pandemic, which protests constitute a “nuisance” and which do not.
The political logic of the Bill is being contested by a minority – the hippies, the leftists, the libertarians. They are standing up for the right to protest, as the majority complacently assumes that they will have no need of protest.
That is pure foolishness. We are all damaged when the right to protest is lost.
It is unlikely that the aim of the Police and Crime Bill is to keep us permanently locked down – as some fear. It has another, longer-term goal. It is being advanced in recognition by our elites that we are hurtling towards an environmental dead-end for which they have no solutions, given their addiction to easy profits and their own power.
Decades late we *again* learn that corporations lied to us, knowing they were destroying our health, and regulators failed to act.
Decades in the future, we'll learn exactly the same: that these corporations were lying to us right now and got away with it https://t.co/gj3UOqEbZq
Already a small minority understand that we are running out of time. Groups like Extinction Rebellion – just like the sufragettes before them – believe the majority can only be woken from their induced slumber if they are disturbed by noise, if their lives are disrupted.
This sane minority is treading the vanishingly thin line between alienating the majority and averting oblivion for our species. As the stakes grow higher, as awareness of imminent catastrophe intensifies, those wishing to make a nuisance of themselves, to be noisy, will grow.
What we decide now determines how that struggle plays out: whether we get to take control of our future and the fight for our survival, or whether we are forced to stay mute as the disaster unfolds.
So pray for the “anti-lockdown” protesters whether you support their cause or not – for they carry the heavy weight of tomorrow on their shoulders.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
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).
Incisive and timely article first published by Global Research on March 29, 2021
***
David Rothkopf wrote a book about the world’s richest people called Superclass. In it he noted that 161 people control $23 trillion, and that the incomes of the top 25 hedge fund managers are approximately $800 million per year each.(1) Other writers discuss the richest 0.1% of the population, who have incomes of over $2million per year in the US.(2)
They have coined the term Excessive Wealth Disorder to explain that when some people are too rich, this creates big downsides for many other people, and for society in general. This post discusses some of those downsides.
This post should ideally be read in conjunction with earlier posts that explain that excessive wealth is extracted by controlling an industry, receiving many types of unearned income (known as rent-seeking) and all manner of unethical, fraudulent or criminal activity. Excessive wealth is a symptom of an economic system that drains wealth from everybody else, because the biggest companies have enough power to exploit employees, suppliers, customers, governments and the environment. These people have not ‘earned’ their wealth. They became rich because they understand how the system is rigged.
Property and Land
The buying power of rich people can drive prices upwards so that poor people cannot afford things. This is most noticeable with property. If we allow rich people to buy as many properties as they wish in any country, then property prices in certain areas, like London, New York, and other major cities, go up.
Historically, houses in the UK cost approximately four times average earnings. Now, in London and other expensive locations, homes cost ten times average earnings.(3) Many people now spend over half their income on rent or mortgage payments.(4)
New construction is geared towards maximising profits for any given plot of land, so affordable housing is replaced with expensive housing that is mostly bought by people with excess wealth from around the world.(5) In London, 70% of new properties are sold to foreign investors, whilst poor people are forced out of their homes in what is known as ‘social cleansing’.
Wasted Energy, Wasted Time, More Costs, Lower Standard of Living
Building a property requires large amounts of energy and resources. If we want to minimise global warming and the depletion of resources, then we will have to stop wasting energy on buildings that we do not need. Additionally, if people own multiple properties in different countries, they are much more likely to fly back and forth, again wasting large amounts of energy.
Lots of properties sit empty much of the time, because they are bought primarily as an investment rather than a home. This has been described as a ‘desert of wealth.’(6) Ordinary people cannot afford them, so people who want to work in these cities have to commute further and further, increasing congestion, increasing costs for transport, and increasing energy consumption. When people spend more time travelling, they have less time to do other things, or to spend with their families, and many of them experience more stress.
Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley in the US, where many technology companies are based, is an excellent example. One commentator explained that billionaires there buy surrounding properties as a ‘privacy buffer’. They “play real-life monopoly, buying up houses on their blocks and down the street for family, staff, art collections, or to hold political and philanthropic events.”
Homes in Silicon Valley are too expensive for teachers, firemen and other public servants, who end up commuting up to 2 hours each way.(7) Alternatively, people on low pay share rooms, with one commentator saying that they had come across extreme cases of 6 people sharing a room. Many students at local schools are homeless, living in trailers and shelters.
Property is the biggest item of expenditure for many people. Expensive homes (and higher spending on transport) leave poorer people with much less to spend on everything else. This means that they have a significantly lower standard of living. This has additional knock-on consequences for the rest of the economy. They spend less at other businesses, so it becomes more difficult for businesses to survive.
High Land Rents Are Too Expensive for Local Companies
The value of land for building expensive homes means that other activities that cannot generate high revenues are no longer viable. Councils sell city hospitals so that the land can be used by property developers.(8) The hospitals are relocated out-of-town on cheaper land, which is much less convenient for many patients, but profitable for the council, and very profitable for the property developers.
Higher land values tend to increase business rents. This is fine for big international companies, such as McDonalds, but smaller or local businesses are unable to afford the rents, so more towns become clones with the same big chains. The general pattern is for small or local businesses to be priced out of the area. It becomes difficult for new, small businesses to get started. High business rents generally get passed on to customers in higher prices. This creates a general increase in the cost of living. Businesses selling high-priced coffee are of more relevance to the middle class than to the poor, who cannot afford it. In developing countries, large swathes of major cities contain only businesses that serve wealthier people. Many of the dominant businesses are international, so profits go overseas, leaving less to circulate locally.
Some local businesses, with strong ties to their communities, have benefits that go beyond economic, and are considered culturally important, but they cannot survive.(9) Local cultures are destroyed, and it becomes difficult for people with the wrong skills to earn a living in the area. Poorer communities are no longer able to easily access the businesses and services that might be useful for them.
Distorting The Economy
There have been people serving the interests of big companies for many years. This includes management consultants, corporate lawyers and lobbyists. In 2005, a report by Citigroup explained that there were going to be big profits to be made from servicing the needs of individuals with excessive wealth.(10) This has led to the creation of another layer of very well-paid jobs, such as wealth managers, tax specialists, offshore account experts, private bankers, and personal lawyers, whose main role is to serve the rich. Britain has actively changed its policies to attract excessively wealthy people. It has become the tax-dodging capital of the world, as hundreds of accountants, often from the Inland Revenue, are recruited to manipulate the tax system.(11)
Many well-educated people go to work for financial companies (particularly before the 2008 financial crisis) where their work is of no benefit to society in general. In fact their work ends up making society worse off, as it involves re-structuring the economy to enable shareholders and executives to extract more wealth from everybody else.
People with excessive wealth have so much money that they spend large amounts on status symbols. As with houses, the bigger luxury items, such as yachts, private jets, helicopters and cars like Rolls-Royces (many luxury car owners own many vehicles) use many resources to build, and use lots of energy to move because they are heavy. Pollution by the rich is on an altogether higher scale than pollution by everyone else, particularly in relation to the use of private jets, even for an occasional flight by their pets.(12)
Rich people are more likely to spend money in ways that do not benefit the majority of people. They buy imported luxury goods, such as jewellery, watches, expensive clothes, wine and cigars, and they participate in exclusive activities such as polo.(13) In some areas, such as expensive paintings, their wealth circulates in a parallel economic system, moving only between the bank accounts of the rich.
The System That Creates Excessive Wealth Causes Poverty
Advanced nations have not grown very much for the last two decades. This means that if some people are receiving more, others are receiving less. This is known as a zero-sum game. Most people in Britain are made poorer by a small amount over and over again because they pay more than they should for loans, credit card borrowing and hire–purchase agreements; for water, sewerage, electricity, gas, energy, food; for computers, phones, TVs and other electronic devices. Excessive wealth for a few people comes from the pockets of the majority. Similarly, if executives can negotiate lower pay for their employees or their suppliers, then the executives and shareholders get richer because others receive less.
The world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) makes himself wealthier by exploiting garment workers in Bangladesh, and other staff all over the world. He also uses a business-model that is excessively-damaging to the environment, using huge amounts of packaging and energy, creating large amounts of waste and contributing to climate change.(14)
Similarly, more and more people are employed with little job-security, on zero-hours contracts.(15) This has far more impact than most people realize. Uncertainty of income makes it difficult to make long-term plans. It is difficult to buy a house, or even to agree a rental contract. Borrowing money becomes more difficult, so more people are forced to use high-interest payday lenders.
The existing economic system is built around the poorest people receiving less income, and having to pay more for everything, including basic necessities. In other words, the system that creates excessive wealth is a direct cause of poverty. Some readers might be shocked by this idea, as the mainstream media, and mainstream economists, never link the wealth of billionaires with the causes of poverty. But if you want to understand poverty, you have to study the role played by the rich in structuring the economy to benefit themselves.
It is much easier to see with examples in developing countries. These countries still have groups of people with immense wealth. They run the country, and rig the system, so that they can extract wealth from everyone else, and put it into their pockets. Some of them are literally stealing the wealth of the nation.(16) Millions of people are struggling to survive, because their rich politicians have consciously chosen not to provide food, water, sanitation, healthcare, education, and other essentials needed for development. The same is true in rich countries, but with less dramatic effects. We get more and more people queueing at food banks and in need of assistance, because the economy is structured to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few people.
The Psychology of Excessive Wealth
The psychological effects of excessive wealth have not been thoroughly studied. People tend to judge themselves relative to others. If we see people with immense wealth flying all over the world, and their lifestyles are presented as desirable, then many other people will aspire to those lifestyles. Even those who have substantial wealth by normal standards still feel they want more. We begin to see owning multiple properties and having large numbers of foreign holidays as an automatic right, without questioning the downsides. The evidence shows clearly that beyond a certain level, more money does not make people happier. An important aspect of happiness involves being satisfied with what we have. This becomes more difficult when we are surrounded by propaganda celebrating excessive wealth.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom
Notes
1) David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and The World They Are Making, 2008
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).
First published by Global Research on April 23, 2021
***
Vandana Shiva (born 5 November 1952) is an Indian scholar, environmental activist, physicist, food sovereignty advocate, and anti-globalization author. Based in Delhi, Shiva has written more than 20 books.
Shiva founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resource Policy (RFSTN), an organization devoted to developing sustainable methods of agriculture, in 1982.
She has traveled the world spreading a powerful message of oneness and interconnectedness.
This Video is produced by After Skool
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
***
.
First published on June 17, 2021
“From the beginning Covid has been a conspiracy against health and life. Covid is a profit-making agenda and an agenda for increasing arbitrary government power over people. There should be massive law suits and massive arrests of those who block effective Covid cures and impose a deadly vaccine.” – Paul Craig Roberts, Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
The Spike Protein is a “uniquely dangerous” transmembrane fusion protein that is an integral part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. “The S protein plays a crucial role in penetrating host cells and initiating infection.” It also damages the cells in the lining of the blood vessel walls which leads to blood clots, bleeding, massive inflammation and death.
To say that the spike protein is merely “dangerous”, is a vast understatement. It is a potentially-lethal pathogen that has already killed tens of thousands of people.
So, why did the vaccine manufacturers settle on the spike protein as an antigen that would induce an immune response in the body?
That’s the million-dollar question, after all, for all practical purposes, the spike protein is a poison. We know that now due to research that was conducted at the Salk Institute. Here’s a summary of what they found:
“Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease…. SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system (aka–The circulatory system) on a cellular level… scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented….
… the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls. The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2…“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID.” (“COVID-19 Is a Vascular Disease: Coronavirus’ Spike Protein Attacks Vascular System on a Cellular Level”, scitechdaily.com
Remember how everyone laughed at Trump when he said injecting household bleach would cure Covid? How is this any different?
It’s not different, and whatever modest protection the vaccines provide as far as immunity, it pales in comparison to the risks they pose to personal health and survival.
And did you notice what the author said about stripping-out the virus and leaving the spike protein alone?’
He said “it still has a major damaging effect” implying ‘blood clots, bleeding and severe inflammation.’ In other words, the spike protein is deadly even absent the virus. Here’s how Dr. Byram Bridle (who is a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario) summed it up:
“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now… We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” (“Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’”, Conservative Woman)
Think about that for a minute. This is a very big deal, in fact, this is the critical piece of the puzzle that has been missing for the last 15 months. Just as the respiratory virus concealed the real killing-agent in Covid, (the spike protein) so too, the relentless hype surrounding mass-vaccination has concealed the glaring problem with the vaccines themselves, which is, they generate a substance that is “capable of causing disease.”
That is the literal definition of pathogenic. The spike protein is a disease-producing toxin that poses a serious and identifiable threat to the health of anyone who chooses to get vaccinated. Could it be any clearer?It’s worth noting, that Bridle is a vaccine researcher who was awarded a $230,000 government grant last year for research on COVID vaccine development. He understands the science and chooses his words carefully. The term “pathogenic” is not meant to whip people into a frenzy, but to accurately describe how vaccine-generated proteins interact in the bloodstream. And the way they interact, is by inflicting serious damage to cells in the lining of the blood vessels which can result in illness or death. Here’s more from the same article:
“As many will know by now, the problem lies within a structure that enables the virus, originally from bats, not only to enter human cells but to deliver a toxin called the spike protein. Most Covid vaccines instruct our body cells to produce the same protein. This is in the hope that antibodies developed against it will prevent the most damaging effects of the actual virus. There is evidence that this is the case for some.
But there’s also a problem, spelled out most recently by Canadian researcher Dr Byram Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 Ontario government grant last year for research on Covid vaccine development. This is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine does not just act locally, at the site of the jab (the shoulder muscle), but gets into the bloodstream and is carried through the circulation to many other sites in the body.
Previously confidential animal studies using radioactive tracing show it to go just about everywhere, including the adrenal glands, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, ovaries, pancreas, pituitary gland, prostate, salivary glands, intestines, spinal cord, spleen, stomach, testes, thymus, and uterus.
The quantities are small and usually disappear within days. But the questions arise, is this mechanism involved in the thousands of deaths and injuries reported soon after Covid vaccination, and might it set some people up for the same long-term consequences as in severe cases of the disease itself?” (‘We’ve made a big mistake’“, Conservative Woman)
This is the most important question: What will the long-term impact of these vaccines be on the population at large? Here’s more from the same article:
“Some researchers say the risk from the vaccine may be greater than that from the actual virus in healthy people. This would be especially true for the young, whose immune systems deal with the virus successfully. In contrast, the vaccine has a device that protects the spike protein mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, in order to promote the immune response.”(Conservative Woman)
Repeat: ” the vaccine has a device that protects the spike protein mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, in order to promote the immune response.”
What does that mean? Does it mean that the spike protein created by the vaccine lingers on indefinitely risking a potential flare-up sometime in the future if another virus emerges or if the immune system is compromised? Will the people who have been vaccinated have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads until the day they die?
Dr Judy Mikovits thinks so. “Mikovits thinks the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon designed to destroy your innate immunity and set you up for rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death. She too suspects many will die rather rapidly. “It’s not going to be ‘live and suffer forever,” she says. “It’s going to be suffer five years and die.” (Mercola.com)
Is that possible? Could we see an unprecedented surge in fatalities in the next few years directly linked to these experimental vaccines?
Let’s hope not, but without any long-term safety data, there’s no way to know for sure. It’s all a big guessing game, which is one of the reasons that so many people are refusing to get vaccinated. Here’s more from Bridle:
‘I’m very much pro-vaccine, (said Dr Bridle) but … the story I’m about to tell is a bit of a scary one. This is cutting edge science. There’s a couple of key pieces of scientific information that we’ve been privy to, in the past few days, that has made the final link, so we understand now – myself and some key international collaborators – we understand exactly why these problems [with the vaccine] are happening.’
One of these ‘is that the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation. Indeed, if you inject the purified spike protein into the blood of research animals they get all kinds of damage to the cardiovascular system, and it can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain.
‘At first glance that doesn’t seem too concerning because we’re injecting these vaccines into the shoulder muscle. The assumption, up until now, has been that these vaccines behave like all of our traditional vaccines: they don’t go anywhere other than the injection site, so they stay in our shoulder. Some of the protein will go to the local draining lymph node in order to activate the immune system.
‘However – this is where the cutting edge science has come in, and this is where it gets scary – through a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency, myself and several international collaborators have been able to get access to what’s called the biodistribution study. It’s the first time ever that scientists have been privy to seeing where the messenger RNA vaccines go after vaccination; in other words, is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is, absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting. The spike protein gets into the blood and circulates over several days post-vaccination.’”(Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’“, Conservative Woman)
They got the biodistribution study from the Japanese? Are you kidding me? You mean, the FDA waved these experimental “new technology” vaccines into service before they had the slightest inkling of where the substance in the vaccine would end up in the body. If that isn’t criminal negligence, then what is? Do you want proof that our regulators are controlled by the industries they are supposed to monitor? Here it is!
Here’s more from an article at Children’s Health Defense on the same topic:
“… in key studies — called biodistribution studies, which are designed to test where an injected compound travels in the body, and which tissues or organs it accumulates in — Pfizer did not use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a “surrogate” mRNA that produced the luciferase protein….
Regulatory documents also show Pfizer did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies of its vaccine,as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP)….
“The implications of these findings are that Pfizer was trying to accelerate the vaccine development timeline based on the pressures of the pandemic,” said TrialSite founder and CEO Daniel O’Connor. “The challenge is that the processes, such as Good Laboratory Practices, are of paramount importance for quality and ultimately for patient safety. If such important steps are skipped, the risk-benefit analysis would need to be compelling.”….(“Pfizer Skipped Critical Testing and Cut Corners on Quality Standards, Documents Reveal“, Children’s Health Defense)
Let’s see if I got this right: The Covid vaccine was approved even though “Pfizer did not follow industry-standard quality management practices” and even though “key studies did not meet good laboratory practice?”
Do you still think these vaccines are safe? And, it gets worse, too. Check it out:
“... documents obtained by scientists through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed pre-clinical studies showing the active part of the vaccine (mRNA-lipid nanoparticles) — which produce the spike protein — did not stay at the injection site and surrounding lymphoid tissue as scientists originally theorized, but spread widely throughout the body and accumulated in various organs, including the ovaries and spleen.” (“Pfizer Skipped Critical Testing and Cut Corners on Quality Standards, Documents Reveal”, Children’s Health Defense)
Like we said earlier, the vaccine was supposed to be “localized”, that is, remain in the area where it was injected. But that theory proved to be wrong, just like the theory that the spike protein would be a good antigen was wrong. There are literally thousands of fatalities and other injuries that attest to the “wrongness” of that theory, and there will be many more before this campaign is terminated. Here’s more:
“Research suggests this could lead to the production of spike protein in unintended places, including the brain, ovaries and spleen, which may cause the immune system to attack organs and tissues resulting in damage, and raises serious questions about genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks associated with the vaccine.” (“Pfizer Skipped Critical Testing and Cut Corners on Quality Standards, Documents Reveal“, Children’s Health Defense)
So, it goes everywhere. Wherever blood flows, there too goes the spike proteins. Do young women really want these lethal proteins in their ovaries? Do you think that will improve their prospects for getting pregnant or safely delivering their babies? This is madness on a scale that is, frankly, unimaginable. Here’s more:
“Studies indicate that the protein is able to gain access to cells in the testicles, and may disrupt male reproduction…..
Furthermore, the genetic code the virus carries contains inserts that make it ‘extremely plausible’ that the protein could misfold into a prion (such as held responsible for mad cow disease in the 1980s), causing widespread damage to brain cells and increasing the risk of conditions including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease….” (“Covid vaccines: Concerns that make more research essential“, The Conservative Woman
We hope that readers are beginning to understand how risky these vaccines really are. It’s literally a matter of life and death. As Bridle opines:
“‘We have known for a long time that the spike protein is pathogenic…. It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it’s in circulation. Now, we have clear-cut evidence that . . . the vaccine itself, plus the protein, gets into blood circulation.’”
Once that happens, the spike protein can combine with receptors on blood platelets and with cells that line our blood vessels. This is why, paradoxically, it can cause both blood clotting and bleeding.‘And of course the heart is involved, as part of the cardiovascular system,’ Bridle said. ‘That’s why we’re seeing heart problems. The protein can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological damage.…
‘In short,… we made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We didn’t realize that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” (Conservative Woman)
“Mistake?” He calls it a “mistake”? That’s got to be the understatement of the century!
Let’s cut to the chase: These aren’t vaccines; they’re a spike-protein delivery-system. Regrettably, 140 million Americans have already been injected with them which means we can expect a dramatic uptick in debilitating medical conditions including blood clotting, bleeding, autoimmune disease, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack. The vast human wreckage we are now facing is incalculable.
Has there ever been a greater threat to humanity than the Covid vaccine?
Michael Whitney, renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization
O Tratado do Quirinale promovido pelo Presidente da República Mattarella, assinado em 26 de Novembro pelo Primeiro Ministro Draghi e pelo Presidente da República Macron, é um tratado político de 360º no qual a Itália e a França “se comprometem a desenvolver a sua coordenação e a promover a sinergia entre as respectivas acções a nível internacional”, concretizando “parcerias industriais em sectores militares específicos” e outros programas que envolvem encargos financeiros para o Estado. Para ser ratificado pelo Presidente da República, o Tratado teria primeiro de ser autorizado pelo Parlamento com base no Art. 80º da Constituição, segundo o qual “as Câmaras autorizam como lei a ratificação de tratados internacionais que sejam de natureza política, ou que prevejam encargos financeiros”. Em vez disso, o texto do Tratado permaneceu secreto, excepto para um pequeno círculo do governo, até à sua publicação após a assinatura.
O objectivo do Tratado, que veio a público após o final de uma negociação secreta, é claro pela sua calendarização: está a ser concluído numa altura em que, com a saída de cena da Chanceler alemã Merkel, se estabelecem novas relações de força na União Europeia. A França que, em 2022, assume a presidência semestral da União Europeia, substitui o eixo Paris-Berlim pelo eixo Paris-Roma. No centro do acordo bilateral está o Art.º 2º relativo à “Segurança e Defesa”, composto por sete parágrafos. A Itália e a França comprometem-se a “reforçar as capacidades de Defesa da Europa e, deste modo, operando também para consolidar o pilar europeu da NATO”. Como Draghi sublinhou, em sintonia com Washington, deve-se construir “uma verdadeira defesa europeia, que seja naturalmente complementar da NATO e não uma substituição: uma Europa mais forte torna a NATO mais forte”. Para pagar tanto a Defesa da NATO como a da Europa, será necessário um aumento colossal da despesa militar italiana, que já hoje supera os 70 milhões de euros por dia.
No âmbito das “alianças estruturais” entre as respectivas indústrias militares, a Itália ajudará a França a desenvolver as suas forças nucleares estratégicas e os sistemas espaciais militares. Macron lançou um programa de “modernização” que inclui o desenvolvimento de submarinos de ataque nuclear de terceira geração, armados com novos mísseis balísticos, e um caça de sexta geração (Fcas) armado com novos mísseis de cruzeiro hipersónicos com ogivas nucleares. A Itália, no entanto, já participa no projecto de outro caça de ataque nuclear de sexta geração, o Tempest, promovido pela Grã-Bretanha, pelo que provavelmente colaborará em ambos, a menos que não sejam unificados. O programa de Macron, anunciado em Outubro, que contribui para a “modernização” das forças nucleares francesas, está direccionado para a construção de um sistema de pequenos reactores nucleares modulares com um custo de 30 biliões de euros. Provavelmente o Tratado prevê uma colaboração da Itália também neste campo, como parte do plano de reintrodução da energia nuclear no nosso sistema energético.
Também no Art. 2º, a Itália e França comprometem-se a “facilitar o trânsito e o estacionamento das forças armadas da outra Parte no seu território”, sem especificar para que fim, e a coordenar a sua participação em “missões internacionais de gestão de crises”, em particular no Mediterrâneo, no Sahel e no Golfo da Guiné. Prepara-se um forte aumento da participação das forças especiais italianas – com veículos blindados, aviões e helicópteros de ataque – na Task Force Takuba, que opera no Mali e nos países vizinhos sob comando francês. Está implantada oficialmente nesta região para “combater o terrorismo”, mas na realidade destina-se a controlar uma das áreas mais ricas de matérias-primas estratégicas exploradas pelas multinacionais americanas e europeias, cujo oligopólio está ameaçado pelas mudanças políticas em África e pela presença económica chinesa.
Deste modo – declara o Tratado do Quirinal – a Itália e a França unidas “contribuem para a manutenção da paz e da segurança internacionais e para a protecção e promoção dos direitos humanos”.
Os Estados Unidos não estão ameaçados por ninguém, desmoronam-se a partir do interior. Para manter o seu controlo sobre os seus aliados, esforçam-se para convencer os asiáticos de um perigo chinês e a União Europeia de uma ameaça russa. Se não tiverem êxito no Extremo Oriente, encontram um acolhimento favorável entre as classes dirigentes europeias. Tudo é útil para alimentar o seu discurso com ainda mais facilidade visto que os dirigentes europeus ignoram a História imediata.
O Secretário Geral da NATO, Stoltenberg encontrou-se com o Presidente Draghi, em 17 de Novembro, em Roma, para enfrentar “os actuais desafios de segurança” provenientes do “desenvolvimento militar da Rússia na Ucrânia e à volta da mesma”. Stoltenberg agradeceu à Itália porque “contribui para a nossa presença na Região Báltica com o seu patrulhamento aéreo e com as suas tropas”. A Força Aérea Italiana – especifica o Ministro da Defesa – implantou, no aeroporto de Ämari, na Estónia, caças F-35A do 32º Esquadrão, em Amendola e caças Eurofighter Typhoon do 4º Esquadrão em Grosseto, do 36º Esquadrão, em Gioia del Colle, do 37º Esquadrão, em Trapani e da 51º Esquadrão, em Istrana (Treviso). Quando os aviões russos voam no espaço aéreo internacional sobre o Báltico, normalmente com destino ao exclave russo de Kaliningrado, os caças italianos recebem uma ordem do comando da NATO para descolar imediatamente em alerta e interceptá-los em mi-nutos. O objectivo oficial desta operação é “preservar o espaço aéreo aliado”. O verdadeiro objectivo é fazer com que a Rússia pareça uma potência ameaçadora que se prepara para atacar a Europa. Alimenta-se, assim, um clima de tensão crescente: os F-35As e os Eurofighter Typhoons, instalados a poucos minutos de voo do território russo, são caças com dupla capacidade convencional e nuclear. O que aconteceria se caças russos semelhantes fossem instalados junto às fronteiras dos EUA?
O “patrulhamento aéreo” nas fronteiras da Rússia faz parte da frenética escalada militar USA-NATO na Europa, contra um inimigo inventado, a Rússia, num jogo estratégico cada vez mais perigoso. Foi iniciado em 2014 com o golpe de Estado USA/NATO na Ucrânia, apoiado pela União Europeia, para provocar uma nova guerra fria na Europa a fim de isolar a Rússia e reforçar a influência e presença dos EUA na Europa. A Rússia foi acusada de anexar à força a Crimea, ignorando o facto de terem sido os russos da Crimeia a decidir, num referendo, separar-se da Ucrânia e voltar a juntar-se à Rússia para evitar serem atacados, como os russos no Donbass, por batalhões neonazis de Kiev. Os mesmos que foram utilizados em 2014 como força de ataque no putsch da Praça Maidan, desencadeados por franco-atiradores georgianos a disparar contra manifestantes e polícias e em acções subsequentes: aldeias devastadas a ferro e fogo, activistas queimados vivos na Câmara do Trabalho de Odessa, civis indefesos massacrados em Mariupol, bombardeados com fósforo branco em Donetsk e Lugansk.
Stoltenberg e Draghi também abordaram o tema da “crise na fronteira da Bielorrússia com a Polónia, a Letónia e a Lituânia”. A NATO acusa a Bielorrússia de utilizar, com o apoio da Rússia, “migrantes vulneráveis como instrumentos de tácticas híbridas contra outros países, pondo em risco as suas vidas”. A defender os migrantes, a manifestar medo pelas suas vidas, estão os mesmos líderes dos EUA e da NATO, incluindo os governantes italianos, que nos últimos trinta anos lideraram a primeira guerra contra o Iraque, a guerra contra a Jugoslávia, a guerra no Afeganistão, a segunda guerra contra o Iraque, a guerra contra a Líbia e a guerra contra a Síria. Guerras que demoliram estados indivisíveis e desagregaram sociedades inteiras, provocando milhões de vítimas e forçando milhões de pessoas à emigração forçada.
No dia seguinte ao seu encontro com Draghi, Stoltenberg participou no 70º aniversário do NATO Defense College, no qual se graduaram em Roma, desde 1951, cerca de 15.000 militares e civis de 80 países membros e parceiros da Aliança. Depois de terem recebido formação em todos os aspectos da “segurança internacional”, passaram a “ocupar os mais altos cargos civis e militares”, ou seja, cargos de responsabilidade nos governos e nas forças armadas dos países membros e parceiros da NATO. Nesta universidade da guerra, na qual se ensinam as estratégias mais sofisticadas, o sector mais importante é dedicado à Rússia. Juntar-se-á agora outro. No seu discurso de celebração, o Secretário Geral da NATO salientou: “A Rússia e a China estão a liderar uma acção autoritária contra a ordem internacional baseada em regras”. No entanto, Stoltenberg esqueceu-se de especificar “sobre as nossas regras”.
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).
***
First published by Global Research on April 3, 2021, coinciding with the decision of the EU Parliament to endorse the Digital Vaccine Passport.
***
On March 25, 2021, the European Parliament voted 468 to 203 in favour of the Digital Vaccine Passport or “Green Pass” which requires EU citizens to get vaccinated if they want to travel, or even have access to various social and cultural activities within their respective communities.
Ironically, this historic vote –which is tantamount to the creation of a Digital Police State– took place barely a couple of weeks after 18 European countries including France, Italy, Germany and Spain decided to suspend the AstraZeneka mRNA vaccine.
In this regard, a collective of prominent medical doctors and scientists issued a statement addressed to the European Medicines Agency (EME) pointing to:
Big Pharma, the IT Digital conglomerates, and their lobby groups not only influenced the debate as well as the vote in the European Parliament, they also pressured the EU political apparatus including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to provide a green light to an “un-approved” and “experimental” mRNA vaccine coupled with a digital vaccine passport.
.
Were Members of Parliament informed regarding the vaccine related deaths and injuries? Or did they simply turn a blind eye?
Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222(CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/AstraZeneca: 451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) fromModerna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021
These figures correspond to the beginning of the most important vaccine program in World history, which if adopted will indelibly result in a significant loss of human life.
The longer term risks of death and injury (autoimmune reactions, blood clotting, strokes and internal bleeding, etc.) are still unknown. They will occur over a period of several years.
A Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Big Pharma
The European Commission has confirmed that 420 million doses will be delivered to the EU by mid-July, of which 70 million will be supplied by AstraZeneka. (France Soir Report)
The digital Passport is not compulsory. But if you don’t have it, you will be socially excluded. You will not be able to travel, and you will be excluded from “participating in important events” and “having access to public places” (e.g. sports, cultural events, etc.), according to the EU Commission.
What is the choice presented to the citizens of the European Union.
Accept to be jabbed with a dangerous vaccine which consists in “gene therapy”, namely modification of the human genome.
Refuse the vaccine and be excluded from travel as well as a normal social life within your own country.
“Fraudulent Marketing”
Amply documented, Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccines are dangerous. In the US, a “Green Light” to market the experimental mRNA vaccine was granted back in December 2020, despite the fact that according to the FDA, the vaccine is an “unapproved product”.
The FDA in its ambiguous statement has provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see below)
There is something fishy and “contradictory” in this statement. The experimental Pfizer mRNA vaccine is both “unapproved” and “permitted”. I have checked this statement with a prominent lawyer. It is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product”.
In the US, the Pfizer-Moderna vaccine is categorized by the CDC as an “investigational drug”. “The emergency use” clause is there to justify the launching of what might be described as an “illegal drug”.
Pfizer Has a Criminal Record. Is It Relevant?
Flashback to 2009. In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the US Department of Justice:
American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. … have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, … ” (September 2, 2009)
How on Earth can you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?
We are not dealing with a civil lawsuit against Pfizer. In this 2009 DOJ Judgment, Pfizer was so to speak “Put on Probation”. Pfizer was ordered to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting as a de facto “Parole Officer”. “That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” (future) misconduct on the part of Pfizer, Inc.
Johnson and Johnson and “The Opioid Epidemic”
At the height of the corona crisis, barely covered by the media, coinciding with the launch of the Covid-19 vaccine in early November 2020, Johnson and Johnson (and its three distributors) (involved in the marketing of prescription opioids) “reached a tentative $26 billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”. The class action law suit was “the largest federal court case in American history”:
The settlement offer from opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and the “Big Three” distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health and Amerisource Bergen, potentially brings a large measure of legal closure for the companies and will funnel money to communities devastated by an addiction crisis that claims more than 70,000 lives in America every year.
It is worth noting that the US death rate resulting from drug overdose has more than tripled since the outset of the corona crisis in late January 2020.
Are these legal antecedents relevant to an understanding of Big Pharma’s vaccine initiative?
Johnson and Johnson is currently involved in the production and marketing of a Covid adenovirus viral vector vaccine which also entails genetic therapy.
I should mention that the above J & J 26 billion dollar settlement is one among several law suits against J&J.
You decide whether you want to be vaccinated by Pfizer or J&J? In contrast to Opioids, the U.S. victims of vaccine deaths and injuries cannot sue the Big Pharma vaccine conglomerates.
“Now the court has comprehensively found that Johnson & Johnson are liable for the losses that these women have suffered,” … About 10,000 women have registered their interest in joining the class action, which Ms Jancauskas said made it the largest product liability class action in Australian history. (SBS Australia)
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
