All Global Research articles 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.
Fire it burns in your soul, Fire it lights up your heart,
You oppressed all over the world, Something is calling move on,
Here and now in your own land, Here and now justice to demand,
The fire, the water, the burning desire, For a world that meets the needs and rights of all – stand tall,
This old world has to go, Like the kings who hoarded the gold,
It’s the few who rule over the whole, It’s the whole to rule over the new,
Here and now in your own land, Here and now justice to demand,
The fire, the water, the burning desire, For a world that meets the needs and rights of all – stand tall,
Love it fills up your soul, Love it lifts up your heart,
Not of one, of a few – but for all, This Humanity breaking down walls,
Here and now in your own land, Here and now justice to demand,
The fire, the water, the burning desire, For a world that meets the needs and rights of all – Move On!
*
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 is an article version of a class Cynthia Chung gave for the symposium “The Earth Next 100 Years” which can be viewed here.
***
This might seem like a rather ignorant or simplistic question to some. Many will think the answer rather obvious, that the Limit to Growth is determined by limited resources, of course!
However, it turns out this answer is not so simple when we start to ask ourselves some basic follow-up questions. For instance, what determines the limit to a resource? Is a specific resource something that is fixed in its amount, in its availability on Earth that remains unchanged for all time?
That is, can a resource only be used up or can it also be reproduced, regenerated?
Obviously, if a resource can be regenerated, then the “limit” to that specific resource will be determined by the rate it is used vs. the rate it is able to be replenished.
Click below to access video (available)
All resources that are essential to life, including human life, are naturally renewable. There is a natural cycle that causes these resources to be regenerated, this includes the natural cycles of water, oxygen, vegetation (including food) and so forth. Thus, everything that is essential for life is already naturally renewable on Earth.
The concern is thus, that we are using these resources too quickly with the rate of human population growth, such that these renewable resources will become scarce, causing us to reach a point where the collapse of civilization and rapid depopulation will be inevitable due to extreme scarcity in these essential resources. Not to mention the effects this will have on other life forms on Earth.
This point of catastrophe is calculated as the point when the human population will exceed its carrying capacity. However, what determines the carrying capacity?
Thomas Malthus himself, who was the one to create the Malthusian growth model, never actually specified an exact number for when the human population would hit its carrying capacity. This was because it was understood that the carrying capacity is not something fixed but could be increased or decreased depending on human-made innovations, such as agriculture. Thomas Malthus did however, make the prophecy that we would hit our carrying capacity by 1890, about 100 years from the time he made the prediction, which needless to say was very much off the mark.
[It should be noted that Malthus was fully convinced that his prophecy was accurate and that the only way to avoid such a catastrophe was to severely curb the growth of the human population immediately. This included the denial of medical care and food to the needy since it was thought by the followers of Malthus, that the postponement of their death would only use up further resources without any contribution to society. Sounds a little familiar doesn’t it?]
The reason why Malthus was so far off the mark was because such a point in the future concerning the human carrying capacity, cannot be determined by a linear extrapolation. This is because as already mentioned, human innovations change our relationship to the resources we use in a qualitative manner and not just a quantitative manner. Qualitative change has always been the mathematician’s nightmare in producing models that will supposedly predict trends in the future. How can a mathematical model predict all qualitative change that will happen in the future, is it even possible? (For more on this refer to my paper “The Curse of Game Theory: Why it is in Your Self-Interest to Exit the Rules of the Game“).
This is something really important to keep in mind. There is no specific agreed upon number that when the human population reaches x this will be our carrying capacity. Such a number can only be fixed if we were to have absolutely no change in our societies alongside a growing population.
But we do have change, and that is everything.
Human innovations have so far, and continue, to not only increase the quantity of resources produced, but we have also made qualitative changes such as increasing diversity and efficiency in the biosphere itself. For instance, much of the basic foods we eat today, were created through human-made innovations, such as corn, apple, watermelon, banana etc.
Even livestock did not exist in the form they do today if it had not been for human-made innovations. These innovations go back centuries, well before we knew anything about the genetic domain. The ability to not only grow our own food but to increase its efficiency in nutrition is a very important ability that has allowed for the sustaining of more people on Earth.
There is also the concern over limited space. We have a finite amount of space on Earth, this is true, and thus there is only so much space to support a decent standard of living, and in harmony with other life forms on Earth. Many think we are fast approaching the dystopic visions that have been heavily pumped into our stream of consciousness, such as these.
Picture to the right is of what a future apartment is thought to look like in the dystopic futuristic vision of the movie “Fifth Element.”
Isn’t this inevitable? After all there is only so much room, and the poor will only be able to afford the smallest living spaces as land becomes an increasingly scarce resource. Not to mention, how will this affect our capability to grow food if space becomes severely limited? Can any kind of ecosystem or habitat coexist with us at that point?
This will be difficult for many to wrap their heads around, since not only are such dystopic predictions everywhere but also, there is a very real problem with how some modern cities are choosing to build themselves.
Let us first deal with the question of how much space we currently have, and then move onto this question of how cities should choose to organize themselves such that standard of living can actually increase with population growth rather than decrease.
Computer graphic of the entire human population if it were dumped into the Grand Canyon. Made by Vsauce, from his video “How Many Things Are There?“
Here is a rather extreme example, but I think it communicates the point effectively in terms of the sheer mass of the entire human population in context to the size of the world. If we were to amass the entire world population, it would not even come close to filling up the Grand Canyon. We could pile everyone into one big pile into the Grand Canyon which would look like the picture above.
Here is a more humane example, where we can fit the entire human population (at 7.4 billion) all into one-story townhouses back to back into just the state of Texas, we wouldn’t even need to build two-story townhouses. So, we are nowhere near running out of actual space presently and it won’t be until much much further in the future that such a thing would start to become a concern, and by then, who knows what kind of capabilities we will have. Suffice to say, it is not a crisis now, and won’t be for hundreds of years if ever.
Another concern is will we run out of space for food production?
According to the USDA Economic Research Service on international agricultural productivity, the world is increasing its rate of food productivity in relation to the rate of human population growth (see graph below). And according to Our World in Data, the amount of space required to grow our food is decreasing, due to increased efficiency (see graph below).
Looking at the USDA graph we can see, that in comparison to the population growth between 1960, 1980, 2000 and today, our rate of food production has been increasing.
Thus, not only do we have more than plenty of space to fit the human population on Earth, but we also find that world food production is increasing, in relation to population growth, and the amount of space required to produce this food has decreased.
So we are presently nowhere near hitting our carrying capacity.
What we are seeing presently are a lack of essential resources such as food and water in localised regions. There is not a shortage of food production occurring, we are and do have the capability of producing enough food for the entire world population. The reason why certain areas are suffering from critical shortages are due to political and economic reasons, which I will get a little into later on.
In terms of the argument for overcrowding in certain cities of the world, as you can see above, India, eastern Asia (primarily China) and also Nigeria, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa are among the most densely populated areas in the world.
The common conception is that if you have that sort of population density, you have no choice but to have overcrowding in your cities. However, as we saw with the previous example, if we can fit the world population into Texas with a townhouse each, then the top countries in population size are not really overcrowded. The issue is more so, especially in the areas of Africa and India, a question of living standard. It is also a question of how cities with large populations are organized.
Shanghai
Shanghai is the most populated city in China, with a population close in size to the entirety of Canada, it is about a third the size of the entire population of UK. With such a population density many in the West, who are not used to such things, think the living standard must be a lot lower.
Century Park, the largest park in Shanghai at 346 acres.
However, what we would see if we actually visited Shanghai, is that it is actually quite a nice city. Above is a picture of Century Park, one of the many parks in Shanghai.
Let us look at another example.
Beijing
Beijing is the capital of China, and also holds quite a large population density.
Chaoyang park
Above are the plans for the renovation of Chaoyang park, which already exists, but to which the Chinese government wants to beautify further and add more trees and so forth. To the left we can see the plan they have to incorporate more trees in between buildings and along the streets.
China, actually, takes it very seriously to have a balance between their rapid city growth and the need to include parks and trees so that there is also a connection to nature. If you have ever been to China, this is one thing that immediately stands out.
Many of these parks are not the average run of the mill either. They are made following the philosophy of feng shui which includes the idea that a park should invoke deeper reflection and a profound connection to Nature.
Nanjing is a good example of a city in China that is full of very thought-through and beautiful parks.
Parks in Nanjing
In comparison, let us look at what the population density for Canada looks like.
Needless to say, we are nowhere near “running out of space” for people. And China has shown that cities can still be beautiful with an increasing living standard alongside a high population density.
2019 NASA study demonstrating a vast increase of biomass on earth due primarily to human activity from India and China
In addition, we see that countries such as China and India with among the highest population densities, also are among the greenest regions on Earth. This has largely been due to China and India’s decision to implement man-made forests. This was done to address pollution problems, since trees are excellent air purifiers. They also happen to be great consumers of C02. Large regions of greenery also make for excellent temperature control, much of these areas were previously desert. By invoking better temperature control, we also decrease the occurrence of extreme weather phenomena (for more on this refer to another lecture of mine). This also shows that large ecosystems can thrive in regions with high population densities.
Another fear that is often heard is that drinkable water will become a scarce resource which will cause us to have water wars in the future.
Post-apocalyptic vision portrayed in the recent Mad Max film
This is again, a situation where if we chose to do absolutely nothing and make no changes or innovations then this would be a possibility, just like with any resource.
Presently there is over 16 million square km in area that make up the world desert. About 2/3 of the world is desert, with the Sahara making up 9.2 million square km of this area (though as we saw with the previous NASA world map, the earth is greener than it was 20 years ago and continues in this direction thanks to man-made forests).
Planting green vegetation is an excellent way to keep water inland and not lose it to the oceans. It is also, as already mentioned, excellent at regulating global temperature and for temperature control reducing extreme fluctuations in climate. For example, the Sahara desert is responsible for a lot of the hurricane activity that hits the eastern coast of the United States. This is due to the rapid temperature change from very hot to very cool that air currents experience when traveling over the Sahara followed by the Atlantic Ocean.
Not only is 2/3 of the world desert, but grassland regions are presently experiencing desertification, and are a major cause in water and food shortage in those localized regions. In addition there is a lack of clean water leading to further sickness and disease.
Allan Savory is someone who has talked extensively about a rather simple and cost effective solution to this problem (his Ted Talk presentation can be viewed here). His technique (which is actually just the return to an age old practice) has shown great success in former desert regions of Africa, the United States and Mexico.
Comparison of two nearby regions in Zimbabwe on the same day, one to the right managed by Allan Savory’s holistic management.
Comparison of continuous herd grazing to the left vs. returning to herding style management to the right in Arizona, United States
Before and After picture of same land region in Mexico after decades of using Allan Savory’s approach.
This was accomplished by Allan Savory and his team by using rotation of herd grazing in order to stimulate plant growth. This allowed for old plant life (that acts sort of like necrotic tissue) to be trampled on by the passing herd such that the soil can breathe more easily and is at the same time fertilized by manure. For more on the details of this refer to his lecture.
Another exciting prospect for the future is weather control, through the controlled ionization of river systems in the sky!
Atmospheric ionization systems have been successfully used to increase precipitation, and effect associated weather processes. This has been done in multiple locations around the world, cumulatively for three decades. With further development of these technologies, droughts around the world could be overcome in a completely new way: by the management of the water resources of the sky!
It has been reported in multiple studies that periods of low solar activity, and high galactic influence (that is cosmic rays) affect the amount of rainfall and also the amount of glaciation formation.
When we are in different galactic environments we see changes in our climate system. We also experience temperature change depending on whether we are moving above or below the galactic plane, as pictured below. Thus, through observations of many studies, we are finding that galactic processes dictate how climate and weather are expressed on Earth.
A study by Pérez & Peraza found that modulation of fluxes of galactic cosmic rays could also be the cause of Earth’s periods of ice ages. And that it could be connected with movement of our Solar System within the arms of our spiral galaxy as depicted in the above picture. They hypothesized that when the Solar System is inside the arms, there is more dust, so there is less flux of the galactic cosmic rays. And between the arms, we have the larger fluxes of the galactic cosmic rays. And these periods coincide, temporally, with periods of increased and decreased temperature of our planet.
Rainfall was produced in Mexico by using an iron mast that is connected by thin wires to peripheral towers. If for example, you put positive potential on this installation, the positive ions will be moved by the electric field up to the upper layers; and moving to the upper layers, they gain more and more water molecules and become nuclei to form clouds.
If you put your installation near the seashore—you can collect the humidity and then transport it, because you can put the different potentials (one positive the other negative) between two installations. This creates movement of the air, which is filled by these nuclei for the formation of clouds inland.
This thus helps to move air filled with humidity inland for cloud formation and rainfall further inland.
Sergey Pulinets has had impressive results using this process, and was able to fill up three dams in Mexico using this technology after one and a half years. They were even able to fight off forest fires in the Yucatan Peninsula, creating artificial rain using this technology, which yielded about 20-30% increase in precipitation.
What this technology has shown us is that we live in a constant electric field which exists between the ionosphere and the ground; the potential difference between the ionosphere and the ground which is the source for much weather formation, including cloud formation and thunderstorms as well as other weather phenomena.
The above picture looks like something out of a sci fi movie, but in fact, is a rather natural occurrence. These phenomena are referred to as Sprites or Red Sprites which are large-scale electric discharges that occur high above thunderstorm clouds, giving rise to a quite varied range of visual shapes flickering in the night sky. They are usually triggered by the discharges of positive lightning between an underlying thundercloud and the ground.
Thus Pulinets makes the point, their ionization technology uses everything that is given to us by nature, helping a little bit with this ionization to create additional centers of nucleation.
We have found through studies that the Sun, as well as high-energy radiation (such as cosmic rays) from the galaxy, are actually a constant input shaping the environment of the atmosphere, affecting climate, weather and how water moves through the water cycle.
Thus Pulinets’ ionization technology, is actually acting in a very similar fashion to the ionizing effects of the galaxy.
That is, both the sun and galactic cosmic rays (which have much higher energy) are the only known sources of ionization. This is the source of the Northern Lights. They excite the molecules, and atoms. In the case of the Northern Lights, its is oxygen and nitrogen particles that are excited, which cause us to see the green and red lines of the polar lights.
As we gain a better understanding of our galactic processes, we will also gain further understanding and control on how to control weather formation. In the future this will likely be the cheapest and easiest way to green deserts.
C02 Generators
C02 generators are forms of technology used today to grow vegetation in greenhouses and show much promise in their use for space travel, they can pump up to 1500 parts per million of C02 and the average C02 in the earth’s atmosphere is 400 parts per million.
C02 generators offer a lot of promise in producing yield in typically uninhabitable regions such as Antarctica or in space such as on the Moon or Mars.
So, where did the domineering concept of “Limits to Growth” that still penetrates the consciousness of present day policies come from?
In 1968, the Club of Rome, a think tank of an elite membership, was founded to address the problems of mankind. It was concluded in their extremely influential book titled “The Limits to Growth,” published in 1972, that such problems could not be solved on their own terms and that all were interrelated. It should also be made known to the reader that the Club of Rome was involved at nearly the inception of the World Economic Forum (WEF). It was clear that the conclusions found by the Club of Rome were meant to dictate policy amongst the global elite through the WEF venue.
Rather timely (or perhaps conveniently), one year after the publication of “The Limits to Growth,” in 1973, Australia’s largest computer made shockwaves predicting future trends such as pollution levels, population growth, availability of natural resources and quality of life on earth. ABC’s This Day Tonight aired the story on 9 November, 1973, which can be viewed below.
As the heading above summarizes, this super computer apparently predicted when the end of civilization would occur. Depending on the parameters it was given (it is after all only a computer), the year as to which civilization would end would change, but one thing was consistent, that no matter what year, civilization was most definitely on a course to its doom.
Let us look at a few of these predictions shall we?
Here is a rather simple example of a prediction in chromium availability that was made by this super computer in Australia. If we look at the chart on the left, we see that according to the computer, the reserves of chromium will decrease as usage rates increase such that approximately 50 years into the future (pretty much where we are today in 2021) we should see a spike in actual cost of chromium. This spike in cost will decrease usage rates until no one can any longer afford to pay for the cost of chromium as its reserve levels reach a low.
However, if we look at the chart to the right (that was updated, by Jason Ross with the Schiller Institute, to what has actually occurred up to present day), we see that the reserves of chromium were decreasing up till the mid 1970s but then increased drastically to a much higher level. This in turn has affected the usage rates of chromium such that they are so high they cannot be shown on the graph, and are about 2.5 charts higher.
Suffice to say this super computer prediction of future trends for just ONE resource, chromium, was way WAY off!
With this in mind, let us look at some of the more general and much more complex predictions this super computer made for us.
Here we see four different parameters given to the super computer. Figure 35 shows the standard prediction of what the resource availability was in 1973. The next graph, figure 36, accounts for if these reserves were actually double what we assume them to be (this is key here since it acknowledges that such a thing is not really known but rather estimated). Figure 39 accounts for if resources were unlimited with pollution control. And figure 42 accounts for if resources were unlimited with pollution controls, increased food production and “perfect” birth control.
In each of the four scenarios, the doom of human civilization occurred during a different decade, but all occurred before the year 2100.
In the case of the first scenario, resources would be depleted to such a point that it would cause the plummet of food production and industrial growth, population growth would continue to increase until it was completely unsustainable and then it would collapse with nothing to fall back on. In the second scenario, with double the resources, pollution would increase to such a point that it would eventually lead to the death of the human population. In the third scenario, with unlimited resources and pollution controls, there would be a shortage of food unable to sustain the growing human population. In the fourth scenario, with unlimited resources, pollution controls, increased food production and “perfect” birth control, it appears industrial growth has caused an increase in pollution despite the pollution controls, which in turn causes food production levels to drop which causes the human population to collapse?
So it appears the moral of the lesson is that if we do not curb our industrial growth, no matter what sort of controls or increase in resources we gain, we will be headed for a collapse point in the somewhat near future.
The highly problematic chromium prediction made by this super computer is a very good indication of why these predictions are not, and will not be accurate for anything that occurs in the future. The reason for this being, that they cannot account for any sort of change, most importantly qualitative change.
We should also not be naïve that such a policy outlook is not wholly separated from the realm of politics.
In 1991, Club of Rome co-founder Sir Alexander King stated in the “The First Global Revolution” (an assessment of the first 30 years of the Club of Rome) that:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [emphasis added]
This is the moral of the lesson that is very clearly being enforced today, that the real enemy is humanity itself, where we are told to see ourselves only as akin to a virus which consumes its host Earth.
But what if our character does not lie in such a view? What if our character is actually more akin to that of a builder, a creator?
Everything that lives on this Earth consumes, but as we appreciate in any ecosystem, it also gives in return for what it takes. Is it possible that humans have a natural role to play in all of this?
Let us look at some of these qualitative changes we are presently experiencing that will prove to completely change the playing field this super computer thought it was operating in.
The graph shows the global distribution of electricity (China has certainly surpassed UK, Italy and Spain at this point since the data comes from six years ago and China has been making rapid progression in its energy production). What this means is that the greater majority of the world would need to produce one nuclear reactor every 3 days for 30 years to catch up to the level of 900 W/person that we enjoy in North America and South Korea.
If we look at the social progress index vs energy per country, we can see very clearly that energy is the leading factor in standard of living in a country.
Nuclear power is the greatest source of energy density we presently have available.
Here we see Cuautemoc holding a lead pellet that is equivalent in size to 300g of uranium. This one little pellet has the capability to power the energy needs of one person living in a first world country for 80 years. The price of this pellet of uranium is $60/kg.
Presently the concern over fission nuclear power is the waste factor. One very effective solution to this that already exists are Breeder Reactors.
In a normal nuclear fission reactor as seen on the left, it requires at least 4% of fissile fuel (ready for reaction) vs. fertile fuel U-238 which requires a reaction with a neutron to produce the fissile fuel U-235, which is then ready for a fission reaction. After approximately three years, the percentage of fissile fuel is too low to continue the cycle. At this point, the spent fuel typically consists of about 0.6% of heavy isotopes known as transuranic elements, which are the most dangerous component of spent fuel since it can stay radioactive for thousands of years. These heavy isotopes can undergo further reactions that allow them to eventually undergo fission.
The fission waste products which we see amount to about 3% of the spent fuel, are much less radioactive and have many useful applications such as in the field of medicine.
Once the fuel is spent in these normal nuclear fission reactors, it is stored, since it can still be used but it requires a different reactor set up. Breeder reactors are presently something that currently exists that can process spent fuel.
What Breeder Reactors use in their fresh fuel is 20% fissile and 80% fertile such that by x number of years, they still have a large percentage of fissile fuel.
Closing the fuel cycle.
Using a reprocessing plant, we can mix the spent fuel of a breeder reactor with that from a normal reactor and create fresh fuel for both types of reactors [see image above]. In this cycle, the heavy isotopes never leave the cycle and thus are not waste products, they continue within the cycle until they are broken down to fissile fuel which can then be used. Thus the only waste product in such a system are the fission products which are much less radioactive.
There are many beneficial uses for fission products such as medical isotopes. We have enough uses for fission products that they need not be left stored somewhere but can be used to further benefit society.
However, this will certainly not be enough to assuage the fears of many on the safety of nuclear fission reactors, so let us take a look at this question of the nature of radioactivity and how it interacts with our world, with or without nuclear reactors.
First off, believe it or not, but the question of what level of radiation is safe vs. unsafe has never been clearly explained in media reportings. Most people don’t really know how to think about what is considered an unsafe level of radiation.
Does the average individual know how to think about the qualitative difference between 6 mSv vs. 50 mSv on human life or life in general? Or the effects on nature with such background levels of radiation? The answer is a resounding no. (We will come back to this question shortly)
Much of what has fueled this fear of background radiation levels are the events of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Source: Wikipedia.
However, upon a closer inspection, we see that in the case of Chernobyl the number of deaths that were clearly attributed to Chernobyl were less than 100, which were directly related to the blast of the accident. In the case of Fukushima we see surprisingly only one confirmed death in relation to the incident, with only 16 non-fatal injuries.
So why has there been so much media sensation over the sheer horror caused by these two incidents? Well, this has been due to the estimates (yes , estimates, which even Wikipedia acknowledges) of how many deaths have been caused due to the long-term effects of these two blasts, namely in cancer deaths.
However, there is a very large problem with how these estimates are being calculated.
Once again, we see a linear extrapolation. In this case the linear non-threshold (LNT) model. How is LNT used to predict the number of deaths that will occur with a certain dose of radiation? Let us look at another example using a more familiar substance to gain a better idea.
Here is an example of the LNT logic with the substance Vodka. Let us say that a person has a 50% chance of dying if they drink a full 750 ml bottle of vodka within 30 minutes.
[Note: the number does not need to be exact but rather our understanding of how the logic is applied, we could change it to 15 minutes or 5 minutes, or 1L or 2L etc. it would not make a difference to how the logic will quickly become an absurdity when further applied.]
If one individual has a 50% chance of dying if they consume one 750 ml bottle in 30 minutes, two individuals that consume together two 750 ml bottles in 30 minutes should result in one death. Since 50% of two bottles drunk in 30 minutes equates to one death.
If ten individuals consume two bottles of 750 ml vodka in 30 minutes which is approximately 10% each, there should still be, according to the logic of LNT, one death that occurs since two bottles equates to one death.
If one hundred individuals were to consume two bottles of vodka in 30 min, which is approximately 1% each, there will still be one death that is predicted by the LNT model, since, you guessed it, two bottles of vodka consumed in 30 minutes will always, always equate to one death.
This is the present model being used to predict future cancer deaths due to radiation exposure. As we can clearly see when we look at the LNT logic using a more familiar substance such as Vodka, it is plain to see that this is very far from an exact science in predicting anything.
There is another issue, and that is, what are unsafe levels of radiation?
First, you may not know that there is a natural background of radiation that we have on Earth, and that it changes depending on several factors, which are naturally caused and not by human activity, as we will see.
Recall that we receive the rays of the sun as well as cosmic rays from our solar system and galaxy and likely beyond, that shape the radioactive environment surrounding and within Earth.
Levels of background radiation measured by a Geiger counter. Left upper picture: 0.09 mSv in Los Angeles, left bottom picture: 0.13 mSv in New York, right picture: 0.14 mSv in Tokyo. Source: Pandora’s Promise Documentary.
Levels of background radiation. Upper left picture: 2.20 mSv flying over the Pacific Ocean, bottom left picture: 30.99 mSv at a beach in Brazil, right picture: 0.30 mSv in New Hampshire, United States.
In the above pictures we clearly see an increase in background radiation than what is typically found in the metropolis cities that preceded. This is because for one thing, background radiation increases the higher your elevation. This makes sense when we again remind ourselves of the fact that we receive our radiation from primarily the sun and cosmic rays.
It has been observed in numerous medical studies that people who live at higher elevations tend to be in better health and live longer.
In the case of the beach in Brazil, as in the case with hot springs which are also highly radioactive compared to typical background radiation levels, these places tend to be recognized by the local community for its healing qualities. Many of the locals at the particular beach in Brazil, reported in the documentary Pandora’s Promise, cover their body with the sand since it has health benefits. This is not a unique phenomenon, there are many beaches throughout the world which are known for their sands having healing qualities.
What are we thus to think of radiation in this context? It appears that higher levels of radiation, up to 300x higher than we experience in metropolis background radiation levels, are actually a benefit to our bodies.
Background radiation levels. Upper left picture: 0.91 mSv village by Chernobyl, lower left picture: 3.67 mSv at the Chernobyl site, upper right image: 0.18 mSv village in Fukushima, bottom right picture: 0.70 mSv by a nuclear waste storage container.
If we were shown the above levels without any context, it would be easy to be concerned about the 3.67 mSv at the Chernobyl site as an indication of an ongoing danger. However, in context to what we just discussed in terms of natural background radiation levels, this does not look concerning at all.
To further this point, let us look at an example of a popular food many of us consume on a somewhat regular basis, the banana!
Did you know that the banana is one of the most radioactive foods? (note: Brazilian nuts are even more radioactive).
As we can see with this wonderful graphic, if we were told that 5 million microSv of radioactive material sank in the ocean, you could imagine the sort of crazed media sensation that would occur throughout the world and even whole cities evacuated. However, if we were rather told that simply 50 million bananas sank in the ocean, no one would bat an eye.
Below is another great graphic to give you an idea of how much radiation exposure an individual receives in different scenarios in terms of bananas.
In addition, it should be noted that it is officially recognized that nuclear power is among the safest energy source in the world, on par with hydropower, wind and solar.
Whatever chart you look at, the consensus is the same, nuclear is just as low in deaths as solar and wind and depending on the chart you are looking at the lowest.
In addition, the material required to produce, solar, hydro, wind and geothermal all greatly surpass the material required to build a nuclear plant (but especially solar which requires very toxic materials for its production and there is no efficient manner to dispose of these toxic panels once no longer in use). In fact, the material required to build solar panels for instance, can only be generated from forms of energy other than solar and wind. This is possibly the greatest contradiction to the thought that solar and wind are capable of replacing all energy forms, since they do not even have the capability of producing their required parts.
If the social progress index is undoubtedly linked to energy production of a country, and nuclear fission is safe and clean, why is there suppression of nuclear power when it has the capability of massively increasing the standard of living throughout the world? Well, as with all things having to do with big ideas, there is the matter of politics. And if politics has decided that industrial growth is not a good thing, well, that means nuclear power is also not a good thing.
This is especially relevant in understanding why nuclear fusion, by far the cleanest and safest form of energy we know we are capable of in the near future, unlike fission, has absolutely no risk of a meltdown since it operates differently from nuclear fission reactors and produces absolutely no waste.
It also has the capability of producing energy that is about 1000x greater than what we are presently capable of with nuclear fission.
So why don’t we have nuclear fusion yet?
As we can see with the above graph, discussion over fusion power has been occurring for quite some time. What was also noted in 1976 studies, were the levels of funding that would be required for fusion to be made possible. As we can see, we have only ever been slightly above the “fusion never” level and since the mid 80s have been well below this level.
Fusion power is a challenging endeavor, which not only needs the support of funding for its materials, but also will likely require, as with all great science, international collaboration, since many great minds always work better than one.
If you think that we do not have the means for this funding perhaps you should take a look at the graph below.
Source: Jason Ross, Schiller Institute
As you can see, the money is there and considering what Europe is presently going through with its energy crisis, I would put forward that only investing in solar and wind is not a stable provider of energy for the people. Just like a farmer doesn’t grow just one type of crop, energy forms that are highly affected by weather are not a reliable primary source of energy for large populations.
Thus the reason why nuclear has not become the leading energy source is a political reason. The reason why we have energy shortages presently in localized regions is also political. It is not due to a scarcity of resources and we will not be even close to reaching any limits in the next one hundred years.
However, it is a valid question to ask, what does our long term future look like here on earth if we transfer over to nuclear power, and eventually fusion power. Will there be a point where we do hit a critical carrying capacity plateau?
Well one very exciting prospect with nuclear fusion is the plasma torch, which has the capability of turning landfills into resource mines.
Plasma torch
The next domain for the future in industry which will completely revolutionise our relationship to resources and waste is located in low and high temperature plasma processes, which will dramatically increase the productivity of steel, iron, titanium and any other metal resources needed for a modern society.
The plasma torch functions by injecting gas into the chamber, the electric discharge traveling from the negatively charged cathode to the positively charged anode heats up with the resistance from the gas to such a high temperature that ionization occurs, which can reach temperatures of 15,000 degrees Celsius, which can reduce any material to its elemental components.
The next step in more powerful and efficient plasma processing will be in fusion plasma torches which will open up a new realm of possibilities in the degree of precision in which we can transform energy and matter.
Contents put into the fusion torch are shock vapourised and become part of the plasma as separate ionised elements and electrons. Once in a plasma state various methods can be used to select the desired elements and isotopes based on their atomic as opposed to their chemical properties, allowing for the formation of very specific chemical compounds creating batches of very pure chemical structures tailored down to the isotopic level.
This will allow for the formation of more advanced materials then we currently can produce, and which are presently impossible to create with lower energy yield technology.
Just to give the reader an indication of how plentiful resources will be with the plasma torch technology, within an average cubic mile of just plain dirt, mining of iron could be increased by 8x, aluminum by 200x, tin by 100x, and zinc by 6x beyond the present annual US production. This will not be necessary, but showcases how abundant resources are just within the United States.
With plasma torch technology, the pure elements can either be safely released into their environment, as is the case for nitrogen or oxygen, or they can be totally recycled as in industrial raw materials, such that absolutely ALL POLLUTION IS THUS ELIMINATED.
The plasma torch technology has been commercialised for decades but it is not in widespread use due to its large use in electricity, which makes it currently very expensive. Only military bases and some specialised industries use it presently.
However, with fusion technology, electricity for nations will become the cheapest it has ever been, making it economically viable for all industrial waste, industrial pollution, landfills, and garbage islands in the ocean to be recycled into resources that can be used once again for commercial and industrial needs.
Suffice to say that the plasma torch technology will not only get rid of all landfills in a clean and sustainable manner, but it also means that there will be no such thing as waste anymore. Since everything we use, can be used over and over again as a resource with no end. Even the material of old, out of date infrastructure can now be reused, once broken down to its elemental components, to supply improved material for new infrastructure. Wood burning and fossil fuels will no longer be needed.
Water canals, nuclear plants and high speed rail all need a lot of steel, much higher than what is our current capacity to produce worldwide.
In a fusion economy there will no longer be such a thing as limited resources, and zero-sum artificial restrictions will cease to exist. There will be enough not only to support a growing population on Earth, but to support populations that in the future will inhabit the surface of the Moon and Mars.
Fusion will also produce the rockets we require in order to travel back and forth to Mars in a timely fashion.
In a fusion economy, the future will look towards the existence of yet-to-be created potential.
The greatest good for the greatest possible number will become a reality. Resource wars and economic competition over limited resources will no longer be and cooperation towards universally beneficial projects not only cross continental, but interplanetary will become the new norm.
Plan for Tianjin, China. Example of how future cities can be designed throughout the world.
I will end here with what China is presently working on which is the Tiangong (meaning Heavenly Palace) space station. It has been decided that the International Space Station (ISS) is no longer to be maintained and will cease to be operational by sometime in the year 2024. China, who has been banned from participating with the ISS, due to the decision of President Obama in 2011, have had no choice but to work on their own space station, and the timing could not be more apt.
By the year 2024, Tiangong will be the only operational space station, and China has made it clear that all countries are welcome to use this space station for their research needs. It should also be noted, that although Tiangong is much smaller than the ISS, it is built in such a way that pieces can always be added on, such that it can grow much larger in size, depending on whether there are enough countries interested, which I think will most certainly be the case.
Tiangong, Heavenly Palace Chinese Space Station
On Sept 29th, 2011 China launched its first space laboratory Tiangong-1, followed by a more advanced space laboratory Tiangong-2 on Sept 15th, 2016. The core module, named Tianhe (meaning Harmony of the Heavens), was launched on April 29th, 2021 marking the start of the Tiangong Space program.
This past mid-October, China launched their second of four crewed missions, Shenzhou-13 to continue to build the Tiangong space station, which is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022. During the first crewed mission which concluded this past September, three taikonauts had stayed on Tianhe for 90 days.
This second crewed mission is expected to stay in orbit for six months.
Chinese taikonauts on second crewed mission to the Tiangong space station, from left to right: Zhai Zhigang mission commander, Wang Yaping and Ye Guangfu.
This is a great reminder to all of us that we really don’t have limits to growth, as long as we are inspired to create, by challenging what is deemed impossible and showing that it is indeed very possible. There are no set limits, there are no set parameters, since our mind has the capability to always set the boundary condition further and further beyond.
Our growth and development does not need to be a negative thing, it can be a very positive thing, in harmony with nature, with the universe, and we can have an optimistic future if we set our course towards that bright star.
*
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: Europe at night viewed from space with city lights showing human activity in Germany, France, Spain, Italy and other countries, 3d rendering of planet Earth, elements from NASA
All Global Research articles 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.
First published by Global research on November 29, 2021
***
So, GloboCap has crossed the Rubicon. The final phase of its transformation of society into a pathologized-totalitarian dystopia, where mandatory genetic-therapy injections and digital compliance papers are commonplace, is now officially underway.
Austria is just the tip of the New Normal spear. Prominent politicians in Germany, including Bavaria’s Markus Söder, and SPD’sKarl Lauterbach, are already calling for an allgemeine Impfpflicht (i.e., “compulsory vaccination requirement”), which should not come as a surprise to anyone.
But, seriously, this is just the beginning of the Winter Siege I wrote about recently. The plan seems to be to New-Normalize Europe first — generally speaking, Europeans are more docile, respectful of all authority, and not very well armed — and then use it as leverage to force the new pathologized totalitarianism on the USA, and the UK, and the rest of the world.
I do not believe this plan will succeed. Despite the most intensive propaganda campaign in the history of propaganda campaigns, there remain enough of us who steadfastly refuse to accept the “New Normal” as our new reality.
We are not “vaccine hesitant” or “anti-vax” or “Covid-denying conspiracy theorists.”
We are millions of regular working-class people, people with principles, who value freedom, who are not prepared to go gently into the globalized, pathologized-totalitarian night. We no longer give the slightest shit whether our former friends and family members who have gone New Normal understand what this is. We do. We understand exactly what this is. It is a nascent form of totalitarianism, and we intend to kill it — or at least critically wound it — before it matures into a full-grown behemoth.
Now, I want to be absolutely clear. I am not advocating or condoning violence. But it is going to happen. It is happening already. Totalitarianism (even this “pathologized” version of it) is imposed on society and maintained with violence. Fighting totalitarianism inevitably entails violence. It is not my preferred tactic in the current circumstances, but it is unavoidable now that we’ve reached this stage, and it is important that those of us fighting this fight recognize that violence is a natural response to the violence (and the implicit threat of violence) that is being deployed against us by the New Normal authorities, and the masses they have whipped up into a fanatical frenzy.
It is also important (essential, I would argue) to make the violence of the New Normal visible, i.e., to frame this fight in political terms, and not in the pseudo-medical terms propagated by the official Covid narrative). This isn’t an academic argument over the existence, severity, or the response to a virus. This is a fight to determine the future of our societies.
This fact, above all, is what the global-capitalist ruling classes are determined to conceal. The roll-out of the New Normal will fail if it is perceived as political (i.e., a form of totalitarianism). It relies on our inability to see it as what it is. So it hides itself and the violence it perpetrates within a pseudo-medical official narrative, rendering itself immune to political opposition.
We need to deny it this perceptual redoubt, this hermeneutic hiding place. We need to make it show itself as what it is, a “pathologized” form of totalitarianism. In order to do that, we need to understand it … its internal logic, and its strengths, and weaknesses.
Pathologized Totalitarianism
I have been describing the New Normal as “pathologized totalitarianism” and predicting that compulsory “vaccination” was coming since at least as early as May 2020. (See, e.g., The New Pathologized Totalitarianism). I use the term “totalitarianism” intentionally, not for effect, but for the sake of accuracy. The New Normal is still a nascent totalitarianism, but its essence is unmistakably evident. I described that essence in a recent column:
“The essence of totalitarianism — regardless of which costumes and ideology it wears — is a desire to completely control society, every aspect of society, every individual behavior and thought. Every totalitarian system, whether an entire nation, a tiny cult, or any other form of social body, evolves toward this unachievable goal … the total ideological transformation and control of every single element of society … This fanatical pursuit of total control, absolute ideological uniformity, and the elimination of all dissent, is what makes totalitarianism totalitarianism.”
In October 2020, I published The Covidian Cult, which has since grown into a series of essays examining New-Normal (i.e., pathologized) totalitarianism as “a cult writ large, on a societal scale.” This analogy holds true for all forms of totalitarianism, but especially for New Normal totalitarianism, as it is the first global form of totalitarianism in history, and thus:
“The cult/culture paradigm has been inverted. Instead of the cult existing as an island within the dominant culture, the cult has become the dominant culture, and those of us who have not joined the cult have become the isolated islands within it.”
“In order to oppose this new form of totalitarianism, we need to understand how it both resembles and differs from earlier totalitarian systems. The similarities are fairly obvious — i.e., the suspension of constitutional rights, governments ruling by decree, official propaganda, public loyalty rituals, the outlawing of political opposition, censorship, social segregation, goon squads terrorizing the public, and so on — but the differences are not as obvious.
And I described how New Normal totalitarianism fundamentally differs from 20th-Century totalitarianism in terms of its ideology, or seeming lack thereof.
“Whereas 20th-Century totalitarianism was more or less national and overtly political, New Normal totalitarianism is supranational, and its ideology is much more subtle. The New Normal is not Nazism or Stalinism. It’s global-capitalist totalitarianism, and global capitalism doesn’t have an ideology, technically, or, rather, its ideology is ‘reality’.”
But the most significant difference between 20th-Century totalitarianism and this nascent, global totalitarianism is how New Normal totalitarianism “pathologizes” its political nature, effectively rendering itself invisible, and thus immune to political opposition. Whereas 20th-Century totalitarianism wore its politics on its sleeve, New Normal totalitarianism presents itself as a non-ideological (i.e., supra-political) reaction to a global public health emergency.
And, thus, its classic totalitarian features — e.g., the revocation of basic rights and freedoms, centralization of power, rule by decree, oppressive policing of the population, demonization and persecution of a “scapegoat” underclass, censorship, propaganda, etc. — are not hidden, because they are impossible to hide, but are recontextualized in a pathologized official narrative.
The Untermenschen become “the Unvaccinated.” Swastika lapel pins become medical-looking masks. Aryan ID papers become “vaccination passes.” Irrefutably senseless social restrictions and mandatory public-obedience rituals become “lockdowns,” “social distancing,” and so on. The world is united in a Goebbelsian total war, not against an external enemy (i.e., a racial or political enemy), but against an internal, pathological enemy.
This pathologized official narrative is more powerful (and insidious) than any ideology, as it functions, not as a belief system or ethos, but rather, as objective “reality.” You cannot argue with or oppose “reality.” “Reality” has no political opponents. Those who challenge “reality” are “insane,” i.e., “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “Covid deniers,” “extremists,” etc. And, thus, the pathologized New Normal narrative also pathologizes its political opponents, simultaneously stripping us of political legitimacy and projecting its own violence onto us.
20th-Century totalitarianism also blamed its violence on its scapegoats (i.e., Jews, socialists, counter-revolutionaries, etc.) but it did not attempt to erase its violence. On the contrary, it displayed it openly, in order to terrorize the masses. New Normal totalitarianism cannot do this. It can’t go openly totalitarian, because capitalism and totalitarianism are ideologically contradictory.
Global-capitalist ideology will not function as an official ideology in an openly totalitarian society. It requires the simulation of “democracy,” or at least a simulation of market-based “freedom.” A society can be intensely authoritarian, but, to function in the global-capitalist system, it must allow its people the basic “freedom” that capitalism offers to all consumers, the right/obligation to participate in the market, to own and exchange commodities, etc.
This “freedom” can be conditional or extremely restricted, but it must exist to some degree. Saudi Arabia and China are two examples of openly authoritarian GloboCap societies that are nevertheless not entirely totalitarian, because they can’t be and remain a part of the system. Their advertised official ideologies (i.e., Islamic fundamentalism and communism) basically function as superficial overlays on the fundamental global-capitalist ideology which dictates the “reality” in which everyone lives. These “overlay” ideologies are not fake, but when they come into conflict with global-capitalist ideology, guess which ideology wins.
The point is, New Normal totalitarianism — and any global-capitalist form of totalitarianism — cannot display itself as totalitarianism, or even authoritarianism. It cannot acknowledge its political nature. In order to exist, it must not exist. Above all, it must erase its violence (the violence that all politics ultimately comes down to) and appear to us as an essentially beneficent response to a legitimate “global health crisis” (and a “climate change crisis,” and a “racism crisis,” and whatever other “global crises” GloboCap thinks will terrorize the masses into a mindless, order-following hysteria).
This pathologization of totalitarianism — and the political/ideological conflict we have been engaged in for the past 20 months — is the most significant difference between New Normal totalitarianism and 20th-Century totalitarianism. The entire global-capitalist apparatus (i.e., corporations, governments, supranational entities, the corporate and state media, academia, etc.) has been put into service to achieve this objective.
We need to come to terms with this fact. We do. Not the New Normals. Us.
GloboCap is on the verge of remaking society into a smiley-happy pathologized-totalitarian dystopia where they can mandate experimental genetic “therapies,” and any other type of “therapies” they want, and force us to show our “compliance papers” to go about the most basic aspects of life. This remaking of society is violent. It is being carried out by force, with violence and the ever-present threat of violence. We need to face that, and act accordingly.
Here in New Normal Germany, if you try to go grocery shopping without a medical-looking mask, armed police will remove you from the premises (and I am saying this from personal experience). In New Normal Australia, if you go to synagogue, the media will be alerted and the police will surround you. In Germany, Australia, France, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium, and many other countries, if you exercise your right to assemble and protest, the police will hose you down with water cannons, shoot you with rubber bullets (and sometimes real bullets), spray toxic agents into your eyes, and just generally beat the crap out of you.
And so on. Those of us fighting for our rights and opposing this pathologized totalitarianism are all-too familiar with the reality of its violence, and the hatred it has fomented in the New Normal masses. We experience it on a daily basis. We feel it every time we’re forced to wear a mask, when some official (or waiter) demands to see our “papers.” We feel it when when we are threatened by our government, when we are gaslighted and demonized by the media, by doctors, celebrities, random strangers, and by our colleagues, friends, and family members.
We recognize the look in their eyes. We remember where it comes from, and what it leads to.
It isn’t just ignorance, mass hysteria, confusion, or an overreaction, or fear … or, OK, yes, it is all those things, but it’s also textbook totalitarianism (notwithstanding the new pathologized twist). Totalitarianism 101.
Look it in the eye, and act accordingly.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles 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.
Get the Marines ready. Store the supplies. Marshal the allies. The United States is getting ready for war (the preferable term in Washington is policing) in the Indo-Pacific region, and is hoping to do so with a range of expanded bases across client states, or what it prefers to call friends.
On November 29, the Pentagon announced that US President Joe Biden had accepted the recommendations made by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III in the Global Posture Review commissioned in February. The news might have been delivered by Austin himself, but this solemn duty fell to Mara Karlin, discharging her duties as deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. As the GPR remains classified, we are left with a sketchy performance that should make many across the Indo-Pacific seek cover and a bunker.
For the most part, Karlin’s performance was gibberish, masked by lingo hostile to meaning. The review was intended to “inform” the approach of the Biden administration in terms of national defence strategy, which did not mean that it would necessarily inform anybody else. “That guidance asserts that the United States will lead with diplomacy first, revitalize our unmatched network of allies and partners and make smart and disciplined choices regarding our national defense and responsible use of our military,” Karlin stated. How reassuring.
She continued in non-revelatory fashion to mention how the “global posture review assesses DOD overseas forces and footprint along with the framework and processes that govern our posture decision making.” The GPR had “strengthened our decision-making processes by deliberately connecting strategic priorities, global trade-offs, force readiness and modernization, interagency coordination and allied and partner coordination to global posture planning and decisions.”
The only thing to conclude from this remarkable display of non-meaning was that the US imperium was on the march, and it was keen to ensure that its allies would be marching in step with it. At one point, Karlin let the cat out of the bag. A primary focus of the GPR is the Indo-Pacific, with China proving to be the continuing fixation. Cooperation between Washington, its allies and its partners to “advance initiatives” that aid regional stability and deter Chinese military aggression and threats from Pyongyang, are matters of urgency.
This puts Australia, Guam and various Pacific Islands in the spotlight, with the US keen to use them as staging grounds in any forthcoming conflict with Beijing while reducing their troop presence in other global theatres. The press conference was not quite so blunt, but the implications were clear enough. According to Karlin, the Pentagon will seek a “range of infrastructure improvements in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Australia”. New US rotational fighter and bomber aircraft deployments to Australia and further logistics cooperation with Canberra are promised.
When asked by a journalist why Australia and Guam had been specifically mentioned in the address, Karlin showed some rare candour in admitting that “those were notable, which is why I cited those specifically” though the US was broadly “engaged in consultations with our allies and partners across the Pacific.”
The remarks pertaining to Australia simply affirmed the observations made by Austin in September, the same month the trilateral AUKUS security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US was announced. AUKUS, explained Austin at the time, would “help contribute” to the concept of “integrated deterrence in the region”, an unimaginative way of saying that the US would lead a regional policing effort in the Indo-Pacific, with the assistance of Australia and like-minded partners. While Washington sought “a constructive, results-oriented relationship with the PRC, we will remain clear-eyed in our view of Beijing’s efforts to undermine the established international order.”
Such a clear-eyed disposition involved making good use of Australian territory, with Canberra agreeing to “major force posture initiatives that will expand our access and presence in Australia.”
Access is imperial speak for projecting US power. It sounds so much better than military occupation. Becca Wasser of the Center for a New American Security is well versed in that argot. “If you want to change posture – whether that is expanding or consolidating bases, or deploying new capability – you need access,” Wasser toldBreaking Defense. “Access is something only allies and partners can provide and changes to access usually require a lengthy consultation process.” Appearances must be kept.
A sense of how the GPR has been received can also be gathered from the security think-tankers, those delightful sorts who make it their tanking business to find enemies for budget reasons. A co-authored report by John Schaus of the hawkish Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington and Michael Shoebridge of the Canberra-based US appendage, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, praises the Review as “an enormous opportunity to signal, and demonstrate, US commitment to regional security in ways that will reassure partners and deter potential adversaries.”
There is an unabashed encouragement of greater US garrisoning and military presence in Australia. Australia would commit to investing in and expanding naval facilities in Darwin and on the west coast. This, in turn, could be “matched with a greater US naval presence at these facilities, for the purpose of joint activity through the Indian Ocean and up into Southeast Asia.”
The authors take issue with conservative US troop numbers that had been present through Marine Corps rotations in Northern Australia during the Obama-era. It was time to roll up the sleeves and co-opt Australian real estate and resources to advance Washington’s agenda. “Specifically, the United States should forward deploy Navy surface, subsurface, and uncrewed vessels to Australia; expand the Air Force rotational presence to include larger numbers and more frequent presence of high-endurance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms; and increase both Marine and Army presence to facilitate greater training and integration within the alliance.”
While the GPR remains under lock and key, we can be certain that many of the bellicose wishes of Schaus and Shoebridge are bound to be there. The war monger’s script is getting increasingly long and relentless.
*
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.
Of course, I expect a backlash every time I write. It comes with the territory. There is no point being a Bari Weiss or a David Frum and crying out against “cancel culture”. Dissension is part of the rough and tumble of a modern world in which everyone – at least, for a little longer – gets their 15 minutes of sounding off, however ignorant their opinions. There are millions of people out there on social media, and some of them seem to have pretty disturbing views.
But I don’t write just to be provocative, as some readers appear to imagine. I write to influence. Not so much what we think – though that’s a nice bonus – but how we go about the task of thinking.
In societies bombarded with propaganda – propaganda that gets ever more sophisticated as software and algorithms learn through billions of tiny mind experiments how to trigger us, arouse us, incentivise us – it is extraordinarily hard to think clearly. It requires a huge amount of mental and spiritual energy to gain distance. That’s very difficult to do if we spend all day working, or we are exposed all day to the news cycle. The biggest problem is not just that our thoughts are likely to be someone else’s (often Rupert Murdoch’s), it is that we don’t even know that they belong to somebody else. That is how propaganda works.
This difficulty means I spend a lot of time thinking about which topics to write about. I need to select issues prominent enough in the news that people will wish to invest a little more time to read my contribution. But at the same time the topic I choose needs to illustrate my chief concerns – that we are being propagandised into ever more polarised, antagonised tribal identities – starkly enough that readers will be prepared to reconsider the strong views they already hold on the matter at hand.
Challenging ever more polarised and deeply entrenched tribal identities often feels like a high-wire act in which the only way to have an impact is to keep raising the wire a little higher. The more an audience loses critical distance on an issue – the more tribal it becomes – the more it has to be jolted out of its complacency, out of its sense of what constitutes normality or sanity. But the jolt itself can prove counter-productive, simply reinforcing the tribe’s certainty that anyone who disagrees must belong to the other tribe, the enemy, and can therefore be safely ignored.
My latest: Noam Chomsky was wrong to add his name to an open letter against 'cancel culture'. Many of the writers and intellectuals who signed it are more interested in stifling free speech than protecting it – and they have powerful allies https://t.co/ylUudPubTD
I have been researching and writing daily on foreign affairs, mostly related to the Middle East, for 20 years. That’s a long time, and inevitably over that period I have grown more confident in my worldview and I have wanted to deepen and broaden my perspective.
Certainly, there are lessons I have learnt from two decades of reporting on, and analysing, Israel and Palestine that I think are of wider import. It is a region whose features I have been able to study with a degree of dispassion – because the so-called “conflict” isn’t exactly mine – but also with a great deal of intimacy – because I ended up marrying into that conflict. I understand very well how a modern settler colonial state works and how a strong tribal identity is key to its success. I understand too the way it inevitably spawns the infrastructure of a militarised, hi-tech, surveillance state, and how an elite needs to constantly manipulate the public into a sense of existential crisis to keep itself enriched and powerful.
Any of that sound familiar outside Israel-Palestine?
The problem is that it is much easier to see how Israeli Jews are propagandised, how they are invested in an entirely manufactured tribal identity that keeps them oppressing Palestinians, than it is to see how we ourselves are propagandised, or how our own manufactured tribal identities work in much the same way.
Which is why every time I write about the United States, where the most propagandised population on the planet lives, I receive the biggest backlash from readers: “Stick to writing about Palestine”; “You don’t know enough about the US to have a view”; “What happened to you – you were great when you just wrote about Israel-Palestine”. And those are the polite responses.
What appears to be upsetting some readers isn’t so much the facts I am writing about. After all, in this intensely globalised world, where we can all read the same newspapers online and we can all watch Youtube videos of the actual events themselves, I know as much as you most likely do about what happened – whether it’s in Nablus, Bristol or Kenosha. Unless you were there, and got an angle on events denied the rest of us, we are debating the same set of real-world events or the same set of corporate media depictions of those events.
The issue often isn’t what we know (though increasingly we choose to close our ears to information that does not confirm our prejudices), it’s how we analyse what we know.
My latest: Our expectation shouldn't be that Kyle Rittenhouse is treated by the police and legal system like a black man. It is that black men, and women, should be treated like a white Rittenhouse; that legal facts should count whatever your skin colour https://t.co/ixo99PxJYS
People who began following me because of my writings on Israel-Palestine, or the acres of related stuff I wrote countering the Zionist misinformation campaigns in the UK intended to vilify Jeremy Corbyn, are already a fairly select group of people who trust my analytical skills when it comes to an issue on which they have managed to see past the propaganda most others are still in thrall to.
What I know through meeting a small proportion of those readers is that their ability to break out of the mainstream mindset was typically based on an unusual or intensely personal experience they had. Maybe they visited Israel and Palestine and were shocked by the yawning gulf between what they had read in the corporate media and what they saw on the ground. Or maybe they knew Corbyn to be an authentic politician and a committed anti-racist and could not believe how he was depicted in every single corporate news outlet in the UK.
Direct experience of the way the news is skewed set them on a path towards questioning the propaganda they had been subjected to over a lifetime.
But just because we manage to break out of the propaganda construct on one issue does not mean we succeed on every issue. Things that feel intensely personal to us, in which we are emotionally or materially invested, are always going to be the hardest to view from a distance. And for obvious reasons, nothing is so personal, so deeply invested in, as our social and political identities. To question our identity is both to loosen ourselves from the rock that anchors us to the ground we know best and to risk alienating the social networks we depend on. Truly liberating oneself from propaganda – transcending the identities that have been largely manufactured for us – is the riskiest of ventures, which is why so few are willing to do it.
I witnessed that especially keenly in Israel-Palestine, where Jews who cast aside the tribal comfort blanket of Zionism were themselves cast out by their own societies. When we criticise Israeli Jews for failing to stand in solidarity with Palestinians, we should also remember how hard it is intellectually and emotionally to go against the grain of your society. It takes significant courage.
Keir Starmer's Labour: – backs right-wing Jewish groups cheerleading for Israel – suspends and expels left-wing Jews who dissent on Israel – suspends and expels non-Jews who wonder aloud whether this might amount to the politicisation of antisemitism https://t.co/snGJIO8ut7
I have seen it too in the way anti-Zionist Jews in the Labour party have been hounded out because they refuse to be used by the parliamentary party’s dominant Blairite wing to settle political scores with the more socialist membership. When these anti-Zionist Jews refuse to abandon their anti-racist principles and become tribal Zionists – Zionists who demand special diplomatic treatment for a self-declared ethnic state that, in turn, demands special privileges for Jews over Palestinians – they are demeaned as self-hating or the “wrong kind of Jews”. Seeing their treatment, one can understand why so many British Jews might never think to question what they have been told – or might prefer to keep their heads down.
And that is the point. It is not that we make a choice to stay propagandised. It doesn’t require any effort from us at all. All we need do is not make a choice. Our socially constructed tribal identities are the default. All we need to do is go about our daily lives as normal.
Propagandised populations
For many of us, who lack a strongly Zionist tribal identity (though of course in the west we have been raised with a more general, colonial Zionist identity since at least the 1917 Balfour Declaration) it is fairly easy to understand how Zionist Jews have been propagandised and how far their thinking can stray from reality. In early 2015 – months after Israel’s horrifying attack on Gaza that killed hundreds of Palestinian children and led to an outpouring of criticism of Israel in the UK and elsewhere – a survey found that 56 per cent of British Jews believed “anti-Semitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s”.
Remember this survey was before Corbyn had been elected Labour leader and before the furore about a supposed antisemitism crisis in the party had moved into full gear. God knows, what a similar survey of British Jews would find today.
At that stage, even a prominent liberal commentator for the Israeli Haaretz newspaper found the views of most fellow Jews in the UK preposterous:
“If the majority of British Jews and the authors of the CAA report actually believe that, then it’s hard to take anything they say about contemporary anti-Semitism in their home country seriously. If they honestly think that the situation in Britain today echoes the 1930s when Jews were still banned from a wide variety of clubs and associations, when a popular fascist party, supported by members of the nobility and popular newspapers, were marching in support of Hitler, when large parts of the British establishment were appeasing Nazi Germany and the government was resolutely opposed to allowing Jewish refugees of Nazism in to Britain, finally relenting in 1938 to allow 10,000 children to arrive — but not their parents who were to die in the Holocaust (that shameful aspect of the Kindertransport that is seldom mentioned) — and when the situation of Jews in other European countries at the time was so much worse, then not only are they woefully ignorant of recent Jewish history but have little concept of what real anti-Semitism is beyond the type they see online.”
Paradoxically, Haaretz columnist Anshel Pfeffer would soon subscribe himself to much of the nonsense he excoriates here – as soon, in fact, as Corbyn was elected to head the Labour party.
Which is a reminder of how quickly we can adapt our understanding of what we think of as real, objective facts, or falsehoods, when it helps to protect our tribal identities. We see what we want to see.
Pfeffer, a liberal Zionist, thought the paranoia of conservative Zionist Jews was ridiculous when Ed Miliband, a liberal Zionist like Pfeffer and a gentle critic of Israel, led the Labour party. But once Corbyn took over, a genuine anti-racist who opposed the “liberal” racism inherent in a self-declared Jewish state, Pfeffer started to feel much more ideologically aligned with conservative British Jews. Indeed, he soon shared most of their assumptions about a supposed rise in “leftwing antisemitism” he had derided more generally months previously.
My latest: Polls showing British Jews fear a Labour election victory, as well as Chief Rabbi Mirvis' new anti-Corbyn remarks, should not surprise us. The corporate media have made sure we've been living in a nationwide echo-chamber for the past four years https://t.co/wDOclf3Br3
In short, the survey did not tell us much useful about the state of antisemitism in Britain in 2015. But it did tell us an awful lot about how propagandised many British Jews already were about antisemitism in 2015. It was a signpost, a clue as to where things were about to head.
Losing the plot
Jews, it should go without saying, are not uniquely susceptible to propaganda or uniquely invested in a tribal identity. We all are.
It is easy to point the finger at Zionist Jews for some of their outrageous, self-serving, supremacist views. Much harder to spot those same tendencies in ourselves.
Which is why not only complete strangers harangue me on social media when I turn the spotlight on leftwing tribalism – I expect that – but long-standing followers do too.
If you love my Israel-Palestine stuff, or my Labour party criticisms, but think I’ve lost the plot on the other stuff, please believe me when I say my criticisms of western tribalism spring from exactly the same set of analytical skills I bring to bear on Israel-Palestine. I am not suddenly or arbitrarily applying a whole set of other analytical criteria to the issues you care most passionately about simply out of a perverse desire to provoke you.
My latest: Faced with the pandemic, we have turned on each other. We prioritise ourselves over the foreigner, we set parent against child, we pit the vaccinated against the unvaccinated – all in the name of a bogus humanitarianism and solidarity https://t.co/ZjImGBN38e
It may be, just possibly, that you are provoked because the conclusions I arrive at on issues close to your heart challenge your own tribal identity – what you perceive to be the left, or to be progressive discourse, or to be anti-racism. Accepting my arguments might require you to become more flexible or curious than you want to be, or it might force you to consider that some of your views stand in stark contradiction to other values you profess to believe in. That inconsistency intrigues me enough to write about it, but it may well infuriate you.
Which may explain the strange, angry responses from some followers to the soundbites from my lengthy articles – the snippets – I must necessarily post on social media. Rather than being provoked into reading the article, where they would need to grapple with a complex argument, some followers prefer to comment on the soundbite. But if you are among those who say you are fed up with our modern, dumbed-down, soundbite culture – those, for example, who supported Corbyn because he wasn’t a focus-group politician – you should not really be fetishising that soundbite culture yourself. Well, not if you want to avoid the accusation of hypocrisy.
Carlson clones
If you’re also wondering why all the writers you once loved so much have suddenly become raving Tucker Carlson clones, it might – just might – be because you changed rather than they did. Like Anshel Pfeffer, maybe you arrived at your Corbyn crisis moment. Let me take a punt and suggest that Donald Trump and the rise of the white right may have made your tribal identity seem much more precious to you.
My latest: By fixating on Trump, parts of the left have drifted into worryingly authoritarian ways of thinking – sometimes openly, more often implicitly – as a bulwark against the return of Trump or anyone like him https://t.co/d4pa19t5A5
That won’t have made you a clearer thinker. It will have simply made you an angrier, less compromising, less compassionate thinker. It will have encouraged you to think in zero-sum terms. It will have pushed you away from anyone who does not espouse exactly your pieties. It will have made you less willing to consider the arguments of anyone who no longer echoes your binary view of the world. It will have made you a liberal-left version George W Bush, with his warning: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
That should not surprise us. A tribal left is bound to be the mirror image of a tribal right. They have different pieties, different slogans, but the same intolerance, the same self-righteousness, the same anger.
In tribal times like these, those who see the dangers of tribalism – that it is a tool for dividing us, for weakening us against the power-elites and a billionaire-owned media that relishes and stokes our tribalism – will struggle to be heard. Anything they say that isn’t for the tribe is assumed to be for the enemy. They have moved to the dark side.
In a time of tribalism, the left’s duty is to speak out loudly for solidarity. We need to remember that we are no less exposed to propaganda than the other tribe. That doesn’t mean we have to abandon our principles. But it does mean we have to remember they are as human as we are, that they have the same rights as us, that it is crucially important that we are fair and consistent, that our blindspots can be as big as theirs. Because otherwise we not only entrench our own tribalism, we entrench theirs too.
*
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.
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).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
As predicted by multiple polls, the Sandinistas, led by Daniel Ortega, won a resounding victory on the November 7th elections in Nicaragua. The elections were a referendum on the path that the Sandinista government has taken the country, which is grounded on large investments in social programs that have benefited people, especially the most disadvantaged, in every nook and cranny of the national territory.
Support for the reelection of the Sandinista government was astounding. Of the entire patron electoral (eligible voters), about 65% came out to vote and, of those, about 75.9%voted for the FLSN (Sandinista National Liberation Front) alliance ticket.
The victory of Sandinistas generated expected attacks, which seek to delegitimize the newly elected government in Nicaragua. The U.S., Canada, EU, OAS and their proxies–cynically claiming to be acting on behalf of the “Nicaraguan people”—seek to cripple the Sandinista government’s ability to provide for its population. The November 7th elections revealed the will of the Nicaraguan people; but because this will does not align with U.S. preferences, the elections are marred as “illegitimate,” a “sham,” and “authoritarian.”
Some in the Western imperial left, including academics and journalists, have joined the U.S. State Department in attempting to delegitimize the will of the Nicaraguan electorate and to demonize the Sandinista government—like with other left-wing counterparts across Latin America.
These individuals legitimize the economic and political attack against Nicaragua. The burden will be heaviest for the working class. Importantly, the mainstream media and the imperial left did not go on-the-ground to speak to farmers, union members, indigenous communities, or low-income Nicaraguans about the electoral process, their preferences, and the reason for those preferences. Worse yet, they ignored the multipleoutlets that did just that.
None of these individuals parroting imperial propaganda decried the unjust detention of Steve Sweeny, a journalist and editor of the Morning Star Daily, Britain’s only socialist newspaper, who was prevented by Mexico from covering the Nicaraguan elections.
Instead, these stenographers condemned the electoral process from afar, portraying a dystopian world inside Nicaragua despite not providing a shred of on-the-ground evidence. A self-described “left” outlet, for example, would rather talk to clowns spewing right-wing imperialist talking points in Costa Rica than to working class people in Nicaragua, whose opinion they have ignored and suppressed in their coverage.
Unlike these propagandists, I spoke to Nicaraguan factory workers, domestic workers, stay-at-home mothers, truck drivers, farmers, and community leaders in the outskirts of the city of Estelí, where international electoral companions observed a free and fair election. I sought the opinions of Sandinistas and those who do not identify as such to understand electoral results.
Below, I document the reasons why the Sandinista government enjoys support from the majority of the electorate as well as grievances some sectors of the population wish the government would address. The platitude-, lie-, and interventionist-filled propaganda from Western media, the imperial left, and interventionist governments do not come close to providing an accurate picture of Nicaragua, its culture, or its popular will—or explaining the resounding Sandinista electoral win.
Abstentions: The Case of Esteban
I spoke to Esteban (all names are pseudonyms) on the eve of the elections. Esteban is nota Sandinista—by a long shot. He is a sort of jack-of-all trades handy-man. He is a blue-collar worker who does not support the Sandinista government. Esteban’s main grievance is, he argues, that Nicaraguans pay too much taxes. This concern was startling to me, because he does not pay into the IR system—a 15% income tax.
He suggests that income taxes should be capped at 7%. When I asked him about government projects that taxes help fund, he acknowledged them. He acknowledged, too, that these projects are beneficial to the population, but each time he articulated something wrong with them. For example, Esteban suggests that people who do not use public services, like hospitals, should not pay for them.
He does not argue that Nicaraguans should not have public hospitals. In fact, I was surprised at his defense of a public system. Esteban argued we should have a public system, but that it is unfair for those who do not use it to pay for it. He had an accident recently and had major surgery in Nicaragua at no cost in a public hospital. His perspective reminded me of the “all-government-is-bad” opinion held by many sectors of the rightwing in the United States. Importantly, he did not vote.
What Can We Learn from Esteban? Myths and Reality about Abstentions
I begin with Esteban because one of the attacks against the legitimacy of the Sandinista electoral victory is that there was massive abstention due to political repression. This is demonstrably false. Esteban did not tell me that he feared political repression for his views, which he articulated loudly and proudly; political repression did not figure in his decision not to vote.
His abstention stemmed from his worldview about governments more generally, especially one whose politics prioritize investment in the public sphere for which communal sacrifices are shared.
Furthermore, abstention in this election cycle was not widespread, as the U.S.-backed opposition had hoped and called for. In the figure below, I chart election participation history in Nicaragua since 1984, including the percentage of those who ended up voting (% participation), and, out of those who participated, the percentage who voted for the FSLN. Voter participation is rather stable since the FSLN returned to power in 2006—between a low of 61% (in 2006) and a high of 73% (in 2011)—after a steady decline in participation during the neoliberal period (1990-2006).
In this election cycle, the percentage participating was 65%. The chart also shows that percentage support for the FSLN has been increasing since their return to power.
The 80% abstention rate that some in the mainstream media and imperial left are repeating is a baseless lie. Ben Norton looked into the one organization that has made up the “80%” abstention statistic: Urnas Abiertas. He thoroughly documents its unseriousness, but, more importantly, its links to the U.S.-funded opposition, part of a larger regime-change effort against the FSLN.
For example, he documents that the only two people who have been publicly identified with this organization are “both partisan right-wing activists who work in the Western government-funded nonprofit-industrial complex, without any technical background or experience in election monitoring.” Organizations like this pop up to provide their regime-change operations a veneer of independence and credibility.
“Soft” Support for the Sandinista Government
Carlos is a driver by trade. Yuniel and Joel are factory workers. Before my conversation about the elections with them, I rarely heard them say much about politics. The few things that I had heard were criticisms. I really wanted to understand their perspective because I thought they would be in favor of the opposition.
I was wrong.
Yuniel is primarily concerned with taxes. He informs me that his salary is not enough; therefore, he is upset that he has to pay income taxes from it. He deems it unfair having to pay more taxes if he earns more (in absolute terms, because the rate is fixed). It seemed to me that Yuniel was unclear as to what the taxes are used for, which many explain part of his frustration. Carlos says he mostly keeps his opinions to himself because he works with different kinds of people with varying political views. Carlos is a sub-contractor for a government-funded infrastructure project. He stated that the Sandinista government has done both good things and things he disagreed with.
He describes his job and pay as good, a consequence of infrastructure investments from the government. He is afraid that a new (opposition) president would not invest as much in infrastructure, which would decrease jobs and other economic activities. Joel, finally, does not say much. On the eve of the election, Joel said that the president had done good things. He said it as if to say, we have to admit it. As with Carlos, he also said that if another person wins the presidency, this new president will invest less.
Yuniel, Carlos, and Joel, despite disagreements with the Sandinista government, support the re-election of Daniel Ortega because any other individual—from an opposition party—will not invest as much in the country.
“Soft” Support for Sandinismo and Its Dynamics Across Nicaragua
Yuniel, Carlos and Joel exemplify what some characterize as “soft support” for the FSLN. The opposition (inside and outside the country) hopes to remove Ortega to decapitate and neutralized Sandinismo. To do so, they demonize Daniel Ortega—and his family.
This strategy has not been successful. Yuniel, Carlos, and Joel acknowledge that the Sandinista government has invested in broad-reaching social programs and public infrastructure. President Ortega, they say, has accomplished “good things,” whereas a new president will steal without investing in the country. Government projects will not occur with an opposition-led administration. The support for public health, in particular, is palpable. I asked Carlos what would happen if any government tried to privatized the hospital system. Immediately, he replied: It would not happen; Nicaraguans would rise up in defiance against such a move. In short, despite vague criticism, all three supported the re-election of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista government.
Although it was my impression that Yuniel was the least likely to vote for the continuation of the Sandinista government (if voting at all), on election day, he revealed that he voted for the FSLN alliance ticket.
Further “soft support” partly explains why the FSLN achieved a remarkable 75.9% support among Nicaraguan voters. The journalist William Grigsby points out that there were municipalities in which Daniel Ortega received more votes than there are registered Sandinistas. This dynamic occurred, for example, in six out of eight municipalities of Caribe Sur, including Paigua, La Desenbocadura de Rio Grande, Corn Island, and Parlagu. Even non-Sandinistas, Grisby shows, voted for Daniel Ortega across the country.
One of my respondents, Fanor (see below), referred to this phenomenon as voto progreso—a vote that recognizes the social progress that the Sandinista government has accomplished for Nicaragua and signals desire for its continuation.
Voto ideologico, on the other hand, is a vote for the FSLN that is not only rooted in support of the socialist-oriented policies of the Sandinista government, but one that recognizes the importance of the FSLN as a revolutionary project against imperialism whose significance in and out of Nicaragua lies in providing an alternative to the “savage” capitalism that the U.S. wants to impose on the country—and the world. In the latest credible poll before the election, the expected “voto suave” (soft vote) constituted 17.4% support for the FSLN.
In addition to the soft vote, support from those who “tend to vote” (4.5%) for the FSLN and those who strongly support the FSLN (voto duro, 53.4%) add up to the expected more than 70% support for the FSLN in the elections. The FSLN eventually attained 75.9% of the vote on Nov. 7th.
Yuniel, Carlos and Joel are part of the “soft” support that materialized for the FSLN. Even those who have disagreements with the government, cannot deny—and, in fact, defend—socialist policies that have benefited all of Nicaraguan society.
Falsehoods From the U.S.-backed Opposition
To provide ammunition for those who seek to delegitimize the Sandinista government, the CID-Gallup (not part of the internationally known Gallup) completed a poll on behalf of the opposition that presented widely inaccurate predictions. Unlike the M&R Consultores, which had completed a number of polls across Nicaragua in the months leading up to the election, the one CID-Gallup poll stated that only 19% of the population supported Daniel Ortega.
This poll ignores over 2 million card-carrying Sandinistas in the country and votes from individuals like Yuniel, Carlos and Joel. The implausible CID-Gallup poll, which has been criticized for its methodology, does not accurately capture “hard” support and totally ignores “soft” support.
None of the people I spoke to expressed support for the U.S.-funded opposition members currently detained. The U.S.-funded opposition are lionized by the West outside of Nicaragua. Inside the country, they are largely ignored.
Even if the U.S.-funded opposition had participated in the elections, it wouldn’t have made any difference in the outcome; this faction of the opposition does not have much support in the country, perhaps only among the (very tiny) upper class.
Reporters have documented their political irrelevance. None of my interviewees—not even Esteban—told me they would have voted for any of the people currently in jail whom the mainstream media and imperial leftists—untethered from reality—call “pre-presidential candidates,” “presidential hopefuls,” or more recently “presidential candidates.” No matter how many times this lie is debunked, it re-appears like a regime-change zombie.
Why Does the U.S.-backed Opposition Have So Little Support?
To understand why the U.S.-funded opposition has so little support, we have to remember at least two things. First, the U.S.-funded opposition never coalesced around a single candidate.
Hunger for power fueled infighting and prevented a viable opposition coalition. They only share hatred towards Sandinismo and reliance on U.S. funding.
Frustrated, the U.S. (including its embassy in Nicaragua) was working on getting everyone behind Cristiana Chamorro (to the chagrin of others in the opposition). She was being groomed to be the Nicaraguan Guaidó. Video of a meeting with U.S. officials and their lackeys show how giddy regime changers were about her placement (not election!) in power, repeatedly calling her “President Chamorro.”
The Sandinista government dismantled this plan, which unraveled after her corruption was exposed and she was subsequently placed under house arrest.
The second issue is even more important. The U.S.-funded opposition in jail (and abroad) is intimately associated with the 2018 deadly barricades and subsequent havoc they wreaked on the country. For this reason, even those who disagree with some aspects of the Sandinista government are not turning to the U.S.-funded opposition, and do not care about their detention.
The U.S.-backed attempted coup d’état in 2018 was detrimental for most people in the country. There is no support for another violent clash, as as it inflicted economic, psychological, and social devastation on most of the society, especially the most disadvantaged.
For example, in total, the estimated economic losses due to the coup is about $24,000 million dollars, which include $206.5 million dollars’ worth of damage to local and national governmental institutions, the collapse of 8,708 small businesses, and loss of 119,000 jobs.
The last thing Nicaraguans want is violence in their communities, after having lived through the barricades in 2018 that destroyed the household economy for most Nicaraguans—regardless of political leanings. I was in Nicaragua at the time. Only those who lived through it can understand the coup’s horror.
According to Danto, a campesino who works the land for a living, only the upper class, especially members of the COSEP (Nicaragua’s powerful chamber of commerce), want another revuelta (violent clash), because they are able to weather its associated economic storm and will eventually recoup losses (should they suffer any). COSEP loudly supported the 2018 attempted coup d’état.
Had it succeeded, members of the COSEP would have wielded more political and economic power, hoarding even more wealth away from the Nicaraguan people. [In an opposition newspaper in Nicaragua, which is the voice of the upper-class opposition, there are renewed calls for another revuelta.]
Nicaragua’s business elite supported the 2018 coup attempt. [Source: todaynicaragua.com]
Rejection to violence was loud and clear across the country on election day. As of this writing, not a single violent incident has been documented at polling places on what turned out to be a peaceful election day. Thus, it is not true that Daniel Ortega won re-election because some members of the U.S.-backed opposition currently detained did not participate. Nicaraguans do not want what they have to offer.
A Final Lesson from “Soft” Supporters of the Sandinista Government
Yuniel, Carlos, Joel and Esteban all articulate something else: Health care is a fundamental right and should be provided for free. This idea is now entrenched in Nicaragua society, after fourteen years of the second phase of the Sandinista revolution.
Nicaraguans have come to expect public and free access to medical care. Support for the idea that education should be a fundamental right is also prevalent. Should anyone try to privatize these services, they will find considerable resistance. Privatization efforts, especially of public services, will face stiff resistance, even among non-Sandinistas. This is because public access to these services benefits most of the society.
Nicaraguans do not spend anywhere near in health care as they do in the U.S. Even some right-wing Nicaraguans who have gained green cards or have been naturalized in the United States and are doing well economically take care of their medical needs in free and public hospitals in Nicaragua, given how expensive they are in the United States (while railing against the Sandinista government that provides it).
The “Hard Vote” and a Winning Strategy
Virna, Juliana, and Fanor are part of the “hard vote” and the heart of the Sandinista revolution victory at the polls. All three are active members of the FSLN.
Virna, a domestic worker with kids, comes from a family of Sandinistas. She sees her militancy as a family legacy that must endure. She supports Daniel Ortega and his government because, above all, he looks out for the poor. Everyone whom I interviewed who identified as Sandinista (whether or not they were directly involved in politics) said this, over and over again. The Sandinista government, they repeated, cares about the most disadvantaged.
Virna explained to me that the FSLN had been organizing and were prepared to win this election. As a leader, part of her responsibilities included finding people to help at the polls; she also made sure they had what they needed (including coffee!) and were safe, though she did not work the polls (because she is a local leader for the FSLN—it is against the rules).
She and her colleagues arranged transportation for the elderly and disabled people who wanted to vote but had no means of getting to the polls. Virna was not worried about the FSLN losing the election, because, as she argues, there have been so many benefits for the population, including public and free health care, that it is inconceivable for most of the population to want to put a break on those services. Fanor agreed.
Fanor, a younger local leader, told me that the FSLN’s winning strategy was simple: acompañamiento a las familias (to accompany families) to help address their needs. For some time now, the FSLN has been working to make sure that, as he says, the Sandinista government has a strong and constant presence within households, not just during election time.
Fanor listed a range of services and programs from the Sandinista government that he has helped deliver, including helping elderly with wheelchairs, providing food to those in need, Plan Techo (giving roofing material for disadvantaged households), community cleaning, cemetery upkeep, defraying costs associated with funeral services, disseminating information about vaccination, building communal homes, providing access to clean water, Bono Productivo (in which women are given pigs, chickens, and cows to stimulate household foodsovereignty and economic subsistence), and others.
These local activities, he argues, constitute one type of help the FSLN provides to families. The FSLN, he says, is working on a range of other projects to spur economic growth and to build on food sovereignty. He notes that the FSLN is not relying on big business to spur economic growth. They are working on economic self-sufficiency, prioritizing small and medium businesses and enterprises. His comments are supported by the data.
The Sandinista government’s incentives for a “people’s economy”—one that primarily relies on production from families, communities, cooperatives and associations (small and medium producers/enterprises)—have grown dramatically since the 2018 coup d’état. Although the Sandinista government had been supporting a people’s economy prior to the attempted 2018 coup, the reliance on the capitalist class for wealth generation was higher prior to 2018 than it was subsequently.
Fanor also explained to me that home visits are key to their strategy because community members often do not air all of their grievances in public forums. But in the privacy of their homes, they are more forthcoming about issues they would like addressed in their communities.
As such, he and other people serve as conduits between community members—of all political stripes—and their local FSLN governments. Importantly, the services that Fanor and his associates help deliver are distributed Parejo—to everyone, irrespective of political affiliation. Juliana, a stay-at-home mother and FSLN community leader, underscored this point.
Juliana, who takes care of a family member, told me that, as a FSLN community leader, she sees her work as providing for her community and delivering government assistance to all who need it, regardless of political leaning. She started working with the FSLN after being inspired by the Sandinista triumph in Managua in 1979.
Her mother also has a long history of supporting Sandinistas. Juliana reached her leadership position due to internationally recognizedgender equality efforts from the FSLN, for which Nicaragua ranks, in 2021, #1 in the Americas. She notes that before the FSLN returned to power, there were few, if any, benefits from the government.
Since 2007, she has worked on helping deliver a range of projects to her community. Recently, she helped shepherd an electricity project for her town. Sandinistas and non-Sandinistas benefited from this and other projects in which she has been involved, including Plan Techo. She notes that even liberals—a term used for people who support some faction of the opposition—can see what the government has accomplished for them. She even notes that some Sandinistas get upset because liberales are given jobs at governmental institutions and use these posts to rail against—and undermine—the revolutionary Sandinista project.
All three expected the FSLN to win, describing free and fair elections in peace in their respective communities. Juliana told me that most people in her community came out to vote in the afternoon after church. She informed me that because a faction of the opposition had called for a no vote, at least one bus company who supported the opposition did not offer its services that Sunday. This had a negligible impact on participation because voting locations were widely available. People drove, walked, or got rides to their voting center.
Rank-and-file Sandinistas
I also spoke to Helena, Danto, and Tamo. These individuals support Sandinistas and Helena and Danto identify as such. I did not ask Tamo if he did as well, though it would be surprising if he didn’t identify as Sandinista. All three noted the importance of voting.
Danto recalled that during the Somoza dictatorship, in his town, the vote was bought and paid for with 5 córdobas, a nacatamal (a local dish), and un trago (alcohol). Sandinistas changed all of that, he said. Sandinistas supported the most vulnerable citizens with literacy campaigns, social rights, a legitimate legal authority, and the reduction of corruption in government.
He noted, with confidence, that because Sandinismo advocates for the poor and Sandinistas are well organized, it will be hard to topple the Sandinista government. Helena, along similar lines, argues that the Sandinista government has provided hospitals, schools, housing, and social security benefits to Nicaraguans. In the neoliberal years, she said, they did not get any of that.
A family member of hers received the Bono Productivo and has been trained to work the land to support household economic independence and food sovereignty. She told me that Sandinistas will be in power as long as they have popular support. Ana, an elderly woman, told me that Sandinistas are people of good conscience. Daniel Ortega, in particular, is a good man, she says, who helps those most in need. Reverence for El Comandante (Ortega) has been documented elsewhere. During the Somoza dictatorship, she did not vote, but has voted Sandinista ever since the triumph of the revolution.
Of all the people I spoke to, I gathered Tamo had the least material resources. He works as a cuidandero, or someone who is hired to live in someone else’s land to work it and protect it so that its harvest is not stolen from its owner. Tamo is shy, but agreed to speak with me about the forthcoming elections. He had never been interviewed before (like on TV, he said).
He mentioned the new hospitals, but spent more time talking about the roads that the Sandinista government has built and fixed over the last 14 years in the town he hails from—far away from where he works. The roads, he says, have made a big difference to people in his town, who can now move their “commodities” with ease and sell them elsewhere.
He had been planning to go back to his hometown to vote, but, due to his job, he was notable to vote. In addition to Danto, Sandinistas who left for the U.S. were not able to vote during this election cycle. As Juliana notes, support for the re-election of Daniel Ortega and the Sandinista government would have been higher had all those people been able to vote.
The Attempted U.S.-backed Coup D’état in 2108: Its Role in the Electoral Win of the FSLN Alliance Ticket
Virna, Juliana, and Fanor all agree that the FSLN is more organized now than it was prior to the attempted U.S.-backed coup d’état in 2018, which, for each of them, was quite difficult to live through. Fanor noted that he was targeted through social media.
Although Fanor was disappointed by some young people in his generation who initially bought the U.S.-backed propaganda, he and others worked with families during the attempted coup to make sure their family members did not join the deadly barricades so as to avoid a tragedy, which would have divided the community. Not a lot of people in his community, he says, got involved in the coup. During the attempted coup and after, he and his comrades worked to debunk the various lies from the U.S.-funded opposition.
Fanor tells me that he knew that the coup was not going to work because he saw, first hand, how much families were suffering economically as a result of the revuelta, which prevented them from getting to and from work, from reaching hospitals, or from completing other necessary tasks. Thousands of small family business collapsed. Fanor saw how angry community members were about the devastation.
Virna was the subject of attacks and insults from her neighbors. She was surprised because she had been working in her community by providing help and shepherding projects for everyone, regardless of political affiliation. There was a point at the height of the violence that she thought about resigning from her post as FSLN community leader, but she decided to remain steadfast in her work.
Compañeros protected and took care of her, because she is well known in her community. They were afraid that she was being targeted for an attack, which were rampant against Sandinistas all over the country.
Sandinistas were subjected to insults, beating, torture, burnings, and killings; some had their property vandalized or destroyed. Virna spoke heartbreakingly about how difficult it was to endure during the 2018 coup attempt. She used to cry, she says, every time someone was killed, including a young man from her community who was shot in the back by opposition mercenaries. Her story underscores the importance of women in the resistance to the attempted 2018 coup d’état.
Juliana relayed similar fears during the coup due to her leadership in the community. She did not go to the city because she feared the barricades. Juliana was afraid she would be recognized as Sandinista and targeted. She was petrified of walking to her job because opposition mercenaries manning the barricades would sometimes pass by on her way to work.
Working hard to assure an FSLN electoral win is one way, Juliana and others argue, to prevent the rise of new violent coup attempt.
Despite a mountain of evidence that the 2018 violence was a consequence of a U.S.-backed coup attempt, Western media and imperial left refuse to recognize it. In doing so, they obscure, ignore, and erase the suffering and targeting of Sandinistas, who were the victims of U.S. aggression through local proxies. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this fact will not understand FSLN’s subsequent organization, priorities, and eventual win at the ballot box.
Conclusion
In speaking to regular working people across Nicaragua, I found overwhelming commitment to the second phase of the Sandinista revolution, even among those who expressed some disagreements with the Sandinista government and constantly consume anti-Sandinista propaganda through social and other opposition media.
For Sandinistas and non-Sandinistas alike, the achievements of the Sandinista government since returning to power in 2007 cannot be denied. Moreover, the second phase of the Sandinista revolution has helped change Nicaraguan society, such that people across the political spectrum think of their public services as a right that should not be privatized—a right they are prepared to defend.
This is particularly important when it comes to healthcare. Investments in health, including infrastructure and programming, have garnered plenty of support for the Sandinista government. Recently, the Ministry of Health started vaccinating people for Covid-19 at home who, for whatever reason, are unable to attend a health center but would like to be vaccinated.
Western mainstream media and imperial leftists ignore the voices and perspectives of working-class people, like those I interviewed, because they do not conform to U.S. and their proxies’ narratives. Importantly, my respondents’ views do not conform to the narratives that members of the now-defunct MRS feeds the imperial left in the U.S.
U.S. State Department cables published by Wikileaks show leaders of the MRS are U.S. informants. They have publicly lobbied for economic warfare against their own country. Yet these individuals present themselves as leftists to an international audience obscuring their support for the Nicaraguan rightwing and the goals of U.S. empire in Nicaragua.
Disturbingly, the imperial left takes the vitriol of the MRS members as the voice of the Nicaraguan people, and ignore the perspectives of people like those I highlight here. When imperial leftists write and speak on behalf of the “Nicaraguan people,” they mean to say of “my friends from the MRS and other members of the Nicaraguan upper class.”
The importance of the social class dimension in understanding the Sandinista win at the ballot box cannot be overstated. The FSLN won because it has the support of the working class.
Although they are the majority, their perspective is largely ignored by the Western mainstream media and the imperial left. By contrast, the perspective of the Nicaraguan upper class—especially its elites who live off of U.S. funds, which largely pay for anti-Sandinista propaganda—is magnified and prioritized the Western world over. For this reason, I did not speak to members of the Nicaraguan upper class.
Note on the Term Imperial Left
I use the term “imperial left” following Vijay Prashad’s retort to David Harvey: You live on the other side of imperialism! I say the same thing to leftists in the imperial core, who, whatever their intentions, refuse to acknowledge Nicaraguan sovereignty and have bent themselves into a pretzel trying to justify their alignment with U.S. State Department’s regime-change efforts. Instead of listening to working-class Nicaraguans as I have done here, they pontificate, presuming to speak on behalf of Nicaraguans, judging what they don’t know, including how socialist the socialist-oriented Sandinista government really is.
This an old habit of the imperial left. Why can’t they understand that only Nicaraguans get to decide whether the Sandinista government is committed to the revolutionary aspirations, whether it’s socialist enough, and whether it is worth supporting? It is easy to point the finger at a developing country for its imperfect revolution. It would be much harder to oppose empire and work on building a socialist-oriented project in the United States by listening to and learning from working-class Nicaraguans who engage in building this political project every day.
Do not believe them when they tell you the left is divided. There is no division. The (anti-imperialist) Left is standing with the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua. The rest are either confused or advocating an imperialist political project.
I urge the imperial left to join calls that reject any and all U.S. intervention in Nicaraguan society, even if their Nicaraguan friends want otherwise. The imperial left will not suffer the consequences of U.S, EU, and OAS aggression, which will only generate economic suffering and political conflict for and among Nicaraguans, especially the most vulnerable. Esteban, Carlos, Yuniel, Joel, Fanor, Danto, Juliana, Virna, and Helena will suffer U.S. aggression, not you.
U.S. unilateral coercive measures against Nicaragua will increase its population’s economic pain, and will force more people to migrate to the U.S. in search of economic sustenance. The histrionic response from the U.S. to the Sandinista electoral victory has led some Nicaraguans to believe that the United States will accept all Nicaraguan migrants. Political aggression from the U.S. coupled with economic difficulties that stem from sanctions will increase Nicaraguan migration to the United States. Migration is the harvest of empire.
The 232 internationalcompanions from 27 countries observed peaceful, fair, and democratic elections in Nicaragua. Celebrationserupted all over the country when the results were announced.
The FSLN will visit with communities to hear their grievances, needs, and desires. Elected members of the National Assembly will participate in this effort, which is meant to bolster the FSLN’s bold plan to reduce poverty and increase well-being for all Nicaraguans. As William Grigsby argues, in the next few years Nicaragua will begin to reap what the Sandinista government has been sowing for 14 years—a great leap forward is coming.
Sandinistas are far from done with their revolutionary project.
*
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.
Yader Lanuza is a professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Lanuza’s research examines the causes and consequences of social inequality in three domains: education, family and the criminal justice system. He focuses largely, though not exclusively, on the experiences of immigrants and their offspring from Latin America and Asia. Yader can be reached at: [email protected].
Comments Off on Sandinistas Won a Landslide Victory Not Through Fraud but Because They Uplifted Nicaragua’s Poor and Defeated Intervention Efforts Including the 2018 U.S. Backed Coup Attempt
Finish naturopathic Doctor Ariyana Love says there’s new research out of Spain supporting the idea that at least some batches of the coronavirus vaccine have graphene oxide in them.
Since it is usually not practicable to achieve a 100 percent inoculation rate, the question is what is the vaccination level that will either bring the disease under control or eliminate it altogether? This level is sometimes referred to as “herd immunity.” We were told at first by experts, most notably Dr. Anthony Fauci, that the vaccination rate of 60 to 70 percent would confer herd immunity in regard to Covid 19.
The mRNA jab is, remember, known not to stop people catching covid. And it is known not to stop people spreading it. I don’t believe anyone disputes these facts. And yet vast numbers of deaths and serious injuries have occurred among people who have been jabbed. Look at the item entitled ‘Updated: how many are the vaccines killing?’ on my websites.
Are we prepared to see our loved ones burn alive in a nuclear holocaust in a war with Russia over Ukraine? If not, cut out the macho saber rattling and de-escalate before it’s too late.
The Quirinale Treaty promoted by President of the Republic Mattarella, signed on November 26 by Prime Minister Draghi and President of the Republic Macron, is a 360-degree political treaty by which Italy and France “undertake to develop their coordination and foster synergy between their respective actions at the international level,” implementing “industrial partnerships in specific military sectors” and other programs involving financial burdens for the state.
Governments around the world are either coercing or forcing their citizens to take dangerous inoculations which take away the peoples rights and freedoms while also punishing those who do not comply. Human rights, which western countries claim to champion, have all been destroyed.
A number of defence analysts are convinced that the United States of America, supported by Britain and Australia, is goading China to go to war over Taiwan. They point to constant statements by officials from the three countries pledging to come to Taiwan’s defence if it is attacked by China and the actual presence of US warships in the vicinity of the region as evidence of “an aggressive stance”.
There are no variants. Because there is no virus. SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’ve spent the past year and a half proving that. But fantasies do exist. So do covert ops with intentions to deceive. Thus, the “scientific world” is agog over the new South African variant, named B11529 (aka Omicron, Botswana). Woo. The ghost is coming out of the closet. Beware. COVID cases are rising…
US District Judge Matthew Schelp in the Eastern District of Missouri blocked the federal government from mandating Covid jabs for healthcare workers in Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Hampshire.
What a small world we live in. The “Nu variant” scare you keep hearing about is coming from the same people and institutions that spawned the last COVID scare, and the one before that, and the one before that one, dating back all the way to the onset of COVID Mania.
Il Trattato del Quirinale promosso dal presidente della Repubblica Mattarella, firmato il 26 novembre dal presidente del Consiglio Draghi e dal presidente della Repubblica Macron, è un trattato politico a 360 gradi con cui Italia e Francia «s’impegnano a sviluppare il loro coordinamento e a favorire la sinergia tra le rispettive azioni a livello internazionale», attuando «partnership industriali in specifici settori militari» e altri programmi che comportano oneri finanziari per lo Stato.
Per essere ratificato dal Presidente della Repubblica, il Trattato avrebbe dovuto essere prima autorizzato dal Parlamento in base all’Art. 80 della Costituzione, secondo cui «le Camere autorizzano con legge la ratifica dei trattati internazionali che sono di natura politica, o prevedono oneri alle finanze».
Il testo del Trattato è invece rimasto segreto, al di fuori di una ristretta cerchia di governo, finché non è stato pubblicato dopo la firma (pdf qui).
Quale sia lo scopo del Trattato, venuto alla luce al termine di una trattativa segreta, appare chiaro dalla sua tempistica: esso viene concluso nel momento in cui, con l’uscita di scena della cancelliera tedesca Merkel, si stabiliscono nuovi rapporti di forza dell’Unione europea. La Francia, che nel 2022 assume la presidenza semestrale della Ue, sostituisce all’asse Parigi-Berlino quello Parigi-Roma.
Centrale nell’accordo bilaterale è l’Art. 2 relativo a «Sicurezza e Difesa», composto da 7 paragrafi. Italia e Francia si impegnano a «rafforzare le capacità dell’Europa della Difesa, operando in tal modo anche per il consolidamento del pilastro europeo della Nato». Come ha sottolineato Draghi in sintonia con Washington, si deve costruire «una vera difesa europea, che naturalmente è complementare alla Nato, non sostitutiva: un’Europa più forte fa la Nato più forte». Per pagare sia la Nato sia l’Europa della Difesa, sarà necessario un colossale aumento della spesa militare italiana, che già oggi supera i 70 milioni di euro al giorno.
Nel quadro delle «alleanze strutturali» tra le rispettive industrie militari, l’Italia aiuterà la Francia a potenziare le proprie forze nucleari strategiche e i relativi sistemi militari spaziali. Macron ha varato un programma di «modernizzazione» che prevede lo sviluppo di sottomarini da attacco nucleare di terza generazione, armati di nuovi missili balistici, e di un caccia di sesta generazione (Fcas) armato di nuovi missili da crociera ipersonici a testata nucleare.
L’Italia, però, già partecipa al progetto di un altro caccia da attacco nucleare di sesta generazione, il Tempest, promosso dalla Gran Bretagna, per cui collaborerà probabilmente a entrambi a meno che non vengano unificati. Funzionale alla «modernizzazione» delle forze nucleari francesi è il programma, annunciato da Macron in ottobre, di costruire un sistema di piccoli reattori nucleari modulari con una spesa di 30 miliardi di euro. Probabilmente il Trattato prevede una collaborazione dell’Italia anche in questo campo, nel quadro del piano mirante alla reintroduzione del nucleare nel nostro sistema energetico.
Sempre nell’Art. 2 Italia e Francia si impegnano a «facilitare il transito e lo stazionamento delle forze armate dell’altra Parte sul proprio territorio», senza specificare a quale scopo, e a coordinare la loro partecipazione a «missioni internazionali di gestione delle crisi», in particolare nel Mediterraneo, Sahel e Golfo di Guinea.
Si prepara un forte accrescimento della partecipazione di forze speciali italiane – con blindati, aerei ed elicotteri da attacco – alla Task Force Takuba, che sotto comando francese opera in Mali e paesi limitrofi. È schierata in questa regione ufficialmente per la «lotta al terrorismo», in realtà per controllare una delle zone più ricche di materie prime strategiche sfruttate da multinazionali statunitensi ed europee, il cui oligopolio è messo a rischio dai cambiamenti politici in Africa e dalla presenza economica cinese.
In tal modo – declama il Trattato del Quirinale – Italia e Francia unite «contribuiscono al mantenimento della pace e della sicurezza internazionali, nonché alla tutela e alla promozione dei diritti umani».
All Global Research articles 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.
“Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation”, remarked Ernest Renan the nineteenth century French Orientalist. This deformation is reflected in nationalist versions of history that are often simplistic, selective, and self-righteous, and self-serving. Zionist narratives of history are, for the most part, no worse and no better than other nationalist narratives. One extreme example of such one-sidedness was Golda Meir who asserted that “All the wars against Israel have nothing to do with it”.
At the other end of the spectrum is Shaul Arieli, a retired colonel in the IDF and an academic, who writes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a strikingly objective and fair-minded manner. In his previous books Arieli set out to explain the Israeli and Palestinian narratives not in order to take sides but, on the contrary, in order to convey the complexity of the clash between the two nationalist versions of history. This is the only way, he believes, for resolving the conflict: a compromise between the valid claims of both sides, leading to the partition of the disputed land.
In this book Arieli has chosen a different approach. He addresses himself only to his Israeli readers; he urges them to confront their own narrative and to examine critically some of the principal myths on which it is based. This, argues Arieli, will generate a process of purification and self-awareness from which Israeli society will emerge stronger and better equipped to confront the challenges facing it. Most national myths, of course, contain a kernel of truth. The task of the historian is to extract the kernel of hard facts from the penumbra of tendentious interpretations and outright distortions. Arieli earns the reader’s trust by executing this mandate in a rigorous and impartial manner.
The scope of the book is very wide, covering both the pre-independence and the post-independence periods. Some of the myths are very familiar, like “a land without a people for a people without a land”, “there is no Palestinian people”, “Jordan is Palestine”, and the Mufti told the Palestinians to run away in 1948 in the expectation of a triumphal return.
Some of the myths are more complex, for example, the claim that the Palestinians have not abandoned the strategy of stages and they still want to destroy Israel. On all of these myths, Arieli has something original and interesting to say, buttressing his arguments with hard facts and irrefutable statistics. In this review, however, I propose to focus only on the myths propagated by Israel’s two last prime ministers: Labour’s Ehud Barak and Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu.
Courage on the battlefield is very common, as Bismarck observed, whereas civic courage is rather rare. Ehud Barak was a brave and brilliant soldier but an inept politician who lacked the courage to take the necessary risks for the sake of peace.
The moment of truth came at the Camp David summit in July 2000 which Barak himself had asked Bill Clinton to convene. Barak’s advisers warned him that the Palestinians would not budge from their basic demand for an independent state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank with a capital city in East Jerusalem. Barak believed that with Clinton’s help he could push Yasser Arafat into a corner and force him to settle for less.
What Barak tried to achieve was not the peace of the brave based on international legality but the peace of the bully backed by the acute asymmetry in the power of the two sides. His modus operandi was peace by ultimatum. For two weeks at Camp David, Barak refused to meet with Arafat and to negotiate face-to-face. He tried to dictate the terms of a settlement to his opponent. Every time Arafat turned down an offer, Barak tried a slightly improved offer, the last of which included Gaza and 89 percent of the West Bank but no sovereignty over the Haram al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem. When Arafat rejected this offer, the summit ended in failure and Barak bore the lion’s share of the responsibility for this failure.
Following the failure of the summit, Barak invented the myth that there is no Palestinian partner for peace. He claimed that at Camp David he had made the most generous offer imaginable to the Palestinians, but that Arafat rejected the offer and made a strategic decision to return to violence, a decision that led to the outbreak of the second intifada four months later. The claim that Arafat planned and instigated the second intifada is utterly baseless. Instead of admitting his own fault, Barak sought to pin the blame for the impasse on the other side.
The problem with Barak’s post-facto explanation, or more precisely of the myth he invented, was that the great majority of Israelis believed. This myth had dire consequences for the Labour Party, for the peace camp, and for the prospects of a peaceful settlement. For if there was no Palestinian partner for peace, it was only logical for Israelis to vote for a leader who was good at killing Palestinians rather than for a party that advocated negotiations with them. Ariel Sharon fitted the bill perfectly. Consequently, his Likud party was elected in February 2001 and right-wing parties have remained in power ever since. Sharon actually boasted that during his five years in power, there were no peace negotiations of any kind with the Palestinians.
The twelfth and last chapter is about the staggeringly dishonest claim that Benjamin Netanyahu supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only solid piece of evidence for this claim was his Bar-Ilan speech of 14 June 2009, two and a half months after he formed his second government. In this speech he stated ‘We will be willing to accept a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state’. The speech, however, was only made under intense pressure from the Obama administration and the change of policy it announced was more apparent than real. A month after the speech, Benzion Netanyahu, the prime minister’s octogenarian father told a Channel 2 TV interviewer: ‘Binyamin does not support a Palestinian state, except on conditions that the Arabs will never ever accept. I heard this from him’.
Benjamin Netanyahu remained firmly wedded to the status quo: limited Palestinian autonomy under Israeli rule. In his speech Netanyahu called for negotiations without pre-conditions. But in the same breath he posed a series of pre-conditions to the Palestinians.
First, he dissociated himself from the important understandings that his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had reached with President Mahmoud Abbas a year earlier.
Second, he rejected Abbas’s demand for a freeze on settlement expansion during the negotiations. In other words, while pretending to negotiate over the division of the pizza, Netanyahu proposed to keep eating it.
Third, there could be absolutely no return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, not even in symbolic numbers.
Fourth, he insisted that Jerusalem will remain Israel united capital. Moreover, Netanyahu introduced a completely new condition: the Palestinians had to recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The reason Netanyahu posed this condition was because he knew that no Palestinian leader, however moderate, could accept it. It was an absurd condition. In short, Netanyahu never agreed to a two-state solution. In the run-up to the 2015 elections, he himself declared: ‘If I am elected, no Palestinian state will emerge on my watch’. He was re-elected and he was true to his word
The reality behind the last myth gives an unambiguous answer to the question of who the real rejectionist was during Netanyahu’s 15 years at the helm. By exposing the 12 myths that underlie the Israeli position in the conflict, Arieli holds up a mirror to his compatriots. His compatriots need to look long and hard at their face in the mirror, warts and all, if they wish to understand the fundamental reasons for the elusive peace.
*
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.
Avi Shlaim is an emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab 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.
Finish naturopathic Doctor Ariyana Love says there’s new research out of Spain supporting the idea that at least some batches of the coronavirus vaccine have graphene oxide in them.
She tells Stew that graphene oxide is included as a way to deliver nanotechnology into the blood of the vaccinated, as well as components of Ebola and the Marburg virus.
*
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 last several months have seen a heated debate about the effectiveness of the vaccines that are being currently administered against Covid-19.
The question on many people’s minds is: Do these pharmaceuticals work?
Both sides tend to feel quite strongly about their position which gives rise to a great deal of emotion as the debate goes on.
The good news is that, being nearly a year into the vast vaccination enterprise, we now possess sufficient data to determine whether the shots are effective or not.
As we know, the objective of vaccination is to eliminate or significantly reduce the incidence of the targeted disease. If a vaccine works, then in a highly vaccinated population we will see either complete elimination of the disease or a significant decrease of its incidence.
Since it is usually not practicable to achieve a 100 percent inoculation rate, the question is what is the vaccination level that will either bring the disease under control or eliminate it altogether?
This level is sometimes referred to as “herd immunity.” We were told at first by experts, most notably Dr. Anthony Fauci, that the vaccination rate of 60 to 70 percent would confer herd immunity in regard to Covid 19.
Fauci’s position was roughly in line with our experience with many other diseases where such levels of inoculation have either eliminated them or made them endemic, i.e. sufficiently limited so that they do not pose a large-scale, epidemic-level threat to the community.
Some twelve months into the worldwide vaccination drive there are now a number of countries with vaccination rates of between 60 and 70 percent. There are also some countries and geographical areas with rates of 80 percent or above.
While we do not know the precise figure which would confer herd immunity against this disease, we can be sure of one thing: if the vaccines are effective, vaccination rates of more than sixty percent should result in a significant reduction in its incidence.
[Author’s Note: The effect of the vaccines is further augmented by natural immunity which, according to some experts, may run as high as 50% in some populations. Nearly two years into the pandemic, populations in many places have been extensively exposed to the virus and, as a result, possess natural antibodies. Therefore, inoculating, let’s say, 65 percent of the population with a good vaccine should result in overall immunity in excess of 80 percent. With this kind of immunity level we should expect, if not the elimination of the disease, then certainly a considerable decline in its occurrence.]
This, however, is not at all what has happened in most of the highly vaccinated countries and regions. What has transpired in many of them was the very opposite. Following the “success” of their vaccination drives, there occurred dramatic surges of Covid 19. Even more astonishingly, several of these countries posted a record number of cases just after achieving their very high vaccination figures.
This news may come as a shock to many people because the connection between high vaccination rates and the subsequent explosion of cases has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media.
We will show you the reality of the situation by presenting the relevant data in an easy-to-see, straightforward way. We do this by juxtaposing graphs that depict vaccination rates with graphs that showcase rates in countries with high vaccine uptakes.
Neither side in the debate would dispute the validity of the data presented below. The data is taken from the Google Coronavirus Statistics tool, which draws its material from official sources and government databases. The data is publicly available and widely accessible. If you wish to verify or reproduce the data used in this piece, you can do so easily by going to google.com and typing “coronavirus” plus the name of the country whose statistics you want to examine. Once the country’s data comes up, you can choose in the horizontal menu that runs right under the term “Statistics” what graph you want to see: “New Cases” or “Vaccinations.”
Gibraltar
On November 17, Gibraltar posted its highest number of new cases in more than 10 months. The surge became a cause of great concern and prompted the government to call off Christmas festivities. The last time Gibraltar had so many cases was at the height of the winter wave in mid-January of 2021.
The most startling aspect of the current surge is that Gibraltar is the most highly vaccinated region in the world with more than 99 percent of its population being fully vaccinated. Even more astonishingly, more than 40 percent of Gibraltarians have already received their booster.
Given what we have been told about the vaccines by the corporate media and government officials, you would be justified in thinking that this is some kind of misinformation or error. It is, however, an undeniable fact that here, in the very midst of Gibraltar’s current surge, 99 percent of its residents are fully vaxxed. This is something you can see for yourself in the chart below.
The example of Gibraltar should stand as a clear lesson and a dire warning to health officials and politicians around the world who are trying to force their populations into high vaccination uptakes. Gibraltar clearly shows that even a 99 percent vaccine rate followed by intense boostering will not tame or eliminate Covid 19 from the population. Quite to the contrary, it can coincide with near-record spikes that will likely surpass previous highs, especially as in the weeks ahead the country enters the winter period.
Singapore
By October 26 nearly 83 percent of the Singapore population received their course of Covid injections. This means that more than 8 out of 10 Singaporeans had achieved fully vaccinated status.
Singapore’s very high vaccination rate, however, did nothing to decrease the presence of the disease in the nation. The exact opposite, in fact, happened. On October 27, 2021, Singapore posted its record case count of 5,324 new cases.
This figure was nearly 300 percent higher than the previous record of 1,426 that occurred on April 20, 2021. At that time Singapore’s vaccination rate was only 15 percent.
If the vaccine were even remotely effective such a situation could have never arisen. There is simply no way that a country where 83 percent of the population received an effective vaccine could ever experience such a record-breaking surge. Rather than an explosion of Covid, Singapore’s very high vaccination rate should have brought about herd immunity.
Denmark
As of November 12, Denmark’s vaccination stood at more than 75 percent.
On the same day, Denmark recorded 4,585 new cases of Covid 19, which was the country’s new case record. Denmark’s previous record was 4,508 cases posted in December of 2020 at the height of last year’s winter wave.
At the time of the old case record, the vaccination rate in Denmark was 0 percent.
The country’s very high vaccination rate not only did not eliminate the disease, but it coincided with record-breaking case numbers. If the vaccines injected into the bodies of two-thirds of Danes were any effective such a situation could have never come about.
Ireland
On November 16 of this year, Ireland boasted a vaccination rate of more than 75 percent.
On that day, Ireland posted 8,965 new cases of Covid-19. This was a new high for the nation.
The previous high was recorded on January 8, 2021. The figure stood at 8,227 then. At the time, Ireland’s vaccination rate was 0 percent.
Vaccinating 4.5 million people in Ireland – more than two-thirds of the population – was accompanied by an explosion of cases and a new case high for the nation.
Iceland
On November 16, 2021, the country’s vaccination rate stood at 76.4 percent.
On November 15, 2021, Iceland posted 420 new cases of Covid-19. This was a record that topped the country’s previous high by 500 percent when the country’s vaccination rate was zero.
Cayman Islands
On November 12, 2021, the country’s rate of fully vaccinated people stood at 83.9 percent of the total population.
On the same day, Cayman Islands posted 953 new cases of Covid-19, which was a new high for the country.
It exceeded the country’s high of 258 cases by more than 300% from the same day in the previous year. At that time the vaccination rate was zero percent.
Germany
On November 17, 2021, the country’s vaccination rate was 67.7 percent of the total population.
On that day Germany posted 68,366 new cases of Covid-19. This set a new record. It exceeded by nearly 50 percent the previous high of 45,333 cases from January 2021. At the time of the previous high, the vaccination rate in Germany was 0 percent.
Austria
On November 19, 2021, the country’s fully vaccinated rate stood at 65 percent.
On the same day, Austria posted 15,809 new cases of Covid-19. This was a new high. It surpassed by more than 50% the country’s previous record of 9,586 cases from November 13, 2020. At that time, the vaccination rate in Austria was zero percent.
Vermont
On November 10, 2021, the state’s vaccination rate stood at 71%.
At the same time, the state of Vermont posted 611 new cases of Covid-19, which was a new high. It topped by more than 100% Vermont’s previous record of 277 cases reported on January 2, 2021. At that time, the vaccination rate in Vermont was less than 1 percent.
Israel
On September 13, 2021, the country’s full vaccination rate stood at above 60 percent.
On the same day, Israel posted 11,800 new cases of Covid-19. This was a new case high for the country in this pandemic. At the time Israel was a global leader in vaccine administration and held out as an example for the rest of the world. Yet at the same time, Israel’s infection rate was the highest on the planet. The situation became so dire that Israel’s rate of infection was more than 50 percent higher than that of the second-ranked country in that metric, Mongolia. As to the question of vaccine effectiveness, it was quite revealing that Israel led the world in vaccination as well as infection.
Israel’s September record exceeded by nearly 50% the country’s previous high of 7,305 cases posted on January 28, 2021. At the time of the previous high, the vaccination rate in Israel was 18.3%.
Conclusion
We have seen again and again record case counts in countries and regions with high vaccination rates. This shows that high vaccine uptake does not reduce the incidence of Covid 19.
Not only do the vaccines not lower the incidence of this disease, but they also tend to correlate with its increase. As we have seen above, a number of countries have experienced record-breaking surges right after achieving high inoculation rates.
Countries with vaccination rates of 65 percent or more should definitely not be in the pandemic or suffer surges. Yet they do because “breakthrough” infections in the vaccinated are now very common and frequent. We do know for a fact that the vaccines do not prevent people from getting infected. This was confirmed in August by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky who openly admitted in a CNN interview that the vaccines can longer “prevent transmission.”
With winter coming there is every reason to be deeply concerned, since the high vaccination rates and accompanying explosion in cases were, for the most part, achieved in the summer and early fall when the virus is weak. As countries in the northern hemisphere are entering the winter season and the death counts keep going up quickly, we seem to stand on the brink of an extremely difficult period in the months ahead.
This situation exists despite the fact that many countries have achieved vaccination rates of close to 70 percent. Europe’s average rate of full vaccination, for example, currently stands at 65.5 percent while 69.9 percent of Europeans have received at least one injection.
Europe’s high vaccine uptake falls well within the herd immunity range specified earlier this year by Dr. Fauci and other experts. With such an inoculation rate the pandemic should be if not over, then definitely under control. Instead, it is out of control.
Many European nations, as well as countries in other parts of the globe, are sounding the alarm and imposing a new wave of lockdowns.
If the vaccines were even remotely effective, this could have never happened in highly vaxxed territories.
The vaccines have not only failed to live up to their promise, but the data indicates that in a number of places they have made the situation worse by bringing about surges.
The data clearly demonstrates that the vaccines do not have the effect they were supposed to have. The figures and graphs above provide hard evidence of vaccine failure.
For governments to pursue high vaccination rates with the obviously ineffective vaccines is misguided and counterproductive. It is also highly irresponsible and dangerous because of the vaccines’ extensive and severe side effects.
*
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 interview was originally published in February 2021.
America’s four-star Admiral Charles Richard issued a public warning that the US is on the brink of a nuclear war with Russia and China, stressing that US forces must shift their principal assumption from ‘nuclear employment is not possible’ to ‘nuclear employment is a very real possibility.’
Military expert Scott Ritter tells RT that the warning in question itself poses a danger.
*
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.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
It’s the 22nd November 2021 and this is the moment when the jabbing has to stop.
A couple of hours ago Darren Smith, the editor of the excellent The Light Paper, sent me a paper from the medical journal Circulation which proves that the covid-19 jabbing experiment has to stop today.
I believe that any doctor or nurse who gives one of the mRNA covid jabs after today will in due course be struck off the appropriate register and arrested.
The journal Circulation is a well-respected publication. It’s 71-years-old, its articles are peer reviewed and in one survey it was rated the world’s no 1 journal in the cardiac and cardiovascular system category.
I’m going to quote the final sentence of the abstract which appears at the beginning of the article. This is all I, you – or anyone else – needs to know.
“We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following vaccination.”
That’s it. That’s the death bell for the covid-19 mRNA jabs.
The endothelium is a layer of cells lining blood vessels and lymphatic vessels. T cells are a type of white cell.
We always knew these jabs were experimental. My video in December 2020, just under a year ago, warned about these specific risks. I read out a list of possible adverse events published officially by the American Government.
But now we have the proof of the link.
The mRNA jab is, remember, known not to stop people catching covid. And it is known not to stop people spreading it. I don’t believe anyone disputes these facts.
And yet vast numbers of deaths and serious injuries have occurred among people who have been jabbed. Look at the item entitled ‘Updated: how many are the vaccines killing?’ on my websites.
Now we have the evidence to stop the jabbing programmes.
In the study quoted in Circulation, a total of 566 patients aged 28 to 97 were tested. They were equally divided among men and women.
‘At the time of this report,’ says the author, ‘these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vaccine.’
At the very least, the use of these jabs must stop now. Immediately, until more long-term tests are done.
If there were any journalists left in the mainstream media, this news would be lead item on all TV and radio programmes and be on the front pages of all newspapers.
Thank heavens for free speech platforms such as BNT which enables me to bring you this news.
I’ve said for a year that this jab was an experiment – certain to kill and injure.
We’ve always known that to experiment on people without their full consent and understanding – after disclosing all the risks and potential side effects – is a crime.
Now the evidence exists that must stop this experiment.
If the covid jab experiment continues after today then we know for absolute sure that this is not a medical treatment, it is a cull.
Please share this video immediately with everyone you know.
Thank you.
*
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.
Using the PULS cardiac test, researchers have found Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID shots dramatically increase biomarkers associated with thrombosis, cardiomyopathy and other vascular events following vaccination
Pre- and post-injection PULS tests for 566 patients were compared. On average, their PULS scores went from an 11% five-year risk for acute coronary syndrome, to a more than double, 25%, five-year risk
Those who got the injection for fear that COVID-19 might adversely affect their heart now face the grim reality that they’ve exchanged a potential risk for a more certain one
Another paper details how the mRNA shot can cause thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) through a mechanism that involves the activation of platelets by antibodies against the spike protein (anti-spike antibodies)
A mystery that remains to be solved is why only certain people with antibodies to the spike protein (anti-spike antibodies) go on to develop symptoms of platelet activation and thrombocytopenia. One hypothesis is that only a subset of the anti-spike antibodies formed after vaccination can activate platelets and cause thrombocytopenia
In a November 21, 2021, tweet, cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra writes:1
“Extraordinary, disturbing, upsetting. We now have evidence of a plausible biological mechanism of how mRNA vaccine may be contributing to increased cardiac events. The abstract is published in the highest impact cardiology journal so we must take these findings very seriously.”
The abstract he’s talking about is “mRNA COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: A Warning,” published in the November 16, 2021, issue of the journal Circulation.2 (ACS is Acute Coronary Syndrome).
Cardiac Risk Warning
The PULS (Protein Unstable Lesion Signature) cardiac test3 is a simple blood test that detects unstable cardiac lesion rupture, one of the leading causes of heart attacks. As noted by the authors of that paper, this is “a clinically validated measurement of multiple protein biomarkers,” which include:
IL-16, a proinflammatory cytokine
Soluble Fas, an inducer of apoptosis
Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), a marker for chemotaxis of T-cells into epithelium and cardiac tissue
These and several other proteins are indicative of your immune system’s response to arterial injuries that can result in cardiac lesions. These lesions can become unstable, and if they rupture, they can lead to a heart attack.
So, based on the levels of these biomarkers, the test gives you a score that predicts your 5-year risk, as a percentage chance, of developing acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Elevated levels raise your PULS score while levels below the norm lower it.
COVID-Jabbed Patients More Than Double Their ACS Risk
According to the authors of the Circulation report:4
“The score has been measured every 3-6 months in our patient population for 8 years. Recently, with the advent of the mRNA COVID 19 vaccines (vac) by Moderna and Pfizer, dramatic changes in the PULS score became apparent in most patients. This report summarizes those results.
A total of 566 [patients], aged 28 to 97, M:F ratio 1:1 seen in a preventive cardiology practice had a new PULS test drawn from 2 to 10 weeks following the 2nd COVID shot and was compared to the previous PULS score drawn 3 to 5 months previously pre- shot.
Baseline IL-16 increased from 35=/-20 above the norm to 82 =/- 75 above the norm post-vac; sFas increased from 22+/- 15 above the norm to 46=/-24 above the norm post-vac; HGF increased from 42+/-12 above the norm to 86+/-31 above the norm post-vac.
These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5-year ACS risk to 25% 5-year ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.
We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.”
As noted by Malhotra, this is indeed extraordinarily disturbing. Patients who received a two-dose regimen of mRNA more than doubled their five-year ACS risk, driving it from an average of 11% to 25%. Just imagine the shape our medical system and society at large will be in if 1 of every 4 people who got the two-dose regimen ends up with acute heart failure.
Signs and Symptoms to Watch For
ACS is an umbrella term that doesn’t just include heart attacks, but also a range of other conditions involving abruptly reduced blood flow to your heart. Signs and symptoms of ACS typically begin very suddenly, and include:5
If you suspect ACS, do not drive yourself to the hospital. Call for an ambulance, as it is a true medical emergency that may need prompt medical attention. Risk factors for ACS have historically included older age, high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, lack of exercise, unhealthy diet, excess body weight and diabetes.
SARS-CoV-2 infection was recently added to that list, but it seems we must also add the COVID jab as well. Those who got the injection for fear that COVID-19 might adversely affect their heart now face the grim reality that they’ve exchanged a potential risk for a more certain one.
Vaccine-Induced Thrombocytopenia
In related news, a paper published in the journal Blood Advances reviews “SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Dependent Platelet Activation in COVID-19 Vaccine-Induced Thrombocytopenia.”6Thrombocytopenia is the medical term for low platelet count.
The authors point out that following the rollout of the mRNA and DNA-based COVID shots, more than 150 cases of thrombocytopenia have been reported. The reference for that statistic is a March 9, 2021, paper in the American Journal of Hematology,7 and injuries are stacking up at breakneck speed.
As of November 12, 2021, there were 4,387 cases of thrombocytopenia reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS),8 so it’s far more frequent than what they’re stating. (There are also 9,332 reports of heart attacks, which we just discussed, and 13,237 reports of myopericarditis, i.e., inflammation of the heart and/or heart sack.9)
According to the authors, identifying the mechanism by which the shots cause thrombocytopenia would facilitate the development of a diagnostic test. Historically, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia has been diagnosed using a serotonin release assay (SRA).
Using SRA, a subset of critically ill COVID-19 patients have tested positive for platelet-activating immune complexes that can cause thrombosis. Other researchers have also showed IgG antibodies from critically ill COVID-19 patients can activate platelets, resulting in a thrombotic event.
Here, using a modified SRA, they discovered spike-dependent, platelet-activating immune complexes in a patient with vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia, suggesting the spike protein is the causative factor. They explain:10
“Our patient was a 25-year-old woman who presented to hospital 10 days after receiving the Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine with fatigue, petechiae and wet purpura. The initial platelet count was 1,000 per cubic millimeter without evidence of schistocytes on blood smear.
Coagulation studies were within the normal range … This also likely excludes the presence of a lupus anticoagulant, given the use of a lupus-sensitive reagent for PTT testing. Anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)/heparin antibodies were not detected … and the classic SRA test, with or without heparin or exogenous PF4, was negative.
Assays for drug-induced immune thrombocytopenia with washed donor platelets were also negative for platelet binding with vaccine, PEG2000, or SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein … The patient was treated with dexamethasone and intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) for a presumed immune thrombocytopenic purpura. The platelet count normalized by day seven of treatment.
Additional serum testing identified SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein antibodies of the IgG … IgA … and IgM … classes. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein were absent, confirming vaccine-induced antibodies without prior infection.
To further investigate the mechanism of thrombocytopenia, we tested the patient’s serum using a modified SRA with addition of recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (Spike-SRA). We observed dose-dependent platelet activation with increasing SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein …
The reaction was inhibited by an FcγRIIa blocker … and IVIg … confirming FcγRIIa-dependent platelet activation. Platelet activation was also demonstrated to a lesser degree with increasing amounts of Moderna vaccine … and the excipient PEG2000 …
Furthermore, platelet activation was not detected in a control sample from a patient who had received the Moderna vaccine and had not developed thrombocytopenia …
Circulating Spike protein was detected in our patient’s serum using enzyme immunoassay testing … Together, these results suggest that the thrombocytopenia in this patient was secondary to FcγRIIa-mediated platelet activation by SARS-CoV-2 Spike immune complexes.”
Potential Mechanism Identified
If you found the section quoted above to be too complex, here’s the take-home message: The mRNA shot may be causing an exceptionally low level of platelets through a mechanism that involves antibodies against the spike protein (anti-spike antibodies) resulting in depletion of platelets by activating them.
Platelets are specialized cells that stop bleeding, and they have ACE2 receptors, which is what the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein binds to. When the spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor on the platelets, it activates them.
This platelet activation can lead to disseminated intravascular coagulation, i.e., a pathological overstimulation of your coagulation system that can result in abnormal, and life threatening, blood clotting, as well as thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) and hemorrhaging.
Doctors for COVID Ethics described this mechanism in a February 28, 2021, letter11 to the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In that letter, they warned that, based on this mechanism, spike protein-based COVID shots are likely to cause blood clots, cerebral vein thrombosis and sudden death, which is precisely what we’ve been seeing ever since.
In essence, you basically end up with so many blood clots throughout your vascular system that your coagulation system is exhausted, hence the low platelet count. The low platelet count, in turn, is what allows for hemorrhaging (abnormal bleeding).
Questions Remain
A mystery that remains to be solved is why only certain people with antibodies to the spike protein (anti-spike antibodies) go on to develop symptoms of platelet activation and thrombocytopenia. Why not all of them? “One hypothesis is that platelet activation is dependent on unique spike protein epitopes, which are only recognized by a minority of identified antibodies,” the authors suggest.12 In closing, they state:
“Our case … highlights the applicability of the SRA to detect platelet activation disorders aside from HIT [heparin-induced thrombocytopenia]. Although classically done in the presence of heparin, it can be modified to include various antigens to elicit immune complex formation and identify platelet activation …
Ultimately, the role of SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein requires further clarification in regards to platelet activation, as well as the role of vaccine- and PEG-dependent platelet activation. We postulate that a small subset of antibodies against the Spike protein, formed after vaccination, can activate platelets and cause thrombocytopenia.
The prevalence of this phenomenon remains to be clinically determined. Regardless, the modified SRA presented here may be a useful diagnostic test as more cases of vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia are recognized.”
COVID Jab Risks Clearly Outweigh Any Potential Benefit
Since well before the rollout of these COVID shots, scientists and doctors have sounded the alarm, pointing out a host of potential mechanisms by which they may cause harm. Now, nearly a year into it, many of our fears are turning out to have been warranted. They’re causing very serious cardiovascular damage, blood disorders, and reproductive dysfunction.
Worst of all, our health authorities have abandoned the mandate to protect public health and are covering up the wreckage on behalf of the profit makers. On top of that, doctors and nurses who speak out about the collateral damage they’re seeing are being silenced and persecuted by medical boards and government officials alike.
Now, we’re injecting these kill shots into children as young as 5. I see no way for this to end on a pleasant note. As a society, as the deaths and injuries, especially in children, continue to escalate, we’re going to face some excruciatingly difficult times.
To remind you of where this article started, people who have received two mRNA shots have more than doubled their five-year risk of acute coronary events, on average. If you’ve not yet taken the jab, I reckon you probably won’t at this point. But if you’ve already taken one or two, I strongly urge you to review the mechanisms of harm, and evaluate whether it’s worth it to continue with a third.
The adverse changes caused by the shots persist for at least 2.5 months. That’s the low end. We still do not know what the upper time limit is. It could be a year or more, and the risks certainly do not diminish with subsequent additional doses. In the November 12, 2021, OpenVAERS report,13they added a graph showing vaccination rates and VAERS reports by state.
As you can see, there’s a clear correlation between the rate of “fully vaccinated” in a given state and the number of COVID injuries reported from that state. (Indiana, for some reason, sticks out as a lone exception with a disproportionately high number of reports to the number of fully “vaccinated.”)
The gray zones are population; blue bars are the number of fully vaccinated; the red bars are the number of reported injuries. (All numbers have been divided by 1,000.) This is yet another piece of evidence that we have a serious problem on our hands.
What Can You Do if You Have Jab Remorse?
If you now believe that getting the COVID jab was a mistake and wish to lessen your doubled risk of cardiac complications, there a few basic strategies I would advise.
1. Make certain you measure your blood vitamin D level and take enough vitamin D orally (typically about 8,000 units/day for most adults) to make sure your level is 60 to 80 ng/ml (100 to 150 nmol/l).
2. Eliminate all vegetable (seed) oils in your diet, which involves eliminating nearly all processed foods and most meals in restaurants unless you convince the chef to only cook with butter. Avoid any sauces or salad dressings in restaurants as they are loaded with seed oils. Also avoid chicken and pork as they are very high in linoleic acid, the omega-6 fat that is far too high in nearly everyone and contributes to oxidative stress that causes heart disease.
3. Consider taking around 500 mg/day of NAC, as it helps prevent blood clots and is a precursor for your body to produce the important antioxidant glutathione.
4. Consider fibrinolytic enzymes that digest the fibrin that leads to blood clots, strokes and pulmonary embolisms. The dose is typically two, twice a day, but must be taken on an empty stomach, either an hour before or two hours after a meal. Otherwise, the enzymes will digest your food and not the fibrin in the blood clot.
*
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.
Are we prepared to see our loved ones burn alive in a nuclear holocaust in a war with Russia over Ukraine?
If not, cut out the macho saber rattling and de-escalate before it’s too late.
*
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 Quirinale Treaty promoted by President of the Republic Mattarella, signed on November 26 by Prime Minister Draghi and President of the Republic Macron, is a 360-degree political treaty by which Italy and France “undertake to develop their coordination and foster synergy between their respective actions at the international level,” implementing “industrial partnerships in specific military sectors” and other programs involving financial burdens for the state.
In order to be ratified by the President of the Republic, the Treaty should have been first authorized by the Parliament according to Art. 80 of the Constitution, according to which “the Chambers authorize by law the ratification of international treaties that are of a political nature, or provide for financial burdens”. Instead, the text of the Treaty remained secret, outside of an inner circle of government, until it was published after signing.
The purpose of the Treaty, which came to light at the end of secret negotiations, is clear from its timing: it is being concluded at a time when, with the departure of German Chancellor Merkel, a new balance of power in the European Union is being established. France, which in 2022 will assume the six-month presidency of the EU, replaces the Paris-Berlin axis with the Paris-Rome one.
Central to the bilateral agreement is Art. 2 on “Security and Defense”, consisting of 7 paragraphs. Italy and France undertake to “strengthen European defense capabilities, thus also working for the consolidation of the European pillar of NATO”. As Draghi stressed in tune with Washington, one must build “a true European defense, which of course is complementary to NATO, not a substitute: a stronger Europe makes a stronger NATO.” In order to pay for both NATO and Europe’s defense, a colossal increase in Italian military spending, which already exceeds 70 million euros per day, will be necessary.
As part of “structural alliances” between their respective military industries, Italy will help France upgrade its strategic nuclear forces and related military space systems. Macron has launched a “modernization” program that includes the development of third-generation nuclear attack submarines, armed with new ballistic missiles, and a sixth-generation fighter jet (Fcas) armed with new hypersonic nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Italy, however, already participates in the project of another sixth generation nuclear attack fighter, the Tempest, promoted by Great Britain, so it will probably collaborate on both unless they are unified.
Functional to the “modernization” of the French nuclear forces is the program, announced by Macron in October, to build a system of small modular nuclear reactors at a cost of 30 billion euros. Probably the Treaty also provides for the collaboration of Italy in this field, as part of the plan aimed at the reintroduction of nuclear power in our energy system.
Also in Art. 2, Italy and France undertake to “facilitate the transit and stationing of the armed forces of the other party on their territory”, without specifying for what purpose, and to coordinate their participation in “international crisis management missions”, particularly in the Mediterranean, Sahel and Gulf of Guinea. A strong increase in the participation of Italian special forces – with armored vehicles, aircrafts and attack helicopters – in the Task Force Takuba, which under French command operates in Mali and neighboring countries, is being prepared. Officially deployed in this region for the “fight against terrorism”, in reality it is deployed to control one of the richest areas in strategic raw materials exploited by US and European multinationals, whose oligopoly is threatened by political changes in Africa and the economic presence of China.
In this way, according to the Treaty of the Quirinale, Italy and France together “contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as the protection and promotion of human rights”.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles 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 the past few months, people around the world have been rising up and pouring onto the streets of their nations to protest their governments enforcement of a health passport that only allows the vaccinated to participate in society. (1,2,3,4)
People are waking up as their freedoms disappear under a wash of government dictatorship. The threat is very real as nation after nation invokes a mandatory health pass and inoculations that violate ones’ personal sovereignty.
Governments around the world are either coercing or forcing their citizens to take dangerous inoculations which take away the peoples rights and freedoms while also punishing those who do not comply. (5,6,7) Human rights, which western countries claim to champion, have all been destroyed.
Disturbing but not surprising is that the mainstream news continues to back the totalitarian government narratives while refusing to carry out real investigative journalism; and as such, both the government and mainstream media continue to lose public trust as governments continue to bear down on the public with totalitarian and sometimes violent force (8).
Two of the major reasons why there is a rise in public awareness about the dangers of these COVID inoculations are, the rise in state brutality on protesters and the large numbers of vaccine injuries and the sudden death of people around the world after receiving these dangerous COVID inoculations.
Reports have been flooding social networks of sudden heart attacks after being inoculated, as the “COVID Vaccine Sudden Death Syndrome” continues to unfold on the public around the world. We are also seeing a huge uptick in heart attacks in very fit athletes (9a) (many of whom are soccer players (9b)) and game officials who are all in public view. The one thing these athletes and officials all have in common is that to work and travel in their sport they had to take the unnecessary COVID inoculations. And so, it becomes increasingly difficult for governments to trivialize or declare these sudden deaths as coincidence, especially with the deaths of so many athletes, who are in the best physical shape of their lives. They certainly shouldn’t be dying of heart attacks.
The news of athletes having heart problems is becoming a daily occurrence. Soccer players have been going through intensive cardio workouts for years without problems, with the exception of a rare case like an undetected birth defect, so why are we seeing so many heart problems now? (10) There is no way all these heart problems are a coincidence as some would have you believe. A full transparent investigation and dialog is required, but that will not happen will it judging by our government’s insane position.
Alarm bells are also ringing in pregnant mothers as we are now seeing a rise in stillbirths, (11,12) which of course is also supposed to be a rare occurrence in this day and age. Could this huge uptick in stillbirths have something to do with pregnant mothers receiving the COVID shot?! Yes, it seems very, very likely.
These deaths are only the beginning because the dangerous inoculations they are calling vaccines, not only change your DNA but they compromise your immune system (13) and there’s nothing that can change that fact with the exception of never taking these dangerous COVID inoculations (14) in the first place.
All this is happening right in front of everyone’s eyes while governments continue to censor and suppress information by doctors and scientists who are warning the world of the harmful effects from these dangerous COVID inoculations! Wouldn’t you want to at least listen to what these doctors and scientists have to say instead of them being censored, before you blindly play the establishments rigged roulette game? A game where the shot makes every player’s immune system a loser?!
Around the world, governments are continuing to ramp up a war on their own populations under the guise of a health emergency, and wouldn’t you know it, just as people are standing up against their governments health pass and mandatory inoculations, a new variant called “Omicron” (15,16) has popped up in Botswana and then South Africa, to close down society and potentially lock us all down, ending protests, while covering up the massive deaths attributed to the COVID shots.
An interesting twist to this story is that a Majority of South Africans refuse the COVID inoculations and so the S.A. govt has delayed / cancelled shipments of these mRNA inoculations (17). So, why do the South African people refuse COVID inoculations? Well because they have had very bad experiences with inoculations and sociopathic governments in the past (18) that’s why, and so they don’t trust those connected to the Global economic cartel, and nor should you.
The immediate response by the global economic cartel to South Africa’s request for a delay in delivering US pharma jabs on November 24th, 2021, was to declare a new covid variant from South Africa 48 hours later and then isolate the country from the rest of the world. This has a significant economic consequence on the people of South Africa and other African nations (19) of course…it’s a punishment, or retaliation for not towing the economic cartels big pharma line it would seem.
Will this new so called COVID variant, “Omicron” be used as the reason and excuse to lockdown the World in December, cancel family Christmas celebrations and then use their new variant as a reason to force their mRNA & DNA poisoned shots on the entire global population? They are certainly moving in that direction.
In Austria, Hungary and other European countries, they are already declaring mandatory COVID inoculations on the public with severe punishments to those who resist, and that was before “Omicron”.
The one shining light in this episode of the twilight zone is that the tyrannical push by our governments is also waking up more people to the insane sociopathic narrative that politicians, tied to the W.H.O. (World Health Organization) are pushing on the world.
The Next Battle in the War on Information
Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter resigned today (20).
Although it’s true that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have been using censorship to suppress information on the Internet, Twitter was the only one of the three major networks that did not completely stomp out information on COVID and alternative voices even with a shadow ban in place. However, as Jack Dorsey steps down as Twitter’s CEO, to make way for…someone else, (21) there are no guarantee’s that we will have any freedom of speech left on Twitter. The timing of Dorsey’s departure is very suspect as we all know instinctively what’s coming, “More Censorship”, especially now that the establishment has unveiled their new fear monster “Omicron”.
Will the new order that arises at Twitter be corporate puppets with a pro-censorship attitude? Or will they be free speech inclined? Count on more censorship…
Last Word
People around the world need to continue standing up and uniting against the mandatory inoculations, the health pass and societal segregation. The future is in our hands yet we are now at a crossroads that will define the future governance of the human race. We either stand against fascist totalitarianism now and emerge with our rights and freedoms in tact or we perish under the boots of tyranny. The direction we go depends upon you, be brave, be determined and Rise up!
*
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.
Stewart Brennan is a Geo-political and economic analyst, activist, blogger and author. He’s worked in the Aviation, Packaging, Transportation and Logistics Industries and is the author of “The Activist Poet”, two books of political activism and poetry, and several blogs including World United News and World United Music.
Notes
1. Australia – Thousand’s flood streets to decry vaccine mandate
All Global Research articles 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.
Northern Syria is as volatile as ever, despite Turkey holding back to wait for a better possibility to begin its one, or two military operations.
Center stage is now taken by the US-led coalition’s movements and their attempt to presumably counter Iran’s spreading influence and activities.
On November 28, a large convoy moving supplies for the US-led coalition entered northeastern Syria from the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
The convoy headed to the town of Rmelan in the northeastern countryside of al-Hasakah. The US-led coalition has several bases in the area which are tightly controlled by its main proxy in northeastern Syria, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
The US-led coalition apparently wants to reinforce its bases in the northeastern al-Hasakah countryside. Days earlier, a rocket attack targeted a large airfield of the US-led coalition located near the town of Khrab al-Jeer. The attack didn’t result in any casualties. US-led coalition fighter jets and helicopters were spotted flying over the airfield and nearby areas after the attack.
Meanwhile, in Greater Idlib, while Ankara’s troops are keeping it low, the so-called moderate opposition, led by the al-Qaeda affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) continue to commit numerous daily ceasefire violations targeting the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), as well as civilian settlements.
On November 28, Turkey’s main proxy in the northwestern Syrian region of Greater Idlib, the National Front for Liberation (NFL), shared a video showing one of its recent attacks on SAA troops.
During the attack, which took place on November 25, NFL militants targeted a gathering of SAA soldiers near the town of Hantoteen. No fatalities resulted from the attack.
On November 28, the SAA shelled militants’ positions in the southern Idlib countryside as well as in the western countryside of Aleppo in response to a number of recent violations.
Following that, clashes broke out between the SAA and militants in the southern part of the Greater Idlib, north of the government-held town of Saraqib. The town is located right on the strategic M5 highway, which links Hama with Aleppo. Traffic at the highway slowed down a day earlier as a result of similar clashes.
The SAA and its allies managed to reopen the M5 highway last year following a fierce battle with HTS and its Turkish-backed allies. The militants failed to hold onto the highway despite receiving direct support from the Turkish military.
The escalation near the M5 and the recently released footage of shelling attacks on the SAA are rare but significant escalations that contribute to the region spinning out of control.
*
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 number of defence analysts are convinced that the United States of America, supported by Britain and Australia, is goading China to go to war over Taiwan. They point to constant statements by officials from the three countries pledging to come to Taiwan’s defence if it is attacked by China and the actual presence of US warships in the vicinity of the region as evidence of “an aggressive stance”. The game-plan of the US and its allies according to these observers is to create an atmosphere that will compel China to retaliate to these provocations and fire the first shot. The Western media which is already on their side will quickly brand China as the aggressor and mobilise global public opinion on behalf of the “victims of Chinese aggression”.
There are certain underlying motives that may tempt the US to pursue this game-plan. There are hawks in Washington and elsewhere who believe that a short, quick war against China at this stage will benefit the hegemon and its global agenda. One, since the US is militarily stronger than China , a humiliating defeat for the latter will be a huge setback. At a time when the peaceful rise of China has made such an impact upon nations everywhere, a defeat will prove to all and sundry that the US is still the master of the planet. Two, a US victory over China will undoubtedly strengthen the Taiwan independence movement and encourage the separatists to expand their activities and intensify their demand. This will impact adversely upon Chinese sovereignty and undermine its national resilience. Three, a war over Taiwan will force China to divert its resources from much needed economic and social development to an unnecessary war on its doorstep. This diversion of resources will impede its progress. This is what the US and some of its allies would want to see.
China will not allow this to happen. The Chinese leadership has always been aware of the dire consequences of war and violence for the nation and the people. Yet it is deeply cognisant of the imperative necessity to defend its sovereignty and integrity as a nation and the dignity of its people. It will therefore respond to provocations by resorting to measures — various measures — which do not lead to violence and war. These could be political moves or diplomatic manoeuvres or even trade sanctions. But China will not yield to provocations. It will not succumb to threats or arrogant bullying.
The US leadership does not seem to understand this. For many decades now, US leaders and indeed, leaders of many other Western countries including Australia, do not seem to appreciate the importance of respect as a value in inter-state relations. Coercing or compelling a state to follow blindly one’s dictates is an example of a lack of respect for the other in international relations.
The controversy over Taiwan illustrates the point about respect in international relations. Taiwan is part of China. This is an indisputable historical fact. 180 countries in the world recognise this reality. Since 1979, the US government has acknowledged that there is only one China represented by Beijing. This is contained in documents such as the famous three joint communiques. Beijing has always objected to US officials sometimes treating Taiwan as if it were an independent, sovereign state. This is apparent not just in US-Taiwan military ties but also on occasions in politics and economics.
The time has come for the United States’ friends in Asia to remind the US in a firm but courteous tone that living up to the One China policy is fundamental for the rest of the world in its relations to China. It is the deepest red line in our relations with China and will remain so for centuries to come. We must respect this line with a sincere heart. There must not be the slightest hint that the US or Britain or Australia or anyone else is trying to encourage separatist, anti-unification with China movements in Taiwan.
By advocating strict adherence to the ‘One China’ policy, we are not suggesting that we kow-tow to Beijing in a servile manner. If we have to disagree with Beijing on a matter of principle we should. For instance, many countries within ASEAN, are at odds with Beijing on Beijing’s claim that it has suzerainty over almost 85% of the area perceived as the South China Sea. ASEAN governments and indeed, ASEAN civil society groups as a whole should continue to reiterate our sovereign maritime rights over the South China Sea in accordance with our historical claims and international law. We should never cease to persuade the authorities in China to accept our legitimate demands.
In other words, we should ask China to respect our rights vis-à-vis the South China Sea just as we want the US to respect China’s position on 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.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Kuala Lumpur.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Because there is no virus. SARS-CoV-2 doesn’t exist. I’ve spent the past year and a half proving that. [0]
But fantasies do exist. So do covert ops with intentions to deceive.
Thus, the “scientific world” is agog over the new South African variant, named B11529 (aka Omicron, Botswana). Woo. The ghost is coming out of the closet. Beware. COVID cases are rising…
“We don’t know whether the vaccine will be effective in the face of the new variant. New lockdowns may be necessary. Travel restrictions are coming. Batten down the hatches.”
I mean, really.
As you know, for the past few months stories in the press have been claiming the vaccine-conferred immunity is sinking like a stone. This story is absurd because, again, there is no virus. So there was no conferred immunity to begin with. But anyway, that’s the story that’s been circulating. So NOW…
“It turns out one major reason for the diminished effectiveness of the vaccine is…
“The NEW VARIANT. The South African B11529.”
Uh-huh. “The vaccine is having a tough time preventing infection caused by the new variant. We may need to enforce boosters every three months…”
Keep the fear going. Push harder for the vaccine. Explain away its failures. Fabricate rising case numbers, blaming them on the new variant. Institute heavy new lockdowns.
“The South African variant is deadlier than the Delta, which is deadlier than the original.”
And none of the three exists.
What does exist is fantasy, piled higher and deeper and thicker.
The variant is Fauci. The variant is Bill Gates. The variant is CDC/WHO. The variant is the World Economic Forum. And the Chinese regime. And presidents and governors. And the mainstream press.
And don’t forget this. Vaccine injuries and deaths have been escalating all over the world. In the US alone, reported injuries have broken above 600,000 [1]. As I’ve mentioned, the well-known Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare study [2] concluded that, to obtain a true number of injuries, multiply the reported figure by 100.
Something is needed to explain all these injuries and deaths. That is, to lie about them.
And right on time, here comes the new variant.
“These people who seem to be injured by the vaccine are really keeling over from the original virus, the Delta, and woo, the South African B11529.”
Also: Recently, we’ve seen a spate of press stories with the theme—“scientists are mystified by the low COVID case numbers in Africa, where the vaccination rates are very low.” [3] Boom. That story is now gone. Wiped out. Now it’s THE WORLD IS BEING ATTACKED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN B111529 VARIANT.
Here is one of my articles covering the non-existence of SARS-CoV-2:
Dr. Andrew Kaufman refutes “isolation” of SARS-Cov-2; he does step-by-step analysis of a typical claim of isolation; there is no proof that the virus exists
The global medical community has been asserting that “a pandemic is being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2.”
But what if the virus doesn’t exist?
People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.
“Isolation” should mean the virus has been separated out from all surrounding material, so researchers can say, “Look, we have it. It exists.”
I took a typical passage from a published study, a “methods” section, in which researchers describe how they “isolated the virus.” I sent it to Dr. Andrew Kaufman [4], and he provided his analysis in detail.
I found several studies that used very similar language in explaining how “SARS-CoV-2 was isolated.” For example, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States, (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26, No. 6 — June 2020)” [5].
First, I want to provide a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is going on in the study.
The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a number of compounds. The researchers assume, without evidence, that “the virus” is in this soup. At no time do they separate the purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup. Isolation of the virus is not occurring.
They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused by “the virus.” However, as you’ll see, Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.
There is no reason to infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is killing cells.
Finally, the researchers assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able to discover the genetic sequence of “the virus.”
Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:
STUDY: “We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage [in the soup in the lab]…”
KAUFMAN: “Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of monkeys and a source of contamination. Virus particles should be purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from everything else. So how can you separate/isolate a virus when you add it to something else?”
STUDY: “…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%)…”
KAUFMAN: “Why use minimal essential media, which provides incomplete nutrition [to the cells]? Fetal bovine serum is a source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles, which are indistinguishable from viruses.”
STUDY: “…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate…”
KAUFMAN: “Once again, misuse of the word isolation.”
STUDY: “…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…”
KAUFMAN: “Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins. Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so called spike protein?”
KAUFMAN: “Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO) [6]. Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and would be readily identified if they were contaminating the sample. The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys and we are using kidney cells in this experiment! Also note they are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the normal amount. These will certainly cause damage to the Vero cells.”
STUDY: “…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…”
STUDY: “When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip…”
KAUFMAN: “There was no negative control experiment described. Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus? A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not contain a virus.”
STUDY: “…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.”
KAUFMAN: “How do you confirm something that was never previously shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to? How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came from a cell culture containing material from humans and all their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?”
(End of study quotes and Kaufman analysis)
My comments: Dr. Kaufman does several things here. He shows that isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word “isolation,” is not occurring.
Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to the cells and cell-death as proof that “the virus” is in the soup they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the killing. But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus. Therefore, no proof exists that “the virus” is in the soup or exists at all.
And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic sequencing of “the virus” is absurd, because there is no proof that the virus is present. How do you sequence something when you haven’t shown it exists?
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the subject of the “pandemic” during the past year [7]) will ask: Then why are people dying? What about the huge number of cases and deaths? I have answered these and other questions in great detail. The subject of this article is: have researchers proved SARS-CoV-2 exists?
The answer is no.
(End of Kaufman article)
*
And while I’m at it, here is another piece I wrote last year about how virus-propaganda (fairy tales) must be managed, in order to make the masses stand up and salute:
The “hot zone” theory of new frightening diseases
Remember? There was a 1994 book by that name— and then “experts” began piling on—it went something like this:
“Out of the deep dark rainforests of Earth (cue sounds of native drumming), as a result of modern plane travel, viruses we’ve never encountered before will spread epidemics across the globe. Our immune systems, ill-equipped to recognize or deal with these strange killer germs, will fold up under the pressure, and all of civilization will be threatened with extinction.”
Let’s see. Since planes fly back and forth, and since all sorts of Westerners travel TO the rainforests, why haven’t we seen whole native tribes wiped out by viruses from the deep dark streets of Brooklyn?
It would even seem that viruses, common in, say, Norway, would cause trouble in Oregon.
Why does it have to be “viruses from jungles?” Or other faraway places like China? Why can’t we have the Second City Virus, emanating from a slaughterhouse in Chicago and infecting people in Nigeria? Why can’t we have a Big Easy virus from New Orleans traveling to Beijing?
Is it possible that jungles and Africa and China and Mexico are typically chosen for virus fairy tales because, in the minds of many Westerners, they satisfy a requirement of “strange,” “different,” “primitive,” and so on? We’re talking theater here—and when you stage a propaganda play (fiction), you want to tap into the reflex instincts of the audience. The Hartford Virus, the Des Moines Virus, the Vancouver Virus just don’t fit the bill.
Because they can’t drive up the fear that jungles or Africa or China can.
Unless you’ve been living in an ice cave in the Arctic, you know selling fear of THE VIRUS is big business. To do that, you have to strike the right notes.
I personally would be interested in a Beverly Hills or a Scarsdale or a Park Avenue epidemic virus story. I’d like to see the media try to sell that one.
What about a Bill Gates Seattle virus that some Patient Zero unknowingly carries on a plane flight to Mexico City?
Think it through. We NEVER hear killer virus stories about germs traveling from Europe and America to Asia and Africa. Why not? Because such a story won’t sell. It won’t bite.
This is called a clue.
It tells you that virus-stories are shaped and managed and written and managed and broadcast according to a plan that has nothing to do with actual disease.
If a monkey in Africa can bite a man and thus transmit a virus to the West, then a salesman in Duluth can sneeze on a man at a local airport and thus send a virus to Ethiopia.
But amazingly, through secret communication among viruses, it never happens that way. The germs have decided what the traffic pattern is, and the CDC and the World Health Organization are just discovering What Is.
Sure they are. And if you buy that, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.
*
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.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
All Global Research articles 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 District Judge Matthew Schelp in the Eastern District of Missouri blocked the federal government from mandating Covid jabs for healthcare workers in Missouri, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Hampshire.
Republican Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt led the way and sued the Biden Regime alongside 9 other states.
Judge Schelp said the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has no right to hand down rules because they never got approval from Congress.
“Truly, the impact of this mandate reaches far beyond COVID,” Schelp wrote. “CMS seeks to overtake an area of traditional state authority by imposing an unprecedented demand to federally dictate the private medical decisions of millions of Americans. Such action challenges traditional notions of federalism.”
Schelp also said argued CMS did not produce evidence that shows vaccination status has “a direct impact on spreading Covid.”
“No one questions that protecting patients and health care workers from contracting COVID is a laudable objective,” he wrote. “But the court cannot, in good faith, allow CMS to enact an unprecedented mandate that lacks a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”
Attorney General Schmitt celebrated after Judge Schelp issued a preliminary injunction in response to his lawsuit.
BREAKING: After Missouri was the first to lead a coalition of states in filing a lawsuit, the Court today issued a preliminary injunction HALTING the Biden Administration's vaccine mandate on healthcare workers.
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.
Cristina Laila began writing for The Gateway Pundit in 2016 and she is currently the Associate Editor.
All Global Research articles 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 a small world we live in. The “Nu variant” scare you keep hearing about is coming from the same people and institutions that spawned the last COVID scare, and the one before that, and the one before that one, dating back all the way to the onset of COVID Mania.
[Update: the World Health Organization has now labeled this strain the “Omicron variant,” in noticeably skipping over “Xi” in the greek alphabet]
The corporate press and world governments have produced an incredible amount of noise about a claimed new COVID variant, the “Nu” variant, which has been detected in South Africa and Botswana.
🦠Of all the variants so far, B.1.1.529 is causing the most alarm. And with good reason.
The ‘nu’ variant has an eye-watering number of mutations, many of which could help it dodge immunity, or make it more infectious.
Just as with previous ruling class-fomented bouts of Hysteria-19, there is no statistical cause for alarm over this new strain, which is one of over 100,000 mutations of the coronavirus.
The “new strain” has hardly produced any lab confirmed cases, but a panicked narrative has already been seeded in the public. The U.K. in particular has driven the fear to new levels. The country has already added several African nations to its travel ban list, citing the new strain.
OK, it looks like we may have a Nu Variant of Concern on our hands … 😕
Similar to every other government-prescribed policy to fight a war on a virus, travel bans do not actually work to stop a virus, but they do successfully agitate the markets and masses into bouts of madness.
And it is not a coincidence that the U.K. is again the first mover on the “Nu strain” front.
The new variant hysteria originated at Imperial College UK, the home of a disgraced, corrupted academic modeling institution that proselytized lockdowns to the Western world. Throughout COVID Mania, Imperial has been the source of countless versions of “new strain” propaganda. The institution does not only participate in shoddy modeling. It both foments the insanity and demands a series of totalitarian measures to deal with their faulty narrative creations.
The new variant scare campaign originated earlier this week with a Twitter thread from Tom Peacock, a postdoc in his early 30s who is employed at Imperial College London. He set the gears in motion through his alarmist interpretation of the variant, describing the new strain as having a “really awful Spike mutation profile.”
Just spotted: very small cluster of variant associated with Southern Africa with very long branch length and really awful Spike mutation profile including RBD – K417N, N440K, G446S, S477N, T478K, E484A, Q493K, G496S, Q498R, N501Y, Y505Hhttps://t.co/kgA9c1hKDa
NEW: a new variant with an “extremely high” 32 mutations – but only 10 cases so far – has been identified in South Africa, Botswana and Hong Kong. Thanks to the excellent work of @PeacockFlu who identified it. It’s called B.1.1.529 @theipaperhttps://t.co/HosJudKzdL
The corporate media, world governments, and other institutions have regurgitated Peacock’s pandemic proclamations, setting off a new series of authoritarian demands from the ruling class.
The current new strain panic comes at a time in Europe when COVID-19 cases are surging in the continent, despite the universal embrace of mRNA injections that were promised to resolve the COVID-19 problem.
This “new strain” has reportedly been found in Europe, driving the media’s narrative even further into the totalitarian abyss.
NOW – Stocks tumble on Black Friday as Belgium confirms the first case of "new variant" in the European Union. pic.twitter.com/Xe0B3yEmwp
With claims disseminated to the masses by Big Tech and world governments, the Gates Inc and China-influenced World Health Organization is sowing maximum panic and terror.
Outside of the Chinese Communist Party, no other institution has been as influential in driving destructive COVID-19 policies than Imperial College London.
Imperial College UK is the home of the infamous “doomsday models” for COVID-19, which promised that millions of people would imminently be wiped off the earth if the Western world did not lock down in March of 2020 for COVID-19. The idea that the world needed to “flatten the curve” through pseudoscientific lockdowns was spawned by a faulty academic model from Neil Ferguson, an epidemiologist at Imperial College. When pressed to open source his models, Ferguson outright refused. He later resigned in disgrace from the U.K. government scientific advisory board. Yet “Professor Lockdown” somehow remains a very influential figure in driving Britain’s totalitarian pandemic response policies.
On the topic of new strains, it seems everything old is new again. Imperial was the primary source of the new variant scare models of 2020. It was around this time last year when U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, citing Imperial speculation on a different strain, initiated a Winter lockdown.
A new corona variant 70% more transmissible than the original virus. A lockdown that isolates London. A prime minister in crisis. Our full report one of the pandemic’s darkest days in the UK. W/@_StephenCastle https://t.co/hS4USrDpXE
Read my piece in the Dossier about that “new strain” of 2020 and you will see the incredible parallels. The South Africa/Botswana “Nu strain” propaganda relies on the same fear campaign, but a rebranded version. It’s the exact same playbook.
Last year, it commenced with Erik Volz, an epidemiologist at Imperial College London, who claimed the new strain was 70% more transmissible. His exact language was later repeated by PM Johnson in justifying his lockdown.
Before Nu, the latest scariant, best known as the “Delta variant,” had a similar viral marketing campaign behind its emergence.
Notably, Imperial’s virology and epidemiology departments have received incredible amounts of funding from the Gates Foundation, the world’s most influential driver of global “public health” policy. According to a review of their public records, Gates Inc has delivered close to $300 million dollars to the Imperial College London.
*
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 has been 300 days since Joseph Biden was inaugurated president. There’s no question that he’s had a rough go of it. He’s had to contend with a united Republican Party committed to blocking his every move and a handful of Democratic senators and members of Congress wanting to chip away at key components of his signature domestic legislation. Biden has also had to deal with the chaos left behind by his predecessor. Despite these obstacles, he has had some successes.
Between now and his first anniversary in office, interest groups of all sorts will evaluate the extent to which the Biden administration has been able to fulfill the commitments he made during his campaign. During the next few months, I will, on occasion, take a look at a number of the pledges candidate Biden made to the Arab American community in 2020. Because developments in Israel/Palestine are on my mind, this is where I will begin.
During the 2020 campaign season, I was involved in the negotiations with the Biden team over the language that would shape its platform on Middle East-related issues. When it came to Israel/Palestine, I was pleased that they were willing to insert some language we had failed to have included in earlier years. This platform does, for example, speak about the equal worth and value of Israelis and Palestinians. It also condemns Israeli settlements, language we were unable to have inserted into the Obama or Clinton platforms.
Where we focused our pressure in 2020 was on our insistence that the Biden campaign accept the principle of conditionality, tying US political and economic assistance to Israel on their policies in the occupied territories. We failed to have any language of this sort inserted in the platform, and it is the absence of conditionality that, as we shall see, is the reason why the Biden administration has been unable to deliver on its other campaign pledges in this area.
In both the 2020 Biden platform and his campaign’s “Plan for Partnership” with the Arab American community, Biden addressed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict thusly.
“Joe Biden believes in the worth and value of every Palestinian and every Israeli. He will work to ensure that Palestinians and Israelis enjoy equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity, and democracy.”
“His policies will be grounded in a commitment to a two-state solution, where Israel and the future viable state of Palestine will live together in peace, security, and mutual recognition.”
“Biden opposes any unilateral steps by either side that undermine a two-state solution. He opposes annexation and settlement expansion and will continue to oppose both as President.”
“As President, Biden will take immediate steps to restore economic and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, consistent with US law, including assistance to refugees, work to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza…”
“… reopen the US consulate in East Jerusalem…”
“… and work to reopen the PLO mission in Washington”.
Even a cursory glance at the list makes it clear that with the exception of item #4, the Biden administration has failed to deliver on, or even make progress towards, any of the other pledges they made in addressing Israel/Palestine.
The lives and worth of Palestinians have repeatedly been subordinated to those of Israelis. Israel has continued to take unilateral measures that make a two-state solution impossible to even imagine. And it appears that the Biden administration has surrendered to Israel and pro-Israel “hawks” in Congress on reopening both the Jerusalem Consulate (which is actually in West, not East, Jerusalem) and the PLO office in Washington.
During the past ten months, the situation confronting Palestinians in the occupied territories has appreciably worsened. The Gaza war, which was precipitated by provocative Israeli actions that threaten to change the status quo at the Haram Al Sharif and efforts to evict Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem and by Hamas’ foolish and costly use of rockets, resulted in the deaths of more than 200 Palestinians and a dozen Israelis, devastation to Gaza’s infrastructure, and the destruction of the homes of tens of thousands. Dozens of Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank also lost their lives to Israeli fire.
The Biden administration had only a timid response to both Israel’s actions in Jerusalem and its disproportionate use of force in Gaza and the West Bank. And the aid the US has offered Palestinians, while welcomed, was $360 million, a paltry sum when compared to Israel’s $3.8 billion annual aid supplemented by an additional $1 billion to replenish its “Iron Dome” defence system.
Israel’s new government has announced plans to significantly increase the number of settlement housing units in the occupied lands and has “legalised” a number of previously “unauthorised” settlements, this growth is strategically planned to further consolidate Israeli control over the territories and make impossible the establishment of an independent viable Palestinian state. At the same time, Israel has continued to demolish Palestinian homes and do nothing to curb the spike in organised settler violence and harassment directed at Palestinians living near illegal Israeli settlements. To make matters worse, the Israelis have declared leading Palestinian human rights monitoring and advocacy groups to be terrorist-affiliated.
In the face of these Israeli actions, the Biden administration has done little more than express “deep concern”, which the Israelis dismiss out of hand. Doing nothing more concrete to cause Israel to change their policies of settlement growth, creeping annexation, and increasing the pressure on captive Palestinians contradicts all of the goals set by the Biden team.
In an effort to defend the administration’s inaction, some apologists express concern that a more combative stance against the new Israeli government would threaten its stability and risk bringing Netanyahu back into office. They also suggest that challenges to Israel will cause blowback from both Republicans and some Democrats in Congress. While this may be true, subordinating Palestinian rights to concerns for Israeli or domestic politics certainly calls into question the Biden administration’s stated commitment to the “equal worth and value of both Israelis and Palestinians”. It renders their pledges to Palestinians hollow and more performative than real. President Biden still has time to course correct and demonstrate desperately needed leadership in making good on his platform promises. It’s what he should do.
*
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.
James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The world faces more lockdowns, travel restrictions, and coerced vaccinations as the WHO announces (and thousands of media stories) the sudden appearance of a new, potentially deadly strain.
What’s going on?
Hear from one of the world’s leading experts on the topic, and dive deep into an uncensored discussion on the BeSovereign free speech platform!
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 Africa has been at the center of the struggle against the COVID-19 pandemic since its beginning during the first quarter of 2020.
At the time of this writing, nearly 90,000 people have died as a result of the infection while 2.9 million infections have been documented.
The country, the most industrialized on the African continent, has confirmed more cases than any other government within the 55 member-states African Union (AU). Some have attributed the high number of cases in South Africa to its testing capacity which has been rigorous since the advent of the pandemic.
With the detection of a new COVID-19 variant labelled Omicron, the western imperialist countries have responded with the imposition of travel bans specifically targeting the Southern Africa region. Political officials and other sectors of society have roundly condemned these measures noting that the restrictions unfairly designated the sub-continent as the source of the variant and its transmissibility.
Although the Southern African region has been the focus of Omicron, the variant has been detected in at least 11 other countries, including Israel, Australia and several European states such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, Switzerland, Italy and Germany. There is no concrete evidence that the variant originated in Botswana or any other country in the sub-continent.
Following the lead of the United States, the UK and EU, other countries even within the AU region, have imposed the same bans related to travel. South Africa has been a leading country in the efforts to vaccinate people domestically and throughout the sub-continent.
Plans are underway for the establishment of manufacturing facilities in South Africa to produce COVID-19 vaccines for continental-wide distribution. The advanced nature of genome sequence monitoring inside the country has been an asset to the overall effort to curtail and eliminate the existing threat.
President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation over television on November 28 to discuss the detection of the Omicron variant of the coronavirus, praising the scientific community for the discovery and encouraging those who had not been vaccinated to do so immediately. At the same the president expressed his profound disagreement with the travel bans noting that it is unjustly punishing those who made the discovery while further damaging the economies of South Africa and the seven other neighboring states.
The ban covers South Africa, Eswatini, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, Malawi, Lesotho and Botswana. It was in Botswana where the initial presence of the variant was detected.
South Africa and other members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have suffered immensely since the lockdowns and restrictions enacted in the aftermath of the pandemic. Many of these states rely heavily on tourism and such a ban on travel for people from the region or those who have visited Southern Africa, will only serve to hamper any semblance of an economic recovery.
Moreover, the ban stigmatizes the region as a principal source of the pandemic when the initial cases of the coronavirus were detected in Asia and Europe during early 2020. Even today, the U.S. remains the epicenter of the pandemic having reported more cases than any other country internationally. Several states, led by Michigan, are experiencing a fourth wave of infections despite widespread efforts to encourage vaccinations by the U.S. government and its agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.
Yet within the U.S., the pandemic has been highly politicized by right-wing elements so prevalent in the country. Conservative forces tend to oppose not only vaccinations, they also have utilized the public health protocols to disrupt local, legislative, state administrative and federal structures to claim that the enactment of restrictions to curb the spread of the virus infringes upon their personal freedom.
“An outraged President Cyril Ramaphosa on Sunday (Nov. 28) said the curbs were scientifically unjustified and called for them to be ‘immediately and urgently’ reversed. Health Minister Joe Phaahla on Monday said many South Africans had felt the country had hastened to go public with the discovery of the new Omicron variant and that had it ‘kept quiet, travel bans would not have happened. But that would have been detrimental, because our approach is for our citizens to not live in false security and false safety,’ said Phaahla. South African scientists won applause from Namibian President Hage Geingob, who said they had ‘unwittingly drawn fire and condemnation’ for their country.”
Southern Africa and the Global Pandemic
Ramaphosa felt compelled to speak to the South African people over the national media in real time on November 28 emphasizing the work which has been done over the last 20 months. He has maintained the country at a Level 1 public health status which imposes restrictions related to curfews, the number of people who can gather indoors and outdoors, and the need to wear masks along with vaccinations.
“The G20 Rome Declaration noted the plight of the tourism sector in developing countries, and made a commitment to support a ‘rapid, resilient, inclusive and sustainable recovery of the tourism sector’. Countries that have imposed travel restrictions on our country and some of our Southern African sister countries include the United Kingdom, United States, European Union members, Canada, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, Japan, Thailand, Seychelles, Brazil and Guatemala, among others. These restrictions are unjustified and unfairly discriminate against our country and our Southern African sister countries. The prohibition of travel is not informed by science, nor will it be effective in preventing the spread of this variant. The only thing the prohibition on travel will do is to further damage the economies of the affected countries and undermine their ability to respond to, and recover from, the pandemic. We call upon all those countries that have imposed travel bans on our country and our Southern African sister countries to urgently reverse their decisions and lift the ban they have imposed before any further damage is done to our economies and to the livelihoods of our people. There is no scientific justification for keeping these restrictions in place.”
Others have pointed out the ongoing vaccination access inequality where on the African continent it is reported that only 6% of the population throughout the AU region have been fully inoculated against the virus. It is inevitable under such circumstances that new variants will continue to emerge globally.
On the European continent there has been a surge in coronavirus infections in several countries over the last few months. According to statista.com:
“As of November 21, 2021, there were 81,523,935 confirmed cases of coronavirus (COVID-19) across the whole of Europe since the first confirmed case on January 25, 2020. Montenegro has the highest incidence of coronavirus cases among its population in Europe at 24,914 per 100,000 people, followed by a rate of 20,408 in Georgia. Slovenia has recorded the third highest rate of cases in Europe at 19,322 cases per 100,000. With over 9.8 million confirmed cases, the UK has been the worst affected country in Europe, which translates into a rate of 14,773 cases per 100,000 population.”
Nonetheless, during early November, Washington lifted restrictions on travel into the U.S. for a host of countries including EU member-states, Canada, Mexico, Morocco, among others. Those who have proof of being fully immunized with World Health Organization (WHO) approved vaccines were allowed to travel into the country. See this.
However, in regard to Southern Africa, the travel bans have blanketed all citizens and residents of the region. South Africa, which has fully vaccinated approximately 25% of its population of nearly 60 million people, apparently are excluded from these Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres spoke out against the travel bans on people from Southern Africa. The UN chief said of the situation:
“The people of Africa cannot be blamed for the immorally low level of vaccinations available in Africa – and they should not be penalized for identifying and sharing crucial science and health information with the world. I am now deeply concerned about the isolation of Southern African countries due to new COVID-19 travel restrictions.”
WHO has also rejected the travel bans targeting the people of Southern Africa. The UN-affiliated agency’s regional director for Africa, Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, demanded that the international community utilize science and international health protocols while refraining from travel bans.
“Travel restrictions may play a role in slightly reducing the spread of COVID-19 but place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods. 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 recognized by over 190 nations.”
The existence of new variants of concern further emphasizes the necessity of a global approach to resolving the pandemic. Vaccinations and other medicines to treat COVID-19 must be made available to all the peoples of the world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
In an exclusive interview with The Defender, Amy Bolin said in order to be approved for a double-lung transplant, her husband had to be fully vaccinated for COVID even though he’d had the virus and recovered. After his second Moderna shot, he developed a pulmonary embolism and heart condition and died before he could get new lungs.
Every morning after arriving in his office at the Propaganda Ministry, Dr. Goebbels would devote himself to the important task of disseminating a directive to all German media outlets, outlining what position on principal issues they were expected to take on that particular day.
The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
The chief medical doctor in Chemnitz’s main hospital – Chemnitz is the third largest city of Saxony – “talked” (see the 2-min video below) then “fell” from the roof of the hospital to his death. Suicide of murder?
Just two weeks ago, we highlighted the deaths or cardiac episodes of five young athletes in an eight day stretch. Two of them were American high school football players. One was a European international hockey player.
Top U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci is proposing to inject every eligible American with Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine boosters every six months. He shared this idea during a recent interview with the ABC program “This Week.”
On Monday, November 29, the parties involved in negotiations considering a new nuclear deal with Iran, the so-called ‘5 plus 1’, will meet in Vienna. Will Iran’s demands be met, and will the US be willing to compromise to avoid a regional military conflict, which all sides want to avoid?
An English translation of the study’s findings explains that the less vaccinated the area, the higher the chances of survival. Conversely, the more vaccinated the area, the greater the rate of excess mortality.
There were no incidents in Slovenia on the first day of tighter epidemiological restrictions, with some dissatisfaction among unvaccinated citizens, mostly drivers who were unable to refuel their cars without a COVID-19 certificate.
Comments Off on Selected Articles: 13 Year-old Canadian Girl Took the COVID-19 Vaccine. “Try Not to Cry, Her Heart Stopped and Now She Is in Critical Condition”
All Global Research articles 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 an exclusive interview with The Defender, Amy Bolin said in order to be approved for a double-lung transplant, her husband had to be fully vaccinated for COVID even though he’d had the virus and recovered. After his second Moderna shot, he developed a pulmonary embolism and heart condition and died before he could get new lungs.
A 49-year-old Texas man who recovered from COVID — but was required to be fully vaccinated against the virus before being approved for a life-saving lung transplant — died when he developed a pulmonary embolism and heart issues after his second Moderna vaccine.
In an exclusive Interview with The Defender, the man’s wife, Amy Bolin, said there was no reason her husband, Bobby Bolin, should have been forced to get the vaccine.
“In the medical field, your goal is supposed to be to improve and save people’s lives, and instead you’re giving them one option — you either do this or you can’t get a life-saving transplant,” Amy said.
Amy said her husband had no choice. “He knew that without lungs he was not going to live because his lungs were failing him. But look at what happened by making that choice.”
After his second Moderna shot, received on April 17, Bolin developed a pulmonary embolism and atrial fibrillation — a heart condition characterized by an irregular heartbeat, shortness of breath, chest pain and extreme fatigue. His health rapidly deteriorated and he passed away Aug. 20, before receiving new lungs.
Bolin had COPA syndrome, a rare genetic autoimmune disorder.
“The side effect from the disease was an attack on his lungs, and he was at 15% lung capacity when he was being evaluated for a double-lung transplant,” Amy said.
Bolin started the evaluation process for new lungs in September 2020.
“During that process, they discovered he had a blockage in his main artery and a couple of other arteries so he had to have a stent procedure done in September,” Amy said.
The evaluation process was halted because Bolin was required to take blood thinners after the procedure.
Once Bolin was finally approved for new lungs, he was told he would have to get vaccinated against COVID in order to be an eligible candidate for the transplant, even though he had already recovered from the virus.
“Our entire family actually came down with COVID in December 2020,” Amy said. “When that happened for Bobby, he was immediately given the antibody transfusion. His transplant team was certain that because of his minimal lung capacity this would be certain death for him, but he didn’t really have any side effects from it. A loss of smell was all that really lingered for him.”
When Amy learned her husband would be required to get the COVID vaccine, she “pushed back pretty hard with the transplant team.” She said she didn’t understand why the team would force a COVID vaccine on her husband without first testing his antibodies.
“It didn’t make sense to me,” Amy said. “He was extremely immunocompromised. He even struggled to take the flu shot, and we even fought the team about that because he would end up in the ICU every time it was given to him.”
Amy said:
“Unfortunately, he was desperate. He was very sick. He was not feeling well. The thought of taking this vaccine or not having the opportunity to have a chance at living was not something that he was willing to gamble with, so he agreed to take it.”
Bolin got his first dose of Moderna on March 20. He didn’t experience any effects outside of “typical achiness and feeling a little run-down,” Amy said, though he generally didn’t feel well due to his symptoms, so it was hard to tell if he was experiencing an adverse event or if it was part of his condition.
Shortly after he got the second dose, Amy and her husband took a three-day trip to Jamaica.
“It was going to kind of be our last hurrah knowing we were about to face a very big life change,” Amy said. “When you’re on the transplant list you can’t be more than an hour away from home. We felt like we needed to get away to reconnect and have some ‘us’ time before life got really crazy.”
On the way back from Jamaica, Bolin experienced a pulmonary embolism while in flight. According to Mayo Clinic, a pulmonary embolism is a life-threatening condition where a blockage caused by blood clots occurs in the pulmonary arteries of the lungs.
“All of a sudden his sats [oxygen saturation] started dropping,” Amy said. “He had a pulse oximeter on his finger, and I’m watching his oxygen levels go from 92 to 85, to 80, to 60. He dropped all the way down to the 40s, which is brain-damage level.”
Amy said they were lucky because an ICU nurse on the flight and a doctor sitting right behind them sprang into action. “They were our heroes on this flight,” Amy said.
The plane received permission to cruise at a lower altitude and made an emergency landing in Houston. The crew used oxygen tanks onboard to give Bolin pure oxygen.
Once the plane landed, Bolin was evaluated by EMTs. His sats were back to normal, so he decided not to go to the hospital because nearby hospitals were not familiar with his condition.
“A few days later we ended up in the hospital because I noticed his cognitive awareness had been impacted and he just wasn’t himself,” Amy said. During the evaluation process, they determined he had a pulmonary embolism while on the flight despite having no previous history of blood clots. They also diagnosed him with atrial fibrillation.
Amy said:
“This is a man who multiple times a year was in the hospital being observed for his lung condition and never, never ever, had they ever identified any rhythmic issues with his heart until this occurrence happens.
“And when I questioned it [the vaccine] of course it was ‘Oh no, that has nothing to do with it.’ And I said I can’t ignore the fact that the second injection just happened and now he has developed heart issues and blood clot issues that had never been present before, so why are we ruling that out so quickly rather than looking into that being a possibility, but it fell on deaf ears.”
His doctors never provided an explanation for why Bolin suddenly developed either condition. Amy said the risk of myocarditis following an mRNA vaccine was never discussed with them, despite her husband having had previous heart surgery.
Amy said her husband was in the hospital for 22 days.
“They put him on blood thinners and medication for his heart condition. When he passed away he was on 31 prescription medications, so we were just throwing medicine at him trying to figure it out and it just never got resolved,” Amy said.
Bolin had “several visits to the hospital between May and August, twice by ambulance because he got into a place where the AFib felt out of control,” Amy said. “When you have limited lung capacity and you feel like you can’t catch your breath and breathe, it just becomes a vicious circle of stress and anxiety, and again they could not figure out how to get this AFib under control.”
Amy said she doesn’t know what timeline her husband had with his organs, but she saw a complete change in him over four months’ time. “It was unfair, it was unjust and it was inhumane that he was going to sleep at night thinking — ‘what do I do here?’”
“People have the right to take the shot if that is what they think is best for them,” Amy said. “I never felt like this was best for him … ever ever ever. And to be told again that you can either do this or not be eligible for transplant left him in a space of complete desperation — and he did it out of complete desperation.”
Amy told The Defender:
“For anyone who has an immunocompromised person in their lives, our lives did not change when COVID came about. We already lived a COVID lifestyle. We didn’t touch door handles, we didn’t go out with people who were ill, we already as a family … take those necessary steps to protect ourselves.
“So the idea and the guilt that is being driven by all of this that we have to protect everyone else. These are people who already know how to protect themselves as best they can from things. My husband’s illness was his lungs and you can’t not breathe.”
Amy said she requested her own autopsy because she needed answers.
“It just sickens me, it really does,” Amy said. “His legacy is really important to me and I don’t want to see another wife and family face the same things we’ve faced these last few months.”
COVID vaccines are ineffective in immunocompromised people
As The Defender reported Oct. 29, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance recommending immunocompromised adults receive a fourth booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID vaccine six months after receiving their third dose — as research shows people with compromised immune systems don’t mount an adequate immune response following vaccination.
The purpose of the third dose was to raise their immunity levels to what’s seen in people with normal immune systems after two doses.
The goal of the fourth dose is to “combat waning immunity.” It would serve the same purpose as a booster dose given to people without immune deficiencies six months after they were initially vaccinated.
Some experts are concerned about the effects of giving a fourth vaccine dose to the immunocompromised population — a practice that has not been studied for safety or efficacy, or signed off on by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or CDC’s vaccine safety advisors.
“Dosing of COVID-19 vaccines is worrisome for accumulation of spike protein in the human body,” said Dr. Peter McCullough, a consultant and cardiologist.
“With each injection, there is an uncontrolled production of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogenic spike protein which goes on for weeks or months,” McCullough said. “Recent evidence in the SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection has found that the S1 segment of the spike protein is recoverable in human monocytes over a year after the illness.”
McCullough said the spike protein will progressively accumulate in the brain, heart and other vital organs — exceeding the rate of clearance with each dose — and is well known to cause diseases, such as myocarditis, neurologic damage and blood clotting.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
All Global Research articles 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.
Gleichschaltung is a German word with a rich history. It stands for the coerced harmonisation of all forms of public expression with the official line. That concept is currently undergoing a renaissance, but not in the “captive nations” of the East.
Every morning after arriving in his office at the Propaganda Ministry, Dr. Goebbels would devote himself to the important task of disseminating a directive to all German media outlets, outlining what position on principal issues they were expected to take on that particular day. The media were instructed not only on what to say but – of equal importance – what not to mention. The system Goebbels set up worked like a charm. Under his meticulous supervision, in public discourse an imposing harmony of opinion reigned from one end of Germany to another, undisrupted by discordant voices.
One wishes that this mechanically imposed harmony, admired as it may have been by some, had come to an end in 1945. But a YouTube bulletin disseminated a few days ago reminds us that it did not.
YouTube users were curtly informed of the prevailing “Community Guidelines” on a topic which currently is at the top of the list of public concerns: The Covid-19 crisis. Here are the highlights of that guidance:
“COVID-19 medical misinformation policy
“YouTube doesn’t allow content about COVID-19 that poses a serious risk of egregious harm.
“YouTube doesn’t allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ (LHA) or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19. This is limited to content that contradicts WHO [about the utter corruption of WHO, see here] or local health authorities’ guidance on:
“Treatment,
“Prevention
“Diagnosis
“Transmission
“Social distancing and self-isolation guidelines, and
“The existence of COVID-19.”
Sceptics are encouraged to go directly to the source if they have doubts about the authenticity of these appalling prohibitions: see this.
YouTube then goes on to specify:
“What this policy means for you if you’re posting content:
“Don’t post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following:
“Treatment misinformation:
“Content that encourages the use of home remedies, prayer, or rituals in place of medical treatment such as consulting a doctor or going to the hospital.”
Notably, no definition of “egregious harm” or “home remedies” is given, nor is any rationale provided for prohibiting such remedies being recommended by persons who may have had a positive experience after using them. Nor is it explained to millions of religious people throughout the world why prayer and procedures condescendingly termed “rituals” are also on the prohibited list. Will members of the Christian Science religious denomination, who since long before the appearance of Covid have relied exclusively on prayer for therapeutic purposes and avoided medical cures, now be required to alter their beliefs? Not even in the Soviet Union were believers ever made to face such a stark choice. To even the least sophisticated it should now be obvious that the thrust of YouTube’s guidelines is not to promote health but to steer patients toward the extremely expensive solutions that have enabled the pharmacological industry to make a financial killing from Covid-19.
That impression is strongly reinforced by the nauseatingly repetitious proscriptions that follow:
“Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19
“Claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19
“Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19
“Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19
“Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19
“Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19.”
What evidence is there that they are unsafe? No indications are given. The governments of India, Japan, and the municipal authorities of Mexico City, among others, are quite happy with the results of the application of these treatments. So are their cured citizens who, however, are now prohibited by YouTube from telling others about their successful recovery.
If YouTube were merely a media platform, what possible interest could it have in disparaging cheap and effective alternatives to outrageously expensive, untested, and harmful pharmaceutical preparations of undisclosed composition, for the ill effects of which companies that produce them refuse to accept any tort liability?
The YouTube guideline goes on to disqualify questioning of masks or of their effectiveness and “claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of other infectious diseases,” although it is an amply documented fact that it will do all those things.
Also forbidden are claims that “an approved COVID-19 vaccine will contain substances that are not on the vaccine ingredient list, such as biological matter from fetuses (e.g. fetal tissue, fetal cell lines) or animal products.” Never mind that several manufacturers have already admitted that it does, albeit using the weasel concept of “fetal cell lines” to mask the morally objectionable use of material from aborted babies, and so on and so forth, in dreary detail that even Dr. Goebbels would have felt too embarrassed to put in one of his directives.
Readers are again urged to go to the link provided above to confirm for themselves the extent to which a private virtually monopolistic media corporation such as YouTube (along with other similar concerns, such as Twitter and Facebook) is willing to go in dictating to citizens what opinions they are prohibited from expressing.
And now we come to the nitty-gritty: What happens if posted content violates YouTube policy:
“If your content violates this policy, we’ll remove the content and send you an email to let you know… If you get 3 strikes within 90 days, your channel will be terminated.
“We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation.”
There is no disclosure of who makes these determinations or any hint of due process or appellate procedure.
The perceptive reader must by now entertain the logical question: by what right does a private corporation, chartered to make its services available to all members of the public on a non-discriminatory basis, presume to dictate to its users what they may or may not think or post? The same question, of course, can be put to other private corporations which are also abusing their privileged position in order to impose ideological tyranny. Twitter and Facebook come to mind.
And where are the public authorities to reign in these unhinged private tyrants? The state, indeed, seems to have withered away, exactly as Marx predicted, or it may simply have merged with private corporations to lay the foundations of fascism, as Mussolini is alleged to have said. The state’s unsavoury role in this assault on freedom of expression is of particular concern. While passively subcontracting the dirty work to private corporations, it can perfidiously claim that no formal curtailment of personal liberties is taking place. The First Amendment remains technically intact since it is not the government that is undermining it.
The Covid-19 social control experiment has been running for almost two years. It cannot be denied that it has accomplished some of its objectives, but in important respects it has also been an unmitigated failure. YouTube’s offensive list of “don’ts,” issued after two years of intense global indoctrination, is irrefutable proof of that. In spite of unwavering support by politics, media, finance, and corrupt “science,” the Covid narrative has fallen apart under relentless battering by competent and informed partisans of truth and liberty.
Dr. Goebbels’ inept disciples have overlooked the concept of gute Propaganda, paradoxically one of the key postulates of the doctor’s technique. It means that to be credible, successful, and ultimately persuasive, propaganda must be heavily laced with elements of truth. In their hubris and unremitting reliance on crude force, they failed to do their homework. “Good propaganda,” Goebbels wrote, “need not lie, in fact must not lie. Propaganda which makes use of the lie … cannot have success in the long run … but a right idea must also be set forth in the appropriate way.”
They have obviously failed to find the appropriate way to package Covid-19 for the hesitant and disbelieving masses. Hence, their inelegant solution is to try to ram it down everybody’s throat, which is a risky approach and likely to backfire. Schade … the doctor is probably muttering in his molten lake in hell.
*
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.
Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995.
All Global Research articles 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 its large population of 1.5 billion which many have considered as an impediment, China’s domestic economic reforms and collaborative strategic diplomacy with external countries have made it attain superpower status over the United States. While United States’ influence is rapidly fading away, China has indeed taken up both the challenges and unique opportunities to strengthen its global position, especially its trade, investment and economic muscles.
Undoubtedly, China has attained its superpower status by working consistently on practical multifaceted sustainable development and simultaneously maintaining appreciably positive relations with countries around the world.
China is visible with its economic footprints in the United States, Latin America, Europe, Asia and Africa. China is the largest developing country in the world, and Africa is the continent with the largest number of developing countries. Shared past experiences and similar aims and goals have brought China and Africa close together. China and Africa will always be a community of shared future. Developing solidarity and cooperation with African countries has been the cornerstone of China’s foreign policy, as well as a firm and longstanding strategy.
Entering the new era, Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward the principles of China’s Africa policy – sincerity, real results, amity and good faith, and pursuing the greater good and shared interests, charting the course for China’s cooperation with Africa, and providing the fundamental guidelines. President Xi Jinping and African leaders unanimously decided at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Beijing Summit that the two sides would work to build an even stronger China-Africa community of shared future, advance cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative, establishing a new milestone in China-Africa relations.
Over the years, China has worked and always desirous to show real and tangible results from its undertakings in Africa. It is a champion of win-win cooperation and works to put the principle into action. China is committed to integrating its own development closely with Africa’s development, and the Chinese people’s interests with those of African peoples. By so doing, China sincerely hopes that African countries will grow stronger and that African life will get better. While pursuing its own development, China has extended support and assistance to its African friends to the limits of its capacity.
Particularly in recent years, China has scaled up its assistance and cooperation with Africa. Whenever it makes a commitment, China will always try to deliver promptly. It will continue to expand cooperation in investment and financing with Africa and strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation in agricultural and manufacturing sectors. By so doing, China will help African countries translate their strengths in resources into advantages in development and realize independent and sustainable development.
China’s approach involves upholding four principles:
Upholding sincerity, friendship and equality. The Chinese people have worked together with African people in pursuit of a shared future. China respects, appreciates and supports Africa.
Upholding shared interests and the greater good, with greater emphasis on the latter. In its cooperation with Africa, China applies the principles of giving more and taking less, giving before taking, and giving without asking for something in return. It welcomes African countries aboard the express train of China’s development with open arms.
Upholding a people-oriented approach in pursuing practical cooperation with efficiency. In its cooperation with Africa, China gives top priority to the interests and wellbeing of the peoples of China and Africa, and works to their benefit. China is committed to fully honoring the promises it has made to its African friends.
Upholding openness and inclusiveness. China stands ready to work with other international partners to support Africa in pursuing peace and development. It welcomes and supports all initiatives that further Africa’s interests.
In developing relations with Africa, there are five lines that China will not cross: no interference in African countries’ choice of a development path that fits their national conditions; no interference in African countries’ internal affairs; no imposition of its will on African countries; no attachment of political strings to assistance to Africa; and no pursuit of selfish political gains through investment and financing cooperation with Africa.
Building Political Trust
At Beijing Summit in 2018, China and Africa the FOCAC reached a strategic agreement to build a China-Africa community of shared future characterized by joint responsibility, win-win cooperation, happiness for all, cultural prosperity, common security, and harmony between humanity and nature.
China sees Africa as a broad stage for international cooperation rather than an arena for competition among major countries. China-Africa cooperation has never been a case of talk and no action. It is a case of bringing tangible benefits to people in China and Africa, and creating more favorable conditions for others in the international community to conduct cooperation with Africa.
In 2006, the FOCAC Beijing Summit decided to establish a new type of China-Africa strategic partnership. In 2015, the FOCAC Johannesburg Summit decided to build a China-Africa comprehensive strategic and cooperative partnership. In the 2018 FOCAC Beijing Summit, the two sides agreed to build an even stronger China-Africa community of shared future, raising China-Africa relations to a new level.
High-level exchanges play an important role in developing China-Africa relations. State leaders of the two sides value communication and coordination on bilateral relations. In March 2013, President Xi Jinping visited Africa, his first official overseas visit after assuming the office of president. To date he has made four visits to different locations across the continent.
During the 2018 FOCAC Beijing Summit, President Xi had one-on-one meetings with more than 50 African leaders, renewing friendships, exploring cooperation, and discussing the future. He also attended close to 70 bilateral and multilateral events.
After the FOCAC Beijing Summit in 2018, 17 African leaders came to China for state visits or meetings. Following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, state leaders of the two sides have maintained contacts and communication via video and phone calls. In June 2020, President Xi Jinping presided over the Extraordinary China-Africa Summit on Solidarity Against Covid-19 via video link. Thirteen African leaders and chairperson of the AU Commission attended the summit.
China-Africa cooperation at the local level is flourishing. The two sides have held four cooperation forums between local governments since 2012. There are currently 160 pairings of sister provinces/cities between China and African countries, 48 of which have been established since 2013. China and African countries conduct close exchanges between political parties, legislative bodies and consultative bodies, building multi-level, multi-channel, multi-form and multi-dimensional friendly cooperation.
China, African Union and Regional Organizations
China has been active in developing cooperation with the AU and African sub-regional organizations. The AU Conference Center, which was built with Chinese assistance, was inaugurated in January 2012. It was the second-largest project in Africa to be built with China’s assistance after the Tanzania-Zambia Railway. In 2014, China sent a mission to the AU, marking a new stage of China-AU relations. China values the AU’s leading role in advancing African integration and building a stronger African continent through unity, and supports its dominant role in safeguarding peace and security in Africa. China also supports the AU in playing a bigger role in regional and international affairs, adopting Agenda 2063, and executing the First Ten-Year Implementation Plan.
In a capacity of observer, China has attended the summit of many African sub-regional organizations including the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the East African Community (EAC), and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Economic Community of Central African States. China has sent ambassadors to the ECOWAS, SADC and EAC.
China’s Economic Achievements
China and Africa have seen economic and trade cooperation expanding rapidly in scale and extent. The 10 major cooperation plans and the eight major initiatives adopted at the 2015 FOCAC Johannesburg Summit and the 2018 FOCAC Beijing Summit raised China-Africa economic and trade cooperation to a new level.
Increasing development assistance. While pursuing its own growth, China supports African countries in seeking development and improving their people’s lives. In the new era, China has scaled up assistance to Africa. Foreign aid from 2013 to 2018 totaled RMB270 billion. Of this sum, 45 percent went to African countries in the form of grants, interest-free loans and concessional loans.
From 2000 to 2020, China helped African countries build more than 13,000 km of roads and railway and more than 80 large-scale power facilities, and funded over 130 medical facilities, 45 sports venues and over 170 schools. It also trained more than 160,000 personnel for Africa, and built a series of flagship projects including the AU Conference Center.
China’s assistance extended to various aspects of the economy, society and people’s lives, and was widely welcomed and supported by governments in Africa and the people. China has announced an exemption from debt incurred in the form of interest-free Chinese government loans due to mature by the end of 2018. It will apply to Africa’s least developed countries, heavily indebted and poor countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing countries that have diplomatic relations with China. During the Covid-19 pandemic, China cancelled the outstanding debts of 15 African countries in the form of interest-free loans that matured at the end of 2020
Booming trade relations. China has been Africa’s largest trading partner for the 12 years since 2009. The proportion of Africa’s trade with China in the continent’s total external trade has continued to rise. In 2020, the figure exceeded 21 percent. The structure of China-Africa trade is improving. There has been a marked increase in technology in China’s exports to Africa, with the export of mechanical and electrical products and high-tech products now accounting for more than 50 percent of the total.
China has increased its imports of non-resource products from Africa, and offered zero-tariff treatment to 97 percent of taxable items exported to China by the 33 least-developed countries in Africa, with the goal of helping more African agricultural and manufactured goods gain access to the Chinese market. China’s imports in services from Africa have been growing at an average annual rate of 20 percent since 2017, creating close to 400,000 jobs for the continent every year.
In recent years, China’s imports of agricultural products from Africa have also risen, and China has emerged as the second largest destination for Africa’s agricultural exports. China and Africa have seen booming trade in new business models including cross-border e-commerce. Cooperation under the Silk Road E-commerce initiative has advanced. China has built a mechanism for e-commerce cooperation with Rwanda, and Chinese businesses have been active in investing in overseas order fulfillment centers. High-quality and special products from Africa are now directly available to the Chinese market via e-commerce platforms. The China-Mauritius free trade agreement (FTA), which became effective on January 1 2021, was the first FTA between China and an African country. It has injected new vitality into China-Africa economic and trade cooperation.
Promoting cooperation in investment and financing. Cooperation in investment and financing has been one of the success stories of China-Africa cooperation in recent years, bringing new vitality into Africa’s economic and social development. Combining Africa’s needs and China’s strengths, China encourages its companies to increase and optimize investment in Africa, providing support in financing and export credit insurance for eligible projects. Thanks to the combined efforts of the Chinese government, financial institutions, and enterprises, China’s investment in Africa has built up sound momentum. It covers a wide range of fields including mining, processing and smelting of ores, equipment manufacturing, agriculture, home appliance production, aviation services, medicine and health, and the digital economy. With this help, African countries have been able to upgrade their industrialization, improve their industries, and increase their capacity to earn foreign exchange through exports.
By the end of 2020, direct investment of Chinese companies in Africa had surpassed $43 billion. China has established over 3,500 companies of various types across the continent. Private companies have gradually become the main investment force in Africa; more than 80 percent of their employees are locals, and they have directly and indirectly created millions of jobs.
Facilitating agricultural development in Africa. China has always been willing to share agricultural development experience and technology with Africa, to support African countries in improving agricultural production and processing, and to help them in building their agricultural value chains and trade. Since 2012, 7,456 African trainees have received agricultural training in China. Through projects such as sending Chinese agricultural experts to Africa, more than 50,000 Africans have been trained and 23 agricultural demonstration centers have been built. To date, China has established agricultural cooperation mechanisms with 23 African countries and regional organizations, and signed 72 bilateral and multilateral agricultural cooperation agreements.
Since 2012, China has signed 31 agricultural cooperation agreements with 20 African countries and regional organizations. In 2019, the First China-Africa Agriculture Cooperation Forum was held, which announced the establishment of the China-AU Agriculture Cooperation Commission and the formulation of a program of action to promote China-Africa cooperation in agricultural modernization. By the end of 2020, more than 200 Chinese companies had an investment stock of $1.11 billion in agricultural sector in 35 African countries. Their investments cover areas such as planting, breeding and processing. More than 350 types of African agricultural products can be traded with China. All this ensures steady growth in China-Africa agricultural trade.
Contributing to industrialization in Africa. Industrialization is a prerequisite for the continent to achieve inclusive and sustainable development, and is also the key to creating jobs, eradicating poverty, and improving living standards. China supports African countries in improving their “soft” and “hard” environment for investment in accordance with their national conditions and development needs. Taking industrial alignment and capacity cooperation as the engine, China helps advance the process of Africa’s industrialization and economic diversification. To date, China has established industrial capacity cooperation mechanisms with 15 countries in Africa.
China and African countries have worked together to build economic and trade cooperation zones, special economic zones, industrial parks and science parks, attracting enterprises from China and other countries to invest in Africa. They have built production and processing bases and localized their operations in Africa, contributing to an increase in local employment and tax revenues, and promoting industrial upgrading and technical cooperation. The China-Africa Fund for Production Capacity Cooperation has focused on the construction of highways, railways, and aviation networks, and industrialization in Africa.
As of March 2021, investments had been made in 21 projects, covering energy, resources and manufacturing and boosting industrial development in recipient countries. Dozens of Chinese-funded enterprises have cooperated with African counterparts to build photovoltaic power stations, with a cumulative installed capacity exceeding 1.5 GW, which has helped create photovoltaic industry chains from scratch in Africa, while effectively alleviating power shortages and reducing carbon emissions.
Expanding cooperation in infrastructure. China supports Africa in making infrastructure development a priority for economic revitalization. It encourages and supports Chinese enterprises to adopt various models to participate in the construction, investment, operation and management of infrastructure projects in Africa. From 2016 to 2020, total investment in infrastructure projects in Africa reached almost $200 billion. Projects implemented by Chinese companies accounted for 31.4 percent of all infrastructure projects on the African continent in 2020. Since the founding of FOCAC, Chinese companies have utilized various funds to help African countries build and upgrade more than 10,000 km of railways, nearly 100,000 km of highways, nearly 1,000 bridges and 100 ports, and 66,000 km of power transmission and distribution. They have also helped build an installed power-generating capacity of 120 million kW, a communications backbone network of 150,000 km and a network service covering nearly 700 million user terminals. Built and operated by Chinese companies, the Mombasa-Nairobi Railway was the first modern railway to be built in Kenya in 100 years.
Applying Chinese standards, technologies and equipment, the project has won praise as a road of friendship and cooperation, and a path towards win-win development between China and Africa in the new era. The railway has carried 5.4 million passengers and 1.3 million standard containers. It has contributed 1.5 percent to Kenya’s economic growth, and created 46,000 direct and indirect jobs. China has guided its enterprises to explore multiple forms of cooperation, such as BOT (build-operate-transfer), BOO (build-own-operate) and PPP (public-private partnership). Such efforts aim to transform China-Africa infrastructure cooperation to a wholly integrated model covering investment, construction and operation, and push forward the sustainable development of infrastructure projects.
Strengthening financial cooperation. Financial institutions from both sides have been exploring each other’s markets. Their central banks have expanded the scale of local currency settlement and currency swap, leading to a steady improvement in China-Africa financial facilitation. As of October 2021, the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) had 42 indirect participants in Africa, covering 19 African countries. The People’s Bank of China (PBOC), China’s central bank, has signed successive currency swap agreements with the central banks of South Africa, Morocco, Egypt and Nigeria, to a total amount of RMB73 billion.
China has signed a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in financial supervision with seven African countries including Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria, laying a solid foundation for steady and long-term bilateral financial cooperation. China has joined the African Development Bank (AfDB), the Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank, the West African Development Bank and other multilateral development financial institutions. It has pledged to contribute a total of $996 million to the African Development Fund under the AfDB.
Expanding cooperation in the digital economy. China is helping African countries to eliminate the digital divide. Rapid development and fruitful results have been achieved in this field – building digital infrastructure, transition towards a digital society, and the application of new technologies such as the Internet of Things and mobile finance. Chinese companies have participated in a number of submarine cable projects connecting Africa and Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
They have cooperated with major African operators in achieving full basic coverage of telecommunications services in Africa. They have built more than half of the continent’s wireless sites and high-speed mobile broadband networks. In total, more than 200,000 km of optical fiber has been laid, giving broadband Internet access to 6 million households, and serving more than 900 million local people. To date, more than 1,500 companies in 17 cities in 15 African countries have selected Chinese corporate partners on their digital transformation path. Twenty-nine countries have selected smart government service solutions provided by Chinese companies. China and Africa have jointly established a public cloud service in South Africa that covers the entire African region. The two sides also released the first 5G independent networking commercial network in the region. The level and content of China-Africa e-commerce cooperation continue to grow. The Silk Road E-Commerce Capacity Building Cloud Lectures have effectively improved the digital literacy of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in partner countries. Promotion activities have been held to help high-quality products from Africa to access the Chinese market.
Such activities include a government-initiated shopping festival that began in 2019, featuring Silk Road e-commerce, as well as the FOCAC African Products Online Promoting Season. Chinese companies actively participate in building platforms of public services in Africa such as electronic payment and smart logistics. All these efforts are designed to achieve win-win cooperation through promoting connectivity. At the China-Africa Internet Development and Cooperation Forum in August 2021, China announced its intention to formulate and implement a joint China-Africa Partnership Plan on Digital Innovation in Africa.
Social Dimensions
China is promoting cooperation with Africa in social fields such as poverty reduction, health, education, science and technology, environmental protection, climate change and exchanges among young people and women. Through strengthening exchanges, providing assistance and sharing experience, China is helping African countries to improve their comprehensive social development, which then provides internal impetus for their economic growth.
Sharing experience in poverty reduction. Poverty is a common challenge facing China and Africa. Ending poverty is the primary goal of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Since 2010, 10 Africa-China Poverty Reduction and Development conferences have been held in countries such as China, Ethiopia, South Africa and Uganda, with nearly 1,600 participants in total. From 2005 to 2021, China organized 160 poverty reduction and foreign aid training programs. Some 2,700 people from 53 African countries participated in the training, accounting for almost 60 percent of the total number of trainees.
Enhancing medical and health cooperation. Through concrete actions, China has helped African countries respond to various epidemics and plagues and build a public health system, promoting a China-Africa community of health. One of the longest and most effective cooperation projects that involves the greatest number of African countries is the dispatch of Chinese medical teams. At present, there are nearly 1,000 Chinese medical workers in 45 African countries, working at 98 medical centers.
Chinese medical teams carried out 34 free clinical programs under the Brightness Action initiative, restoring the eyesight of almost 10,000 African cataract patients. China focuses on helping African countries strengthen medical specialties, training 20,000 African medical personnel. To date, it has helped 18 African countries establish 20 centers in different medical specialties, covering cardiology, critical care medicine, trauma and endoscopy. China supports African countries in improving their capacity in border health and quarantine inspection, and sends disease control experts to the Africa Center for Disease Control and Prevention to provide technical support.
Expanding cooperation in education and human resources. China vigorously supports education in Africa. Based on the needs of African countries for economic and social development, it helps train much-needed professionals for African countries and encourages outstanding African youth to study in China through several scholarships. Starting from 2012, the two sides have implemented the 20+20 Cooperation Plan for Chinese and African Institutions of Higher Education as an exchange and cooperation platform among universities. China set up an educational trust fund under UNESCO to provide teacher training for more than 10,000 teachers in African countries. Since 2018, China has established Luban Workshops together with colleges and universities in countries including Egypt, South Africa, Djibouti and Kenya, sharing quality vocational education resources with Africa and training high-caliber technical personnel to meet the urgent needs of economic and social development on the continent.
China has helped more than 30 African universities set up Chinese language departments or Chinese language majors. In cooperation with China, 16 African countries have incorporated the Chinese language into their national education systems. The two sides have established 61 Confucius Institutes and 48 Confucius Classrooms in Africa. Since 2004, China has sent a total of 5,500 Chinese language teachers and volunteers to 48 African nations.
Stepping up scientific and technological collaboration, and knowledge sharing. China actively strengthens communication and coordination with Africa in terms of technological innovation strategies. It shares experience and achievements, and promotes the exchange and training of professionals and technology transfer, as well as innovation and entrepreneurship on both sides. China and African countries have set up high-level joint laboratories, the China-Africa Joint Research Center, and an innovation cooperation center.
In recent years, China has assisted Africa in cultivating a large number of scientific and technological talents through projects such as the Alliance of International Science Organizations in the Belt and Road Region Scholarship, Chinese government scholarships, the Talented Young Scientist Program, and the Innovative Talent Exchange Project.
Moving Towards the Future
Over the past two decades, FOCAC has become an important platform for collective dialogue between China and Africa and an effective mechanism for pragmatic cooperation. It has turned into a pacesetter for international cooperation with Africa in the new era. It now has 55 members comprising China, the 53 African countries that have diplomatic relations with China, and the AU Commission. The Ministerial Conference is held once every three years, rotating between China and African countries and co-chaired by China and an African hosting country, with the co-chairs also taking the lead in implementing conference outcomes.
Based on mutual agreements, some of the ministerial conferences have been upgraded into summits. To date three summits (the Beijing Summit in November 2006, the Johannesburg Summit in December 2015, and the Beijing Summit in September 2018) and seven ministerial conferences have been convened. These have yielded rich fruits, releasing a series of important documents to guide cooperation, and promoting the implementation of a series of major measures to facilitate development in Africa and solidify China-Africa friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Africa is experiencing a flowing tide of solidarity and self-strengthening, and the continent’s influence in international affairs continues to grow. It is now forging ahead with the development of free trade zones, accelerating industrialization and modernization, and heading towards the bright future envisioned in the AU’s Agenda 2063.
At the end of November 2021, FOCAC will meet in African co-chair country Senegal. The meeting will evaluate the implementation of the outcomes of the 2018 Beijing Summit, and make plans for friendly cooperation in the next phase. This will be an important diplomatic event for China and Africa to discuss cooperation plans and promote common development, and will be of great importance in promoting post-pandemic economic recovery and development in Africa, China and the world at large. China will work closely with Africa to align China’s Second Centenary Goal of building a great modern socialist country by the middle of the century with the AU’s Agenda 2063.
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
All Global Research articles 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.
Right away, the Australian 60 Minutes Youtube video titled “Prepare for Armageddon: China’s warning to the world” signals a polemic against China. The video’s opening backdrop features chairman Xi Jinping with a slightly raised fist flanked by a jet, tank, and a battery of missiles.
The program is rife with ad hominem, propaganda, disinformation, and lies of omission.
At the start, host Tom Steinfort says, “The message coming out of China is getting louder by the day, it doesn’t like other countries, especially Australia, ganging up and meddling in its affairs.”
Which country likes others ganging up and meddling in its domestic affairs? Does Australia like it if others meddle in Australian affairs? Yet Australia is notorious for meddling, or rather warring, in other countries. Among the wars that Australians have fought in are the war on Korea, the war on Viet Nam, the war on Afghanistan, the war on Iraq, and the war on Syria. The horrific Australian war crimes in Afghanistan were decried by Chinese government spokesman Lijian Zhao.
Steinfort complains that Beijing is doing its best to punish Australia. But he did not directly answer the question of whether China initiated negative actions against Australia?
The host goes on to cavil about Xi’s ratcheting up the rhetoric about the perils of a new cold war? In other words, said the host: “If we don’t stop poking the panda, we’ll face serious consequences.”
The host’s comment points to Australia being the initiator that caused China to respond to the “poking.” Australia is asked to stop meddling and poking the panda. Moreover, the substitution of the beloved roly-poly panda for the revered, sleek and imposing dragon could, in itself, be interpreted as a not-so-subtle poke at China.
To a critical viewer, the instigator is obviously the American cat’s paw, Australia. China has not been at war with any country for over 40 years, and pledges itself to peace. China is not launching missiles into Afghanistan; it is not occupying Syria and stealing its oil; it is not trying to cripple the economies in Cuba, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Korea; it is not trying to topple elected governments as the US has done in Haiti and Honduras and is now doing in Venezuela and Nicaragua; it is not siding against legitimate Palestinian resistance to Jewish war crimes; it is not aligned with a Saudi genocide in Yemen; it did not destroy Libya. No, this “meddling” in the affairs of other countries is by the United States — supported by its ally, Australia.
The host continues, “It is worth taking that [Chinese] threat seriously.” As per usual among the Anglo-Saxon alliance, China — which is neither attacking nor oppressing any country and has only one military base abroad — is declared a threat for becoming socially, technologically, and economically preeminent.
60 Minutes goes to the crux of the matter: “the looming war with China,” the “unthinkable” Armageddon — the final battle between the forces of good and evil.
Richard Spencer, the former US secretary of the navy appears saying, “It’s gonna be waged on the economic front; it’s gonna be waged on the social affairs front. They’re gonna come at us in all ways.” Presumably “all ways” includes the military front.
Thus 60 Minutes asks, “How prepared are we?”
In 1946, the pacifist physicist Albert Einstein wrote a response to such a query in a letter to US congressman Robert Hale: “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The very prevention of war requires more faith, courage and resolution than are needed to prepare for war. We must all do our share that we may be equal to the task of peace.”
60 Minutes proceeds to demonize China as a belligerent poised to militarily invade Taiwan. The program interviews a Taiwanese tech entrepreneur, Xin Qing Xiao, who fears Chinese rule because of “losing all your freedoms…. It is just unimaginable that, you know, that we would be reunified with an authoritarian regime and then surrender such freedoms.”
It would be very easy to go into any country and find a person to speak out against whatever government is demeaned as an “authoritarian regime.” Notable throughout the program is that contrasting views will not be presented except for one exception (while acknowledging the former diplomat Victor Gao as an expert, 60 Minutes rudely described their guest as an “unofficial mouthpiece.”).
As for losing all freedoms in China, Frans Vandenbosch, who has been living in China since 2002, writes:
I moved to China for my private and professional FREEDOM
After some years, I returned to my home country in Europe, lived in Germany for 3 years. And went back to China.
For the FREEDOM. In China, there’s real freedom, in Western Europe it’s just a show.
Having lived and worked in several EU countries (Germany, Belgium, UK, ..) I moved to China because of the professional and private FREEDOM in China.
To the question “2 million Taiwanese work and live in China. How do they feel about living in mainland China, the ‘enemy’ of Taiwan?,” Kan Lui replied:
As a Taiwanese working in China, I fall into this category.
Based on what I see, people in the cities are happy and enjoy a high degree of freedom, and are reasonably informed…. Life is good and there is almost no street crime. As an ordinary person I am treated like everyone else by the government, who can be seen everywhere but doesn’t really intrude into my daily life, and most people don’t really care where you are from.
When I go back to Taiwan, I can see Taiwanese politicians sacrificing Taiwan’s economy for political leverage, and the Taiwanese media being surprisingly homogenous and highly biased on their coverage on China, which are primarily targeted at and gleefully consumed by those with almost no first hand knowledge of China.
I, too, from personal experience, having lived over seven years in China did not feel any loss of freedom while there.
Although 60 Minutes calls Taiwan “a renegade province,” it ought to point out that Australia and the US both acknowledge that there is one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. This fact is also affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758.
It is important to bear in mind that criticism by the US and Australia is criticism from countries constituted through genocide and the dispossession of the Indigenous peoples. To wit, previously I asked, “What if China promoted Hawaiian independence?”
From Taiwan, 60 Minutes turned to Hong Kong saying, “The crackdown on democracy in nearby Hong Kong is be a warning of what may be to come.” Again a one-sided, unsubstantiated, and hypocritical depiction of what the rioting was about in Hong Kong and who was behind it. Not mentioned was that Hong Kong was wrested from China in the Opium Wars and that under British colonial rule Hong Kong enjoyed no democracy.
The disingenuity of 60 Minutes becomes patently transparent when it selectively and incorrectly quotes “the hardline” of chairman Xi on the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China: “Anyone who dares to try and do that will have their heads bashed bloody against the great wall of steel forged by our 1.4 billion Chinese people.”
Dares to try what? Why did 60 Minutes not mention this? Could it be that in proper context another clearer meaning emerges? Why is it that in a 5170-word speech that so many in the western monopoly media only cherrypick a few words — and still get it wrong?
So what did Xi say?
We Chinese are a people who uphold justice and are not intimidated by threats of force. As a nation, we have a strong sense of pride and confidence. We have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will. By the same token, we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us. Anyone who would attempt to do so will find themselves on a collision course with a great wall of steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.
Now that provides context. Xi very saliently states, “We have never bullied, oppressed, or subjugated the people of any other country, and we never will. By the same token, we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress, or subjugate us.” The history of the Century of Humiliation by Europeans and Japan will not be forgotten by the Chinese.
Besides, walls are defensive structures. To run into a wall is foolhardy.
Militarism
60 Minutes objects to Chinese military jets breaching Taiwanese airspace.
First, a look at Taiwan’s claimed air defense identification zone reveals that it includes a sizeable chunk of mainland China.
Second, the fact that Taiwan is a province of China undermines any such objection to Chinese flights.
Third, under the 1992 Consensus both Taiwan and China have agreed that there is only one China, subject to different interpretations by both sides.
Responding to Steinfort’s presenting China as a threat, Gao asks him, “Do you really want to fear a panda?”
Enter erstwhile Australian major general Jim Molan: “I believe that the Chinese Communist Party’s aim is to be dominant in this region and perhaps dominant in the world.” The Council on Foreign Relations agrees with Molan’s assessment that China is seeking to become the “dominant force” in the Asia-Pacific region.
What does “dominant” mean? Most important, powerful, or influential? Molan says China must remove America from the Western Pacific to be dominant in the region. He envisions a Chinese military expansion.
60 Minutes, however, suggests that China’s military could be stymied by swarming miniature drones.
The Global Timesreports that China has a defense for this with the YLC-48, the “terminator of drones,” so small that it can be carried by a single soldier — China’s first portable phased array radar that “can effectively detect and track incoming targets from any angle.”
A new wrinkle has been added in the calculation toward the down-under country following Australia’s joining the UK and US (AUKUS) to become equipped with nuclear-powered submarines. Argued Gao, “The safe approach is to target Australia as a nuclear-armed country.”
Steinfort says “senior figures in China” have stated that Australia is indeed a target for nuclear weapons. To be a target is one thing, but to be fired upon is another. China is on record as pledging no first use of nukes.
What does the future hold?
There is a dichotomy in tactics emphasized between Spencer and Molan on intervening in a hypothesized war between Taiwan and China. The American is cautious and pragmatic. “You have to think about what the results are and at what cost.”
This echoes the Chinese military genius, Sunzi:
Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
Molan channels the domino theory asking where will it all end if China is allowed to retake Taiwan. However, what seemingly eludes Molan is that China would simply be taking back into the fold what is internationally recognized as already being a part of China. Nonetheless, Molan finds, “This situation now is an existential threat to Australia as a liberal democracy.”
Steinfort narrates, “It’s China’s move now.”
Gao taps the spirit of Chinese people when he says, “China prefers peace rather than war. That’s the key.” in his speech on the centenary of the Communist Party of China, Xi said:
We must continue working to promote the building of a human community with a shared future. Peace, concord, and harmony are ideas the Chinese nation has pursued and carried forward for more than 5,000 years. The Chinese nation does not carry aggressive or hegemonic traits in its genes. The Party cares about the future of humanity, and wishes to move forward in tandem with all progressive forces around the world. China has always worked to safeguard world peace, contribute to global development, and preserve international order.
On the journey ahead, we will remain committed to promoting peace, development, cooperation, and mutual benefit, to an independent foreign policy of peace, and to the path of peaceful development.
Unfortunately, one is unlikely to hear such peaceful overtures from the current Australian or American governments.
*
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.
Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be emailed at: kimohp@gmail. Twitter: @kimpetersen. 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).
All Global Research articles 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.
Just two weeks ago, we highlighted the deaths or cardiac episodes of five young athletes in an eight day stretch. Two of them were American high school football players. One was a European international hockey player. But the two professional soccer players in the story – Emil Pálsson and Segio “Kun” Mr. Agüero – garnered the most attention because mainstream media can no longer hide the realities happening in that sport.
It’s now a near-daily occurrence for soccer players (“footballers”) to clutch their chests and collapse on the field of play all around the world. The frequency of these incidence in 2021 is completely unprecedented. There’s no basis for comparison. This blogger was a sports reporter for years. But that doesn’t even matter. Common sense tells you that athletes are collapsing and/or dying regularly and unusually in 2021.
There’s only one thing different about 2021 than all years prior to this. Of course that’s the mRNA and viral vector DNA injections being forced upon humanity both by governments and by social coercion, and fueled by mainstream media. But don’t bother expecting so-called mainstream journalists or government authorities to hold anyone accountable.
Just from our coverage and that of Report24.news (more on that later), there have been at least 90 cases of young athletes collapsing with cardiac issues during the normal course of their respective sports since June. That’s about one athlete collapsing and/or dying every other day since June.
Some random guy named Professor Guido Pieles told the Daily Mail that all these athletes collapsing is sheer coincidence. This same guy told the same newspaper two months earlier that U.K. parents should hold off injecting their children until further research is done.
We reported on the American Heart Association (AHA) abstract that found mRNA injections significantly increase the risk of cardiac episodes. Dr. Aseem Malhorta conceded that the results of the AHA study must be replicated. But he also said there are scientists who have in fact replicated the AHA results, but are afraid to come forward for fear of losing funding from pharmaceutical companies.
Note the foregoing video will be censored on Youtube soon. Please leave a comment and let us know when it disappears and we’ll re-upload it elsewhere.
Bottom line is that we’re at war, both a war on information and a war to protect our health and well-being. By this time next week, there will be 2-3 more athletes who have collapsed and perhaps died. But here are the latest three soccer players.
Charlie Wyke collapses in training, Matt Li Tissier calls for investigation
It’s hard covering soccer because media reports are completely inconsistent.
The Guardian reported that 28-year-old Wigan Athletic striker Charlie Wyke collapsed “during training” on Monday, November 22. Sky News reported that Mr. Wyke collapsed on Tuesday, November 23 during pregame warmups against Cambridge. The Athletic reported that the incident happened on Sunday, November 21. This is apparently mainstream media subterfuge. But the fact remains, Mr. Wyke collapsed while doing some sort of rigorous team activity.
The team released a statement on Thursday, writing in big bold letters that “Charlie has not received a COVID-19 vaccination.” There was no update on his condition other than saying he continues being monitored in a hospital. The team did not clarify the date the collapse happened. Vaxx subterfuges are ubiquitous. Further, 28-year-old athletes don’t just collapse despite mainstream media attempts to normalize it all. Take the statement for what you will.
Former Southampton midfielder and Sky Sports pundit Matt Le Tissier certainly isn’t buying the team’s statement. The 53-year-old pundit made his position clear this past Tuesday.
Announcer Trevor Sinclair cut off after John Fleck collapse
Sheffield United defeated Reading F.C. 1-0 on Tuesday, November 23 at Madejski Stadium, earning their first win in five games. But the Blades victory was an after thought due to yet another coincidence on the pitch (field). Sheffield United midfielder John Fleck suddenly collapsed a few minutes after the lone goal of the game by Jayden Bogle.
Fleck, 30, was convulsing on the ground before medics administered oxygen. He was back on his feet after about 11 minutes, and taken out of the game on a stretcher. The team tweeted the following day that Fleck, a Scotland native, was out of the hospital the next morning and back with the team.
The plot thickened further when TalkSport commentator Trevor Sinclair asked on a live broadcast the logical, sensible, journalistic question, “I think everyone wants to know if he has had the COVID vaccine.” The show’s producers quickly cut the live feed (obviously it’s on a few seconds tape delay) before Mr. Sinclair could even finish saying the word “vaccine.”
Of course the vaxx cult relentlessly attacked Mr. Sinclair, who played 19 years of professional soccer before retiring in 2008. He refused to back down from his common sense, critical thinking observations.
It’s literally an established playbook by the Gates Pharmaceutical global mainstream media to petulantly and childishly attack anyone who does not adhere to their death cult. The exact same thing happened to Ms. Jedidiah Bila on that radical feminist daytime talk show The View.
Adama Traore collapses, Carl Ikeme calls out the world
Real Madrid’s 3-0 victory over FC Sheriff Tiraspol on Wednesday night, November 24, was also marred by the new normal. Adama Traore, originally from Mali, is a winger for Sheriff Tiraspol. Mr. Traore, 26, suddenly clutched his chest and collapsed to the ground around the 77-minute mark of the match. Medics immediately placed smelling salts near his nose so he did not lose consciousness. But he barely reacted to them, which is a bit concerning.
Mr. Traore was eventually helped off the field. But there’s been no update on his condition since then. That brings us to Mr. Carl Ikeme. The 37-year-old Brit played 15 seasons and 207 total games for the Wolverhampton Wanderers from 2003 to 2018.
He retired in 2018 after beating leukemia. But he still loves the game and, like all other critical thinkers and people with common sense, recognizes this disturbing trend of players collapsing on the field after cardiac episodes.
Of course numerous vaxx trolls responded with the proverbial “how dare you even ask that.”
The Report24.news list
All credit for the following links (translated to English) goes to Report24.news. Their staff put together this list of 75 athletes who collapsed in the regular course of their sports from June 2021 to October 2021.
12.6.21, Denmark, 29 years old
The footballer Christian Eriksen collapses lifelessly during a European Championship game – he can be revived if he needs a pacemaker for the rest of his life.
July 22nd, 21, Germany, 36 years old On July 22nd, SV Olympia Schlanstedt and Germania from Kroppenstedt met. During the game Schlanstedts player Nicky Dalibor collapsed and had to be reanimated on the field .
02.08.21, Austria, 18 years of history: 18-year-old unnamed player in Burgenland (Austria) collapses on the playing field and can be saved thanks to the use of a helicopter.
08/06/21, Germany
district league player of the SpVgg. Oelde II has to be revived by his opponent .
22.08.21, Italy, 29 years old
Pedro Obiang from the Italian first division club Sassuolo Calcio after Covid vaccination with myocarditis in the hospital .
22.08.21, Venezuela, 30 years
Venezuelan national marathon champion Alexaida Guedez dies of a heart attack during a 5,000 meter run.
24.08.21, Luxemburg, 29 years old
José dos Reis, a player from Red Black Pfaffenthal (Luxemburg) collapses on the field and has to be resuscitated.
06.09.21, Belgium, 27 years old
Belgian amateur soccer player Jens De Smet (27) from Maldegem suffers a heart attack during the game and dies in hospital.
09.09.21, Germany
player from Birati Club Munster suffers in a regional league game against FC Nordkirchen II Eriksen fate: collapse with cardiac arrest. Game is canceled
09/10/21, Germany, 24 years old
Lucas Surek (24) from BFC Chemie Leipzig suffers from myocarditis .
09/11/21, France, 49 years old
Ain / France: Frédéric Lartillot succumbs to a heart attack after a friendly match in the locker room
09/11/21, Italy, 45 years old
Andrea Astolfi, sporting director of Calcio Orsago (Italy) suffers a fulminant heart attack after returning from training and dies at the age of 45 without any previous illness
09/11/21, Denmark, 22 years old
Abou Ali (22) collapses with cardiac arrest during a two-tier game in Denmark
9.10.21, Mexico
Caddy Alberto Olguin collapses on the golf course after a heart attack. It is said to be the second death of its kind within a short period of time.
10.10.2021, Germany
In the game between Wacker Mecklenbeck and Fortuna Freudenberg in the Women’s Westphalia League , a player collapsed shortly before the end without any opposing influence.
27.10.21, Austria, 26 years old
The Ghanaian Raphael Dwamena collapsed with severe heart problems . He was wearing a defibrillator before the incident.
28.10.21, USA, 12 years
The 12-year-old Jayson Kidd collapsed during basketball practice and later died.
30.10.21, Spain, 33-year-old
star striker Kun Agüero from FC Barcelona had to be replaced in a game due to heart problems . He is now in the hospital for examinations.
*
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 Blog
Comments Off on Revelation 2021? High-profile Soccer Figures, Players (“Footballers”) Forcing Conversation after Three More Soccer Players Collapse in Three Days
All Global Research articles 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 looks like bureaucrats are already using the Omicron Variant to disguise the rapid increase in sudden and unexplained cardiac deaths in the vaccinated; just as they did with the Delta Variant.
Some athletes have begun to publicly question the mainstream narrative regarding these sudden cardiac events among the vaccinated.
Is anybody brave enough in football to ask why? Or shall we pretend nothings happening 🤷🏾♂️
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.
Top U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci is proposing to inject every eligible American with Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine boosters every six months. He shared this idea during a recent interview with the ABC program “This Week.”
“We would hope – and this is something we are looking at very carefully – that the third [mRNA vaccine] shot … not only will boost you way up, but increases the durability so that you will not necessarily need it every six months or a year,” he said.
“We’re hoping it pushes out more. If it doesn’t and the data show we do need it more often, then we’ll do it.”
“Make it really simple: If you had a primary vaccination, get a booster. Right now, don’t make it complicated,” he said.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director expressed hope that booster shots for all adult Americans will help keep people away from hospitalizations and deaths caused by COVID-19. “The effect of [injecting boosters] is very, very favorable to preventing people from getting infected,” he said.
“We have got to get almost everybody who’s gotten the primary vaccination regimen … to get them all boosted. Even though for the most part, the vaccines absent the boost protect quite well – particularly among younger people – against hospitalization.”
However, Fauci’s remarks conflicted with the guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The public health agency only recommended booster doses for adults aged 50 and above and long-term care residents aged 18 and up.
The CDC said other Americans who do not fall under the two categories may get their booster shots “based on their individual risks and benefits.”
Fauci redefines the term “fully vaccinated”
Back in September, Fauci argued that two vaccine doses will no longer suffice for full vaccination. He said during a White House briefing that month that three COVID-19 vaccine doses would be the standard for fully vaccinated individuals.
“I would not at all be surprised that the adequate, full regimen for vaccination will likely be three doses,” Fauci said. He continued that the protection from COVID-19 after a third booster dose was “dramatic” and “durable.” (Related: Fauci: Three shots will be the new standard for a full coronavirus vaccination.)
The NIAID director presented data from Israel about the vaccine’s waning protection after eight months. Despite the Middle Eastern country managing to vaccinate the majority of its population, the more transmissible B16172 delta variant caused a spike in so-called breakthrough infections among vaccinated Israelis.
In response, Israel started injecting older individuals with booster shots of the Pfizer vaccine on July 30. Fauci said the effects of the booster shot injection campaign included “a greater than tenfold decrease in the relative risk of both confirmed infection and severe disease.” This finding “supported the rationale for COVID-19 booster shots” in the U.S., he added. (Related: Israel’s covid plandemic czar tells citizens to prepare for upcoming FOURTH “booster” shot.)
“I would hope that the countries that are boosting their populations similar to what we are understand the importance of the global necessity to essentially suppress this at the global level,” Fauci remarked.
At least one other world leader followed Fauci’s footsteps in redefining the term “fully vaccinated” as having received three COVID-19 vaccine shots. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said during a press briefing that U.K. residents will definitely need a booster dose.
“On boosters, it’s very clear that getting three jabs … will become an important fact. It will make life easier for your in all sorts of ways, and we will have to adjust our concept of what constitutes a full vaccination to take account of that,” Johnson said.
“As we can see from what’s happening, the two [vaccine doses] sadly do start to wane, so we’ve got to be responsible and … reflect that fact in the way we measure what constitutes full vaccination.”
The prime minister also called on British citizens to get their booster doses as soon as they are eligible. Johnson said: “It would be an utter tragedy if, after everything we have been through, people who had done the right thing by getting double-vaccinated ended up being seriously ill or even losing their lives because they allowed their immunity to wane.”
*
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.
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 Monday, November 29, the parties involved in negotiations considering a new nuclear deal with Iran, the so-called ‘5 plus 1’, will meet in Vienna. Will Iran’s demands be met, and will the US be willing to compromise to avoid a regional military conflict, which all sides want to avoid?
At the same time, there are rumored to be serious negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The outcome of those meetings may stabilize the entire region.
However, in the border area of Iran and Azerbaijan, we see the hand of Israel causing chaos and destabilization.
In an effort to better understand the back-story to these headlines, Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourseinterviewed the Iranian Dr. Hadi Issa Dalloul, International Law and Nuclear Physics Consultant. Dr. Dalloul is a nuclear physicist who studied at the University of Houston, in the US and at Imperial College, in the UK.
*
Steven Sahiounie (SS): Nov 29 is the date of the new round of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear deal between Tehran and the West. What is the status on the negotiations and will we see Iran and the west signing a new deal?
Hadi Dalloul (HD): This negotiating session will likely be the last session. I don’t think there will be any extension to this meeting. If the United States or any of the 5 plus 1, cannot confirm fully that the shameful practice of unilaterally breaking the former nuclear deal, as was carried out by President Trump, will never again be repeated by President Biden or any future US President, then a new deal will not be possible. As we agreed in 2015, from Lausanne to Geneva in 90 days, that we confirmed to 82 terms which were registered under UN resolution 2231 which includes the percentage of enrichment and disabling a reactor for the heavy water, especially for Natanz and Fordow, and it will be a research center for Fordow, and it will not be published for 24 years from that date, which is about 19 years more from present, and then it will be established again. Nothing in the 154 pages of the agreement mentions Iran’s military defense systems. Iran does not have a nuclear warhead, and it is not mentioned.
This session, if they will not confirm the release of all sanctions against Iran, and the agreement made in 2019, which is the first step to bypass the US sanctions, which is the exchange of inspections, must be a guarantee from all parties applied with Iran, and not through the UN, then we can proceed to restart the negotiations of 2015. However, nothing in the agreement will be changed, and nothing will be added, only the new guarantee that the US or others will not break the agreement.
SS: News reports write of negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Are these news reports correct? And if so, what is the status of this negotiation? Will we see a decrease in tensions between Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf and Iran?
HD: We in Iran regard our Arab neighbors as brothers. The US, Israel, and some European countries have taken the Persian Gulf Arab countries as hostages in an investment wave, political wave, or even a cultural wave. In the cultural wave, their thinking is blocked in order to be controlled by the western agenda. This why they have goals to release all the natural resources of the oil and gas of the west coast of the Persian Gulf, and the west has sold military weapons to those countries as a form of blackmail using Iran as the threat.
We are trying to keep Saudi Arabia, UAE and Bahrain, especially, as Qatar has taken a neutral position for the last three years, from making a relationship with Israel. We are sorry we have lost UAE in our efforts. We have told Saudi Arabia that if the US and EU would be willing to come to the table to negotiate for the Arabs, then the door is open 100 times. We are willing to give everything the Arabs need, and even our blood, to prevent the Israelis from coming into Mecca and carrying out acts and policies as they are doing in Jerusalem. To further this solidarity with Saudi Arabia, we ask them to come to the table as brothers: Arabs and Persians, and as Muslims, but without America, and Israel. We hope this day will come in the future.
SS: The Zionist lobby in USA, AIPAC and others, are pressuring the White House to not sign a new nuclear deal with Iran. Will US President Joe Biden bow down to Israeli occupation pressure, or will he ignore them and sign a new deal?
HD: We must delve deeply into the intentions of the Israelis and the Israeli lobby in the US. The issues against Iran, with the nuclear program, are split into two units. The first unit is reflected with the targets of the Israelis and the second is reflected with the Israeli lobby. The Israelis are afraid of Iran developing a nuclear program to a stage where we can have enhanced the military defense program and the ballistic program that could be used to attack Israel from Iran, or by the hand of Hezbollah. That is why they need to block the enhancement of the Iranian program. The other side, which is more sensitive for the Israeli lobby, is the medical enhancement for the laboratory at Tehran University, we are working right now on multiple channels. One of the channels is working on the treatment of cancer. If we discover a treatment for cancer, instead of chemotherapy, then the companies who produce chemotherapy drugs will be losing their market. This could be perceived as an enemy to drug companies who may have ties with Israel. Another field is space exploration. Most information from space is coming from NASA. If Iran goes up further into the atmosphere and begins installing satellites, we may find information coming previously from NASA is incorrect. This is why the US and others feel they must block Iran from getting into space. Iran wants to know truthfully what is being done at the International Space Station, and this may be perceived as dangerous for NASA. This is why they try to prevent Iran from going into space.
Another area is viruses. We have been studying Covid-19 and have made a vaccine which is effective. This is also seen as a threat to some Israeli tied companies.
The new nuclear agreement must be acceptable to Iran and the Iranian people, or we cannot enter into it. If that should happen, Iran can continue their program presently and Iran has capability to make their own equipment, such as the centrifuge unit, and can progress at their own pace. We are almost at 70% enrichment of Uranium 235. Each step that we take with the nuclear program corresponds with a civil technical program, not a military program. It is up to the ‘5 plus 1’ members to understand what Iran is doing truthfully. We are ready for a war if it comes to that, but I do not think that will happen. Finally, we will continue ethically with the non-proliferation treaty which we signed previously during the period of the Kingdom of Iran.
SS: News reports suggest there is tension of the Azerbaijani-Iranian border. Is the Israeli occupation using Azerbaijan to cause chaos on Iran’s border? What is the Azerbaijani benefit from the situation?
HD: Yes, the left hand of Israel is seen in Azerbaijan. It is on the eastern border with Iran, and Israel has tried to cause a border conflict on Iran. The Azerbaijanis are the loser in the conflict. Israel will try to find any channel to cause conflict with Iran. Israel can use cyber warfare, and with partners, but they cannot attempt a military fight face to face.
SS: There is political tensions between Iran and several of its neighbors in the region. Will this tension escalate into a military conflict? And will the US stand with the Israeli occupation if they decided on a military conflict with Iran?
HD: Israel cannot go ahead with a military move because they would be acting alone. We have tried to separate Israel from the UN, and have it stand alone. Russia and China have a vote at the UN Security Council, so America will be prevented from action. The US has played games in Libya, Egypt and Syria before, but they will not be able to succeed against Iran. Israel cannot face Iran alone, and that is why they have tried to find a partner to fight with them.
*
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 European Union database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, and they are now reporting 31,014 fatalities, and 2,890,600 injuries, following COVID-19 injections.
A Health Impact News subscriber from Europe reminded us that this database maintained at EudraVigilance is only for countries in Europe who are part of the European Union (EU), which comprises 27 countries.
The total number of countries in Europe is much higher, almost twice as many, numbering around 50. (There are some differences of opinion as to which countries are technically part of Europe.)
So as high as these numbers are, they do NOT reflect all of Europe. The actual number in Europe who are reported dead or injured following COVID-19 shots would be much higher than what we are reporting here.
The EudraVigilance database reports that through November 20, 2021 there are 31,014 deaths and 2,890,600 injuries reported following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:
From the total of injuries recorded, almost half of them (1,355,192) are serious injuries.
“Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. It is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.
Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.*
Here is the summary data through November 20, 2021.
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 14,526 deaths and 1,323,370 injuries to 20/11/2021
35,826 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 207 deaths
40,230 Cardiac disorders incl. 2,128 deaths
376 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 33 deaths
17,995 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 10 deaths
283,288 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,469 deaths
950 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 60 deaths
4,834 Immune system disorders incl. 29 deaths
32,441 Infections and infestations incl. 413 deaths
12,358 Injury poisoning and procedural complications incl. 177 deaths
23,611 Investigations incl. 150 deaths
12,369 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 91 deaths
159,668 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 94 deaths
624 Neoplasms benign malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 22 deaths
221,536 Nervous system disorders incl. 958 deaths
521 Pregnancy puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 12 deaths
188 Product issues incl. 1 death
19,933 Psychiatric disorders incl. 58 deaths
4,031 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 58 deaths
15,124 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 2 deaths
37,980 Respiratory thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 735 deaths
49,247 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 48 deaths
1,498 Social circumstances incl. 6 deaths
1,404 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 25 deaths
26,696 Vascular disorders incl. 437 deaths
Total reactions for the COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson: 1,825 deaths and 101,732 injuries to 20/11/2021
986 Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 40 deaths
1,837 Cardiac disorders incl. 155 deaths
35 Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
1,033 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 2 deaths
69 Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
1,351 Eye disorders incl. 7 deaths
8,500 Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 75 deaths
26,871 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 488 deaths
121 Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 11 deaths
445 Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
4,315 Infections and infestations incl. 143 deaths
920 Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 18 deaths
4,766 Investigations incl. 103 deaths
625 Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 45 deaths
14,897 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 43 deaths
54 Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 3 deaths
20,097 Nervous system disorders incl. 197 deaths
41 Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
26 Product issues
1,407 Psychiatric disorders incl. 16 deaths
417 Renal and urinary disorders incl. 22 deaths
2,059 Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 6 deaths
3,617 Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 234 deaths
3,094 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 8 deaths
319 Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
690 Surgical and medical procedures incl. 54 deaths
3,140 Vascular disorders incl. 140 deaths
*These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.
Here are some faces and stories to attach to these cold statistics from those who paid the ultimate price to receive an experimental COVID-19 shot. All of these people were reportedly healthy prior to taking the shots, and they ended up dying very young, or became crippled and lost their careers.
First, we have a very emotional video posted online by a Canadian mother who mourns her daughter’s 13-year-old friend who did not want to take the COVID-19 shot, but finally gave in and took it as it was mandatory for her to continue participating in sports. Her heart stopped and now she is in critical condition.
*
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 31,014 Deaths 2,890,600 Injuries Following COVID Shots in European Database of Adverse Reactions as Young, Previously Healthy People Continue to Die
All Global Research articles 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.
Putin is considered a threat because he restored Russian sovereignty, erased the humiliation of the Boris Yeltsin era, and championed Russia’s national interests. But that is just what the U.S. elite could not tolerate.
The U.S. military-industrial complex needs enemies like human lungs need oxygen. When there are no enemies, they must be invented.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pentagon spin doctors had to search for a new bogeyman to justify their immense $778 billion budget, and its crippling effect on the U.S. economy. If that meant creating a propaganda campaign to paint Panama President Manuel Noriega—a longtime CIA asset—as a mad-dog “threat to American democracy” in order to justify the 1989 invasion of Panama (whose dead have yet to all be counted 32 yearslater)—well, so be it.
Or if it meant that other CIA assets, like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, also had to be painted as dangerous threats to American democracy to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, at the cost of countless Iraqi and Afghan lives, not to mention the lives of the thousands of gullible U.S. soldiers who served as cannon fodder—well, so be that, too.
But once those enemies were gone, a new one was needed. And almost as if on cue, the re-emergence of a strong, sovereign Russia in 1999 provided the ideal candidate. It also provided a perfect excuse to initiate a new Cold War, which would justify the ever-increasing expenditures for exotic weaponry that the military-industrial complex kept demanding from its bought-and-paid-for politicians in the White House and Congress.
Russia’s Rebirth from Failed State to Sovereign Nation—and latest “Enemy of U.S. Democracy”
The 1990s had been a decade of humiliation for Russia. Under the compliant, corrupt and alcoholic presidency of Boris Yeltsin, the country became a virtual neo-colony of Western imperialist powers. But the resignation of Boris Yeltsin in 1999, and his replacement by Vice President Vladimir Putin (who was then elected president on his own in 2000), signaled the dawn of a new era—and a new relationship between Russia and its Western tormentors.
Although constant headlines and soundbites have painted Russia (and China, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and every other country that dares to exist outside the hegemonic control of U.S. imperialism) as existential threats to “our” national security, what do Americans really know about Russian society and foreign policy?
What is the correct class characterization of the Russian Federation? Why is the Biden government continually slapping new sanctions on Russia and expelling its diplomats? What is behind the new and recycled national religion of Russophobia? This article will begin to address these questions.
Restoring a Strong and Proud Russia
Russia is a medium-sized capitalist power — having the 11th largest GDP in the world, after 10th place South Korea and before 12th place Brazil. For comparison, the U.S. has a productive capacity 20 times that of Russia. This is the reality for a country trying to assert its interests, after a quarter century of ignominy, in a world order that has been thoroughly dominated by the United States and Western European powers.
Oligarchs and the capitalist Russian state are the central players in the $1.46 trillion Russian economy today. The socialist basis that underscored Russia’s relations with its smaller neighbor republics has been replaced by capitalist interests, and Russian national chauvinism is now widespread.
Vladimir Putin represents the nationalist section of the Russian bourgeoisie. In stark comparison to Boris Yeltsin and his cronies, Putin’s main objective is the return of a strong, proud Russia on the international stage. An ex-KGB agent who has been accused of assassinating his enemies and adopting strong-armed methods reminiscent of the Soviet era, Putin is immensely popular nevertheless in his homeland, especially when compared to the man who preceded him.
Image on the right: Putin with Boris Yeltsin at his inauguration in 2000. [Source: theconversation.com]
For two decades, the Putin administration has had as its chief foreign policy objective the creation of geopolitical breathing space to allow the country to restore its former power, restore itself as a major player in global politics and begin to catch up with the West.
Marlene Laruelle, Director of the Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies at The George Washington University, explains that slapping the fascist and totalitarian labels on Putin and Russia are not scholarly but are rather politicized attempts to discredit Russia in order to prevent the country of 144 million from being taken seriously in the international arena.
Professor Nicolai N. Petro, who holds the Silvia-Chandley Professorship of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island, makes a similar argument, and points to many positive innovations under his leadership, including vital reforms in the Russian criminal justice system.
According to these authors, Putin is popular because he guarantees a certain stability for the elites, oligarchs, civil servants and other powerful sectors of Russian society. Many ordinary Russians furthermore recall the economic devastation of the Yeltsin era, and connect Putin with the economic improvements that have taken place since that time—even if certain hardships remain.
Laruelle’s scholarship concludes that the Russian state draws from myriad ideological sources, such as social conservatism, Soviet nostalgia, illiberalism, Russian orthodoxy and Russian nationalism. In her book, Is Russia Fascist?Unraveling Propaganda East and West, she explains: “If there is an overarching ideological trend to identify, it is illiberalism…:a denunciation that holds that liberalism [capitalism, imperialism, Western hegemony, words the author never uses in her book] is now ‘obsolete’ and has ‘outlived its purpose,’ as Putin declared in 2019, and a return to an ideology of sovereignty—national, economic, and cultural-moral sovereignty.”[1]
The Backdrop of Putin’s Victory
For a people long accustomed to the egalitarianism and socio-economic rights of the Soviet Union and being equal operators on the world stage diametrically opposed to the most powerful empire in history, the 1990s return to being a vassal state of the West was a shock.
French economist Thomas Piketty charts the rise of income inequality and Russia’s descent into “a society of oligarchs engaged in grand larceny of public assets.”[2] The voucher system (1991-1995) concentrated wealth in the hands of billionaires as state assets were sold off to the highest bidder. Western advisers from the IMF and World Bank oversaw a monetary system that completely rejected the idea of inheritance and progressive taxes.
The post-communist system taxed everyone the same, regardless of whether they made a living as a fruit vendor or were a gas magnate, at 13%. Tax havens that deprived society of much needed social capital were the norm. Piketty’s Capital and Ideology concludes that Russia’s economic paradigm was to the right of Reagan and Thatcher and became the West’s freakish experiment in hyper-capitalism.
This explains why Yeltsin became a darling of the West and was described on covers of Time magazine at different moments as a maverick, a revolutionary and Bill Clinton’s “comrade.”
Russia expert Jeremy Kuzmarov explains the stark contrast between Yeltsin’s and Putin’s leadership:
“Putin’s vilification stems largely from the fact that he has promoted more nationalistic policies compared to his predecessor Boris Yeltsin who opened up the country to shock therapy specialists (Harvard University advisers) who advanced ill-conceived privatization schemes that led to record poverty and corruption levels in Russia during the 1990s. Over $150 billion left the country in just six years, much of it to be stored in Western or off-shore banks. Desperate Russians sold off privatization vouchers to avert starvation. Millions lost their life savings after Russia defaulted on its debt and devalued its currency, and life expectancy plummeted by over seven years for men.”[3]
According to a German polling agency, Putin’s approval rating has consistently been above 75%. The reason for this figure, as noted, is that Russia’s economy has improved dramatically under his rule from the 1990s, and Russia has reasserted itself on the world stage.
To understand the ire that Putin inspires from ruling circles in the West, we must return to Russia’s recent history. In an extensive interview with “The Empire Files,” entitled “Post-Soviet Russia: America’s ‘Colony’ to #1 Enemy,” journalist Mark Ames lays out a basis for why Putin’s leadership is so unforgivable to the would-be conquerors of one of the most strategic and rich regions of the world.
Ames lived in Russia under both Yeltsin and then Putin. He speaks on the trauma that Russian society felt when it went from the most equal to the most plutocratic society on earth, almost overnight. Some of the world’s largest gas reserves and one-third of the world’s nickel were auctioned off.
In 1998 the Russian stock market fell 95%, the ruble lost its value, there were food shortages, the state collapsed, teachers were not paid and one-third of the country returned to subsistence farming. At the end of the 1990s, as Western media heaped praises on their new neo-colony, Russians were sick of being experimented on. Ames sees the U.S.’s unilateral bombing of Kosovo in 1999 targeting Yugoslav/Serb forces allied with Russia as the final straw that angered the Russians, leading to a national sentiment of “the communists were right. We are next [on the chopping block].”
Kuzmarov’s “‘A New Battlefield for the United States’: Russia Sanctions and the New Cold War” offers a portrait of what Putin’s leadership has meant for everyday Russians:
“Famed Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn stated that ‘Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country. And he started to do with it what was possible—a slow and gradual restoration.’
This was in part achieved by ordering oligarchs to pay taxes, by regaining national control over oil and gas deposits sold off to Exxon and other Western oil companies under Yeltsin, and implementing policies that improved infrastructure, living standards, and led to a decrease in corruption and crime. Inflation, joblessness, and poverty rates subsequently declined while wages improved and the economy grew tenfold. Putin cut Russia’s national debt, stymied the exodus of Russian wealth abroad and put in place a successful pension system.”[4]
Like the Bolsheviks a century before, the underdog was standing up to the global Goliath.
A devastated people were searching for another way. This was the power vacuum that gave rise to Putin. Putin did not drink. He was serious. He was a former intelligence officer in the KGB.
Challenging Unipolarity
Jack Lew, Obama’s Treasury Secretary, said that economic sanctions are “a new battlefield for the United States, one that enables us to go after those who wish us harm without putting our troops in harm’s way.”
In Russia’s Response to Sanctions: How Western Economic Statecraft is Reshaping Political Economy in Russia, Professor Richard Connolly from the University of Birmingham assesses how the government is building a multipolar world by increasing trade with Washington’s other targets, such as China, Iran, and Venezuela.
On October 15th, Russia and Venezuelan representatives wrapped up the Intergovernmental Commission XV and Business Forum II where they agreed to continue cooperation in strategic sectors like agriculture, industry, fishing and cultural affairs. The U.S.’s hybrid war on Iran has pushed the country toward the Russian and Chinese anchored Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to the alarm of think tanks in Washington, Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi.
These new alliances have led the global dictator to lash out in insane ways, imprisoning diplomats and trade ambassadors, most famously Alex Saab, who shun and bypass their dictates. Washington’s own overstepping and sanctioning of one-fourth of humanity has organically led the blockaded countries to increase trade with one another.
Critiques from the Russian Left
Putin to be sure has black spots on his record and has faced legitimate criticism from his domestic political opponents.
Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Russian Communist Party (RCP), criticizes the repression of the opposition by forces under Putin, hostile takeovers of state-owned enterprises, and “cannibalistic pension reform.” The RCP has denounced the banning of Alexei Navalny’s website and restrictions of any protest. This view sees the other four major parties in the Duma as a controlled opposition all loyal to United Russia, proving there is little more than a semblance of a democratic structure.
“Staying the Course” is a YouTube channel run by Russian communist Vasily Eremeyev. Еremeyev contrasts Soviet parliamentary democracy and right to recall politicians versus the buying of congressional and duma seats under capitalism. The channel has also been vocal about the privatization of health care and education and the lack of taxes on the oligarchy. Inequality in Russia today is worse than in the U.S.
Russia Today (RT)
RT, formerly Russia Today, is the Russian state and private media behemoth with subsidiaries and projects such as Sputnik radio stations, RT news in different languages and Redfish documentaries. The producers, who hire the anchors, edit the story lines and invite the guests, project a hodgepodge of ideological lines that can cause great confusion if not unpacked.
Young revolutionaries in Russia have pointed out how RT (Russia Today) and their affiliates sometimes invite anti-imperialist guests and project left-leaning critiques of imperialism to provide a cover for Moscow’s true ideology. Russian state and private media use such guests in the same way that they use their right-wing guests, to deepen fissures in Western society. By giving voice to both ideologies that are shut out of liberal, mainstream discourse, their intention is to heighten the social contradictions in the West. They imagined a so-called “Red-Brown alliance,” where the Left and Right would unite in an anti-globalization movement.
RT has had frequent pieces against migration and voiced support for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the French right wing. Putin prides himself on being anti-progressive and anti-woke. His recent speech in Sochi showed a callous misunderstanding of the history of white supremacy, misogyny and homophobia in the U.S. Again, we see the similarities to Trump’s rhetoric.
RT plays a counterbalancing, counter-hegemonic function. Time magazine’s exposé of RT, “Inside Putin’s On-Air Media Machine,” presents charts of how many millions of people the record-breaking RT is reaching worldwide versus BBC, VICE, ABC and other mouthpieces of the global power structure. Presenting itself and Western media as objective, Time presents RT as a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.
This is part of the backdrop that gave rise to the fanatical, wildly exaggerated claims by CNN and The New York Times that Russia intervened in the 2016 elections and put Trump into power. These critics see RT as providing a leftist façade for foreign consumption as an illiberal system targets and destroys the real Left at home in Russia. This is similar to the Iranian state that is not fundamentally socialist but echoes talking points of global anti-imperialist forces.
At the same time, Russian state actors are reviving “white ideology,” the pro-tzar and pro-monarchy resistance to the Bolsheviks and Red Army. Laruelle documents Putin’s paying honor to former white generals and exiles while spending resources on the rehabilitation of collaborationists through cinema and monuments. The mausoleum that holds Lenin’s body has been “under construction” since 2005.
At the May 9th WWII Victory Day parade, the Russian flag has replaced the Soviet flag. Vague references to “our ancestors” have replaced any mention of the Red Army’s and Soviet people’s heroic role in defeating the Nazis. In the informational war with the right-wing coup-mongers in Kyiv, Russian leadership often pointed at their fascist character. Eyewitnesses were alarmed at the anti-Ukrainian sentiments that were shoulder to shoulder with internationalist motivations in the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic.
There is a definite split in the U.S. ruling class toward Russia. Since Putin is a conservative nationalist but not a leftist, Fox, Breitbart and Newsmax tend to portray Putin more favorably.
The alternative media are all over the place, with outlets like Democracy Now echoing the mainstream media and bringing on guests like Masha Gessen who are anti-Putin. Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters are a few examples of “progressive Democrats” who have helped advance Russophobia. Trump, initially promoted more engagement with Russia but ultimately continued a confrontational approach and expanded sanctions and tore up arms control agreements like the Intermediate Nuclear-Range Force Treaty (INF). Trump’s initial policy was unacceptable to the true ruling class which had long ago decided that Trump was not “presidential.”
This honest overview of RT begs an important question: Should an anti-imperialist engage and offer analysis for RT or PressTV and HispanTV (the Iranian equivalents)? Should a committed anti-imperialist use these platforms to expose U.S. crimes from Honduras to Ukraine to Haiti? This is a most intriguing question for each radical organization and Marxist-Leninist party in the center of world imperialism to determine for itself. Organizing does not take place in the realm of purity but advances with setbacks and contradictions. Can Russia, with all of its social and economic contradictions, still be an ally for the forces of liberation fighting capitalism and white supremacy?
Is Russia Imperialist?
Russia may have committed many condemnable acts, but it is surely overblown and unscientific to call it “imperialist.”
In fact, for the last 25 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has done little to stop the U.S. war drive in country after country. Under Yeltsin, the Russian government was essentially subordinate to Washington. Until the 2013 neoliberal Maiden Coup, the Russian government hoped that if it did not challenge Washington in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia, and on its own borders, in exchange it would be allowed to grow again as a strong country. The absence of Russia as a strategic counterpoint has in fact been a dominant pillar of the U.S. unipolar world order, which has caused so much death and destruction.
If anything, Russia should be criticized for its passivity in the NATO/U.S. war on Libya in 2011 and allowing Western imperialist power to bomb a country with which it maintained strong relations. Russia abstained from the sham UN resolution that empowered the Western coalition to effect regime change but did not use its veto. At a crucial moment, Russia abided by another resolution to stop all arms sales to the Libyan government.
In 2015, for the first time, Russia drew the line to support its one remaining military ally in the Middle East: Syria. Russia’s intervention was not a sign of some grand design to take over the Middle East; Russia has nowhere near the military or economic capacity to even consider this task. It intervened directly, four years into the war, because it saw in the internal contradictions of the Obama administration an opportunity to step in and prevent a repeat of Libya. Unlike every U.S. coup, the Syrian government openly invited and welcomed Russian support against ISIS and its international backers.
From the perspective of the Syrian people and anti-imperialists the world over, Moscow provided critical military support to the Syrian government, as well as anti-aircraft weaponry that undoubtedly staved off direct U.S. bombing of Damascus.
The two Russian actions that most angered the West were really quite reasonable, and taken to protect its only warm water ports—the Crimean port of Sevastopol and the Syrian port of Tartus. Both were very important to Russia because its seven home ports—at Novorossiysk, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, and other locations—froze over and severely crippled its capacity to trade in the winter months.
On account of this changed relationship of forces, Syria miraculously held on, and Russia issued the U.S. a challenge like no other in the era of unipolar U.S. domination.
Warding off U.S. imperialism in Syria and Eastern Ukraine was therefore a sensible action in light of national interests. Russia was not the aggressor.
U.S. military spending dwarfs that of Russia, $778 billion annually to $61.7 billion. U.S. military capacity exceeds that of the next eleven strongest militaries combined. With such glaring social needs, how does the Pentagon justify its 778 billion dollar budget? This is more than double what the Build Back Better legislation proposes: $350 billion a year on social investment.
As if David were not sufficiently intimidated and overpowered by Goliath, the U.S. military machine also has its NATO allies operating on Russia’s doorstep. If Russia objects and dares to defend its borders, any NATO member has recourse to Article 5 of its charter, which lays out that “An attack on one member is an attack on all.”
In June of this year, NATO, the U.S. Sixth Fleet and Black Sea nations carried out Sea Breeze 21 “to enhance interoperability among the participating nations” on Russia’s borders. Some 32 countries participated, including most NATO members and the U.S. client-regimes such as Egypt, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates.
Of course, any sort of multi-polar imperialist system, should one take shape in the future, must be strenuously fought as well; the needs of poor and working people cannot be met with capitalism or imperialism in any form. But to condemn Russia as co-equal to the United States has no basis in history and mischaracterizes Russian foreign policy.
This wrong analysis misinterprets the relationship of forces in global politics and the meaning of the Syria and Crimea intervention, and it preached neutrality at the very moment that a sovereign country of the formerly colonized world, Syria, is—for the first time since Vietnam—on the verge of withstanding the U.S. Empire.
Russia’s Geopolitical Interests
It is important to clarify Russia’s motives and the role it has played in Syria.
Russia’s support of the Assad government was not ideological; it was practical. For one, the overthrow of the Assad government by proxies of Western power and Gulf monarchies would have transformed Syria into a client-state that would likely have shut out Russia’s access to its warm water port at Tartus. It would also have blocked an important part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for which Syria’s access to the Mediterranean was to function as an alternative to the U.S.-controlled Suez Canal.
Regime change in Syria would also have freed the Pentagon to pursue its next target in the region—perhaps Iran—and allow the U.S. to further tighten the screws on and encircle Russia itself. Much of Russia’s foreign policy is driven by the real fear that the United States has so little respect for national sovereignty that it will inevitably turn its attention to regime change in Russia itself. In some ways this campaign has already begun, as the West has thrown all of its ideological machinery behind neoliberal opposition leader Aleksei Navalny.
On October 20th, the EU granted Navalny the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, its top Human Rights award—reserved every year for a dissident of a government that Western imperialist nations are actively seeking to overthrow.
In this case, Russia’s pursuit of its own national interests overlapped with the interests of preserving Syria’s national independence from imperialist regime change and the social and cultural counter-revolution offered by the Saudi and U.S.-supported Salafists.
Russia to be sure has secured access to the Syrian warm water port at Tartus—a leased military installation of the Russian navy—though it stands to gain little economically from its intervention in Syria.
Russia’s re-entry onto the world stage has caused alarm for the unipolar hegemon. Turkeyand the U.S. are warning that the Russian paramilitary outfit, the Wagner Group, under Russian government control, is involved in conflicts from Libya to Syria to the Central African Republic to Eastern Ukraine.
U.S. think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies see “Russia’s Blackwater” as potentially tilting the balance in these regional conflicts in favor of social forces hostile to imperialism. While the CIA wields its budget of billions to destabilize countries which refuse to stay in their neocolonial place, the U.S. brass is not accustomed to dealing with other international actors who seek to subvert its order. Jeremy Kuzmarov’s book The Russians are Coming, Again is an important review of this New Cold War propaganda.[5]
The reality however is that Russia’s single existing military base outside of the territory of the former Soviet Union is in northern Syria, near the city of Latakia (approximately 500 miles from Russia’s southern border.) Compare this to the 800 known U.S. military bases and installations and hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops occupying 140 different “sovereign” countries in the world.
Russia: Bullied, Sanctioned, Blockaded and Surrounded
In 2013, the European Union and the U.S. government helped orchestrate the Maiden counter-revolution, a right-wing coup in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine. NATO powers regularly carry out war drills meant to intimidate Russia. For example, Britain sent 800 troops to the Russian border in Estonia. NATO is not just serving as the most strategic imperialist vehicle but effectively as an anti-Russian alliance.
The U.S. refused to invite Russia, for instance, to join NATO even in the Yeltsin years when U.S.-Russia cooperation was at its highest. U.S. strategists believed that, as Russia regained its strength, it could potentially form a partnership with France and Germany and eliminate U.S. control of NATO. Instead, it promised it would not bring NATO any further east, into the former Soviet Union, but it has repeatedly broken this promise.
Imagine if the relationship were reversed and Russia was deploying its armies and prosecuting wars on America’s doorstep. If Russia were funding a proxy war in Mexico (Syria), engineered a coup in Canada (Ukraine) and were mobilizing troops in Puerto Rico (Estonia), would anyone expect the U.S. to capitulate?
This interactive map shows how the U.S. and NATO have Russia surrounded.
There was speculation that the Trump administration could have offered Russia a sort of deal: a warming of relations between the two countries in exchange for Russia agreeing to the partition of Syria and the isolation of Iran. There was considerable speculation in the corporate media about Trump’s goal to work with Russia at the expense of China as well.
A correct position on the U.S. proxy war against Syria derives from a defense of oppressed countries’ right to self-defense and complete opposition to imperialist regime-change efforts. The Salafists’ overthrow of the Syrian bourgeois-nationalist and secular state, despite its many problems and contradictions, would constitute a huge step backward for the people and for the region—a counter-revolution in social terms that would likewise destroy Syria as a nation-state.
This should not be misunderstood as an embrace or endorsement of the political system of Syria, of Assad as an individual leader or of Baathism. Rather it is a recognition of the stakes of the current war, and that no socialist left-wing transformation of Syria has been on the table in the ongoing ten-year, life-and-death struggle.
Dialectics
This level of analysis raises critical questions that the U.S. military-industrial complex and the foreign policy establishment do not want the public to focus on. Instead, the corporate media, as the mouthpieces of the U.S. establishment, have a vested interest in making Russia the bad guy and the U.S.’s “democracy” the victim. Consequently, a U.S. state ideology of Russophobia permeates every sentence of The New York Times and Rachel Maddow’s teleprompters shaping millions of Americans’ myopic views of this massive, complex country.
Predictably, only 22% of Americans now view Russia favorably. The constant accusations of Russia’s meddling in U.S. elections and hacking are highly inflated and politicized to serve as the rationale for the ongoing anti-Russian offensive. The never-verified charges are especially hypocritical when one considers how much electoral interference—and how many post-WWII military coups—the U.S. intelligence agencies have orchestrated from Southeast Asia to the Middle East to South America and in Russia itself.
A revolutionary in the belly of the beast should have no illusions about the Russian state being a return of a Soviet Workers’ State that often stood in solidarity with national liberation movements across the world in the Global Class War, known by its Western euphemism, The Cold War.
At the same time, a genuine progressive can appreciate why blockaded and besieged Venezuelans, Syrians, Zimbabweans, Cubans, and Iranians, and oppressed people the world over, see Putin as a fearless badass and Russia as an ally who has stood up to the U.S. empire in defense of the sovereignty of oppressed nations.
*
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.
Danny Shaw teaches Latin American and Caribbean Studies and Race, Ethnicity, Class and Gender at the City University of New York. He can be reached at: [email protected].
Notes
Marlene Laruelle, Is Russia Fascist? Unraveling Propaganda East and West (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2021).
Thomas Piketty, Capital and Ideology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 2020).
Jeremy Kuzmarov, “A New Battlefield for the United States: Russia Sanctions and the New Cold War,” Socialism and Democracy, August, 2020.
Kuzmarov, “A New Battlefield for the United States.”
Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano, The Russians are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2018).
All Global Research articles 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.
New research out of Germany shows that the most “vaccinated” areas of the world for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) also have the highest rates of excess mortality.
An English translation of the study’s findings explains that the less vaccinated the area, the higher the chances of survival. Conversely, the more vaccinated the area, the greater the rate of excess mortality.
“The correlation is + .31, is amazingly high and especially in an unexpected direction,” it explains.
“Actually, it should be negative, so that one could say: The higher the vaccination rate, the lower the excess mortality. However, the opposite is the case and this urgently needs to be clarified. Excess mortality can be observed in all 16 countries.”
Steve Kirsch of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund says that none of this is surprising to him. Since Chinese Virus injections are the deadliest class of “vaccine” in history by a factor of over 800, it only makes sense that people everywhere who take them are dying in droves.
“In plain English: vaccination makes things worse, not better,” he writes.
The original study is available for download as a Word document. Kirsch also uploaded an English version as a PDF for easy viewing.
Skip the jab and save your life
Dr. Ute Bergner is credited with putting the research together. She formerly belonged to the FDP parliamentary group in the Thuringian state parliament, but has since switched to the “Citizens for Thuringia” party.
In a recent speech, Bergner presented the analysis that she had commissioned. Two statisticians, she explained, were instructed to look for a connection between the vaccination rate and excess mortality in Germany’s 16 federal states.
These two statisticians, Drs. Rolf Steyer and Gregor Kappler, analyzed the period from week 36 to week 40. This is what they found, as presented in a summary:
“Excess mortality can be found in all 16 countries. The number of Covid deaths reported by the RKI in the period under review consistently only represents a relatively small part of the excess mortality and above all cannot explain the critical issue: The higher the vaccination rate, the higher the excess mortality.”
“The most direct explanation is: Complete vaccination increases the likelihood of death,” it goes on to explain.
The Unz Review put together a similar study that came to much the same conclusion. Everywhere in the world where Fauci Flu shots are widely administered is seeing a massive increase in excess mortality.
“Even excluding Covid deaths they were almost 20% above normal for the most recent week, and the trend is rising,” noted Alex Berenson on his Substack.
Obedience to the mandates, in other words, is just asking for death. This will become increasingly apparent as the full effects of the injections kick in over time.
In many cases, death does not occur immediately after the jab. This creates a false sense of “safety and effectiveness” that leads people to believe that everything is just fine.
Later down the road, however, is when the effects of the injections will become apparent. At that point, the death toll will skyrocket even more than it currently is, making it apparent that mass vaccination is just mass genocide in disguise.
“Please take ivermectin which has studies saying it cures cancer,” wrote one commenter at Steve Kirsch’s Substack to someone discussing non-vaccine remedies for the Chinese Virus.
“Or equivalent herbs and enzymes at least like quercetin, berberine, resveratrol, and sweet wormwood. There is a link between parasites and cancer.”
Another directed the already vaccinated to The Fleming Method website, which contains helpful information about how to mitigate and even eliminate some of the jab side effects.
*
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.
There were no incidents in Slovenia on the first day of tighter epidemiological restrictions, with some dissatisfaction among unvaccinated citizens, mostly drivers who were unable to refuel their cars without a COVID-19 certificate.
Most petrol suppliers, including the Ljubljana-based Petrol, which operates the largest number of petrol stations in the country, are rigorously applying the new restrictions, adopted on Saturday, activating fuel dispensers only after a driver presents a certificate showing that they have recovered from COVID-19, have been vaccinated, or have tested negative.
Employees at petrol stations said that there were no delays on the first day of the new restrictions being in force, with only one incident having been reported in Brezice.
Drivers in international transport have been exempt from the new restrictions and can still refuel their vehicles without major restrictions but they do have to wear a face mask when paying for the fuel at the petrol station.
The rule on the compulsory COVID-19 certificate for a number of services and economic activities, applying both to providers of those services and their customers, was introduced due to a worsened epidemiological situation.
Janez Janza’s government is not ruling out the introduction of additional restrictions if the vaccination rate does not rise quickly and the number of new infections and hospitalisations continues to grow at the current rate.
Close to 2,800 new infections were reported in the last two days. In the past 24 hours, 1,364 new cases have been reported, with one in five tests being positive.
Six patients have died of COVID-19, and the number of patients receiving hospital treatment has increased to 347, including 75 in intensive care units. The government is expected to discuss new anti-epidemic rules on Thursday.
*
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.
In August 2019, thousands of refugees, prisoners, and families of ISIS fighters crowded into an encampment in the border town of Baghuz in eastern Syria, one of the last territories controlled by the so-called Islamic State. The United States, supported on the ground by an allied Kurdish and Arab militia, launched a massive air assault on the enclave.
As The New York Timesreported on November 13, 2021, a U.S. attack jet unleashed its payload on the civilian encampment. “As the smoke cleared,” the article noted, “a few people stumbled away in search of cover. Then, a jet tracking them dropped one 2,000-pound bomb, then another, killing most of the survivors.” At least seventy civilians died.
A Pentagon legal officer reported internally that this was a possible war crime, but, “at nearly every step, the military made moves that concealed the catastrophic strike,” according to the Times. The death toll was downplayed, and reports were delayed, sanitized, and classified.
The U.S-led coalition forces bulldozed the blast site. The office of the Defense Department’s independent inspector general launched an investigation, but the report was effectively censored. An evaluator in that office lost his job when he complained about the cover-up.
In response to an inquiry earlier this month from the Times, the U.S. Central Command acknowledged the strikes for the first time and admitted that eighty people were killed. Nevertheless, it insisted the airstrikes were justified and that “no formal war crime notification, criminal investigation, or disciplinary action was warranted.”
The Baghuz massacre was one the last of the 35,000 air strikes the United States launched over a five-year period in Syria and Iraq that ostensibly targeted ISIS. According to Pentagon rules, U.S. forces could call in airstrikes without checking to see if civilians were threatened, so long as it was deemed necessary for self-defense.
What constitutes “self-defense” for the Pentagon, however, is not just when its forces are under fire. The authorization of deadly force can also be granted if enemy troops are simply believed to be displaying “hostile intent,” which the Pentagon defined so broadly in the case of U.S-backed ground operations in Syria that it constituted 80 percent of all U.S. air strikes.
The New York Times article also noted that the Pentagon failed to keep track of the numerous reports of civilian casualties and usually failed to follow through with investigations. In the rare cases where an investigation was ordered, it was later squashed. An email shared with the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed that the only time an investigation was allowed to move forward was when there was “potential for high media attention, [or] concern with outcry from local community/government, concern sensitive images may get out.”
So far, the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee has refused to open an investigation into the Baghuz attack or any other possible war crimes by U.S. forces in the war against ISIS.
New technologies have made bombing far more accurate than in World War II, the Korean War, or the Vietnam War. During those wars, the United States regularly engaged in carpet bombing of major urban areas—at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. However, since the launch of “the war on terror,” both major political parties have gone to some length to justify the killing of civilians in the name of counterterrorism.
For example, Congress has passed a series of resolutions defending Israel’s attacks on civilian areas in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Lebanon, which have attempted to exonerate the U.S.-backed Israeli armed forces for thousands of civilian casualties.
Often, these resolutions have defended the Israeli attacks on civilians by claiming Arab militia groups were using “human shields.” This is despite the fact that, while using civilians against their will to deter attacks on an adversary’s troops or military hardware is considered a war crime, it does not give license to bomb them any more than a criminal holding hostages gives police the right to shoot them all.
A 2009 resolution, drawn up by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, expanded the definition of the use of human shields to include any members of a designated “terrorist group” within a civilian population. By this definition, a Hamas official living in a high-rise apartment building in Gaza would make the entire structure a legitimate military target. In other words, when being in the proximity of a “terrorist” is enough to classify a civilian as a human shield, an entire city can become a free fire zone.
Years earlier, I predicted that this kind of defense for Israeli war crimes would likely be used as a rationale for “massive U.S. airstrikes on Mosul, Raqqa, and other Islamic State-controlled cities, regardless of civilian casualties.”
And this is indeed what happened. There were virtually no expressions of concern raised in Congress when, in 2017, the United States launched heavy attacks against Syrian and Iraqi cities held by ISIS (which really did use civilians as human shields).
An investigation by Amnesty International revealed that 1,600 civilians died in the U.S.-led bombing campaign in Raqqa, largely destroying the Syrian city. There has been no challenge to the accuracy of the report, which has been called the “most comprehensive investigation into civilian deaths in a modern conflict,” yet it was largely ignored in the mainstream U.S. media.
There was only a little more coverage of the U.S.-led bombing of Mosul earlier that year, when U.S. planes hit thousands of targets, turning much of that ancient city into rubble and resulting in the deaths of at least 3,000 civilians. A 2019 investigation by Human Rights Watch determined that approximately 7,000 civilians had been killed in the previous five years in Iraq and Syria in air strikes by the U.S. and its allies.
With virtually no negative reaction in Washington, D.C., or coverage in the mainstream media, there should be no surprise that the Pentagon thought they could get away with the 2019 massacre in Baghuz. There appears to be a sense that, given the horror of ISIS, the killing of large numbers of civilians may be necessary to ensure their defeat, so it’s important to keep such tragedies quiet.
The problem, however, goes well beyond ISIS. Even when it involves another extremist militia (and even if a U.S. attack on civilians does get in the news), the U.S. government has little reason to worry. For example, after its belated acknowledgement that a drone missile attack in Kabul this past August had targeted a car driven by an Afghan aid worker, killing him and nine others, including seven children, the Pentagon insisted there was no misconduct or negligence.
The implication is that there would, therefore, be no changes in procedures or personnel, and that the Pentagon would not take steps to prevent such tragedies from happening again.
And there appear to be few political costs. Not only have leading Republicans defended killing civilians in the name of fighting terrorism, but many Democratic members of Congress who have defended Israeli bombings of civilian targets in Gaza have been repeatedly endorsed as “bold progressives” and “peace leaders,” sending the message that the killing of civilians in the name of “self-defense against terrorists” is not considered a problem even within the Democratic left.
Meanwhile, the Biden Administration continues to provide arms, training, and maintenance to Saudi and Emirati forces that have killed tens of thousands of civilians through air strikes in Yemen. A bipartisan majority in Congress has reiterated that the billions of dollars’ worth of taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel remain “unconditional,” despite the hundreds of civilians killed during last spring’s bombardment of crowded urban neighborhoods in Gaza, again under the rationale of self-defense against terrorists.
Maybe it’s finally time to question what exactly constitutes terrorism.
*
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.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and a contributing editor of Tikkun. His most recent book is “Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution” (Syracuse University Press).
Featured image is from The Grayzone
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
All Global Research articles 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.
Around this time last year (2020), Azerbaijan had conquered almost the entire Armenian exclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. If the war had attracted global attention, it was mainly because of one feature.
And that was the widespread use of armed drones of Turkish production, which decimated and demoralized the unprepared Armenians from the air.
In fact, the importance of armed drones nowadays is such that almost all the major countries are acquiring more and more armed drone systems. A side effect of this proliferation is an increase in their exports, a fact that was conclusively proved last week with the release of two reports.
On November 25, Reportlinker.com announced the release of ‘Aircraft Insulation Market by Platform, Type, Material, Application and Region – Forecast to 2026’. According to the report, the global aircraft insulation market size is projected to grow from $5.5 billion in 2021 to $8.2 billion by 2026, at a CAGR of 8.3% from 2021 to 2026.
*
Based on this, the report says that the UAV platforms happen to be the fastest segment of the aircraft insulation market. It is not much affected by the COVID-19 outbreak. And major players of this market are DuPont (US), Triumph Group, Inc. (US), Transdigm Group, Inc. (US), Zotefoams (UK), BASF SE (Germany), Rogers Corporation (US), Safran Group (France), and Evonik Industries (Germany).
The other report coming on November 23, estimates that the Global Defense Drone Market will generate $16,902.0 million and exhibit a CAGR of 7.9% from 2021 to 2028, owing to increasing defense expenditure in many countries around the world.
The Asia-Pacific region is anticipated to observe the fastest growth by 2028, the report, which, incidentally, is prepared by “Research Dive”, a market research firm based in Pune, India, says.
*
Based on payload, the small drones sub-segment is estimated to generate a revenue of $7,901.2 million by 2028 and hold dominating market share over the forecast period. This is majorly owing to the effectiveness of small drones to lift a payload up to 25 kg, and perform computerized command, communication, control, and information functions.
Based on application, the combat operations sub-segment is expected to generate a revenue of $6,556.2 million by 2028 and is predicted to witness the fastest growth during the analysis period. This is mainly due to the rising need for upgrading the existing unmanned aerial attack systems for threat elimination missions and target identification in military aviation.
*
Based on region, the Asia-Pacific market for defense drones is expected to surpass $4,071.7 million by 2028 and witness the fastest growth in the global industry over the forecast period. The increasing military expenditure of major countries in the region, such as China, India, Japan, Australia, and others is the major factor predicted to boost the regional market growth by 2028.
…Turkish Bayraktar TB2 is now export-hit and Ankara has ensured that the development and production of the drone can run as autonomously as possible. Among TB2’s customers are now Ukraine and Poland.
The US, of course, is the leader in the market as it has used drones in conflicts for long, particularly in asymmetric conflicts with low intensity – both to cover ground groups from the air and to target suspected terrorist targets. In Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Yemen, the US MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper systems have been used extensively.
*
Proliferation Of Military Drones
All told, if military drones are becoming increasingly indispensable for the armed forces all over the world, there are essentially four reasons behind this trend.
One, they are less costly but pretty effective as operational intelligence platforms for proper data flow and they provide real-time surveillance to detect ballistic missile threats.
Two, they can be used in remote locations where the communication systems are poor. They are thus able to provide vital data, irrespective of location. As a result, the control center of the user is able to plan and prepare for uncertain attacks. They, thus, help in making well-informed decisions.
Three, and this is a corollary of the above, in heavy fighting zones, drones help in providing information to the command center to identify the targets better, improve safety, and protect infrastructures from any kind of external threats or risks. In this sense, they greatly reduce putting military personnel in harm’s way or in combat….
Four, drones are proving also lethal to enemy combats as regular airplanes. This means that it is easier to neutralize enemy power using a drone with minimal human casualties.
However, the biggest criticism against military drones is that they often cause collateral damages to civilian lives and property…..No wonder why US MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper are such dirty words in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
But then, modern warfare is increasingly becoming insensitive to civilian opinions. National interests weigh over notions of rights and wrong in fighting wars, particularly when the enemies happen to be those who have the scantiest respect for these very notions of rights and wrongs.
And that explains why the armed drone market is growing and will grow further.
*
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.
Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda has been commenting on politics, foreign policy on strategic affairs for nearly three decades. A former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship, he is also a Distinguished Fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
All Global Research articles 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.
Many informed Canadians remain surprisingly unenlightened about the country’s military history. Canada’s military is widely viewed as either nonexistent, irrelevant, or a force for good. The Canadian Forces’ (CF) public relations department has been very effective in crafting a positive image for the country’s military. In addition, constant comparisons to the US’s rampant militarism benefits Canada’s image.
With the new book Stand on Guard for Whom: A People’s History of the Canadian Military, Canadian foreign policy expert Yves Engler produces a rigorously researched document that exposes Canada’s role as the handmaiden of imperialism—first of the British then of the US—and reveals countless details that qualify the Canadian military as an international actor in its own right.
Private capital and Canada’s arms industry
Like its militaristic neighbor to the south, Canada’s weapons industry is an international juggernaut with links to big business and the highest government posts. The country’s largest military firm is Montreal-based CAE, which trains thousands of Canadian, US, and British fighter pilots. In addition, CAE trained military personnel of apartheid Israel, and trained Saudi and Emirati pilots that bombed Yemen beginning in 2015. Over 100 Canadian weapons firms exported products to Israel, according to a 2009 report. Wherever atrocities are committed, Canadian arms manufacturers seem to be found. During the Indonesian genocide of East Timor, Canada “pumped more than a third of a billion dollars in military exports into Indonesia, an outlaw state repeatedly condemned by the United Nations,” for example.
Montreal-based construction and engineering firm SNC Lavalin, infamous for a sordid legacy of corruption that has involved Prime Minister Trudeau, oversaw the building and management of CF bases in Kandahar, Bosnia, and Kabul “worth hundreds of millions of dollars” in a partnership with the US, and received hundreds of millions more to help service warships. The equally infamous Blackwater private security company, now rebranded as Academi, “was paid over $10 million to train JTF2 [elite special forces] personnel and CF police” and employed former CF special forces members. Many of these private security companies are run by former high-ranking officials who shuttle back and forth between private and government positions, often approving funding and contracts to companies that they work for.
Similar to Blackwater, Montreal-based GardaWorld is the world’s largest privately held security company, with over 90,000 employees. Engler reveals that GardaWorld netted hundreds of millions of dollars from the US-led invasion of Iraq, for instance, even though Canada did not nominally declare war on Iraq. Former CF Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Zdunich was the head of GardaWorld’s Libya operations, and former CF Commander Daniel Menard was the head of GardaWorld’s Afghanistan operations. “Garda’s board of directors also included “prominent former US and British military and security officials.”
Colonialist and imperialist
Other chapters detail the use of the CF to clear Indigenous land for colonization, often building military bases on seized Indigenous territory. As Engler reveals, this process is not ancient history, but continued unabated from the earliest colonial incursions of the British Empire, through the 20th century, and into today. “The naval base in Esquimalt was built on land taken from the Songhees… CFB [Canadian Forces Base] Chilliwack was built on land taken from the Three Sto:lo; CFB Petawawa was land from the Algonquins of Holden Lake; CFB Gagetown on Oromocto territory,” Engler writes.
Other chapters detail the Canadian military’s obscene destruction of the environment, its legacy of sexism and racism, its malignant capacity in NATO and NORAD, its economic tentacles that reach into all aspects of Canadian life, and its significant role in overthrowing liberation leaders including Kwame Nkrumah, Patrice Lumumba and, more recently, Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Muammar Gadaffi. Canada’s involvement in the Boer war, the two world wars, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, in addition to its leadership position in the destruction of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Haiti, are all examined in depth.
Canada’s largest public relations machine
A map of current and potential Canadian military bases. Illustration: The Breach
Many Canadians continue to believe that their military is a force for peace, even after Chief of Defence Rick Hillier clearly asserted “our job is to be able to kill people.” Engler does not ignore this aspect of the Canadian Forces, but investigates how the army’s public relations department maintains such a high degree of effectiveness—an aspect of military operations generally ignored by military analysts or historians.
“The CF operates the largest PR machine in the country,” Engler writes. “To protect its image and promote its worldview the CF spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on public relations and related military commemorations.” Over 600 staff members are devoted to public relations operations. Meanwhile the activists and anti-war groups that combat the pernicious influence of CF propaganda campaigns usually work as volunteers, in their spare time, and make extraordinary sacrifices to procure funds for the most basic expenses. In response to any criticism of Canada’s armed forces, its public affairs employees engage in flack campaigns, attacking journalists who composed unflattering articles about the CF, intimidating those who spoke up, investigating journalists’ sources, and writing to their bosses and editors to threaten their livelihoods. At times the CF disseminated outright lies to the media and academics.
Engler’s writing is not imbued with ideology, nor is it speculative, or creative. His great strength is meticulous research, and as a result this book will appeal most to those seeking authoritative evidence. While this may detract from any page-turning appeal that this subject could possess, the book more than compensates with its sheer density of information. At times, each sentence is followed by a reference—by my calculations the book contains over 2,000 footnotes—and Engler lists about 200 books in the bibliography.
The first edition, published by Black Rose Books, is left wanting in one regard, which could be rectified in future printings: the lack of a comprehensive index. The print version of this book could be an even more effective tool for researchers with this addition.
Following Engler’s books that have focused on the foreign policy of the Trudeau and Harper administrations, Canada’s historic foreign policy, Lester Pearson, and Canada’s role in Haiti, Africa, and Israel, respectively, Engler set out to write the first general overview of the Canadian military that approached the topic “from the perspective of those harmed or disenfranchised in Canadian wars, repression, and military culture.” The result is an indispensable publication for researchers, writers, journalists, activists, pundits, and those readers seeking a greater awareness of Canada’s place in today’s geopolitical landscape and that of the past 200 years. “There was never a clear break with the colonial mindset of enforcing imperial rule,” concludes Engler.
*
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 state of their bilateral relations is now indeed a model of effective inter-state interaction in the 21st century exactly as President Putin described them. They trust one another, treat each other as equals, and prioritize political solutions over saber-rattling and rumor-mongering. This is the exact opposite of the US’ relations with the rest of the world.
President Putin said earlier this month that “Some Western partners are blatantly trying to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing, but this is obvious for us and together with our Chinese friends we will further respond by expanding cooperation in politics, the economy and other areas and will coordinate steps on the international arena.” This is because Chinese-Russian relations “are a model of effective inter-state interaction in the 21st century.” These observations will now be elaborated upon.
Regarding President Putin’s warning, it’s become increasingly clear that the US is attempting to “triangulate” between itself, China, and Russia. After all, American media and think tanks openly spoke about this ahead of last June’s summit between Presidents Putin and US President Joe Biden in Geneva. They built upon prior fake news narratives to wildly speculate that Russia might somehow be tempted to go against China in exchange for limited relief from the US-led Western pressure upon it.
Not only did that never happen, but it’s also absurd to countenance. That’s because the Chinese-Russian Strategic Partnership is mutually beneficial. Their leaders share the same worldview with respect to jointly accelerating the emerging multipolar world order. Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart adhere to international law and support the UN’s central role in International Relations. Their countries’ economies are also mutually complementary and there exist no bilateral disputes.
Everything could have been very different around the end of the Cold War. China and the erstwhile Soviet Union had a falling out a few decades prior. They even clashed along their then-disputed frontier on several occasions. Instead of being swayed by Western ill-wishers, they responsibly decided to discuss their problems and ultimately founded what’s now known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which is Eurasia’s premier socio-economic and security organization.
The resultant state of their bilateral relations is now indeed a model of effective inter-state interaction in the 21st century exactly as President Putin described them. They trust one another, treat each other as equals, and prioritize political solutions over saber-rattling and rumor-mongering. This is the exact opposite of the US’ relations with the rest of the world. It doesn’t even trust its NATO allies since it’s been caught spying on them several times before, it treats them as vassals, and always pressures them.
Just this last May, for example, it was reported that Denmark helped the US spy on outgoing German Chancellor Angela Merkel from 2012-2014. This is in spite of Germany hosting more US military forces than any other NATO country. Expanding on the reality of German-US relations, Washington has also sought to unsuccessfully coerce Berlin into canceling the Nord Stream II pipeline with Russia. Furthermore, it’s tried to pressure its ally into curtailing its trade and investment ties with China.
This politically inconvenient reality is emblematic of how the US treats its so-called allies. America’s attitude towards those dozens of other countries that are less strategically important for it than Germany is even worse, but highlighting how it abuses Berlin is instructive for showing that even its “highest standard” in bilateral relations falls far short of the standard set by Chinese-Russian relations. One can only imagine how terribly the US treats its African and Latin American partners.
By contrast, China and Russia employ the exemplary model of inter-state relations that they pioneered with one another in all of their other foreign partnerships. This naturally includes those African, Asian, European, Latin American, and Oceanic countries that the US always mistreats. The emerging model of International Relations being led by those two major countries is accelerating the multipolar world order exactly as their leaders envision. This is in turn helping to stabilize global affairs.
While some observers have high hopes that the US might learn from those two for pragmatism’s sake, that’s unlikely to happen. Instead of applying the lessons that China and Russia are teaching the world, the US stubbornly continues to cling to its counterproductive model of aggressively imposing its hegemony on all others. The more independently that its so-called allies behave, the more pressure that it puts upon them as evidenced by the earlier explained German example.
The American model is therefore strategically unsustainable. It cannot continue to uphold its influence by coercion, threats, and even sometimes force. The international community is taking the opportunity to embrace the pragmatic multipolar model jointly spearheaded by China and Russia in order to collectively forge a community of common destiny for mankind. It’s only a matter of time before the US isolates itself, but before then, it can be expected to make a lot of trouble for its own allies.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on OneWorld.
Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.
All Global Research articles 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 often the case that when proscribing movements as terrorist, or seeking exclusion orders on individuals, the Home Office defines its actions in a way which leaves itself wide open to legal challenge.
Thus it is with the Home Office’s explanatory memorandum that accompanies an amendment to the Terrorism Act 2000, which proscribes Hamas in its entirety in the UK. The memorandum provides only three reasons for the proscription, both political and military, in the UK.
The memo says that Hamas participated in terrorism by firing more than 4,000 rockets at Israel indiscriminately in May this year, killing civilians, including two children. It says that the use of incendiary balloons was a terrorist act that caused fires in communities in southern Israel, and that Hamas prepared youths in Gaza for terrorism by running training camps.
Even if you accept these assertions at face value (and admittedly this is hard: Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in May killed 256 Palestinians, including 66 children, and the Israeli school curriculum does not refer to their neighbours as Palestinians, but only as Arabs, who are depicted as refugees, primitive farmers and terrorists), none of the claims in the document refer to any activity in the UK.
It is significant that this is a Home Office document, not a Foreign Office one – and yet, the reasons for banning Hamas as a political movement occur outside the UK and in Palestine itself. There is no mention of antisemitism, or any activity by Hamas or its supporters in the UK that would justify such a ban.
In response to MEE questions, the Home Office stated that “following a new assessment the Home Secretary has concluded it [Hamas] should be proscribed in its entirety. This action will support efforts to protect the British public and the international community in the global fight against terrorism. Hamas is already listed in its entirety by the United States and European Union.”
The Home Office went on to explain that Hamas’s military wing was proscribed in March 2001 because “it was the government’s assessment that there was a distinction between the political and military wings of the group. This distinction is now assessed to be artificial, with Hamas as an organisation involved in committing, participating, preparing for, and encouraging acts of terrorism.
“Hamas commits, participates, prepares for and promotes and encourages terrorism. If we tolerate extremism, it will erode the rock of security,” said Home Secretary Priti Patel in a keynote speech last week at the Heritage Foundation. “Hamas has significant terrorist capability, including access to extensive and sophisticated weaponry as well as terrorist training facilities, and it has long been involved in significant terrorist violence.”
Illegal occupier
The explanatory note, however, acknowledges, albeit in brackets, changes to the 1988 Hamas charter, by which Hamas recognises de facto the 1967 borders of Israel and no longer demands the destruction of Israel in its covenant. This recognition would allow lawyers to argue in UK courts that Hamas has a legitimate right to self-defence against an illegal occupier of historic Palestinian lands.
By being so patently partisan in its description of the events that took place this past May, and by omitting the civilian bloodshed caused by Israeli forces – including the frequent storming of al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, attacks by armed vigilante mobs of settlers on Palestinian civilians in Israel’s mixed cities, and targeted attacks on dozens of buildings in Gaza, which destroyed more than 460 housing and commercial units – the Home Office’s explanatory note destroys its own case.
Indeed, it is remarkable how little support the Home secretary has had from the Foreign Office itself.
Peter Ricketts, former diplomat and chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee under former Prime Minister Tony Blair, told the BBC’s World at One on Friday that this proscription of Hamas’s political wing will not change the UK’s foreign policy, and that Hamas has to be part of a political solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. What he left unsaid is that from Wednesday, the search for a political solution will be much more complicated because of this ban.
This was stated loud and clear by other Palestinian factions, not least Fatah, which does recognise Israel. The same warning was given by MPs in Jordan.
The Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry condemned the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organisation as “an unjustified attack on the Palestinian people, who are subjected to the most heinous forms of occupation, and historical injustice established by the Balfour Declaration”. The PA added that the designation will impede peace and ongoing efforts to consolidate the truce and rebuild Gaza.
Status bolstered
At the risk of stating the obvious, the PA has no love for Hamas, a rival Palestinian faction that has considerably more legitimacy and popularity in the occupied West Bank than Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas does. Rather, it is obliged to make a statement like this, knowing all too well how popular Hamas is.
That is also the assessment of Israel’s domestic security service, Shin Bet. In the run-up to planned elections this year – which ended up being postponed, or in truth cancelled, by Abbas – they threatened Hamas political activists with years-long detention if they ran in the elections. These were not empty threats: dozens of Hamas cadres and leaders, along with members of the Palestinian Legislative Council, students and union activists, were arrested this past February.
The elections were cancelled by Abbas on the pretext of Palestinians not being allowed by Israel to cast their vote in Jerusalem. But had the polls gone ahead, Abbas’s list would have been decimated, as Fatah would have been divided into two or three competing factions, headed by the imprisoned Marwan Barghouti and the exiled Mohammed Dahlan.
Hamas itself was not expecting to do as well in 2021 as it did in 2006, when it emerged as the majority faction in the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, there was vigorous debate within the movement as to the wisdom of running in an election, the odds of which were stacked against Hamas. The leadership rightly calculated that Abbas would blink first, and in this calculation, they were proved right.
In any case, their status was immeasurably bolstered among Palestinians by the decision of the military wing to fire a volley of missiles over Jerusalem, the act that ignited the May war. As Fatah froze in the face of daily incursions by Israeli police at al-Aqsa complex, Hamas was seen – in the eyes of Jerusalemites and Palestinians in Israel and the West Bank – to be doing something about resisting the occupation.
This is something that neither Israel, nor Patel, nor the pro-Israel lobby in the UK appear to understand.
Wide political reach
Hamas is supported by many Palestinians who do not necessarily favour armed resistance, rockets or suicide bombs. They are supported by many Christian Palestinian families in Bethlehem.
Why? Because Hamas is not seen as corrupt, as Fatah and the PA have become; it has not recognised Israel; it does not open the doors of the West Bank every night to Israeli forces; and it resists the occupation. This is the view of many Palestinians who are secular, or if they are religious, do not identify as Islamist. It is also the view of many Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live in the Israel of 1948.
Of course many don’t, and there is an Islamist party that supports the Israeli government. But the fact is that Hamas’s political reach spreads far beyond Gaza itself. Whether Patel and the Home Office like it or not, this is the reality in the occupied West Bank.
This broader support worries Israeli military intelligence. Israel thinks it can deal with Hamas per se as a militant organisation; as such, peaceful or non-violent resistance is a cause for concern. This is why great efforts are made by Israel’s elite signals intelligence squad, Unit 8200, and Shin Bet to intercept conversations in an attempt to find levers they can use to get informers – details of marital infidelity, debts, homosexuality – anything that can be used to tear Palestinian society apart.
To these Palestinians, Patel and the UK are sending a message: You can have democracy, just as long as you vote for the right party, and just as long as the party you vote for accepts the right of Israeli troops to raid and terrorise your homes and families every night.
The message is also that any other option of resisting the occupation is off the table. Choose non-violence, such as boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), and you will be labelled antisemitic. Whatever it does, Israel cannot be sanctioned. Whatever it does, Israel cannot be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, whose current investigation has been condemned by the US and UK.
Deepening the conflict
So what exactly can you do, if you are a Palestinian living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem or Gaza? To the Palestinian diaspora, particularly in the UK, this move sends an even more damaging message.
Exactly as was predicted when antisemitism was broadened through a “working definition”, which includes examples such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel, the ability of anyone in Britain to support the Palestinian cause is being diminished.
Attempt to mount an exhibition, and you will be ever harder put to find a venue. Stage a meeting in a university, and you will be monitored by Prevent. You could be targeted on social media as an antisemite and lose your job. Now, you could also be branded as a supporter of a proscribed organisation and jailed for 14 years, or lose your citizenship without any recourse to a court.
None of this will solve the conflict. It will only deepen it. Patel has done something that even Blair would not do, for all his hatred of political Islam.
Blair, who had engaged in seven rounds of negotiations with Khaled Meshaal, then the political director of Hamas in Doha, in 2015, said two years later that he regretted that the UK and other western countries had excluded Hamas from the negotiating table and supported Israel’s blockade of Gaza – and he acknowledged the UK had maintained an informal dialogue with the group.
This approach solves conflicts, and it is the one Blair and his predecessor, John Major, both used in reaching peace in Northern Ireland. They talked to the IRA, and they did it directly.
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher – so admired by Patel – is discredited on this issue. Thatcher famously said at a Commonwealth summit in Vancouver in 1987: “A considerable number of the ANC leaders are communists … When the ANC says that they will target British companies, this shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life … I will have nothing to do with any organisation that practises violence. I have never seen anyone from ANC or the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] or the IRA and would not do so.” And look at what happened to the ANC in South Africa, or indeed Sinn Fein on both sides of the border today.
Patel’s ban, a move resisted by Blair at the height of the Second Intifada, has done immeasurable damage to the search for peace in Palestine.
*
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.
David Hearst is co-founder and editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He is a commentator and speaker on the region and analyst on Saudi Arabia. He was The Guardian’s foreign leader writer, and was correspondent in Russia, Europe, and Belfast. He joined the Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.
All Global Research articles 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 the latest episode of our second season of “TRUTH” with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Kennedy interviews Dr. David Martin.
The two primarily discussed medical patents and the involvement from Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Highlights of their conversation include:
Breaking down Dr. David Martin’s company ‘M•CAM’ and how he found a way to put up intangible assets as collateral security.
The Bayn
Dole Act that led to Fauci profiting from royalties off University patents.
Fauci working for the NIAID but failing to study infectious diseases and allergies.
Fauci involved in dodgy deals and price-fixing medicine in the USA.
SARS vaccine patented in March 2019, 8 months before the COVID-19 outbreak.
*
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.
As the Taliban completes its first hundred days in power, the Western powers are groping for a face-saving formula to engage with the authorities in Kabul with some modicum of dignity.
The European Union is taking the lead role here. The European countries have a sense of urgency over potential refugee flow from Afghanistan. The EU intends to launch an “inclusive regional dialogue platform, initially with Afghanistan’s six immediate neighbours” (China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.)
Speaking during the 13th Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday that the EU must support the people of Afghanistan “to prevent imminent economic and social collapse that the country faces.”
Last month, the EU had announced a humanitarian package worth 1 billion Euro for the Afghan people and neighbouring countries, including 300 million Euro in humanitarian aid.The EU is expected to shortly reopen its embassy in Kabul but insists that it is not recognising the Taliban Govt.
There has been a flurry of activity lately with officials from Brussels flying in and out of Central Asian capitals, especially Tashkent and Dushanbe. The EU hopes to open a ‘humanitarian corridor’ to Afghanistan.The recent EU-Central Asia Ministerial meeting in Dushanbe has been an effort in that direction. The EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell who lead the delegation to the Dushanbe meeting later wrote:
“Central Asia may not be at the top of the news for most EU media but it is an important region, sandwiched between major powers, next door to Afghanistan and connecting East and West through trade, investment and other links. As EU, we have clear interests at stake – and so do the Central Asians.”
Borrell probably got carried away by his first exposure to the Central Asian region when he wrote,
“The region appreciates having an ‘EU-option’, alongside their relationships with their immediate neighbours. They see the EU as a factor of balance and predictability in a volatile international landscape mired in great power politics.”
To be sure, there is a sudden spike in attention in Brussels.
“Where politicians go is a sign of their political priorities, so this uptake in travel, in both directions, is a sign that things are moving in EU-Central Asian relations,” as Borrell puts it.
How far this hype translates into concrete actions remains to be seen. Russia is the main provider of security for Central Asian region and Moscow has a troubled relationship with the EU and Borrell in particular. Unsurprisingly, Borrell projected the EU’s focusing on Central Asian region in benign terms, saying,
“The EU wants to keep the region as an open space for connectivity and cooperation rather than an area of binary strategic choices and rivalry.”
Against this backdrop, the talks in Doha on Saturday between the Taliban and the US / EU officials are expected to be an attempt to kickstart the moribund Doha peace process. The talks will cover political issues, frozen assets, humanitarian aid, education, health, security, reopening of embassies in Kabul, according to the Spokesman of Afghan Foreign Ministry, Abdul Qahar Balkhi.
The running theme of the 50-minute programme is that it is irresponsible that a political legitimacy crisis should stand in the way of the international community’s engagement with the Afghan people. Yogita Limaye, BBC News correspondent who covers South Asia, reported from western Afghanistan:
“The desperation and the urgency of the (humanitarian) situation here is hard to put in words. It’s quite clear that there is no more time left to reach the people of Afghanistan. It cannot wait while the world debates whether or not to recognise a Taliban Government.”
Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), another participant in The BBC discussion, flagged the imperative need for engaging with the Taliban. His remarks are particularly interesting since the NRC runs one of the biggest western aid programmes in Afghanistan and has on its staff currently over 1000 Afghan nationals deployed in Kabul and the provinces. Egeland forcefully reinforced Limaye’s assessment:
“There’s unanimous disbelief that the Western countries, the Nato countries, left just like that and pulled the rug under the population … There are very many questions like the rights of women to education, but we have negotiated a deal for the rights of all our female staff to work. So, it’s possible to engage with the new government.”
That said, Western engagement with the Taliban remains problematic. To my mind, the Taliban, after mulling over things in solitude through the past 100 days, may now be even less willing to share power in Kabul or to accept any Western pre-conditions. The only way forward is to encourage the Taliban to continue on its current path of moderation.
The Western preconditions are plainly unrealistic. Abdul Qahar Balkhi, the MFA spokesperson who took part in the BBC programme was dismissive when asked about the Western conditions:
“We never wanted this situation. All we did was to fight for our freedom, to gain our independence from occupation. And for others to come and dictate our life, to the Afghans — that is not the solution to the problem. The solution to the problem is not pressure tactic to dictate. The solution to the problem is through cooperation, through positive relations and through encouragement to bring about a situation where all of us can work together.”
On the other hand, while the Western capitals feel the pressure to do something quickly that prevents a refugee flow, a system needs to be put in place first whereby they can directly reach out to the Afghan people, sidestepping the Taliban.
Some bizarre ideas are being floated such as creating liquidity in the Afghan economy by disbursing money directly to the people via a central bank in Kabul that will be independent of the Taliban government and audited by the IMF! Taliban will never countenance such a patent Western encroachment on their country’s sovereignty!
Equally, is it realistic to expect that the Taliban will reconstitute the government by easing out the Haqqanis as quid pro quo for lifting of US sanctions? Above all, the precipitous fall in Biden’s rating casts a shadow, as his willingness to fairly and sincerely develop a new relationship with the Taliban is in doubt.
Simply put, Afghanistan will become a political football in the US politics as the mid-term elections approach next year, and Biden’s instinct will be to play it safe. Biden will prioritise counter-terrorism.
Thus it is that, all things considered, the US and its Nato allies have come full circle back to the old pathway that it is only Pakistan who can be depended upon to leverage the Taliban to get them to accede to Western demands.
Accordingly, a high-level Pakistani military delegation was hosted at the Nato Headquarters in Brussels this week. At the same time, on a parallel track, in a stunning volte-face, Washington has also extended an invitation to Pakistan to participate in the virtual Summit of Democracy in Washington on December 9-10. The strategy is to carry both the civilian and military leaderships in Pakistan.
Significantly, the Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated today that the US wants to keep military contacts with Pakistan and the recent visit to NATO Headquarters by the high-level Pakistani military delegation was part of that process. As he put it,
“When it comes to Pakistan, NATO has had regular contacts with Pakistan for many, many years. Of course, not least discussing the situation in Afghanistan. We have political contacts, we have regular military contacts and dialogue and I think this is important that this continues, because there are still many challenges in the region, especially related to the future of Afghanistan.”
What a dramatic turnaround! Pakistan is back in the good books of the Americans. The US/Nato overture to the Pakistani military leadership in Rawalpindi coincides with the resumption of talks in Doha between the US officials and the Taliban. Washington is seeking a political fix in Kabul with Pakistani help.
*
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: Taliban Acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi (L) met Qatari officials before talks with US/EU representatives, Doha, Nov. 27, 2021 (Source: Indian Punchline)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
World’s First Vaccine Murder case against Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla filed in India’s High Court. [Kiran Yadav Vs. State and ors.Criminal Writ Petition (St.) 18017 of 2021]
Petitioner has sought prosecution of AstraZeneca’s (Covishield) manufacturer Bill Gates, his partner Adar Poonawalla and other Government officials and leaders involved in the murder of a 23 year old man, who lost his life because of vaccination. The deceased took the Covishield vaccine by believing in the false narrative that the vaccine is completely safe and also owing to the compliance requirement set by the Railways that only double vaccinated people would be allowed to travel.
The Government of India’s AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunisation) Committee has recently admitted that the death of Dr. Snehal Lunawat, was due to side effects of the Covishield vaccine. The said report has exposed the falsity of the claim made by vaccine syndicatethat vaccines are totally safe.
Petitioner has claimed Rs. 1000 crores ($ 134 million USD) compensation and has asked for interim compensation of Rs. 100 crores ($ 13.4 million USD).
Petitioner has also sought Lie Detector, Narco Analysis Test of accused Bill Gates and others.
In a case before the American Court regarding the side effects of MR vaccines, the Court accepted the settlement of compensation of 101 Million US Dollars (around Rs. 752 Crores) to the victim.
In another case in America, the CIA, FDA’s office of criminal investigation, recovered around 10.2 Billion US Dollar (around Rs.76,00 crores) from Pharma Company GlaxoSmithKline for various offences including suppression of side effects of the medicines and putting the life of Americans in danger.
The company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices.
The United States further alleges that GSK sponsored dinner programs, lunch programs, spa programs and similar activities to promote the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. GSK paid a speaker to talk to an audience of doctors and paid for the meal or spa treatment for the doctors who attended.
Between 2001 and 2007, GSK failed to include certain safety data about Avandia, a diabetes drug.
The missing information included data regarding certain post-marketing studies, as well as data regarding two studies undertaken in response to European regulators’ concerns about the cardiovascular safety of Avandia. Since 2007, the FDA has added two black box warnings to the Avandia label to alert physicians about the potential increased risk of (1) congestive heart failure, and (2) myocardial infarction (heart attack).
It also includes allegations that GSK paid kickbacks to health care professionals to induce them to promote and prescribe these drugs as well as the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex. The United States alleges that this conduct caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs.
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in Anita Kushwaha’s case (2016) 8 SCC 509,made it clear that the rights of Indians are no lesser than the people across the world.
In India lakhs of compensation claims are expected to be filed soon.
The judgment in Montgomery’s case [2015] UKSC 11, Airdale NHS Trust Vs. Bland (1993) 1 All ER 821, Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1 and Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130 and also the Universal Declaration on Bioethics & Human Rights, 2005, makes it clear that before giving vaccine or any treatment to a person, he should be informed about the side effects of the medicine and also about the alternate remedies available.
If any person is vaccinated by suppressing the facts or by telling a lie that the said vaccines are completely safe, amount to the consent being obtained under deception. In India, vaccination under deception or by force/coercion or by putting certain stiflingconditions, is a civil and criminal wrong. [Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130]
Based on the abovesaid legal position the petitioner asked for registration of an F.I.R. under Section 52, 115, 302, 409, 120(B), 420, 34, 109 etc. of IPC and section 51(b), 55 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 against concerned officials who were marketing the vaccines as completely safe.
Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla, the partners in manufacturing the Covishield (AstraZeneca) vaccine are made accused for their involvement in conspiracy.
In India, the person allowing the false marketing of his product is also held to be guilty due to his act of commission and omission. In this regard the provisions of Section 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of IPC get attracted to make Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla guilty of mass murders i.e. Section 302, 115, etc. of IPC.
The prayers in the petition read thus;
“i)C.B.I. be directed to treat this petition as F.I.R. and prosecute the offender as done by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida (2011) 6 SCC 508 and followed by this Hon’ble Court in the matter between Param Bir Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLineBom 516.
ii) B.I. be further directed to immediately start custodial interrogation of the accused and take use of scientific tests like Lie Detector Test, Brain Mapping Test and Narco Analysis Test to unearth the complete conspiracy and to save the life of Indian Citizen;
iii) Direction to Respondent No. 1 i.e. State of Maharashtra to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 100 crores to the Petitioner forthwith and then to recover it from the guilty officials responsible for death of the Petitioners citizen by their deliberate and unlawful act of commission and omission.”
As per the expert opinion, considering the proofs of sterling nature, Bill Gates and Adar Poonawalla will get death penalty.
The Petitioner also relied upon the criminal antecedents of Bill Gates in killing 8 female children by unauthorized trial of HPV vaccines in India and judgment of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Kalpana Mehta’s Case (2018) 7 SCC 1, which is a strong proof against Bill Gates and his vaccine syndicate.
Petitioner has also referred to the proofs of sinister plan of Bill Gates in polio programme which spoiled the lives of 4.5 lakh children in India as they suffered new type of paralysis. This is also an additional proof of Bill Gates’ pervert and criminal mindset.
As per experts, there is no chance of Bill Gates getting bail in the case and all the movable and immovable properties of the accused will be confiscated soon.
Various social organizations and common people have decided to exercise citizen’s right to arrest the accused as provided under section 43 of Cr.P.C. As per the said section, any citizen can arrest Bill Gates, Adar Poonawalla and other accused and handover them to the police.
Recently in Australia around 10,000 compensation claims are filed against the vaccine injury. See this.
In India, lakhs of cases will be filed soon, as informed by Adv. Ishwarlal Agarwal, the Indian Bar Association’s National Co-ordination Committee Head.
*
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.
Vaccines for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) started to be developed since the initiation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Up to now, four vaccines have been authorized by international agencies such as European Medicines Agency (EMA). Two are DNA vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCov-19 and Ad26.COV2.S) and two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273). The administration of the vaccines has been associated with a strong decrease in the infections by SARS-CoV-2 and deaths associated with it.
However, in parallel to these results, some rare adverse events have also been described. In that sense, events of thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, and hemorrhage have been described in close temporal proximity to the administration of the DNA vaccines ChAdOx1 nCov-19 and Ad26.COV2.S, but also mRNA vaccines.
Recent scientific reports have been released with updated information on the possible association of thrombotic thrombocytopenia and COVID-19 vaccines. On the other hand, since the initiation of the vaccination campaigns, adverse hypersensitivity reactions have been described after mRNA and DNA vaccines administration for COVID-19. Although globally these adverse events are rare, a high proportion of the world population will be exposed to these vaccines. For that reason, their safety and tolerance should be carefully considered. In this review, we provide an updated review of the last scientific findings that can explain the rare side effects that the vaccines for COVID-19 can produce.
1. Vaccines for COVID-19: DNA and mRNA vaccines
Four vaccines for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) produced by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been authorized by European Medicines Agency (EMA) so far. Two are mRNA vaccines: BNT162b2 developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and mRNA-1273 developed by Moderna Therapeutics. The other two are DNA vaccines: ChAdOx1 nCov-19 produced by AstraZeneca and Ad26.COV2.S produced by Janssen-Johnson&Johnson. The approvals were based on randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trials [1–3, 52]. Both mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on a mRNA molecule that encodes the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2. The mRNA molecule on these vaccines is surrounded by a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) that provides stability (Figure 1). In order to increase the vaccine efficiency and delivery, the LNP was subjected to a process of PEGylation, that is based on the chemical association of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to the LNP surface. On the other hand, the DNA vaccines ChAdOx1 nCov-19 and Ad26.COV2.S are based on adenovirus vectors (Figure 2). Ad26.COV2.S vaccine contains a replicant deficient human adenovirus type 26 vector and the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine (also named AZD1222, commercial name: Vaxzevria) is based on the replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus vector ChAdOx1 containing the gene that encodes the glycoprotein spike (S) antigen of SARS-CoV-2.
Figure 1. Graphic representation of the active component of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19. BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 (PEGylated LNP surrounding the mRNA molecule encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2). The list of ingredients of each vaccine is depicted and the components with allergic potential are highlighted in red color and represented in the center of the figure. Biorender software was used to create this figure under an academic license.
Figure 2. Graphic representation of the active component of the DNA vaccines for COVID-19. ChAdOx1 nCov-19 and Ad26.COV2.S (replicant deficient adenovirus vector containing the DNA molecule encoding the viral spike (S) glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2). The list of ingredients of each vaccine is depicted and the component with allergic potential is highlighted in red color and represented in the center of the figure. Biorender software was used to create this figure under an academic license.
The administration of the vaccines for COVID-19 to the general population has been associated with an important drop in new infections with SARS-CoV-2 and a decrease in deaths due to COVID-19 [4,5]. However, since the initiation of the administration of the vaccines for COVID-19 in December 2020, adverse events have also been described. The mRNA vaccines were the first to be administrated and for those vaccines, some cases of adverse hypersensitivity reactions were reported [6]. The DNA vaccine ChAdOx1 nCov-19 was also involved in hypersensitivity reactions, and it has been recently linked, together to the other DNA vaccine Ad26.COV2.S, to rare thrombotic events. Cases of thrombotic events have also been described in close temporal proximity with the administration of mRNA vaccines. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge regarding the safety of the currently available vaccines for COVID-19 with special attention to the last scientific advancements made on the adverse events that these vaccines might induce.
2. Thrombotic thrombocytopenia after administration of vaccines for COVID-19
Recent adverse events involving thrombocytopenia, thrombosis, and hemorrhage, that include a few cases of deaths, in temporal proximity to the administration of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine, promoted the temporary suspension of the administration of the vaccine by different European countries on March 15, 2021, and a reevaluation of the vaccine safety by EMA [7]. EMA concluded that although the causal link of very rare events of thrombosis and ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine has not been proven, the connection cannot be excluded. Consequently, the safety information of the vaccine was updated including the warning on the rare events of thrombotic thrombocytopenia as a potential rare side effect. EMA highlighted that the benefits of the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccine continue to outweigh the risks. However, the agency advised that the scientific bases of the potential side effects require investigation [8]. Cases of thrombosis in close temporary proximity to the administration of the vaccine Ad26.COV2.S have also been recently reported in the USA [9–11], which prompted FDA to halt the administration of the vaccine and to stop its distribution in Europe in order to perform a reevaluation of the possible side effects linked with the cases of thrombosis. Recent scientific reports have deepened onto the possible link of the adverse events of thrombotic thrombocytopenia and COVID-19 vaccines [10,12,13].
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.
In a recent freedom rally held in Alberta, Canada, top Canadian pathologist and virologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson explained why the COVID-19 vaccination program being brutally forced on nations is counterproductive, harmful, and doomed to fail:
“We can’t vaccinate ourselves out of this mess….The RNA virus constantly mutates. You can never get ahead of an RNA virus [like SARS-CoV-2]. It’s a fool’s game. Not only that, it’s dogma in those that specialize in vaccinology—it’s absolute dogma: You never, ever, ever start a mass vaccination program right in the middle of a pandemic. You NEVER EVER do that. And the reason you don’t do that is because the vaccine will escape control. It will encourage the emergence of scariants [variants hyped by the fear-mongering media]…which of course is another ‘reason’ to get vaccinated with a booster jab, and a booster jab, and a booster jab. How long is this going to go on? Are they insane?”
In his important, stirring speech, Dr. Hodkinson declares: “The whole thing is an absolute fraud. You’ve been suckered in by a whole bunch of lies. Believe nothing you’ve been told. It’s all a pack of lies, pure propaganda from start to finish.”
He lays bare the fraudulent PCR test, the junk data concocted to justify a fake pandemic, the useless lockdowns, the dangerous “vaccines” and the media’s propaganda campaign to spread groundless fear.
A voice of sanity, Dr. Hodkinson calls the vaccination of children with the COVID-19 shots “abhorrent…criminal…utterly insane…a child sacrifice for no benefit whatsoever”. He condemns the injection of pregnant women, which has led to countless miscarriages and stillbirths. He also discusses how the vaxxed are shedding spike proteins, endangering the unvaccinated who happen to be in close proximity to the vaxxed, as well as the COVID-19 vaccines’ alarming potential to drastically raise the odds of developing cancer.
According to Dr. Hodkinson, “Gain-of-function research is one of the most existential threats to humanity…. Gain-of-function research should be prohibited internationally.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, used millions of taxpayers’ dollars to fund gain-of-function research in China designed to make coronaviruses more infectious and more lethal. “Gain-of-function research” is basically a euphemism for bioweapons research—and Fauci collaborated with an enemy of the United States for years, which in all probability led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his new book “The Real Anthony Fauci” divulges how Fauci “partnered with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies in gain-of-function experiments to breed pandemic superbugs in poorly regulated labs in Wuhan, China and elsewhere, under conditions that virtually guaranteed the escape of weaponized microbes like SARS-CoV-2.” Other researchers believe the COVID-19 lab-engineered bioweapon was released deliberately, either by U.S. operatives, Chinese agents, or both sides.
Hodkinson ends his speech with an urgent message: “This is the time to stand up and be counted. To show governments that you cannot be bossed around by idiots.”
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.
“I go back from age to age up to the remotest antiquity; but I find no parallel to what is occurring before my eyes: as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future, the mind of man wanders in obscurity.” Alexis de Tocqueville
Mike Whitney: I was under the impression that Putin opposed forced vaccination, but you say Russians are being coerced into getting jabbed. How does that work? Are the local governors acting unilaterally and imposing vaccine mandates behind Putin’s back or is there something else going on?
Riley Waggaman: Putin’s position on compulsory vaccination has arguably evolved over time. In March, he described such policies as “counterproductive.” Then, in early June, he said the vaccine would be available to anyone who “wants” it—while stressing authorities must do a better job of “clarifying the need” to get jabbed. Notably, he openly mocked some of the incentives (“free beer and sausage”) being used at the time by Western governments to entice people to roll up their sleeves. Two months later, Russia’s president argued vaccination should remain voluntary, while stipulating it was now “necessary” to create “different kinds of incentives” to increase uptake.
Whatever Putin’s personal views on mandatory vaccination may be, the reality is that Russia’s capital introduced the country’s first compulsory vaccination policy in mid-June, which required various business sectors to meet a 60% vaccination quota among employees. Workers who refused the shot were at risk of being suspended indefinitely without pay (or, in layman’s terms, “being fired”). Many other regions followed suit with similar (and even more stringent) mandates.
After the State Duma elections in late September, Russia’s regions began mass adopting vaccine mandates as well as QR-coded “health” passes. All 85 federal subjects of the Russian Federation now have compulsory vaccination rules (some more strict than others). For example, in Leningrad Oblast, all state, municipal and private organizations must ensure 100% of employees are fully vaccinated, or have a medical exemption or proof of prior infection in the last six months. Hold-outs will need to be tested every 72 hours. Do not be fooled by the loopholes: the same region ordered certain sectors to vaccinate 80% of their employees by September. The same strategy of incrementalism is being employed across Russia. Some parts of the country are even denying routine medical care to those without a QR code. One region recently announced that in four districts, all unvaccinated people would have to self-isolate—an “Austria-style” lockdown (which was actually inspired by a Tatarstan-style lockdown). In St. Petersburg and several other parts of the country, vaccination is now compulsory for all people over the age of 60.
Russia is now set to implement a nationwide QR code system to be used for nearly all aspects of “normal life.” Assuming the legislation passes the State Duma, these society-transforming restrictions—which will deprive the unvaccinated of freedom of movement and commerce, essentially making them second-class citizens—will come into force in February.
Are Russia’s regions acting against the wishes of the Kremlin as they tighten the screws on compulsory vaccination? Actually, all available evidence suggests quite the opposite. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on October 7 that “any measures that can encourage more people to get vaccinated are good.” A week later, Peskov accused unvaccinated Russians (the majority of the country) of making an “irresponsible” choice that “kills.” The Kremlin has been spouting this kind of puzzling, inflammatory rhetoric for months. On June 17, one day after Moscow announced its mandatory inoculation regime, Putin’s spokesman explained that the “principle” of non-obligatory vaccination “generally remains,” but Russians are not proactive enough about getting the shot. A day later, Anna Popova, the head of Russia’s consumer rights protection and human wellbeing agency (Rospotrebnadzor), described compulsory immunization as a “new tool” that can be utilized as the government sees fit.
Popova recently stated COVID restrictions will only end after “everyone” is vaccinated. With more than 50% of Russian adults still unvaccinated nearly a year after the country’s mass inoculation program began, how does the Russian government intend to make this happen?
MW: I’ve read quite a bit about the four main vaccines in the West, but know next to nothing about the Russian vaccines. Can you bring us up to speed on these injections? In particular, we’d like to know whether they use the same experimental “gene-based” technology that is employed by Pfizer, Moderna, J&J and AZ?
Image on the right is from Brasil Wire
RW: There are several Russian COVID vaccines. Sputnik V, developed by the ministry of health’s Gamaleya Center, is by far the most commonly used drug, and so it’s the one that deserves the most scrutiny. Sputnik V is based on Gamaleya’s human adenovirus vector platform (Ad26 and Ad5), which is designed to transport genetic material into cells. If you examine the patent for Gamaleya’s influenza shot (which is posted on Sputnik V’s official website), the technology now being used for Sputnik V is openly referred to as a “genetic vaccine.”… Interestingly, Gamaleya’s director, Alexander Gintsburg, said there are no “significant” differences between Sputnik V and AstraZeneca’s vaccine.
A common claim made by Russian officials and the media is that there is no reason to worry about Sputnik V’s long-term safety because it is based on Gamaleya’s “proven” human adenovirus platform. The problem with this argument is that before Sputnik V, Gamaleya had repeatedly failed to bring a “genetic vaccine” to market. One attempt resulted in an embezzlement scandal, while other prototypes were never submitted for formal approval—suggesting they lacked the necessary safety and efficacy data to get the greenlight from regulators.
In terms of safety, how does Sputnik V’s stack up against Pfizer’s shot and other mRNA vaccines? It’s difficult to say. Russia does not have a VAERS-like database for reporting suspected adverse events among the general public. In fact, there is no regularly updated, publicly available data on any post-vaccination complications in Russia. It seems the Russian government’s position is that they do not exist. But doctors and lawmakers tell a different story, one supported by an informal database of suspected vaccine-linked deaths. Undeterred, authorities have compared these concerned citizens to “terrorists” and are now threatening “anti-vax” doctors with fines and even prison time, in essence making any medical professional who questions the vaccine a suspected criminal in the eyes of the Russian government.
There is another, equally alarming element to the Sputnik-mRNA vaccine comparison. There is now a huge body of evidence showing mRNA vaccines can cause serious side effects, and even death. But Sputnik V’s own developers openly support using Pfizer’s shot in Russia. Gamaleya’s Dmitry Shcheblyakov, who helped create Russia’s flagship jab, recently claimed there are clear “advantages” to mixing Sputnik V with “different vaccines made using different technologies.” Harvard-educated ex-Goldman Sachs banker Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), which provides financing for Sputnik V, announced last month that joint research with Pfizer was already underway, and expressed confidence that a Sputnik/Pfizer cocktail will be a “very successful combination.” Similar “joint research” is reportedly being conducted with Moderna.
There are also questions about who, or what, is actually behind Sputnik V. In May 2020, Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank, created a subsidiary—Immunotechnology LLC—to help “transfer technology” related to the vaccine. The CEO of Sberbank, Herman Gref, is part of JP Morgan’s International Council and is also a member of the World Economic Forum’s board of trustees. Gref claims he got the vaccine in April 2020—which would make him one of the first people in the world to be injected with Sputnik V (in fact, months before it was even known as “Sputnik V”).
As Russians become increasingly worried about the “QR-ization” of their country, it’s worth noting that Sberbank is developing a QR code-based payment system, while Gref has been toying with the idea of creating a “Sbercoin” digital currency in partnership with JP Morgan.
MW: Your answer is so far-reaching, I’m not sure how to follow it up. First, you confirm that Sputnik V is a “genetic vaccine” which suggests that the risks of bleeding, blood clots and autoimmunity are the same in Russia as they are the US. Then, you say there is a connection between the creator of the Russian vaccine and Pfizer as well as with some “Harvard-educated ex-Goldman Sachs banker” whose organization “provides financing for Sputnik V”. Finally, you suggest that the funding for the vaccine operation may come from the “CEO of Sberbank, Herman Gref, is part of JP Morgan’s International Council and is also a member of the World Economic Forum’s board of trustees.”
Your answer underscores the suspicion that these vaccines are the cornerstone of a much larger project aimed at restructuring the global economy and, perhaps, reducing the world’s population. Where does Bill Gates fit into the picture or does he?
RW:Gates definitely fits into the picture.Russia’s former health minister, Veronika Skvortosva, is a board member of the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB). Created by the World Health Organization and World Bank, the GPMB has received generous funding from Gates (who is also a top contributor to the WHO, of course). Guess who else is on GPMB’s board? Anthony Fauci, as well as Chris Elias, President of the Bill & Melinda Gates’ Global Development Program. As RFK Jr. detailed in his newly released book, GPMB serves as
the real-life authoritative collective for imposing rules during the upcoming pandemic. This so-called “independent” monitoring and accountability body’s purpose was to validate the imposition of police state controls by global and local political leaders and technocrats, endorsing their efforts to take the kind of harsh actions that Gates’s simulation modeled: subduing resistance, ruthlessly censoring dissent, isolating the healthy, collapsing economies, and compelling vaccination during a projected worldwide health crises.
[…]
In June 2019, about twenty weeks before the start of the COVID pandemic, Dr. Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, summarized the conclusions of GPMB’s pandemic report, warning that “we are entering a new phase of high impact epidemics” that would constitute “a new normal” where governments worldwide would strengthen control and restrict the mobility of citizens.
Does any of that sound familiar?
In January 2020, just a few months before the world was turned upside down by COVID lockdowns and restrictions, Skvortsova resigned as Russia’s health minister as part of a shake-up of Putin’s cabinet. A week later she was appointed the head of Russia’s federal biomedical agency (FMBA). As head of the FMBA, she played an integral role in the early days of Russia’s COVID response, and later produced data showing Moscow had been overwhelmed by the “Delta strain”. Her findings provided some much-needed “science” to justify the capital’s highly unpopular compulsory vaccine mandate. As health minister, Skvortsova presided over a years-long data manipulation scandal involving fraudulent mortality rates. The fraud was so blatant that the Russian government even admitted that their books were cooked (the country’s regional governors were blamed and thrown under the bus by Dmitry Medvedev).
As for “COVID-triggered” economic restructuring: the Russian government has openly embraced the World Economic Forum’s Fourth Industrial Revolution. In October, the Russian government and the WEF signed a memorandum on the establishment of a Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Russia. Russia has already adopted a law allowing for “experimental legal regimes” to allow corporations and institutions to deploy AI and robots into the economy, without being encumbered by regulatory red tape.Returning to Gref and his digital Sbercoin: Russia’s central bank is already planning to test-run a digital ruble that, among other nifty features, could be used to restrict purchases.
Many are probably aware of UN Agenda 2030. Well, there is a Moscow 2030 plan, and it’s quite extraordinary. The blueprint for Russia’s capital calls for “genetic passports” that can be used to administer “gene therapies.” A document envisioning life in Moscow by the end of the decade also talks about “implanted medical digital devices” that can be used by insurance companies to calculate health insurance payments. It seems these ambitions won’t be limited to Moscow. In the last half of 2019, Russia’s State Duma commissioned a report to investigate the “conflict-free development” of a “new generation of technologies” (such as “genome editing”) in order to create a “new type of society.”
MW: I have a hard time believing that a Russian patriot, like Vladimir Putin, would go along with– what amounts to– a takeover of the country by foreign elites, the banker Mafia and the global drug cartel. Is he oblivious to what is going on right beneath his nose or are other factors at play?
RW: Wherever Putin stands on this, surely he must realize that the Russian government is pursuing hugely unpopular policies, first with coercive vaccination, and now with the proposed QR-ization of the country. State Duma Deputy Deputy Mikhail Delyagin recently warned that the adoption of a nationwide digital health “ausweis” would amount to a “coup d’état” that would hand external management of the country over to “Big Tech and Big Pharma through the WHO.” The reason I bring this up is because, at least as I understood his comments, Delyagin does not believe Putin is directly involved in what is happening and fears the Russian president will end up taking the blame for any social and/or economic chaos that may lie ahead (Delyagin: “When these feral oligarchs come to power, when this feral medical mafia comes to power, Russia will not exist! There will be no one to defend Russia! If Putin signs this law, who will defend Putin? I’ll name two dozen, but what about the rest? Help yourself, protect yourself and Russia from a coup d’état!”). If this is the case, it is imperative to stop these dangerous, destabilizing policies before they spark serious upheaval in Russia.
In truth, it’s hard to argue Putin is a clear ally in the fight against experimental drug mandates or the World Economic Forum’s twisted vision for the future. In January, the Russian president gave an address at the WEF in which he called for “expanding the scale of [COVID] testing and vaccinations” around the world. He went on to state that a “high-quality structure” must be created to help overcome “social imbalances” that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. “State budgets and central banks” should play a “key role” in quickly restoring the global and national economies, Putin explained.
Isn’t this just a fancy way of saying Build Back Better?
We desperately need open, frank dialogue about what is happening in Russia right now–discussions which are conspicuously absent in the vast majority of “indy media.” I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I’m shocked that so few seem to be asking any questions.
MW: In Russia, we see the same red flags that are appearing across the West; coerced vaccinations, suspension of civil rights, and the steady slide towards authoritarianism. To what extent do you see these developments as a primordial struggle between good and evil?
RW: I am often reminded of that unsettling line from Alexis de Tocqueville: “I go back from age to age up to the remotest antiquity; but I find no parallel to what is occurring before my eyes: as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future, the mind of man wanders in obscurity.”
With each passing day it seems we are being forcibly severed from our own past. We are being “retrained” to accept a new civilizational model.It’s happening at the local, regional, national and global level. It is tearing apart families.
I do believe we are facing an evil that has no equal in human history. We are in completely unchartered and extremely dangerous territory. Still, there are lessons, and warnings, we can take from history. The worldwide introduction of digital health passes bears a striking resemblance to the global adoption of international passports after WW1. Your passport is a WW1 relic. It was supposed to be a temporary document to control the flow of refugees and keep out enemy spies. It wasn’t so temporary though, was it?
The Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig wrote at length about what this new system of control meant for those who had lived in pre-war Europe: “Human beings were made to feel that they were objects and not subjects, that nothing was their right but everything merely a favor by official grace. They were codified, registered, numbered, stamped… The humiliations which once had been devised with criminals alone in mind now were imposed upon the traveler, before and during every journey.”
He added: “Always I had to think of what an exiled Russian had said to me years ago: ‘Formerly man had only a body and a soul. Now he needs a passport as well for without it he will not be treated like a human being.’”
Now we are all suspected biohazards, on top of being potential criminals. At this point, are the “unjabbed masses” even viewed as human beings in the eyes of our global overlords? Even those who dutifully got their booster shot must now realize their freedoms will not be returned to them. That’s not how it works. Duma Deputy Delyagin touched on this in his video appeal to Russians:
“They are already talking to us in the same way they usually talk to animals. The state now speaks so boorishly to the people. This is how they talk to the population of the occupied territories, who for some reason do not understand that they are occupied.”
A remarkable observation, one that applies to almost the entire world.
I have a young son. He is a Russian citizen. I would like him to be treated as a human being.
The situation is extremely grim. Personally, I believe there is a deep spiritual element at play. How do we stop this profound evil?
*
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.
Riley Waggaman is a Moscow-based writer. He worked for Russia Insider, RT, and Press TV. He contributes to Russian-Faith.com and Anti-Empire.com. He writes regularly about Russia on his Substack account: Edwardslavsquat.substack.com
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.
Behind its development is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – with support of the Rockefeller Foundation – and others belonging to the sinister all-digitization, depopulation and eugenics agenda. It is an alliance of public-private partners, including UN agencies and civil society. It’s an electronic ID-program that uses generalized vaccination against Covid-19 as a platform for digital identity.
I have reconstructed the sequence of events as follows: A business intelligence research firm Fusion GPS originally began researching Trump’s possible ties with Russia during the primary elections on behalf of a conservative who wanted to damage Trump’s campaign.
Everywhere in the rich countries, the rulers impose its deadly use thanks to the corruption of many scientists and doctors, media to whom we let the word, the many others being defamed threatened and muzzled.
New World Order propaganda rules and shapes the world. And there’s no more powerful propagator of propaganda that rules and shapes US global hegemony, world events and major geopolitical developments than the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
A travel ban against Africa, using the Covid-19 omicron variant as a pretext, could also have devastating social and economic impacts on the African Continent, including the disruption of trade relations. Is there a hidden agenda?
In this intimate sit down interview with Wolfgang Wodarg, we discuss the broad issue of corruption in the WHO, how we should understand the “pandemic,” or lack there of and how we must stop this diabolical trend towards a fake medical dystopia that will take over all aspects of our lives.
Those who warned that Corona “vaccinations“ were the first step towards the genetic manipulation of humans faced harsh attacks from quality media, politicians and activists who denied this and ridiculed the corresponding fears.
The current dominant or establishment system of Western societies would use the invisible dictatorship of compulsive consumerism of material goods to annul the ideals of the original individual and transform him into an uncritical, fearful and conformist being who will inevitably swell the ranks of a homogeneous, uniform society, easily manipulated by mass manipulation techniques.
According to the Survey of Mothers with Young Children, 40.1% of the mothers with children 12 and younger reported household food insecurity since the on-set of COVID-19. That’s up 170 percent over food insecurity numbers in 2018!
The migration crisis in the Belarusian-Polish border has become a hot topic in Europe. Last week a group of about 400 people was flown from Belarus back to Iraq in a repatriation flight.
All Global Research articles 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.
Here is a live broadcast of the first Republic of Poland Members of Parliament Investigation Committee as part of the Nuremberg 2.0 project with the special guest Dr. Reiner Füllmich in attendance.
The committee was led by the Member of Parliament Grzegorz Braun and Prof. Mirosław Piotrowski, Paweł Skutecki, attorney Jacek Wilk.
Among other guests attending the committee you can find: attorney Arkadiusz Tetela, attorney Krzysztof Łopatowski and attorney Jarosław Litwin. The live broadcast was on November 15th (Monday).
About Dr. Reiner Füllmich
Dr Reiner Füllmich is an international trial lawyer who has successfully sued large fraudulent corporations like Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich leads over 1,000 lawyers and 10,000 medical specialists and sues CDC, WHO and Davos Group for crimes against humanity.
What is the Nuremberg 2.0 project?
The Nuremberg 2.0 project is a civic initiative created from the necessity of the moment and the need of the heart.
What are the goals of the project?
The goal of the project is to activate conscious and responsible Poles to collect historical and legal documentation describing acts of crimes, lawlessness, abuses and omissions of public authority and to document individual tragedies unknown to the wider public today, which you will want to voluntarily share with us.
How are we going to achieve the goals of the project?
We will collect and register documentation and individual legal acts will be prepared to formulate charges and indict specific persons directly or indirectly responsible for the committed crimes. We will also register professional archival documentation and on its basis, we will publish historical journals under the collective name of “Journals Nuremberg 2.0”.
What was the reason for setting up the project?
As a consequence of the decisions of the Polish government, and in particular of the Ministry of Health and its subordinate agencies, many human injustices and grievances were caused and the victims were primarily Poles – citizens of the Republic of Poland.
Where does the name of our project come from?
The Nuremberg 2.0 project recalls the trial known from the history: the National Socialist system of the Third Reich was tried for the crimes committed by those who represented policies and rules implemented by this system . The name of our project is purely symbolic.
*
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.
Yesterday, I participated in demonstrations in downtown Amman against the latest step taken by the Jordanian government to normalize relations with Israel through yet another U.S.-brokered deal, this one ostensibly as a response to climate change.
The deal is for Jordan to receive 200 million cubic meters (7.06 billion cubic feet) of desalinated water from Israel. In return Israel would get 600 megawatts of electricity generated from a UAE-funded solar energy plant in Jordan. This agreement is the brainchild of Jordan’s EcoPeace, an Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian non-governmental “peace-building” organization — one of those normalizing NGOs that flourished during the Oslo “peace process” and linger on.
In the defunct language of the defunct “peace process,” Jordan’s EcoPeace Director Yana Abu Taleb avowed: “We need to look at projects of cooperation like this, for the benefit of our people; We need to rebuild healthy interdependencies.” U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry, who was present at the signing of the project’s “declaration of intent” in Dubai along with Jordan’s water minister, Israel’s energy minister, and the UAE’s climate change minister, also spoke of the huge impact of the agreement on “Jordan’s effort at climate adaptation.” Both spread the fake news that the agreement was all about the environment and had nothing to do with politics.
Not so the demonstrators in Amman whose passionate and angry chants rejected the deal and called for the liberation of Palestine with full understanding of its political context, which is that of the Wadi Araba Treaty of 26 October 1994. The Jordanian public had overwhelmingly opposed this treaty then, which predictably (like the Oslo “peace process”) has not worked in favor of the country or its people and has affected Jordan negatively on various fronts as activist Azzam Tamimi and political analyst Lamis Andoni pointed out.
Some of the chants in the following video clip say:
Normalization is Betrayal; Wadi Araba is Betrayal; Surrender is betrayal; Palestine is the land of Islam; God is great and praise be to God (الله اكبر وله الحمد).
Some of the posters say:
“We don’t want to die of thirst but we don’t want to betray; normalization is a big betrayal.”
“Let Wadi Araba Treaty fall.”
The demonstrators also rejected the vaunted environmental benefits the deal is supposed to bestow on Jordan with head of Jordan’s Environmental Union Omar Sushan explaining: “We need to strengthen our national water network, build public awareness about water management, and use new methods of irrigation in Jordan. This is our strategic option. We cannot rely on Israel.”
Jawad al-Anani, Jordan’s former deputy prime minister for economic affairs also pointed out that “it is more secure for Jordan to get desalinated water for drinking purposes … from Jordan, rather than Israel.”
It is clear that, as with the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people, the Jordanian government, led by King Abdullah, does not represent the demands and wishes of the Jordanian people. And it is clear that this agreement is not in the best interests of the Jordanian people either politically or economically and environmentally.
In the following video clip, you can clearly hear chants of: “The whole government is [made up of] traders. الحكومه كلها تجار”. And in reference to the fact that the agreement had not been presented to Parliament as stipulated by Article 33 of Jordan’s constitution, which states that any agreement involving financial commitments to the Treasury is not valid unless approved by the National Assembly, some demonstrators held placards that said: “No tampering with the constitution لا للعبث بالدستور”.
Masar Badil, Palestinian Alternative Revolutionary Path Movement, has launched “a unified popular movement and an organized framework (the Council of Palestinian Organizations and Institutions) to lead the masses of our people, defend our national and human rights, liberate the potential of our Palestinian people, especially the younger generations, and strengthen their decisive leadership position in the next phase of struggle.” The movement understands very well that only resistance can ensure the restoration of basic values and ideas that will enable the masses to work together to realize their rights.
Resistance, as a way of life, can help change the current image portrayed by the political and security elites in all of the Arab countries. The sentiment of this demonstration was loudly and repeatedly conveyed in the following chant: “Death rather than humiliation” (الموت ولا المذله).
*
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.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.
She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: “We don’t want to die of thirst but we don’t want to betray; normalization is a big betrayal.” “Let Wadi Araba Treaty fall.” [Rima Najjar]
November 29th, 2021 by Prof. David Millard Haskell
All Global Research articles 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.
Prof. David Millard Haskell of Wilfrid Laurier University, Ontario warns students – now banned from their university campuses for resisting the unscientific & immoral vaccine mandates – that the injustice they are experiencing is just the beginning.
Links to studies proving that the mandate is not supported by the most current research are found below.
Dr. Haskell explains that the current tyranny of government and university officials is just part of a trend developing for years; furthermore, he predicts that things are going to get worse.
He shows that university professors and administrators claiming that they stand for inclusion and equity, are not truthful.
He concludes with a call to action.
Students suffering this injustice who do not have a supporting community are encouraged to contact Dr. Haskell at his university email; he will try to connect you to like-mined others who will stand by you.
Dr. Haskell mentions research studies showing that the vaccinated and unvaccinated catch and spread the Covid-19 virus in near equal measure. Thus, the vaccine mandates do not stop the spread and are, in fact, refuted by “the science.” Here are a few of those studies:
Dr. Haskell mentioned research studies showing that the Covid-19 vaccines have been proven more harmful to younger people than the virus itself. Here are a few of those studies:
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.
Our thanks for Mark Taliano for bringing this to our attention.
Prof. David Millard Haskell is a Professor at Laurier University. He is a Christian and a conservative. Before academia, Prof. Haskell was a journalist. He started as a print features writer and later moved to TV working as a reporter in London, Windsor, and Waterloo Region. He has received awards from TV Ontario and the Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) for his news reporting. Just prior to joining the faculty at Laurier’s Brantford campus in 2005, he spent four years as a professor of Journalism at Conestoga College in Kitchener, Ontario. He has also enjoyed careers as a high school teacher, professional musician and motivational speaker.
All Global Research articles 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.
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 population of Ukraine decreased from 45.5 million to 30.1 million, according to some other data to 28 million. 5 million were lost due to excessive mortality; the remaining 10 million left the country in search of work. About 50% of those who left Ukraine (up to 5 million) have already become naturalized citizens in the EU and Russia, having taken out their families. This part of Ukrainian migrants does not contribute to the economy of the state anymore.
According to the IMF and the World Bank, GDP of Ukraine was $155.582 billion by the end of 2020. Compared to 2013, when it was $ 183.31 billion, it fell by 15%.
Compared to 2013, the industry collapsed by 25%. Thousands of enterprises have been closed. As a result, the unemployed population currently makes up 11% of the number of able-bodied citizens.
The country’s energy dependence on imported supplies of hydrocarbons and electricity has increased. Ukraine’s own natural gas production decreased by 6.6% since 2013; and the decline continues. Ukraine is forced to buy coal and electricity from Russia, while being “at war” with Moscow, from Belarus, while being engaged in subversive activities against Minsk, and from the United States, paying significantly higher prices.
The outflow of investments from the country continues. In 2013, Kiev received more than 5.6 billion US dollars; while in 2021 it got less than 800 million US dollars, according to the State Statistics Service and the Council of the National Bank of Ukraine.
Ukrainian GDP per capita in 2013 was 4030.3 US dollars. In 2020, it was 3725.6 US dollars. Over the same period, the income stratification of the Ukrainian society has sharply increased.
The average purchasing power has decreased by 20%. Today, 70% of Ukrainians have an income of 210-250 US dollars per month. At the same time, the food and medicine prices in Ukraine are much higher than in the neighboring countries. As a result, according to official data, 10 million citizens are suffering from malnourishing on a daily basis, and about 2 million are starving.
The country’s only “success” turned into a scandal. The data of the World Bank’s Doing Business rating, which assessed the situation of Ukraine as “positive”, were recognized as “distorted” by the World Bank, the rating was closed, and a bribery investigation was launched.
*
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.
From Columbus Day to Independence Day to Thanksgiving, the U.S. pretty much specializes in taking dates that celebrate genocide and discrimination, and repackaging them as family-friendly holidays. So as Thanksgiving 2021 — the 400th anniversary of the supposed first Thanksgiving — approaches, you may be wondering exactly why Thanksgiving is bad.
Not only is Thanksgiving offensive to Indigenous people, but it glorifies colonialism, slavery, and even epidemics. Many Americans who celebrate Thanksgiving have no idea just how cruel the holiday’s origins are, while those who do may choose to either boycott the holiday, or just use it as an excuse to express general gratitude, gather with family, and eat comfort foods.
Here’s a look into the true history of Thanksgiving, and what really went down between the Pilgrims and the Native Americans whose land they stole.
Why is Thanksgiving bad? The history of the holiday students learn is not quite accurate.
In U.S. schools, children are taught that Thanksgiving celebrates a 1621 harvest feast hosted by the Pilgrims (the English colonialists who arrived on the Mayflower), along with their guests, the Wampanoag (a Native American tribe), as facilitated by the bilingual Tisquantum, better known as Squanto, which is what the Pilgrims called him.
The typical curriculum frames this story as one of the Pilgrims struggling to grow food, and the Wampanoag lending them a helping hand on the fields. And while there is evidence that some of those vague details did happen, a lot of details are left out of this sweet story.
“Thanksgiving is rooted in a historical fallacy,” Matika Wilbur, a member of the Tulalip and Swinomish tribes, told TODAY Parents in 2020. “The main Pilgrim narrative coincides with colonization that was inherently oppressive and brutal.”
Here’s the real history of Thanksgiving.
As Smithsonian Magazine puts it, the watered-down version of the story frames the Pilgrims as the protagonists. In actuality, they were the antagonists. For thousands of years before the Pilgrims arrived in the 1610s, the Wampanoag lived in the Americas. They were spread across the areas we now know as Massachusetts and Rhode Island, with a total of 69 different villages, as per Smithsonian Magazine.
Plus, the Pilgrims were not the first colonizers to arrive in the Americas and discriminate against the Wampanoag. As Smithsonian Magazine explains, for years before the Pilgrims landed, various other English colonizers showed up in the Americas on multiple occasions. Not only did they bring European plagues to the Americas, but many of these men actually kidnapped Native Americans, brought them back to Europe, and sold them as slaves — something that was made easier as more and more Indigenous people got sick from these new diseases.
So when the Pilgrims arrived in the region of Patuxet, which they renamed Plymouth, they thought they had discovered a miracle: the perfect land to steal and build a society upon. The land had arable fields, a spring, and, most importantly, “every single native person who had been living there was a corpse,” due to the plagues brought there by the English, as sociologist and author James W. Loewen explained to The New York Times.
Eventually, the Pilgrims met their neighbors, a tribe of Wampanoag peoples who survived the epidemic that wiped out the Wampanoag members who had lived in Patuxet. Tisquantum, who the Pilgrims called Squanto, is well known as the Native American who served as liaison between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag, because he spoke English.
But why did he know English? According to Biography, years before, an English colonialist kidnapped Squanto and sold him as a slave in Europe, where he learned the language.
After a few years, he managed to escape and return to the Americas, to discover that his tribe had been killed by the epidemic — a zoonotic disease, according to Slate. (Remember that COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease, as well.) So, Tisquantum joined a neighboring Wampanoag village, eventually becoming the translator between his new tribe and the Pilgrims, as per Slate.
Here’s what happened at the “first Thanksgiving.”
The “first Thanksgiving” that is taught in history textbooks tells the story of the Pilgrims graciously inviting the Wampanoag for a feast as a thank you to the tribe for teaching them about the harvest.
And as explained by Blackfeet Tribe member Gyasi Ross in an essay for MSNBC, the narrative often suggests that the Pilgrims came to the Americas “in good faith,” that they happily hosted the Wampanoag at Thanksgiving, and that they cooked turkey and sweet potato pie for them. However, this is part of the “mythology of white America,” according to Ross.
“[The Pilgrims] could not [bring food to Thanksgiving]. They were broke,” Ross said. “They were begging. They brought nothing of value. But they got fed [by the Wampanoag].” Without the Wampanoag, the Pilgrims would not have survived in America.
According to TIME, there is no clear evidence explaining exactly why the two groups, consisting of about 50 Pilgrims and 90 Wampanoag members, came together. And as Britannica notes, the event was chaotic, filled with liquor, gun shooting, and hunting.
There is actually no written evidence that turkeys were eaten at the 1621 Thanksgiving. As The New York Times reports, many experts believe some sort of wild bird, such as ducks, geese, or turkeys were hunted, cooked, and served at the feast, alongside produce.
Every year, Americans breed, kill, and eat around 46 million turkeys on Thanksgiving — and there’s really no reason for this cruel and unsustainable tradition. These days, there are so many vegan turkey alternatives on the market, which are all more compassionate and environmentally-friendly choices.
If you are hosting or attending a Thanksgiving dinner this year, remember the true origins of the holiday — and consider sharing the true story with your friends and family.
*
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.
I confess that many times I have meditated on the dramatic story of John F. Kennedy. It was my fate to live through the era when he was the greatest and most dangerous adversary of the Revolution. It was something that didn’t play a part in his calculations. He saw himself as the representative of a new generation of Americans who were confronting the old-style, dirty politics of men of the sort of Nixon whom he had defeated with a tremendous display of political talent.
He had behind him his history as a combatant in the Pacific and of his adroit pen.
Because he was over-confident, he was dragged into the Bay of Pigs adventure by his predecessors, since he had no doubts about the experience and professional capacity of all those men. His failure was bitter and unexpected, a scant three months after his inauguration. Even though he was on the point of attacking the Island with his country’s powerful and sophisticated weaponry, on that occasion he didn’t do what Nixon would have done: use the fighter-bombers and land the Marines. Rivers of blood would have flowed in our Homeland where hundreds of thousands of combatants were ready to die. He controlled himself and came up with a categorical phrase that is hard to forget: “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.”
His life continued to be dramatic, like a shadow that accompanied him at all times. On the strength of wounded pride, he again succumbed to the idea of invading us. This brought on the October [Missile] Crisis and the most serious risks of thermonuclear warfare that the world has ever known until the present day. He emerged from this test as an authority thanks to the mistakes of his chief adversary. He seriously wanted to talk with Cuba and that’s what he decided to do. He sent Jean Daniel to talk with me and return to Washington. His mission was being carried out at that moment when the news of President Kennedy’s assassination arrived. His death and the strange way in which it was orchestrated and carried out, was truly sad.
Later I met close family members who visited Cuba. I never mentioned the unpleasant aspects of his policy against our country, nor did I refer at all to the attempts to eliminate me. I met his son when he was an adult, who had been a young child when his father had been the president of the United States. We got together as friends. His own brother Robert was also assassinated, multiplying the drama shadowing that family.
At the distance of so many years, information arrived about a gesture that impressed me.
These days, while so much was being said about the lengthy and unfair blockade of Cuba in the upper echelons of the continent’s countries, I read a news item in Mexico’s La Jornada: “At the end of 1963, the then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy sought to overturn the ban on travel to Cuba and today his daughter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, wrote that President Barack Obama ought to take this into account and support legislative initiatives that would allow all Americans to travel to the island.
“In official documents declassified by the National Security Archive research centre it is recorded that on December 12, 1963, less than one month after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy sent a communication to Secretary of State Dean Rusk, urging the removal of regulations prohibiting Americans from traveling to Cuba.
“Robert Kennedy claimed that the prohibition violated American freedoms. According to the document, he affirmed that the current restrictions on travel are inconsistent with traditional American freedoms.
“That position was unsuccessful inside the Lyndon B. Johnson administration and the State Department decided that to suspend the restrictions would be perceived as a softening of the Cuban policy and that they were part of the joint effort made by the United States and other American republics to isolate Cuba.
“In an editorial article by Kathleen Kennedy printed today in The Washington Post, Robert’s daughter expresses her wish that her father’s position be adopted by the Barack Obama government, and that this should be the position promoted by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. while the Obama government weighs the next step it will take with Cuba, one that should be pushing for allowing more than just Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island and dealing with the rights of all Americans, most of whom are not free to go.
“Kathleen Kennedy writes that just as Obama found out at the summit meeting last week-end, Latin American leaders have adopted a coordinated message on Cuba: the time is here to normalize relations with Havana. By keeping on trying to isolate Cuba, they essentially told Obama, Washington has only succeeded in isolating itself.
“Thus, the niece of the president who attempted to invade and overthrow the Cuban Revolutionary government and impose the blockade, adds her voice now to the ever-growing chorus in favor of reversing these policies which were put in place half a century ago.”
