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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, Sofia Benharira passed away on September 21,  7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine. 

This is happening all over the World: Children and adolescents are dying. 

Either the media fails to report vaccine related deaths or it states (with authority) that the deaths are attributable to Covid-19. 

Crimes agains humanity, crimes against our children. The media also bears responsibility.

And did you know that Pfizer has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice.

The “vaccine poison” imposed at the level of the entire planet is produced by a pharmaceutical company which has been indicted by the US Department of Justice (2009) on charges of “fraudulent marketing”. 

The vaccine must be halted immediately.

May Sofia Benharira Rest in Peace. Her passing should send the following message to parents Worldwide:

Pfizer is killing our children. And our governments are being bribed by Big Pharma. 

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 29, 2021

***

Sofia Benharira, 16 years old, dies following the Pfizer vaccination.

 

https://www.pompes-funebres-dumas.fr/avis-de-deces/sofia-benharira-aix-en-provence-ds00144062?utm_source=facebook

Obsèques cet après-midi à l’église de Gardanne de Sofia Benharira, 16 ans.

Elle était en bonne santé, Elle aurait fait 2 arrêts cardiaques après la seconde injection du 14 septembre, Elle est morte le 21 septembre. En commentaire le témoignage de sa marraine (sa tante)

Que Dieu vous protège

 

Our thanks to Pierre Racquia for having brought this report to the attention of Global Research.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

I have had confirmation of my report last Saturday that Norway has terminated all Covid restrictions (see this).  I am uncertain whether it is an immediate termination or the beginning of a phase out. 

Norway’s equivalent to the CDC has downgraded Covid-19 to a strong flu.

There will be no Covid passport.  In Sweden Covid restrictions are scheduled to end this Wednesday September 29. The Danish government decided two weeks ago to end Covid restrictions. 

The President of  Croatia has also declared: “We will not be vaccinated anymore.”  (see this)  Have you heard any of this on CNN, NPR, MSNBC or read it in The NY Times?

How do we explain Scandinavia and Croatia going the opposite direction to the EU?

It is a known fact the the EU government is authoritarian, not democratic.  Power rests in an unelected Commission.  As Covid restrictions are a boon to authoritarianism, perhaps the Scandinavian governments have decided against that direction.

The Scandinavian position is also totally different from the US one where the CNN-NPR-MSNBC-NY Times lie machine and Big Pharma shills such as Fauci, Walensky, and the White House Idiot continue to push for mask mandates, vaccination of children, booster shots, and firings and lockdowns if there is public resistance to any more inoculation.

The lie machine keeps turning out propaganda that adverse reactions to the vaccine are new Covid cases among the unvaccinated, that the vaccine protects despite requiring endless boosters and that if it doesn’t protect it still reduces Covid mortality, that 1,000,000 American children have Covid, and every other lie they can concoct to drive people into more injections. Is profit the only motive?  Probably not. Elite Americans are the largest audience at the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” indoctrinations.

If Scandinavia can recover from the Covid brainwashing, why cannot the US, UK, and EU?

And what is wrong with Israel?  Jews are supposed to be intelligent.  Yet Israel continues a self-defeating policy in the face of Israeli mainstream media broadcasts that the vaccination policy is a total failure— see this.  If the English translation of the news broadcast is correct, of the previous day’s new 279 Covid cases in Israel, 259 were “fully vaccinated.”  Only 29 were “unvaccinated.” In other words 90% of the new Israeli Covid cases were fully vaccinated people.

The Israeli news broadcast goes on to report that the US CDC has admitted that people infected with the “Delta variant” have the same viral load whether or not they are fully vaccinated. In other words, vaccinated people can spread the virus as easily as the unvaccinated and thus the policy of excluding vaccinated Covid patients from quarantine is nonsensical. The news announcer says such questions are not discussed because of concern that people will not bother to take the vaccine. The only remaining reason the news announcer can find for taking the vaccine is the unverified, and almost certainly false, claim that whereas you have no protection from the vaccine against catching Covid, you have a smaller chance of dying from the virus if you are vaccinated.  This conclusion leaves out the known injuries and deaths from the vaccine itself, but there is probably a limit to what the news organization can report.

So there you have it.  The only remaining justification for being vaccinated is the unverified claim that although the vaccine will not reduce your chance of catching Covid, it will reduce your chance of dying from Covid as long as you ignore the chance of serious health injury or death from the vaccine itself.

Obviously, Israel should turn an eye to India, Japan, and Africa where Ivermectin is in widespread use and has shut down Covid.  This policy is far more safe, efficient, and much less costly than the mRNA vaccines.  Why is the Israeli government ignoring the obvious solution and instead conducting a Holocaust policy against Israeli Jews?

Why are the US, UK, EU, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand governments conducting a Holocaust policy against their own people?

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Romanian prosecutors have opened investigation into the country’s Covid vaccine acquisitions and has also shutdown its vaccine centers as people have refused the experimental jabs.

As reported by GreatGameIndia earlier, the European Union has launched an inquiry into the secret talks that took place between EU Commission Chief and Pfizer CEO for the sale of vaccines.

The European Ombudsman has demanded that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen explain how she lost text messages that she exchanged with the CEO of Pfizer during talks about vaccine procurement.

Now, even the Romania’s National Anticorruption Directorate (DNA) has announced that it opened investigations related to the circumstances under which Romania purchased [too many, prosecutors seem to imply] Covid vaccines.

“As far as I know, the procedures followed for the procurement [of vaccines] in all European Union countries were the same, and they were developed by the European Commission,” Valeriu Gheorghiță, the head of the national vaccination campaign, said, according to Hotnews.ro.

Prosecutors said that the investigations are opened in order to spot potential “abuse of office” [implying personal benefits derived by those so far unidentified] involved.

Notably, the health ministry was managed until early September by the reformist USR-PLUS party, which pulled out of the ruling coalition meanwhile and launched a no-confidence motion against the Government. But the ministry of health was not directly involved in the procurement.

Romania has also shutdown its vaccine centers as people have refused the experimental jabs.

Declining demand for coronavirus vaccinations in Romania has prompted authorities to close 117 vaccination centres and to reduce the schedule at 371 others, health officials have said.

“In the previous week, we re-evaluated the efficiency of fixed vaccination centers. About 80% of fixed vaccination centres vaccinate less than 25% of the vaccination capacity allocated to each stream,” national vaccination committee chief Valeriu Gheorghita said at a press conference on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Czech Republic is planning to destroy 45,000 doses of AstraZeneca vaccines branded as Covishield in India since nobody wants to take the shots.

Meanwhile, more than 14,000 doses of AstraZeneca’s vaccine were thrown away in the past month alone due to the lack of interest from the public.

Even, Singapore is studying the possibility of using non-mRNA vaccines as booster shots and is in talks with suppliers to obtain the vials, said Senior Minister of State for Health Janil Puthucheary in Parliament.

Recently, the President of Croatia hammered the media Monday after a reporter asked why the vaccination rate in Croatia is not as high as in other European Union countries.

The Croatian President Zoran Milanovic retorted saying, “We will not be vaccinated anymore”.

Croatians have been “vaccinated enough” and should be allowed to accept the risks of becoming infected with COVID on their own terms, according to President Zoran Milanović.

“We will not go more than 50 percent, let them fence us with wire,” Milanović said in recent statements to the press. “I don’t care. We’re vaccinated enough and everyone knows it.”

“We need to know what the goal of this frenzy is. If the goal is to completely eradicate the virus, then we have the goal. I have not heard that this is the goal. If someone tells me it’s a goal, I will tell him he’s out of his mind.”

President Milanović broke with the majority of his contemporaries in expressing frustration over medical authoritarianism and COVID hysteria pushed by the mainstream media and the globalists.

*

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

Featured image is from GGI

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Romania Opens Investigation into How COVID Vaccines Were Acquired. Shuts Down Its Vaccine Centers. Croatia Suspends Vaccination

The Biggest Federal Reserve Scandal

September 28th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Following revelations that Federal Reserve officials made trades in financial assets while the Fed was taking extraordinary efforts to “stimulate” the economy, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell ordered a review of the Fed’s ethics rules. While these trades appear problematic, they pale in comparison to the biggest Fed scandal — the Fed’s impoverishment of ordinary Americans, enrichment of the elites, and facilitation of government debt and deficits.

The depression induced by coronavirus, though really caused by so-called public health actions government took in response, was the official reason for the Fed’s increased asset purchases last year. However, the Fed actually started ramping up its money creating activities in September of 2019, when it began pouring billions a day into the repo markets, which banks use to make short-term loans to each other, in order to keep repo market interest rates low.

Coronavirus was just a convenient excuse for the Fed to do more of what it was already doing. Now, the Fed is using the limited reopening as a scapegoat for rising prices. Of course, anyone who understands Austrian economics understands that rising prices are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation. Inflation is the very act of money creation by the Fed.

Rising prices that diminish the average American’s standard of living are not the only result of the Fed’s manipulation of the money supply. The manipulation distorts economic signals, producing results including booms, bubbles, and busts.

Inflation has always benefited the well-connected elites who receive the Fed’s newly created money before the new money causes widespread price increases. The true motivation behind Fed policies was revealed by former Fed official Andrew Huszar in 2013. Huszar, writing for the Wall Street Journal, confirmed that quantitative easing kept stock prices high, instead of helping Americans struggling with the aftereffects of the 2008 meltdown.

Other beneficiaries of the Fed are big-spending politicians. The Federal Reserve’s purchase of federal debt instruments keeps the federal government’s debt servicing costs manageable. This is why, despite Chairman Powell’s recent suggestion that the Fed will soon begin “tapering” its purchases of Treasuries, the Fed is unlikely to significantly reduce its purchase of Treasuries or allow interest rates to significantly increase.

Powell is also unlikely to upset President Biden and Biden’s congressional allies as long as progressives are urging Biden not to reappoint Powell. Progressives want to replace Powell with someone more committed to fighting climate change and systemic racism, two boogeymen routinely bought out as excuses for vast expansions in government spending and power.

Another major scandal involving the Fed is Congress’ refusal to pass the Audit the Fed bill and let the American people know the truth about the Fed’s operations. Audit the Fed authorizes a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Fed’s dealing with foreign governments and central banks, the Fed’s discount window operations, reserves of member banks, securities credit, interest on deposits, and open market transactions. Audit the Fed would finally reveal the truth about the Fed’s operations.

A limited audit authorized by the Dodd-Frank Act found that between 2007 and 2010, the Federal Reserve committed over 16 trillion dollars to foreign central banks and politically influential private companies. Imagine what a full audit would find. It is time to end the scandal of allowing a secretive central bank to have so much power over the economy and our liberty. It is time to audit, and end, the Fed.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Revelations that the CIA discussed the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confirm the staggering criminality of the US and British ruling class. By rights, they should see the US extradition case against Assange still proceeding through the UK High Court thrown out, and the investigation and prosecution of the conspirators up to the highest level of the US and UK governments and their intelligence agencies.

According to an investigation by Yahoo News published Sunday, President Donald Trump’s CIA director Mike Pompeo christened WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service” in 2017 to make its employees and associates a legitimate target for CIA “offensive counterintelligence” activities.

Pompeo then asked for plans to be drawn up for Assange’s kidnap or assassination. The report is based on information from more than 30 US sources. Both Pompeo and the CIA have refused to comment.

These sources, former top US officials, explain that the US manhunt of Assange escalated dramatically after the publication of the “Vault 7” leaks in March 2017, exposing intimate details of CIA spying operations. Three sources stated that plans were discussed to kill the WikiLeaks founder, with Trump reportedly asking for “options” from the agency on how this could be done. CIA heads apparently requested and were provided “sketches” of assassination plans and discussions were had on “whether killing Assange was possible and whether it was legal,” according to one source.

Plans for Assange’s kidnap, in the event of a Russian-backed escape from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where Assange had claimed asylum, included ramming a Russian diplomatic vehicle, shoot-outs with Russian agents in the streets of London and, as a last resort, shooting the tyres of any Russian plane trying to carry Assange out of the country. A senior official told Yahoo that Britain agreed “to do the shooting if gunfire was required.”

Yahoo’s investigation confirms and substantially expands on claims subject to a current court case in Spain that the firm UC Global, which provided security for Ecuador’s London embassy, worked with the CIA to spy on Assange and discussed his kidnap and assassination.

There is nothing the least surprising about the existence of plans for Assange’s murder. US imperialism has despatched its professional assassins all over the world to secure its interests for decades. The Assange plot recalls the murder of Chilean dissident Orlando Letelier in 1976, whose car was blown up in Washington D.C., just a mile from the White House. Organised by Augusto Pinochet’s secret police, the killing was facilitated by US intelligence under Operation Condor—though this has always been denied.

What is new today is the increasingly unguarded character of ruling class violence and repression. Plots once organised through accomplices, kept closely under wraps and strenuously denied are now carried out in ever more open fashion.

The admitted murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, in the Saudi consulate in Turkey in 2018 by agents of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, elicited only the most token “condemnation” by the US and UK governments.

Just over a week ago, the New York Times gloried in the US-Israeli assassination of Iranian physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Assange’s own killing was widely discussed shortly after the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and US diplomatic cables leaks. In 2012, WikiLeaks produced a video, titled “Assassinating Assange,” collecting the threats made against his life by prominent figures in the previous two years.

Commentators on Fox News called for the then Obama administration to “illegally shoot the son of a b****,” “have the CIA take him out” and say, “if we catch you, we’re gonna hang you.” Former Republican speaker of the house Newt Gingrich said Assange had “engaged in terrorism” and “should be treated as an enemy combatant.” He was agreed with by then Vice President Joe Biden, who labelled Assange a “high-tech terrorist.” Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly asked in private, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

There is no doubt that high-level discussions regarding Assange’s possible assassination took place under Obama. Sunday’s revelations demonstrate that the Trump administration, in response to continued WikiLeaks releases causing serious damage to US imperialism and an explosion of domestic class tensions, sought ever more recklessly to realise this aim. Moreover, their leaking by so many sources must be related to the escalating factional warfare in ruling circles regarding Trump’s January 6 coup plot.

The close involvement of the British state in these plans sheds light on the January 4 surprise ruling by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser that Assange should not be extradited to the US due to the “substantial risk” of his suicide. That ruling was challenged by the US, which this August was granted expanded grounds to appeal the decision in a hearing before the High Court scheduled for October 27-28.

Clearly, the type of “suicide” Baraitser had in mind was a murder orchestrated by the US state. The pseudo-legal pursuit of Assange was an ancillary operation to the kill or capture mission discussed by the CIA. Once Assange was in the clutches of the US prison system, he could meet a similar fate to that of Jeffrey Epstein—who supposedly hanged himself in his cell in August 2019 before being called to testify in a sex trafficking case implicating dozens of the most powerful figures in American society.

In the knowledge of this plot, the UK ruling class evidently felt it lacked sufficient deniability in January for such a barefaced murder of a journalist whose imprisonment it has overseen for the past decade. Every action taken by the British judiciary since the original denial of extradition, however, has been in the US government’s favour. By proceeding with the case, the British state is knowingly complicit in an ongoing conspiracy to murder or otherwise silence Assange forever.

Also complicit are the world’s media, above all the “liberal” Guardian in the UK and the New York Times in the US. At the time of writing, the Times had not reported on the Yahoo News revelations at all. The Guardian only published an article late on Monday evening (9 pm BST) and buried it in its media section.

Despite feeling belatedly forced to make a show of opposition to Assange’s extradition, these papers continue to do all in their power to obscure the full implications of a case that reveals the total, unreformable criminality of US, British and world imperialism. They have painted the extradition proceedings as a case of ill-advised overreach by embarrassed governments, which should be ruled against by a wiser judiciary.

These latest exposures blow this fraud apart. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Assange’s extradition must be dropped immediately. The US has not even the formal right to seek his extradition—under UK law, no one can be extradited to a country where they have a chance of facing the death penalty—and the UK has no right to hear his case. Both governments are party to kidnap and murder plots against him.

These facts alone do not offer any guarantee of Assange’s safety. In her ruling against extradition, Baraitser said of the defence’s evidence on UC Global and CIA surveillance that “there is no reason to assume this related to these proceedings” and that “fruits of any surveillance would not be seen by prosecutors assigned to the case.”

Baraitser’s statement proves there is no purely judicial route to Assange’s freedom. What is necessary is the construction of a mass international movement, rooted in the working class.

Building such a movement requires a complete rejection of the appeals made by those like the official Don’t Extradite Assange campaign to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Joe Biden and even, when he was president, Trump. All of these figures, together with their heads of intelligence and their deputies, are implicated in a plot to kill the WikiLeaks founder. The fight to free Assange is bound up with the struggle to put these imperialist gangsters in the dock in his place.

*

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.

Afghanistan: Where’s the Cash?

September 28th, 2021 by Eric Margolis

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Afghanistan’s US-run government was the world’s largest producer and exporter of opium, morphine, and the end-product, heroin.

As it did after first seizing power in the mid-1990’s, Taliban, the Islamic anti-drug and anti-communist movement, is shutting down the Afghan drug trade. Billions worth of heroin, opium and morphine that had been flowing into Central Asia, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Southeast Asia will be sharply reduced. Afghanistan’s drug-based economy is now in dire jeopardy.

But you would not know this if you follow the biased western press, notably the big US TV networks, social media and the BBC which thinks it’s Britain’s old colonial office. Western media has focused almost exclusively on the supposed plight of well-off westernized Afghan women in Kabul. That’s all you see on TV.

That these pampered ladies can’t easily get their nails done is not Afghanistan’s biggest problem. Nor is the closing of dance studios or fashion boutiques.

What really matters is that Afghan wedding parties and villages are no longer being savaged by US warplanes or B-1 and B-52 heavy bombers, or that wide scale torture by the Communist-run secret police, whose head, Amrullah Saleh, was a key US ally and the nation’s real strongmen, has been ended by Taliban.

Meanwhile, western media simply ignores the plight of women in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. I well recall being twice arrested in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia by religious police for walking with an attractive lady (an Estee Lauder beauty consultant).

I was arrested in Kuwait under similar suspicion. I was whipped by Saudi airport security police. And yet all we hear about or see are films of wicked Taliban soldiers maltreating Afghan women.

What I really want to know is what happened to all the billions in drug money reaped by the US-backed regime in Kabul and its allied warlords? Where are the pallets of fresh US $100 bills flown in from Washington to finance the Kabul regime? We saw the same phenomena in US-occupied Iraq. These mountains of cash just went ‘walkabout,’ as the Aussies say. Americans and US Arab allies grabbed the majority of these missing funds.

Iraq and Afghanistan account for one of the biggest thefts of money in modern history. Much of this sordid story has been documented by the US government’s own anti-corruption agency, SIGAR, which has waged a valiant battle to combat crime in Afghanistan during the $2 trillion, two-decade war.

Many of the drug-dealing criminals have already bailed out of Afghanistan via a US/British/French airlift. Others, Taliban opponents, mostly Tajik and Uzbek gang bosses, have managed to gain refuge in neighboring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The most formidable opposition to Taliban came from the Tajik Northern Alliance in the Panjshir Valley north of Kabul. This US-allied group dominated the drug trade until run out of business by Taliban. Now it’s trying to rally with secret backing from France, India and the US.

China is playing a cautious game in Afghanistan. I was invited by Chinese military intelligence to Beijing in 1981 to ask me if Beijing should begin supplying arms to the Afghan Islamic anti-Soviet resistance, aka ‘mujahidin.’ This was the most momentous act in the growing China-Soviet split. No one in Washington seemed to see or understand it.

Forty years later, China is still wrestling with this problem. Beijing wants good relations with Taliban but is seriously scared by the notion of Islamic wild men who support freedom and independence for the Chinese-ruled Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang (Eastern Turkestan).

Meanwhile, the great American-Afghan money machine has ground to a halt as its produce is secreted away in US real estate and Swiss banks.

*

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: U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Health professionals in Australia, the UK and the US have expressed their deep concerns at Australia’s proposed acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines with UK and US assistance, stating that the plan will jeopardise global health and security.  Their concerns are set out in a briefing paper. 

IPPNW Co-President Dr Tilman Ruff said

“Humanity is in the midst of a major pandemic, and facing twin existential threats of dire urgency—global heating and the growing danger of nuclear war. COVID vaccines are still out of reach for most of the world’s poor people. If ever there was a time to build goodwill, and focus on cooperation to address complex global problems, that time is now.  Instead, the proposed submarines would increase tensions and militarisation across Asia and the Pacific region, fuel an arms race and risk deepening a new cold war involving China. They would embroil Australia in a nuclear war-fighting strategy, increase the danger of armed conflict erupting and escalating to nuclear war in which there could be no winners.”

Australia’s submarines are very likely to be fueled, as US and UK submarines are, by highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is directly usable in nuclear weapons. The US and the UK have resisted and delayed efforts to convert their naval reactors to much less proliferation-prone low-enriched uranium fuel (LEU) as France and China have done.

The proposed Australian submarines could well encourage other states, such as South Korea, Japan and Iran to pursue a similar path.  Some within Australia, including within government, have used the recent announcement to call for Australia to embrace nuclear power and, alarmingly, there are calls for Australia to be prepared to acquire its own nuclear weapons.  Submarine reactors fuelled with HEU would provide raw material with which to achieve this goal.

Dr Sue Wareham, President of the Medical Association for Prevention of War (Australia), said,

“The nuclear weapons proliferation potential of this deal will be significant.  A government assurance on the matter is totally inadequate.  Other nations will see it differently.”

Adding to proliferation risks is the UK announcement in March of a planned 40% increase in its nuclear arsenal, which is in breach of its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations.  The UK and US are modernising their nuclear arsenals, also in breach of their NPT commitment to disarm.

Dr Elisabeth McElderry, International Councillor of Medact (UK), said of the new agreement

“Resources are needed both at home and worldwide to improve health and care services, and to reduce the drivers of conflict, displacement and disease. It is very disappointing that the United Kingdom continues to promote armament exports, in this case with added nuclear dangers, which goes in the opposite direction of the UK Government statement in May of this year that ‘investing in conflict prevention is the right thing to do.“

There is the additional risk of accidents and terrorist attack. Such disasters while a nuclear-powered vessel is in port risks harmful radioactive contamination of cities.  Many cities around the world oppose visits of such vessels to their harbours for that reason.  A total of 8 nuclear-powered submarines have sunk because of accidents at sea between 1963 and 2003, contributing to the radioactive pollution of our oceans.

The high level radioactive waste from reactors poses a further long-term problem for which there is thus far no solution. Already, Australia’s problem of managing its much smaller amount of intermediate level radioactive waste is not resolved.

All three nations involved in this deal should turn their attention from arming the world to supporting global efforts for a nuclear weapons free world.  The most important step that they—and other nations that have not done so—could take to hasten this goal would be to join the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Dr David E. Drake, President of Physicians for Social Responsibility (USA), noted

“Let’s not forget that ‘On the Beach’ depicted the end of the world, focused on Australia. Instead of ramping up a new cold war, we must cooperate to decrease tensions and work toward eliminating all weapons of mass destruction, while we still can.”

If Australia does proceed to acquire nuclear submarines, it should insist on LEU fuel and implement stringent safeguards, the submarines should be configured so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons, and nothing about their construction or operation should impede Australia joining the TPNW.

All nations, including Australia, the US and the UK, should be doing absolutely everything possible to avoid a military escalation and confrontation with China, and reduce rather than exacerbate the danger of nuclear war.

*

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: The USS John Warner, a nuclear-powered submarine of the type Australia will soon be developing. Source: US Navy

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Proposed US/UK Nuclear-powered Submarines for Australia: Jeopardising Health and Fueling an Arms Race
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

al-Quds [Jerusalem] reports that Palestinians in the West Bank greeted President Mahmoud Abbas’s UN speech, in which he pledged to take Israel to the International Criminal Court if its squatter-settlements weren’t withdrawn within a year, with widespread acclaim.

The International Criminal Court decided in March of this year that it has jurisdiction over the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza because the Palestine Authority has invited it to consider rights abuses there. Palestine is a signatory to the Statute of Rome, which established the ICC at the Hague in the late 1990s, and member states can ask the court to take up cases. Palestine was able to become a signatory because it was granted the status of non-member observer state at the UN by the General Assembly in 2012. This is the same status enjoyed by the Vatican.

Fatah greeted the speech as “an historic document” from the Palestinians to the world. Muhammad Gharib saw it as a gauntlet thrown down to international institutions demanding that they abide by their own principles and resolutions and that they cease their double standard when it comes to Palestine.

The Palestine National Council said that Friday’s speech before the UN General Assembly returned the Palestinian cause to its roots in that it focused on the creation of a Palestinian state in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 181, which called for partition of British Mandate Palestine into Jewish and Palestinian states, and resolution 194, which called for the return of Palestinian refugees to Palestine. The chair of the PNC, Salim Zanoun, underlined that the plan would require the unity of the various Palestinian parties and factions.

He pointed out the Abbas’s speech put the onus on international bodies, including the UN, to be responsible about the establishment of a Palestinian state with genuine sovereignty.

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says he will not allow a Palestinian state to be formed, in stark contrast to the Biden administration’s stated support for a two-state solution. Despite Israeli attempts to depict the Palestinians as unwilling to negotiate, it seems clear that the road block is the Israeli government, which has put out of bounds the very goal of any negotiations before they could start.

Israel seized the Palestinian Territories by main force in 1967 and has egregiously violated international law by illegally annexing some of them and by flooding hundreds of thousands of its own citizens into the Palestinian West Bank, stealing land owned by Palestinian families on which to settle these squatters. Its occupation has a shape incompatible with the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention on Occupied territories of 1949, and so is itself illegal.

The Fatah Youth Movement said it would attempt to implement Abbas’s speech by improving communication among Palestinian youth and confronting the Israeli Occupation’s creeping annexation of Palestinian-owned land.

The Palestinian Democratic Union (FIDA) praised the speech as a road map for Palestine in the coming phase. It also called for new Palestinian elections.

Russia’s Sputnik news service reports that political scientist and Palestine Authority adviser on international relations Osama Shaath said that Abbas’s speech placed a burden on the international community. He underlined Abbas’s “demand to hold an international peace conference under international auspices and under international supervision to implement United Nations resolutions, especially Resolution No. 2334.”

*

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.

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page

Featured image: Image of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on February 27, 2017 [Mustafa Yalçın / Anadolu Agency]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestinian Parties, Organizations Greet Abbas’s Pledge to Take Israel to Int’l Criminal Court as “Historic” and Roadmap
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Multiple lawsuits are pending in the United States against Syngenta alleging the weedkilling chemical paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.

A notice of settlement was filed June 18, 2021 for several paraquat cases. See this document.

But more than 100 lawsuits remain pending.

The lawsuits name Syngenta as well as Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and Growmark Inc. as defendants. Chevron distributed and sold Gramoxone paraquat product in the United States in an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

Lawyers around the United States are advertising for plaintiffs, seeking to draw in thousands of people who’ve been exposed to paraquat and now suffer from Parkinson’s.

Here is a list of actions pending through Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) as of Aug. 2, 2021

  • Harker v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. CGC-21-589755 (San Francisco Superior Court) (coordinated June 11, 2021)
  • De La Vega v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01057. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Louis Lombardo v. Syngenta et al., Alameda County Superior Court; Case No. RG21100757, filed on May 26, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Lonnie Owens et al. v. Syngenta et al., Contra Costa Superior Court; Case No. C21-01187, filed on June 4, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Borrelli v. Syngenta AG, et al. (Case No. MSC21-01217), filed June 24, 2021 in Contra Costa County Superior Court (coordinated July 23, 2021)
  • Isaak v. Syngenta AG, et al., San Francisco Superior Court; Case No. CGC-21591254 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
  • Rubino v. Syngenta, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C2101422 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
  • Aguiar v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01373. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated August 2, 2021)

Multidistrict litigation

On April 7, 2021, the Fears Nachawati Texas-based law firm filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C., asking that pending paraquat lawsuits be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California, the same federal court where Roundup litigation was consolidated. The case with the judicial panel is MDL No. 3004. The panel hearing on the matter was May 27 and on June 7, the panel approved the formation of the paraquat multidistrict litigation, assigning it to Judge  Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois.

Additionally, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Iowa on May 3. The suit seeks “equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, including, but not limited to, the costs of diagnostic testing” for farmers and others exposed to paraquat who are allegedly at “increased risk” for Parkinson’s, according to the legal filing.

At least 86 lawsuits were pending within the MDL as of September 10, 2021.

Science

Several scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, including a large study of U.S. farmers jointly overseen by multiple U.S. government agencies.  Farmers use paraquat in the production of many crops, including corn, soy and cotton. The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) said it found that “exposure to agricultural pesticides may increase a person’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” In 2011, AHS researchers reported that “participants who used paraquat or rotenone were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as people who didn’t use these chemicals.”

A more recent paper from AHS researchers stated that “Extensive literature suggests an association between general pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, with few exceptions, little is known about associations between specific pesticides and PD.”

Parkinson’s is an incurable progressive nervous system disorder that limits a person’s ability to control movement, causing tremors, loss of balance and eventually often leaving victims bedridden and/or bound to a wheelchair. The disease is not necessarily fatal but typically becomes severely debilitating.

Dutch neurologist Bastiaan Bloem, who recently authored a book about Parkinson’s, blames widespread exposure to herbicides such as paraquat, along with other toxic chemicals used in agriculture and manufacturing, for the spread of the disease.

Acutely Toxic 

Along with fears about links between paraquat and Parkinson’s, paraquat is also known to be an extremely acutely toxic chemical that can quickly kill people who ingest very small amounts. In Europe, the sale of paraquat has been banned since 2007, but in the United States the pesticide is sold as a “Restricted Use Pesticide” due to “acute toxicity.”

As part of discovery in the Parkinson’s litigation, lawyers have obtained internal records from Syngenta and its predecessor corporate entities dating back to the 1960s. Many of these documents are sealed, but some have started to come to light.

Those unsealed discovery documents, which include copies of letters, minutes of meetings, study summaries, and emails, are being made available on this page.

Most of the documents unsealed to date deal with corporate discussions about how to keep paraquat herbicides on the market despite its deadliness, through measures designed to reduce accidental poisonings. Specifically, many of the documents detail an internal corporate struggle over the addition of an emetic, a vomit-inducing agent, to paraquat products.  Today, all Syngenta paraquat-containing products include an emetic called “PP796.”  Liquid paraquat-containing formulations from Syngenta also include a stenching agent to produce a foul odor, and a blue dye to differentiate the dark-colored herbicide from tea or cola or other beverages.

EPA Review 

Paraquat recently underwent the EPA’s registration review process,  and on August 2, 2021 the agency said paraquat would remain on the market with new safety measures aimed at reducing farmworker exposures. That followed the Oct. 23, 2020 release of a proposed interim decision (PID) for paraquat.  The interim decision proposed mitigation measures to reduce human health and ecological risks identified in the agency’s 2019 draft human health and ecological risk assessments.

The EPA had indicated it would likely ban most aerial spraying of paraquat, but after industry lobbying efforts, the agency said it would allow such use with restrictions around residential areas.

The EPA said that through collaboration with the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the agency completed a “thorough review” of the scientific information on paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease and concluded that the weight of evidence was insufficient to link paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. The agency published this “Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate the Relationship between Paraquat Dichloride Exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.”

USRTK will add documents to this page as they become available.

*

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.

Strategic QUAD Summit in Washington Directed Against China

September 28th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

By coincidence, perhaps, on the same day that President Biden hosted the first Quad summit, he also cleared the way for a senior executive of Huawei Technologies to return to Beijing — “removing one major irritant between the two superpowers,” as the New York Times put it. 

Meng Wanzhou’s release made headlines overshadowing the QUAD event. Beijing reciprocated instantly by releasing a former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor. Meng’s detention had “major geopolitical implications, further souring relations between Beijing and both Washington and Ottawa,” Washington Post noted. 

Perhaps, something of that “feel-good” rubbed on the QUAD joint statement, where Washington agreed that the grouping stood for “a free and open Indo-Pacific, which is also inclusive and resilient.”[Emphasis added.] 

Washington’s stubborn refusal to utter that 9-letter word “inclusive” was meant to be a jab at China, and the shift is a sign of realism. It hints at renewed overture to the ASEAN and an attempt to assuage the European sentiments aggrieved over the US pivot away from the transatlantic alliance. 

Contextually, as WaPo put it, “Coming on the heels of a diplomatic blowup over a US plan to sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia [AUKUS], the Biden administration sought to play down the idea that the Quad grouping could become a new kind of trans-Pacific military alliance. Rather, US officials call it “informal” and nonmilitary. Biden also did not mention China by name during his address to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this week, though he told the gathering that he does not seek “a new Cold War.” 

The desire to counterbalance China drove the QUAD countries to invest in intellectual and diplomatic terms in the “Indo-Pacific” concept, but the issue of cohesion remained unresolved. Historically, multilateralism is a complex idea for Asian psyche, given their saga of national liberation from colonial rule in the last century and their trajectory of nation-building riveted on hard-won national sovereignty. 

Unease over China’s rise is simply not sufficient enough to rally behind the American flag. This remains the great fault line in the “Indo-Pacific” concept. Belatedly, the Americans seem to grasp that India cannot be made a compliant partner. 

While India’s relationship with China is far from optimal today, its abiding interest to get close to China is also self-evident. Simply put, geopolitics gives impetus for India to be an autonomous actor. 

India gains nothing out of antagonising China or being used as a proxy diplomatic weapon and, certainly, it has no reason to carry the burden of others’ rivalries with China. Fundamentally, India has its own strategic interests, like the ASEAN countries, and is a stakeholder in the stability of the Asian continent. 

So far, the QUAD’s output has been rather meagre. The joint statement once again speaks mostly in generalities. The only concrete outcome is the creation of the Quad Fellowship, which will provide 100 graduate fellowships to leading science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate students across the four countries. No small initiative, but not enough to write home about.     

When it comes to hot button issues, though, with all the huffing and puffing by the QUAD, China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains the more compelling international vision than the “Indo-Pacific”. It has caught the imagination of the world, as is apparent from the big attendance at the biannual BRI summits in China. Basically, BRI is flexible and specific, while “Indo-Pacific” is ideological and other-worldly. It is not difficult to see why the QUAD has a scratchy record. 

Washington has been desperately in need of some foreign-policy showpiece in the aftermath of the defeat and humiliating retreat from Afghanistan and it announced the  AUKUS. But the US behaviour towards France, a major key NATO ally, a nuclear power and a permanent UN Security Council member, is something unprecedented, even Trump did not allow himself such boorish behaviour. 

AUKUS has serious nuclear proliferation risks and violates the spirit of the NPT, as the US nuclear submarines are fuelled by HEU of above 90%, which is weapon-grade nuclear material. It undercuts the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and ASEAN countries’ efforts to build a non-free zone in Southeast Asia — all in all, severely undermining regional peace and stability. 

Meanwhile, France’s relations with Australia and the US are now severely damaged, whereas France also happens to be a serious Indo-Pacific power with significant sovereign interests, which hosts some 1.5 million citizens and more than 90% of its large EEZ (9 million km²) and maintains a military presence of 8,000 personnel to take care of this vast area.   

Make no mistake, France’s Indo-Pacific commitment will not weaken and it will step up efforts to build up a network of middle powers in the region, including India, outside the orbit of QUAD and AUKUS. The French and European’s inclusive visions for the Indo-Pacific are also convergent with the ASEAN approach. Clearly, the decision on AUKUS is a hasty move by a besieged US president who took heavy battering lately on the foreign policy front. Beijing is taking it calmly. read more

There are contrarian currents in play in the Indo-Pacific. Curiously, Beijing lobbied Australian parliament as recently as in early September to help it to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in a nuanced signal that the two economies have enormous potential for cooperation despite recent hiccups in their relationship. 

Chinese pundits envisage Canberra’s support to China in joining CPTPP in exchange for Beijing reopening its market to Australian products before the election next year. Unsurprisngly, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has called on the Biden Administration to “revoke the wrong decision” on AUKUS. 

At any rate, Australia is a novice in building nuclear submarines. A Russian analyst wrote in Vzglyad newspaper: “Is it possible for the Australians to meet the deadlines?.. And this requires, firstly, shipyards in sufficient quantity to build submarines; secondly, workers and engineers; and thirdly, the supply of components from the United States, which can become the bottleneck of the project because of the existing crisis in American shipbuilding. Does Australia have all this in the right amount? The allies will not be able to help; they do not have enough themselves.”

The Americans themselves take five years to build one ‘Virginia’ from the point of laying the keel to delivery to the US Navy! Such being the case, Australia’s fleet of nuclear submarines armed with ballistic missiles will need several decades to see the light of day.

Meanwhile, trends emerging in Sino-US economic and trade development show great momentum so much so that the new Chinese ambassador in Washington Qin Gang noted thoughtfully the other day,

“If we compare China-US relations to a giant ship, then economic and trade cooperation has been its ballast and propeller. When the ship sails against heavy winds and huge waves, we need to add more strength to the ballast and propeller.” read more 

Suffice to say, Biden’s decision on Meng’s release is a big gesture alongside his quiet burial of the Covid-19 origin file. The ultimate litmus test for Beijing would be, arguably, that Biden orders that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is put back in the US State Departments’s list of terrorist groups. Biden has already proposed a summit meeting with President Xi Jinping. 

The message out of the QUAD summit is that the consummate statesman in Biden didn’t visualise it as a game-changing event to corner China. He passed on to Vice-President Kamala Harris the delegation level talks with PM Modi.

In diplomacy, long-winded statements become necessary when there is little of substance to convey. The QUAD statement has 2145 words, yet says so little that we already did not know. 

*

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: US President Joe Biden at Quad Summit, White House, Sept. 24, 2021. Seated clockwise Australian PM Scott Morrison, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Japanese PM Yoshihide Suga & Indian PM Narendra Modi (Source: Indian Punchline)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Strategic QUAD Summit in Washington Directed Against China
  • Tags: ,

British Government Shocking Report on Side Effects of Corona Vaccines: Strokes, Blindness, Miscarriages

By Great Reject, September 27, 2021

In total, more than 30,000 vaccinees reported more than 100,000 adverse reactions to the vaccine by the end of January. Most notable are 13 people who went blind after the vaccination, eight miscarriages and a total of 236 fatal cases, Epoch Times reports.

COVID Vaxx Certificates — Borderless Genocide

By Peter Koenig, September 27, 2021

Ever since WHO mandated worldwide vaxx-certificates – a move directed and funded by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, not by WHO’s member states – the rope is tightening around the necks of those who decide not to go for the experimental not approved gene-therapy jab: They are not allowed in restaurants, or attending any indoor activity, be it sports or cultural events – not even the zoo.

EU Corruption? How did Ursula von der Leyen lose her vaccine text messages with Pfizer?

By Free West Media, September 27, 2021

The European Ombudsman has asked EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to explain how she lost the text messages she had exchanged with Pfizer’s CEO during the EU’s vaccine procurement talks.

The Great Chessboard: Will a Renewed U.S. ‘Operation Cyclone’ Threaten Afghanistan’s New Silk Road Future?

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, September 27, 2021

While watching a hegemonic wanna-be global overlord choke on humble pie is certainly satisfying, and while Afghanistan unquestionably has a renewed hope to recapture its ancient role as a pearl on the Silk Road uniting all cultures of the globe, something darker is also afoot.

Big Pharma Conglomerate with a Criminal Record: Pfizer “Takes Over” the EU Vaccine Market. 1.8 Billion Doses

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 27, 2021

The media has failed to remind us that in 2009 Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Afghanistan: Before and After US Intervention

By Prof. John Ryan, September 26, 2021

What I find astounding is that the Western media never mention that for a brief period of time Afghanistan once had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support.

A New Nuclear Arms Race & Cold War Will Not Bring Security – Jeremy Corbyn

By Jeremy Corbyn, September 28, 2021

This international opposition reflects an obvious truth that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear arms race or new Cold War. AUKUS is a major new military alliance that makes Australia the key US ally in the region.

FDA Ignores Safety Committee’s Guidance, Authorizes Pfizer Booster for 65 and Older, Plus ‘High Risk’ Groups

By Megan Redshaw, September 28, 2021

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to allow for a single booster shot to be administered to people 65 and older.

Sucharit Bhakdi: COVID-19 Vaccination Is Greatest Threat Humanity Ever Faced

By The Herland Report, September 27, 2021

In a new interview, he is very clear on his expert view of the untested vaccinations that are being pushed world wide without proper trials: It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this vaccination.

Australia Records 10X More Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots than Recorded Deaths Following ALL Vaccines for Past 20 Years 

By Brian Shilhavy, September 27, 2021

The Australian government database for adverse reactions tracks 78 different vaccines for the past 20 years, with a total of 47 deaths following vaccination during the years 2000 through 2020.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: British Government Shocking Report on Side Effects of Corona Vaccines: Strokes, Blindness, Miscarriages

Teach Youngsters About Corporatism’s Harms

September 28th, 2021 by Ralph Nader

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

If you think elementary, middle, and high school students know too little history, geography, and government, try asking them about the corporations that command so many hours of their day, their attention, what they consume, and their personal horizons.

Howard Zinn published A Young People’s History of the United States (2009), to go with his best-selling pioneering work, A People’s History of the United States (1980), but he didn’t do justice to all the modern corporate controls of just about every facet of American life, including educational institutions.

Today, school children are engulfed by corporate apps and software, textbooks biased toward the corporate definitions of an economy, and myths about “free markets.” For years free school materials and videos produced or sponsored by business groups, including the coal and nuclear industries, have flooded elementary classes. Our report: Hucksters in the Classroom: A Review of Industry Propaganda in Schools by Sheila Harty (1979), documented this mercantile assault on education. Students even take tests designed by corporate institutions.

Eleven-year-olds have asked me “What is a corporation?” Teenagers ask, “What’s corporate crime?” or “What’s a company union?” These are the same youngsters who click on the handcuffing fine-print contracts of internet companies that own social media apps such as Instagram and TikTok. These are the same youngsters who are lied to daily by corporations about harmful junk foods and drugs, and whose parents overwhelmingly work in anti-union offices and factories.

Forget about students knowing or learning about “The Commons,” although they listen to music broadcast on the public airwaves and probably have visited a national park. (For more on The Commons see: Think Like a Commoner: A Short Introduction to the Life of the Commons by David Bollier). Students haven’t studied “corporate welfare,” even though taxpaying parents subsidize these government giveaways, handouts, and bailouts to demanding, mismanaged, or criminal corporations with power.

Schools forever have separated students from giant slices of reality – historical and contemporary. Much of this ignored or distorted reality shapes present conditions, such as the various controls of the many by the few. But today’s corporate plutocracy is at a different level of penetration altogether. Shucking past taboos, corporate marketeers hard sell directly to children bypassing or undermining parental authority. What they sell is obesity, diabetes, promiscuity, dangerous addictions and violence in their merciless “entertainment programs” and narratives about armed force, however illegal it may be.

In terms of sheer time, range of exposure, and planned peer group pressures, corporations are raising our children day and night. Big companies do strategic planning about everything affecting our children. There are no longer adequate limits and boundaries on corporatism or protections of commercial-free zones.

It’s getting worse. Eyewear for “augmented reality” from Facebook and rapidly expanding “artificial intelligence” induce dependency and more sedentary living. People from Bill Joy to Stephen Hawking to Elon Musk have strongly warned about these emerging technologies and the consequential loss of freedom and democracy.

I’d like to invite some open-minded educators to consider a six-hour curricula for late middle school through high school students on the modern global corporation. Hour One could be called “Big Corporations are Different from You and Me” illuminating this fast-dominating “artificial person” with all the rights of real humans yet structurally escaping from responsibility, a status of “privileges and immunities” under corporate law[lessness].

Hour Two could be devoted to the history of corporate power so heavily characterized by the costs of their amassing wealth – costs to workers, communities, small businesses, voters, consumers, patients, our governing ways, and, yes, students. Having been told repeatedly about how companies “built America,” students should learn about all the “NOs.” Corporations were operationally entrenched against the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, union organizing, the minimum wage, universal health insurance, early solar energy, mass transit, public campaign financing, and governmental institutions accountable to the citizenry. The most recent big “NOs” are against consumer, labor, and environmental justice and, of course, waging peace instead of forever wars of mayhem and profit have filled volumes of documentation.

Hour Three might run students through all the attempts and reforms by the American people to reign in the destructive, unjust excesses of large companies and their controlling ideology of corporatism. What were the results from all those widespread protests, regulatory actions, prosecutions, and electoral reforms? What are the successes of the peace movement, environmental groups and initiatives by workers, consumers, creators, and defenders of The Commons, (such as the public lands and public airwaves), investors and savers for justice and the common good? What happened to the corporate tax system, the drive for shareholder rights and corporate democracy and, most importantly, the rule of law over corporate power?

Hour Four, Hour Five, and Hour Six – well, to be continued. That is, if we hear from people interested enough in having this proposal described 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.

Featured image is from Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Teach Youngsters About Corporatism’s Harms

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Despite branding itself as a “people’s summit,” the 2021 United Nations Food Systems gathering prioritized the perspectives and interests of large corporations, shut out small producers, and peddled sham solutions to the intensifying global crises of hunger and climate change.

That’s the view of an international coalition of food sovereignty advocates, which on Saturday issued a statement blasting the U.N. Food Systems Summit (FSS) for “paving the way for greater control of big corporations over global food systems and misleading the people through corporate-led false solutions.”

“The U.N. FSS did not listen to the voices of marginalized rural peoples, nor forward real solutions to the food, biodiversity, and climate crises,” said Sylvia Mallari, global co-chairperson of the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty. “Instead, it let powerful nations and big corporations play an even bigger role in determining food and agricultural policies.”

“The U.N. has finally made it clear what ‘multilateralism’ is all about—paying lip service to the people while skewing priorities for the interests of imperialists and monopoly capitalists,” Mallari added.

In the months leading up to the FSS—which took place during the U.N. General Assembly in New York last week—food justice campaigners repeatedly warned that the event had been “hijacked” by big businesses and wealthy private donors, including Nestlé and the Gates Foundation.

Following the event, advocates argued their warnings were justified, pointing specifically to a number of statements and pledges made during the FSS to spotlight its corporate-friendly nature and exclusion of small food producers from its proposed solutions:

  • U.S. President Joe Biden said that Washington would spend $10 billion to “end hunger and invest in food systems at home and abroad,” half of which will go to the USAID’s Feed the Future initiative in various countries. This includes a “large-scale food fortification” program in partnership with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Through its co-founder Melinda Gates, the BMGF, which has been heavily criticized for its role in pushing for destructive Green Revolution technologies and seed privatization that favor big agribusinesses, also addressed the U.N. FSS and announced a $922 million commitment to food fortification. Biofortification promotes industrial monocultures over agroecological food diversity, and ushers in the next generation of genetically-modified crops, such as the Gates-funded Vitamin-A “Golden Rice” recently approved for commercial use in the Philippines.
  • Additionally, the U.S. Feed the Future initiative works with US businesses such as Cargill, Pepsico, Corteva Agriscience, the Coca-Cola Company, Mars Inc, Unilever, John Deere, etc. to supposedly “fight global hunger.” In 2020, $1.2 million Feed the Future funds to help “combat the economic toll of Covid-19” went to “private sector partners” in Africa—these include agrochemical, fruit export, and microfinance companies—instead of small farmers most affected by the pandemic.
  • In his speech to the UN FSS, World Bank president David Malpass cited increased financing for “climate-smart” agriculture. “Climate-smart” agriculture is the euphemism used by agrochemical and seed companies for proprietary techno-fixes such as GM crops. The U.S. and United Arab Emirates also advanced the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate), which aims to increase public and private investment in “climate-smart agriculture and food systems innovation” at the UNFSS, with the BMGF expressing its support.
  • World Bank’s Malpass also mentioned “moving away from policies that favor rice and other staples over fruit and vegetables,” which, for the Global South means intensified neoliberal policies that facilitate grabbing of farmers’ land planted with staple food in favor of export-oriented plantations.
  • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) director general Qu Dongyu talked about targeted interventions for digital and “technologically advanced” innovations, and failed to mention support for agroecological approaches. For “accelerating the transformation of agri-food systems at country level,” the FAO will use its Hand-In-Hand Initiative—an “innovative business model” which creates “matchmaking” opportunities between partners and recipient countries in the Global South. Partners include the private sector, even the agrochemical giant Syngenta.

Hardly a fringe assessment of the FSS, the food sovereignty coalition’s critique of the summit was echoed by Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food.

“The summit is being led by scientists and research institutes who are pro-corporate sector,” Fakhri said in an interview with The Guardian. “People say, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s see if it is the ‘people’s summit’ it is claiming to be. But they have failed in what they had set out to do. It is not the people’s summit. It is elitist.”

Fakhri added that while corporations may not have played a direct role “in the day-to-day operations of the summit,” the “leadership picked comes from organizations that believe corporations are part of the solution.”

As The Guardian noted, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres’ “choice of Agnes Kalibata, the former Rwandan minister for agriculture, to lead the summit was met with protests last year, given her role as president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), which has been accused of promoting damaging, business-focused practices.”

In an effort to counter the business-dominated U.N. event, thousands of rural farmers, civil society organizations, and food sovereignty advocates convened their own Global People’s Summit (GPS) on Food Systems, which aimed to “expose and oppose the control of big corporations over food and agriculture the corporate capture of the U.N.”

At the close of the three-day GPS, which consisted of virtual events and on-the-ground protests, participants adopted a “People’s Declaration” that decried “a pandemic of systemic and perpetual hunger being perpetrated by big business through the globalized food economy—a system characterized by unsustainable monoculture production, environmental plunder, and waste; as well as wars and conflicts fueled by imperialist competition for resources, land, and markets.” Attendees also resolved to carry out “People’s Action Plans” devised at GPS workshops and public forums.

“We believe that an equitable food system can only be built on the people’s right to land and livelihoods, and to decent working and living conditions for all,” the declaration reads. “This means that food production must be decided by the sovereign will of the people, based on their particular circumstances, priorities, and needs. Profit motives of corporations—euphemistically called market forces—should not determine what food to produce, how to produce it, and for whom.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Featured image is from Food Tank

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Coalition Slams UN Food Summit for Peddling ‘Corporate-Led False Solutions’ to Hunger
  • Tags:

Jabs and Health Passports: Symbols of Modern-Day Tyranny

September 28th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The way things were in the US/West long ago no longer exists.

State-sponsored 9/11 was a game-changer, the mother of all false flags until way-surpassed by deceptively giving garden variety flu a scary new name.

What followed was unjustifiably justified by an invented SARS-CoV-2 virus that was never isolated in lab analysis and doesn’t exist.

The same goes for long ago Boston. The way it was when I grew up also no longer exists.

It was a time when inner city school teachers taught, students learned, and classroom decorum was conducive to learning.

The way things were let ordinary kids like himself, with nothing special going for them, advance to higher education and benefits it brought at the time — that no longer exist for most youths in the US today, nor in the West overall.

Back then, higher education was affordable for virtually anyone, the will to successfully complete academic studies the only requirement.

Attending today in the US entraps millions of students in debt bondage because of exorbitantly higher education costs — at a time when career opportunities are a shadow of what they were post-WW II in the late 40s, 50s and 60s.

New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs helped millions of Americans avoid poverty — social programs that worked, greatly eroded and heading toward disappearing altogether today.

The post-WW II Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill) provided college or vocational education for 7.8 million returning vets.

Another 2.4 million got VA-backed low-interest, no down payment home loans at a time when their average cost was around $5,000 — letting millions of families afford them.

Strong unions and high-paying factory jobs with good benefits elevated millions of Americans to middle-class status, what’s fast disappearing today.

The economy then grew most years at around 3.5%.

Through the 1960s, blue-collar workers were the biggest buyers of many luxury goods and services, including homes and autos.

What once was back then is a distant memory today.

My hometown Boston’s dismal state is replicated nationwide.

Protracted depression conditions exist for most working-age Americans.

Based on how economic data were calculated pre-1990, unemployment today is 25.4% — not the phony lowball 5.2%.

CPI inflation is 13.2%, not the officially reported 5.4% — nor reported 4% excluding food and energy.

Everyone who eats, drives a car, pays rent or services a mortgage, has medical bills, heats and/or air conditions living space, and has kids in college knows more about inflation than talking head TV economists paid to deceive, not inform viewers.

After all things flu/covid obliterated what remained of things as they were when I grew up long ago, tyranny became the law of the land.

Most Americans were mind-manipulated to go along with what harms their health and fundamental rights — on the phony pretext of what protects them.

Jabs and health passports — digital or otherwise — are symbols of modern-day tyranny.

Along with all else flu/covid related, they transformed the US/West more than ever into societies unsafe and unfit to live in.

On September 24, my hometown Boston Globe deceptively claimed that flu/covid “passports are the ticket back to normal (sic).”

What the Globe considers “normal” is hugely abnormal by any definition of normality. See below.

As a boy and adolescent, my favorite entertainment was attending a Red Sox game at Boston’s Fenway Park — when the league’s biggest stars were Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio.

As an older teenager and youth through college, it was attending Boston Pops concerts at Symphony Hall during its golden age under conductor Arthur Fiedler.

The only constraint to attending was the admission price when Fenway Park bleacher tickets cost 60 cents and unreserved Symphony Hall second balcony seats were practically free at 50 cents, including ones overlooking the stage and podium where I and friends usually sat by showing up early to get them.

What I remember fondly was replaced with the following:

Red Sox attendance requires compliance with so-called “health and safety” rules unrelated to either.

Fans may not carry bags to the ballpark, except for medical devices or diapers.

Masks are required beneath the stands at refreshment locations, other facilities and restrooms.

Unjabbed fans must where masks that don’t protect at all times everywhere inside Fenway Park.

For the upcoming basketball and hockey seasons, proof of having been fully jabbed or gotten a meaningless negative PCR test result is required for attendance.

The Globe noted that verifying the above for thousands of ticket-holders won’t “be a piece of cake” for checkers.

The same goes for fans forced to put up with what no one should tolerate.

Defying science, the Globe falsely claimed that the above practice is “doing the right thing (sic),” adding:

“And it certainly isn’t alone among sports and performance venues around the state.”

Attending Boston Symphony or Pops concerts is worlds apart from my fond memories.

Proof of being toxic-jabbed or a negative PCR test proving nothing is required for entry into Symphony Hall.

The same goes for virtually all theaters and entertainment venues in the city.

The price of admission includes having sacrificed health and well-being.

Proving it should for access to most other public places throughout the city and state should be required, according to the Globe, saying:

“(I)t behooves the public sector to make the job of checking the authenticity of those (jabs) easier.”

“And that means some form of uniform (jab) ‘passport’ — a QR code, a chip, some kind of digital proof that the bearer has indeed gotten the requisite number of shots.”

According to the Globe, Massachusetts “has fallen behind the curve (sic),” adding:

Yet Governor Charlie Baker said he’s exploring the notion of mandating health passports statewide.

“Getting to the point where there’s a relatively simple process for people to credential the fact that they’ve been (fully jabbed) will be important for a whole bunch of reasons,” he falsely claimed.

The draconian practice is mandated in New York and California, notably in Israel as well.

Children’s Hospital in Boston (rated the nation’s best) developed a so-called SMART Health Card.

The Globe called on Governor Baker to show “leadership on this issue (sic).”

If digital and/or other health passports are mandated for access to most public places, the city and state I grew up in long ago will become more unfit to live in than already.

*

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

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from Mercola

Veterans to President Biden: Just Say No to Nuclear War!

September 28th, 2021 by Veterans for Peace

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

To mark the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, September 26, Veterans For Peace is publishing an Open Letter to President Biden: Just Say NO to Nuclear War! The letter calls on President Biden to step back from the brink of nuclear war by declaring and implementing a policy of No First Use and by taking nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.

VFP also urges President Biden to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to provide global leadership for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

The full letter will be published on the VFP website and offered to mainstream newspapers and alternative news sites. A shorter version is being shared with VFP chapters and members who may wish to publish it in local newspapers, possibly as a letter-to-the-editor.

*

Dear President Biden,

We are writing you on the occasion of the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, which has been declared by the United Nations General Assembly to be celebrated annually on September 26.

As veterans who have fought in multiple U.S. wars, we are concerned about the very real danger of a nuclear war that would kill millions of people and could possibly even destroy human civilization. Therefore we are asking to have input into the Nuclear Posture Review that your administration has recently initiated.

Exactly who is conducting this Nuclear Posture Review? Hopefully not the same think tanks that have lobbied for disastrous wars that have killed and wounded thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Hopefully not the same Cold Warriors who have militarized U.S. foreign policy. Or the retired generals who cheerlead for war on the cable networks. And we certainly hope not the defense industry itself, which makes obscene profits from war and war preparations, and which has a vested interest in the “modernization,” of nuclear weapons.

Actually, it is our fear that these are exactly the type of “experts” who are currently conducting the Nuclear Posture Review. Will they recommend that we continue to play “nuclear chicken” with Russia, China, North Korea and other nuclear-armed states? Will they recommend that the U.S. continues to spend billions of dollars building new and more destabilizing nuclear weapons and “missile defense” systems? Do they believe that a nuclear war can be won?

The U.S. public does not even know who is conducting the Nuclear Posture Review. There is apparently no transparency at all in a process which could determine the future of our nation and of our planet. We ask that you make public the names and affiliations of all those at the Nuclear Posture Review table. Furthermore, we request that Veterans For Peace and other peace and disarmament organizations be given a seat at the table. Our only vested interest is in achieving peace, and in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe.

When the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force on January 22, 2021, you became the first President to face the consequential task of a Nuclear Posture Review in the face of International Law declaring nuclear weapons to be illegal. You now hold it within your power to demonstrate to the American people and to the world that you are committed to the goal of a nuclear-free world.

Veterans For Peace urges you to do the following:

  1. Adopt and announce a policy of “No First Use” of nuclear weapons and make that policy credible by publicly decommissioning U.S. ICBMs that can only be used in a first strike;
  2. Take U.S. nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert (Launch On Warning) and store warheads separately from delivery systems, thereby reducing the probability of an accidental, unauthorized, or unintentional nuclear exchange;
  3. Cancel plans to replace the entire US arsenal with enhanced weapons at a cost of more than $1 trillion over the next 30 years;
  4. Redirect the money thus saved into environmentally and socially sound programs, including the accelerated cleanup of highly toxic and radioactive waste left during eight decades of the nuclear cycle;
  5. End the sole, unchecked authority of any president (or his or her delegates and their delegates) to launch a nuclear attack and require Congressional approval of any use of nuclear weapons;
  6. Comply with our obligations under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by actively pursuing a verifiable agreement among nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals;
  7. Sign and ratify the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons;
  8. Phase out nuclear energy, stop producing depleted uranium weapons, and stop uranium mining, processing and enrichment;
  9. Clean up radioactive sites from the nuclear cycle and develop an environmentally and socially sound nuclear waste disposal program; and
  10. Fund health care and compensation for victims of radiation.

It will be a real leap forward for transparency and for our democracy if representatives of peace and disarmament NGO’s are given access to this critically important process. We represent millions of people who want nothing more than to see the United States make a dramatic “Pivot to Peace.” What better place to start than to step back from the brink of nuclear war? The Billions of U.S. tax dollars saved could be applied to the very real national security threats of the Climate Crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic. What better legacy for the Biden Administration than to begin a process that could lead to worldwide nuclear disarmament!

Sincerely,

VETERANS FOR 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.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
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   

WWIII Scenario

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

This month, the leaders of nation states from around the world have been gathered in New York City to attend the 76th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. Covid, climate and biodiversity are among the topics they are expected to address. Indeed, on September 21, in his sobering yet passionate address to the assembly, UN Secretary-General António Guterres focused attention on all three crises.

Since the turn of this century, I have been involved in biodiversity conservation in several places in North America and India, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the U.S.–Canada borderlands; the desert in the U.S.–Mexico borderlands; and the mangrove forests of the Sundarbans in the India–Bangladesh borderlands. Such biodiversity conservation efforts also take into account environmental justice and rights of Indigenous peoples, a form of collective engagement I call, ‘multispecies justice’. Drawing from these experiences, I offer my humble assessments in this moment of entangled crises and great cultural and political divides for all to consider.

I was born and lived the first twenty-two years of my life in the global South, in India. And the past thirty-one years, I have lived in the global North, in the United States. I consider myself a bridge between North and the South. And even though I do not have a degree in civil engineering, I like to say that professionally, I’m always “Building Bridges” across and among varieties of differences—places and peoples, human and nonhuman kin, academic disciplinary silos and archipelagoes, and academia and the communities in which we live and work.

In his address to the UN General Assembly, Secretary-General Guterres spoke about the urgent need to build bridges.

“I see 6 Great Divides—6 Grand Canyons—that we must bridge now,” the Secretary-General said and then listed: peace, climate, the gap between rich and the poor, gender, the digital divide, and the divide among generations. Even though the biodiversity crisis didn’t make his list, the Secretary-General did briefly mention the “Shocking biodiversity loss.”

Snow geese over the Coastal Plain, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Photo courtesy of Subhankar Banerjee.

A North-South divide

I now speak of a great divide that exists in the intensifying human-caused biodiversity crisis, a North-South Divide, and the need to bridge that chasm.

After several postponements due to the pandemic, the UN Biodiversity Conference COP-15 was recently rescheduled as a two-part event: the first of which (online only) will be largely procedural and will take place from 11 through 15 October 2021, and the second will be in-person in Kunming, China, and will take place from 25 April through 8 May 2022. During the in-person meeting next year, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is expected to draft and adopt a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

As we slowly march toward the Kunming Conference, I’ve been taking a close look at the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal that the North has been pushing, a proposal that is masquerading as “global,” but in reality was largely developed by scientists who live in the United States and Europe.

The 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal may work well for the North, including the United States where it is currently being advanced by the Biden-Harris administration under the banner, “America the Beautiful.” It has taken nearly 150 years, since the founding of the Yellowstone National Park in 1872, for the United States to arrive at this point when 12% of land is considered protected. How will the United States add 18% to reach a total of 30% in less than ten years? Is the goal overly ambitious? Perhaps there will be a new way of assessing what counts as protected, as the E&E News in a recent article alluded to, “When it comes to ‘30×30’, everything counts until it doesn’t.”

For the poorer nations of the global South, however, the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal is not about creative assessments and accounting. If implemented, it would lead to a colossal disaster, including likely mass evictions of Tribal and poor peoples. We must tread this water with care and caution.

The proposal is coming from the North and so, I first focus on the North.

It’s not that eminent biodiversity scientists like Edward O. Wilson and Thomas E. Lovejoy, whose scholarship and advocacy provided the foundation for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal, do not have big ideas for wildlife conservation. Nor is it that a billion-dollar wildlife conservation initiative like “Campaign for Nature” does not know how to popularize and implement a wildlife conservation agenda. Nor is it that the influential “The age of extinction” series of the Guardian does not know how to publish some important articles on wildlife conservation.

Buff-breasted paradise kingfisher at “Kingfisher Park,” Julatten, North Queensland. Image by Graham Winterflood via Wikimedia Commons.

The problem is this: the scientists and the conservation leaders of the global North do not know how to talk to the grassroots conservationists of the global South when it comes to biodiversity conservation. They are simply not interested in engaging in sincere listening and learning. They have long been arrogant and authoritarian in their colonial approaches to conservation and never considered building global biodiversity proposals that would be rights-based, inclusive and justice-attentive. They also keep amplifying each other’s ideas and agendas without ever pausing to do a self-critique. For example, Guardian’s “The age of extinction” series has yet to publish a critical analysis of the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal as it may affect the poorer nations of the global South. Part of the reason may be because the series is in part supported by the Wyss Foundation, which is the primary funder of the “Campaign for Nature” initiative that has been advocating for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal. Is Guardian losing journalistic autonomy due to this close association?

So, how do the grassroots conservationists and Tribal advocates of the global South (this writer included) rise up against the tyranny of colonial conservation of the global North?

Come along with me on a bumpy ride, in which we expand our conversations to also include a little bit about Covid and climate, in addition to biodiversity. All three crises are simultaneously illuminating a chasm filled with injustices, between the North and the South, between the rich and the poor, a chasm that is only growing in scale and severity.

From Gandhinagar to ‘Species in Peril’

Late February 2020. Gandhinagar, India. I have come to attend the UN migratory species conservation summit CMS COP13, the last time a fully in-person global biodiversity summit could take place. Over the course of the few days of the gathering in the beautiful Mahatma Mandir Convention and Exhibition Center, I learned a lot about how conservation of wildlife in the global South is not a simple one-size-fits-all top-down approach but rather a daily practice and negotiation with challenging issues. How do you live with tigers? With elephants? With rhinoceros? No easy answers, only creative accommodations.

In particular, “Elephant Conservation Beyond Borders” was a memorable panel. No one talked about helping to save the endangered Asian elephants simply by increasing “Protected Areas” but instead, human rights defenders and species conservationists sat side-by-side and discussed transnational co-operation that also took into consideration the plight of the Rohingya refugees who were resettled along the migration corridors of elephants in Bangladesh. I learned that elephant conservation is no easy task in crowded South Asia.

Elephants have the right of way on Highway SH-78 in the Western Ghats, India. Image courtesy of Subhankar Banerjee.

I returned to the U.S. at the end of that month. Within a few weeks, we learned of Covid, cases started to rise, and lockdowns began to get instituted. But upon realizing that the root causes of the coronavirus pandemic are situated in the intensifying biodiversity crisis, specifically the destruction of wildlife habitats and trade of wildlife, I founded the Species in Peril project at UNM in April 2020. At the time, I was foolishly hopeful, like many around the world, that the pandemic would bring the global community together—to co-operate with each other, to share ideas and resources, to listen to and support each other. Additionally, I was also hopeful that the pandemic would finally bring the much-needed attention to the biodiversity crisis that continues to fester from public inattention. That did not happen, at least not at the level and in the manner many of us had hoped that it might.

“Our Land, Our Nature”

On September 20, Andrea Germanos wrote in Common Dreams that “A new analysis projecting that 100 million Covid-19 vaccines stockpiled by rich nations and set to expire by the end of the year could be left to waste is prompting an outcry from social justice campaigners who warn of a potential atrocity as poor nations are refused access to doses.” The next day, in his address to the UN General Assembly, Secretary-General António Guterres said this as a matter of fact: “A majority of the wealthier world vaccinated. Over 90 percent of Africans still waiting for their first dose. This is a moral indictment of the state of our world. It is an obscenity.”

Fearing that such low levels of vaccinations would force inadequate participation of environmental justice advocates and Tribal leaders from the global South at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference COP26 scheduled to take place this coming November in Glasgow, Scotland, environmental campaigners and Indigenous leaders have issued calls to postpone the UN conference until the majority of the world has been vaccinated and participation from the global South would be appropriate and adequate. It remains to be seen what the United Nations decides in the coming weeks.

Ignoring similar calls with concerns, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) went forward and hosted their World Conservation Congress in Marseille, France earlier this month, with a hybrid model. The IUCN has been a leading proponent of the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal for several years now.

Last month, ahead of the IUCN Congress, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights released a 36-page policy brief, “Human rights-based approaches to conserving biodiversity: equitable, effective and imperative.” Referencing a post-2020 UN Global Biodiversity Framework draft that was released in July, the brief urges that “in light of past failures, the achievement of the Framework’s conservation goals demands a dramatic departure from ‘conservation as usual’.”

What are those “past failures”?

I offer one example from personal experience: the UN forest conservation program REDD. According to the UN, the acronym REDD stands for, “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation,” but which many Indigenous peoples define instead as “Reaping profits from Evictions, land grabs, Deforestation and Destruction of biodiversity.” Tom Goldtooth, executive director of Indigenous Environmental Network, pointed out that, “REDD is promoting what could be the biggest land grab of all time.” I first learned about REDD in December 2009, from leaders of the Indigenous Environmental Network, when we participated at the Klimaforum09, the counter-summit shadowing the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference COP-15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. “Everyone who cares about our future, forests, Indigenous Peoples and human rights should reject REDD because it is irremediably flawed, cannot be fixed and because, despite efforts to develop safeguards for its implementation, REDD will always be potentially genocidal,” Goldtooth said.

A family taking part in a REDD project in Brazil called the Consortium and Densified Economic Reforestation Project (RECA) harvests forest products. Image courtesy of RECA.

Is the current 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal a reincarnation of REDD with new bells and whistles but no significant change in the process of how it was developed? Like REDD, does 30×30 also exclude the voices, aims and wishes of the Tribal and other poor peoples of the global South?

Following the release of the policy brief from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Fiore Longo, head of Survival International’s conservation campaign said that, “Many Indigenous peoples and Survival have been saying for decades that the fortress conservation model pushed by big conservation organizations like WWF and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is disastrous for both nature and tribal peoples. This policy brief from the UN expert on human rights and environment says the same thing, loud and clear. It’s past time for these organizations and governments to abandon their failed, racist and colonial model and put human rights and indigenous peoples at the heart of conservation and the fight against climate change.”

Unsurprisingly, protests erupted in Marseille, organized by Survival International who highlighted the policy brief and brought sharp focus to the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal.

Survival International also hosted a counter-congress, “Our Land, Our Nature,” in Marseille on 2-3 September to “discuss how to decolonize conservation.” The organizers asserted that “The conservation industry’s bid to make 30% of the world ‘Protected Areas’ and the claim that ‘Nature Based Solutions’ will solve biodiversity loss and climate change are wrong,” and highlighted the aims of the counter-Congress stating that, “This alternative congress will expose these as colonial and false solutions to the crises we are facing today, and as approaches that devastate the best guardians of the natural world: the Indigenous peoples who safeguard 80% of biodiversity.”  (watch the full conference on the “Our Land, Our Nature” website from this link).

Is India doomed?

I now offer a concrete example with a deeper dive into the call for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal as it relates to India, the country of my birth.

A group of sixteen scientists, fourteen of whom live and work in the United States and Europe, one in China, and one in Sri Lanka, wrote a paper to chart a path for mitigating the biodiversity crisis, “A Global Deal for Nature,” which was published in Science Advances in April 2019. The paper calls “to conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030,” which is “viewed as a milestone toward the larger end goal of half of the planet protected by 2050,” a call Edward O. Wilson issued in his 2016 book, Half Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life.

There is a color-coded map in the “A Global Deal for Nature” paper which shows expected levels of protection by 2030: dark green represents areas that already have at least 30% protection; lighter green represents at least 30% protected and remaining land that can be candidate for protection; orange represents 20-30% protected and remaining; and solid red represents less than 20% protected and remaining. Except a few patches of green, almost all of South Asia looks red or orange. Almost all of India is solid red.

Levels of protection by 2030. Map via the 2019 article in Science Advances, “A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets,” by E. Dinerstein et al.

The map, along with the call for the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal, may make you believe that India and South Asia don’t have much to contribute to global species conservation—a sad situation, isn’t it?

It also raises important questions: Does India even have much animal and plant species left? Is advancing biodiversity conservation a hopeless endeavor in India? Is biodiversity a thing of the past in the denuded and densely populated India?

As it turns out, India, with only 2.4% of the world’s land area, is home to 7-8% of all recorded species on Earth; has 4 of the 34 global biodiversity hotspots; and is considered to be a mega-diverse country.

The post-2020 UN Global Biodiversity Framework draft includes a proposal to protect 30% of Earth’s lands and seas by 2030. If that proposal does get included and adopted in the final Framework next year in Kunming, China, as a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole Earth, how will India respond?

Will India start to evict millions of Tribal and poor peoples from their homes to satisfy the UN biodiversity goal?

Sadly, such a prospect came dangerously close to becoming a reality two years ago. Urged by a group of wildlife conservation organizations in India, the Supreme Court of India ruled in February 2019 to evict millions of forest dwelling peoples from their homes. “A verdict from India’s Supreme Court has ordered 20 state governments to evict 1.5 million families living on forest land before the 24th of July,” the IWGIA (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs) wrote on 6 March 2019. The IWGIA further pointed out that “These families live in and around 500 wildlife sanctuaries and 90 national parks; but many live there sustainably and have protected the forests long before these areas were declared parks and sanctuaries.”

Fortunately, that horrendous mass eviction did not get realized as was desired by the wildlife conservation organizations; the issue has since been caught up in India’s bureaucratic and legal quagmire.

A Tribal woman cleaning grains in Andhra Pradesh, India. Photo by ICRISAT/Flickr.

“Varieties of Environmentalism”

I urge all environmental justice campaigners and Tribal human rights advocates in the global South and their allies in the global North, including the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, to take a close look at the 30×30 biodiversity conservation proposal that now exists in the post-2020 UN Global Biodiversity Framework draft, and do all that is necessary to make it null-and-void for the global South, and force the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to start from scratch and build a UN Global Biodiversity Framework with a process that is inclusive for the North and the South.

Biodiversity conservation is contextual. What works for one place and in a particular culture may not work for another place and in another culture. What makes biodiversity conservation so beautiful is that it is a pluriverse—so many ideas, so many practices, so many forms of human-nonhuman kinship that exist around the world, which in a different context, a quarter-century ago, Indian historian Ramachandra Guha and Spanish ecological-economist Juan Martinez-Alier called Varieties of Environmentalism.

We would do well to speak again of “varieties of environmentalism” as it relates to biodiversity conservation. Any effort to build a Global Biodiversity Framework must begin with sincere listening and learning from it. And it would need to be inclusive and justice-attentive. If we can make that happen, we will have built a bridge between the North and the South for more just biodiversity conservation.

*

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.

Subhankar Banerjee is editor of Arctic Voices: Resistance at the Tipping Point and co-editor of Routledge Companion to Contemporary Art, Visual Culture, and Climate Change. He is the Lannan Foundation Endowed Chair and a professor of Art & Ecology at the University of New Mexico where he serves as the founding director of both the UNM Center for Environmental Arts and Humanities and the Species in Peril project.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bridge the North-South Divide for a UN Biodiversity Framework that Is More Just

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Since its announcement last week, AUKUS has faced growing international opposition, including from Governments often closely allied with the US, UK and Australia on the global stage, with France ending its contract to supply submarines to Australia.

It has also been met with incredulity from peace and disarmament groups across the world.

This international opposition reflects an obvious truth that real security won’t come from starting a new nuclear arms race or new Cold War.

AUKUS is a major new military alliance that makes Australia the key US ally in the region.

The agreement includes cyber warfare, artificial intelligence, and underwater capabilities, as well as long-range strike capabilities. In terms of nuclear weapons, AUKUS includes plans to set up an Australian nuclear powered submarine fleet, brokered with the US and Britain.

This is a dangerous development. Australia’s neighbour, New Zealand, is not participating in the pact, but is also clear that its “no nuclear” policy means that any Australian nuclear-powered submarines will be barred from its ports and waters.

Clearly explaining the position, New Zealand’s Labour Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said “all partners are well versed and very clear on our position on nuclear powered vessels and also nuclear weapons. Our legislation means no vessels that are partially or fully powered by nuclear energy is able to enter our internal borders.”

Earlier this year, the Tories committed to spending £24 billion on defence including even more resources on an expanded nuclear weapons arsenal of up to 260 warheads, against our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT.)

Now they are breaking this treaty again by supplying weapons-grade uranium to Australia.

Kate Hudson of CND has said, “This is yet another breach of international law by our government, hard on the heels of the nuclear arsenal increase.”

The cost is enormous. There is unlimited money for weapons of mass destruction, yet at the same time the Government claims it can’t afford to keep the £20 uplift to Universal Credit or give nurses a decent pay rise.

Boris Johnson formally denies that Britain is part of a new Cold War with China, yet it is more and more commonly accepted internationally that the UK is the US’ major follower in pushing more hostile relations with China, despite the obvious danger of a cold war becoming an actual war – or series of proxy conflicts – in the future.

In fact, it seems the Government is the most hawkish component of the new alliance – a Stop the War Coalition press release has noted that “US officials have briefed that the UK government has been pushing hard for strong military involvement in the region as part of its push towards ‘Global Britain.’”

After Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and recent speeches, it was hoped by many that the end of the “war on terror” and its policy of regime change under the guise of “humanitarian intervention” would mean a new push for diplomacy and co-operation, but instead the fear is that resources will be re-directed to a military build-up in Oceania.

In 2020 the US spent more on “defence” than the next 11 countries combined, and a real test of Biden’s Presidency will be if he substantially cuts this spending rather than re-directs it.

In Australia opposition is growing, with former Labour Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asked for clarity on whether the new submarines could be deployed in the midst of a conflict with China in the Pacific, as well as expressing grave concerns regarding Australia’s own nuclear NPT commitments.

Another former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said AUKUS is a “further dramatic loss of Australian sovereignty” and warned that “if the United States military with all its might could not beat a bunch of Taliban rebels with AK47 rifles in pickup trucks, what chance would it have in a full-blown war against China, not only the biggest state in the world but the commander and occupant of the largest land mass in Asia?”

His concerns reflect the fact that Australia will now be dependent on American technology and know-how to maintain these submarines, in the same way that the UK is totally dependent on the US for “our” Trident nuclear weapons system.

In terms of Britain meanwhile, it is vital that we build up the opposition to AUKUS.

Particularly dangerous is that Boris Johnson seems to be hawking back to the days of Empire, turning back from the decision originally implemented under Harold Wilson’s Government to pull British troops from “east of Suez,” in recognition of the fading role of the empire. It’s astonishing that nearly 50 years later Boris Johnson is turning the clock back for reasons that can only be political.

In contrast to the Tory Government’s approach, the whole labour movement and all progressives must make the case clearly that real security will come from international co-operation to tackle the global crises of our time.

In particular, the massive resources being put into the new nuclear arms race could be put to use to tackle climate change, where the UK, US and Australia are three of the Governments that most need to put far more serious levels of resources into green stimulus at home and helping green development internationally.

Whether it be the deepening climate catastrophe, the Coronavirus pandemic which is still raging across the globe, the refugee crises across the world, or the horrendous levels of inequality and poverty that scar humanity, these common challenges can only be met by international co-operation and constructive engagement. Investing in clean water, sanitation, education and healthcare should be our priorities for a safer world.

Whatever the rhetoric of the new cold war warriors, this is the approach that can bring peace, justice and human rights to 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.

Featured image is from Labour Outlook

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday amended the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine to allow for a single booster shot to be administered to people 65 and older.

In addition to older Americans, boosters will be made available to people 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe illness from COVID, and also those “whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure” to the virus puts them at high risk of serious complications from the disease caused by the virus, the agency said.

“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as healthcare workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Dr. Janet Woodcock, acting FDA commissioner said in a statement.

The FDA, in approving the emergency authorization, interpreted the advisory panel’s recommendations issued Friday more broadly to cover a larger swath of people.

On Sept. 17, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) unanimously recommended EUA for a booster dose of Pfizer’s vaccine for people 65 and older and those with compromised immune systems, to be administered six months after they get the first two doses.

However, the committee voted 16 to 2 against recommending boosters for the general population citing a lack of long-term data. The committee said the risks did not outweigh the benefits for those people.

“The FDA considered the committee’s input and conducted its own thorough review of the submitted data to reach today’s decision,” Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

Pfizer had asked for FDA approval to give its vaccine to everyone 16 and older six months after they are fully immunized with two shots, CNN reported. The company said it had enough evidence that immunity starts to wane after six months, and that giving a booster restores the immunity safely.

As The Defender reported Sept.16, Pfizer didn’t test its booster at all in people who are actually at risk. The company conducted only a single phase 1 study that covered 12 people over age 65.

The company also combined its phase 2/3 booster trial and included no one over 55. According to data Pfizer submitted to the FDA, the drugmaker tested its booster in only 306 people — one of whom had a heart attack.

Pfizer compared people who received the vaccine with those who received the placebo but later also got the vaccine — because Pfizer unblinded the trial last year by giving placebo subjects the vaccine.

Critics weigh in: boosters ‘unjustified and unethical’

In an email to The DefenderDr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, said Pfizer asked the FDA to fully license a third booster dose of its COVID mRNA vaccine for everyone 16 and up based on “unconvincing data.”

Nass said:

“Pfizer used a tiny subset of subjects — only 306 subjects — among whom more than a third dropped out over time. None were under 18, and only 12 were over 65. Furthermore, if you believe the incredibly good efficacy numbers claimed by the CDC, the first two doses continue to work very well and no booster is currently needed.

“As a result, the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee voted against approving the third booster dose for the general population. And that was the only question they had been asked to vote on. However, the FDA was unwilling to take that as its final answer.

“So suddenly the FDA created a new question for the committee: Would it approve (i.e., license) boosters for those over 65 and /or immune compromised? In a transparent attempt to give Pfizer a consolation prize, the committee voted ‘Yes.’”

Nass said authorizing the boosters for the groups designated by the FDA opens the doors to mandate the boosters for those people. “This is why issuing a license for COVID vaccines is such a fraught subject,” Nass said.

Dr. Robert Malone, creator of mRNA vaccine technology, also responded to the FDA’s decision. In an email to The Defender, Malone wrote:

“In general, current data that I am aware of supports administration of booster doses to ‘individuals 65 years of age and older and individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19.’ However, I am not familiar with data that clearly demonstrate that ‘individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.’

“This statement and risk group was not included in the VRBPAC recommendations, and appear to represent regulatory overreach on the part of the FDA and the commissioner.

“The appearance is that the FDA is exceeding its mandate to focus on patient safety, efficacy and purity (adulteration) in order to advance, justify and enable additional vaccine booster mandate public policies for these groups based on public contact risks, rather than unsupported enhanced personal risks of COVID-19 complications.

“What the data do show is that these vaccines do not provide robust protection from infection, high level viral replication and infection of others by vaccinated persons. In my opinion, vaccine booster mandates, coupled with coercive threat of punishment by termination of employment for these cohorts, are both unjustified and unethical.”

Will boosters do more harm than good?

During the Sept. 17 VRBPAC meeting, Steve Kirsch, founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, told FDA officials COVID vaccines kill more people than they save.

Kirsch said four experts did analyses using completely different non-U.S. data sources, and all of them came up with approximately the same number of excess vaccine-related deaths — about 411 deaths per million doses.

“That translates into 150,000 people who have died [from COVID vaccines],” he explained.

Kirsch told committee members:

“We were led to believe that vaccines are perfectly safe, but this is simply not true. For example, there were four times as many heart attacks in the treatment group in the Pfizer 6-month trial report. That wasn’t bad luck, the VAERS shows heart attacks happen 71 times more often following these vaccines compared to any other vaccine. In all, 20 people died who got the drug — 14 died who got the placebo.”

After FDA officials dismissed his comments, Kirsch sent a follow-up email, in which he cited a study in Toxicology Reports to back up his assertion that the people in the age group for whom the FDA approved boosters — 65 and older — are at greater risk of dying from the vaccine than from the virus.

Kirsch pointed officials to this excerpt from the study:

“Thus, our extremely conservative [author’s emphasis] estimate for risk-benefit ratio is about 5/1. In plain English, people in the 65+ demographic are five times as likely to die from the inoculation as from COVID-19 under the most favorable assumptions! …

“In summary, the value of these COVID-19 inoculations is not obvious from a cost-benefit perspective for the most vulnerable age demographic, and is not obvious from any perspective for the least vulnerable age demographic.”

CDC expected to follow FDA guidance

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met Wednesday to hear data about the safety and effectiveness of a Pfizer booster, and it is expected to make a recommendation when the committee meets today.

The CDC must give its stamp of approval for any booster doses to be officially given. The ACIP can further amend recommendations for how any vaccine booster doses should be given.

The recommendation from the ACIP will almost certainly receive a quick endorsement from CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. The shots are expected to be available as soon as this week at pharmacies and some doctor’s offices.

In a letter sent Thursday and obtained by CNN, the CDC urged local and state health officials to wait to administer boosters until both agencies had signed off.

According to the CDC’s latest data from its Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), between Dec. 14, 2020, and Sept. 17, 2021, a total of 701,561 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines have been reported — including 14,925 deaths and 91,523 serious injuries.

Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Last Friday an FDA vaccine advisory committee voted 16 to 2 against authorizing a 3rd Pfizer COVID-19 “booster” shot. And yet inexplicably, they later took a second vote among the same committee members to authorize a 3rd Pfizer booster shot for people over the age of 65, which was passed unanimously.

Why?

Beliefs that vaccines actually help prevent disease, and that therefore those “most vulnerable” need them most, seemed to prevail here among the vaccine cultists, even though most people do not even know that Pfizer has never claimed their COVID-19 shots stop transmission of COVID-19. They allegedly only “lessen the effects.”

This religious-like belief which has no basis in anything that can remotely be considered “science,” is seen in its absurdity among their believers when a fully vaccinated individual dies after receiving these shots, and their loved ones exclaim: “Thank goodness they were fully vaccinated! Otherwise they would have suffered much more before they died.” See: Belief in COVID “Vaccines” Now Reaching Religious Fervor: The Shot “Reduces Suffering” Before Death

As a result of this belief system, seniors are always targeted more than the general population to get as many vaccines as possible, and the version of the flu shot people over the age of 65 get is usually four times as strong (toxic) as flu shots for the general population, based on this belief. See this article we published back in 2013: 23 Seniors Died After Receiving Flu Shot Sold by Pharmacies

It is no surprise then that the vast majority of recorded deaths in VAERS following the COVID-19 injections is among people over the age of 65. Here is the breakdown by age according to statistics in the VAERS government database, which was just updated today (9/24/21).

Source.

As one can clearly see, people over the age of 65 die the most following COVID-19 shots.

If we separate the “Unknown” age category, we see that about 77% of all deaths following COVID-19 shots are among people over the age of 65. Applying that same percentage to the “Unknown,” we can conclude that about 4,414 out of the 5,770 deaths were probably also people over the age of 65.

That brings the total amount of deaths in people over the age of 65 following a COVID-19 shot to about 11,770 deaths.

Throughout this week we have published whistleblower testimonies stating that tremendous pressure is put on healthcare workers to NOT report adverse reactions to VAERS, and we also now have Dr. Jessica Rose’s very detailed analysis on the underreporting of adverse reactions in VAERS where she concludes that a safe estimate would be to multiply adverse events in VAERS by a factor of 41X.

That would mean then that a conservative estimate of deaths in people over the age of 65 following a COVID-19 shot for the past 9 months is about 482,570 senior deaths represented by the U.S. VAERS. (While the majority of these are in the U.S., there are also some from outside the U.S.)

Did you think I was exaggerating when I chose to use the word “genocide” for this age group in the headline to this article?

By way of comparison, I searched the government VAERS database for deaths in this age group following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years, since VAERS was started, and it returned a result of 1,311 deaths in people above the age of 65 following ALL non-COVID vaccines for the past 30 years. (Source)

So we have seen almost ten times more deaths in this age group following COVID-19 shots during the past 9 months than the past 30 years following all other vaccines COMBINED.

And for those people in this age group who survived the first two doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 shot, the FDA and the CDC just authorized a third shot to be given to this age group with the highest recorded deaths already following COVID-19 shots.

THIS IS MASS MURDER!!

This is also the largest age group where medical kidnapping happens, as about 1.3 million seniors have court-appointed guardians where their custody is removed from their families, even if someone in their family has power of attorney, and turned over to the State. (Source.)

State appointed guardianship of seniors is a $273 BILLION industry. (Source.)

And the criminal truth to all these tens of thousands of deaths among seniors following COVID-19 shots is that not a single senior needed to die from an experimental “vaccine”!!

There are effective, non-vaccine treatments!

Just as I was writing this article today, a person emailed me a study published in Spain earlier this year, that saw 84 seniors from two different nursing homes all diagnosed with COVID-19 have a complete recovery from simply using antihistamines and an antibiotic.

Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care – A retrospective observational study in elderly patients

The results:

None of the patients treated progressed to severe disease, required hospital referral, or had adverse effects related to treatment. All residents recovered in a few days after beginning treatment, and were confirmed later as COVID-19 cases by seroconversion by rapid test when available. (Source.)

Euthanizing our seniors through vaccination is mass murder, and these mass murderers allowing this to happen need to be executed over this.

Does Pfizer Now Rule the World?

Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer.

In the article we published last weekend about the controversy in the FDA regarding authorizing a 3rd Pfizer booster shot, I speculated that there could be two reasons why there was infighting at the FDA regarding these 3rd Pfizer booster shots:

First, this could be a “drug war,” where Pfizer’s competitors are upset that Pfizer is getting so much of the market share on the COVID-19 vaccines, and they are applying pressure through their contacts at the FDA to start discrediting Pfizer and slow down their rapid race to dominate this market.

Or, secondly, people are starting to abandon ship on the Biden Administration as the current COVID-19 vaccine narrative is now falling apart very quickly, as hundreds of thousands of people are now screaming to have their voices heard regarding their negative experiences with the COVID-19 shots, and the FDA and others are trying to cover their butts in the event that there is a regime change and people start getting arrested for crimes against humanity.

I hope for the second scenario, but fear it is probably the first one. (Source.)

I think this question was answered this week, as the CDC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IMMUNIZATION PRACTICES (ACIP) met to discuss the Pfizer booster shots. Here are some comments about this meeting published by Politico:

Experts are worried about confusing the public

Members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee expressed concerns Wednesday about green-lighting boosters from one brand over others with authorized Covid vaccines available to Americans, noting the potential for public perception and logistical issues. The panel is tasked with recommending to the CDC how the FDA’s vaccine policy should be implemented in real-world settings.

Long suggested that the group wait for more information on so-called mix-and-match doses — the ability to vaccinate someone with one brand’s primary series with the option for a different manufacturer’s booster later — before signing off on just the Pfizer booster, asking “whether we’re willing to panic half the recipients of Moderna.”

“I don’t want to jeopardize anyone,” she said of delaying a booster decision. “At the same time, it’ll be very, very difficult to have a little less than half of the population who would be eligible to receive” a booster if people can only get the brand that matches their initial series.

Moderna has asked FDA to authorize its booster shot, and Johnson & Johnson has begun submitting booster data to the agency with an eye to filing an application.

Amanda Cohn of the CDC urged committee members to consider the recommendations they’re making now as “interim policies” that will change as more data surfaces. The National Institutes of Health is conducting a study on mixing vaccine doses, with results expected later this year.

“This is a rapidly moving target,” she said. (Source.)

Like the FDA advisory committee, this CDC panel voted 9-6 not to recommend boosters, but did recommend them for people above the age of 65.

It seems like Moderna and J&J wanted to get in on this lucrative market and restrict Pfizer to only the senior population.

But the FDA, headed by Janet Woodcock, and the CDC, headed by Rochelle Walensky, both went against their respective committee recommendations, and included ALL adults over the age of 18 for the 3rd Pfizer booster shots.

Hours after the panel voted 9-6 not to recommend boosters for those groups, Walensky overruled them.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Walensky said in a statement late Thursday, according to The Associated Press.

At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health.

Walensky noted her recommendation aligned with the Food and Drug Administration, which recommended on Wednesday that adults “in an occupational or institutional setting” that increases their risk of getting COVID-19 also be eligible for the shot. (Source.)

Moderna and J&J lost. Pfizer won. Pfizer obviously has a firm control over both the CDC and FDA.

Can anyone stop Pfizer now? They are 100% in control of their laboratory country, Israel, where it has been revealed that no other pharmaceutical company can provide COVID-19 shots to Israel, as the Israeli people are Pfizer’s personal lab rats. See: The Holocaust in Israel Exposed in Leaked Zoom Call with Pfizer Scientist Admitting that Israelis are Laboratory for Pfizer COVID Shot

Here is a video report from whistleblowers who have seen firsthand the mass murder of our seniors via COVID-19 shots. This is on our Rumble channel, and will also be on our Bitchute channel.

*

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

Featured image is from HIN

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Genocide of Seniors Continues as FDA and CDC Recommend 3rd Booster Shot to Age Group with Highest Amount of Deaths following COVID-19 Shots
  • Tags: , , ,

Video: This Live Mask Test Shocks Viewers

September 28th, 2021 by Del Bigtree

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

‘The HighWire’ host Del Bigtree and son, Ever, conducted a test, using an OSHA-approved Carbon-Dioxide meter, which revealed something about masks which YouTube, Facebook, and other video platforms are trying very hard to censor. What do you think?

*

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

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: This Live Mask Test Shocks Viewers
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Who knew that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an environmental agency? 

But taking the environment into account is what Congress requires of the Commission and what the public needs from it.  Passed over 50 years ago, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) recognized the continuing responsibility of the entire federal government “to use all practicable means . . . to attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.”  42 U.S.C. 4331(b).  If we are to sustain the one earth we have to live on, all federal agencies must take into account the impact their actions have on the environment.

Yet, earlier this year, the FCC authorized SpaceX to deploy almost 3,000 low-earth orbit satellites as part of the company’s Starlink system – a mega-constellation to provide satellite-based internet services.

Several other companies, including Amazon, are also pursuing similar mega-constellations of satellites to provide internet services around the world.

Never before have humans put so much into space.

With the FCC’s licensing approval, SpaceX alone will launch more satellites in the next 15 years than have been put in space over all of human history.

This licensing is exactly the kind of federal action that Congress intended to be taken only after a thorough assessment of its potential environmental impacts.  As the Supreme Court said when reviewing a proposed ski resort in a national forest, “NEPA ensures that important effects will not be overlooked or underestimated only to be discovered after resources have been committed or the die otherwise cast.”

The FCC, however, has chosen to brush aside its environmental review responsibilities.  NEPA requires federal agencies to include “a detailed statement” (an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS) regarding the environmental impact of any “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

If the agency is uncertain about whether its action will significantly affect the environment, it can prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine if a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is justified.

The FCC has done neither.  Instead, the Commission has categorically excluded all of its actions from NEPA review, identifying only a few limited exceptions in its regulations.  47 C.F.R. 1.1306.  Such widespread, indiscriminate use of categorical exclusions (CEs) belittles NEPA’s mandate.

Environmental harm from the proposed satellite mega-constellations is not mere speculation.  The increase in commercial satellites has already created significant light pollution.  Designed with a short useful life, the Starlink satellites will add significant debris and chemicals to the atmosphere.  In particular, combustion of satellites upon re-entry produces significant quantities of alumina.  Alumina can deplete the ozone layer we have worked so hard internationally to protect.  It can also increase global warming, whose catastrophic consequences we seem to be experiencing almost every day.  As two scientists recently warned in their peer-reviewed article, Starlink’s deployment “risks multiple tragedies of the commons, including tragedies to ground-based astronomy, Earth orbit, and Earth’s upper atmosphere.”

NEPA doesn’t prohibit the FCC’s authorization of commercial wireless communication services from space, but it does require that the FCC analyze the environmental impacts of doing so before the Commission authorizes the launch.  The FCC has consistently refused to do so.

The FCC’s blind approach to satellite launch approval is yet the latest example of the Commission’s disregard for its environmental responsibilities.  In 2018, the FCC changed its rules to eliminate the application of NEPA (as well as the National Historic Preservation Act) to its authorization of small-cell networks increasingly relied upon to provide 5G services across the country.  NRDC, together with 16 Indian Nations, sued the FCC.  A federal court found the FCC’s action unlawful.

More recently, the FCC terminated its inquiry into the adequacy of its health standards for radio-frequency radiation without changing any of the limits – even though these limits are over 20 years old.  Again, the courts found the FCC’s action unlawful.

The public deserves better from its servants at the FCC.

We face a pivotal moment as commercial communication moves into space at a scale never seen before.  Congress anticipated such moments when it passed NEPA. 

By working with experts both inside and outside the government, the FCC can collect the information it needs to assess the environmental impacts of its actions before it takes them.  Launching before looking serves no one.

*

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.

Sharon Buccino is Senior Director, Land Division, Nature Program

Featured image is from DMV

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mega Constellation of Low Earth Orbit Internet Satellites. Damage to the Environment and Biosphere?
  • Tags: , ,

All Global Research articles including the  E-Book can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

.

.

 

“It was quite impressive to note how thoroughly the judges had read our brief in this complicated case. They asked pointed questions about what we have documented in our case to be the failure of the FCC to produce a record of reasoned decision making.

For example the judges zeroed in on the fact that there is a US inter-agency radio frequency working group with which there is no record of consultation on the record. Further they questioned the FCC regarding the fact that it’s own technical advisory group on electronic products had failed to weigh in on cell phones altogether. 

The justices questioned how the agency could ignore the undeniable fact that the types of devices, wireless uses and users of wireless devices are radically different today than they were when the standards were first set,”  stated Devra Davis PhD MPH president of Environmental Health Trust.

Listen to oral arguments in the case in this video.

Environmental Health Trust (EHT), the scientific think tank headed by award-winning scientist Devra Davis PhD, MPH is the lead petitioner in a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

After consolidation of the cases by the Courts, the historic case is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense, Consumers for Safer Phones and numerous other petitioners including Elizabeth Barris, Theodora Scarato MSW, Michelle Hertz, Petra Broken, Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Toril Jelter, Dr. Paul Dart, Dr. Ann Lee, Virginia Farver, Jennifer Baran and Paul Stanley M.Ed.

EHT et al. v. the FCC seeks to have the Court order the FCC to remand, vacate and update its 25-year-old exposure guidelines for radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, 5G and other wireless communication devices.

Watch EHT’s Press Conference:

 

Oral arguments with a three judge panel was January 25, 2021 at 9:30 EST.  

The three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that presides over the case includes the Honorable Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins.

“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress and published critical research on why children are more vulnerable,” said Devra Davis PhD, MPH, President and founder of Environmental Health Trust. “The FCC has ignored our extensive submissions to the FCC over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead, asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s healthy future.” 

Links to the Scientific Evidence, Court Cases, Personal Testimony Presented in the Case

Briefs 

Amicus Briefs 

Click on the Volumes Below to See the Links to the Massive Evidence Filed in EHT et al v. FCC Ignored by the FCC

Petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence – 447 exhibits in 27 Volumes-  in support of their  claims. Environmental Health Trust researchers filed 60 of the 447 exhibits.

  • Download  Volume 1: Volume 1 Includes FCC Resolution of Notice of Inquiry Order and Notice of Inquiry
  • Download  Volume 2: Includes FCC; Comments & reply of the CTIA The Wireless Association & Mobile Manufacturers Forum ET Docket No. 13-84
  • Download  Volume 3: Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 2)
  • Download  Volume 4: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 3)
  • Download  Volume 5: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 2,100 studies published between 1990 – 2017; Prof. Henry Lai.(Tab 7 Part 4) Research Compilation; Abstracts of Over 600 Studies Published BetweenAugust 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 1)
  • Download  Volume 6: Includes Research Compilation; Abstracts of over 600 Studies Published Between August 2016- August 2019, Dr. Joel Moskowitz; 2019 (Tab 8 Part 2) Research Compilation; Abstracts of 15 New Studies, Dr. Joel Moskowitz Ph.D., 2016, Research Compilation; Studies and Documents; City of Pinole, CA
  • Download Volume 7: Includes US Exposures Limits – A History of Their Creation, Comments and Explanations; Eng. Lloyd Morgan, Biosystem & Ecosystem; Birds, Bees and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’: Effects of Mobile Radio and Wireless Communication.Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., 2007, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 1)
  • Download  Volume 8: Includes BioInitiative Comments, Cancer; IARC Monograph: NonIonizing Radiation Part 2: RF EMFs, 2013 (Tab 13 Part 2), NTP; Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environmental Research. Dr. Ron Melnick; 2019 andmore…
  • Download  Volume 9: Includes BioInitiative-Modulation; Section 15:Evidence for Disruption by Modulation Role of Physical and Biological Variables in Bioeffects of Non-Thermal Microwaves for Reproducibility, Cancer Risk and Safety Standards, (2012 Supplement), Bioinitiative Working Group; Preliminary Opinion on Potential Health Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF); 2014, Organizations; Environmental Working Group Reply Comments and more…
  • Download Volume 10: BioInitiative-Mechanisms of Harm; Percent Comparison Showing Effect vs No Effect, DNA (Comet Assay), 2017 and Free Radical (Oxidative Stress), 2019, Bio Initiative Working Group; Epidemiological Studies, RF fields epidemiology, Comments by Drs. Lennart Hardell, Fredrik Soderqvist PhD. and Michael Carlberg, MSc. Section 3.5.1.1 Epidemiological Studies (Exhibit B); 2014, BioInitiative Author; Statement of Prof. Martin Blank PhD., PhD.; 2016, and more…
  • Download  Volume 11: Dr. Paul Dart MD. (Petitioner) Comments, The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields, Problems and Solutions, Prof. Andrew Goldsworthy; 2012, Dr. Richard Meltzer Comments, Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure: A Cautionary Tale, Dr. Donald R. Maisch Ph.D. Comments, Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low-Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances; Dr. Ron M. Powell, PhD.; 2013 and more…
  • Download   Volume 12: Organizations –  Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Neurological and behavior effects οf Non-Ionizing Radiation emitted from mobile devices on children: Steps to be taken ASAP for the protection of children and future generations. Presentation Slides; 2016, Organizations; Austrian Medical Association, Environmental Medicine Evaluation of Electromagnetic Fields; Dr. Jerd Oberfeld MD.; 2007, Organizations; The American Academy of Pediatrics, Letter to the FCC; 2013 and more…
  • Download  Volume 13: Organizations; Appeal to the FCC Signed by 26,000 People and Organized by the Environmental Working Group, 2013 (Tab 68 Part 2), Organizations; Freiburger Appeal –Doctors Appeal; 2002, Organizations; Benevento Resolution, The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), 2006, Organizations; The Porto Alegre Resolution; 2009 and more…
  • Download Volume 14:  Mechanisms of Harm; Meta-Analysis, Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med (Yakymenko et al).; 2016, Mechanisms of Harm; Blood Brain Barrier; Increased Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days after Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Pathophysiology (Nittby, Salford et al); 2009, Mechanisms of Harm; DNA Damage; Microwave RF Interacts with Molecular Structures; Dr. Paul Dart MD.; 2013 and more…
  • Download   Volume 15: Prenatal & Children; Doctors and Scientists Letters on Wi-Fi in Schools, Dr. Devra Davis PhD., President of Environmental Health Trust (Petitioner) Comments, Children; Letter to Montgomery County Schools, Prof. Martha Herbert MD., PhD.; 2015, Neurological – Children; A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Environ Health Perspect. (Foerster et al); 2018, Prenatal & Children; Cell phone use and behavioral problems in young children. J Epidemiol Community Health. (Divan et al); 2012 and more…
  • Download  Volume 16: Prenatal & Children; “Cell Phones & WiFi – Are Children, Fetuses and Fertility at Risk?”; 2013, Prenatal & Children; Safe Schools 2012, Medical and Scientific Experts Call for Safe Technologies in Schools,Prenatal & Children – Stem Cells; Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Environmental Health Perspectives (Markova, Belyaev et al); 2010, Radiation Sickness – Children; Angela Tsiang Comments and more…
  • Download  Volume 17: 5G; FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler ‘The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World’; 2016, 5G; Letter to House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology; Tsiang; 2016, 5G; Ask Congress to Vote No, 2016, 5G; 5G Spectrum Frontiers -The Next Great Unknown Experiment On Our Children, Compilation of Letters to Congress; 2016, 5G;What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells and more…
  • Download  Volume 18: Cell Phones; Research Abstracts of Over 700 Studies Showing Health Effects from Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation; Prof. Henri Lai ,(Tab 142 Part 2), Cancer – Brain Tumors; Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with the use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health. (Hardell and Caarlsberg); 2013 , Cancer-Brain Tumors; Mobile phone use and brain tumor risk: early warnings, early actions? (Gee, Hardell Carlsberg) (Chapter 21 of Report: “Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution”); 2013, Jullian Gehman Esq. Comments and more…
  • Download  Volume 19: Dr. Joel Moskowitz PhD. Reply Comments, Why the FCC Must Strengthen Radiofrequency Radiation Limits in the U.S., Cancer – Children; Cell Phone Radiation: Science Review on Cancer Risks and Children’s Health; Environmental Working Group; 2009, Cell Phones – Plants; Review: Weak Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From Mobile Phone Radiation on Plants. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (Malka N. Halgamuge); 2016, Testing; Microwave Emissions From Cell Phones Exceed Safety Limits in Europe and the US When Touching the Body. IEEE Access. Prof. Om P. Gandhi PhD.; 2019, Testing – Children; Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environmental Research. (C. Fernandez et al); 2018 and more…
  • Download Volume 20: Industry Influence; World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – a Hard Nut to Crack (Review). International Journal of Oncology. Prof. Lennart Hardell MD. PhD.; 2017, Industry Influence; Business Bias As Usual: The Case Of Electromagnetic Pollution. Prof. Levis, Prof. Gennaro, Prof. Garbisa, Industry Influence; Prof. Martha Herbert MD PhD., Harvard Pediatric Neurologist Letter to Los Angeles Unified School District; 2013, Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 1) and more.
  • Download Volume 21: Industry Influence; The Procrustean Approach: Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation, Dr. Donald Maisch PhD.; 2009 (Tab 172 Part 2), Industry Influence; Illusion and Escape: The Cell Phone Disease Quagmire. Dr. George L. Carlo PhD., JD.; 2008, Industry Influence; Quote of Prof. Henry Lai PhD from NY Times Article about Percent of Negative, Studies Funded By Industry; 2013, Industry Influence; Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health. Christopher Ketcham, GQ; 2010 and more…
  • Download  Volume 22: US Agencies; US Naval Medical Research Institute. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-frequency, Radiation; 1971 (Tab 185 Part 2), US Agencies; US Department of Labor Comment, Radiation Sickness; Exemption for Fire stations, California Assembly Bill No. 57 (2015), codified at Cal. Gov. Code 65964.1, Radiation Sickness – Firefighters; Susan Foster Comments, Radiation Sickness; Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity, Dr. Erica MalleryBlythe; 2014 and more…
  • Download  Volume 23: Radiation Sickness; Brent Dalton Comments, Radiation Sickness; Elizabeth Barris (Petitioner) Comments, Radiation Sickness; Olemara Comments, Radiation Sickness; Melissa White Comments, Radiation Sickness; Carol Moore Comments, Radiation Sickness; Michele Hertz (Petitioner) Comments and more…
  • Download Volume 24: Radiation Sickness; Catherine Morgan Comments, Radiation Sickness; Angelica Rose Comments, Radiation Sickness; Brian J. Bender Comments, Radiation Sickness; Maggie Connolly Comments, Radiation Sickness; Gregory Temmer Comments, Radiation Sickness; Bernice Nathanson Comments, and more…
  • Download  Volume 25: Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twelve People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Nine People; 2013, Radiation Sickness; Testimonials of Twenty People, Collected byStopSmartMeters; 2013, Radiation Sickness: Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Peter Rose; 2010, Radiation Sickness; Doctor’s Diagnosis Letter for Steven Magee, European Manifesto in support of a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) and more…
  • Download  Volume 26: Individual Rights; R. Paul and Kathleen Sundmark Reply Comments, Individual Rights & ADA; Cynthia Edwards Comments, Individual Rights; Diana Ostermann, Comments, Individual Rights; BC Human Rights Tribunal approves smart meter class action, Citizens for Safe Technology, and more...
  • Download   Volume 27: Testing – Children; Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (Gandhi et al); 2011, BioInitiative Reply Comments, Environmental Health Trust INTERNATIONAL POLICY BRIEFING: Cautionary Policy on Radiofrequency Radiation Actions by Governments, Health Authorities and Schools Worldwide

Environmental Health Trust et al. v. the FCC

Environmental Health Trust (EHT), the scientific think tank headed by Devra Davis PhD, MPH, filed the principal brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Wednesday in a landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The appeal is aimed at getting the FCC to reconsider, revise, and update its 24-year old exposure limits for radio-frequency radiation (RFR) from cellphones, cell towers, Wi-FI networks, smart meters, and other wireless communication devices and facilities. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense and numerous individual petitioners.

The FCC Violated the Law

The Petitioners contend the FCC ignored the extensive evidence submitted to the agency showing that non-thermal levels of pulsed and modulated RFR emitted by wireless technology are harmful to humans, wildlife and the environment, and its order failed to provide a record of a reasoned decision making. Therefore, the Petitioners claim the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and its decision is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based. In addition, the Petitioners argue that the FCC violated NEPA because the Agency did not consider the environmental impacts of its decision.  It also violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because it failed to consider the impact of its decision on public health and safety.

The FCC ignored numerous submissions detailing injuries and rapidly growing illnesses such as Radiation Sickness from radiofrequency radiation and ignored calls such as those from the cities of Boston and Philadelphia to address the sickness. Petitioners argued that the inadequate FCC guidelines are used to deny accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disability Act. The Petitioners filed 11,000 pages of scientific evidence and comments ignored by the FCC in support of their  claims.

Background 

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants. Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Radio Frequency Radiation and 5G Impacts on Health. Massive Scientific Evidence Ignored by FCC
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published in August 2021

***

Herland Report: Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, forefront virus expert in microbiology in Germany, is one of the many doctors, scientists and medical professionals who give dire warnings about the current untested vaccines that are being administered to billions in the world. 

Dr. Bhakdi is one of the most cited research scientists in German history, former professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, with expertise in vaccinations.

In a new interview, he is very clear on his expert view of the untested vaccinations that are being pushed world wide without proper trials: “It is our duty to aggressively inform people about the dangers that they are subjecting themselves and their loved ones to by this ‘vaccination.”

“Gene-based vaccines are an absolute danger to mankind and their use at present violates the Nuremberg codex, such that everyone who is propagating their use should be put before tribunal.”

“Especially the vaccination of children is something that is so criminal that I have no words to express my horror … We are horribly worried that there’s going to be an impact on fertility. And this will be seen in years or decades from now. And this is potentially one of the greatest crimes, simply one of the greatest crimes imaginable.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, interviews Bhakdi, and he explains: “Bhakdi has worked on vaccine development, and says he’s “certainly pro-vax with regards to the vaccinations that work and that are meaningful.” Much of his research focused on what’s called the complement system. When activated, the complement system ends up working in such a way that it destroys rather than aids your cells.

Interestingly enough, SARS-CoV-2 uses this very system to its advantage, turning your immune system toward a path of self-destruction. The same self-destructive path also appears to be activated by the COVID shots, which is part of why Bhakdi believes they are the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.” (The article continues below.)

Also read the 2020 Herland Report article about the alarming interview with Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, which sends a chillingly apocalyptic message: The Western government shut downs is a completely wrong and extremely dangerous response to the Covid-19 virus. Self-isolating the whole population is

“grotesque, absurd and very dangerous. All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide caused by fear.”

How Effective Are the COVID Shots?

Dr. Joseph Mercola’s analysis states: While the COVID injections have been characterized as being somewhere around 95% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection, this claim is the product of statistical obfuscation.

In short, they’ve conflated relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is actually right around 1% for all currently available COVID shots.1

Image on the right is from National File

In “Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials”2 Ron Brown, Ph.D. calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer’s and Moderna’s injections, based on their own clinical trial data, so that they can be compared to the relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here’s a summary of his findings:

  • Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.7%
  • Moderna vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk reduction 1.1%

In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,3 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:

What Kind of Protection Do the COVID Shots Provide?

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Aside from providing insignificant protection in terms of your absolute risk reduction, it’s important to realize that they do not provide immunity. All they can do is reduce the severity of the symptoms of infection. According to Bhakdi, they fail even at this:

“They showed absolutely zero [benefit in the clinical trials],” he says. “This is the ridiculousness. People don’t understand that they’re being fooled and have been fooled all along. Let’s take the one of these Pfizer trials: 20,000 healthy people were vaccinated and another 20,000 people were not vaccinated.

And then they observed, over a period of 12 weeks or so, how many cases they found in the vaccinated group and how many cases they found the non-vaccinated. What they found was that less than 1% of the vaccinated group got COVID-19 and less than 1% in the non-vaccinated group also got COVID-19.

The difference was 0.8 to 0.1%, which is nothing, considering the fact that they were not even looking at severe cases. They were looking at people with a positive PCR test — which as we all now know is worthless — plus one symptom, which could be cough or fever.

That is not a severe case of COVID-19. Any vaccination that is going to get authorized must be shown to protect against severe illness and death, and this has definitely not been shown. So, forget authorization. It can’t be authorized, not by any normal means.

Now [the COVID injections do not have] full authorization, it’s an emergency authorization, which again is absolute bullshit, since we know the infection fatality rate of this disease or virus is not greater than that of seasonal flu. John Ioannidis has published these numbers, which have never been contested by anyone in the world and cannot be contested.

If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced.

And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness, as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are very good means and medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80%, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever.

This means the FDA should be able to be forced to retract this emergency use authorization — unless they are in league with whoever wants to do this.”

I neglected to follow-up on his comment about 40,000 people being equally divided between the injection and no injection groups in the COVID injection trials. A few months ago, they actually abandoned the non-injection arm of the trial, so no there is no control group anymore.

The justification was that the injection was too important to deny it to the control group. It’s just another sneaky way to skirt around reporting all the adverse effects occurring in the injection group.

That said, it’s worth repeating that the FDA can only grant emergency use authorization for a pandemic drug or vaccine if there’s no safe and effective preexisting treatment or alternative. Since there are several such alternatives, the FDA is legally required to revoke the emergency authorization for these shots.

Evidence of Increased Infection Risk After Injection

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Presently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims some 95% of SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting in hospitalization are occurring among the unvaccinated.

This too is a statistical fiction, as they’re using data from January through June 2021, when most of the American public were unvaccinated.

Looking at more recent data, we’re finding that the majority of severe cases and hospitalizations are actually occurring among those that received the COVID jab. Unfortunately, as noted by Bhakdi:

“It’s all manipulated. And, if someone wants to manipulate something and are in a position to then propagate it, you have no chance of analyzing it and telling people because we have no voice in this affair. When we stand up and tell people this, they just turn around and say that’s not the truth.”

Disturbingly, we’re now starting to see the first indications of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), which many scientists were concerned about from the very beginning. India, for example, where 10% of the population has been “vaccinated,” is now seeing very severe cases of COVID-19. Bhakdi says:

“What we’re witnessing in India and probably also in Israel is the immune dependent enhancement of disease … It’s bound to happen. So, the people who are getting vaccinated now have to be fearful of the next wave of genuine infections, whether it’s [SARS-CoV-2 variants] or any other coronaviruses, because they’re all related and they will all be subject to immune dependent enhancement, obviously.”

Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), or paradoxical immune enhancement (PIE) refers to a condition where the vaccination results in the complete opposite of what you’re looking for. Rather than protect against the infection, the vaccine augments and worsens the infection.

ADE can occur through more than one mechanism, and Bhakdi is of the opinion that the enhancement is primarily due to over-reactive killer lymphocytes and secondary complement activation, both of which cause severe damage.

Antibodies Versus Lymphocytes

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: Bhakdi explains:

“There are two major arms of defense against viral infection. One is the antibodies that, if they are present, may prevent the virus from entering your cells. These are so-called neutralizing antibodies, which the vaccination is supposed to [produce].

But the antibodies are not at the place that they are needed, which is on the surface of the airway epithelium. They are in the blood, but not at the surface of the epithelium where the virus arrives. The second arm of immune defense then comes into play, and these are the lymphocytes.

There are different types of lymphocytes and I will simplify matters by saying the important lymphocytes are the so-called killer lymphocytes that sense whenever a virus product is being produced in the cell. They will then destroy the cells that harbor the virus and thus the factory is closed and you get well again.

That is the mechanism for how we can survive viral infections of the lung, and this happens all the time. So, the lymphocytes, in contrast to the antibodies, recognize many, many, many parts of the proteins. So, if a virus changes a little bit, it doesn’t matter, because the waste products that are recognized by the killer lymphocytes remain very similar.

That is why all of us, and this is now known, all of us have memory lymphocytes in our lymph nodes and lymphoid organs that are trained to recognize these coronaviruses. And whether or not a mutant is there, it doesn’t really matter, because they will recognize a mutant or variant.”

According to Bhakdi, coronaviruses can only undergo point mutations, meaning only one nucleotide at a time can be changed. The influenza virus, meanwhile, can undergo more radical mutations. For example, a flu virus can completely change its spike protein by swapping spike proteins with another virus that is simultaneously present.

This sort of shift is not possible with coronaviruses. Therefore, you will never have leaps in antigenic changes either for antibodies or for T-cell killer lymphocytes. That’s why the background immunity that evolves during the lifetime of a human being is very broad and solid.

Natural Immunity Is Far Superior to Vaccine-Induced Immunity

One of the most egregious nullifications of medical scientific truth is the claim that COVID “vaccination” confers superior protection compared than the natural immunity you get after you’ve been exposed to the virus and recover. The reality is that natural immunity is infinitely more superior to the vaccine-induced protection you get from these shots, which is both narrow and temporary.

The COVID shot produces antibodies against just one of the viral proteins, the spike protein, whereas natural immunity produces antibodies against all parts of the virus, plus memory T cells. As noted by Bhakdi:

“The very fact that the World Health Organization has changed the definition of herd immunity … is such a scandal. I’m at a loss of words to describe how ridiculous I find this all, that this is being accepted by our colleagues. How can the physicians and scientists of the world bear to listen to all this nonsense?”

How the COVID Shot Causes Damage

As explained by Bhakdi, when you get a COVID shot, genetic instructions are being injected into your deltoid muscle. Muscle drains into your lymph nodes, which in turn can enter your bloodstream. There may also be direct translocation from the muscle into smaller blood vessels.

Animal data submitted by Pfizer to Japanese authorities show the mRNA appeared within the blood within one or two hours of injection. The rapidity of it suggests the nano particles are translocated from the muscle directly into the blood, bypassing the lymph nodes.

Once inside your bloodstream, the genetic instructions are delivered to the cells available, namely your endothelial cells. These are the cells that line your blood vessels. These cells then start producing spike protein, as per the mRNA instructions. As the name implies, the spike protein looks like a sharp spike protruding from the cell wall, into the bloodstream.

Since they are not supposed to be there, your killer lymphocytes rush to the area, thinking the cells are infected. The killer lymphocytes attack the cells, which causes damage to the cell wall. This damage, in turn, provokes clot formation. We’re now seeing evidence that COVID shots are causing all manner of clotting issues, from microsized clots to massive clots stretching a foot or more in length.

Of course, when a large enough clot occurs in the heart, you end up with a heart attack. In the brain, you end up with stroke. But even microclots that don’t completely block the blood vessel can have serious ramifications. You can check for presence of microclots by performing a D-dimer blood test. If your D-dimer is elevated, you have clotting somewhere in your body.

How Vaccine-Induced Antibodies Can Cause Harm

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: But that’s not all. The anti-spike protein antibodies can also be harmful. Bhakdi explains:

“The other thing that has now emerged is just as frightening [as the clotting problem]. One to two weeks after the first jab, you start making antibodies in large amounts.

Now, when the second jab is done, and the spike proteins starts to project from the walls of your vessels into your bloodstream, it is not only met by the killer lymphocytes, but now the antibodies are also there and the antibodies activate [the] complement [system].

That was my first field of research. The first cascade system is the clotting system. Turn it on and the blood will clot. If you turn on the complement system with the antibodies that bind to your vessel wall, then this complement system will start creating holes in the vessel wall.

And you see these patients who have bleeding in the skin. Ask, where does that come from? Well, if you go around riddling your vessels with holes, you [get bleeding]. If the holes riddle vessels of the liver, or the pancreas or the brain, then the blood will seep through the vessels into the tissues …

[The COVID injections] are in your bloodstream for at least a week, and they will seep into any organ. And when those [organ] cells then start to make the spike protein themselves, then the killer lymphocytes will also seek and destroy them [in that organ, creating more damage and subsequent clotting].

What we are witnessing is one of the most fascinating experiments that could lead to massive autoimmune disease. When this will happen, God knows. And what this will lead to, God knows.”

COVID Jab May Trigger Latent Viruses and Cancer

The COVID jabs can also decimate your lymph nodes, as your lymph nodes are full of lymphocytes and other immune cells. Some of the lymphocytes will die immediately upon contact, causing inflammation.

Cells that don’t die and take up the mRNA and start producing spike protein will be recognized as virus producers and get attacked by the complement system. It essentially creates a war between some immune cells against other immune cells. As a result of this attack, your lymph nodes swell and become painful.

This is a serious problem, as the lymphocytes in your lymph nodes are lifelong sentinels that keep latent infection such as shingles under control. When they malfunction or are destroyed, these latent viruses can activate. This is why we’re seeing reports of shingles, lupus, herpes, Epstein-Barr, tuberculosis and other infections emerge as a side effect of the shots. Of course, certain cancers can also be affected.

“As we all know, tumors are forming every day in our bodies, but those tumor cells are recognized by our lymphocytes and then they’re snuffed out,” Bhakdi says. “So, I am worried sick that the world is being goaded into taking something into the body that is going to change the whole face of medicine.”

Informed Consent Is Virtually Impossible

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat humanity ever faced: After giving this issue a great deal of thought, Bhakdi is convinced that the COVID injection campaign must be stopped.

“Gene-based vaccines are an absolute danger to mankind and their use at present violates the Nuremberg codex, such that everyone who is propagating their use should be put before tribunal,” Bhakdi says.

“Especially the vaccination of children is something that is so criminal that I have no words to express my horror … We are horribly worried that there’s going to be an impact on fertility. And this will be seen in years or decades from now. And this is potentially one of the greatest crimes, simply one of the greatest crimes imaginable …

As we all know, it is laid down by the Nuremberg codex that in case experiments are to be conducted in humans, this can only be performed with informed consent.

Informed consent means that the person to be vaccinated has to be informed about all the risks, the risk benefit ratios, the potential dangers and what is known about side effects. This cannot be done with children, because children are not in the position to understand it.

Therefore, they cannot give informed consent. Therefore, they cannot be vaccinated. If anyone does that, he should be set before a tribunal. If grownups have been informed and want to get the shot, that’s all right. But don’t force anyone to get the shot. It has to be by informed consent only.”

Of course, informed consent is also virtually impossible even for adults, as they’re only given one side of the story. All side effects and risks are censored virtually everywhere and discussions about them are banned. The U.S. government is even pushing to criminalize discussion about COVID injection risks.

Where Do We Go From Here?

If you’ve already gotten one or two shots, there’s nothing you can do about that. Certainly, do not get a booster, as each booster is undoubtedly going to magnify the damage.

“In the end, I predict that we’re going to see mass illnesses and deaths among people who normally would have wonderful lives ahead of them,” Bhakdi says. The question on people’s minds is, can anything be done to reverse the damage from these shots? As yet, we do not know.

However, if you have received one or more shots and develop symptoms of an infection, Bhakdi recommends treatment with hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin, such as the Zelenko protocol,4 and the MATH+ protocols,5 which have proven their effectiveness. It’s important to realize you may actually be more prone to serious infection, not less.

Nebulized hydrogen peroxide can also be used for prevention and treatment of COVID-19, as detailed in Dr. David Brownstein’s case paper6 and Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery.” Whichever treatment protocol you use, make sure you begin treatment as soon as possible, ideally at first onset of symptoms.

Covid-19 vaccination is greatest threat: Also check out these topics at CNN or FOX News. Other sources may be New York TimesUSA Today, the Washington Post or from the British angle, BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph or Financial Times.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder of Mercola.com. An osteopathic physician, best-selling author and recipient of multiple awards in the field of natural health, his primary vision is to change the modern health paradigm by providing people with a valuable resource to help them take control of their health.

*

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

Featured image is from THR

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

Incisive report first published on April 10, 2021

***

In total, more than 30,000 vaccinees reported more than 100,000 adverse reactions to the vaccine by the end of January. Most notable are 13 people who went blind after the vaccination, eight miscarriages and a total of 236 fatal cases, Epoch Times reports.

The list of side effects and adverse reactions to Corona vaccinations is getting longer. A report by the UK’s Medicines Regulatory Agency (MHRA, a body that licenses and oversees medicines in the UK, similar to the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany) now adds blindness and miscarriages to already known reactions to vaccines, such as pain, facial paralysis and blood disorders. The report was updated on February 11 to include reports of suspected adverse reactions from the start of the vaccination campaign on December 9 through the end of January.

Officials say that “more than 110,000 people in the UK have died within 28 days of a positive coronal test.” By comparison, about four million people tested positive, while overseas colonies (including Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda) contributed a few thousand cases. This results in a mortality rate of about 2.5 percent, which is roughly equivalent to the mortality rate of a regular flu.

More side effects at AstraZeneca Vaxzevria

As with VAERS in the U.S., Britons can report suspected adverse reactions and adverse events to vaccines in what is known as the “yellow card scheme” and give a drug a “yellow card.” According to the government report, by the end of January, 9,262,367 people had received one vaccination and 494,206 people had already received two. During the same period, a total of 32,139 yellow cards were collected, with more than 100,000 individual responses. The first notifications date back to December 9, the first day of vaccinations.

About two-thirds of the notifications and nearly 60,000 individual responses in the yellow card scheme relate to Pfizer/BioNTech‘s vaccine. With the exception of 72 cases in which the manufacturer was not specified, the rest fall to AstraZeneca. Although the Moderna vaccine has also been licensed in the UK since January 8, it is not mentioned in the government report.

The distribution of reports across vaccines roughly reflects the vaccines administered. However, it is notable that a report on AstraZeneca contains an average of four separate responses, while for Pfizer/BioNTech there are “only” about 2.5 responses on each yellow card. As “dailyexpose.co.uk” calculates, this means that about one in 333 vaccinees reported side effects or adverse reactions. In reality, however, there could be even more cases “as some may not have been reported under the yellow card scheme.”

That AstraZeneca also causes side effects in Germany was also recently experienced by the emergency department in the district of Minden-Lübbecke. After employees took advantage of a short-term vaccination offer from AstraZeneca – the vaccine is not approved for people over 65 – several employees reported sick. “As a result, the emergency services were not optimally staffed,” district spokesman Florian Hemann told the “Westfalen-Blatt” at the time. Neighboring rescue stations and the DRK assisted.

The “yellow card” regulation includes, in addition to the side effects and reactions already known from the vaccine studies of the manufacturers, even more.

Side effects of Corona vaccines

1. Optical Impairment and Blindness

In total, the reports included 1,280 eye conditions. “Optical impairment and blindness (other than color blindness)” occurred in 53 reports on Pfizer/BioNTech [ed. note: see page 8], as well as 26 yellow cards for AstraZeneca [page 6] and one report without naming the vaccine [page 4]. In thirteen cases (5 Pfizer, 8 AstraZeneca) the report speaks of (complete) blindness after vaccination.

2. Cerebrovascular accidents (stroke)

In 43 cases (Pfizer/BioNTech 32 [page 31], AstraZeneca 11 [page 24]), affected individuals (or their next of kin) have reported cerebrovascular accidents following vaccination by Pfizer. The sudden death of brain cells from lack of oxygen due to an interruption in blood supply caused by a blockage or rupture of an artery to the brain is also known as a stroke. In seven cases – 3 after vaccination by Pfizer/BioNTech, 4 after vaccination by AstraZeneca – this ended fatally.

3. Abortion and miscarriage

Because of insufficient data, neither Pfizer/BioNTech nor AstraZeneca and Moderna approved their vaccines for pregnant women. What effects mRNA vaccination has on fertility or on nursing mothers is also unknown, they said. For its part, the British government announced before the vaccination campaign began that “pregnancy should be excluded in women of childbearing age before vaccination [and] pregnancy should be avoided for at least two months after the second dose.”

Yet the yellow card regulation lists eight [page 36] suspected pregnancy-related cases for Pfizer/BioNTech, and nine [page 28] for AstraZeneca. About half of these involve “spontaneous abortions” or miscarriages. In two cases, premature deliveries or premature rupture of the amniotic sac occurred after vaccination with AstraZeneca.

4. Facial paralysis

There have also been 107 facial nerve disorders reported after Pfizer/BioNTech vaccinations, including paralysis, paresis and spasm. Following vaccinations by AstraZeneca, 17 reports have been received so far. Paralysis in other parts of the body occurred in at least 21 cases (Pfizer 15, AstraZeneca 5, unattributed 1). In most cases, the paralysis symptoms had disappeared after a few days.

5. Deceased

Deaths have also been reported in the UK in the time sequence of vaccinations. The reports included a total of 236 cases with fatalities. Of these, 141 are explicitly listed as “deaths”; all other cases mention another fatal side effect. 76 cases relate to Pfizer/BioNTech’s vaccine [p. 13], 64 cases to AstraZeneca [p. 10]. One case is not attributed to the vaccine [p. 6].

Particularly notable among the deaths are 15 cases of “sudden death” (nine at Pfizer/BioNTech, six at AstraZeneca), who according to “dailyexpose” “dropped dead immediately after vaccination.”

Interim assessment by the UK government agency

In light of these figures, the MHRA states, “A large proportion of those vaccinated to date as part of the vaccination campaign are very elderly and many of them will also have pre-existing conditions.” The agency therefore concludes that both vaccines raise “no other new safety concerns.” All vaccines and drugs have “certain side effects,” but in the case of the Corona vaccines, these are “consistent with expectations from clinical trials.” It goes on to say:

Following a very extensive exposure of the UK population, no new safety concerns have emerged from the reports received to date, and for the cases of other diseases reported in a temporal association with vaccination, the available evidence does not currently indicate that the vaccine caused the event.”

In contrast, the definition of a “coronadode” which means that someone in the UK “definitely died from COVID-19” applies for up to 28 days after a positive test result. That period is about 10 to 14 days longer than it takes for someone who has tested positive to be officially counted as recovered.

*

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

Featured image is from Viacheslav Lopatin | Credit: scaliger – stock.adobe.com

COVID Vaxx Certificates — Borderless Genocide

September 27th, 2021 by Peter Koenig

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

Ever since WHO mandated worldwide vaxx-certificates – a move directed and funded by the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations, not by WHO’s member states – the rope is tightening around the necks of those who decide not to go for the experimental not approved gene-therapy jab: They are not allowed in restaurants, or attending any indoor activity, be it sports or cultural events – not even the zoo.

All 193 UN member countries are dancing to the same tune, the tune of a deep dark ultra-wealthy state. How strange! Is anybody still believing that the covid circus is about health protection?

Bill Gates and WHO’s director general Tedros Adhanom (image right)

Yes, there are many, many people who still believing that it is right to segregate the people into vaxxed and non-vaxxed, even though the very WHO says officially the – what they call – vaccines – do not protect against covid infections. Among the most recent proof is Israel, where most of the recent covid deaths, were vaccinated people. This also applies to a large extent to the rest of the western world.

It doesn’t matter how stark the evidence is, many people still believe their governments, and worse, they obey their instructions.

Maybe the governments, corrupted as they are, are lying, when they say that a majority of people has already been vaccinated. If you look closely, the entire narrative about covid is and has been for the last 18 months – and longer – one Big Lie.

And yet, people who have been and are suffering from the “health impacts” of the invisible covid “virus” – obliterated economy, joblessness, misery, poverty, homelessness, famine – and in many cases death by suicide – still believe in the authorities. They cannot but admire their dictatorial governments, who punish and torture their populations in lockstep around the world. Remember the first scenario of the infamous 2010 Rockefeller Report that laid the groundwork for The Great Reset?

It’s called the Lockstep Scenario. It might also be called Stockholm Syndrome. You love your torturer and killer. If there has ever been a pandemic called Stockholm Syndrome, it is NOW. See this also.

The Defender of 15 September 2021, sponsored by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., pointedly reports,

With new mandates being rolled out almost daily, every aspect of your life, from employment to travel to entertainment to education to access to healthcare — even to being able to obtain a bank loan — may soon be tied to your vaccine status.” – Kennedy is absolutely right.

His report continues:

“And if public health officials get their way, no child in this country will be able to attend school without multiple injections of an experimental vaccine — for a virus that poses little or no threat to them.”

You may add, that since children as young as 10 years, in many cases even down to 5 years, are the latest victims of “vaccine” injuries, even death. And those who get away with it, may be infertile for life. There are several “trials” with Gates-sponsored, and WHO-supported “vaccination campaigns”, targeting young girls and women – in Africa, India and Bangladesh – ending up sterilizing the vaccinated. Many died in the process.

But the bulldozer moves on, relentlessly, not stoppable, because there is nobody, no authority out there which dares contradicting the Gates-Rockefeller (and others) eugenist agenda.

After all, on average some at least two thirds of WHO’s budget comes from the private sector, notably from Gates and the pharmaceutical industry. This is unheard of in the rest of the UN system. But then, WHO was created in 1948 by the Rockefeller Foundation – a brilliant idea as such, to have the world’s health in the hands of a UN agency, so it may be manipulated literally in lockstep around the globe, for the purposes of the rich and powerful.

Many of today’s covid vaxxers are eugenists. They have been bought, coerced or threatened into believing what they are doing is good for humanity. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. Many medical doctors and scientists have to toe the line, or else.

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” – Luke 23:34

There are some very rich and powerful un-humans at the wheel. We let them. They are tyrants. We love them; hence, we obey them. It is as if we needed them, their direction to – the slaughter house. Yes, the Stockholm Syndrome pandemic – is in full swing.

Obedience

The way this works has been tested more than fifty years ago by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. Professor Saul McLeod, a qualified psychology teacher, in a 2017 updated version describes in detail what he called “The Milgram Shock Experience”.

Professor McLeod describes in SimplyPsychology one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology, carried out by Stanley Milgram, also a psychologist at Yale University:

“Milgram conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on “obedience” – that they were just following orders from their superiors.

The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question: Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).

See this, including a 16-min. video – describing the “testing process” – shocking.

Milgram Experiment from Saul Mcleod on Vimeo.

In another stunning interview, “World Vaccination” – Michael Matt talks about the Kennedy Connection, including an interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., where Kennedy describes how this machinery of world dominance killed his uncle, President John F. Kennedy in 1963, and five years later (6 June 1968) his dad, Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, his uncle’s younger brother, who was also a Presidential candidate.

Robert Kennedy Jr. describes in this video, starting minute 19 (total video 47 min – 9 September 2021) how President Eisenhower already in early 1960 warned about the powers of the Military Industrial Complex, how it may take over government and forge a world-domineering way forward, if not stopped. What Eisenhower did apparently not foresee at that time is the importance and powerful influence, the hand-in-hand world takeover, of the Wall Street financial elite with the military.

See this powerful video.

We are at crucial cross-roads. The next couple of years will determine how the long-planned UN Agenda 2030 will develop and end up.

The so-called UN Agenda 2030 was designed in a 1992 UN-sponsored World Conference, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992.

The more we know, the better we are able to connect the dots, and the better we are armed for defense and reversal of this infamous agenda.

And the sooner we know what we need to know for the safety and survival of mankind, the sooner those doped by the bought propaganda mainstream media and suffering under the Stockholm Syndrome, may wake up – and unite in solidarity.

Its mending the division between the vaxxed and the non-vaxxed – and fighting the common enemy, the Globalists, the One World Order elite – with a novel and common approach of sovereign nations for an environmentally safe and healthy world development.

We shall Overcome!

*

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

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

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

With the recent pledge by China, Russia, Iran and Pakistan for renewed defense of Afghanistan’s sovereignty and right to develop, many have jumped the gun to celebrate a little prematurely.

While watching a hegemonic wanna-be global overlord choke on humble pie is certainly satisfying, and while Afghanistan unquestionably has a renewed hope to recapture its ancient role as a pearl on the Silk Road uniting all cultures of the globe, something darker is also afoot. A process reminiscent of the events of 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski, then leading a trilateral Commission takeover of the USA using a dim-witted puppet president, managed to launch a program known as “Operation Cyclone”.

This clandestine operation was premised on the lies of Zbigniew’s Team B analysis of Soviet ambitions to supposedly dominate the world and which thence justified a program that utilized billions of dollars in tax payer money to fund the growth of Mujahedeen terrorist cells and narcotics in a bid to light a fire under Russia’s soft underbelly and suck the unsuspecting soviets into a bloodletting that would be sold to an incredulous western population as “Russia’s Vietnam.”

Over forty years later, the results of Zbigniew’s duplicitous proxy war are well known.

The Soviet Union was certainly bled, leading to its ultimate dissolution under Gorbachev and the world was given the gift Islamic terrorism- funded, armed and trained generously by CIA, MI6 and ISI operatives.

Additionally, organized crime syndicates of the world also grew their influence in leaps and bounds as the world center of opium production was moved from its former zones of Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar to more fertile soil in Afghanistan, providing both the funding needed to light the region on fire for decades while also amplifying a new opium war against ALL of civilization. The conspicuous integration of the DEA and CIA during this period which coincided with the heroin boom and also the flooding of crack cocaine into the ghettos of the USA under CIA director George Bush Sr (also a defender of Zbigniew’s Team B takeover of U.S. intelligence estimates) cannot be ignored.

Signs of Darkness

Signs of the re-activation of this old script with a modern twist are already visible on numerous levels, not the least of those signs being witnessed in the strange decision to demolish the CIA torture annex in Kabul in response to the August 26 attack by the mysterious ISIS-K on the Kabul airport which killed 170 civilians and 13 U.S. soldiers. Why was it the case that U.S. and British intelligence agencies issued warnings of an attack at that location and time long before it occurred and yet did less than nothing, other than shooting civilians and bombing three households after it happened?

Why would the U.S. military deem it wise to destroy a CIA base which has been a strategic central point of command of all clandestine activities in the region for the past two decades in response to this completely foreseeable event?

Recently a Lebanese analyst, commenting on the observations of the leader of Hezbollah wrote that “the U.S. have been using helicopters to save ISIS terrorists from complete annihilation in Iraq and transporting them to Afghanistan to keep them as insurgents in Central Asia against Russia, China and Iran”.

This observation is not unique to Nasrallah, but has been echoed at various times over the past three years by the Russian government, Syrian state media and leading officials in Iran including former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif who noted as early as March 2018 that “this time, it wasn’t unmarked helicopters. They were American helicopters, taking Daesh out of Haska prison. Where did they take them? Now, we don’t know where they took them, but we see the outcome. We see more and more violence in Pakistan, more and more violence in Afghanistan, taking a sectarian flavor.”

Zarif’s words echoed those of Iranian Chief of Staff Major General Mohammad Baqeri who said: “After witnessing ISIS and other organized terrorist groups losing their ground in Iraq and Syria, they are now relocating them to Afghanistan.”

Additionally, U.S. mainstream media has been preparing the western zeitgeist with strange interviews with leaders of Al Qaeda and ISIS-K in recent weeks. First the state-funded PBS broadcasted a suspicious interview with Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (aka: Al Nusra aka: Al Qaeda) leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani who was repackaged in a business suite and sold as a “moderate resistance fighter” in Syria. Then just days before the August 26 Kabul attack, CNN’s Clarissa Ward interviewed an ISIS-K commander in a silhouetted frame to protect his identity. When asked if he would continue the campaign of international terror, the unnamed terrorist stated “instead of currently operating, we have turned to recruiting only, to utilize the opportunity to do our recruitment. But when the foreigners and people of the world leave Afghanistan, we can restart our operations.”

To top things off, the incredibly talented Bulgarian researcher Dilyana Gaytandzhieva noted on June 22 that the U.S. Army contracted four companies to purchase $350 million worth of weapons made by eight companies located in Serbia, Bulgaria and Croatia which are destined to flood into Syria as part of a program called Task Force Smoking Gun. This 2017 program was part of a U.S. Special Operations Command Unit Task force which carried out the Syrian ‘train and equip program’ designed to overthrow the Assad regime using Al Qaeda affiliates as freedom fighters. In her report, Gaytandzhieva wrote:

“According to the U.S. Federal Procurement Data System, the eight companies have already received orders with an estimated value of $25 million each or $200 million combined under the 5 year-long Pentagon program for non-U.S. standard weapons supplies. These are foreign weapons which are not compatible with the U.S. military standard, hence cannot be used by the U.S. army and will be delivered as military aid to third parties.”

China Will Fill the Vacuum?

It is 100% certain that China has great hopes to invest in Afghanistan’s bountiful rare earth, copper and iron deposits, as well as rail, roads, fibre optics, energy plants and communications bringing Afghanistan into the evolving Belt and Road Initiative. However, the expanded presence of Chinese engineers in the region will put China at risk of asymmetric attacks.

Over the past 15 years, projects like the 2007 Mes Aynak copper mining operation and 2011 Faryab and Sar-i-pul oil development deals have stalled due to the frequent occurrence of U.S.-backed terrorist attacks on Chinese engineers and workers.

Just this summer, 9 Chinese engineers were killed in Pakistan when an explosive device detonated sending a busload of workers off a cliff. These workers were en-route to work on the large Dasu hydroelectric dam that is part of the CPEC.

China is additionally concerned that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement which has cut its teeth fighting alongside its Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan may also spring to new life. It was only in November 2020 that Secretary of State Pompeo removed the group from the U.S. list of terrorist groups despite the fact that the United Nations Security Council had released a report in May 2020 stating that the ETIM “has a transnational agenda to target Xinjiang, China, and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, as well as Chitral, Pakistan, which poses a threat to China, Pakistan and other regional States.”

The refutation of China’s anti-Muslim genocide myth promoted by western MSM was laid out in a recent interview by this author here:

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen has attempted to allay China’s fears saying: “Those who are intending to carry out sabotage activities in other countries or have their foreign agenda would not be able to remain in the country.”

However, it is still too early to validate such claims as the ETIM alongside ISIS cells certainly abound in the mountainous northeast regions enjoying support from western clandestine operations and parallel networks still active in Pakistan such as Lashkar-e-Islam and Tehrik-e-Taliban as outlined in the aforementioned UN report.

The need to cut off all Al Qaeda operations are vital at this time and thus the convergence of the “big four” nations of Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan are so vital. With Iran having been inducted into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as of September 17 joining both Pakistan and India as full members, it is understood by all relevant parties that a new security doctrine is needed in the region premised on win-win cooperation.

This is most apparent when one considers that the living force for the multipolar alliance’s long-term success is hinged upon the continued success of China’s 130 nation strong Belt and Road Initiative whose four of the six primary networks pass through Xinjiang and the region which Brzezinski lit on fire four decades ago to keep the “world island” divided and weak.

The Chinese and their growing array of partners have come to the fundamental insight that the only way to destroy terrorism is not by bombing nations to smithereens, but rather by providing the means of improving the lives of people. This is the true meaning of “civilization” that not merely builds infrastructure for the sake of shareholder value, but uplifts and ennobles the hearts and minds of a people who have been caught too long in the darkness of ignorance, despair, war and poverty. This is the only antidote for global terrorism, the plague of drugs that have ravaged countless lives, and even the poisonous misanthropy underlying the decaying “Rules-Based International Order”.

*

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.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Multiple lawsuits are pending in the United States against Syngenta alleging the weedkilling chemical paraquat causes Parkinson’s disease.

A notice of settlement was filed June 18, 2021 for several paraquat cases. See this documentBut more than 100 lawsuits remain pending.

.

.

The lawsuits name Syngenta as well as Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. and Growmark Inc. as defendants.

Chevron distributed and sold Gramoxone paraquat product in the United States in an agreement with a Syngenta predecessor called Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), which introduced paraquat-based Gramoxone in 1962. Under a license agreement, Chevron had the right to to manufacture, use, and sell paraquat formulations in the U.S.

Lawyers around the United States are advertising for plaintiffs, seeking to draw in thousands of people who’ve been exposed to paraquat and now suffer from Parkinson’s.

Here is a list of actions pending through Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings (JCCP) as of Aug. 2, 2021

  • Harker v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. CGC-21-589755 (San Francisco Superior Court) (coordinated June 11, 2021)
  • De La Vega v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01057. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Louis Lombardo v. Syngenta et al., Alameda County Superior Court; Case No. RG21100757, filed on May 26, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Lonnie Owens et al. v. Syngenta et al., Contra Costa Superior Court; Case No. C21-01187, filed on June 4, 2021 (coordinated July 19, 2021)
  • Borrelli v. Syngenta AG, et al. (Case No. MSC21-01217), filed June 24, 2021 in Contra Costa County Superior Court (coordinated July 23, 2021)
  • Isaak v. Syngenta AG, et al., San Francisco Superior Court; Case No. CGC-21591254 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
  • Rubino v. Syngenta, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. C2101422 (coordinated August 2, 2021)
  • Aguiar v. Syngenta, et al. Case No. C21-01373. (Contra Costa Superior Court) (coordinated August 2, 2021)

Multidistrict litigation

On April 7, 2021, the Fears Nachawati Texas-based law firm filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, D.C., asking that pending paraquat lawsuits be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California, the same federal court where Roundup litigation was consolidated. The case with the judicial panel is MDL No. 3004. The panel hearing on the matter was May 27 and on June 7, the panel approved the formation of the paraquat multidistrict litigation, assigning it to Judge  Nancy J. Rosenstengel in the Southern District of Illinois.

Additionally, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Iowa on May 3. The suit seeks “equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, including, but not limited to, the costs of diagnostic testing” for farmers and others exposed to paraquat who are allegedly at “increased risk” for Parkinson’s, according to the legal filing.

At least 86 lawsuits were pending within the MDL as of September 10, 2021.

Science

Several scientific studies have linked paraquat to Parkinson’s, including a large study of U.S. farmers jointly overseen by multiple U.S. government agencies.  Farmers use paraquat in the production of many crops, including corn, soy and cotton. The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) said it found that “exposure to agricultural pesticides may increase a person’s risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.” In 2011, AHS researchers reported that “participants who used paraquat or rotenone were twice as likely to develop Parkinson’s disease as people who didn’t use these chemicals.”

A more recent paper from AHS researchers stated that “Extensive literature suggests an association between general pesticide use and Parkinson’s disease (PD). However, with few exceptions, little is known about associations between specific pesticides and PD.”

Parkinson’s is an incurable progressive nervous system disorder that limits a person’s ability to control movement, causing tremors, loss of balance and eventually often leaving victims bedridden and/or bound to a wheelchair. The disease is not necessarily fatal but typically becomes severely debilitating.

Dutch neurologist Bastiaan Bloem, who recently authored a book about Parkinson’s, blames widespread exposure to herbicides such as paraquat, along with other toxic chemicals used in agriculture and manufacturing, for the spread of the disease.

Acutely Toxic 

Along with fears about links between paraquat and Parkinson’s, paraquat is also known to be an extremely acutely toxic chemical that can quickly kill people who ingest very small amounts. In Europe, the sale of paraquat has been banned since 2007, but in the United States the pesticide is sold as a “Restricted Use Pesticide” due to “acute toxicity.”

As part of discovery in the Parkinson’s litigation, lawyers have obtained internal records from Syngenta and its predecessor corporate entities dating back to the 1960s. Many of these documents are sealed, but some have started to come to light.

Those unsealed discovery documents, which include copies of letters, minutes of meetings, study summaries, and emails, are being made available on this page.

Most of the documents unsealed to date deal with corporate discussions about how to keep paraquat herbicides on the market despite its deadliness, through measures designed to reduce accidental poisonings. Specifically, many of the documents detail an internal corporate struggle over the addition of an emetic, a vomit-inducing agent, to paraquat products.  Today, all Syngenta paraquat-containing products include an emetic called “PP796.”  Liquid paraquat-containing formulations from Syngenta also include a stenching agent to produce a foul odor, and a blue dye to differentiate the dark-colored herbicide from tea or cola or other beverages.

EPA Review 

Paraquat recently underwent the EPA’s registration review process,  and on August 2, 2021 the agency said paraquat would remain on the market with new safety measures aimed at reducing farmworker exposures. That followed the Oct. 23, 2020 release of a proposed interim decision (PID) for paraquat.  The interim decision proposed mitigation measures to reduce human health and ecological risks identified in the agency’s 2019 draft human health and ecological risk assessments.

The EPA had indicated it would likely ban most aerial spraying of paraquat, but after industry lobbying efforts, the agency said it would allow such use with restrictions around residential areas.

The EPA said that through collaboration with the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the agency completed a “thorough review” of the scientific information on paraquat and Parkinson’s Disease and concluded that the weight of evidence was insufficient to link paraquat to Parkinson’s disease. The agency published this “Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate the Relationship between Paraquat Dichloride Exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More than 100 US Lawsuits Alleging Weed-killing Chemical Paraquat causes Parkinson’s Disease.

What I Know and Don’t Know about SARS-CoV-2 Virus

September 27th, 2021 by Edward Curtin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version). Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.***

Incisive article by Edward Curtin first published on June 19, 2021

***

After fifteen months of assiduous reading, study, observation, and research, I have come to some conclusions about what is called COVID-19. 

I would like to emphasize that I have done this work obsessively since it seemed so important.  I have consulted information and arguments across all media, corporate and alternative, academic, medical, books, etc. 

I have consulted with researchers around the world. I have read the websites of the CDC, the World Health Organization, and government and non-government health organizations.  In other words, I have left no stone unturned, despite the overt or covert political leanings of the sources.  I have done this as a sociologist and writer, not as a medical doctor, although many of my sources have been medical doctors and medical studies.

My succinct conclusions follow without links to sources since I am not trying to persuade anyone of anything but just stating for the public record what I have concluded.  Life is short.  I am going to say it now.

  • I know that vast numbers of people have been hypnotized by fear, threats, and bribes to accept the corporate mainstream media’s version of COVID-19. I have concluded that many millions are moving in a trance state and do not know this. They have been induced into this state by a well-organized, very sophisticated propaganda campaign that has drawn on the human fear of death and disease.  Those behind this have no doubt studied the high incidence of hypochondriasis in the general population and the fear of an invisible “virus” in societies where belief in God and the spiritual invisible has been replaced by faith in science.  Knowing their audience well, they have concocted a campaign of fear and confusion to induce obedience.
  • I do not know but suspect that those who have been so hypnotized tend to be mainly members of the middle to the upper classes, those who have invested so much belief in the system. This includes the highly schooled.
  • I know that to lockdown hundreds of millions of healthy people, to insist they wear useless masks, to tell them to avoid human contacts, to destroy the economic lives of regular people have created vast suffering that was meant to teach people a lesson about who was in control and that they better revise their understanding of human relations to adjust to the new digital unreality that the producers of this masquerade are trying to put in place of flesh and blood, face to face human reality.
  • I know that the PCR test invented by Kary Mullis cannot test for the alleged virus or any virus and therefore all the numbers of cases and deaths are based on nothing. They are conjured out of thin air in a massive act of magic. I know that the belief that it can so test began with the unscientific PCR Corona protocol created by Christian Drosten in Germany in January 2020 that became the standard method for testing for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide.  I am sure this was preplanned and part of a high-level conspiracy.  This protocol set the cycle threshold (amplification) at 45 which could only result in false positive results.  These were then called cases: An act of fraud on a massive scale.
  • I do not know if the alleged virus has ever been isolated in the sense of being purified or detached from everything else aside from being cultured in a lab. Therefore I do not know if the virus exists.
  • I know that the experimental mRNA “vaccines” that are being pushed on everyone are not traditional vaccines but dangerous experiments whose long-term consequences are unknown. And I know that Moderna says its messenger RNA (mRNA) non-vaccine “vaccine” functions “like an operating system on a computer” and that Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA vaccine technology, says that the lipid nanoparticles from the injections travel throughout the body and settle in large quantities in multiple organs where the spike protein, being biologically active, can cause massive damage and that the FDA has known this. Additionally, I know that tens of thousands of people have suffered adverse effects from these injections and many thousands have died from them and that these figures are greatly underestimated due to the reporting systems.  I know that with this number of casualties in the past these experimental shots would have been stopped long ago or never started.  That they have not, therefore, convinces me that a radically evil agenda is under way whose goal is harm not health because those in charge know what I know and much more.
  • I do not know where this alleged virus originated, if it exists.
  • I know that from the start of this crisis, there was a concerted effort across the world to deny access to proven effective treatments such as hydroxychloroquine, steroids, ivermectin in a planned effort to vaccinate as many people as possible. This alone reveals an agenda centered not on health but on getting as many people as possible to submit to being vaccinated and controlled. Social control is the name of this deadly game.
  • I know that those pushing these vaccines – The World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc. – have a long history of wanting to drastically reduce the world’s population and that their promotion of eugenics under various names is very well known. I am convinced that the totally untested mRNA-type “gene therapy” is the key to their plan for population reduction.
  • I do not know if they will succeed.
  • I know they must be resisted.
  • I do not know why so many good people cannot see through this evil. I can only attribute it to having been seduced by a massive hypnotic propaganda campaign that has appealed to their deepest fears and will result in those fears being realized because they thought they were free. It is a great tragedy.
  • I know that all the statistics about cases and deaths “from” COVID-19 have been manipulated to create a fake pandemic. One of the most obvious proofs of this is the alleged disappearance of the flu and deaths from influenza. Only someone in a trance could fail to understand the absurd logic in the argument that this was the result of mask wearing when at the same time the air-born COVID-19 spread like wildfire until that stopped precipitously in January 2021 when a tiny number of people had been vaccinated.
  • I know there has been barely any excess mortality throughout all this.
  • I do not know where it will all end but hope against hope the growing opposition to this fraud will grow and defeat it despite the organized censorship that is underway against dissenting opinions. I know that when organized censorship on this scale takes place those behind it are afraid of the revelation of the truth. A simple understanding of history confirms this.
  • I know that the temporary reprieve the authorities have granted to their subjects will be followed by further restrictions on fundamental freedoms, the corona virus lockdowns will likely return, “vaccine” boosters will be promoted, and the World Economic Forum’s push for a Great Reset with a Fourth Industrial Revolution will lead to the marriage of artificial intelligence, cyborgs, digital technology, and biology with the USA and other countries continuing to slip into a new form of fascist control unless people across the world stand up and resist in great numbers. I am heartened by signs that this resistance is growing.
  • Finally, I know if the authoritarian forces win the immediate battle, someone will write a book with a title like that of Milton Mayer’s classic, They Thought They Were Free. It will be censored. Perhaps it will first be shared via samizdat.  But in the end, after much suffering and death, the truth about this evil agenda will prevail and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth.
  • We are in a spiritual war for the soul 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.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. 

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

***

He is the author of Seeking the Truth in a Country of Lies

To order his book click the cover page.

“Seeking Truth in a Country of Lies is a dazzling journey into the heart of many issues — political, philosophical, and personal — that should concern us all.  Ed Curtin has the touch of the poet and the eye of an eagle.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“Edward Curtin puts our propaganda-stuffed heads in a guillotine, then in a flash takes us on a redemptive walk in the woods — from inferno to paradiso.  Walk with Ed and his friends — Daniel Berrigan, Albert Camus, George Orwell, and many others — through the darkest, most-firefly-filled woods on this earth.” James W. Douglass, author, JFK and the Unspeakable

“A powerful exposé of the CIA and our secret state… Curtin is a passionate long-time reform advocate; his stories will rouse your heart.” Oliver Stone, filmmaker, writer, and director

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Incisive article first publish on March 18, 2021.

 

The Setup

In March 2020,  former President Trump declared a national emergency and the White House announced a 15-day plan to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

Governments around the world either preceded the U.S. or soon followed with similar pronouncements. The upsurge in totalitarianism since these edicts were installed is mind-boggling.

Staying home, social distancing, and hand washing were the first steps in the slippery slope towards medical martial law.

Then came the lockdowns and mandatory face mask policies.

These were soon followed by pressure to take a COVID-19 test, contact tracing, and quarantines.

Next were vaccines that were rushed to production, given only “emergency use authorization” by the FDA and still deemed experimental, having completely skipped long-term safety studies.

Now, the threat of vaccine passports/certificates represents the next step towards complete tyranny and subjugation of the people.

All of these draconian measures have served as social engineering tools to get people used to having “experts” and government officials tell them what to do. In fact, you could argue that all of humanity (outside those in authority) has been slowly tortured over the past year. With staggering numbers of suicides and rising rates of substance abuse, many decided to just check out. The remaining masses have been subjected to classical conditioning like Pavlov’s dogs. During this “plandemic”, most people have been retrained to depend on authorities to tell them when they can go to work, visit loved ones, travel, go to church, hug someone or even shake their hand.

The path to totalitarian control always starts with something simple and seemingly reasonable. It’s also usually accompanied by a promise of peace and safety in exchange for surrendering one’s rights.


– Jesse Smith, Mask Up! The Con Game to Destroy Your Freedom

Loving Your Oppressors. The Stockholm Syndrome

There is a sickness going around that’s much worse than any coronavirus. It’s called “Stockholm Syndrome” and it infects those who are too ignorant, trusting, and fearful to question those in authority and hold them accountable.

Infected people lap up every word people like Dr. Anthony Fauci say, no matter how many times he’s contradicted himself or even been caught lying.

They fully agree with taking a vaccine rolled out at warp speed with completely new technology that’s never before been tested on human beings. They yell at people in stores who refuse to wear face masks.

They call anyone with facts contradicting the mainstream narrative a conspiracy theorist.

They cheer when people who disagree with them get censored, deplatformed, and even lose their jobs. They don’t balk when authorities extend or issue new state of emergency rules restricting their freedom.

They don’t even get angry when hypocritical officials are caught violating their own rules. But they are quick to attack anyone challenging their beloved rulers and attempting to restore liberty such as when Texas Governor Greg Abbott reopened the state and lifted mask mandates (well, sort of).

We all know someone infected with this syndrome.

It might be a family member, close friend, co-worker or neighbor. They have been conditioned to love their despotic overlords. In turn they’ve learned to love their slavery and cheer when authorities clamp down and then “allow” them to do what was once normal and considered basic rights. It’s because of people like this that greater restrictions and oppression await us all.

One Passport to Rule Us All 

The engineers of the “plandemic” recognized that new technology is often resisted by the masses, but could be adopted quickly due to a public health crisis. What better way to coerce people into using technology that has long been planned to enslave humanity than by holding them hostage to a “deadly” virus causing people to fear for their lives?
– Jesse Smith, Dystopia Now! – Surveillance Through Vaccine Certificates, Digital IDs, and Biometric Data

Vaccine or “immunity” passports represent the final nail in the coffin of freedom. If the following headlines don’t get you angry, then you must be among those with Stockholm Syndrome who are unassumingly helping the elites erect a digital prison planet that will be extremely difficult to escape. 

The passports are already being used in Israel to “allow” vaccinated citizens to resume visiting places such as gyms, hotels, and sporting venues.

The Israeli “Green Pass” has created a de facto medical apartheid state with those who refuse vaccination (for whatever reason) being treated like second class citizens. In February, vaccinated Israelis got the opportunity to enjoy an outdoor concert, while the country’s unvaccinated social pariahs were barred from attending.

Vaccinated Israelis Get ‘Green Pass’ to Normal Life

Vaccinated Israelis Get ‘Green Pass’ to Normal Life

Israeli Health Minister Yuli Edelstein warned that if citizens violate the Green Pass scheme, he would not hesitate to close the economy again, stating:

We will close the economy just as fast as we are now opening.

To top it off, Israel has also issued “Freedom Bracelets” to be worn by those entering the country from abroad. The bracelets will take the place of a mandatory two-week quarantine in a special facility. So, when traveling into Israel, your choices are to wear a monitoring device like a convicted felon or face a two-week quarantine in a military administered hotel. The bracelets were developed by SuperCom, a company specializing in offender tracking devices. While discussing the Israeli government contract for the quarantine bracelets, SuperCom CEO and president Ordan Trabelsi, stated:

We call it a ‘freedom bracelet’ because we are not locking anybody up, but rather giving them the opportunity to go home.

Does this sound like freedom to you?

Israel’s new “Freedom Bracelet.” Image credit: SuperCom

Ilana Rachel Daniel, a health advisor and information officer for the Rappeh political party in Jerusalem, has shined the light on Israel’s attempts to deny informed consent and negate bodily autonomy. In the following interview she tackles a “journalist” head on, pointing out that the COVID-1984 vaccines have not received full FDA approval among several other salient points.

In an audio recording, Daniel sounded the alarm about the drastic measures the government was installing, saying:

They’re making this green passport where half the population cannot get into theaters or malls or all sorts of things unless you have taken the vaccination. They are creating a medical Apartheid. 

They’re making people wear an ankle bracelet, a security bracelet when they come back from travelling. It’s absolutely insane.

Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., an Israeli cybersecurity company, has implemented the vaccine apartheid system for its employees. If you are fully vaccinated, you get to enjoy company perks such as hair salon treatments, access to the on-site gym and play in game rooms that your unvaccinated peers can’t access. Without proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test, you can’t even eat with your co-workers, but must remain isolated at your desk. By April, those who can’t demonstrate vaccination proof will not even be allowed to enter the building!

Regarding the policies, company spokesman Gil Messing said:

We’re not shaming anyone. We’re not pointing fingers. We are just saying, ‘This will be our policy.’ If you get the vaccination, you get benefits that others do not.

 To top it all off, Yuli Edelstein further warned,

Whoever doesn’t vaccinate will only go out to supermarkets or pharmacies, while the vaccinated will go to stadiums and gyms.

After recognizing that these statements presented a legal nightmare, health officials acknowledged that those with negative tests from the previous 48 hours would also be allowed entry. However, officials want to make getting tested more difficult by restricting locations and increasing prices so that more people opt for vaccines instead.

To add insult to injury, Israel’s parliament joined action taken previously by the Spanish government in approving a law to create a registry of people who choose not to be vaccinated against the coronavirus. The personal information of vaccine refusers will be shared with local and national authorities for at least the next three months.

Though the Green Pass initiative is only supposed to last for six months, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is in talks with Pfizer and Moderna to deliver extra vaccines to allow for a second dose for all later this year. This would mean that the current passports would have to be renewed all over again for those receiving the second vaccination.

Through international coalitions like GAVI and COVAX, governments and Big Pharma have morphed into a singular medical gestapo cajoling all to take their vaccines through propaganda, extreme coercion tactics, and hiding factual information. Governments have completely sold out their populations to the larger agenda I spelled out clearly in Beware the Vaccine Pt. 5. Pfizer has even demanded that countries purchasing its vaccine surrender military bases, embassy buildings, and other sovereign assets as collateral against expected vaccine injury lawsuits.

It’s Not Just Israel

The UK and many European countries are also seriously considering implementing the passport scheme. The European Commission recently announced draft legislation to create a “Digital Green Pass.”

India has joined the list, adding a QR code certificate version.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that China has also launched their own version called the International Travel Health Certificate available from its WeChat mobile app.

For Americans, please don’t rest on your laurels thinking that this is something only happening abroad. The U.S. is also firmly on board with the vaccine passport scheme. Currently, the state of New York is testing its own vaccine passport called the “Excelsior Pass.” The official announcement states:

“Developed in partnership with IBM, the Excelsior Pass will use proven, secure technology to confirm an individual’s vaccination or a recent negative COVID-19 test through a confidential data transfer to help fast-track the reopening of theaters, stadiums and other businesses in accordance with New York State guidelines…The Excelsior Pass will play a critical role in getting information to venues and sites in a secure and streamlined way, allowing us to fast-track the reopening of these businesses and getting us one step closer to reaching a new normal.”

Airlines are also major peddlers of the passport hustle. The president of Airlines for America (A4A) is pressuring Congress on behalf of airlines such as American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, United, and Alaska Airlines to strongly consider going against WHO’s current recommendation of not making vaccine passports mandatory for air travel.

The Los Angeles school district has partnered with Microsoft to launch the ‘Daily Pass’ app. The app’s software will be used to schedule and track district-managed coronavirus tests and vaccinations. Students and faculty must gain app clearance before being allowed into schools once they open.

Recently, Arthur Kaplan, an NYU medical ethics professor, went on CNN to espouse the idea of these Naziesque “yellow badge” vaccine passports, stating:

If you promise people more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that’s a very powerful incentive to actually achieve fuller vaccination. 

Vaccine passports do require access; it’s hard to impose anything unless you are pretty sure that somebody can get a vaccine. So I think it’ll be a little while before we see this, let’s say within the U.S. 

But there are going to be communities and areas of the country where it starts to make sense due to high availability of the vaccine to say, ‘you wanna come back to work in person? Gotta show me a vaccine certificate. You wanna go in a bar, a restaurant? Gotta show me a vaccine certificate.

It’s All Part of the Global Agenda

The “debate” over whether to implement vaccine passports is happening all over the world. No matter what these passport apps are called, they will likely all be underpinned by a common software or framework that will enable them to “talk to each other” despite the country of origin. The leading developers of this technology include AOK Pass, Common Pass, the Vaccination Credential Initiative, Good Health Pass Collaborative, and the IATA Travel Pass.

What all of these companies, organizations, and initiatives have in common are their ties to the World Economic Forum, the digital transformation of society, and global governance. If you haven’t seen the documentary Decoding Davos: The Global Endgame, I suggest you do so soon. It provides a clear understanding of how this global think tank is manipulating the world into a “Great Reset” that promises strict control of all human life under new digital technology such as vaccine passports.

With President Biden marching in lockstep with these global plans, recently threatening to “reinstate restrictions” if sufficient progress in fighting the virus isn’t made, I wonder how long Americans will continue to be lulled to sleep thinking that freedom and normalcy is just around the corner?

The authoritarian overlords installing this new medical martial law regime will demand total compliance before all is said and done. If you decide for whatever reason to refuse the coronavirus vaccine, prepare to be treated like an outcast and possibly deemed a criminal as this “Minority Report” dystopia marches on. Now is the time to do whatever you can to free yourself from dependence on the systems currently in place and those the global cabal are planning to make the new normal in the near future.

*

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

This article was originally published on Truth Unmuted.

Jesse Smith is an independent journalist who operates the Truth Unmuted website. Truth Unmuted is dedicated to exposing the lies, motives, and methods of the global cabal trying to force humanity into a new world order. The website covers issues such as technocracy, globalism, transhumanism, politics, health, and other relevant topics that tie into global agendas. 

Featured image is from Truth Unmuted

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine Passports, “Medical Martial Law” and the “Stockholm Syndrome”
  • Tags:

Italy Orders Companies Not to Pay Unvaccinated Workers

September 27th, 2021 by Paul Joseph Watson

The Italian government has passed a decree applying to both the private and public sector ordering companies to withhold pay from workers who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The decree mandates that all employees get the vaccine ‘green pass’, which led to questions about what would happen to the millions of Italians who remain unvaccinated.

.

.

The government is attempting to avoid potential legal action by directing companies not to fire the unvaccinated, but simply to not pay them while telling employees not to show up to work under threat of being fined if they do so.

“Instead, they should be considered to be on an unjustified absence and have their wages or salaries withheld,” writes Ken Macon.

“Those found to be working without a vaccine passport could be punished with fines of up to €1,500. Additionally, the government said it would not cater for the test costs for those who would prefer not to take the vaccine.”

Even those who have had the virus, recovered and developed anti-bodies will still have to get at least one dose of the vaccine, presumably just as a performative show of compliance.

Italy extended its vaccine passport scheme to schools and universities on September 1st.

Teachers were told they faced being fired if they didn’t take it and students were mandated to take it to attend classes.

The unvaccinated were also banned from using long distance public transport, meaning that holidays, travel for work and visiting relatives has become impossible for many.

Venues such as museums, stadiums, theaters gyms, and indoor seating spaces at bars and restaurants all require vaccine identification and businesses can be fined thousands of euros for not enforcing the rules.

The ‘green pass’ in Italy also tracks an individual’s location, once again emphasizing how it’s a digital ID card on steroids.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Italy Orders Companies Not to Pay Unvaccinated Workers

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention disregarded the advice of the agency’s vaccine advisory committee, clearing the way for healthcare workers, teachers, and residents of long-term care facilities, homeless shelters and prisons to get a third Pfizer COVID shot.

Instead, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky aligned with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authorization of a third dose of Pfizer’s vaccine for a broader population, including healthcare workers, teachers and others whose jobs put them at “high risk” of infections, plus residents of prisons and homeless shelters.

President Biden today acted on the news, announcing his administration will begin to deliver booster shots this week, Politico reported.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on Thursday voted unanimously to approve Pfizer’s booster shot for people 65 and older, long-term care facility residents and certain people with underlying conditions, with the third shot to be administered at least six months after the second dose.

But the ACIP panel voted against recommending a booster dose for people whose jobs or situations put them at high risk of vaccine breakthrough infection.

In a similar scenario, the FDA on Wednesday granted Pfizer extended Emergency Use Authorization for boosters for people 65 and older and those at higher risk of severe disease and death, as well as frontline workers at higher risk of breakthrough infections — even though last week, the agency’s safety panel had rejected, in a 16 – 2 vote, Pfizer’s application for boosters for the general population.

In opposing Pfizer’s application, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee cited a lack of long-term data and said the vaccine’s risks did not outweigh the benefits for the broader population.

The broad nature of the FDA’s authorization of Pfizer’s third shot did not sit well with several members of the CDC’s ACIP. According to Reuters, the ACIP gave the thumbs down for new additional doses for groups — including healthcare workers, teachers and residents of homeless shelters and prisons — in part because of the difficulty of implementing such a proposal.

ACIP member Lynn Bahta, a nurse who works with the Minnesota Department of Health, voted against that measure. Bahta said the data does not support boosters in that group yet.

Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said he believed the CDC adviserswere worried recommending boosters based on employment would allow overly broad use, especially in younger people for whom the health benefits of a booster shot are still unclear.

“That was a hole that you could drive a truck through, that essentially what we were doing was basically what the (Biden) administration initially asked — to just have a vaccine for the general population, because obviously the pharmacists aren’t going to figure out whether you’re working in a grocery store or hospital,” Offit said.

The CDC now says people 65 years and older and residents in long-term care settings should get a booster and so should people 50 to 64 years old who have an underlying medical condition.

Those 18 to 49 with underlying medical conditions, and those 18 to 64 who are at an increased risk because of an occupational or institutional setting “may” get a shot, the CDC said.

Last month, President Biden and top health officials, including Walensky, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, publicly announced a booster shot program would begin the week of Sept. 20, well before the FDA and CDC examined the evidence.

At the time, numerous scientists expressed skepticism over the need for COVID boosters, including two FDA officials who resigned over the issue.Megan Redshaw

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Killer Vaccine: CDC Director Overrules Agency’s Own Vaccine Safety Committee, Sides With FDA to Approve Boosters for ‘High-Risk’ Workers

One of our readers contacted me this week with information that the Australian government collects on vaccine injuries on their Department of Health website. Like many countries, Australia maintains a database of adverse reactions for drugs.

The Australian government database for adverse reactions tracks 78 different vaccines for the past 20 years, with a total of 47 deaths following vaccination during the years 2000 through 2020.

In 2021 for just the 3 COVID-19 vaccines, there have already been a total of 524 deaths recorded following the COVID-19 shots, more than 10X the total for the past 20 years.

 

And now the Australian government is doing everything they can to lock down the citizens of their country and force them to be injected with one of the COVID-19 shots as a condition for participating in society.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia Records 10X More Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots than Recorded Deaths Following ALL Vaccines for Past 20 Years 

 The UK Medicine Regulator has responded to a Freedom of Information request demanding to know how many deaths have occurred in the past 20 years due to all vaccines, and their response has revealed that there have been four times as many deaths in just eight months due to the Covid-19 injections.

The request was made via email to the Medicine and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) on the 6th August 2021 in which a Mr Anderson asked the MHRA the following questions –
.
  • How many Deaths have there been from all Covid-19 vaccines?
  • Are there any other reporting AI system monitoring systems like the Yellow Card scheme?
  • Are Covid-19 Vaccines still in trials?
  • How many deaths has there been in last 20 years by previous Vaccines without Covid-19 Vaccines?
  • What happens if a there is a new vaccine or new drug? What process and monitoring do they go through?
  • What cut off point will the MHRA say a vaccine or drug is unsafe for humans?
The MHRA of course responded with the usual “we do not hold this information” as seen time and time again from Government departments, especially Public Health England who claim they do not hold the information for the number of people to have died within 28 days of having a Covid-19 vaccine when Public Health Scotland have been perfectly capable of publishing the figures.

However, they did confirm that they are using other epidemiological studies, anonymised GP-based electronic healthcare records and international experience to proactively monitor safety alongside the spontaneous reports received via the Yellow Card scheme.The MHRA also confirmed that the current Covid-19 vaccines on offer in the United Kingdom are only under a temporary authorisation and that these authorisations do not constitute a marketing authorisation.

In answer to the question asked on the number of deaths due to all other vaccines in the past twenty years the MHRA provided the usual robotic response about how great the Covid-19 vaccines are and how they are the “single most effective treatment for preventing serious illness due to Covid-19” but what they did not do is say that they “do not hold this information”.Instead they revealed that they had received a total of 404 reported adverse reactions to all available vaccines (excluding the Covid-19 injections) associated with a fatal outcome between the 1st January 2001 and the 25th August 2021 – a time frame of 20 years and 8 months.

But how does that fare against the number of reported adverse reactions to all temporarily authorised Covid-19 vaccines associated with a fatal outcome? Well, since the Pfizer jab was rolled out in December 2020 there have been 534 reported deaths, meaning that in just 8 months, this “vaccine” alone outnumbers the deaths due to all other vaccines in the past 20 years

However, the AstraZeneca viral vector injection has fared much worse with 1,083 deaths being reported to the MHRA since January 2020, more than twice as many than what have been reported due to all other vaccines in the past 20 years.

There have also been 17 reported deaths due to the Moderna jab since it was first administered in June 2021, and 28 deaths where the brand of Covid-19 vaccine was not specified in the report.

Therefore, up to the 15th September 2021 there have been a grand total of 1,662 deaths reported to the MHRA as adverse reactions to all available Covid-19 vaccines in the United Kingdom since the beginning of the year.

Meaning there have been four times as many deaths in just 8 months due to the Covid-19 vaccines than there have been due to every other available vaccine since the year 2001, and now they are administering this experimental treatment to children who are at zero risk of even suffering serious disease due to the Covid-19 virus.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on UK Medicine Regulator: Four Times as many Deaths Attributable to Covid-19 Vaccines in 8 months than Deaths Due to all other Vaccines combined in 20 years

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

James Burnham describes how it is necessary that the masses believe the revolution to be beneficial to them, when in reality it is just to transition from one ruling class to the other.

[James Burnham is] the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the original proselytizer, in America, of the theory of ‘totalitarianism.’” – Christopher Hitchens, “For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports

In the first part of this two part series, I went over how the roots for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when an American, former high-level Trotskyist who later went on to become the intellectual founding father of neo-conservatism, James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.” And that it was in fact, these ideologies of Burnham that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.

Burnham’s Recruitment into Allen Dulles’ OPC

“Burnham was a consultant to OPC on virtually every subject of interest to our organization. … He had extensive contacts in Europe and, by virtue of his Trotskyite background, was something of an authority on domestic and foreign Communist parties and front organizations.” E. Howard Hunt’s Memoirs (Watergate ‘plumber’ and famous CIA dirty trickster)

It is understandably the source of some confusion as to how a former high level Trotskyist became the founder of the neo-conservative movement; with the Trotskyists calling him a traitor to his kind, and the neo-conservatives describing it as an almost road to Damascus conversion in ideology.

However, the truth of the matter is that it is neither.

That is, James Burnham never changed his beliefs and convictions at any point during his journey through Trotskyism, OSS/CIA intelligence to neo-conservatism, although he may have back-stabbed many along the way, and this two-part series will go through why this is the case.

As I discussed in part one, Burnham had by May 21, 1940 officially resigned from the “‘philosophy of Marxism,’ dialectical materialism,” and by 1941 achieved fame and fortune with his book “The Managerial Revolution.

Burnham, made clear in this book, that he was not only very ready to accept the outcome of a victorious Nazi Germany (this was his conclusion at the time), but that this was both a natural and an inevitable course that the entire world would have no choice but to follow. Burnham made no qualms that Nazi Germany was considered by himself as the most superior form of his concept of a “managerial society.”

He would go on to state in his “The Managerial Revolution” that the Russian Revolution, WWI and its aftermath, the Versailles Treaty gave final proof that capitalist world politics could no longer work and had come to an end. He described WWI as the last war of the capitalists and WWII as the first, but not last war, of the managerial society. And, that many more wars would have to be fought after WWII before a managerial society could finally fully take hold.

This ongoing war would lead to the destruction of sovereign nation states, such that only a small number of great nations would survive, culminating into the nuclei of three “super-states”, which Burnham predicted would be centered around the United States, Germany and Japan. He goes on to predict that these super-states will never be able to conquer the other and will be engaged in permanent war until some unforeseeable time.

He predicted that Russia would be broken in two, with the west being incorporated into the German sphere and the east into the Japanese sphere. (Note that this book was published in 1941, such that Burnham was clearly of the view that Nazi Germany and fascist Japan would be the victors of WWII.) Burnham states that “sovereignty will be restricted to the few super-states.”

This future of “forever wars” amongst a few super-states has obvious remnant influences from Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” militant ideology.

This was also just the kind of thing Allen Dulles was talent searching for.

During the 1920s and 1930s both Dulles brothers acted as significant players in the “Rearming of Germany by Night,” largely organised through their law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, which operated as the center of an intricate international network of banks, investment firms, and industrial conglomerates that helped rebuild Germany after WWI.

The German representative of the Dulles brothers’ law firm was Dr. Gerhardt Alois Westrick, who acted simultaneously as a financial agent for Hitler and an Abwehr spymaster in the United States. In January 1940 Westrick was given the title of Wehrwirtschaftsführer for his contributions to the war effort. He was then assigned by von Ribbentrop to undertake a mission to the United States to meet American business leaders and gain their support for Germany. (1)

Allen Dulles was also a director of the J. Henry Schroder bank, whose German chairman, SS General Baron Kurt von Schroder, was one of the main assistants to Schacht in organizing the fund that financed Hitler’s 1933 rise to power. Allen Dulles remained on the board of the Schroder Bank until 1944, well after he had taken his post as chief of the OSS in Switzerland.

Allen Dulles also worked very closely with Thomas McKittrick, an old Wall Street friend who was president of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Five of its directors would later be charged with war crimes, including Hermann Schmitz, one of the many Dulles’ law clients involved with BIS. Schmitz was the CEO of IG Farben the chemical conglomerate that became notorious for its production of Zyklon B, the gas used in Hitler’s death camps, and for its extensive use of slave labour during the war. (2)

David Talbot writes in his “The Devil’s Chessboard”:

“The secretive BIS became a crucial financial partner for the Nazis. Emil Puhl – vice president of Hitler’s Reichsbank and a close associate of McKittrick – once called BIS the Reichsbank’s only ‘foreign branch.’ BIS laundered hundreds of millions of dollars in Nazi gold looted from the treasuries of occupied countries.”

Allen Dulles was first recruited into the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) in October 1941, a forerunner of sorts of the CIA. During most of his work with the OSS he was stationed in Bern, Switzerland, where he was later found to be implicated in a number of incredibly suspect activities that would raise concern that his allegiance and loyalty was really with Nazi Germany.

Such activities included sabotaging the success of operations by American intelligence and engaging in secret negotiations on behalf of individuals directly or indirectly affiliated with the Nazi Party, one of the most well-known incidents of this is Dulles’ curious conduct during Operation Sunrise, aka the Bern incident, in favour of SS Gen. Kurt Wolff.

[In a previous three-part series paper I go through further details of the fascist roots of the CIA, and how Allen Dulles, and his brother Foster Dulles, play instrumental roles in all of this.]

The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was created as a department of the CIA in 1948, but operated as a rogue operation until Oct. 1950. Many of the agency’s recruits were “ex” Nazis. (3)

OPC was preceded by the Special Procedures Group (SPG), whose creation in March 1948 had been authorized in December 1947 with President Harry Truman’s approval of the top-secret policy paper NSC 4-A.

NSC 4-A was a new directive to cover “clandestine paramilitary operations, as well as political and economic warfare,” this provided the authorization for the intervention of the CIA in the Italian elections of April 1948 (in favour of Italy’s Christian Democrats, which hid thousands of fascists in its ranks, over what would have been the election of the Communist Party of Italy, who were admired for leading the fight against Mussolini). This success in tampering with the Italian elections demonstrated that psychological/political warfare could be the key to “winning” the Cold War.

When OPC was created, it inherited all of SPG’s resources.

On June 18, 1948, NSC 4-A was replaced by NSC 10/2, creating the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). NSC 10/2 was the first presidential document which specified a mechanism to approve and manage covert operations, and also the first in which the term “covert operations” was defined.

George F. Kennan, (left)  the director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, was the key figure behind the OPC’s creation. (4) Frank Wisner, who worked as a Wall Street lawyer for the law firm Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, was former OSS and very close to Allen Dulles. He would be called in from the State Department as OPC’s first director.

From 1948-1950 the OPC, though technically a department within the CIA was not under the CIA’s control, it was a renegade operation run by Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner. OPC was brought under CIA control in October 1950, when Walter Bedell Smith became Director of Central Intelligence, and it was renamed the Directorate of Plans (for more on this refer to my paper).

During the period of 1948-1950, Dulles and Wisner were essentially operating their own private spy agency, likely with the special blessing of George F. Kennan, as the OPC was actually more beholden to the State Department then the CIA during this period. (5)

During WWII, Burnham would leave his teaching post at NYU to work for the OSS and carried on to work for the CIA when the OSS was disbanded in Sept. 1945. He would later be recommended by George F. Kennan to lead the semi-autonomous “Psychological Strategy Board” (PSB) division of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). (6)

This is hardly a coincidence, as American author Naomi Wiener Cohen states in her book “Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership” concerning the disastrous effects to Russia of the British-inspired Russo-Japanese war (Feb 1904-Sept 1905), which provoked the 1905 Russian ‘revolution’ that lasted until 1907. That revolution paved the way for the overthrow of the Tsar and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks in the October revolution of 1917:

“The Russo-Japanese war allied Schiff with George Kennan in a venture to spread revolutionary propaganda among Russian prisoners of war held by Japan (Kennan had access to these). The operation was a carefully guarded secret and not until the revolution of March 1917 was it publicly disclosed by Kennan. He then told how he had secured Japanese permission to visit the camps and how the prisoners had asked him for something to read. Arranging for the ‘Friends of Russian Freedom’ to ship over a ton of revolutionary material, he secured Schiff’s financial backing. As Kennan told it, fifty thousand officers and men returned to Russia [as] ardent revolutionists. There they became fifty thousand “seeds of liberty” in one hundred regiments that contributed to the overthrow of the Tsar.”

Thus one can make a good case that George Kennan brought Burnham in, specifically due to his history as an experienced high-level former Trotskyist with “the right stuff,” for his, as Orwell puts it, readiness to worship the power of the moment and his agreement that ultimate power could only be achieved through a “permanent revolution.”

George Kennan was also not an ideological socialist, best known as the author of the Cold War strategy of “containment,” he adamantly opposed FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, refused to support the United States working with the Soviets in defeating Hitler, accusing Stalin of being just as bad…or perhaps he preferred Hitler’s succession to power?

Kennan writes in his Memoirs:

“We should have no relationship at all with them [the Soviets]…Never- neither then nor at any later date- did I consider the Soviet Union a fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for this country.”

Kennan made it clear he was no fan of Stalin’s Soviet Union, but he certainly thought differently about the uses of “former” militant Trotskyists, possibly it was this branch of the Bolsheviks he truly wished to see succeed? Perhaps they were to play a similar role for subversion from within in the United States as they did in Russia?

[In a future installment I will discuss how “former” Trotskyists infiltrated the RAND Corporation, the Pentagon, and the CIA (as part of the second purge of American intelligence). For part of the story you can refer here.]

As Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould put it in their excellent article “How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for Unconventional Warfare”:

“Burnham functioned as a critical connection between Wisner’s office and the intelligentsia moving from the extreme left to the extreme right with ease. Burnham found the congress to be a place to inveigh not just against Communism but against the non-communist left as well and left many wondering whether his views weren’t as dangerous to liberal democracy as Communism.

 According to Frances Stoner Saunders [author of the acclaimed book ‘The Cultural Cold War’], members of the British delegation found the rhetoric coming out of the congress to be a deeply troubling sign of things to come… ‘I felt, well, these are the same people who seven years ago were probably baying in the same way to similar German denunciations of Communism coming from Dr. Goebbels in the Sports Palast. And I felt, well, what sort of people are we identifying with? That was the greatest shock to me. There was a moment during the Congress when I felt that we were being invited to summon up Beelzebub in order to defeat Stalin.’

The Congress for Cultural Freedom didn’t need Beelzebub. It already had him in the form of Burnham, [Sidney] Hook and Wisner, and by 1952, the party was just getting started… In 1953 Burnham was called upon again by Wisner to reach beyond Communism to help overthrow the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Tehran, Iran…His book, “The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom,” would become the CIA’s manual for displacing Western culture with an alternative doctrine for endless conflict in a world of oligarchs.” [emphasis added]

The Machiavellians: Burnham’s “Managerial” Defenders of Freedom

The modern state … is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as ‘free’ intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions.” – Christopher Lasch “The Agony of the American Left”, author of “Britain’s Secret Propaganda War”

In Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution,” he writes:

“Most of these intellectuals are not in the least aware that the net social effect of the ideologies which they elaborate contributes to the power and privilege of the managers and to the building of a new structure of class rule in society. As in the past, the intellectuals believe that they are speaking in the name of truth and for the interests of all humanity…Indeed, the intellectual, without usually being aware of it, elaborate the new ideologies from the point of view of the position of the managers.”

What this means is that the intellectuals themselves do not understand who in fact will benefit in the end by the philosophies and theories they support and defend, they are mere instruments for the propagation of a new ruling class and hold no true power. Aldous Huxley’s, who also promoted a managerial ruling class in his “Brave New World,” speech to naïve Berkeley students, titled “The Ultimate Revolution” comes to mind…

As Huxley put it:

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it.”

As already stated, Burnham had been recommended by George F. Kennan to lead the semi-autonomous “Psychological Strategy Board” (PSB) division of the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). The PSB D-33/2, created on May 5, 1953, laid out the strategy for how “free intellectuals” could be manipulated against their own interests to facilitate a CIA dictated transformation of Western culture. In fact, as Frances Stoner Saunder’s makes the point in “The Cultural Cold War,” it is likely Burnham himself was the one to draft PSB D-33/2.

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould write in “The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elite’s Takeover of America”:

“PSB D-33/2 foretells of a ‘long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns’ while ‘creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence’ in order to ‘weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West.’ The goal was to ‘predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners,’ while employing local elites ‘would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development.’

While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing ‘a wide doctrinal system’ that ‘accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity,’ embracing ‘all fields of human thought — all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology.’ He concluded: ‘That is just about as totalitarian as one can get.’

With ‘The Machiavellians’ Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.” [emphasis added]

As already discussed in part one, Burnham describes how it is necessary that the masses believe the revolution to be beneficial to them, when in reality it is just to transition from one ruling class to the other. The promise of some form of socialism free from the oppression of capitalism is offered, but the masses are told that true socialism will need time and can only be achieved further in the future, in the meantime, a managerial class is put in place.

Burnham writes:

“The ideology must ostensibly speak in the name of ‘humanity,’ ‘the people,’ ‘the race,’ ‘the future,’ ‘God,’ ‘destiny,’ and so on. Furthermore, in spite of the opinion of many present-day cynics, not just any ideology is capable of appealing to the sentiments of the masses. It is more than a problem of skilful propaganda technique. A successful ideology has got to seem to the masses, in however confused a way, actually to express some of their own interests.

…At the present time, the ideologies that can have a powerful impact, that can make a real headway, are, naturally, the managerial ideologies, since it is these that alone correspond with the actual direction of events…In place of the ‘individual,’ the stress turns to the ‘state,’ the people, the folk, the race…In place of private enterprise, ‘socialism’ [only by name] or ‘collectivism.’ In place of ‘freedom’ and ‘free initiative,’ planning. Less talk about ‘rights’ and ‘natural rights’; more about ‘duties’ and ‘order’ and ‘discipline.’ Less about ‘opportunity’ and more about ‘jobs’.”

He goes on to discuss the need to change the meaning of words such “destiny,” “the future,” “sacrifice,” “power,” from the old ideologies of capitalism to suit the new ideologies of managerialism.

George Orwell would address this in his “1984,” where Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” appears pseudonymously as “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.”

Burnham continues:

“There will be no the managerial ideology any more than there was a the capitalist ideology. The several managerial ideologies will, however, revolve around a common axis, as the capitalist ideologies revolved around a common and different axis…In this country, Technocracy and the much more important New Dealism are embryonic and less-developed types of primitive, native-American managerial ideologies.”

Burnham’s reference to New Dealism as a managerial policy may be troubling to some, however, Burnham only looks at the mechanics of a social situation and its potential uses in a managerial society, it does not mean that the thing he is talking about as it is currently functioning is a form of oppression on the people. As Burnham states in his book, Roosevelt’s New Dealism is not what was intended on paper so to speak.

Burnham writes:

“The firmest representatives of the New Deal are not Roosevelt or the other conspicuous ‘New Deal politicians,’ but the younger group of administrators, experts, technicians, bureaucrats who have been finding places throughout the state apparatus…in short, managers.”

Keynes’ vision for New Dealism opposed that of Roosevelt. Burnham expresses frustration that a man that had nothing to do with the creation of an idea was now pulling the strings, for more on this refer here. One example of the sort of New Dealism Burnham is referencing, fit for his vision of a managerial society, can be found in the Green New Deal, or the anti-BRI Build Back Better for the World (aka: B3W).

These are the sorts of ideologies we are told will be universally beneficial, when in reality they are meant to benefit a select ruling class, in this case a managerial class, with the intention to maximize global control to the detriment of the majority.

As Orwell put it in his essay “Second Thoughts on Burnham”:

“It will be seen that Burnham’s theory is not, strictly speaking, a new one. Many earlier writers have foreseen the emergence of a new kind of society, neither capitalist nor Socialist, and probably based upon slavery…”

The Great Reset: Oligarchical Collectivism

What you radicals, and we who hold opposing views differ about, is not so much the end as the means, not so much what should be brought about, as how it should, and can, be brought about.” – Otto H. Kahn (speaking to the League of Industrial Democracy in New York Dec 30th1924), partner of Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg’s Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and director of American International Corp.

Burnham concludes in his “The Managerial Revolution”:

“The new world political system based on a small number of super-states will still leave problems-more, perhaps, than a unified single world-state; but it will be enough of a ‘solution’ for society to keep going. Nor is there any sufficient reason to believe that these problems of the managerial world system, including the managerial wars, will ‘destroy civilization.’ It is almost inconceivable even what it could mean for civilization – to be literally destroyed. Once again: what is being destroyed is our civilization, not civilization.”

The World Economic Forum and the Club of Rome

For the destruction of our civilization, this is precisely the intent of the World Economic Forum and its Club of Rome/Henry Kissinger affiliations, and it is their intention that the very people who will be enslaved by such a ruling class, will ironically be the ones who passionately fight to see it through.

The masses themselves will be the ones willing to sacrifice and defend at all costs a growing power structure that intends to bring about their very own destruction.

There are perhaps even those who know this and believe in such a cause nonetheless, after all, if they agree that “the real enemy is humanity itself” as concluded by the Club of Rome on solving the problems of mankind, then the destruction of our civilization is not only justified, it is also our duty to bring it about.

But if such an ideology proves to be a sham, a fairy-tale meant to benefit a select ruling class, its believers will be complicit in bringing about the most atrocious crimes ever committed upon humanity in our entire history of existence.

We are now standing on that precipice…

Orwell concludes in his “Second Thoughts on Burnham”:

“It is curious that in all his talk about the struggle for power, Burnham never stops to ask why people want power. He seems to assume that power hunger, although only dominant in comparatively few people, is a natural instinct that does not have to be explained, like the desire for food. He also assumes that the division of society into classes serves the same purpose in all ages. This is practically to ignore the history of hundreds of years…The question that he ought to ask, and never does ask, is: Why does the lust for naked power become a major human motive exactly now, when the dominion of man over man is ceasing to be necessary? As for the claim that ‘human nature’, or ‘inexorable laws’ of this and that, make Socialism impossible, is simply a projection of the past into the future. In effect, Burnham argues that because a society of free and equal human beings has never existed, it never can exist. By the same argument one could have demonstrated the impossibility of aeroplanes in 1900, or of motor cars in 1850.

…so long as they [the Nazis] were winning, Burnham seems to have seen nothing wrong with the methods of the Nazis…This implies that literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it…That a man of Burnham’s gifts should have been able for a while to think of Nazism as something rather admirable, something that could and probably would build up a workable and durable social order shows, what damage is done to the sense of reality by the cultivation of what is now called ‘realism’.”

*

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.

Cynthia Chung is a lecturer, writer and co-founder and editor of the Rising Tide Foundation (Montreal, Canada). The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

Notes

(1) Bloomenkranz, Sol (2012-07-06). Charles Bedaux – Deciphering an Enigma. iUniverse. ISBN 978-1-4759-2637-8.

(2) David Talbot “The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government

(3) Ibid., pg 128

(4) Corke, Sarah-Jane (1 May 2006). “George Kennan and the Inauguration of Political Warfare”. Journal of Conflict Studies. 26 (1). ISSN 1715-5673

(5) Miscamble, Wilson D. (1992). George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950. Princeton University Press. p. 199. ISBN 0691024839.

(6) Kimball, Roger (September 2002). “The power of James Burnham”. The New Criterion. Archived from the original on 2019-10-14. Retrieved 2020-06-03

Featured image is from Flickr/Levan Ramishvili

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on History of Neo-Conservatism: From Burnham’s “Managerial Revolution” to the WEF’s “Great Reset”

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The former ambassador of Canada in Belgrade, James Bissett, spoke sharply about the NATO aggression on the then FR Yugoslavia in 1999 and most directly accused the then world leadership. The Canadian diplomat stated that the bombing of Serbia in 1999 was a historic mistake.

It was planned before the bombing. The Americans planned everything months in advance. After the bombing, tens of thousands of Serbs were expelled from Kosmet. Hundreds of churches and monasteries in Kosovo were destroyed. Since then, Kosovo has been a hotbed of corruption and crime, Bisset said.

Ambassador Bissett also warned that a large part of the drug trade takes place through the territory of Kosovo.

On the other hand, Canadian professor of economics from the University of Ottawa, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky reminded us that all three so-called Prime Ministers of Kosovo have criminal records.

“All of them are on the Interpol list and are related to drug trafficking. The world public is deceived that this is a legitimate process of independence. This is a piece of the state of Serbia and the handover of power to bandits. The real bandits are high-ranking EU, US, and NATO officials.” said Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

*

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

Featured image is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0

Afghanistan: Before and After US Intervention

September 26th, 2021 by Prof. John Ryan

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

I was fortunate enough to be in Afghanistan in November of 1978, six months after a progressive socialist government came to power. I travelled from the city of Peshawar in Pakistan through the Khyber Pass to Kabul. I then spent a couple of weeks in the city and the surrounding rural area.  At that time I was on a sabbatical leave as a professor from the University of Winnipeg. Prior to this, I had been in Asia for 7 months on an agricultural research project, conducting documentary case studies of farms — 70 studies in 12 countries, starting in Japan and ending with 4 farms in Afghanistan.

What I find astounding is that the Western media never mention that for a brief period of time Afghanistan once had a progressive secular government, with broad popular support.

This government had enacted progressive reforms and gave equal rights to women. It was in the process of dragging the country into the 20th century. In fact, British political scientist Fred Halliday stated in May 1979 that probably more had changed in the countryside over the previous year than in the two centuries since the state was established. Indeed, it would now be the type of government that most people in Afghanistan and the West would probably welcome.  What happened to this government?

Long before the Soviet Union entered the scene, this government was undermined by the actions of the USA. It was the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, that created the mujahideen, which triggered a series of tragic events that destroyed the country. Following this, the US military invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and stayed there for the next 20 years, pulling out just a few weeks ago. So in effect, it was the USA that created the present chaos and tragedy in Afghanistan.

Although the Afghan government in 1978 had come to power by means of revolution, surprisingly, it was a peaceful time, and I received full cooperation from government authorities and the Faculty of Agriculture at Kabul University. While at the University, the Dean and a number of professors briefed me on Afghanistan’s history, its economic conditions, and the causes of the revolution.

I still recall vividly that when I entered the Dean’s office, he was sitting at his desk, nicely dressed in a suit and tie. I began by telling him that I was on an agricultural research project in Asia but just as I left Canada at the beginning of May, I had heard that a few days before, there was a revolution in Afghanistan. And because of that I was wondering if I’d be able to do any research in the country. He pushed back his chair, and in flawless English with a British accent he said, “Revolution … just a day and a half, you know, April 27 and 28. I was there much of the time … I saw most of it … I’ll tell you about it. But first let me order some tea and I’ll get some faculty members to join us.”

For the next hour or more, he related what happened. According to the Dean and the professors, the bulk of Afghanistan’s people in the 1970s were farmers, but the landholding system hadn’t changed much since the feudal period.  They told me that more than three-quarters of the land was owned by landlords and mullahs who composed only 3 percent of the rural population. Peasants who had owned land and homes lost both to landlords and mullahs because they were unable repay their loans, so now they worked the land as sharecroppers . . . land that was once their own.

The landlord or the mullah, in the less fertile areas, took two-thirds of the crop, and in the fertile plains, he’d take four-fifths. In either case, the sharecropper was left with just barely enough grain to feed his family. Partly because of these terrible rural conditions, the king was finally deposed in 1973. But no land reform came about, and the new government was autocratic, corrupt, unpopular.

Then on April 27, 1978, in the wake a huge demonstration in front of the presidential palace, the army came to the support of the people and after a brief battle with the presidential guard, the government was deposed. The military officers then released the jailed leftist and Marxist leaders and invited their party, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), to form the government under the leadership of Noor Mohammad Taraki, a writer and poet.  The military supported them because they were the only ones who had a program for land reform and progressive social and economic reforms.

As the Dean put it, after the government was deposed and leftist leaders were released from the nearby prison, the officers brought Taraki to the open space in front of the presidential palace. There was a tank in this open space in front of the crowd. After the officers talked to Taraki, they helped him to get on the tank, he then looked around and said, “All right, with your help, we will form the government.” Hearing this, there was a loud cheer and applause from the crowd.

So, this is how a leftist or  socialist government came into office — it was a totally indigenous happening — not even the CIA blamed the USSR for this. In fact, President Jimmy Carter’s secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, later wrote in his memoirs: “We had no evidence of any Soviet complicity in the coup.” Actually, the Soviets were much surprised at what happened. This new government immediately began to bring in much needed reforms.

The Taraki government’s first course of action was to declare non-alignment in foreign affairs and to affirm a commitment to Islam within a secular state. Among the much-needed reforms, women were given equal rights, girls were to go to school and be in the same classroom as boys. Child marriages and feudal dowry payments were banned. Labour unions were legalized, and equality of the nationalities was proclaimed. And very importantly, about 10,000 people were released from prisons. Within a short time, hundreds of schools and medical clinics were built in the countryside.

A major reform occurred on September 1, 1978. It was the abolition of all debts owed by farmers — landlords and moneylenders had charged about 25 percent interest.  Following this, a program was being developed for major land reform, and it was expected that all farm families (including landlords!) would be given the equivalent of equal amounts of land. [1]

Part of the Taraki administration’s land reform was an attack on the opium-growing feudal estates. Taraki went to the UN, where he requested and received loans for crop substitution for the poppy fields.

Through Kabul University I conducted my research project with the assistance of an agriculture professor.  I spent more than a week in the countryside and talked with many farmers. The farmers produced a variety of food crops and livestock, and Afghanistan was basically self-sufficient in food production. Raisins were an important export crop.

Because the farmers had much to gain from the reforms, most were extremely pleased with the new government. I heard tearful tales of how the farmers had lost their land because of inability to repay loans. In this manner almost half of the country’s farmers wound up with their houses on land that became the property of landlords. Also many of these people had debts that were inherited from their fathers and grandfathers, and they had never expected to repay them.

Several of them told me that the law abolishing these debts was like a gift from heaven. I recall how one of them clasped his hands together and with tears in his eyes he told me how he had lost his home and his land…. and now he had all this back.

Later, in talks with shopkeepers in Kabul, I discovered that they too were pleased. One of them told me that he wasn’t quite sure how the government leaders could be Marxist and Muslim, but they hadn’t interfered with their religion, and because the farmers now had money, business was increasing and they had no complaints.

From what I could see, life was peaceful and there were few police and soldiers on the scene — and women were free to dress as they wished. I have a slide of a street scene showing a woman in a burqa, another woman in a western style dress, a man in a business suit, another in casual clothes, and one in traditional robes and the distinctive Afghan turban. Such cosmopolitan scenes were quite typical.

Street scene in Kabul, November 1978. During the Marxist Taraki period, women were free to dress as they wished with no restrictions. [Photo by John Ryan]

The new government was faced with a variety of major problems. In the 1970s, life expectancy was 35; 1-in-3 children died in infancy, the highest in the world. Ninety percent of the population was illiterate. These were issues that the new government was determined to deal with.

Without question, this appeared to be a genuinely popular government and people seemed to look forward to the future. In short order, the Taraki government invited Soviet contractors and engineers to build roads, schools and hospitals …. with funds provided by the USSR. Soviet geologists discovered vast quantities of lithium and minerals in Afghanistan; vital resources which the government intended to exploit in the interests of the entire nation.

A dynamic medical doctor, Anahita Ratebzad, was appointed minister for Education in the Taraki government. Since the overthrow of this progressive government, Ratebzad’s role has virtually been erased from Afghanistan’s history. In one of her most famous editorials for the New Kabul Times she wrote:

Privileges which women, by right, must have are equal education, job security, health services, and free time to rear a healthy generation for building the future of the country … Educating and enlightening women is now the subject of close government attention.

Women played a key role in the Taraki government; the gains had no precedent. About half of Kabul’s university students were women during the 1980s and women made up 40 percent of Afghanistan’s doctors, 70 percent of its teachers and 30 percent of its civil servants. Thousands of women enrolled in the armed forces and there were 7 women in parliament.  Young female students roamed the streets of Kabul in denim flairs and t-shirts, dating men of their own choice. Many people spoke of a golden era.

The radical changes that occurred remain vivid in the memories of those who benefited. Saira Noorani, a female surgeon who fled Afghanistan in 2001, recalled:

“Every girl could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked … We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian films on a Friday … it all started to go wrong when the mujahedin started winning … these were the people the West supported.”

Women at university in Afghanistan in the late 1970s. (Amnesty International U.K.)

Admittedly, the issue of women’s rights and education for girls was controversial, and fundamentalist mullahs (clerics) conducted campaigns against this. It’s very important to point out that many of the 250,000 mullahs were landlords and they vehemently opposed the proposed land reforms.  

In their sermons in mosques, they urged the Afghan people to oppose the government’s plans because according to them it was only Allah who could grant land to them, and also that Allah would object to giving women equal rights or having girls go to school. But despite their pleadings, the reforms were popular in the general population. And because of this, these reactionary elements left for Pakistan, as so-called, “refugees.” These were the people who not only opposed land reform but all the other social and economic reforms as well.

But…behind these mullahs, there was a much more powerful opponent to the Afghan government — it was the USA. Although having no right to interfere in another country’s affairs, the USA viewed the new government as being Marxist and was determined to subvert it. On July 3, 1979, unknown to the American people and Congress, President Carter authorized a $500 million “covert action” program to overthrow Afghanistan’s first secular, progressive government.  This was code-named by the CIA “Operation Cyclone.” Immediately after this, the CIA, along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, began to provide military aid and training to Muslim extremists who became known as the mujahideen and “freedom fighters.” 

And to make the USA’s determination crystal clear, noted journalist John Pilger stated that

In August 1979, the U.S. embassy in Kabul reported that ‘the United States’ larger interests … would be served by the demise of the PDPA government, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan.’ . . . It is not often that such cynical intent is spelt out as clearly.  The U.S. was saying that a genuinely progressive Afghan government and the rights of Afghan women could go to hell. . . Recruited from all over the Muslim world, America’s secret army was trained in camps in Pakistan run by Pakistani intelligence, the CIA and Britain’s MI6.”

In addition to this, alienated Afghan mullahs and landlords along with Muslin fanatics migrated to Pakistan where, through the efforts of the CIA, they were given arms and training to subvert the Afghanistan government. After getting military training and guns in Pakistan, and together with fanatic Muslims recruited by the CIA, they proceeded to conduct raids on the Afghan countryside where they burned clinics and schools, and if they found teachers teaching girls, they would kill the teachers, often disembowelling them in the presence of the children – to instill fear and panic in the population.

Another aspect of the US counter-revolution strategy involves a man named Hafizullah Amin. During the 1960s while studying at Stanford University, he appears to have been recruited by the CIA, and came back to Afghanistan, pretending he was a hard-line Marxist. Through him the CIA infiltrated the Taraki government.  This has never been officially acknowledged, but there is substantial evidence to support this. [2] His actions while in office reflect exactly what a CIA agent would have been expected to do. He cleverly worked his way to the top – first becoming defence minister and later the prime minister. In September of 1979 he carried out a coup, took over the government, had Taraki killed, and many of Taraki’s loyal supporters were then killed, jailed, or exiled. 

Amin then proceeded to undermine and discredit the Marxist government.  He enacted draconian laws against the Muslim clergy, to purposefully further alienate them. Many of Taraki’s progressive reforms were halted and thousands of people were jailed. Senior army officers were demoted, jailed or killed, and in that way he weakened the Afghan army.

In the meantime, the CIA’s trained and armed mujahideen came in by the thousands to attack parts of the country, especially to destroy health clinics and schools and kill teachers. 

In a matter of three months, with the combined actions of the mujahideen and the counterproductive policies of Amin, the socialist progressive  government was almost destroyed. It’s a matter of record that during this time Amin held numerous meetings with the American charge d’affaires and other US officials. [3] He also sent emissaries to hold secret meetings with the top mujahideen leader in Pakistan, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. [4] Apparently Amin had laid plans for a further coup d’état to eliminate all progressive elements in the government and then join forces with the mujahideen – to form a fundamentalist Islamic state, with himself as president and Hekmatyar as prime minister. [5]

But, near the end of December in 1979, Amin was overthrown and killed either by a regiment of the Afghan army that still had Taraki supporters or by Soviet soldiers – the truth still being difficult to establish.  The USSR always denied having anything to do with this. The fact is that some Soviet troops had been in Afghanistan since December 8, at the Afghan government’s invitation. [6] 

With the overthrow of Amin, there was great jubilation and about 10,000 political prisoners were released, and when Babrak Karmal became president (after being in exile in Czechoslovakia), he would have been hailed as a hero, if he had come in on his own. What soured the situation is the entry of Soviet troops.

Shortly before Taraki’s murder, he had been on a trip to Moscow where he pleaded with the Soviets to send some troops to Afghanistan to help its government deal with the insurrection. And so on the basis of this invitation as well as from the terms of a 1978 Afghan-Soviet treaty, the USSR sent in their troops. Their purpose was to ward off the thousands of well-armed mujahideen invaders, many being foreign mercenaries. 

What’s not widely known is that the USA through the CIA had been actively involved in Afghan affairs for at least a year before this, and so it was in response to this that the Soviets arrived on the scene. 

Sending in troops to Afghanistan was a colossal blunder on the part of the Soviet Union. If they had simply provided weapons for the Afghan government’s forces, they may have survived the “barbarians at the gates” – because ordinary Afghan people were not fanatics and most of them supported the government’s progressive reforms.

The advent of Soviet troops on Afghan soil tragically set the stage for the eventual destruction of the country. Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, afterwards bragged that he had convinced Carter to authorize the CIA to set a trap for the Russian bear and to give the USSR the taste of a Vietnam war. [7] Brzezinski saw this as a golden opportunity to fire up the zeal of the most reactionary Muslim fanatics — to have them declare a jihad (holy war) “on the atheist infidels who defiled Afghan soil” — and to not only expel them but to pursue them and “liberate” the Muslim-majority areas of the USSR.  And for the next 10 years, with an expenditure of billions of dollars from the USA and Saudi Arabia, and with the recruitment of thousands of non-Afghan Muslims into the jihad (including Osama bin Laden), this army of religious zealots laid waste to the land and people of Afghanistan. 

Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote [8]:

“With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982-1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad.”

It should be understood that Afghan people don’t have a history of being religious zealots. To create the CIA-desired jihad required the recruitment of Arab, Egyptian, and Pakistani extremists – so the fundamentalism that emerged in Afghanistan is a CIA creation. Although Reagan referred to the mujahideen as “freedom fighters,” they committed horrific atrocities and were terrorists of the first order.

As reported in the Washington Post (May 11, 1979, p.12), a “favourite tactic” of the mujahedeen was “to torture victims [often Russians] by first cutting off their noses, ears, and genitals, then removing one slice of skin after another,” leading to “a slow, very painful death.” The article describes Russian prisoners caged like animals and “living lives of indescribable horror.” Another publication [9] reported that “one [Soviet] group was killed, skinned and hung up in a butcher’s shop”.

Despite these graphic reports, President Reagan continued to refer to the mujahedeen as “freedom fighters” and in 1985 he invited a group of them to Washington where he entertained them in the Whitehouse. Afterwards, while introducing them to the media, he stated, “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.”

Ronald Reagan meets Afghan Mujahideen Commanders at the White House in 1985 (Reagan Archives)

Surely Soviet soldiers were every bit as human as American soldiers – just suppose it had been American soldiers who had been skinned alive.  Would President Reagan in such an instance still refer to the mujahideen as “freedom fighters” . . . or might he then call them terrorists, just as the Soviets had done? Indeed…how these actions are portrayed depends on whose ox is gored.

The cynicism of arming and funding the mujahideen against the Soviets exposes the lie of America’s humanitarian concerns in Afghanistan. It was basically the CIA that created the mujahideen whose purpose was to try to overthrow the Afghan Marxist government and thereby lure in the USSR. As the US expected, the Soviets eventually sent in an army to fight the mujahideen. During the ensuing 10-year conflict, it’s estimated that between a half million to a million Afghan civilians were killed, along with 90,000 mujahideen fighters, 18,000 Afghan government troops, and 14,500 Soviet soldiers.

But it seems that in America’s eyes, these deaths, along with the destruction of Afghanistan, were “worth it” to cripple the Soviets. When later confronted with these facts, Brzezinski, President Carter’s advisor, had no regrets.

The Soviets succumbed to their Vietnam and withdrew their troops in February of 1989, but the war raged on.  Somehow it is generally thought that the Afghan socialist government collapsed as soon as the Soviets left, but that’s not true.  Seeing the viciousness of the mujahideen, a large portion of the Afghan population, especially the women, supported the quite moderate government, later under Mohammad Najibullah, and without a single Soviet soldier on their territory, they fought on for another three years.  In fact, their government outlasted the USSR itself, which collapsed in December of 1991.

The crucial factor that undermined the Afghan government was the treachery of Americans.  The Soviets agreed to pull out their troops, but it was on the understanding that both the USSR and the USA would stop all military and economic aid to Afghanistan. The Soviets honoured the agreement, but the USA, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia violated the agreement and continued to support the mujahideen.

Seeing that the US did not honour their agreement, the Soviets should have provided the Afghan government with some economic and military aid. They then might have withstood the mujahideen attacks. [11] As it was, because of the unending supply of superior American weapons and no economic assistance, the Marxist government was finally defeated in April of 1992.

The victorious mujahideen, first of all, slaughtered the members of the previous secular government and thousands of progressive-minded people. Then for the next four years they fought amongst themselves. The mujahideen consisted of at least seven warring factions, all battling for territory and control of the opium trade. In the course of these battles, they conducted looting and rape campaigns. The dreadful mujahideen infighting finally ended in September 1996 when their forces were routed from Kabul by new combatants on the scene, the Taliban.

When in 1992 the mujahideen took Kabul, Dr. Najibullah, the last progressive president,found refuge in the United Nations compound where he lived until 1996. On September 27 the Taliban took Najibullah from his refuge, castrated him, dragged him behind a car over Kabul streets, finished him with a gunshot and hung his body from a traffic post.

During these years of civil war, Kabul was almost totally destroyed, as were many other cities — with the greatest damage occurring after the Marxist defeat during the fratricidal conflict. The landlords came back immediately after the mujahideen victory.

The Taliban were determined to bring about a peaceful state of affairs. They vowed to unify the country under Islamic law and to end the corruption and insecurity under the rule of the warlords and mujahideen. They found support, especially in poor, rural areas that had suffered most from the bloodletting.

So, who were these Taliban? It is often mentioned that they emerged from religious schools in Pakistan. It’s important to know their background. Interestingly, it’s the CIA that created them.

The CIA recruited Wahhabi missionaries from Saudi Arabia to go to Pakistan and later to Afghanistan to set up Sunni Islamic fundamentalist religious schools, madrassas.  The CIA and their agents then recruited young Afghans to go to these schools where they became brainwashed religious fanatics. The word Taliban means “students in an Islamic school.”From Pakistan the madrassas moved to Afghanistan and during the 1980s their number increased to about 40,000. These schools were essentially CIA covert psychological operations, whose purpose was to inspire divisiveness and opposition to the Marxist Afghan government.

Through these covert CIA machinations, the US essentially destroyed secular education in Afghanistan. In the course of this,

“The United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings…. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books … Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtun, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska -Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $ 51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.” (Washington Post, 23 March 2002)

Although the Taliban ended the civil war, unfortunately, with them on the scene a virtual war was declared on women. The Taliban were religious fanatics and they somehow accepted a perverted religious view in regard to women, which in actuality has no basis in Islamic law. Thousands of women were dismissed from their jobs as teachers, doctors, professors, and work of all kinds. They were then not allowed to participate in the work force or even have doctors treat them (without a male relative present), and girls were forbidden to go to school. Terror, in all its forms, became the basis of the regime — it became a regime of fascist Muslims, but it was a regime that was initially kept in power largely by Pakistan.

Despite the atrocities of the Taliban regime, they initially had support in the Clinton administration because it was thought that the Taliban would bring in “stability” which would enable the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines through the country.  Moreover, the later Bush administration provided $124 million in aid to Afghanistan and continued pipeline talks almost until the fateful September 11. [11]

As for the mujahideen that this conflict created, they took on a life of their own, and spread throughout the Muslim world.  One of the key players in the anti-Soviet, U.S.-led regime change project was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire who came from a wealthy, powerful family and had close ties to the Saudi royal family. He was brought to Afghanistan to organize recruitment for the mujahideen and is believed to have received security training from the CIA. In 1989, the same year that Soviet troops withdrew, Osama bin Laden founded the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. Ironically, after grooming him for their purposes, the USA would eventually turn bin Laden into a scapegoat after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

If we are to learn anything from the Afghanistan tragedy, it is important to understand that if the USA had left the Marxist Taraki government alone, there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and perhaps no September 11 tragedy in the USA.

But what about the events after September 11, 2001? After the trauma of the 9/11 assault, what should have been the rational response? Clearly, this was a criminal act, but it was not an act of war by some foreign government. If the US had any evidence linking Osama bin Laden or anyone else to this, they should have taken the necessary steps to have these people brought to the International Criminal Court to be tried as criminals. Instead, the US immediately demanded that the Taliban government surrender Osama bin Laden to them.

In response, the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal, but only after seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11. [12] The US refused to do this, and the actual reason surfaced when it was revealed that Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, had made the astounding statement that “. . . the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” [13]

So what was the war on Afghanistan all about if,  years later, the USA still didn’t have proof connecting bin Laden to 9/11? This is an astonishing revelation, but the mainstream media never reported this.

To counter the USA’s accusation that he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden stated repeatedly — on September 12, 16, 17, and 28 — that he had had nothing to do with the attacks. In the September 28 statement, he had even declared:

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. . . . [W]e are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed.”

It’s obvious that the FBI accepted this because they never retracted their position that they had any hard evidence connecting bin Laden with 9//1. In fact, this was on the FBI website right up until after May 2, 2011, when bin Laden was supposedly killed by a US military assault in Pakistan. But there are serious questions even about this as well, since there is some evidence that bin Laden had actually died of kidney failure some years before. See here, here, here. This issue deserves further analysis, but not within this article.

In rare unanimity, a number of Afghan groups pleaded with the US government not to bomb or invade the country. Noam Chomsky cites the New York Times as reporting that this was “a rare display of unity among tribal elders, Islamic scholars, fractious politicians, and former guerrilla commanders” [14] They unanimously “urged the US to stop the air raids . . . and the bombing of innocent people” and pleaded with the US to adopt other means to overthrow the Taliban. [15]

They pointed out that the Taliban who ran the country consisted of a small and closed group and without constant assistance from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the central leadership could be undermined – and once they’d lose the support of their gun-toting rank and file, the regime could be easily overthrown. So if the Americans wanted a regime change, the Afghan people themselves were fully prepared to do it. All the US had to do was to put pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to stop their support of the Taliban.

Never mentioned officially, but aside from the “official” 9/11 reason for attacking Afghanistan, there was an undisclosed reason. It appears that one of the key strategic objectives of the 2001 war on Afghanistan was to restore the opium trade following the Taliban government’s successful 2000-2001 drug eradication program which led to a 94% collapse in opium production. This program had been supported by the United Nations.

UN data (1994-2014)

As a result of the war launched by the USA in Afghanistan, many thousands of Afghan people were killed – all being just as innocent as the people in New York – the difference being that Afghans continued to be killed for next 20 years.

So where do we now stand? It should be obvious that the 9/11 attacks were the work of an organization far more powerful and professionally skilled than a rag-tag band of nineteen random Arabs armed with box-cutters. As such, who attacked the USA on September 11, 2001?

Strange as it may seem, even 20 years later, it’s still not known who was responsible for it. At first it appeared that the plot was hatched in Hamburg, Germany by an Al-Qaeda group, hence this had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Over the years, several reputable reports have shown that there is substantial evidence that it was Mossad and Israel that were somehow implicated in order for the US to take a more aggressive stance towards Muslim countries. This is still an ongoing issue, since a major investigative report appeared a few days ago, September 10, “implicating Israel and its Mossad intelligence service, with the case being overwhelmingly strong in motive, means, and opportunity. But leveling accusations of blame at Israel and its domestic collaborators for the greatest attack ever launched against America on our own soil entails enormous social and political risks.” Other reports on this issue are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and there are others in addition.

9/11 and the American War

A month after 9/11, the US launched its war on Afghanistan. Not having approval of the United Nations, this was an illegal war. But this was never reported in the mainstream media, so few people were aware of this fact.

The bombing began on October 7th. The published images of the war were shocking in the violence they portrayed. Many people in Europe were appalled by the scale of the bombing against a defenceless population, and the utter disregard for Afghan lives. But in the United States that autumn, the mixture of vengeance and patriotism meant dissenting voices were rare and scarcely heard.

At first the attack was by bomber planes and then US soldiers came in. The Taliban realized it was hopeless for them to resist, so they just abandoned Kabul and fled into the countryside. However, the US did have the support of the forces of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of non-Pushtun warlords in the north of the country.

Initially, there was not much fighting. Taliban leaders and their supporters went home to their villages or into exile in Pakistan.

For two years there was no resistance to the American occupation. None, in any village or city. The reason is that most ordinary people, even in the Taliban heartland in the south, dared to hope that the American occupation would bring Afghanistan peace and develop the economy to end the terrible poverty.

Peace was crucial. By 2001 Afghans had been trapped in various wars for twenty-three years. By 2001 even Taliban supporters felt a bad peace was better than a good war.

All this was the basis for a possible good ending to the US invasion, but the US fouled this up. Instead of accepting this peaceful state of affairs, the US in a grossly misguided fashion, decided that its mission was to root out any remaining “bad characters.” Night raids crashed through doors, humiliating and terrifying families, taking men away to be horribly tortured for information about any opposition to the US-installed government. At the slightest excuse, the Americans called in airstrikes and their bombs killed family after family. And so war returned across the south and east of the country.

No one was ever held to account for the American torture regime in Afghanistan. The U.S. launched more than 13,000 drone strikes in Afghanistan between 2015 and 2020, killing up to 10,000 people. The CIA, relying on cellphone numbers, often launched its Hellfire missiles at the wrong targets or at targets standing amid groups of civilians.

This practice has devastated Afghan villages, yet the U.S. refused to keep track of civilian casualties from drone strikes. Overall, the American occupation had been unbearably cruel and corrupt. In this manner the US totally discredited itself in the eyes of most Afghan people. And so it was time for the US to go.

In the course of all this, there is an important issue that must still be dealt with, and that is the matter of Afghan opium poppy farming. Soon after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan this past August, their spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said: “When we were in power before there was no production of drugs. . . we will bring opium cultivation to zero again.”

This was verified by a UN report in May 2001 which “observed the near total success of the ban in eliminating poppy cultivation in Taliban controlled areas”.  However, immediately following the US invasion and takeover of the country, poppy production resumed with considerable vigour for the next 20 years. In fact, the area under opium poppy cultivation increased from 163,000 hectares in 2019 to 224,000 hectares in 2020 – an increase of 37%. Over the years, Afghanistan has been responsible for more than 80% of global opium production, as illustrated in this UN diagram:

At present, heroin made from opium grown in Afghanistan makes up 95% of the market in Europe. However, only 1% of the US supply of heroin comes from Afghanistan, according to the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Most comes from Mexico. As for Afghanistan, in 2018 the UNODC estimated opium production contributed up to 11% of the country’s economy. 

Although never discussed in the mainstream media, arguments have been advanced that one of the key strategic objectives of the 2001 war on Afghanistan was to reopen the opium trade following the Taliban government’s successful 2000-2001 drug eradication program. Immediately following the US October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored and opium prices spiraled. By early 2002, the opium price (in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.

The resumption of opium trade provided a vital source of finance for the CIA and other US intelligence agencies. As put forward by journalist Finian Cunningham, “The big advantage from drug business is that the finances are off the books, and therefore not subject to Congressional oversight. That “dark” source of income allows American agencies to fund covert operations without ever being held to account.”

To add to this, Russia’s presidential envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, is quoted as saying that CIA complicity in drug trafficking is “an open secret” in the country. “US intelligence officers… are involved in drug trafficking. Their planes from Kandahar, from Bagram [airfield near Kabul] are flying wherever they want to – to Germany, to Romania – without any inspections.”

During the USSR’s engagement in Afghanistan, both the CIA and the mujahideen rebels were deeply involved in the opium trade. Over the years the CIA was paying $3.2 billion a year in their role in the Afghan war, and part of this was financed by the drug trade.

With so many factors at play, US involvement in Afghanistan became an archetypal quagmire. America’s declared strategic objectives in Afghanistan have never been coherent or convincing even to some top government officials. The initial justification of “avenging terrorism of 9/11” now sounds threadbare.

Afghanistan is known as the “Graveyard of Empires” where the British suffered a blow to their imperial prowess, where the Soviets failed in their attempt to salvage a progressive government, and now the defeat of the Americans after their senseless 20-year war.

During this past 20-year period, 775,000 American soldiers served in Afghanistan. Of these, it is reported that 2,442 were killed and 20,666 were injured. In addition, 1,144 other NATO soldiers were killed. Afghan military and police had about 70,000 killed. The report also states that about 50,000 Taliban fighters were killed. Overall, about 240,000 people have been killed in the Afghanistan and Pakistan war zone since 2001. As such, the majority of those killed were civilians.

Even in the absence of fighting, unexploded ordnance from this war and landmines from previous wars continue to kill, injure, and maim civilians. It remains to be seen if the Americans will have the decency to try to remove these deadly remains of their war.

Initially, after the US invasion, Afghans had hoped for development that could lift both the rich and the poor. But when American money poured into Afghanistan, it went the people in the new government headed by Hamid Karzai. It went to the people working with the Americans and the occupying troops of other nations. And it went to the warlords and their entourages who were deeply involved in the international opium and heroin trade facilitated by the CIA and the Pakistani military. None of this money got to ordinary Afghan people.

Afghans had long been used to corruption, but as time went by the scale of this US-dominated period was unprecedented. In the eyes of the poor and middle-income people, all the obscene new wealth, was obvious corruption. In light of all this, the Taliban decided that they had no recourse but to get rid of the Americans.

A further indication of corruption and neglect for the overall population is that the number of Afghans reporting that they were struggling to live on their current income increased from 60% in 2008 to 90% by 2018. A 2018 Gallup poll found the lowest levels of self-reported “well-being” that Gallup has ever recorded anywhere in the world. Afghans not only reported record levels of misery but also unprecedented hopelessness about their future.

Over the last decade the Taliban have offered two things across the country. The first is that they are not corrupt, and people could see this.

Second, the Taliban have run an honest judicial system in the rural areas they have controlled. Their reputation is so high that many people involved in civil lawsuits in the cities have agreed that both parties will go to Taliban judges in the countryside. This allows them swift, cheap and fair justice without massive bribes. Because the justice was fair, both parties can live with it.

Because of these issues, the Taliban gradually acquired genuine support in a large part of the Afghan population. The Taliban have learned and changed. The Taliban have realized that Pushtun chauvinism was a great weakness. They now emphasize that they are Muslims, brothers to all other Muslims, and they now have the support of Muslims of many ethnic groups.

The new Taliban have also emphasized their concerns for the rights of women. They say they welcome music, and videos, and have moderated the puritanical sides of their former rule. And they are now saying over and over again that they want to rule in peace, without revenge on the people of the old order. However, there is still a minority who do not go along with this. But that’s only to be expected in such a wide range of people in the country.

The Taliban, who banned the internet the first time they controlled Afghanistan, have turned social media into a powerful tool to tame opposition and broadcast their messages. Ironically, the images of peace and stability projected by the Taliban contrasted sharply with the scenes broadcast around the world of the chaotic American evacuation from the Kabul airport.

In one video, a Taliban official reassured female health workers that they could keep their jobs. In another, militants told Sikhs, a minority religious group, that they were free and protected. And wherever they were, they provided a sense of law and order.

Overall, this is a turning point in world history. The greatest military power in the world has been defeated by the people of a small, desperately poor country. As such, this will weaken the power of the American empire all over the world.

This is a military and political victory for the Taliban. It is a military victory because the Taliban have won the war. Over the last ten years the Taliban took control of more and more villages and towns. This is also a political victory for the Taliban. No guerilla insurgency on earth can win such victories without popular support.

The Taliban of 2001 were overwhelmingly Pushtuns, and their politics was Pushtun chauvinist. In 2021 Taliban fighters of many ethnicities have taken power in Uzbek and Tajik dominated areas.

Of course, not all Afghans have chosen to side with the Taliban. This was a war against foreign invaders, but it is also a civil war. Many have fought for the Americans and the American installed government or the warlords. And many others are not sure which side to take and are waiting with different mixtures of fear and hope to see what would happen.

In time it became obvious that the Taliban were the only important political organization fighting the American occupation, and most Afghans have come to hate that occupation.

In conclusion, what is it that has happened during this past month of August? If those so-called ‘good Afghans’ who were nurtured by US forces truly represented Afghan society, why did their army of 300,000 men drop their weapons and desert or flee the country, along with their President, without a serious fight? And if the 75,000 poorly-armed and, at times, malnourished Taliban seemed to merely represent themselves, why did they manage to defeat formidable enemies in a matter of days?

Ironically, four US administrations spent at least $2.26 trillion fighting the Afghan war which included $88 billion arming and supplying a military that, in the end, disintegrated and “disappeared.”

From what we now see, there is no question that the Taliban have acquired support from the Afghan people in most sections of the country. They could not have won this brutal war without substantial grassroots support.

On September 9, a Taliban spokesman announced the composition of their new caretaker government. He provided the names of the 33 acting cabinet ministers. He stressed that this new cabinet is just an “acting” government. This implies one of the next big steps will be to set up a new constitution. Also, that eventually the government will include people from all parts of the country and implied that women and Shi’ites will be included.

The acting government that was announced will consist of an all-male, overwhelmingly Pashtun cabinet essentially of the Taliban old guard. It includes only one Uzbek and one Tajik. All 33 appointees are Taliban members.

This announcement was met with some consternation in the USA because a number of the appointees have been listed as terrorists, including the acting Prime Minister, Mohammad Hasan Akhund.

The Taliban’s government is a caretaker one, and the militants may very well hold free and fair elections and then install an inclusive government.

It’s too early to tell how the new Taliban will function with all the problems they will encounter. But they are now a much wiser, more traveled, social media-savvy Taliban. They seem to be fully aware they cannot allow themselves to repeat the mistakes of their early years. Also, they’ve already established good relations with China, Russia and Iran, with the possibility of getting economic help from 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.

John Ryan, Ph.D., Retired Professor of Geography and Senior Scholar, University of Winnipeg, Canada.

Notes

  1. All these reforms and government measures were explained to me at considerable length by the Dean of Agriculture and some of the professors during a lengthy session at Kabul University.
  2. “How the CIA turns foreign students into traitors,”Ramparts (San Francisco), April 1967, pp. 23-24; Phillip Bonosky, Washington’s Secret War Against Afghanistan, New York: International Publishers, 1985, pp.33-34; The Truth About Afghanistan: Documents, Facts, Eyewitness Reports, Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1980, pp. 83-96; Washington Post, December 23, 1979, p. A8.
  3. William Blum,Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995, p. 343.
  4. Phillip Bonosky,Washington’s Secret War Against Afghanistan, New York: International Publishers, 1985, pp. 33-34
  5. The Truth About Afghanistan: Documents, Facts, Eyewitness Reports,Moscow: Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, 1980, pp. 91-92.
  6. Washington Post, December 23, 1979, p.A8. Soviet troops had started arriving in Afghanistan on December 8, to which the article states: “There was no charge [by the State Department] that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan, since the troops apparently were invited.”
  7. “How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen”: Interview of Zbigniew BrzezinskiLe Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p.76. 
  8. Ahmed Rashid, “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism,”Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999.
  9. John Fullerton,The Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, (London), 1984 cites a journalist from the Far Eastern Economic Review reporting that “one [Soviet] group was killed, skinned and hung up in a butcher’s shop.”
  10. Zayar, “Afghanistan, Bin Laden and the hypocrisy of American imperialism,”In Defence of Marxism, September 26, 2001.
  11. “When the U.S. committed $43 million in aid to Afghanistan in May 2001, it brought the total of U.S. aid to the country that year alone to $124 million,” cited in article by Joseph Farah, “Murray pushed for aid to Taliban before to 9/11,”com, December 26, 2002. 
  12. “Taliban repeats call for negotiations,”com, October 2, 2001, includes the comment: “Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban repeated its demand for evidence before it would hand over suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Ladin.”; Noam Chomsky, “The War on Afghanistan,” Znet, December 30, 2001. 
  13. Ed Haas, “FBI says, it has ‘No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’,”Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006.
  14. Noam Chomsky, “The War on Afghanistan,”Znet, December 30, 2001.
  15. Barry Bearak, “Leaders of the Old Afghanistan Prepare for the New,”NYT, October 25, 2001; John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari, “Traditional leaders call for peace jihad,” FT, October 25, 2001; “Afghan peace assembly call,” FT, October 26, 2001; John Burns, “Afghan Gathering in Pakistan Backs Future Role for King,” NYT, October 26, 2001; Indira Laskhmanan, “1,000 Afghan leaders discuss a new regime, BG, October 25, 26, 2001; Noam Chomsky, op. cit.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In CBC’s Morning Brief, yesterday, they reported:

In Hamilton, Ont., The Hearty Hooligan, a vegan restaurant, warned customers last week through its Instagram account about provincial vaccine certificate requirements that began Wednesday.

Head chef Matthew Miles said they’ve faced an onslaught of angry comments from people accusing them of everything from discrimination to supporting tyranny.

Having followed a vegan diet for many years now, I thought I’d give The Hearty Hooligan a call. I was confused. After all, the vegan diet is about abstinence from animal products (for moral or health reasons) yet…

The COVID-19 vaccine is derived from human heart tissue, which while not from an animal, is certainly not vegan. And considering the tissue may have been extracted from the dying heart of an aborted fetus, means it hardly falls into the non-violent category.

If you won’t hurt a fish, why would you hurt a three-month old human fetus?

Now what about health? The vaccine itself is certainly not healthy. The CDC currently reports nearly 15,000 deaths from this experimental mRNA injection and over 15,000 life-theatening conditions. And we know the CDC undercounts.

So, why would a vegan restaurant require vegan customers to be injected with a pharmaceutical drug derived from the heart tissue of an aborted fetus? I didn’t understand. So I decided to call them and ask.

You can listen to my phone call here.

As you can hear, it didn’t end well. Maybe it was something I said?

The relevant questions for vegan restaurants:

1. Why do you require your vegan customers to be injected with a pharmaceutical drug derived from the heart tissue of an aborted fetus in order to eat vegan?

2. Since most of your customers believe in natural living and not taking drugs, do you not see how limiting your customer base to those willing to take the shot, will probably destroy your business?

3. If your menu is based on not harming living creatures, why would you coerce your customers into taking an injection that has already killed over 13,000 Americans according to the CDC?

If they say the government told them to, then ask:

4. If the government told you to start serving meat would you do it? If they told you to stop serving people who didn’t vote Liberal, would you do it? If they told you to stop serving Muslims, would you do it?

It would be kind of understandable if they were simply letting the government bully them into enforcing this type of unscientific segregation. But the fact that they let the CBC promote them doing so means they have crossed the line.

They should explain their actions or that they join the “We Won’t Ask” movement that Rebel News has started.

On The Hearty Hooligan’s website, they state their restaurant is a “LGBTQ2SIA+ safe space.” Sadly, that + at the end doesn’t include people who are unwilling to submit to an experimental mRNA injection.

They call themselves the “Hearty Hooligan.” Yet they immediately capitulate to the government’s demand that they coerce their customers into taking a pharmaceutical drug.

 

*

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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vegan Restaurant Denies Me Service for Not Taking COVID Shot Derived from Fetal Heart Tissue

Eurasian Consolidation Ends the US Unipolar Moment

September 26th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The 20th-anniversary summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, enshrined nothing less than a new geopolitical paradigm.

Iran, now a full SCO member, was restored to its traditionally prominent Eurasian role, following the recent US$400 billion trade and development deal struck with China. Afghanistan was the main topic – with all players agreeing on the path ahead, as detailed in the Dushanbe Declaration. And all Eurasian integration paths are now converging, in unison, towards the new geopolitical – and geoeconomic – paradigm.

Call it a multipolar development dynamic in synergy with China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

The Dushanbe Declaration  was quite explicit on what Eurasian players are aiming at: “a more representative, democratic, just and multipolar world order based on universally recognized principles of international law, cultural and civilizational diversity, mutually beneficial and equal cooperation of states under the central coordinating role of the UN.”

For all the immense challenges inherent to the Afghan jigsaw puzzle, hopeful signs emerged on Tuesday (September 21), when former Afghan president Hamid Karzai and peace envoy Abdullah Abdullah met in Kabul with Russian presidential envoy Zamir Kabulov, China’s special envoy Yue Xiaoyong and Pakistan’s special envoy Mohammad Sadiq Khan.

This troika – Russia, China, Pakistan – is at the diplomatic forefront. The SCO reached a consensus that Islamabad will coordinate with the Taliban on the formation of an inclusive government that including Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras.

The most glaring, immediate consequence of the SCO’s not only incorporating Iran but also taking the Afghan bull by the horns, fully supported by the Central Asian “stans,” is that the Empire of Chaos has been completely marginalized.

From Southwest Asia to Central Asia, a real reset has as its protagonists the SCO, the Eurasia Economic Union, the BRI and the Russia-China strategic partnership. Iran and Afghanistan – the missing links heretofore, for different reasons – are now fully incorporated into the chessboard.

In one of my frequent conversations with Alastair Crooke, a prominent political analyst, he evoked once again Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s The Leopard: everything must change so everything must remain the same.

In this case, imperial hegemony, as interpreted by Washington: “In its growing confrontation with China, a ruthless Washington has demonstrated that what matters to it now is not Europe but the Indo-Pacific region.” That’s Cold War 2.0 prime terrain.

The fallback position for the US – which possesses little potential to contain China after having been all but expelled from the Eurasia heartland – had to be a classic maritime power play: the “free and open Indo-Pacific,” complete with Quad and AUKUS, the whole setup spun to death as an “effort” attempting to preserve dwindling American supremacy.

The sharp contrast between the SCO continental integration drive and the “we all live in an Aussie submarine” gambit (my excuses to Lennon-McCartney) speaks for itself. A toxic mix of hubris and desperation is in the air, with not even a whiff of pathos to alleviate the downfall.

The Global South is not impressed. Addressing the forum in Dushanbe, Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked that the portfolio of nations knocking on the SCO’s door was huge.

Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are now SCO dialogue partners, on the same level with Afghanistan and Turkey. It’s quite feasible they may be joined next year by Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Serbia and dozens of others.

And it doesn’t stop in Eurasia. In his well-timed address to CELAC, Chinese President Xi Jinping invited no fewer than 33 Latin American nations to be part of the Eurasia-Africa-Americas New Silk Roads.

Remember the Scythians

Iran as a SCO protagonist and at the center of the New Silk Roads has been restored to a rightful historic role. By the middle of the first millennium BCE, northern Iranians ruled the core of the steppes in Central Eurasia. By that time the Scythians had migrated into the western steppe, while other steppe Iranians made inroads as far away as China.

Scythians – a northern (or “east”) Iranian people – were not necessarily just fierce warriors. That’s a crude stereotype. Very few in the West know that the Scythians developed a sophisticated trade system, as described by Herodotus among others, that linked Greece, Persia and China.

And why’s that? Because trade was an essential means to support their sociopolitical infrastructure. Herodotus got the picture because he actually visited the city of Olbia and other places in Scythia.

The Scythians were called Saka by the Persians – and that leads us to another fascinating territory: the Sakas may have been one of the prime ancestors of the Pashtun in Afghanistan.

What’s in a name – Scythian? Well, multitudes. The Greek form Scytha meant northern Iranian “archer.” So that was the denomination of all the northern Iranian peoples living between Greece in the West and China in the East.

Map of Scythia: Wikipedia

Now imagine a very busy international commerce network developed across the heartland, with the focus on Central Eurasia, by the Scythians, the Sogdians, and even the Xiongnu – who kept battling the Chinese on and off, as detailed by early Greek and Chinese historical sources.

These Central Eurasians traded with all the peoples living on their borders: that meant Europeans, Southwest Asians, South Asians and East Asians. They were the precursors of the multiple ancient Silk Roads.

The Sogdians followed the Scythians; Sogdiana was an independent Greco-Bactrian state in the 3rd century B.C. – encompassing areas of northern Afghanistan – before it was conquered by nomads from the east who ended up establishing the Kushan empire, which soon expanded south into India.

Zoroaster was born in Sogdiana; Zoroastrianism was huge in Central  Asia for centuries. The Kushans for their part adopted Buddhism: and that’s how Buddhism eventually arrived in China.

By the first century CE, all these Central Asian empires were linked – via long-distance trade – to Iran, India and China. That was the historical basis of the multiple, ancient Silk Roads – which linked China to the West for several centuries until the Age of Discovery configured the fateful Western maritime trade dominance.

Arguably, even more than a series of interlinked historical phenomena, the denomination “Silk Road” works best as a metaphor of cross-cultural connectivity. That’s what is at the heart of the Chinese concept of New Silk Roads. And average people across the heartland feel it because that’s imprinted in the collective unconscious in Iran, China and all Central Asian “stans.”

Revenge of the heartland

Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal, is among the very few top scholars who are analyzing the process of Eurasia integration in depth.

His latest book practically spells out the whole story in its title: Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia: Geoeconomic Regions in a Multipolar World.

Diesen shows, in detail, how a “Greater Eurasia region, that integrates Asia and Europe, is currently being negotiated and organized with a Chinese-Russian partnership at the center. Eurasian geoeconomic instruments of power are gradually forming the foundation of a super-region with new strategic industries, transportation corridors and financial instruments. Across the Eurasian continent, states as different as South Korea, India, Kazakhstan and Iran are all advancing various formats for Eurasia integration.”

The Greater Eurasia Partnership has been at the center of Russian foreign policy at least since the St Petersburg forum in 2016. Diesen duly notes that, “while Beijing and Moscow share the ambition to construct a larger Eurasian region, their formats differ. The common denominator of both formats is the necessity of a Sino-Russian partnership to integrate Eurasia.” That’s what was made very clear at the SCO summit.

It’s no wonder the process irks the Empire immensely, because Greater Eurasia, led by Russia-China, is a mortal attack against the geoeconomic architecture of Atlanticism. And that leads us to the nest-of-vipers debate around the EU concept of “strategic autonomy” from the US; that would be essential to establish true European sovereignty – and eventually, closer integration within Eurasia.

Image on the right: Glenn Diesen. Photo: we.hse.ru

European sovereignty is simply non-existent when its foreign policy means submission to dominatrix NATO. The humiliating, unilateral withdrawal from Afghanistan coupled with the Anglo-only AUKUS was a graphic illustration that the Empire doesn’t give a damn about its European vassals.

Throughout the book, Diesen shows, in detail, how the concept of Eurasia unifying Europe and Asia “has through history been an alternative to the dominance of maritime powers in the oceanic-centric world economy,” and how “British and American strategies have been deeply influenced” by the ghost of an emerging Eurasia, “a direct threat to their advantageous position in the oceanic world order.”

Now, the crucial factor seems to be the fragmentation of Atlanticism. Diesen identifies three levels: the de facto decoupling of Europe and the US propelled by Chinese ascendancy; the mind-boggling internal divisions in the EU, enhanced by the parallel universe inhabited by Brussels eurocrats; and last but not least, “polarization within Western states” caused by the excesses of neoliberalism.

Well, just as we think we’re out, Mackinder and Spykman pull us back in. It’s always the same story: the Anglo-American obsession in preventing the rise of a “peer competitor” (Brzezinski) in Eurasia, or an alliance (Russia-Germany in the Mackinder era, now the Russia-China strategic partnership) capable, as Diesen puts it, “of wrestling geoeconomic control away from the oceanic powers.”

As much as imperial strategists remain hostages of Spykman – who ruled that the US must control the maritime periphery of Eurasia – definitely it’s not AUKUS/Quad that is going to pull it off.

Very few people, East and West, may remember that Washington had developed its own Silk Road concept during the Bill Clinton years – later co-opted by Dick Cheney with a Pipelineistan twist and then circling all back to Hillary Clinton who announced her own Silk Road dream in India in 2011.

Diesen reminds us how Hillary sounded remarkably like a proto-Xi: “Let’s work together to create a new Silk Road. Not a single thoroughfare like its namesake, but an international web and network of economic and transit connections. That means building more rail lines, highways, energy infrastructure, like the proposed pipeline to run from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan and India.”

Hillary does Pipelineistan! Well, in the end, she didn’t. Reality dictates that Russia is connecting its European and Pacific regions, while China connects its developed east coast with Xinjiang, and both connect Central Asia. Diesen interprets it as Russia “completing its historical conversion from a European/Slavic empire to a Eurasian civilizational state.”

So in the end we’re back to … the Scythians. The prevailing neo-Eurasia concept revives the mobility of nomadic civilizations – via top transportation infrastructure – to connect everything between Europe and Asia.

We could call it the Revenge of the Heartland: they are the powers building this new, interconnected Eurasia. Say goodbye to the ephemeral, post-Cold War US unipolar moment.

*

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

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Eurasian Consolidation Ends the US Unipolar Moment
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“I’ll do one more mind experiment with you: If everyone on the planet were to get Covid and not get treated, the death-rate globally would be less than half a percent. I’m not advocating for that, because 35 million people would die.

However, if we follow the advice of some of the global leaders– like Bill Gates who said last year said “7 billion people need to be vaccinated”– then the death-rate will be over 2 billion people!

SO, WAKE UP! THIS IS WORLD WAR 3!

We are seeing a level of malevolence that we haven’t seen in the history of humanity!” Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Author of The Zelenko “Early Treatment” Protocol that saved thousands of Covid-19 patients. (“Zelenko schools the Rabbinic Court”, Rumble; start at 11:45 minutes)

Did the regulators at the FDA know that all previous coronavirus vaccines had failed in animal trials and that the vaccinated animals became either severely ill or died?

Yes, they did.

Did they know that previous coronavirus vaccines had a tendency to “enhance the infection” and “make the disease worse”?

Yes.

Did Dr Anthony Fauci know that coronavirus vaccines had repeatedly failed and increased the severity of the infection?

Yes, he did. (See here: Fauci on ADE)

Did the drug companies conduct any animal trials prior to the FDA’s approval that would have convinced a reasonable person that the vaccines were safe to use on humans?

No, they didn’t.

Did they complete long-term clinical trials to establish whether the vaccines were safe?

No, there were no long-term clinical trials.

Did they conduct any biodistribution studies that showed where the substance in the injection goes in the body?

They did, but the data was not made available to the public.

Do the contents of the vaccine largely collect in various organs and in the lining of the vascular system?

Yes, they do.

Do large amounts of the substance accumulate in the ovaries?

Yes.

Will this effect female fertility and a woman’s ability to safely bring a baby to term?

The drug companies are currently researching this. The results are unknown.

Does the vaccine enter the bloodstream and collect in the lining of the blood vessels forcing the cells to produce the spike protein?

Yes.

Is the spike protein a “biologically active” pathogen?

It is.

Does the spike protein cause blood clots and leaky blood vessels in a large percentage of the people that are vaccinated?

It does, although the blood clots are mostly microscopic and appear in the capillaries. Only a small percentage of vaccinees get strokes or suffer cardiac arrest.

Should people be made aware of these possible bad outcomes before they agree to get vaccinated? (“Informed consent”)

Yes.

Did the FDA know that Pfizer had “identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease, including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, as an important potential risk”?

Yes, they did, but they did not demand that Pfizer fix the problem. Here’s more:

“The FDA noted that Pfizer, “identified vaccine-associated enhanced disease, including vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease, as an important potential risk”. The EMA similarly acknowledged that “vaccine associated enhanced respiratory disease” was “an important potential risk… that may be specific to vaccination for COVID- 19”.

Why neither regulator sought to exclude such dangers prior to emergency use authorization is an open
question that all doctors and patients are entitled to ask. Why medical regulators failed to investigate the
finding that large vaccine particles cross blood vessel walls, entering the bloodstream and posing risks of blood clotting and leaky vessels is yet another open question again.” (“Open Letter to the EMA and European Parliament”, Doctors for Covid Ethics)

Did the drug companies vaccinate the people in the placebo group after the clinical trials in order to conceal the difference in the long-term health outcomes between the two groups?

That is the conclusion a rational person would make.

So, they nuked the trials?

Yes.

Did the FDA largely shrug-off its regulatory duties and abandon its normal standards and protocols because

a– It wanted to rush the Covid vaccines into service as rapidly as possible?
b– It knew the Covid-19 vaccine would never meet long-term safety standards?

We don’t know yet, but the adverse events report strongly suggests that the Covid-19 vaccine is hands-down the most dangerous vaccine in history.

Is the FDA rushing the “boosters” without proper testing?

Yes, it is. Here’s a clip from author Alex Berenson’s latest at Substack:

“Pfizer basically hasn’t bothered to test the booster AT ALL in the people actually at risk – it conducted a single “Phase 1” trial that covered 12 people over 65. The main Phase 2/3 booster trial (beware efforts to cover multiple “phases” of drug research at once, you want it bad you get it bad) included no one over 55.

No one.

As in NONE.” (“Are you kidding me, Pfizer, volume 1 gazillion”, Alex Berenson, Substack)

Have the boosters been modified or improved to meet the changes in Delta variant?

No.

Is there any additional risk in taking a booster-shot after already taking two experimental gene-based vaccines in less than a year?

Considerable risk. Here’s more from the Doctors for Covid Ethics:

“Given that booster shots repeatedly boost the immune response to the spike protein, they will progressively boost self-to-self immune attack, including boosting complement-mediated damage to vessel walls.

Clinically speaking, the greater the vessel leakage and clotting that subsequently occurs, the more likely that organs supplied by the affected blood flow will sustain damage. From stroke to heart attack to brain vein thrombosis, the symptoms can range from death to headaches, nausea and vomiting, all of which heavily populate adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines.

As well as damage from leakage and clotting alone, it is additionally possible that the vaccine itself may leak into surrounding organs and tissues. Should this take place, the cells of those organs will themselves begin to produce spike protein, and will come under attack in the same way as the vessel walls. Damage to major organs such as the lungs, ovaries, placenta and heart can be expected ensue, with increasing severity and frequency as booster shots are rolled out.” (“Open Letter to the EMA and European Parliament“, Doctors for Covid Ethics)

So, it’s the double-whammy. On the one hand, the booster will perform largely like the original vaccine, penetrating cells and forcing them to produce spike protein which, in turn, generates blood clots and leaky blood vessels.

And, on the other, the newly-produced S proteins trigger a damaging immune response in which the complement system attacks and destroys the cells that line the inside of the blood vessels. Every additional booster will intensify this process weakening the vascular system and increasing the clotting. If the Doctors are correct in their analysis, then we could see a sharp uptick in all-cause mortality in the heavily-vaccinated countries in less than a year. Cardiac arrests are already rising.

Here’s another question that’s worth mulling over: Was there any reason for the regulators at the FDA to think that these problems would not arise following the launching of the vaccine campaign?

No. They should have known there would be problems as soon as they saw that the vaccine did not stay in the shoulder as it was supposed to. The vaccine wasn’t supposed to enter the bloodstream and spread across the body leaving billions of spike proteins in its wake. (The spike protein is a cytotoxin, a cell killer. It is not an appropriate antigen for stimulating an immune response. It is a potentially-lethal pathogen that poses a threat to one’s health even if it is separated from the virus.) Nor was the vaccine supposed to trigger Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE)which is the condition we hinted at above when referring to “vaccine-associated enhanced disease”. Here’s a brief explanation:

“ADE has proven to be a serious challenge with coronavirus vaccines, and this is the primary reason many have failed in early in-vitro or animal trials. For example, rhesus macaques who were vaccinated with the Spike protein of the SARS-CoV virus demonstrated severe acute lung injury when challenged with SARS-CoV, while monkeys who were not vaccinated did not. Similarly, mice who were immunized with one of four different SARS-CoV vaccines showed histopathological changes in the lungs with eosinophil infiltration after being challenged with SARS-CoV virus. This did not occur in the controls that had not been vaccinated. A similar problem occurred in the development of a vaccine for FIPV, which is a feline coronavirus.” (“Is the Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking-Time Bomb?”, Science with Dr. Doug)

Is this what we are seeing right now? In all the countries that launched mass-vaccination campaigns early (Israel, Iceland, Scotland, Gibraltar and UK) cases, hospitalizations and deaths are rising faster in the vaccinated portion of the population than the unvaccinated. Why?

Are they really experiencing a fourth or fifth wave or have the vaccines generated “inactivity-enhancing” antibodies that make the disease worse? This 2-minute video helps to clarify what’s going on:

Vaccines are made to a specific variant. And when that variant mutates, the vaccine no longer recognizes it. It’s like you are seeing a completely new virus. And, because that is so, you actually get more severe symptoms when you are vaccinated against one variant and it mutates and then your body sees the other variant. The science shows, that if you get vaccinated in multiple years (for the flu), you are more likely to get severe disease, you are more likely to get viral replication, and you are more likely to be hospitalized…. We are seeing the same thing in Covid with the Delta variant. So we are actually mandating that people get a vaccine when they can actually get more sick when they are exposed to the virus...In fact, this week, a paper came out that showed that–with the Delta variant– when you are vaccinated your body is supposed to make antibodies that neutralize the virus, but they were supposed to neutralize the old variant. When they see this new variant, the antibodies take the virus and help it infect the cells.” (“Expert testimony on mandatory vaccinations”, Dr Christina Parks PhD., Rumble, start at minute 5:05)

Repeat: “If you get vaccinated in multiple years, you are more likely to get severe disease, you are more likely to get viral replication, and you are more likely to be hospitalized…. With the Delta variant– when you are vaccinated …. the antibodies take the virus and help it infect the cells.”

This is ADE, and this is probably why hospitalizations and deaths are rising among the vaccinated in Israel, UK and the rest. True, the Delta variant is less lethal than the Wuhan virus but, unfortunately, that rule does not apply to those who have been vaccinated and whose antibodies promote the uptake of the virus into their cells. This increases the viral replication function that increases the severity of the disease. In short, people are getting sicker because they were vaccinated. Here’s another short video that helps to explain:

“…The vaccine-induced antibodies will stand up against the virus. and once a virus is under pressure; it changes, it becomes a variant, and the variant cannot be stopped by vaccine-induced antibodies.Vaccine-induced antibodies. also shut down your innate immune system… so variants can come straight through and infect those that are vaccinated. That is viral immune escape, and that means that the vaccinated are defenseless against variants. This is no longer a pandemic of Covid-19. It is a pandemic of variants…

And there is something called recombination, and recombination means a vaccinated host can be infected by more than one variant at a time. …If a vaccinated host is co-infected by more than one variant, the variants will mix DNA, and change and camouflage and produce a super variant. And if a super variants are produced, nothing can stop them. And already they are saying that the latest variant to come out is vaccine resistant. And this is just the beginning. Dr Geert Vanden Bosche warns that if we do not immediately stop mass vaccination campaigns around the world, the world will experience an international catastrophe of mass mortality. I didn’t say that, he did. The vaccinated are a threat to us all.” (“Viral Immune Escape Explained”, Dr. Michael McDowell, Rumble)

It’s not the variant that intensifies the disease, it’s the fact that the vaccine targets one narrow endpoint, the spike protein, that gradually adapts to survive. As the virus progressively learns to avoid the vaccine, vaccine-induced immunity wanes. Natural immunity produces broad, robust immunity to the whole virus not merely one part of it. It is strong and enduring.

So how will the vaccinated fight new forms of the virus, after all, the vaccine is not a medicine that overpowers a particular pathogen. It is a subtle (genetic) reprogramming of the immune system that forces one’s cells to produce a particular version of the spike protein. Boosters that stimulate production of the same protein will have only modest impact. In short, boosters are still fighting the last war.

Also, as we mentioned above, coronavirus vaccines tend to create antibodies that “enhance infectivity” when they encounter adapted forms of the virus. That means that millions of inoculated people will now face forms of the virus for which they have almost no protection and for which their compromised immune systems can only provide limited help. Here’s more from the article above:

“Right now, the fatality rate of the virus is estimated to be approximately 0.26%, and this number seems to be dropping as the virus is naturally attenuating itself through the population. It would be a great shame to vaccinate the entire population against a virus with this low of a fatality rate, especially considering the considerable risk presented by ADE. I believe t his risk of developing ADE in a vaccinated individual will be much greater than 0.26%, and, therefore, the vaccine stands to make the problem worse, not better. It would be the biggest blunder of the century to see the fatality rate of this virus increase in the years to come because of our sloppy, haphazard, rushed efforts to develop a vaccine with such a low threshold of safety testing and the prospect of ADE lurking in the shadows.” (“Is the Coronavirus Vaccine a Ticking-Time Bomb?”, Science with Dr. Doug)

“Blunder”, he says?

It wasn’t a blunder. It was deliberate. The Covid-19 vaccine was supposed to fail like all the coronavirus vaccines before it. That’s the point. That’s why the drug companies skipped the animal testing and long-term safety trials. That’s why the FDA rushed it through the regulatory process and suppressed the other life-saving medications, and silenced all critics of the policy, and pushed for universal vaccination regardless of the risks of blood clotting, cardiac arrest, stroke and death. And that’s why the world is on the threshold of an “international catastrophe of mass mortality.” It’s because that’s how the strategy was planned from the very beginning.

The vaccine isn’t supposed to work, it’s supposed to make things worse. And it has! It’s increased the susceptibility of millions of people to severe illness and death. That’s what it’s done. It’s a stealth weapon in an entirely new kind of war; a war aimed at restructuring the global order and establishing absolute social control. Those are the real objectives. It has nothing to do pandemics or viral contagion. It’s about power and politics. That’s all.

*

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.

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.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

What is Agenda ID2020?

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.

It is an all-electronic ID – linking everything to everything of each individual (records of health, criminal, banking, personal and private, etc.), being managed by a state agency or in extremis, by the private sector. – Imagine – an insurance company or bank handling your private records, converted into an electronic and eventually “chipped” ID.

Privatization of your personal records may sound far-fetched, but the Swiss government tried to get a privatized Agenda ID2020 quietly past the people. But the people found out and launched a referendum against Agenda ID2020. The idea was rejected with a margin of 2:1 in July 2021. 

 

Click here to link to bitchute version

bitchute.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Towards Digital Tyranny. # Say No to the Covid Vaccine Passport

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

While the jury is still out on who committed the attacks against U.S. officials, or even whether there were any attacks at all, directed energy weapons certainly do exist. Havana Syndrome might be science fiction, but directed energy weapons are very much science fact. 

It started in 2016. U.S. officials in Havana, Cuba, began complaining en masse about hearing strange noises, suffering recurring headaches, nausea, hearing and memory loss. From there it spread around the world, with hundreds of U.S. spies and diplomats in the United Kingdom, Colombia, China, Uzbekistan, Germany, Austria, and in Washington itself reporting similar symptoms. Very little about the cases — even the identities of those involved — can be verified. Nevertheless, the story has become a media sensation, appearing on front pages the world over, with journalists speculating that futuristic microwave weapons are the culprit, likely wielded by devious Russian spies. While the scientific and medical community have cautioned not to jump to conclusions, underlining a number of key flaws in the narrative, the existence of directed energy weapons (DEWs), as they are known, is beyond doubt.

Our men in Havana

Tensions with Cuba are high, the island being the home to many cloak-and-dagger plots both by and against the Cuban government, ever since the revolution of 1959, which marked the Caribbean nation as an enemy of Washington. Officials affected typically report hearing a grating sound coming from a particular direction and experiencing pressure in their heads. Those nearby were not affected. The Cuban government’s vehement denials, as well as their openness in helping the U.S. with their investigations, shifted suspicion away from them in Washington’s eyes, the chief culprit assumed by many to be Vladimir Putin’s Russia, although little public evidence of this exists.

From there, officials around the world began to report similar symptoms. Some, like one CIA agent stationed in Moscow, claim to have been debilitated from it. The Biden administration has taken the reports seriously. “The president and I are committed to getting to the bottom of this,” Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said in June. Later this summer, Vice-President Harris’ official trip to Vietnam was delayed after a suspected outbreak of Havana Syndrome in Hanoi. Earlier this month, Blinken scheduled a meeting with 41 diplomats who have been afflicted.

The news of American agents being secretly targeted has created an ongoing media furor. “CIA analysts who are Russia experts, diplomats and scientists contend that evidence points to Moscow,” wrote The New York Times. “Biden must call out Putin’s secret war against the United States,” demanded The Washington Post’s editorial board. Other big media outlets have peppered their coverage of the Havana Syndrome with pictures of the Kremlin, suggesting an iron-clad link to Moscow.

No smoking microwave gun

There is, however, considerable reason to be skeptical of all this, not least because the CIA showed reluctance to release information about those affected, even to other government departments. Then-Director of the agency Gina Haspel was reportedly unconvinced even that any attacks had occurred, let alone that Russia was responsible. An FBI investigation into the phenomenon concluded that those involved were suffering from a mass psychogenic illness (MPI), a condition where a group of people all suffer from similar conditions at the same time despite there being no logical cause — akin to a mass hysteria. Likewise, the Cuban Academy of Sciences concluded last week that the idea of a microwave attack was “not scientifically acceptable in any of its components,” and has survived largely because of “sensationalist media coverage” and a “biased use of science.”

The Cuban Academy of Sciences blamed the US gov’t and media endorsement of the attack theory in part for the MPI

Furthermore, most of the reports are based on accounts from anonymous agents working in organizations whose job it is to plant false information into the public domain. MintPress contacted a number of officials claiming to have been struck down with Havana Syndrome, including a CIA operative and a former embassy intern, but none responded.

“Nobody has detected microwaves, acoustic waves, etc. that could cause the symptoms. The issue is not resolved nor is it likely to be unless more information is forthcoming,” Kenneth Foster, Professor Emeritus of Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, told MintPress, adding:

I have been unable to come up with a plausible exposure scenario where pulsed microwaves could produce the reported effects. So far more than 300 people around the world have reported ‘symptoms’ and it is beyond belief that someone could be beaming microwaves at them at sufficient intensity to produce effects without it being noticed.”

Sergio Della Sala, Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh, shared some of Professor Foster’s suspicions. “This story is very interesting, as it enters the realm of widely accepted truth with almost no evidential basis, and it reads as a modern era spy story, with all the elements of mystery and betrayal,” he told MintPress.

Bad science

A 2018 study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) did a great deal to legitimize the theory of a microwave attack. The study found evidence of neurological impairment in a number of diplomats who claimed to be suffering from the mystery ailment. Although it did not determine the cause of the injuries, its main author considers microwaves to be the “main suspect.”

The news elicited a torrent of media coverage. However, the report was littered with poor methodology, as Della Sala and others were quick to point out. Among the most questionable decisions was to qualify anyone scoring below the 40th percentile in various cognitive tests as “impaired.” In plain English, those performing worse than 60% of adults would be labeled as impaired — an extremely generous definition of injury. Despite this, only 28% of those tested scored below this line, considerably fewer than would be expected if participants were simply picked at random. Della Sala commented:

I looked at the data made available. The data do not support the existence of a new syndrome. Anyone assessed using those criteria could [appear to be] pathological, it is a statistical fact. There is no common, homogeneous pattern that distinguishes the patients from the controls. Hence, if there is no syndrome, it is rather vain to [have a discussion] about its potential causes, which could be multifarious.

If people claim to have seen a donkey flying, the discussion ensuing is how would this be possible; however first we would need to ascertain whether it is true that donkeys can fly. There are several cases of similar psychological reactions to stressful events. These potential causes should also be seriously considered.”

Others were even more scathing. Academics from around the world condemned JAMA for dabbling in a “conspiracy theory.” Neuroscience and neurology journal Cortex suggested JAMA retract the article. One paper reviewing the study concluded that the evidence “all points to mass psychogenic illness exacerbated by mundane sounds and Cold War beliefs.” It was later revealed that a peer reviewer of the article had recommended JAMA reject the study owing to its numerous flaws. Why it was published at all remains a mystery, although Della Sala speculated that it might have been “dictated by a political agenda.”

Two years after the JAMA study, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine released a report that suggested the symptoms displayed by U.S. government workers there were consistent with those of exposure to microwave energy, although it very prominently warned that “evidence has been lacking, no hypothesis has been proven and the circumstances remain unclear.” This added more fuel to the public speculation that Russia was secretly attacking us.

Like the JAMA study, the report was also heavily criticized by academics. Alberto Espay, a neurologist from the University of Cincinnati, described it as “the closest equivalent in science to fake news.” Professor Foster was similarly unconvinced, telling MintPress:

As I mention in my article, I have a strong sense that at least some individuals have experienced something real, whatever may have happened to the many other people reporting symptoms. I have been telling the government that they are going down a blind alley with the microwave theory. The government should cast a broader net and not rule out mass psychogenic illness for at least some of the affected individuals, and they should not rule out acoustic weapons.”

Chasing shadows

Mass psychogenic illnesses certainly do happen and are more common than many realize. In 2011, 18 children at a school in Le Roy, NY, spontaneously developed facial tics, muscle spasms and stutters. Four years previously, an MPI event happened in Australia, as more than two dozen schoolgirls in Melbourne began fainting. Going further back, in 1518, hundreds of residents of Strasbourg, then in the Holy Roman Empire, began dancing uncontrollably for days. Some sources even claim many danced themselves to death. The phenomenon of MPIs is believed by experts to be triggered in close-knit groups in situations of sudden or heavy stress. It is not out of the question that embassy staff could fall into that category.

Perhaps an even more relevant example, given the Cold War undertones, is the “Yellow Rain” phenomenon of the 1980s. While patrolling in the area, U.S. forces in southeast Asia noticed a yellow substance on leaves. Immediately fearing the worst, they suspected they had been attacked by chemical weapons, even though no casualties were recorded. Paranoid officials from the State Department promoted the idea, formally accusing the Soviet Union of supplying weapons of mass destruction to Communist forces in the region. The story became a national scandal lasting for much of the early 1980s, only for the U.S. to admit, years later, that the yellow substance on the leaves was actually honey bee feces.

Science fact

While the jury is still out on what happened in Havana, Guangzhou, London and the other locations, there can be no doubt that futuristic directed energy weapons do indeed exist. MintPress spoke with Suzie Dawson, a journalist who has followed DEWs’ development. “It is an open secret” that DEWs exist and are part of militaries around the world,” she said, adding:

WikiLeaks documents from the #HackingTeam releases confirm other publicly available commercial documentation and show that DEWs not only exist but that they have been operationally tested. They have already had a period of rollout and that rollout has been not only to militaries but to domestic police agencies around the world.”

The WikiLeaks documents to which Dawson is referring include a set of 2014 emails from a military market research company that notes that a number of major arms manufacturers — including BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon — are developing DEWs, as well as other nations, including Russia, Israel, China and France.

Wikileaks Direct Energy Weapons

Emails leaked by Wikileaks in 2015 show that a number of weapons makers and governments have active DEW programs

These weapons are already in service with the military. The Office of Naval Research (ONR), an official U.S. government organization, notes that “Navy DEWs include systems that use high energy lasers that emit photons, and high power microwaves that release radiofrequency waves. The U.S. Navy uses DEWs for power projection and integrated defense missions.”

DEWs have a number of advantages over conventional weapons, including their ability to be used quickly, quietly and without being detected. Running primarily on electricity, their firepower is essentially unlimited and they are far cheaper to operate than other weapons.

Office of Naval Research report on DEWs

An image from a declassified 2019 Office of Naval Research report on the state of US Directed Energy Weapons reserach

Navy railguns, for example, use magnetic fields created by high electrical currents and can propel projectiles at over 5,000 miles per hour. “Although it was once an object of imagination, theory, and science fiction, the electromagnetic railgun has finally made the leap from laboratory concept to weapon-grade technology,” the ONR writes, adding that electronic railguns will “play a significant role in the future of the U.S. Navy.” General Atomics and BAE Systems have both already developed railguns for the Navy.

The ONR’s 2019 annual report also reveals that high-powered microwaves (HPM) have been a key area of research for some time. “The U.S. Navy uses HPM to gain and sustain tactical, operational, and strategic advantage in the arena of EM Maneuver Warfare and Integrated Defense for U.S. forces across the full range of military operations, including power projection and integrated defense missions,” it wrote.

Also operational around the world are sophisticated lasers that can concentrate huge amounts of energy on a target, disabling it. These lasers are already effective against ground and air vehicles, including trucks and drones. The Navy has been using laser weaponry to this end since at least 2014.

Russia has certainly developed its own DEWs, with the new MiG-35 fighter jets employing laser weaponry. In 2014, it was widely rumored that a Russian jet had temporarily disabled the U.S.S. Donald Cook, a destroyer patrolling the Black Sea, with some kind of DEW.

China, too, is a world leader in the development of directed energy weapons. At the 2017 International Defense Exhibition and Conference, Chinese companies showed off a 50-70 kilowatt laser named Silent Hunter, capable of directing a beam of energy strong enough to burn out a car’s engine from over a mile away, making it twice as powerful as Lockheed Martin’s ATHENA laser system.

China has unveiled a system that unleashes a torrent of microwave radiation that disables or destroys integrated circuits, giving it the ability to paralyze electronic equipment, including in missiles and vehicles.

The United Kingdom is also heavily investing into DEWs. Last Tuesday, the Ministry of Defence announced a new $100 million contract with Thales and Raytheon U.K. to create similar anti-aircraft and anti-UAV laser weaponry that will be fitted to its ships. “Directed energy weapons are a key element of our future equipment programs and we intend to become a world leader in the research, manufacture and implementation of this next-generation technology,” saidJeremy Quin, the Minister for Defence Procurement. “These technologies have the potential to revolutionize the future battlefield for our Armed Forces, enabling the prosecution of new targets in the land, sea and air domains and allowing commanders to meet mission objectives in new ways,” he added.

Domestic use and abuse

The United Kingdom deployed an American-made Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), in essence, a sound cannon, during the London 2012 Olympics. Products like LRAD represent a shift from military to domestic usage of directed energy weapons, Dawson noted, explaining:

DEW manufacturers seem to be developing more hand-held versions of what was industrial-scale military weaponry. So they are transitioning from something that was the size of a truck used in Afghanistan or Iraq and turning it into something more like a taser that can be held by a police officer. In fact, the Taser Corporation, as well as other manufacturers of crowd-control weaponry, are listed in the WikiLeaks files as being manufacturers of directed energy weapons.”

LRADs are used at airports to deter wildlife from runways. But they are also commonly used by law enforcement against protestors, such as at Occupy Oakland, the George Floyd protests, and at the 2017 Women’s March.

LRAD focuses a piercing and unbearable noise at those at whom it is pointed, leaving targets dizzy and suffering headaches. It is undoubtedly effective, but also poses a risk to human health. The National Institutes of Health advises that permanent hearing loss can begin when exposed to sounds of more than 85 dB. Yet police LRADs are capable of producing sounds of higher than 150 dB. There are serious concerns that the LRAD will be used liberally and illegally to disperse peaceful demonstrations. This is already happening: in 2017, the city of New York was forced to pay $748,000 to Black Lives Matter protestors targeted with LRAD. The NYPD suspended its use.

Other DEWs intended for domestic use are a working heat-ray gun called the Active Denial System, which fires a high-energy beam heating human skin to an unbearable temperature. Volunteers describe it as like being blasted by an oven and producing an instant “goodbye effect” — an overwhelming need to escape the beam immediately.

Cold War 2.0?

There was a time not so long ago when Russia was considered almost an ally of the United States. Just 10 years ago, a majority of Americans held positive opinions toward the world’s largest country by land area. During the 2012 presidential elections, Barack Obama mocked his opponent Mitt Romney’s assertion that Russia was the United States’ number one geopolitical enemy. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back… the Cold War has been over for 20 years,” Obama said, to great public approval.

But after the 2016 election, in which Democrats accused Vladimir Putin of interfering to help Donald Trump, public opinion quickly plummeted, to the point where views on Russia have hit historic lows, lower even than during the Cold War.

For its part, NATO continues to encroach closer and closer towards Russia, with the United States taking the lead in supporting the Euromaidan Revolution in 2014, which Moscow sees as little more than a Western takeover of Ukraine.

Relations with Cuba, too, have gone downhill in recent years. The Trump administration increased sanctions against the island — already estimated by the United Nations to have caused $1.1 trillion worth of damage by 2014 — blocking remittances from the United States. This, added to the COVID-induced tourism collapse, has greatly affected the local economy, leading to shortages and unemployment. This economic dislocation was a factor in the recent protests on the island, protests that were immediately supported and signal-boosted by the Biden administration.

It has become, once again, a world in which weapons like DEWs seem to have a logical, if not inevitable, place. And while the jury is still out on who committed the attacks against U.S. officials, or even whether there were any attacks at all, directed energy weapons certainly do exist, and not just in prototype form. Havana Syndrome might be science fiction, but directed energy weapons are very much science fact.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image: US Navy personnel operate a Directed Energy Weapon aboard the USS Ponce during an operational demonstration in the Persian Gulf in 2014. Photo | DVIDS

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The CDC (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) was born, just like the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), as an important regulatory agency of the United States government. The intent of the legislation that authorized both watchdog groups was to regulate various corrupt and monopoly-seeking for-profit healthcare-related industries that could harm the health of the populace that are otherwise powerless to protect themselves from the dangerous practices of powerful healthcare-related industries.  

Tragically, over the past few generations (most significantly starting with the presidency of the pro-Big Business, pro-Big Pharma Ronald Reagan), both the CDC and the FDA have been seriously co-opted by the Big Pharma Corporations, their Big Bank lenders and investors and the ubiquitous corporate lobbying groups that propagandize our legislators in DC.

Simultaneously, the CDC and FDA have abandoned their original mission of protecting the people from the inevitable adverse consequences of pharmaceutical greed and the toxic and often addictive products that they manufacture and profitably market, which results in the production of even more polluting by-products that then additionally sicken the victims who took the drugs or vaccines in the first place.

The multimillionaire owners, investors, lobbying groups and think tanks of corporate America have become grotesquely wealthy – and powerful – because of their investments in the multitude of highly profitable anti-democratic (non-elected) entities that over-charge for the drugs and vaccines. The toxic adverse side effects include adverse drug-drug and vaccine-vaccine interactions, which are actually iatrogenic disorders (= doctor- or drug-caused).

The control that those corporate entities have acquired is easily seen in the day-to-day activities of America’s corporate-infiltrated White House, Congress and Supreme Court, each of which is doing the biding of whatever entities are currently profiting from Wall Street’s and War Street’s often secret agendas.

There should be no surprise as to why many governmental entities, many of our regulatory agencies, Big Pharma, Big Vaccine, Wall Street, etc have lost credibility with awakened citizens. But in this column, I have focused on the CDC, which buys and sells 4 billion dollars-worth of vaccines every year from their cronies in the Big Vaccine corporations. The CDC also, it must be pointed out, owns 56 vaccine-related patents that are projected to make the CDC’s elites a lot of money in the future, much of which will be used for the lavish bonuses for the higher-ups. And the FDA is not much cleaner. Conflicts of interest are everywhere.

The CDC is no longer an un-biased entity that protects the citizenry from sociopathic corporations. As a matter of fact, the CDC actually acts just like a corporation. A good example is the annual push by the CDC to get everybody in American to get their flu shots despite the powerful (and censored-out) evidence that influenza vaccines can be seriously harmful while offering little or no benefit.

What follows is a critique of what has become an institution in corporate-controlled America: The unconscious acceptance of annual flu shots. 

Definitions

  • Vaccine Efficacy (VE) is the percentage reduction of disease outcomes in a vaccinated group of people compared to an unvaccinated group, using the most favorable conditions. It is best measured using double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trials, which are rarely done. A VE of 60% means that a vaccinated group of people has a 60% Relative Risk Reduction (see definition immediately below) of a given outcome compared to an unvaccinated group.
  • Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is a deceptive statistic that is commonly-used by Big Pharma and the CDC to over-estimate the reduction in risk or outcome for a treatment group when compared to an untreated control group (ideally a placebo-controlled group). RRR is commonly a gross exaggeration of the actual effectiveness of a drug or vaccine and is therefore favored by entities that want to promote a drug or vaccine by exaggerating its efficacy. The more useful Absolute Risk Reduction statistic (see below) is essentially never used in medical journal reporting, perhaps because it more accurately describes the weaknesses, adverse effects, risks and failures of any treatment modality.
  • Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) signifies the absolute or actual difference in the reduction in risk between an untreated group and a group of treated individuals. The importance in being able to understand the difference between RRR and ARR is well illustrated in the Merck Fosamax Fraud case described further below.
  • The Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) is the number of individuals that must be vaccinated for an expected benefit to be attained in one individual.

Some examples of NNV are listed below.

  • The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) is the number of individuals that must be treated with a drug, vaccine or surgery that results in a measurable benefit to one individual. It is the inverse of ARR. The larger the NNV (or NNT) is, the more useless is the treatment.

Examples of NNV and NNT Statistics

A Cochrane Review publication from 2018, states: 71 healthy adults would have to be vaccinated with a flu shot to prevent one case of influenza. (NNV = 71)

Another example of NNV comes from a Pediatrics journal article from 2007: “Between 4255 and 6897 children ages 24–59 months of age would have to be vaccinated for influenza to prevent one hospitalization.” (NNV = A number between 4255 and 6807)

“6000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated with the flu shot before a single patient death would be averted.”(NNV = A number between 6,000 and 32,000 for hospital healthcare workers to prevent one patient from dying because of influenza contagion from an un-vaccinated worker) See this.

“33,784 – 38,610 infants would need to be vaccinated with the Group B meningococcal vaccine in order to prevent one case of invasive Group B meningococcal disease.” (NNV for Group B Meningococcal Vaccine = >33,000) – From BMC Infect Dis, 12 (1) (2012), p. 202

And from a 2007 UCLA publication: 231 adults 70 years of age or older would have to be vaccinated for shingles to prevent 1 case of Herpes Zoster.” (NNV = 231)

“The NNV for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia in low-risk asthmatic adults is estimated to be as high as 1059.” (NNV = 1059 for Prevnar-13 to prevent one case of invasive pneumonia) — See this

“Assuming that Gardasil procures lifelong protection and that its vaccine efficacy is 95% (both irrationally over-optimistic assumptions!), and if vaccine protection is assumed to wane at 3% per year (also an over-optimistic assumption), the predicted NNV would increase to 9,080. In other words, one would have to vaccinate and give booster Gardasil shots regularly to 9,080 girls to prevent one case of cervical cancer).” One of the conclusions of a Canadian Medical Association Journal article (3 of the authors actually had financial conflicts of interest with Gardasil’s maker, Merck & Co. From here

Common experience will understand that “The NNT for treating penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis with penicillin is 1, and the NNT for any treatment that only cures half of the patients is 2.”

A Cochrane Review from 2011 states: “104 patients would have to take a statin drug for 5 years to prevent one heart attack.” (NNT = 104)

“To spare one person a heart attack, 100 people had to take Lipitor for more than three years, and for every 10 patients taking a statin drug for 5 years, one of them will develop statin-induced myonecrosis.” (NNT = 100 for Lipitor to prevent one heart attack after taking the drug continuously for > 3 years. (Number Needed to Harm [NNH] = 10, for patients who take a statin for 5 years.)from here)

“There are only 30 to 40 cervical cancer cases per year per one million women between the ages of 9 and 26. Therefore, you would have to vaccinate (with Gardasil) one million girls to prevent cervical cancer in 4 to 5 girls; and since only 1/3 of women who develop cervical cancer actually die from the disease, you would have to vaccinate one million girls to prevent 1 to 2 deaths per year – at the “bargain-basement price” of $360 million per year.” – Dr Joseph Mercola

“I predict that Merck’s Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profits for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and dangerous, and it costs a fortune!” — Dr Bernard Dalbergue (former Merck employee)

For more on understanding how Big Pharma and Big Medicine use deception in reporting statistics, go to this site.

Misuse of Medical Statistics by Researchers that also have Financial Conflicts of Interest  

In 2009 GlaxoSmithKline’s package insert for its influenza vaccine Flulaval read (in fine print): “not adequately demonstrated to decrease influenza”.

In a more recent Flulaval package insert, that sentence has been removed. The statement now reads: “Vaccination with FLULAVAL QUADRIVALENT may not protect all susceptible individuals.”

On June 22, 2017 a New England Journal of Medicine article was published. The article was about a new influenza vaccine (Flublok) that was developed and manufactured by a privately-held vaccine corporation called Protein Sciences. The new vaccine was compared only with standard flu vaccines and not to an unvaccinated group.

The article claimed that the new influenza vaccine had a 40% improvement in “vaccine effectiveness” compared to standard flu vaccines. However, hidden in the deceptive abstract – and deliberately NOT pointed out – were these figures:

96 of the 4303 study participants (2.2 %) who received the new vaccine still got the flu while 138 of 4301 (3.2%) study participants who received the old vaccine still got the flu, which revealed a miniscule Absolute Risk Reduction of 1% (3.2% – 2.2% = 1%).

But what was reported in the article was a Relative Risk Reduction of 40%, which was calculated by dividing 2.2% by 3.2% (60%). According to the formula for calculating RRR, subtracting the 60% from 100% resulted in a RRR of 40%, which sounded much better for a vaccine whose ARR was 1%. This manipulation appeared to be an attempt to over-state the benefits of the new vaccine.

Significantly, all the authors of the article – listed immediately below – also had serious financial conflicts of interest with the for-profit vaccine industry. Indeed, the three major authors were major shareholders and employees of Protein Sciences.

Here are the financial conflicts of interest of the article’s authors: “Drs. Dunkle, Izikson, and Cox report being employed by and holding stock in Protein Sciences; Dr. Patriarca, receiving consulting fees from Altimmune, FluGen, Georgia Institute of Technology, Medicago, VaxInnate, Vaxart, Vivaldi Biosciences, Moderna Therapeutics, Novavax, Seqirus, and Visterra; and Dr. Goldenthal, receiving consulting fees from Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

It is interesting to note that Protein Sciences was in the process of being acquired by the multinational Big Vaccine giant Sanofi for $750 million as the NEJM article was being published.

Influenza-like Illnesses (ILI) and Influenza are NOT the Same  

Complicating the assessment of flu vaccine’s effectiveness, ineffectiveness or even harmful effects is the fact that “Over 200 viruses can cause Influenza-like Illnesses (ILIs) that can produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches, pains, cough, and runny nose) as influenza. Doctors cannot distinguish between them without laboratory tests because both persist for days and rarely cause serious illness or death” – From the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018

ILIs comprise 80% of what most people regard as vaccine-preventable influenza. What the CDC, Big Medicine and the mainstream media call “the flu” is only influenza 20% of the time.

Importantly, ILIs are also NOT vaccine preventable (although they may be caused by vaccines).

Whenever mini-epidemics (aka “outbreaks”) of any contagious viral illness occur, the CDC, Big Pharma, the bribed politicians and the mainstream media are there constantly stirring up irrational public fear in order to promote more over-vaccination programs for themselves and the billionaire investor classes that use their wealth and power to generate even more investment opportunities.

Specific viral diagnostic tests are unreliable or typically not performed by authorities before they make the knee-jerk proclamations that will benefit the pharmaceutical corporations and their wealthy investors. And the corporate-compromised media goes along with the charade by over-reporting the not yet established, unbiased truth about what is happening.

It would be remiss of me to not report on the many iatrogenic illnesses (doctor, drug or vaccine-caused) that can result from any vaccine especially when they are used in untested-for-safety or long-term efficacy cocktails of vaccines that are blindly injected into immune-deficient infants, children or adults.

There are many potentially toxic ingredients in all human and veterinarian vaccines that are known to cause influenza-like symptoms and falsely be labeled as the “flu”. The toxins in these vaccines include mercury, aluminum, live viruses, formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80 (essentially automobile  engine anti-freeze), impurities, etc.

Here is a list of some of the published adverse effects of typical FDA- and CDC-approved influenza vaccines:

  • Headache
  • fever
  • nausea
  • muscle aches
  • weakness
  • Guillain-Barre Syndrome
  • dizziness
  • hoarseness
  • cough
  • shortness of breath
  • wheezing
  • hives and soreness
  • redness and/or
  • swelling at the injection site

How are the Viruses Chosen for Inclusion in Next Fall’s Flu Shots?

One of the most important stories that has been kept from us naïve consumers of vaccines is how the ingredients of America’s annual flu vaccine are chosen. The process involves considerable guesswork.

A committee of the CDC in America (and the WHO in Europe) meets every early spring no matter what happened in the Southern Hemisphere during the previous 6 months. The committees meet to look at the strains of influenza that were most commonly identified in that hemisphere’s “flu season” the year before (Australia’s flu season occurs during the northern hemisphere’s summer season).

The often totally wrong theory is that the flu viruses that infected some Australians or Asian Indians 6 months earlier will be the same ones that Americans might theoretically be facing in the fall and winter months.

Then samples of the 3 or 4 live influenza viruses most likely to be common (out of the over 100 influenza viruses that are known to exist in humans, pigs or birds) will be isolated and mass-produced in Big Vaccine’s chicken egg labs until enough viruses are obtained to be made into vaccines and delivered to those parts of the world that can afford to pay for the shots.

Each batch of viral particles are then killed with formaldehyde, some are mixed with adjuvants, all are mixed with preservatives in the multiple-dose vials and then – with fingers crossed – refrigerated and distributed to paying customers around the world. Of course, there is never any assurance to potential vaccine recipients that the chosen three or four viruses will match what turns up in the northern hemisphere. Indeed, the odds are against any match in any given year.

So, I suppose the lesson to be learned for any given patient, pregnant woman or parent of a vulnerable infant or child is to educate/inform oneself about the potential risks and actual benefits of any vaccine by thoroughly studying the information in the product insert above before going to the clinic (or pharmacy!!) and consenting  to the ”unavoidably unsafe” inoculation.

***

Pertinent Quotes About Seasonal Flu Vaccines 

Here are more important quotes that might help people understand the propaganda power that is regularly exercised by Big Pharma and Big Medicine:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” — Upton Sinclair

“If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been “taken”. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” — Carl Sagan

“[According to CDC statistics], ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 – 61,777 of which were attributable to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was the flu virus positively identified.” – Dr Peter Doshi, from in his 2005 BMJ report, titled, “Are US flu death figures more PR than science?” (BMJ 2005; 331:1412)

“A study by the world-renowned clinical immunologist Dr H. Hugh Fudenberg found that adults vaccinated yearly for five years in a row with the flu vaccine had a 10-fold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. He attributed this to the mercury in the vaccine. Interestingly, both mercury and aluminum have been shown to activate microglia and increase excitotoxicity in the brain.” — Russell Blaylock, MD

“We already know that the aluminum content of brain tissue in late-onset or sporadic Alzheimer’s disease is significantly higher than what is found in age-matched controls. So, individuals who develop Alzheimer’s disease in their late sixties and older also accumulate more aluminum in their brain tissue than individuals of the same age without the disease.

Even higher levels of aluminum have been found in the brains of individuals, diagnosed with an early-onset form of sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, who have experienced an unusually high exposure to aluminum through the environment (e.g. Camelford) or through their workplace. This means that Alzheimer’s disease has a much earlier age of onset, for example, fifties or early sixties, in individuals who have been exposed to unusually high levels of aluminum in their everyday lives.”Christopher Exley, PhD

“In the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is (known to be) exceptionally immunosuppressive.” – Harold Buttram, MD

“The most lucrative areas of medicine are the most corrupted by financial (and academic) conflicts of interest. So-called ‘authoritative’ sources of medical information are thoroughly corrupted not only by pharmaceutical industry manipulation but also by government officials and financially conflicted academic gatekeepers of medical science, ’expert’ panels, medical journal editors and the largely corrupted vaccine information base.” – Vera Sharav, MD

“For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain. This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.” – Russell Blaylock, MD

*

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 Gary G. Kohls is a retired American family physician who practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care during the last decade of his professional career. His patients came to see him asking for help in getting off the psychotropic drugs to which they were addicted and which they knew had sickened them and disabled their brains and bodies. He was successful in helping significant numbers of his patients get off or cut down on their cocktails of drugs using a time-consuming program that was based on psychoeducational psychotherapy, brain nutrient therapy and a program of gradual, closely monitored drug withdrawal.

He warns against the abrupt discontinuation of any psychiatric drug – legal or illicit – because of the common, often serious withdrawal symptoms that can occur in patients who have been taking such drugs. It is important to be treated by an aware, informed physician who is familiar with treating drug withdrawal syndromes and brain nutritional needs.

Dr Kohls lives in Duluth, MN, USA and writes articles that deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination agendas, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace.

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

Dr Kohls’ Duty to Warn columns have been archived at a number of websites around the world, including the following:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://freepress.org/geographic-scope/national;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/gary-g-kohls/?ptype=article; and

https://www.transcend.org/tms/author/?a=Gary%20G.%20Kohls,%20MD

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/

Featured image is from AdobeStock

The US, UK, Australia (AUKUS) Alliance against France

September 25th, 2021 by Andrew Korybko

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Recently, the US, UK and Australia formed an alliance which has hurt France on many levels.  Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Andrew Korybko to gain insight into the back story of this global headline.

Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US grand strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s Belt & Road Initiative, Russia’s balancing act, and Hybrid Warfare.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  Recently, Australia reneged on a deal to buy submarines from France. The US announced that Australia will deploy nuclear-powered submarines. This has infuriated France, and exposed the big differences on how Europe and America intend to confront China. Does this mean that the US is willing to have an ally suffer because of the US cold-war mentality towards China?

Andrew Korybko (AK):  It shows that the US always pursues its interests at others’ expense, including its own allies’. Some like France naively believed that this wasn’t the case due to their leadership’s liberal worldview. They assumed that military allies and those who share similar values would always keep each other in the loop on important matters such as this one. The last thing that France could have expected was that the US would secretly poach an AUS$90 billion submarine deal from it that had previously been described as the “Contract of the Century”.

This reality check exposes the practical limits of the liberal worldview. It proves that the realist one predominates since most countries would prefer to advance their own interests even if this results in backstabbing their allies. This is especially the case when it comes to the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”), which formulate policy according to this view. The Americans might also have assumed that their expected problems with France would be manageable.

SS:  France and the European Union prefer to deal with China in a different way than the US. In a policy paper titled the “EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific.” The bloc said they would pursue multifaceted engagement on issues of common interest. Does this difference in the perception of a threat from China, drive a wedge between the EU and this new alliance of the US, UK and Australia?

AK:  It creates the opportunity for the EU to more pragmatically engage with China than the AUKUS countries do, but only if the bloc has the political will to act as a united actor in this respect, which remains to be seen. Some countries like Lithuania have tried to sabotage the EU’s China policy. It therefore can’t be taken for granted that the referenced policy paper will result in the expected outcomes. More than likely, it’ll probably be the case that select EU countries take the lead in pragmatically engaging with China.

It’s here where France could send a strong message to the US by defying America’s expectation mentioned in the first answer above that their problems over AUKUS would ultimately be manageable. The Western European Great Power has an historical tradition of behaving independently and could therefore snub its ally by improving ties with China in defiance of Washington’s demands. It won’t outright obstruct the AUKUS countries’ containment of China, but it could complicate this overall policy if it becomes China’s preferred EU partner.

Of course, this possibility also requires political will since it would severely worsen relations with the US and potentially lead to unpredictable consequences such as a competition between them for “spheres of influence” in Africa for example, but France would nevertheless do well to consider the strategic benefits. Going along with the West’s general trend of hostility towards China would lead to France being just another American-influenced country, but it could really set itself apart by breaking this trend and actively engaging China instead.

SS:  European leaders, and especially the French, have compared President Biden to former President Trump who had a disdain for allies. There has been some talk before, and renewed now, of developing a EU military capability independent of the US. In your opinion, do you think the EU would consider this?

AK:   AKAUKUS provides a convenient pretext for the EU’s de facto French-German duopoly to move forward with those plans, but they might not be as successful as some expect. The primary challenges concern financing, logistics, management, and redundancy with NATO. This initiative will cost a fortune and not every EU country will want to equally contribute to it, especially some of the Central & Eastern European (CEE) like Poland and its Baltic allies which presently prefer to rely on American military support for containing Russia.

Those countries, particularly Poland under its ruling conservative-nationalist party, also fear German domination of their affairs and could therefore work to either undermine this proposed military structure or just voluntarily keep themselves out of it. In their view, everything that they need is already being provided by NATO so it doesn’t make sense to them to invest in completely new logistics chains at the possible expense of putting themselves under Berlin’s indirect control any more than they already are by being EU members.

With these challenges in mind, the proposed EU Army would likely remain mostly a French-German project if it ever gets off the ground. Those countries would also be compelled to subsidize the costs for those other members who want to participate. The main question remains, though, and it’s whether this force would truly be independent of the US. Even though it wouldn’t be managed by America, it could still end up doing its bidding by “sharing the burden” of intervention in regional conflicts where the two share similar interests.

SS:  The US has singled out China as a main threat. The US has supported the Hong Kong protesters, the Taiwan weapon deals, and the Uyghurs (Turkistan Islamic Party). Trump waged an economic war onn China. How has China countered the US aggression?

AK:  China used legal means to contain the US’ Hybrid War threats on the mainland. These include passing national security legislation in the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region. It also continued its proactive outreach efforts with Xinjiang’s Uyghurs whereby it engages credibly at-risk members of that community by teaching them valuable job skills simultaneously with de-radicalizing them over a period of time. As for rogue island province of Taiwan, China continues to beef up its military defenses in preparing to respond to any possible US-backed provocations from there.

Regarding the trade war, China expanded its regional economic ties through last year’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) pact with ASEAN, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. It also promulgated the new development policy of dual circulation whereby it equally prioritizes the domestic economy and international trade. China also clinched the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with the EU and continues to invest in Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) projects across the world. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) remains its flagship project but African ones are also very important for China too.

SS:  The Russia- China partnership has the potential to alter the status quo. US policymakers want to split up Moscow and Beijing, but Russians see benefits to closer Sino-Russian ties. In your opinion, how do you see the near future of the Russian and Chinese relationship?

AK:  The US is unlikely to divide Russia from China, but Moscow would also prefer to remain neutral in the New Cold War that’s primarily between the American and Chinese superpowers than to be seen as partisan actor in spite of its close strategic relations with China. Evidence of this policy in practice can be seen by the special and privileged Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership. The Kremlin continues to arm India to the teeth in spite of these weapons being used by its South Asian ally to contain China. Russia also arms China as well so it pursues a balanced policy in this respect when it comes to its “military diplomacy”.

Nevertheless, the point to pay attention to is that Russia is still arming one of China’s rivals despite those two Asian countries being members of BRICS and the SCO. There are also plans to export the Brahmos supersonic missiles that Russia and India jointly produced to the Philippines and possibly other countries like Vietnam that are engaged in fierce territorial disputes with China. Moreover, Russia didn’t take China’s side during last year’s border war with India, preferring instead to remain neutral, which shows the limits of Russian-Chinese ties. All of this confirms that Russia is trying to balance China’s rise.

This shouldn’t be mistaken as containing it though since Russia wouldn’t ever actively join that US-led campaign. Rather, its leadership realizes that their country must balance their strategic ties with China and India, which have emerged as rivals of one another after the US threw its support behind the South Asian state due to their shared intent to contain the People’s Republic. Instead of abandoning its historical ally, Russia is competing with America for its loyalty, which has actually had some success as of late because New Delhi refused to cancel its S-400 air defense contract with Moscow despite Washington’s sanctions threats.

India’s exclusion from AUKUS in spite of its anti-Chinese Quad membership alongside that new alliance’s American and Australian pillars couples with recent complications in its ties with Washington (S-400 sanctions threats, media criticism of India’s internal affairs, the US Navy violating the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone, delayed vaccine support, etc.) to create the opportunity for Russia to influence that country to moderate its hostility against the People’s Republic and possibly consider a future rapprochement with it. That outcome could counteract the US’ exploitation of India as its top Asian anti-Chinese proxy and thus stabilize the region.

As for how all of this relates to Russian-Chinese relations, it shows that the Kremlin hopes to relieve the US’ pressure upon it along the Indian flank through the creative employment of conventional and military diplomacy with New Delhi. The ideal scenario for Moscow is for India to balance China in a friendly/non-hostile way instead of the unfriendly/hostile one that it’s pursuing due to America’s pernicious influence. Russia acknowledges that China and India will likely continue to have unresolved disputes with one another that will naturally provoke a rivalry, but it believes that this can be responsibly managed through its diplomacy.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US, UK, Australia (AUKUS) Alliance against France
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The scene: a British nuclear submarine. A detective has been sent to investigate the death of a sailor. When she asks the Naval Commander why there needs to be so much secrecy, as Britain is not at war, he responds ‘That is an illusion. We have always been at war’.

The series, entitled ‘Vigil’ is the BBC’s most watched drama of the year, and has been well publicised, attracting an audience of 10.2 million over its first week. It depicts a fight with an illusive, ruthless adversary that successfully manages to infiltrate a UK submarine to ‘knock out Britain’s nuclear deterrent’, killing British citizens in the process. The murder weapon of choice is a nerve agent; can you guess who the enemy is yet?

Of course it’s Russia. Nuclear submarines, nerve agent, a treacherous opponent; from the opening sequence with video footage of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev projected onto a submarine, the audience is under no illusion as to who this adversary is. Nowadays, the British public almost expects it to be Russia.

For years now the UK population has been schooled on ‘evil Russia’ across all media platforms – from the news to TV dramas to films – with the line between fiction and reality becoming increasingly blurred. One of the most Googled questions about the ‘Vigil’ drama series is ‘is it real?’ This is hardly surprising given the sheer volume of anti-Russian content, with cinema often dramatising real life events and vice versa.

Take the Skripal case, for instance. The apparent poisoning with ‘Novichok’ of the former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter took place just a few months after a British/American TV series ‘Strike Back’ was released, in which a ‘rogue Russian biochemist‘ was working on a substance of the very same name. That was probably the first time that western audiences had ever heard the word ‘Novichok’, and yet, by extraordinary coincidence, it was to appear on our TV screens just a few months later, in the news.  The finger of blame was immediately pointed at Moscow, just as preparations were being made for Russia to host the 2018 world cup. The timing could not have been worse for the Kremlin, and yet it helped Britain considerably in its bid to discredit Russia in its hosting of the sporting event.

TV and cinema being used by governments as instruments to sway and foster public opinion is nothing new. In the book ‘Propaganda and empire: the manipulation of British public opinion, 1880-1960’ John M MacKenzie explores the plethora of ways the British government promoted imperialism throughout the empire’s existence, not only through cinema, but using everything from cigarette cards to school textbooks. During the war, the British Ministry of Information also pumped out films with instructive government messaging under the direction of Humphrey Jennings. These documentaries were more about what to do and what not to do, promoting slogans such as ‘grow your own’ and ‘make do and mend’ to aid the war effort on the home front.

The Nazis however, under the direction of Joseph Goebbels, were even more expert at the propaganda machine. Prior to the outbreak of the Second World War, the Germans sought to make a future military offensive more palatable to the public by commissioning the production of several feature films designed to stir up anti-British sentiment. ‘Traitor’ of 1936, was one particular example of this, depicting the infiltration of foreign agents in a Germans arms factory. Such anti-British films continued to be produced throughout the war, with ‘Germanin’ released in 1943, showing Britain to be a heartless and opportunistic colonial power.

Ominously, the more one analyses the current anti-Russian propaganda campaign in the western media, the more parallels can be found with the German efforts in the run-up to WW2. The seeds that ‘Russian is an enemy’ have been firmly planted in the consciousness of the British and American public for years now, particularly in the last decade, as relations between Russia and the West began to deteriorate. The campaign is unrelenting, like an obsession, and has probably even surpassed the levels of the anti-Soviet propaganda we saw during the 20th century. As Dmitry Polyanskiy, Russia’s Deputy to the UN, tweeted recently:

One could argue that the British government has no relationship to the production of TV dramas. But let’s not forget the BBC is a state broadcaster, with an editorial line, toeing the government line when it comes to foreign policy. We know from some whistleblowers who have spoken out, that shows are approved by people at the top, and management has the authority to approve or ‘kill’ programmes. Former BBC journalist John Sweeney – although himself taking a strong anti-Russian position – wrote about how ‘direct intervention’ from management prevented some of his documentaries from being broadcast, and in a letter to Ofcom he indicated there was politicisation of programming. He suggested that BBC leadership at the time, under Tony Hall, was not interested in anti-Russian programmes. Clearly the stance has changed since Hall left his position in August last year.

The ‘Vigil’ drama obviously had a considerable budget. And its political function is twofold; it highlights the ‘threat’ from Russia, and the question of the Trident’s future in an independent Scotland. By playing up the idea of a real, imminent danger from Russia, it persuades the viewer of the importance of retaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent. As tensions grow between East and West, and Boris Johnson pursues his ‘Global Britain’ strategy, we will no doubt see more programmes emphasising Britain’s military strength countering Russia and let’s not forget, China. Sadly, such manipulation of the population doesn’t encourage understanding between peoples and instead, fosters division and discrimination. At best it is Britain using Russia as a scapegoat to bolster its sense of national pride; at worse, it is laying the groundwork for a future conflict with Russia.

*

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

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland. You can follow the author on Twitter.

De-Listed Anti-China Terror Group “Rises from the Dead”

September 25th, 2021 by Brian Berletic

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Suspicions were raised when in late 2020 the US de-listed as a terrorist organization the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), sometimes referred to as the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP).

This was because the US had claimed as its rationale that the ETIM/TIP had not been active for over a decade despite the US itself admitting to striking ETIM/TIP targets in Afghanistan as recently as 2018, just 2 years before the de-listing.

A 2020 Guardian article titled, “US removes shadowy group from terror list blamed by China for attacks,” for example, would note:

In a notice in the Federal Register, which publishes new US laws and rules, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said on Friday he was revoking the designation of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a “terrorist organization.”

“ETIM was removed from the list because, for more than a decade, there has been no credible evidence that ETIM continues to exist,” a state department spokesperson said.

The US State Department spokesperson’s claim went unchallenged by The Guardian despite the paper itself having written a 2013 article as recently as 7 years ago from the US de-listing of ETIM/TIP titled, “Islamist group claims responsibility for attack on China’s Tiananmen Square,” which reported:

The Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) is the first group to claim responsibility for the attack on 28 October, when a four-wheel drive vehicle ploughed through a group of pedestrians near the iconic square in central Beijing, crashed into a stone bridge and caught fire, killing five people and injuring dozens. Chinese authorities quickly identified the driver as Uighur, a Muslim ethnic minority hailing from Xinjiang, a sparsely populated, restive region in the country’s far north-west.

Not only does the article indicate the US State Department lied in its claim the terrorist organization has been inactive for over a decade, it also illustrates the very real terrorist threat China faces nationwide from Xinjiang-based terrorist organizations.

The US government and the Western media in general have, for years now depicted security policies carried out by Beijing to counter this threat as “genocide.”

ETIM/TIP “Back from the Dead”

Considering all of this it should come as no surprise then when US-based Newsweek published an article in September of this year titled, “Exclusive: Despite China’s Pressure on Taliban, Uyghur Separatists See Opportunity in Afghanistan,” in which the “non-existent” ETIM/TIP’s spokesperson was interviewed by US media.

The article followed on the heels of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, a move that clearly opened the door to a transition from America’s overt military footprint in the Central Asian country to a more covert role in backing militant groups to sow chaos not only within Afghanistan’s borders but far beyond them, including into neighboring China.

The Newsweek article would report:

“The United States is a strong country, it has its own strategy, and we see the withdrawal of the American government today from this war in Afghanistan, which is incurring huge economic losses, as a means of confronting China, who are the enemy of all humanity and religions on the face of the Earth,” a spokesperson for the political office of the Turkestan Islamic Party, commonly known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), told Newsweek.

In what appears to be the first remarks by the secretive group to an international media outlet since being removed from a US list of terrorist organizations last year, the Turkestan Islamic Party spokesperson expressed hoped the US military exit last month would be followed by greater pressure against China.

“We believe that the opposition of the United States to China will not only benefit the Turkestan Islamic Party and the people of Turkestan,” the spokesperson said, “but also all mankind.”

Newsweek would also mention US strikes on ETIM/TIP targets in 2018, noting:

For many years, the US included ETIM on its Terrorist Exclusion List, part of Patriot Act measures established after the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon even targeted the group with airstrikes in Afghanistan up until at least 2018.

The public is expected to believe the US de-listing ETIM/TIP was based on alleged evidence the organization no longer exists, despite the organization clearly continuing to exist and carry out acts of terrorism, and now also openly aligning itself with US foreign policy vis-à-vis China upon its “reemergence.”

The US has similarly de-listed terrorist organizations it sought to use as armed proxies in conflicts against targeted nations. This includes the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) the US used in its proxy war with not only Libya itself in 2011, but after transferring fighters and weapons from North Africa to the Middle East, against Syria as well from 2011 onward.

The US also de-listed the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a terrorist organization used by the US and its allies to conduct terror operations against the government and people of Iran.

It’s No Secret the US Supports Separatism in Xinjiang, China

The Newsweek article spends much of its space attempting to depict the ETIM/TIP as engaged in a heroic battle for independence against an “oppressive” Chinese occupation. The article claims:

“East Turkestan is the land of the Uyghurs,” the Turkestan Islamic Party spokesperson said. “After the Chinese government occupied our homeland by force, they forced us to leave our homeland because of their oppression against us. The whole world knows that East Turkestan has always been the land of the Uyghurs.”

Only until about midway through the article does Newsweek finally admit:

Beyond China and the UN, an array of nations and international organizations including the European Union, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom consider ETIM to be a terrorist organization.

Indeed, the UN does count ETIM/TIP as a terrorist group and is quoted by Newsweek as noting the organization “poses an immediate threat to the security of China and its people.”

The UN Security Council, on the official UN website in a statement titled, “Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement,” explicitly notes:

The Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) is an organization which has used violence to further its aim of setting up an independent so-called “East Turkistan” within China.

The UNSC statement makes two things abundantly clear. First, the UN, and by extension the majority of the international community, does not recognize the term “East Turkestan,” and instead recognizes the territory as Xinjinang and as part of China.

Second, the UNSC is explicitly designating ETIM/TIP as a terrorist organization that has used violence to further its separatist ambitions.

The term “East Turkestan” is used only by separatists in contradiction to international law and the region’s internationally recognized status as Xinjiang, China.

Therefore it is especially telling to see on the US government’s National Endowment for Democracy’s official website its programs in Xinjiang listed on a page titled, “Xinjiang/East Turkestan (China).”

The organizations listed, including the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) and the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) both explicitly refer to Xinjiang, China as “East Turkestan” which they regard as “occupied” by China.

The UHRP describes itself on its website, claiming (emphasis added):

The Uyghur Human Rights Project promotes the rights of the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim peoples in East Turkistan, referred to by the Chinese government as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region…

WUC’s website claims the organization declares an “opposition movement against Chinese occupation of East Turkistan.”

Both organizations are funded by the US government with the UHRP being based in Washington D.C.

The World Uyghur Congress, funded by the US government, was the organization that initiated the so-called “Uyghur Tribunal.” The Uyghur Tribunal’s official website even admits (emphasis added):

In June 2020 Dolkun Isa, President of the World Uyghur Congress formally requested that Sir Geoffrey Nice QC establish and chair an independent people’s tribunal to investigate ‘ongoing atrocities and possible Genocide’ against the Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other Turkic Muslim Populations.

Thus not only is the US clearly promoting separatism in Xinjiang, by directly funding organizations promoting separatism, and not only has the US de-listed ETIM/TIP, an active terrorist organization, making it easier for the organization to allocate funding and travel globally, but it also leveraging its considerable control over global media and international institutions to depict China’s response to this concerted campaign of separatism and terrorism aimed at its territory and people as “genocide.”

In other words, the US in one hand is armed with a sword – “reemerged” ETIM/TIP terrorists keen on joining America’s encirclement and containment of China – and in the other hand, the US holds the shield of “human rights advocacy” to guard against China’s attempts to address this threat.

It is a perpetual irony that the US presumes leadership of a “rules-based international order”  it claims underwrites peace and stability worldwide while simultaneously being the greatest threat to both.

*

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

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

Afghanistan and Beyond: End U.S. War-Making Everywhere

September 25th, 2021 by Azadeh Shahshahani

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, after 20 years of brutal occupation, should just be the beginning. The United States must also end the disastrous ​War on Terror,” including the bombing campaigns targeting Somalia and Yemen. And it must also put a stop to the brutal sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries in the Global South. 

But it’s not enough to merely stop the harm: The United States must also make amends. This means paying reparations to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries it has invaded and exploited, and providing refuge to any citizens of those countries who are fleeing because of the destruction and destabilization wrought by the United States.

The stakes could not be higher. The full cost of U.S. war-making during the past 20 years is tremendous. The Costs of War, a Brown University Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs project, recently estimated that post‑9/​11 U.S. wars have killed between 897,000 and 929,000 people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and other countries since 2001. The true number may be even higher: One study conducted by Opinion Research Group estimates that more than 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of the Iraq War since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Bombings

In 2007, former President George W. Bush started the airstrike campaign in Somalia, and since then at least 254 declared U.S. actions have taken place in the country. Airwars, which took over the work of recording airstrikes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in 2019, estimates that anywhere between 70 to 143 civilian deaths in Somalia are the result of 31 U.S. separate actions between 2007 and 2021, 18 to 21 of those children. U.S. Forces only concede to five of those civilian casualties, the rest of which are either unacknowledged or claimed to be ​unsubstantiated.”

US military in Somalia (Source: Internationalist 360)

The current administration has continued this lethal campaign. On July 20, the U.S. military carried out its first airstrike in Somalia under Biden, followed by another airstrike only three days later, a sign that the undeclared war will continue to take lives.

U.S. ​counterterrorism” operations officially began in Yemen in 2009(although there were other bombings before that), with both the U.S. military and CIA launching airstrikes on the country. Since then, the country has seen possibly over 100 civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes alone. U.S. forces only concede to 13 civilian deaths, according to Airwars.

However, most civilian casualties in Yemen are the result of Saudi-coalition bombings, which began in 2015 and are backed and supported by U.S. intelligence, as well as weaponry sales. After 23,470 coalition air raids, which consist of multiple individual air strikes, nearly 10,000 people were injured and nearly 9,000 dead as a direct result of the Saudi-led campaign.

In February 2021, Biden announced that the United States would end offensive support in Yemen while also helping Saudi Arabia ​defend its sovereignty” against ​threats from Iranian-supplied forces.” However, the announcement did not come with solid plans shared with Congress, and the Biden administration has failed to share details or plans to distinguish between offensive and defensive aid.

The bombings in Somalia and Yemen are just the tip of the iceberg. Based on official U.S. military data, Airwars concluded that the United States has carried out at least 91,340 airstrikes since 911 in the global ​War on Terror.” The total number of civilian deaths directly attributed to U.S. airstrikes is estimated to be at least 22,679 but could be as high as 48,308. The data is collected from U.S. operations in Afghanistan since 2006, Iraq from 2003 to 2013, Iraq and Syria from 2014 to 2021, Libya since 2012, and a once-secret drone campaign in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Overall civilian harm is likely higher because of the collateral consequences of U.S. bombings and other military actions in these regions.

Bloated budget

Despite withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, the U.S. war budget continues to expand. The watchdog group Public Citizen notes that the Biden administration actually requested a 1.7% increase in overall military spending — for a whopping $753 billion, an increase that is roughly on par with inflation. While some members of Congress resist high levels of military spending, 14 House Democrats recently sided with Republicans to increase the request by almost $25 billion. The primary justification for more spending is the increasingly confrontational stance toward China.

Sara Kate Baudhuin of Public Citizen recognized that the requested budget for the Department of Defense would be larger than the budget for the Departments of State, Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency combined. On the topic of defense funding, Brown University’s Costs of War project reported the Pentagon has spent $14 trillion dollars of public funds from 2001to 2021. One-third to one-half of this total went to five weapons companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrup Grumman. Investments in defense stocks are now worth almost 10 times what they were when the war in Afghanistan first started. Public Citizen called this out for what it is, saying that ​The only ​winner” of the Afghanistan war was the military industrial-complex.”

Biden’s proposed budget allocated $15.2 million for a ​Sea-Launched Cruise Missile,” a nuclear weapon Biden himself called a ​bad idea” during his campaign. The plans are a remnant of the Trump administration and, while Biden could have cancelled it, his administration has chosen to maintain the project and add to what Kingston Reif, the director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, describes as the U.S. military’s ​already extensive and growing nuclear arsenal.” The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation calls the projecta costly solution to a nonexistent problem.” It was eliminated by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

The bloated budget is a continuation of total military spending on the ​War on Terror.” The Institute of Policy Studies reviewed publicly-available Office of Management and Budget data, reporting that the United States has spent $21trillion on foreign and domestic militarization, surveillance, and repression between the federal years of 2002 to 2021.

Global empire

All the while, the United States maintains military bases around the world.

Maps of U.S. military presence are not readily available and many bases are intentionally kept secret. There are also many military affiliated spaces that hold U.S. weaponry, but are not deemed official ​U.S. bases.” David Vine, an anthropologist at American University, said the United States might have ​800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad.”

In 2007, the United States established U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Since then, U.S. military presence on the continent increased from 2,600personnel to 7,000 by 2019. Military presence through official and unofficial bases spans the continent from coast to coast. The Intercept, citing official Pentagon records, revealed that, as of 2019, there were 29 verifiable bases across 15 different countries or territories within the AFRICOM ​area of responsibility,” which covers all countries across the continent besides Egypt.

In 2017, it was revealed that U.S. commandos were actively engaged in military action, despite AFRICOM’s claims that they were only providing ​advice and assistance.”

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), which has an ​area of responsibility” spanning most of East Asia and the Pacific Island nations, asked Congress for $27 billion in additional funds between 2022 and 2027. The funds are meant to ​boost deterrence against China,” as Defense News put it, with new missiles, air defenses, radars, supply depots, testing ranges, and more. Communities in the Pacific Ocean are still suffering from the remnants of U.S. military nuclear testing, while the United States is continuing its escalation against China.

The network of overseas bases not only creates a harmful presence, but also actively makes conflict and war more likely. Scholar David Vine, in his book The United States of War, explains that after World War II, the United States has had ​unparalleled military power and an unparalleled global military presence.” Troops are permanently deployed worldwide in strategic locations, ready to further U.S. economic, political and military interests under the threat of violence.

Sanctions

Meanwhile, the United States is continuing to engage in other forms of warfare such as sanctions targeting Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and other countries in the Global South.

U.S. sanctions against Cuba began in the 1960s. In 1992, with the Torricelli Act, U.S. presidents gained the ability to sanction countries that aided Cuba and prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies from trading with Cuba. In June 2021, a total of 184 countries voted in favor of a resolution to demand the end of the U.S. economic blockade on Cuba — only the United States and Israel voted against. Food and medicine shortages are widespread; this has contributed to the unrest erupting across the country. The island has faced its worst food shortages in 25 years. Cuba’s national food import company, which is vital since it imports 70% to 80% of its food, reported that it lost $45 million because it could not engage in direct transactions with U.S. banks. Even though the United States technically allows the sale of food to Cuba, the tightening of economic sanctions hinders Cuba’s ability to afford adequate food supplies.

U.S. officials often say that humanitarian aid is exempt from the sanctions. However, humanitarian exemptions are not very effective in practice. Even though medicine and medical supplies can technically be licensed for export to Cuba, many restrictions and barriers have resulted in a ​de facto ban on critical medical and other assistance,” a reality taht the American Association for World Health pointed out in 1997 that persists to this day. The conditions governing the licensing process, meanwhile, make export extremely difficult.

Rally in rejection of the U.S. destabilizing plan against Venezuela, 2019. | Photo: Twitter/ @codepink

As for Venezuela, the oil embargo imposed under Trump and maintained under Biden, has been very harmful, since the country receives 90% of its revenue from the oil industry. Like Cuba, Venezuela imports a majority of its food, and the fall in oil production has caused currency devaluation and a contraction of food imports. The reduction in food imports due to sanctions has resulted in the steady worsening of malnourishment over the past six years, with 2.5 million Venezuelans severely food insecure.

The United States has also been imposing economic sanctions on Iran, in varying degrees of extremity, since 1979. In 2018, the Trump administration pulled the United States unilaterally out of the Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and re-imposed what it termed maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. The administration tacitly admitted that the sanctions were meant to make people suffer to induce protests. Many Trump-era sanctions remain in place.

While U.S. sanctions technically exempt medicine and medical equipment, the fear of secondary sanctions have left many countries that produce Iran’s necessary medicines unable to find banks that are willing to authorize transactions for supplies going to Iran. The most stringent sanctions on Iran’s financial sector have made it nearly impossible to transact in these goods. Even though Iran manufactures 97% of its medicine needs, the 3% that it has traditionally imported include essential treatments for serious diseases like cancer. Covid-19 has also absolutely ravaged the country, with more than 115,000 deaths from February 2020 to mid-September 2021, and Iranian doctors have warned that the sanctions have made the outcomes far worse.

Natasha Hakimi Zapata, writing for In These Times, criticizes the United States for imposing sanctions on two-dozen countries ​from the Balkans to Zimbabwe” as of 2021. Sanctions are a bipartisan project of U.S. imperialism. The Biden administration has maintained the harsh sanctions on Nicaragua, Venezuela, Sudan, and Ukraine from the Trump era, additional sanctions on Cuba, Iran, China, Syria and Russia, and brand-new sanctions on the Balkans, Belarus and Burma.

While the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is the first necessary step in ending the U.S. legacy of violence, much is yet to be uncovered about the true toll of the U.S. invasion and 20-year-occupation.

Malalai Joya, a women’s rights and human rights activist and former Afghan Parliamentarian, told Democracy Now! in July, ​For years I have called for the withdrawal of the foreign occupation from our country… Now it has been proved for our people, as well, that U.S. and NATO were not honest for them… The blood of Afghan people has no value for them.”

In addition to pursuing refuge for those fleeing for their lives and reparations for the people of Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it is time to end all U.S. wars, shut down all U.S. military bases, and put an end to U.S. militarization and sanctions impacting countless people in the Global South. We need a reinvigorated anti-war movement led by and taking direction from people of color and those who are directly harmed by U.S. wars and militarization. The people of the Global South cannot afford any more U.S. militarization and violence. It is on us to put a stop to it.

*

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

Azadeh Shahshahani is legal and advocacy director at Project South and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She tweets @ashahshahani.

Featured image is by Xavi | CC BY 2.0

“US Sovereignty”: NATO Takes over Norfolk Naval Base

September 25th, 2021 by Renee Parsons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Some Americans may be unaware that efforts to create a sovereign country in the New World began a century before our Founding Fathers fought a revolution to give form to that desire.

Without fully understanding its long term implications or its ultimate impact upon the entire planet, the American colonists knew instinctively, as if directed by divine guidance, that in order to free themselves from the strangling yoke of the British Empire, they had the right, the duty to establish their own country based on natural law, to define their own borders, to create their own laws and their own authority.

Little did those Founders of what became the greatest country in the world realize they had birthed the essential concept of national sovereignty as a self-governing ideal for an American Republic which would then become the motivation for many  countries around the world to emulate.

The rest, as they say, is history.

Fast forward two hundred years as US sovereignty is threatened today at multiple levels.  In what may be another chapter in the formation of a New World Government, the question remains how NATO asserted its omnipotent authority to establish a new Atlantic Command at the Norfolk Naval Base with the apparent acquiescence of the US military and Congressional leadership.

Once the largest naval port in the world, significant questions persist about how the Pentagon allowed this travesty against the Republic to occur with what appears to have been a black-out of national media attention, no Congressional scrutiny and no Trump Administration participation. I am still wrapping my mind around how easily the usurpation of an American military facility of such prominence could be so quietly accomplished with such finesse requiring so many accomplices.

Stepping back to May, 2017 newly elected President Donald Trump first met with NATO leaders in Brussels.  He wasted no time by questioning NATO’s relevance and asserting that “Twenty-three of the 28 nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they’re supposed to be paying for their defense,” Trump said. “This is not fair to the people and the taxpayers of the United States.”

In January, 2018, seemingly out of the blue, the city of Norfolk  adopted an ordinance to accept a donation of three traffic signs.  Those signs acknowledged Norfolk as Home to the North American NATO Headquarters.   For some residents that may have come as a shock but city documents reveal that Norfolk has been ‘home’ to the only North American headquarters for the North Atlantic NATO since 1953.  By early 2018, NATO sought to ‘formalize’ the details with the donation and a letter of acceptance.

Yet it was not until six months later in June, 2018 that NATO’s North Atlantic Defense Ministers formally adopted the Alliance’s command structure to establish a new Atlantic Command in Norfolk as the only operational NATO Atlantic Command in North America.  As one of three regionally focused joint, operational-level commands, all Commands would report directly to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.

In other words, what was once the US Navy’s largest and most sophisticated naval base in the world and on US soil would now be under the command of NATO.  Yet there is no real substantive background to know exactly how the United States agreed to relinquish its historic  naval claim on Norfolk.

As any engaged citizen might ask, where was President Donald Trump when all this was going on in 2018?

By July 2019, NATO’s newest operational command at Norfolk was created as part of the Alliance’s command structure adaptation and serves as the first NATO headquarters dedicated to the Atlantic Ocean since 2003.  Its assigned mission was to protect the Strategic Lines of Communication across all domains, protect sea-lanes between Europe and North America and enable the reinforcement of Europe, as necessary.

On September 17, 2020, six weeks before the 2020 Presidential election, Royal Navy Rear Admiral Andrew Betton, Deputy Commander of the Joint Force Command Norfolk and US Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis, Commander of the Command, cut the ribbon during the Initial Operational Capability ceremony at NATO’s New Norfolk Command Center.  Neither President Trump nor any representative from his Administration were in attendance.

On October 16, 2020, seventeen days before the 2020 election, the City of Norfolk unveiled a new sign at its arrival airport terminal which read “Welcome to Norfolk – NATO’s Home in North  America”. By that date, the US Navy’s base in Norfolk became known as home to both NATO-Allied Command Transformation (ACT) and the Joint Force Command Norfolk (JFC).   Hundreds of civilian and military personnel representing over 30 Member NATO countries had already relocated to Norfolk area.

On May 28, 2021, the North Atlantic Council approved the nomination of General Phillippe Lavigne, French Air and Space Force, as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation at the Norfolk base.

On June 4, 2021, NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg called for more investment from members of the Alliance and adherence to NATO’s 2030 agenda issued in 2020 “making sure [that] NATO remains strong militarily, becomes even stronger politically and takes a ‘more global approach.

On July 15, 2021, with little public fanfare or awareness, the Allied Joint Force Command Norfolk declared its NATO base at Norfolk to be at Full Operational Capability.  During a ceremony on board the USS Kearsarge which was largely a formality since NATO’s presence  achieved initial operational capability in September, 2020 – less than two months prior to the 2020 Presidential election. 

According to Vice Adm. Lewis who leads the US Second Fleet and the JFC Norfolk, its NATO mission is in response to increased Russian submarine activity in the Atlantic, increased military traffic including Chinese warships cruising the Aleutian Islands and an interest in securing the Atlantic Ocean’s sea-lanes between Europe and North America.

Also in attendance on the Kearsarge was Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, now revealed as an insurrectionist,  who gave a twenty minute dissertation during which he never once mentioned the word ‘peace.”  Obviously aware of the imminent NATO-Norfolk union, and as the President’s Chief military advisor, did General Milley ever inform President Trump of NATO’s move to Norfolk or that he would be attending the ceremony to celebrate NATO’s operational status at what was once the US Norfolk Naval Base.

As Milley described it,

“It’s the mission of this command to fight the Battle of the Atlantic in the event of armed conflict, these will be the admirals in charge of a Battle for the Atlantic. … I would tell you that the survival of NATO, the success or failure in combat in a future war in Europe, would largely depend on the success or failure of this command.”

Again, President Trump’s absence is noted and alarming, given that we now know of Milley’s penchant to assume decision-making which he has no authority to assume and without informing his Commander in Chief.   Or was Trump asleep at the wheel or the victim of his own flawed official appointments – too many of whom were less than loyal to their President?

Most importantly, what are the implications of NATO’s Article 5 with its roots now entangled into the American land mass.  Infamous on its own, Article 5 dates back to 1949 and provides that

“..if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.”

The only time Article 5 has ever been invoked was immediately after the 911 attack on the Twin Towers in NYC which potentially could have committed NATO troops to participate in the US-led attack on Afghanistan.

Looking ahead, what role might Article 5 play if the current Covid-vaccination-passport debate  reaches an insoluble threshold within any Member nation or could NATO legitimately claim its Article 5 authority to intercede to protect the 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.

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, staff in the Office of the Colorado State Public Defender, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found at [email protected].

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: 9 Flattops at Norfolk naval base, December 20, 2012 (Source: Public Domain)

Wanted: A Palestinian Front for All Seasons

September 25th, 2021 by Rima Najjar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The Palestinian political scene remains bleak. The status quo in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to be backed by the international community at the behest of the the Zionist regime, which is comfortable with having its cake and eating it too, and why shouldn’t it be? In March 2015, then Israeli economy minister Naftali Bennett even proposed the racist status quo as a political platform.

In Ramallah, there are faltering and pathetic “explorations” (most notably through webinars on “Alternatives and Options” organized by Masarat: The Palestinian Center for Policy Research & Strategic Studies).

I call such attempts pathetic, not as a reflection on the organizers themselves, all honorable men — certainly walking a tightrope without a safety net, even if it is academic in nature, is preferable to passive acceptance of the status quo. What I mean is that such challenges to the Palestinian political status quo simply highlight the rabbit hole of our political reality.

In a situation where revolutionary struggle is the only possible logical path to achieving a just resolution in Palestine, we are confronted, as Palestinian writer and activist Khaled Barakat put it in an Al-Akhbar opinion piece recently, with “ignorant traditional leaders who only know one thing about Russia, Mr. Bogdanov, and know little about China other than it is a ‘very important country’ … They are fighting in the name of defending this or that axis, at a time when international and regional [activists] are cooperating at all levels.”

(Conference of the Alternative Palestinian Path): Towards a new revolutionary commitment, Madrid, Spain, October-November 2021 (Source: https://masarbadil.org)

Barakat adds:

“It is unfair to drop our past experience [with liberation struggle] from the reality of the new world, or to invoke old balances of power as if they still existed (as some talk about Russia and China). The easiest thing is to be defeated and live outside the era, outside of action and influence. The easiest thing is to blame others or hand over your cause to them. The easiest thing is to turn into a mouthpiece for an Arab regime or a major country. To be insulted and rejected or applauded and accepted. Ghassan Kanafani says: Nothing is easier than absolute acceptance, except absolute rejection.”

Recently, Nasser Al-Kidwa, President of the National Democratic Forum, participated in a workshop organized by Masarat within the “Alternatives and Options” program mentioned above. He fielded several observations addressed to him, most importantly regarding the mechanism he envisions by which the Forum’s initiative for change would begin to see the light of day in the political arena. His answer was this:

“The starting point for implementing the initiative proposed by the Forum or similar others could begin to happen if Hamas or the Palestinian Authority or one or more of the other smaller blocs such as the Popular Front commits to it.”

He added that the National Democratic Forum has tried but failed to engage any of the blocs in the Forum’s initiative for change.

Masarat continues to invite Palestinian politicians, academics, researchers, activists and youth to express their “views and visions to get out of the current impasse.” If nothing else, such efforts could raise awareness, especially among Palestinian youth trapped in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, that alternatives and options do exist and that our situation is not hopeless in both theory and implementation, as Israeli propaganda would have us believe.

Regarding change, Khaled Barakat’s voice is the clearest and most sobering. In the Al-Akhbar article I quote above titled “Palestine and the conflicted discourse between yesterday and today,” he concludes (my translation):

It is … the siding of Hamas with its people, and the initiation of building a united national front that will make the world reconsider its calculations and force the countries to recognize a new revolutionary Palestinian project.

Armed resistance in the Gaza Strip, led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, constitutes one of the most important elements of Palestinian power that must be supported, developed, and its comprehensive capabilities strengthened. The movement’s leadership must exert greater effort in establishing relations with liberation movements and popular struggle forces in the world, and not with the “big countries” nor on the basis that it should replace “Fatah” and take its place.

Rather, we need to present a different and opposite model. What is required is to draw on our century-long Palestinian experience and build a united Palestinian national front that catches up with the times and is aware of all the people, all Palestine, and all rights.

We need to drop the Madrid stage — Oslo — and restore consideration to the spirit of Palestine, its identity, its people and its position in the struggle … in accordance with the Palestinian popular will. [We need a front] that charts in depth the new Palestine’s relations with its Arab and international community, a front in which all the people participate and that celebrates political, intellectual and religious pluralism and transforms the project of liberation and return.

There are glimmers of hope that “a different and opposite model” has been emerging — one that de-legitimizes Israel and legitimizes the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

From the beginning, the story of the Zionist state in Palestine has deployed legitimization strategies (in the sense of condoning, licensing, validating and justifying Zionist violence and inhumanity in Palestine), first through political machinations in Great Britain and the US, and then through a relentless campaign of misinformation and propaganda, in my opinion the ultimate and most successful and enduring engine of fake news in the history of the world.

The propaganda strategies the Israeli regime has used to rob Palestinian property and eviscerate their history have always been rooted in legal warfare, as it pertains to international law (Israeli lawyers are still mulling over whether the West Bank and Gaza Strip are occupied or not) and getting Israel’s highest court to quash Palestinians’ attempts to obtain rights or resist their subjugation, however non-violently.

Add to that the charade of military kangaroo courts that Israel uses to make prison a revolving door for Palestinians and that the Palestinian’s own legislative body functions only according to the whim of the occupier, and the picture is complete.

To emerge loudly and fully, a different and opposite model as envisioned by Khaled Barakat above must bypass not only the political control in the western world Israel has managed to exert, but also the legal control that now dominates social media as well as academia through the misapplication of “community standards.” These continue to be blind to the complex political and historical context of the Palestinian struggle for liberation and situate it as an exception to all such struggles in 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.

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 is from demilked.com

China in Action: Carbon Neutral by 2050

September 25th, 2021 by Peter Koenig

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

An early priority for China – at least two to three decades back – was to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) output, as well as that of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and some artificial chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), to eventually reach carbon neutrality, meaning, eliminating as much CO2 as is produced, by 2050.

With industrialization and excessive consumption, the output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased rapidly and especially in later years. And this despite repeated pledges during numerous UN-sponsored Environmental Conferences, to reduce the world’s carbon footprint.

Global carbon dioxide levels reached 419 parts per million (ppm) in May 2021, the highest since CO2 output has been measured 63 years ago. Compare this to China’s CO2 output of 409 ppm by 2018.

China is often blamed as being the world’s largest polluter which may be the case in absolute terms, as China also has the world’s largest population. However, putting China’s CO2 output in perspective, on a per capita basis, China ranks only 5th, after Australia, the US, Russia and Germany:

  • Australia: 17.27 tons per capita
  • USA:  15.52 tons p/c
  • Russia: 11.33 tons p/c
  • Germany: 8.52 tons p/c
  • China: 7.38 tons p/c (less than half the US level)
  • India:  1.91 tons p/c

These are 2019 figures.

China’s 14th Five Year Plan (14th FYP), published in March 2021, included 2025 energy and carbon intensity reduction targets, as well as a mid-point non-fossil share target to achieve her nationally determined contributions, or NDC.

At China’s Leaders Climate Summit in April 2021, President Xi Jinping announced that China will strictly control coal generation until 2025 when she will start to gradually phase out of coal.

President Xi just announced at the UN General Assembly in NYC of 2021, that China seizes using coal powered plants as of now.

To understand the concept and the lingo of the different terms and terminologies, let’s back track a bit.

It all began decades ago – with the First United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the ‘Earth Summit’, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3-14 June 1992. It set the stage for the reduction of greenhouse gases, the most important of which is carbon dioxide.

CO2 emissions are toxic and harmful for the environment and life, when produced in excess.

However, let’s also keep in mind – CO2 is one of the most important gases on earth, because the plants use it to produce carbohydrates in a process called photosynthesis. Since humans and animals depend on plants for food, thus, CO2 is necessary for the survival of life on earth.

In the meantime, there have been numerous climate change conferences around the world, most of them UN-sponsored, the latest one if I’m not wrong, was the Santiago Climate Change Conference, the 25th so-called Conference of the Parties (COP25) of December 2019 — meaning the 25th conference to the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The names of these conferences and their results are often confusing, at times also controversial, especially between the industrialized countries and the so-called developing countries, or the Global South.

A chief reason for potential conflicts is rapid industrialization – excessive consumption, particularly in the West, or the Global North. The output of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased rapidly and unequally between the Global North and the Global South. Yet, developing countries are often asked to take similar measure to reduce greenhouse gases, in particular, CO2.

A safe level of CO2 in the air, according to one of the first 21st Century UN Conferences, it may have been the 2009 Copenhagen Conference, was suggested to be 350 ppm. This figure was already exceeded in 1987, reaching, as mentioned before, 419 ppm in May 2021.

Despite COVID, the concentration has not been significantly changed for the better. In some cases, to the contrary.

Despite pledges to the contrary, the main source of energy has changed little in the last 20 years. Hydrocarbons are still king. Today’s world economy still depends on some 84% of hydrocarbons (petrol, gas, coal) of all energy used, as compared to 86% at the turn of the century.

What does carbon neutral mean?

Carbon neutral – the amount of CO₂ emissions put into the atmosphere is the same as the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere. The impact is neutral. This is not making it actively worse, but it doesn’t make it better either, especially when the average output is above 400 ppm, meaning above the considered “safe” target of 350 ppm.

Carbon negative, or carbon net zero might be a step in the right direction. It means the amount of CO2 removed from the atmosphere is bigger than the CO₂ output. The impact is positive; something is actively done to reduce the harm to the atmosphere – and to improve the air for every breathing life.

We have the historical responsibility to urgently cleaning up the atmosphere to eventually get back to the civilized level of 275 ppm.

Since the beginning of human civilization, our atmosphere contained about 275 ppm of carbon dioxide. According to renowned climatologist Dr. James Hansen, these are the conditions under which civilization developed and to which life on earth adapted.  Going beyond this indicator, risks disrupting our global climate system’s 1,000,000+ years of relative stability. Beginning in the 18th century, with the age of industrialization, humans began to burn coal, gas, and oil to produce energy and goods. The carbon in the atmosphere began to rise, at first slowly and, then ever more rapidly.

Many of the activities we do every day, rely on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We’re redistributing millions and millions of years’ worth of carbon, once stored beneath the earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere.

Just a thought.

Apologies for this long background. The environmental agenda is very complex.

As to China, China’s Ministry of Environment and Ecology publishes regularly CO2 concentration levels. China’s greenhouse gas emission in 2018 reached 409.4 ppm with an estimated annual growth of 1.3%.

While in full action towards carbon neutrality, China was hosting the 5th Ministerial meeting on Climate Action in April 2021. A virtual event attended by the European Union and Canada, plus ministers and representatives from 35 governments and international organizations, from all the world’s regions.

The meeting aimed at drastically reducing the carbon level in the air, through significant shifts from fossil fuel energy to alternative sources for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (COP26), hosted by the UK, from 31 October to 12 November 2021 in Glasgow.

The Glasgow Conference will focus at implementation of the Paris Agreement in a comprehensive, balanced and effective manner, building a fair global climate governance system, equitable and centered on win-win cooperation – with focus on renewable energy, the phase-out of fossil fuels, zero-emissions vehicles, resilience-building, carbon-pricing, green finance, nature-based climate solutions such as afforestation and reforestation, biodiversity conservation, and waste management.

China is already pushing ahead with this agenda.

The Ministers asked for an equitable transition throughout the implementation process. This may include financial, technological and capacity building support to developing countries, especially the poorest and most vulnerable ones. Implementation of the Paris Agreement should also reflect the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.

China’s ambitious agenda to reach carbon neutrality or better, by 2050, includes …

  • Investing in projects of liquid hydrogen which can be used, for instance, in hydrogen fuel cell automobiles, and Hydrogen metallurgy, a technology that applies hydrogen instead of carbon.
  • Third generation photovoltaic energy with efficiency above 40%, is another sector where China’s world-class development and vast demands may attract global investors.
  • In addition, China has ambitious research projects into generating energy from photosynthesis, the process plants use to transform carbon dioxide and sunlight into energy. It’s an ecosystem’s way of producing fuel at a high level of efficiency (>90%) without polluting residues.
  • Green parks in urban areas and reforestation as well as improved water management, so as to reduce areas of frequent droughts and convert them into green agricultural crop lands.
  • At the same time, China is seeking new alternative energy investments abroad, such as an automotive lithium-ion battery production in Germany – a planned investment of 1.8 billion euros.

And much more….

China is not only on the right track to seek environment-friendly renewable sources of energy, thus, reducing her carbon footprint – but to exceed the 2050 net zero emissions target into a carbon negative project.

China, as in other matters of importance to the world’s societies, just to mention one – poverty alleviation – may be again an example on environmental progress. Towards a human society with shared benefits for all.

*

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

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

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is also is a non-resident Sr. Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from Food & Water Watch

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

The U.S.-led international coalition denied responsibility for a drone attack that allegedly targeted al-Qaeda affiliated Horas al-Din commanders. Sources in Greater Idlib said that the target of the drone strike was either sheikh Abu al-Bar’a al-Tunisi, a leader of al-Qaeda-linked Horas al-Din, or the terrorist group’s military commander Abu Hamzah al-Yamani.

In its turn, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby claimed the U.S. strike was a success, referring to the data of the Central Command of the US Armed Forces, which recognized responsibility for the strike.

Once again Washington proved its unwillingness to defer to its allies.

This is the first US drone strike to target Syria’s Greater Idlib since President Joe Biden assumed office on January 20.

Horas al-Din was one of the major factions in northeastern Syria, and is one of the main opponents to Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the de facto ruler of Greater Idlib. Last year, HTS carried out a series of security operations against Horas al-Din.

The US strike on Horas al-Din leaders is an important support to HTS – after all, Washington has been attempting to rebrand HTS as a “reformed terrorist” group that could potentially be an ally.

In 2020, a series of drone strikes on Greater Idlib claimed the lives of several senior leaders of Horas al-Din and other al-Qaeda factions. Failed assassination attempts also targeted sheikh Abu al-Bar’a al-Tunisi and Abu Hamzah al-Yamani. They were allegedly carried out by US Special Operations Command.

Meanwhile, the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) continue their airstrike activity over Greater Idlib and don’t deny their involvement.

The strikes targeted positions of al-Qaeda-affiliated HTS in the outskirts of the town of Kansafra in the southern countryside of Idlib.

According to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a militant of HTS was killed and several others were wounded as a result of the airstrikes.

Russian warplanes have been bombing Greater Idlib for over a month now in response to repeated ceasefire violations by HTS and its allies. Turkey has been an enabler for these continued breaches.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will visit Russia and meet with President Vladimir Putin on September 29. The situation in Greater Idlib will reportedly be the main topic of the one-day visit.

Recently, a number of reports talked of a near ground operation in Greater Idlib led by the Syrian Arab Army and backed by Russia. Such actions could trigger Ankara’s forces and the factions it backs to move, but currently nothing has taken place.

In an attempt to pursue its interests, on September 22nd, Turkish forces and their proxies carried out an attack on the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). They targeted the village of al-Dibs in the northern countryside of Raqqa.

The attack failed, completely, according to SDF. Bitter from the quick defeat, Ankara’s forces shelled the al-Dibs village and the M4 highway. It is interesting that the M4 highway is frequently patrolled specifically by the Turkish military, and they still shelled it.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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


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. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

In the video below, Dr. Bryan Ardis, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg discuss about the COVID-19 pandemic and the inconsistencies in medical authorities’ narratives.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Covid-19, “What are They Doing to These Patients”. Dr. Bryan Ardis, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Canadian Election 44: No Mice in the Field of Cats

September 25th, 2021 by Michael Welch

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

“You see, my friends, the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.”

– Tommy Douglas, Mouseland (1944)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

After 36 days and 600 million dollars of organizing, debating, and protesting, Canadian finally voted to power a new Parliament which was virtually identical in number of seats per party to what it was previous to the election.  [2][3]

September 20 2021 results                                        October 21 2019 results

Liberals 159                                                                      Liberals 157

Conservatives 118                                                           Conservatives 121

Bloc Quebecois 33                                                          Bloc Quebecois 32

New Democratic Party 24                                           New Democratic Party 24

Green 2                                                                               Green 3

People’s Party 0                                                               People’s Party 0

In addition there was debate on a number of issues, from the plan to tackle climate change, to child-care programs, to gun registration, to how tough we should be on China, to how we can finally stop the injustices toward Canada’s Indigenous people, to how everyone would tackle another wave of the coronavirus.

With September 20 receding in the background as time moves forward it seems it will be a long time before any of these parties will be seeking another kick at the ballot hat. Which means Parliament will have to proceed with less ambitious and less gutsy legislation as they were able to when they grabbed the helm of a Majority. But how exactly will our House of Commons coordinate its forces as COVID-19 apparently surges, the vaccinations have taken hold of most Canadians, and as the Great Reset is about to introduce the most dramatic changes to our country’s finances and social life then perhaps we have ever experienced?

In this week of post-election denouement, the Global Research News Hour will reflect on the meaning of Canadian politics as it relates to how Canadians can get the kind of policy they really want. As the quote from the Mouseland story quoted above indicates, the elite interests in charge always run these parties in their own interests and run the ordinary woman or man into their own control.

Our first guest, Yves Engler, comments on aspects of our foreign policy that did not get addressed in the election.

He was followed by Ken Stone, an organizer with the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War, who especially focused on the wrongful treatment of Chinese executive and Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou arrested now almost three years at the extradition request of the United States. (A copy of their recent panel discussion can be found below.)

Finally, we are joined by Matthew Ehret to examine some of the history behind the Liberal Party and the way in which certain members of the aristocracy were able to change the party and consequently the entire country.

Yves Engler is one of Canada’s foremost Canadian foreign policy critics and dissidents. He is the author of ten books on Canadian foreign policy including House of Cards: Justin Trudeau’s Foreign Policy (2020), and Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid (2010). His articles have appeared at rabble.ca, canadiandimension.com, and on his own site yvesengler.com.

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of theUntold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation . Consider helping this process by making a donation to the RTF or becoming a Patreon supporter to the Canadian Patriot Review.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 325)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://ndp.fandom.com/wiki/Story_of_Mouseland
  2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-votes-2021-election-night-highlights-1.6177106
  3. Official Voting Results (elections.ca); https://elections.ca/res/rep/off/ovr2019app/51/table7E.html
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canadian Election 44: No Mice in the Field of Cats

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden both spoke at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Tuesday. The first-mentioned addressed his audience via video while the second spoke in person. These two world leaders’ speeches couldn’t have been more different, though. President Xi presented a pragmatic and inclusive way for the world to move forward from the pandemic while Biden focused mostly on a hegemonic view of the future. It’s important to elaborate more on their differences.

President Xi’s speech was much shorter than his American counterpart’s. He got straight to the point by drawing attention to four topics: beating COVID-19; revitalizing the global economy; promoting win-win policies in international relations; and improving global governance so that it truly embraces the trend of multilateralism. The Chinese leader’s speech rehashed some of the points that he made last year, but they took on a renewed importance since the pandemic continues to rage and international relations remain uncertain.

Nevertheless, President Xi expressed confidence that the peaceful development of humanity is irreversible. He’s optimistic that a new form of international relations is emerging whereby countries treat one another with mutual respect and prioritize the central role of the United Nations (UN). Furthermore, he’s sure that developing nations will continue to grow and pledged his country’s support for them to this end, including through the sharing of green technologies. President Xi also has no doubt that COVID-19 will be defeated.

By contrast, Biden’s speech was much longer than his Chinese counterparts after clocking in at roughly forty minutes. Like President Xi, he too talked about beating COVID-19 and countering climate change, but only for a minimal portion of his speech. Most of it was about how America intends to shape what he described as this decisive decade by continuing to promote democracy and its conception of human rights, supporting anti-corruption protesters across the world, and ensuring compliance with its envisioned world order.

The aforesaid foresees NATO and the Quad playing larger roles, and Biden promised that the US will call out alleged human rights violations in China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Republic, Russia’s Chechen Republic, and other parts of the world. These information warfare attacks as well as his implied criticisms of China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) as corrupt and low-quality infrastructure projects expose his claim of not wanting a new cold war to have been nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

Upon comparing the Chinese and American Presidents’ speeches, it’s clear which one sincerely cares about the world and which cares only for his own country’s interests at everyone else’s expense. President Xi is truly committed to restoring predictability and stability to international relations through China’s promotion of legitimate multilateralism unlike the American model of relying on small cliques of countries obsessed with zero-sum games. Biden, by contrast, is only interested in worsening new cold war tensions on various pretexts.

This tale of two speeches shows just how divergent their respective visions are. Quite naturally, the vast majority of the world will stand in solidarity with President Xi’s views. There’s a genuine desire to move beyond the outdated and counterproductive models of the past in jointly charting a community of shared future for mankind where people rightly become the center of all policymaking. Only those countries that are either terribly misled or under American control will support Biden’s dangerous and selfish games.

UNGA 2021 allowed the whole world to see the differences between China and the US. Only the UN can provide leadership during these uncertain times in accordance with international law, not any individual country or clique thereof. The world must come closer together in pursuit of shared interests connected to their people’s development, not move further apart as a result of self-interested geopolitical games. President Xi’s vision is thus expected to resonate with the global masses while Biden’s will mostly be ignored or ridiculed.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from The White House Facebook Page

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

September 24th, 2021 by Global Research News

Video: A Final Warning to Humanity from Former Pfizer Chief Scientist Michael Yeadon

Dr. Mike Yeadon, September 22 , 2021

 

Bombshell: FDA Allows Whistleblower Testimony that COVID-19 Vaccines Are Killing and Harming People!

Brian Shilhavy, September 20 , 2021

 

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

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 17 , 2021

 

India State of 241 Million People Declared COVID-free after Government Promotes Ivermectin

Infowars.com, September 20 , 2021

 

Bluetooth Vaccine? Does the Injected COVID “Non-Vaccine” Connect with Devices?

Makia Freeman, September 18 , 2021

 

The COVID-19 “Vaccine” and the Nuremberg Code. Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 16 , 2021

 

Stop the Covid Holocaust! Open Letter

Rabbi Hillel Handler, September 16 , 2021

 

220,000 Military Service Members Say ‘No’ to Biden’s Forced COVID Injections: File Lawsuit Claiming They Already Have Natural Immunity

Leo Hohmann, September 13 , 2021

 

Video: Has Justin Trudeau Been Duly Vaccinated? Registered Nurse Expresses Doubt on Authenticity of Trudeau’s Vaccine Jab

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 20 , 2021

 

The Conspiracy Theorists Were Right; It Is a “Poison-Death Shot”

Mike Whitney, September 19 , 2021

 

Video: Funeral Director John O’Looney Blows the Whistle on COVID

John O’Looney, September 19 , 2021

 

The Claim that COVID Jabs Are Safe and Effective Has Fallen Apart. “Forcing Employees to be Stabbed by Covid Jabs”

Prof. Anthony J. Hall, September 21 , 2021

 

Local Detroit TV Asks for Stories of Unvaxxed Dying from COVID – Gets over 180K Responses of Vaccine Injured and Dead Instead

Brian Shilhavy, September 16 , 2021

 

The “Secret Agenda” of the So-called Elite and the COVID mRNA Vaccine. “Reducing World Population”?

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, September 19 , 2021

 

Pfizer Admits Israel Is the Great COVID-19 Vaccine Experiment

Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 21 , 2021

 

Shockingly, CDC Now Lists Vaccinated Deaths as Unvaccinated

Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 15 , 2021

 

“Is the Virus Fictitious”? Laboratories in US Can’t Find COVID-19 in One of 1,500 Positive Tests

Xander Nieuws, September 6 , 2021

 

Are These Findings the Death Blow for Vaccine Passports?

Dr. Joseph Mercola, September 17 , 2021

 

More Evidence that They Know the COVID Vaccine Is Killing and Maiming People and Yet They Continue Their Death Program

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 22 , 2021

 

The Significance of the Resignations of FDA Officials Responsible for Vaccine Safety

Jeffrey A. Tucker, September 21 , 2021

 

Two Top Virologists’ Frightening Warnings About COVID Injections: Ignored by Government and Big Media

Joel S. Hirschhorn, August 23 , 2021

 

COVID Vaccines Bloody Travesty: From Shots to Clots

Joel S. Hirschhorn, September 20 , 2021

 

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

Peter Koenig, September 13 , 2021

 

COVID Vaxx Certificates — Borderless Genocide

Peter Koenig, September 20 , 2021

 

Indisputable Science. Diabolical Crimes against Humanity: “I Refuse to be Silent”: Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, September 22 , 2021

 

Video: Vaccine Injuries and Deaths: Whistleblower Exposes VAERS Corruption

Deborah Conrad, September 21 , 2021

 

Diagnostic Lab Certified Pathologist Reports 20 Times Increase of Cancer in Vaccinated Patients

Great Game India, September 21 , 2021

 

Covid Cases Fall in the Least Vaccinated Countries

Rodney Atkinson, September 22 , 2021

 

Political Commentator Kim Iversen Unpacks ‘Alarming and Shocking’ COVID Data from Israel

Children’s Health Defense, September 20 , 2021

 

Oregon Senators File Formal Grand Jury Petition Calling for Investigation into CDC’s Willful Misconduct to Hyperinflate COVID-19 Data Following Federal Law Violations

Stand for Health Freedom, September 17 , 2021

 

The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.” Report by 1500 Health Professionals

United Health Professionals, September 19 , 2021

 

The Great Reset: Population Control and the Plotting of a “Managerial Revolution”

Cynthia Chung, September 21 , 2021

 

Thousands of Fetal Deaths and Injuries Now Reported Following COVID-19 Injections of Pregnant Women

Brian Shilhavy, September 22 , 2021

 

The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 24 , 2021

 

Pulmonary Nurse of 31 Years Testifies How He Followed the COVID Protocols, Unknowingly that They Could Result in the Deaths of Patients

Brian Shilhavy, September 23 , 2021

 

Twilight’s Last Gleaming. Biden’s So-called Vaccine Mandates. Judge Napolitano

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, September 16 , 2021

 

A Letter to the Unvaccinated

Dr. Angela Durante, September 19 , 2021

 

31 Reasons Why I Won’t Take the Vaccine

Rabbi Chananya Weissman, September 19 , 2021

 

Conquered by a Fake Pandemic, We Can Kiss America Good-bye

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, September 20 , 2021

 

Video: Towards Digital Tyranny. # Say No to the Covid Vaccine Passport

Peter Koenig, September 18 , 2021

 

Is Gene Editing the New Name for Eugenics? “Enter Bill Gates”

F. William Engdahl, September 19 , 2021

 

Perspective on the Covid Pandemic. Somebody is Lying through their Teeth.

Jeff Harris, September 21 , 2021

 

Video: Why Vaccine Passports Are Illegal in Canada

Nicholas Wansbutter, September 15 , 2021

 

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 19 , 2021

 

Where Is the Virus? Dr. Janet Menage, BMJ

Janet Menage, September 19 , 2021

 

Canadian Elections: Conservative Leader O’Toole’s COVID Plan: “Vaccines on Steroids”

William Walter Kay, September 19 , 2021

 

24,526 Deaths 2,317,495 Injuries Following COVID Shots Reported in European Union’s Database of Adverse Drug Reactions

Brian Shilhavy, September 15 , 2021

 

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

Dr. Roxana Bruno, August 17 , 2021

 

New Movement Launched by Physicians, Including Dr. Robert Malone, to Fight Medical Tyranny

Joel S. Hirschhorn, September 23 , 2021

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A lawyer for a woman claiming her use of Roundup herbicide caused her to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma sparred with a longtime Monsanto scientist in court on Wednesday, forcing the scientist to address numerous internal corporate documents about research showing Monsanto weed killers could be genotoxic and lead to cancer.

The testimony by former Monsanto scientist Donna Farmer marked her second day on the stand and  came several weeks into the case of Donnetta Stephens v. Monsanto, the fourth Roundup trial in the United States, and the first since 2019. Juries in three prior trials all found in favor of plaintiffs who, like Stephens, alleged they developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma due to their use of Roundup or other Monsanto herbicides made with the chemical glyphosate. Thousands of people have filed similar claims.

Bayer AG, which bought Monsanto in 2018, has earmarked more than $14 billion to try to settle all of the U.S. Roundup litigation, but many plaintiffs have refused to settle, and cases continue to go to trial.

A “genotox hole”

In hours of contentious back-and-forth, interrupted repeatedly by objections from a Monsanto attorney, Stephens’ lawyer William Shapiro quizzed Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer about emails and documents dating back to the late 1990s that focused on research – and the company’s handling of that research – into whether or not the company’s herbicide products could cause cancer.

In one line of questioning, Shapiro asked Farmer about emails in which she and other company scientists discussed the company’s response to outside research that concluded the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides were genotoxic, meaning they damaged human DNA. Genotoxicity is an indicator that a chemical or other substance may cause cancer.

Shapiro focused during one series of questions on work done by a scientist named James Parry, who Monsanto hired as a consultant in the 1990s to weigh in on the genotoxicity concerns about Roundup being raised at the time by outside scientists. Parry’s report agreed there appeared to be “potential genotoxic activity” with glyphosate, and recommended that Monsanto do additional studies on its products.

In an internal Monsanto email dating from September 1999 written to Farmer and other company scientists, a Monsanto scientist named William Heydens said this about Parry’s report:

“let’s step back and look at what we are really trying to achieve here. We want to find/develop someone who is comfortable with the genetox profile of glyphosate/Roundup and can be influential with regulators and Scientific Outreach operations when genetox issues arise. My read is that Parry is not currently such a person, and it would take quite some time and $$$/studies to get him there. We simply aren’t going to do the studies Parry suggests.”

In a separate email revealed through the litigation, Farmer wrote that Parry’s report put the company into a “genotox hole” and she mentioned a suggestion by a colleague that the company should “drop” Parry.

Farmer testified that her mention of a “genotox hole” referred to problems with “communication” not about any cancer risk. She also said that she and other Monsanto scientists did not have concerns with the safety of glyphosate or Roundup, but did have concerns about how to respond to paper and research by outside scientists raising such concerns.

Shapiro pressed Farmer on her reaction to Parry’s finding:

“You thought it would be okay on behalf of Monsanto to receive information as you did from Dr. Parry that this Roundup product was genotoxic or could be, you thought it would be okay to go ahead and continue to sell the product, correct?”

Farmer replied:

“We didn’t agree with Professor Parry’s conclusions at the time that it may be, could be, capable of being genotoxic. We had other evidence….  We had regulators who had agreed with our studies and conclusions that it was not genotoxic.”

Her answer was interrupted as Shapiro objected, saying he was asking a yes or no question and Farmer’s attempt to respond beyond that should be stricken. The judge agreed and struck part of the response.

Continuing his questioning, Shapiro asked:

“Well that didn’t work out to have Dr. Parry be the spokesperson for Monsanto, did it Dr. Farmer?

“I would disagree with you because there is still a lot more to this Professor Parry, working with him, and I’d be happy to…” Farmer replied before being cut off by another Shapiro objection and the judge’s striking of everything following the first five words.

A similar pattern played out throughout Farmer’s testimony as Stephens’ lawyer objected to Farmer’s attempts to provide extended answers to multiple questions posed, and Monsanto’s lawyer Manuel Cachan objecting repeatedly to Shapiro’s questions as “argumentative.”

Ghostwriting and “FTO”

Shapiro asked Farmer to address multiple issues expressed in the internal corporate emails, including one series in which Monsanto scientists discussed ghostwriting scientific papers, including a very prominent paper published in the year 2000 that asserted there were no human health concerns with glyphosate or Roundup.

Shapiro additionally asked Farmer to address a strategy Monsanto referred to in emails as “Freedom to Operate” or “FTO”. Plaintiffs’ lawyers have presented FTO as Monsanto’s strategy of doing whatever it took to lessen or eliminate restrictions on its products.

And he asked her about Monsanto emails expressing concerns about research into dermal absorption rates – how fast its herbicide might absorb into human skin.

Farmer said multiple times that information was not being presented in the correct context, and she would be happy to provide detailed explanations for all of the issues raised by Shapiro, but was told by the judge she would need to wait until questioning by Monsanto’s lawyers to do so.

Zoom trial

The Stephens trial is taking place under the oversight of Judge Gilbert Ochoa of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California. The trial is being held via Zoom due to concerns about the spread of Covid-19, and numerous technical difficulties have plagued the proceedings. Testimony has been halted multiple times because jurors have lost connections or had other problems that inhibited their ability to hear and view the trial testimony.

Stephens is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The three prior trials were all lengthy, in-person proceedings loaded with weeks of highly technical testimony about scientific data, regulatory matters and documents detailing internal Monsanto communications.

*

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

Featured image is from Maui Independent

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

 

 

Dr. Alexander Van der Bellen, who was inaugurated as the Federal President of the Republic of Austria on January 26, 2017, has taken another undemocratic, authoritarian position that anyone unemployed because of the state’s lockdowns who refuses the vaccine will lose ALL benefits. This is absolute tyranny and a disgrace to any country that pretends to be free. It has been reported:

“Unusual measure: Austria’s Minister of Labor Martin Kocher (ÖVP) has decided to block unemployment benefits for job seekers if they do not apply for a reasonable position because a vaccination is required there or simply not accepting an offered position.”

Something is seriously wrong. The vaccination was supposed to protect you, but now the unvaccinated threaten the vaccinated. Does that then prove that the vaccinations do not work? If the death rate is less than 1%, then why are governments forcing such vaccines?

The object seems to be to justify tracking all people. If we cannot do anything without a COVID passport, then we are right back to the same type of control as Adolf Hitler. You cannot get on a train in France without a COVID passport. Canada is doing the same thing for travel. Australia is turning the country into a concentration camp where you cannot travel more than 5k from your residence even if vaccinated.

Meanwhile, with this experimental vaccine, we have no idea of the long-term effects. We are supposed to trust the likes of Bill Gates, who is a college dropout with no medical background whatsoever. Our politicians are not trying to kill off people, but they are trying to alter society from the land of freedom to a fully tracked concentration camp where they must know everything we are doing. This is all because they intend to eliminate democracy and adopt the 2030 Agenda of Klaus Schwab, who I can tell you is a notorious control freak.

Europe is gradually transforming into a concentration camp. Some think it will soon return to normal if they comply, but NO VACCINE will ever eliminate any coronavirus, the same with the flu or the common cold. It is IMPOSSIBLE, for it also resides in animals. So this has been one giant lie, and they feed it out to us one tiny step at a time. Then they are complete, and it is too late to resist.

While our politicians are simply looking for control, Gates has an entirely different agenda, pretending to care about society, and at the same time, holding secret meetings about reducing the population of the world. And this is the guy our politicians embrace? I think they are too busying counting their money and dreaming of absolute power. Creating COVID Passports will be the same as the income tax in 1913 which was 1% only on the rich. It is now criminal not to file an income tax and if you put cash in a safe deposit box, read the fine print – that is now money laundering defined as hiding money from the government. COVID Passports will be permanent – they will not vanish because there will NEVER be a return to NORMAL. Anyone who believes the government is simply a sublime fool.

*

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

Featured image is from AE

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

A new profile of Dr. Hector Carvallo of Argentina is titled “A Lifeline from Buenos Aires,” and it focuses of his use of and advocacy for ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19. The doctor is a professor of medicine and former director of a large hospital, retired from University of Buenos Aires. TrialSite has followed his ivermectin studies. By February 2020, our pandemic was already looking dangerous to the world. And later that month, Hector’s wife, Mirta Carvallo, MD, heard that “something’s going on with ivermectin in Australia,” and she informed her husband of this: scientists at Monash University in Australia had shown that ivermectin could fight SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Hector was intrigued; the anti-parasite medicine had already saved millions of folks in the southern hemisphere from river blindness, known as onchocerciasis. The doctor and his wife had often prescribed the drug for scabies, rosacea, and other ailments, and he says it is “one of the safest medicines I’ve ever used. ”Considered one of the most important drugs of the 20th century, ivermectin’s creators won the Nobel Prize 2015 for their work on the drug. The important source of this story can be viewed here.

Crying for Joy, Then Crying from Frustration

Mere weeks later, prior to any official reporting of the Australian findings, Hector and a colleague conducted the first human trials of ivermectin as a prophylactic preventative against COVID-19. “I am not ashamed to say I cried when we got the results,” Carvallo remembers. Yet months later, for a very different reason, Hector reports, “I cried again.” This time his emotions were due to the medical authorities in Argentina began an effort to suppress knowledge about ivermectin’s safety and efficacy, question Hector’s results, and even attack his reputation. The doctor is reportedly soft-spoken and gracious personally, and he speaks perfect English partially due to a childhood attachment to TV medical drama, the latter inspired him to be a doctor. Within days of his wife hearing rumors of ivermectin from down under, Dr. Carvallo met with a top Argentine infectious disease expert, Dr. Roberto Hirsch, to discuss ivermectin.

Not an Animal Drug Only

Little known in North America and Europe except for veterinary use—or perhaps for lice or scabies—ivermectin was reputed to inhibit RNA viruses such as dengue, Zika, and yellow fever in vitro. It is thought that the drug blocks virus’s capacity “to transport from a cell’s watery cytoplasm to its nucleus.” In early March 2020, Carvallo and his colleague penned a message to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Noting the drugs, “virucidal properties,” the letter offered that ivermectin might be “a safe, potent, widely available and cheap prophylaxis against Covid, urgently in need of swift investigation. ”They also posited that the drug might be effective against active COVID-19 cases, that it could be a treatment as well as a preventative. “But the editor of JAMA said he was not interested. He gave us no good reason,” Carvallo says. “I was surprised. I wrote to say, ‘At least take it as a possibility,’ but we never heard back. So, we decided to form our own trials. We would replicate what the Australians had done in vitro, but we would do it in vivo.”

Observational Studies Show Great Promise

The doctors then proposed an experiment to the ethics committee of Eurnekian Hospital: giving weekly ivermectin to about 100 hospital workers who were often exposed to COVID-19 patients. Another 100 who chose not to take ivermectin functioned as the control group. Carvallo and Hirsh both felt that lengthy RCT’s would be unethical: “If I had to post my hypothesis atop a pile of corpses, that’s criminal,” he said. Their approach was a “classic” type of research, an observational study. “Elated” by the proposed study, hospital officials, said yes to the idea, and the government health office quickly approved the protocols. The trial started in April, without funding or RCT formality, and utilizing donated medicine. 131 subjects used ivermectin, and 98 did not. The results were stunning: of the 98 who did not use ivermectin, 11 contracted the virus, of the 131 who had gotten the drug, zero cases of COVID-19 were found. “Word spread quickly through the hospital, and the union representing our health care workers demanded the prophylaxis be given to everyone [on staff] who wanted it. With this large “volunteer pool” available, the doctors started a second and expanded version of the trial. Due to running out of free medicine, this expanded study ended in August 2020. The findings: of 407 folks in the control group, 58.2 were infected with SARS-CoV-2, of 788 patients treated with ivermectin (and carrageenan), zero had contracted the virus.

“Not Allowed to Keep Investigating Ivermectin”

By this point, the doctors had begun a new study of folks already suffering with COVID-19. They signed up 135 outpatients with mild symptoms and 32 in patients with moderate to severe symptoms. All were given ivermectin on a weekly basis. The hospitalized also got steroids and a blood thinner if symptoms warranted. Four weeks later, none of the 135 required going to the hospital. One inpatient, an 82-year-old with “severe co-morbidities,” died. So, the doctors saw that there was a death rate of 3.2 percent of those using their protocol, far less than the 23.5 percent overall rate for hospitalized patients in Argentina. Days later, Carvallo got a call at home. The secretary for the health minister was on the line, and “he said I was not allowed to keep investigating ivermectin, or it would put my job in jeopardy. I was baffled. I said, ‘Why?’ and he would give me no answer—And that’s when I cried again, from frustration. I’m not ashamed to say I cried because it’s true.” Now, a year and a half later, “ivermectin still struggles for official recognition as an anti-Covid agent despite the large body of research in its favor.”

Three Phases of Truth

The May 2021 issue of Antibiotics Review, for example, put out a metanalysis of ivermectin which showed that 100% of 36 prophylaxis and early treatment studies showed positive results, and 26 of the studies showed “statistically significant improvements.” But in August 2021 FDA was “still pounding the same drum it first pounded in June 2020, when the Australian researchers published their findings.” FDA warned, “Taking a drug meant for horses and cattle to prevent or treat COVID-19 is dangerous and could be fatal.” To Carvallo, this mockery and bad information were “very frustrating.” Next, on September 2, the outlet BuzzFeed put out a lengthy and critical look at the doctor’s work. They reported that the studies “raised questions about how the study’s data was collected and analyzed.” Carvallo says the ivermectin backlash is “not a matter of ignorance.” He notes that NIH, CDC, and FDA have read the pertinent studies. The doctor feels that a double standard is in place: “The more expensive a compound is, the less quantity of evidence is required to get it approved. “But when a compound is cheap and available,” he opined, “that’s another matter.” He is confident that eventually, ivermectin will be widely used against COVID-19. “All truth passes through three phases,” he told BuzzFeed. “First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it is accepted as self-evident. We are in phase two now.”

*

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

Featured image is from TrialSiteNews

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ivermectin Wars: Dr. Hector Carvallo Versus the Medical Establishment
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

White House claims anything but dishonourable discharge for refusing vaccines would “detract from readiness and limit a commander’s options for enforcing good order and discipline.”

The Biden administration is pushing for dishonourable discharges and even court martialing for troops who disobey orders to get COVID vaccines.

GOP Representative Mark Green of Tennessee proposed an amendment this week to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would prohibit “any discharge but honorable” for troops who refuse vaccines.

The White House responded with a statement noting

“The Administration strongly opposes section 716,” reasoning that it would “detract from readiness and limit a commander’s options for enforcing good order and discipline when a Service member fails to obey a lawful order to receive a vaccination.”

The statement added

“To enable a uniformed force to fight with discipline, commanders must have the ability to give orders and take appropriate disciplinary measures.”

Responding to the statement, Rep. Green said

“I am appalled that the Biden Administration is trying to remove my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that prevents anything but an honorable discharge for service members who refuse to get the COVID-19 vaccine.”

Green added

“This was a bipartisan amendment — every Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee agreed to it.”

“No American who raises their hand to serve our Nation should be punished for making a highly personal medical decision,” Green previously urged.

Another section of the bill, 720, proposes that troops who have previously had COVID-19 should be exempted from a vaccine mandate. The Biden administration also opposes it, claiming it creates “a new and overly broad exemption from the vaccination requirement for previous infection that would undermine the effectiveness of the requirement.”

The House is expected to vote on the NDAA early Thursday morning.

As we have previously noted, there has been significant resistance to vaccine mandates among military service members.

Tucker Carlson revealed Monday that a bizarre presentation was given to troops sardonically ridiculing vaccine mandates with links to satanism, as the military pushes mandates, even for elite navy SEALS who have had the virus and have natural immunity.

*

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).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The global agenda to inoculate every man, woman and child is coming straight to your dinner plate. A team of scientists from the University of California, Riverside are researching ways to turn your GROCERIES into mRNA vaccines. In order to combat “vaccine hesitancy” in the population, these scientists want to distribute coronavirus spike proteins throughout the food supply. This experiment could give rise to a new paradigm of vaccination that gives Big Pharma total control over the food supply, as they venture to genetically alter food to inundate the population with more blood clotting spike proteins.

Is this the reason why GMO/vaccine investor Bill Gates is buying up farmland across the United States? Will all current vaccines and hundreds of future vaccine experiments be carried out through the food supply?

Genetic modification of the food supply could soon be used to vaccinate the population

The future of bio-warfare and human experimentation will likely be carried out through the food supply, and advertised as safe. By altering the cytoplasm of edible plants, scientists hope to introduce foreign spike protein toxins into your food. These vaccine-pimping scientists are already experimenting on lettuce and spinach plants, to develop a new species of greens that can vaccinate people more often and in a less invasive manner. These new designer greens can be grown at home, too. The scientists are working on a way to quantify the correct dosage of spike protein per plant while demonstrating that the plant can replicate enough mRNA to out-perform the current vaccine supply.

“Ideally, a single plant would produce enough mRNA to vaccinate a single person,” Juan Pablo Giraldo, lead researcher and associate professor in UCR’s Department of Botany and Plant Sciences. “We are testing this approach with spinach and lettuce and have long-term goals of people growing it in their own gardens,” he added. “Farmers could also eventually grow entire fields of it.”

Giraldo strives to demonstrate that DNA containing mRNA vaccines can successfully be integrated into plant cells. To do this, the researchers intend to alter the chloroplast of the plant cell. The chloroplast takes in the sun’s energy and converts it to sugar and other molecules that the plant needs in order to grow. The scientists want to interfere with this natural process and instruct the cytoplasm to generate spike proteins and other foreign molecules that can be introduced as antigens into humans.

Giraldo and his team have already demonstrated that the chloroplast is capable of expressing foreign genes that are not part of the plant’s natural design. This genetic modification was accomplished by enclosing foreign genetic material in a protective casing and then inserting it into the plant’s cells. The goal is to introduce these GMOs into humans so their immune system can be programmed to fight antigens and viral sequences that scientists have pre-selected and designed.

Is a new paradigm of food-based vaccines upon us?

At UC San Diego, Nicole Steinmetz has already developed nanotechnologies that can deliver genetic material to the chloroplast of plants. Steinmetz tinkers with plant virus nanoparticles and repurposes them to deliver foreign genes into the plant’s cells.

This is not the only edible vaccine experiment currently underway. Scientists from the University of Ottawa have been working on an edible vaccine for coronaviruses for over a year.

The Ottawa Hospital is already testing the first prototype. This edible vaccine expresses viral antigens inside the lettuce and spinach plants. Their goal is to deliver the spike proteins to the human body without altering the protein synthesis of human cells. The current vaccine supply must be kept refrigerated at extremely low temperatures. If this research effort can demonstrate the delivery of spike proteins throughout the food supply, the current vaccine supply could be scrapped in favor of a new paradigm of food-based vaccination. This experiment could forever alter the food supply, turning healthy, healing foods into bio-warfare playgrounds that globalists can use to exploit the human race.

Sources include:

CTVNews.ca

NaturalNews.com

News.ecr.edu

*

 

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

Featured image is from Natural News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

As we have previously reported here at Health Impact News, the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) now lists twice as many deaths following COVID-19 shots for the past 9 months as deaths following ALL vaccines for the past 30 years!

Not only is this information from the government’s own database NOT being reported in the pharma-funded corporate media, but nurses and other frontline workers are now coming forward to report that very few deaths and injuries from the COVID-19 shots are actually being reported to VAERS due to tremendous pressure by the pro-vaccine crowd to NOT report them.

Their voices are being censored by the corporate media.

Here is a video report we have compiled of nurse whistleblowers (including a physician’s assistant’s testimony) explaining just how difficult it is for anyone to actually file a report for COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths.

This is from our Bitchute channel, and will also be on our Rumble channel.

So what are the REAL numbers of those already dead or permanently injured from the COVID-19 shots?

Dr. Jessica Rose recently did an expert analysis on the VAERS data and the problem of underreporting. Dr. Jessica Rose has a BSc in Applied Mathematics and completed her MSc in Immunology at Memorial University of Newfoundland in Canada. She completed her PhD in Computational Biology at Bar Ilan University and then did her first Post Doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Molecular Biology.

This is maybe the most brilliant analysis of the VAERS data I have seen so far. What Dr. Rose did was take an independent analysis of a single VAERS event, one that the FDA and CDC admitted was an adverse reaction based on trials before the shots were even authorized, anaphylaxis, and then looked at independent studies reporting the rate of anaphylaxis to determine the true percentage, compared to what is actually being reported in VAERS.

What she found was that anaphylaxis was being underreported in VAERS by 41X. Taking that variable and then applying it to other events, such as death, she arrived at the 150,000 death figure. See the full analysis 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 images in this article are from HIN