All Global Research articles 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.

***

Rather than admit defeat in the face of vaccine failure or vaccine refusal, media and government officials are now openly stoking the fires of hostility toward the unvaccinated.

In the global war on national and individual sovereignty — for which COVID-19 has been serving as the unlawful casus belli — two tactics long favored by tyrants have been deployed by government officials and mainstream media to utmost effect, successfully distracting many citizens from the increasingly aggressive attacks on their civil and human rights and livelihoods.

The first tactic — the sophisticated mobilization of appeals to fear — has steered many individuals into unquestioning compliance with harsh public health authoritarianism. The second — the promotion of divide-and-conquer theatrics — has been instrumental in helping build public support for coercion, including vaccine mandates.

After a brief summer respite, fear-mongering is once again in full swing, with headlines screaming about a “highly contagious mutant version of the coronavirus” (dubbed the “delta variant”) and yet another seeming rise in “cases.”

What is the most obvious reason for the renewed media hysteria? Demand for COVID vaccines has stagnated.

Familiar with the propagandist’s tendency to inflate key numbers, investigative journalist Jon Rappoport suggests the proportion of the population refusing the injections is likely much largerthan officials are reporting — and that does not “sit well with the vaccinators-in-charge.”

Moreover, those declining the experimental shots continue to indicate they will not change their mind.

On July 30, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, signaled “the war has changed” after warning “vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”

Two weeks earlier, however, Walensky had a different population in her sights, describing COVID-19 as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

That comment — and recent remarks by other highly placed figures such as Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey — indicate that rather than admit defeat in the face of vaccine failure or vaccine refusal, officials intend to ratchet up their dangerous divide-and-conquer rhetoric. Taking off the gloves, they are now openly stoking the fires of hostility toward the unvaccinated.

An illogical narrative

In May, the CDC announced it was limiting its monitoring of “vaccine breakthrough cases” — meaning positive PCR tests in the vaccinated — stating that it would count only “infections [in the vaccinated] that result in hospitalization or death,” which the agency maintains are relatively few and far between.

At the same time, the media began amping up reports blaming the unvaccinated for the so-called “Delta variant,” furnishing a pretext for public health officials to not only renew their calls for “widespread vaccination and rigid adherence to public health measures” but also to “move the goal posts for target vaccination rates.”

Health providers on the front lines have shared anecdotal evidence with Children’s Health Defense confirming that officialdom is interested only in new COVID “cases” to the extent that such cases crop up in the unvaccinated.

However, the blame-the-unvaccinated narrative is contradicted by the many “Delta variant” storiesnow emerging from numerous locations around the world showing that the fully vaccinated constitute the majority of delta “cases.”

Estimates range from 75% of new “cases” in Cape Cod and highly vaccinated Singapore, to anywhere from 50% to 90% in Israel. In Iceland, described by journalist Alex Berensen as a “vaccinators’ paradise,” the nation is reportedly “setting daily records for new infections, mostly among the vaccinated.”

Cover stories

COVID vaccine critics point to this explosion of “breakthrough cases” in the vaccinated as a sign that manufacturers’ misleading vaccine efficacy narrative is crumbling.

Although this may be the case, it is important to keep in mind that the highly coordinated mainstream media rarely trumpet a story unless it serves a propaganda purpose, and never more so than in the age of COVID.

Recall, too, that “cases” are determined by Emergency-Use-Authorized RT-PCR tests that were never intended for diagnostic purposes. As critics have stated for months, PCR’s Nobel-Prize-winning inventor, Kary Mullis, repeatedly made the point that “PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something.”

The results, said Mullis, make it possible to “find almost anything in anybody” but do not “tell you that you are sick.”

Although it is unclear why they would change their tune, both the World Health Organization and, just recently, CDC have admitted that RT-PCR is not reliable for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2.

In addition to offering a rationale for inflaming hostility against the unvaccinated, could the “delta variant” cover story be serving other purposes?

For example, rather than question the dud vaccines, researchers are suddenly publishing analyses of waning immunity and vaccine failure — in prestigious journals like The Lancet — that all too predictably prescribe booster shots and new-and-improved vaccines as solutions.

Recognizing the vaccines were never even necessary to begin with inevitably raises questions about why governments around the world are so eager to install these regular operating system updates in their populations.

Dr. Anthony Fauci has already started incrementally laying the groundwork in the U.S., asserting the likelihood that “at some time, we may need a booster,” while Israel has begun administering boosters to the age group that historically has the poorest response to vaccination — those over 60.

A 65-year-old actor who received two doses of the experimental Sinovac vaccine in February and March and a dose of the Pfizer jab in July died six days after receiving the third injection.

The media’s alarmism about the delta variant has also served to white out and perhaps disguise the steady rise in serious COVID vaccine injuries and deaths. In mid-July, Israeli internist Rafael Zioni tweeted out dramatic Ministry of Health data showing that fully vaccinated individuals constituted a majority of COVID hospitalizations and serious illnesses.

In Sydney, Australia, a post on Rumble noted 140 of 141 people hospitalized with COVID were fully vaccinated, while the one remaining individual had received one dose. Of those hospitalized, 43 were in intensive care, including eight youth under the age of 30.

Although doctors blame these incidents on COVID infection, these health setbacks could just as well be vaccine adverse events either not recognized or not called out as such.

COVID deaths and vaccine deaths

As The Defender reported in late July, the CDC-imposed guidelines for reporting COVID deaths represent an ethically questionable departure from the industry standard previously in place, with medical examiners and others suspiciously instructed to define “deaths involving COVID-19” as “deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19.”

Without these skewed reporting rules, an estimated 90.2% fewer fatalities would have been attributed to COVID. Exaggerating the death toll is a tried-and-true maneuver to hawk more vaccines — in the past, CDC insiders have advised framing a given influenza season as more “deadly” to generate demand for flu shots.

Even so, the numbers the CDC reported for July — several thousand deaths “involving” COVID-19 for that month — should have been good news, representing the lowest number of monthly deaths at any point since February 2020.

The July figure was also 31 times lower than the peak of more than 100,000 “confirmed or presumed” deaths reported in January 2021.

CDC admits that among the cumulative fatalities “involving” COVID since 2020 (through July 25, 2021), COVID-19 was the sole cause of death for only 5%. For all other deaths “involving” COVID, death certificates cite an average of four additional contributing conditions or causes.

In contrast, the safety of COVID injections has been dubious from the start. Eight months in, the OpenVAERS Project (an independent group that provides easy access to vaccine injury data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reminds us the experimental jabs have produced at least “four times more fatalities than the terrorist attacks on 9/11” — or 15 times more, if whistleblower estimates of vast undercounting of COVID vaccine-related deaths prove accurate.

OpenVAERS calls the rollout of unlicensed COVID vaccines the “most disastrous vaccine campaign in American history.”

Outrageously, the U.S. government has just purchased an additional 200 million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, expecting taxpayers to continue financing their own destruction.

Rather than change course or cop to the accumulating evidence of widespread harm, officials find it far more politically expedient to stir up animosity against the army of people — the unvaccinated — asking the right questions.

However, as Jon Rappoport reminds us, this is no time to surrender: “If enough people say NO to the shot, it’s over.”

Postscript: In the midst of increasing propaganda designed to instill fear and panic while falsely elevating the safety profiles of COVID vaccines, the push for vaccine mandates is at an all-time high. Children’s Health Defense has launched a letter-writing campaign directed to local, state and federal officials spelling out why mandates are wrong for people and wrong for America. Our advocacy portal makes it easy for citizens to contact elected officials at every level of government. Send a letter to all of your elected officials with just one click.

*

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 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.

***

Will US occupation troops really leave Iraq? That’s the question that Washington is so far unable to answer. The White House says the official date of the long goodbye is this month, August 2021.

Donald Trump announced a pullout of US troops while still in office but his deadline was simply ignored by the new Biden administration which has also been under mounting pressure to end the two-decade US occupation of Mesopotamia. Left wing Democrats wanted a full end to the war the US has waged since 2003. Right-wing Republicans, blissfully unaware of Mideast realities, urged more troops be sent to Iraq.

After losing some 4,431 troops and 8,000 mercenaries (aka ‘contractors’) and 1,145 troops from allied nations dragooned into the Iraq conflict, and 31,994 wounded – many with serious head wounds from roadside bombs – Washington switched gears in Iraq and adopted the old British Imperial system of colonial rule.

The Britain Empire created Iraq in the 1920’s from the wreckage of the dying Ottoman Empire to secure possession of Mesopotamia’s abundant oil. At the time, the mighty Royal Navy was converting from coal to oil. Iraq became Britain’s vast fuel depot.

A new figurehead king from the Hashemite tribes was put into power by London, backed by a local constabulary, British garrison troops and, most effectively, the Royal Air Force.

In the 1920’s, Winston Churchill approved RAF fighters to bomb restive Arab and Kurdish tribes with mustard gas and poisonous Yperite. The British eventually crushed domestic resistance in Iraq while shamelessly denouncing fascist Italy for also using poison gas against Libyan nationalist rebels.

The RAF bombed and staffed rebellious Iraqis right up to the late 1940’s. British air power played a key role in crushing the nationalist uprising in Iraq by Rashid Ali, who was smeared a pro-fascist by Britain’s imperial press.

The US eventually adopted the low-cost British colonial system for ruling Iraq. US warplanes were stationed at up to six former Iraqi airbases, becoming the principal enforcer of the occupation. US troops were thinned out. By 2020, this job was done so skillfully that the US presence in Iraq became almost invisible.

Iraq was occupied by western forces but it looked like an independent nation with a US-installed president and executive branch. Kurdish areas in the north became virtual US-run mini-states. The demented ISIS movement was totally stamped out by US airpower and Iranian militias. As a thank you, the Iranian military supremo in Iraq, Gen. Qasem Soleimani, was ordered murdered by President Trump after being lured to Iraq for supposed peace talks.

Iraq was one of the most advanced states in the Arab world and a US ally – before 1991. Today, it lies in ruins, smashed to pieces by US airpower, civil wars, and sectarian conflict.

President George W. Bush was convinced by militarists, notably Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, after intense pressure from pro-Israel groups in the US and their media accomplices, to invade Iraq. The Washington hawks planned to use US-occupied Iraq as a central base for dominating the entire Mideast and grabbing its oil.

The golden victory in Iraq promised by the neocons turned to ashes, leaving Washington stuck deep in an ungovernable ruined nation that had even to import oil. At one point, the off-the-rails neocons in Washington even claimed Iraq had a fleet of ships in the Atlantic Ocean carrying ‘killer’ drones that were about to attack sleeping America.

Iraq was so battered and demolished after three decades of bombing and wars that it was worth almost nothing. Faced by the threat of more guerilla warfare, the new older, wiser US administration of Joe Biden announced it would pull all remaining US combat troops from Iraq, but leaving 2,500 behind for ‘training’ and embassy security (the heavily fortified US Baghdad Embassy is one of the biggest in the world). Osama bin Laden called the US embassies in Baghdad and Kabul, ‘modern crusader castles.’

‘Training’ is a bad joke. Iraq has been at almost constant war since 1980. Iraqis need loyalty, pride and patriotism to be effective fighters. Who needs training from the armed forces that got whipped in Vietnam and now Afghanistan? Iraq needs a real national government rather than a bunch of corrupt stooges and foreign agents in Baghdad. President Saddam Hussein predicted that the US would face the ‘mother of all battles’ in Iraq. He was right.

*

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. transfers an airfield to Iraqi government forces in 2020. Credit: Public Domain

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Without acknowledgement of Brazil’s government for what it is – effectively a US-backed military regime – no sense can be made of its recent past nor useful analysis of its coming elections. With attempts to force changes to the voting system, backed by threats that the 2022 elections will not take place at all, Brazil is entering phase three of its slow coup, and the consolidation of the military in power.

18.6% of 14,600 Brazilian government positions appointed under President Bolsonaro have been occupied by military personnel.

This figure is higher than the 1964-85 dictatorship-era peak.

There is needless semantic fog obscuring what Brazil’s government now is. Whilst the word “regime” is usually reserved in the anglosphere for officially enemies of the US and allies, Brazil surely fits within objective definition; a military dominated, far-right authoritarian administration, which came to power by anti-democratic means – with coercion, threats, propaganda and abuse of the judicial system – which favours the interests of foreign capital, and which maintains itself through corruption, institutional confrontation, and violence.

Bolsonaro’s candidacy was democratic packaging for the long game of the military’s return to government. As they look to defend their position a year out from elections, the situation has escalated.

Bolsonaro’s former chief of staff and now defence minister, General Braga Netto is being called before the Supreme Court for his reported threat to head of Congress Artur Lira that if their desired change to the voting system – the introduction of a printed vote – was not implemented, that the 2022 elections would not go ahead.

Weeks prior, Braga Netto and other key Generals signed off on a letter threatening the Brazilian Senate over its investigation of former health minister, General Pazuello.

Now, Bolsonaro too is to be investigated by both the Electoral Court and the Supreme Court, for intentionally casting doubt on the country’s electoral integrity by spreading conspiracy theories about Brazil’s electronic voting system.

Both Braga Netto and Bolsonaro’s actions could constitute crimes. Bolsonaro already faces over 130 impeachment requests.

In a live broadcast on social media, which was reportedly the idea of Government Secretary General Luiz Eduardo Ramos, Bolsonaro made baseless claims of fraud at the 2014 election, blaming the voting machines, and calling supporters to the streets.

Using psychological operations techniques learned from WHINSEC, which have underpinned every stage of the long coup, the military’s ‘green and yellow nationalist’ supporters were again mobilised in support of this objective, which they depict as making voting “auditable” and “transparent”, under the false pretext that the current system is not.

Electoral Court President Barroso has warned that these changes would simply open the door to old school election fraud.

Bolsonaro looks like he will certainly need a means to contest the 2022 result; as things stand he is on course to lose heavily to Lula da Silva. The two would have faced eachother in 2018, had the former president not been jailed on since annulled charges to keep him out of the race, which happened with the judiciary acting under a succession of threats from the Armed Forces. Bolsonaro-allied, FBI-tutored prosecutors called Lula’s imprisonment “a gift from the CIA”.

It is extremely naive to expect the military to peacefully relinquish power after the decades it took to get back in government. Wishful thinking that Braga Netto and the other senior generals were adults in the room, a moderating force on Bolsonaro, or even that they would remove him, should have evaporated completely with admissions from General Villas Boas and Michel Temer about the military’s guiding hand throughout the 2013-16 coup and its second phase, the 2018 election campaign.

Bolsonaro was not a political accident that they reluctantly got behind, as some depicted. On the contrary, he was their candidate all along.

Now we are entering a third phase of Brazil’s long coup; a battle for the post 2022 scenario, with an effort to maintain the economic and foreign policy status quo under a more respectable face, meeting parallel neofascist attempts to consolidate power by any means.

Failure of any “third way” candidate to emerge that is capable of even competing with Lula at the polls may well have convinced both the military and the US to stick with the name recognition they have, as Bolsonaro considers hikes to social security payments in election year to boost his trailing numbers.

Meanwhile US-trained, military-decorated Lava Jato judge, Sergio Moro, who helped put Bolsonaro in power by jailing Lula in 2018, is maintained as plan B or his potential successor. Moro recently returned from his new home in the United States to discuss his candidacy with the centre-right, Bolsonaro-allied Podemos party, and as was reported, even talk of a presidential ticket with current vice, General Mourão.

All of this is happening with the apparent blessing of the US government. Visits in quick succession by both CIA director and National Security Advisor are tacit displays of support, expose the limits of environmental rhetoric over the Amazon, and pierce any remaining wishful thinking that Biden would be automatically opposed to Bolsonaro ideologically.

Brazilian governance in its current militarised state is far too useful to the US strategically, and too good for business, to let go. After helping orchestrate much of the process that reduced Brazil to its desperate state, across Republican and Democrat administrations alike, it is extremely naive to expect the US to change anything other than the superficial presentation of its Brazil relations.

CIA think tank CSIS is now promoting even closer ties, and the establishment of a “binational institution” to formalise the relationship between far-right, military-governed Brazil, and the United States.

Time is long overdue to drop any pretence about what Brazil faces. Depiction of Bolsonaro as the cartoon villain; a sole representative of what is actually a US-aligned, long term military power project, is disingenuous. Anglophone media has for the most part adhered to the military and US government’s coup-friendly master narratives throughout the process, and they continue to in this manner.

Similar refusal to acknowledge the gravity of what Brazil faces is how the 2016 coup against Dilma Rousseff’s government was placed in inverted commas and reduced to a matter of opinion, how Lula’s political persecution was depicted as legitimate, and how a neofascist military backed candidate was reduced to simply a “conservative”, whom moderate voters and foreign investors alike could be comfortable with.

Without recognition of Brazil’s government for what it is – yes, a US-backed military regime – no sense can be made of its recent past, nor its troubling near future.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil’s US-Backed Military Regime Casts Shadow Over Hopes for 2022 Election
  • 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 U.S. “has nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to strike first and begin a nuclear war that could result in the deaths of billions of people around the globe,” warned one coalition member.

The 76th anniversary of the U.S. military’s atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is coming up, and in an effort to prevent such mass murder from reoccurring, a broad coalition of peace, religious, and community groups launched a national campaign on Wednesday to urge President Joe Biden and Congress to adopt a policy of “No First Use of Nuclear Weapons.”

With towns throughout the U.S. planning to hold commemorative events from August 6 through August 9 to mourn the tens of thousands of people who died or suffered in Japan as a result of the atomic bombs the U.S. military dropped on two densely built-up cities with large civilian populations in 1945, campaign organizers—who consider the no-first-use policy a “step on the road to the eventual abolition of all nuclear weapons by all nations”—are working to ensure that “such a holocaust never be allowed to happen again.”

The “No First Use: Decrease the Danger of Nuclear War” coalition defined a first-use nuclear strike as “an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that did not first launch a nuclear strike against the United States, its territories, or its allies.” The coalition is pressuring Biden to declare—and Congress to legislate—that the U.S. “will neither initiate nor threaten to initiate the first use of nuclear weapons.”

According to the coalition, the risk of nuclear war, which Daniel Ellsberg and others have warned would “kill billions of people and end civilization as we know it,” is increasing because the Trump and Biden administrations decided to withdraw from arms control treaties and pursue a new Cold War with Russia and China.

By holding online and in-person educational events on campuses and public venues nationwide, and by helping citizens and civic groups engage with lawmakers, the coalition seeks to achieve “a no-first-use policy for our common survival.” Such a policy, the coalition argued, would make everyone safer by reducing the likelihood of nuclear threats, false alarms, or cyberterrorist attacks escalating into full-blown missile exchanges.

Along with preventing the use of nuclear weapons through the adoption of a no-first-use policy, the coalition aims to increase support for nuclear disarmament. The presence of nuclear arsenals, the coalition stressed, means that the danger of proliferation continues to exist.

Steve Gallant of Massachusetts Peace Action said Wednesday in a statement that “the United States has never agreed to a no-first-use policy and has nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to strike first and begin a nuclear war that could result in the deaths of billions of people around the globe.”

In addition to lacking a no-first-use policy, the Pentagon’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review “actually expand[ed] the range of significant non-nuclear strategic attacks—whether they be cyber, chemical, or biological warfare—to which the U.S. may respond with the use of nuclear weapons,” the coalition pointed out.

Last month, as the Biden administration began to draft its Nuclear Posture Review, a group of 21 Democratic lawmakers urged the president to reduce the nation’s nuclear stockpile and commit to a no-first-use policy.

In her book, Thermonuclear Monarchy: Choosing Between Democracy and Doom, Harvard University professor Elaine Scarry points out that “the president of the United States has the sole authority to order the launch of hundreds of nuclear warheads within minutes, without consultation or agreement from any other sector of U.S. government or society: not the Cabinet, nor the Congress, nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor the Supreme Court.”

Zia Mian, co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, emphasized Wednesday that the U.S. president holds this power despite the fact that “any threat or use of nuclear weapons in the present day constitutes a crime against humanity and a crime under international law.”

Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced legislation to restrict first-use nuclear strikes and to slash spending on nuclear weapons.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in April reintroduced the No First Use Act.

And in February, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2021, which would “prohibit the use of federal funds to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless Congress expressly authorizes such a strike pursuant to a declaration of war.”

Biden has said that he supports a no-first-use policy, and the coalition implored him to sign such legislation should it reach the Oval Office.

Pamela Richard of Peace Action of Wisconsin said Wednesday that “while we urge the passage of these bills as a first step, what is needed is the universal acceptance of the recent United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, banning the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons.”

“Our long-term goal,” Richard added, “is total nuclear disarmament.”

Last October, the movement to abolish nuclear weapons celebrated when Honduras became the 50th country to ratify the U.N.’s nuclear ban, pushing the agreement over the threshold required to enter into force. Despite the fact that several nuclear powers, including the U.S., the only country to ever engage in nuclear warfare, refused to sign—with the Trump administration even urging other governments to ditch the pact—the international treaty went into effect on January 22.

Nonetheless, “Congress is funding an upgrade of our nuclear weapons triad,” Cole Harrison, executive director of Massachusetts Peace Action, notedWednesday.

A report by the Federation of American Scientists published in March foundthat the U.S. plans to spend up to $264 billion on the construction and maintenance of a new nuclear missile following intense lobbying efforts by the weapons industry.

During a recent peace conference, Markey told the audience that “the risk of inadvertent nuclear war has risen to a level that is simply unacceptable.”

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of anti-war group CodePink, said Wednesday that “as long as the nuclear-armed nations maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, the danger that these weapons of mass destruction will be used continues to increase.”

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 ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons)


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.

***

We are commemorating the 76th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This article by Edward Curtin was first published by Global Research in 2018.

“Ahab is forever Ahab, man.  This whole act’s immutably decreed.  ‘Twas rehearsed by thee and me billion years before this ocean rolled.  Fool!  I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders.” – Herman Melville, Moby Dick   

“The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid ‘dens of crime’ that Dickens loved to paint…But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice.” – C. S. Lewis, author’s preface, 1962, The Screwtape Letters

American history can only accurately be described as the story of demonic possession, however you choose to understand that phrase.  Maybe radical “evil” will suffice.  But right from the start the American colonizers were involved in massive killing because they considered themselves divinely blessed and guided, a chosen people whose mission would come to be called “manifest destiny.”  Nothing stood in the way of this divine calling, which involved the need to enslave and kill millions and millions of innocent people that continues down to today.  “Others” have always been expendable since they have stood in the way of the imperial march ordained by the American god. This includes all the wars waged based on lies and false flag operations. It is not a secret, although most Americans, if they are aware of it, prefer to see it as a series of aberrations carried out by “bad apples.”  Or something from the past.   

Our best writers and prophets have told us the truth: Thoreau, Twain, William James, MLK, Fr. Daniel Berrigan, et al.: we are a nation of killers of the innocent.  We are conscienceless.  We are brutal.  We are in the grip of evil forces.  

The English writer D. H. Lawrence said it perfectly in 1923,

“The American soul is hard, isolate, stoic and a killer.  It has never yet melted.” 

It still hasn’t.

When on August 6 and 9, 1945 the United States killed 200-300 thousand innocent Japanese civilians with atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they did so intentionally.  It was an act of sinister state terrorism, unprecedented by the nature of the weapons but not by the slaughter. The American terror bombings of Japanese cities that preceded the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – led by the infamous Major General Curtis LeMay (image on the right)– were also intentionally aimed at Japanese civilians and killed hundreds of thousands of them. 

Is there an American artist’s painting of Tokyo destroyed by the firebombing to go next to Picasso’s Guernica, where estimates of the dead range between 800 and 1,600?  In Tokyo alone more than 100, 000 Japanese civilians were burnt to death by cluster bombs of napalm.  All this killing was intentional. I repeat: Intentional.  Is that not radical evil?  Demonic?  Only five Japanese cities were spared such bombing.

The atomic bombings were an intentional holocaust, not to end the war, as the historical record amply demonstrates, but to send a message to the Soviet Union that we could do to them what we did to the residents of Japan.  President Truman made certain that the Japanese willingness to surrender in May 1945 was made unacceptable because he and his Secretary-of-State James Byrnes  wanted to use the atomic bombs – “as quickly as possible to ‘show results’” in Byrnes’ words – to send a message to the Soviet Union.  So “the Good War” was ended in the Pacific with the “good guys” killing hundreds of thousand Japanese civilians to make a point to the “bad guys,” who have been demonized ever since.   Russia phobia is nothing new.  

Satan always wears the other’s face.

Many Baby Boomers like to say they grew up with the bomb.  They are lucky. They grew up.  They got be scared.  They got to hide under their desks and wax nostalgic about it.  Do you remember dog tags?  Those 1950s and 1960s?  The scary movies?

Street scene in Mitsubishi Steel Works plant (approximately 1.1 km from ground zero) after the dropping of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, showing injured Civilian casualties on the footpath awaiting medical treatment. (Source: Public Domain)

The children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who died under our bombs on August 6 and 9, 1945 didn’t get to grow up.  They couldn’t hide.  They just went under. To be accurate: we put them under. Or they were left to smolder for decades in pain and then die.  But that it was necessary to save American lives is the lie. It’s always about American lives, as if the owners of the country actually cared about them.  But to tender hearts and innocent minds, it’s a magic incantation.  Poor us!

Fat Man, Little Boy – how the words echo down the years to the now fat Americans who grew up in the 1950s and who think like little boys and girls about their country’s demonic nature.  Innocence – it is wonderful!  We are different now.

“We are great because we are good,” that’s what Hillary Clinton told us. 

The Libyans can attest to that.  We are exceptional, special.  The next election will prove we can defeat Mr. Pumpkin Head and restore America to its “core values.” 

Perhaps you think I am cynical.  But understanding true evil is not child’s play.  It seems beyond the grasp of most Americans who need their illusions.  Evil is real.  There is simply no way to understand the savage nature of American history without seeing its demonic nature.  How else can we redeem ourselves at this late date, possessed as we are by delusions of our own God-blessed goodness?

But average Americans play at innocence.  They excite themselves at the thought that with the next election the nation will be “restored” to the right course.  Of course there never was a right course, unless might makes right, which has always been the way of America’s rulers.  Today Trump is viewed by so many as an aberration.  He is far from it.  He’s straight out of a Twain short story.  He’s Vaudeville. He’s Melville’s confidence man.  He’s us. Did it ever occur to those who are fixated on him that if those who own and run the country wanted him gone, he’d be gone in an instant?  He can tweet and tweet idiotically, endlessly send out messages that he will contradict the next day, but as long as he protects the super-rich, accepts Israel’s control of him, and allows the CIA-military-industrial complex to do its world-wide killing and looting of the treasury, he will be allowed to entertain and excite the public – to get them worked up in a lather in pseudo-debates.  And to make this more entertaining, he will be opposed by the “sane” Democratic opposition, whose intentions are as benign as an assassin’s smile.  

Look back as far as you can to past U.S. presidents, the figureheads who “act under orders” (whose orders?), as did Ahab in his lust to kill the “evil” great white whale, and what do you see?  You see servile killers in the grip of a sinister power.  You see hyenas with polished faces. You see pasteboard masks.  On the one occasion when one of these presidents dared to follow his conscience and rejected the devil’s pact that is the presidency’s killer-in-chief role, he – JFK – had his brains blown out in public view.  An evil empire thrives on shedding blood, and it enforces its will through demonic messages.  Resist and there will be blood on the streets, blood on the tracks, blood in your face. 

Despite this, President Kennedy’s witness, his turn from cold warrior to an apostle of peace, remains to inspire a ray of hope in these dark days. As recounted by James Douglass in his masterful JFK and the Unspeakable, Kennedy agreed to a meeting in May 1962 with a group of Quakers who had been demonstrating outside the While House for total disarmament.  They urged him to move in that direction.  Kennedy was sympathetic to their position.  He said he wished it were easy to do so from the top down, but that he was being pressured by the Pentagon and others to never do that, although he had given a speech urging “a peace race” together with the Soviet Union. He told the Quakers it would have to come from below.  According to the Quakers, JFK listened intently to their points, and before they left said with a smile,

“You believe in redemption don’t you?” 

Soon Kennedy was shaken to his core by the Cuban missile crisis when the world teetered on the brink of extinction and his insane military and “intelligence” advisers urged him to wage a nuclear war.  Not long after, he took a sharp top-down turn toward peace despite their fierce opposition, a turn so dramatic over the next year that it led to his martyrdom.  And he knew it would.  He knew it would.

So hope is not all lost.  There are great souls like JFK to inspire us. Their examples flash here and there. But to even begin to hope to change the future, a confrontation with our demonic past (and present) is first necessary, a descent into the dark truth that is terrifying in its implications.  False innocence must be abandoned.  Carl Jung, in “On the Psychology of the Unconscious,” addressed this with the words: 

It is a frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses – and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism. The individual seldom knows anything of this; to him, as an individual, it is incredible that he should ever in any circumstances go beyond himself. But let these harmless creatures form a mass, and there emerges a raging monster; and each individual is only one tiny cell in the monster’s body, so that for better or worse he must accompany it on its bloody rampages and even assist it to the utmost. Having a dark suspicion of these grim possibilities, man turns a blind eye to the shadow-side of human nature. Blindly he strives against the salutary dogma of original sin, which is yet so prodigiously true. Yes, he even hesitates to admit the conflict of which he is so painfully aware.

How can one describe men who would intentionally slaughter so many innocent people?  American history is rife with such examples up to the present day.  Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc. – the list is very long.  Savage wars carried out by men and women who own and run the country, and who try to buy the souls of regular people to join them in their pact with the devil, to acquiesce to their ongoing wicked deeds.  Such monstrous evil was never more evident than on August 6 and 9, 1945.

Unless we enter into deep contemplation of the evil that was released into the world with those bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are lost in a living hell without escape.  And we will pay.  Nemesis always demands retribution.  We have gradually been accepting rule by those for whom the killing of innocents is child’s play, and we have been masquerading as innocent and good children for whom the truth is too much to bear.  “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one,” Screwtape the devil tells his nephew, Wormwood, a devil in training, “the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”  That’s the road we’ve been traveling.

The projection of evil onto others works only so long.  We must reclaim our shadows and withdraw our projections.  Only the fate of the world depends on 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.

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

 

At the end of the Second World War, what insidious minded cabal of powerfully influential Americans pressured President Truman to order these two genocidal nuclear war crimes without even consulting his top commanding generals?

Apart from them having been war crimes, the same as the incendiary bombing of some 60 other Japanese cities, the Atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war committed while US warfare was being conducted under the commands of General Eisenhower and General MacArthur. The two Atomic bombs were dropped without their approval and without their being informed beforehand.

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of United States Army Forces in the Far East, who was not consulted before the atom bombing and destruction of two Japanese cities, saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” [1] “Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary,” wrote Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, [2] “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” [3]

Six years before the outbreak of WW II, as major US corporations began the rearming of Germany with US government acquiescence if not support, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last wealthy aristocratic insider US President, wrote to his confidant Colonel House,

“as you and I know, this government has been owned by a financial element in the centers of power since the days of Andrew Jackson.”[4]

(Jackson had been US president a hundred years earlier).

FDR most certainly meant that they both knew that the government “owned by a financial element” included all three branches, Legislative, Executive and Judicial, and therefore Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency.

So, after Roosevelt died, or was poisoned [?],[5]  persons, within that “financial element in the centers of power,” got to pressure ‘ordinary Joe’ Harry Truman to decide to incinerate hundreds of thousands of women, children, and ordinary Japanese men, young and old, to make an impression on the Russians, most of whose cities lay half in ruins among 26 million dead Soviet citizens.

AND…according to Scott Ritter,[6]

by August 30, 1945, a scant twenty-four days after the Japanese city of Hiroshima was subjected to nuclear holocaust, and ten days after Stalin ordered the acceleration of the Soviet bomb project, General Leslie Groves, who was in charge of the manufacture of Atomic bombs, was presented with a document that listed Soviet cities and industrial facilities, along with a calculation as to how many atomic bombs would be required to destroy each targeted area (Moscow and Leningrad were each assigned six atomic bombs). [7]

That “financial element in the centers of power,” that FDR wrote “owned the government,” was destined to be labelled ‘the Military-Industrial-Complex which would force President Eisenhower to commit many horrific crimes against humanity in Vietnam, Laos, Congo and Guatemala, and threaten to Atomic bomb North Korea (whose 38 cities had already been bombed flat).

During the Year Before WW II,  As Fascism Was Being Promoted in Europe President Franklin Roosevelt Described Fascism in the USA

In April of 1938, as fascist Italian and Nazi German warplanes mercilessly bombed Republican Spain in support of the fascist revolt, while the US, Britain and  France adhered to their non-intervention policy, Roosevelt addressed Congress and spoke of fascism in the United States of America.

“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. … Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the nation, one-tenth of 1 per cent of them owned 52 per cent of the assets of all of them;[8]

Shall we not understand the use of nuclear weapons and continually threatening to do so again, to be the result of fascism in the USA. President Roosevelt had been against dropping the A- bomb and had looked to negotiate a peaceful world with the Russians, who had suffered so inexpressively great death and destruction from the Nazi invasion during the war before finally destroying the German armies.

Or, shall we understand the crimes against humanity including the use of nuclear weapons on civilians in cities to have been committed by democracy and under a democratic system of government?

Image on the right: Ramsey Clark was renowned for being a strong advocate in defense of people at disadvantage against the U.S. establishment at home and abroad. | Photo: Twitter/@NehandaRadio

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, son of a Supreme Court Justice understood all this genocidal mayhem as having nothing to do with any American democracy or democratic system:

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark held that

“The United States is not a democracy, it is a plutocracy. The people don’t rule in the United States. Wealth rules, the corporations rule. They rule the Congress, they elect the president, they run the Pentagon. They own the media, which are the voices of the plutocracy”. [9]

A ‘plutocracy’ (Greek: πλοῦτος, ploutos, ‘wealth’ and κράτος, kratos, ‘power’) or plutarchy is a society that is ruled or controlled by people of great wealth or income.

The term plutocracy is generally used as a pejorative to describe or warn against an undesirable condition, and thatnations may become plutocratic through kleptocracy or rent-seeking.

Kleptocracy by definition is rule by thieves.

Is this Hiroshima anniversary article about thieves (fascists) having their top government official mega mass murdering with nuclear weapons under the mainstream media backed excuse of making the Japanese surrender? More urgently, should not the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings remind the world of the continuing super expensive activity in the invention and manufacture of ever more dangerous nuclear weapons and high tech delivery systems, while criminal media hypes a necessity for nuclear confrontation with designated adversaries China, Russia, Iran and North Korea?

In 1986, in his forward to nuclear physicist Micho Kaku’s ‘To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon’s Secret War Plans.’ Ramsey Clark Described His Government As Humanity’s Ever More Threatening and Treacherous Enemy and His Warning Is More Valid that Ever

“The consistent underlying psychology of the United States, which has held the lead in nuclear war capability and capacity throughout these 40 [now 76] years, should be understandable to anyone who has ever known a violent neighborhood bully. The government of Americans means to have its way through the use and threatened to use of superior force. It will lie. It will deceive. It will kill. It will escalate the threat and use of force to the highest level it dares. It will bluff, dangerous as that can be. It will do whatever is must to dominate. It does this in the face of the fact that its very preparation for a nuclear war may destroy all life. American war planners busily devised strategies for crippling the Soviet Union with revealing names like BROILER, FROLIC, SIZZLE, SHAKEDOWN, DROPSHOT, and VULTURE. The number of Soviet targets to be destroyed grew in number from 20 cities in December 1945 to 200 cities in 1949 and to 3261 total targets by 1957. The number of times the use of nuclear weapons has been contemplated by Americans is unbearable.

What is to be said of leaders with the mental acuity and moral perceptions revealed by these disclosed words and deeds? They are at best enemies of life without understanding. Psychologically, they disconnect all feeling for the beauty of the planet — a rose, an impala in motion, a baby’s hand, a Confucian analect, a Bach cantata, a parable of Jesus, pilgrims bathing in the Ganges, a crowd watching a soccer game in Rio, the subway in Moscow, the skyline in Manhattan. They cannot think or feel about the human meaning of what they do.

A single Trident II submarine can inflict more death than all prior wars in history. Twenty-four missiles, launched while submerged, each with seventeen independently targeted, maneuverable nuclear warheads five times more powerful than the atom bomb that destroyed Nagasaki, can travel 5,000 nautical miles to strike within 300 feet of 408 predetermined targets. Nuclear winter might follow even if no other weapons are used.

No nation or individual can be permitted to possess the power to destroy the world. An imperative need is for an informed and active public struggling for its right to survive.”

By now the public should be able to understand that the most dangerous “financial element in the centers of power” is the powerful group of investors in war mostly centered in the Wall Street port area of New York City’s island of Manhattan and that their nefarious reach is world wide.

Witness America’s ally the British launching of its new Trident submarine along with the announcement that it is increasing its production of nuclear warheads and claims the right to use nuclear weapons without explaining Britain’s right to endanger the lives of everyone on Earth and the Earth’s ability to sustain life.[10]

This is our present planetary predicament, but no situation, especially absurd situations, lasts forever. People asleep eventually wake up, of course not always in time, as in the cases of the First and Second World Wars, whose preparations went on in front of everyone’s noses and mesmerized silent acquiescence just as do all the extreme resources expenditure in nuclear weaponry today.

Conclusion

With the financial and human resources needed for humankind survival from the effects of global warming and planetary degradation it is apparent or will be apparent eventually that the present expenditure of financial and human resources on nuclear war preparation and ongoing wars may doom a viable future existence for a majority of the human race and its planetary home as we know it.

CIA overseen Western monopolized media continues to portray a contest between democracy and communism and socialism, but the real age old continuing cold war has been between plutocratic dictatorship or fascism and communist led socialism.

The memory of the horror of Hiroshima, should remind everyone of the danger and insanity of today’s frightening hair trigger nuclear confrontation currently promoted by the US government seemingly as ‘business as usual.’ Russian and Chinese cities as well as US cities remain targeted for nuclear destruction.

*

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.

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and renowned writer

Notes

1. Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

2.  Dwight Einsenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 38

3. Newsweek, 11/11/63

4. Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373

5. In April 1945, the end of World War II was finally in sight. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, recently elected to an unprecedented fourth term as president, was at his Warm Springs, Georgia, retreat, sitting for a painting. He reminded the artist that she only had 15 more minutes to work, then complained of a sudden, blinding headache, lost consciousness, and died.

Quite frankly, even someone as suspicious as I would have bought that story, hook, line, and sinker. Roosevelt had been in bad health for years, after a bout with polio left him dependent upon crutches or a wheelchair.

But within four years of Roosevelt’s demise, a book titled The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt was published. And while speculation about Roosevelt’s death has remained in the background, over the years it has continued to be one of the most persistent conspiracy theories out there. Even the infamous Colonel X of Oliver Stone’s JFK, L. Fletcher Prouty, has weighed in on the question. So there it is: was Roosevelt murdered or did he die by natural causes?

The fact of the matter is that all presidents accumulate enemies, And Roosevelt’s views in certain areas were likely to have created even more enemies for him. For instance, he:

Opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan
Opposed establishing Israel
Intended to dismantle the various British colonies scattered across the globe and help them become self-governing nations.

Just those positions alone would have painted a bull’s-eye on him several times over. Yes, FDR had his share of enemies, but could he have been murdered? What do those who buy into this idea hang their hats on?

Mostly, the “evidence” consists of allegations that cannot, today, be proven without exhuming Roosevelt’s body and conducting a full forensic examination. His last breakfast was supposedly laced with cyanide. His body turned black within hours of his death, an alleged result of arsenic poisoning. Although Georgia law demanded an autopsy, as in the case of JFK twenty years later, Roosevelt’s body was whisked out of the state without the legally mandated autopsy by state officials. That’s not an unsubstantiated allegation; that did happen. But that it was done for some nefarious reason is unsubstantiated.

The suspects are fascinating as well. Bill Hanson, in his book Closely Guarded Secrets, lays blame on the Nazis. Colonel Prouty says that Stalin advised presidential son Elliott Roosevelt that the “Churchill gang” had his father murdered, because they were afraid FDR’s postwar plans would destroy British influence around the globe. This was accomplished by a program of poisoning begun at the famous Yalta Conference and perhaps continued at Warm Springs. Emanuel Josephson, author of The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, points out that one of Roosevelt’s closest aides, General Edwin Watson, became suddenly ill and died on the return from Yalta, the implication being that he had been poisoned as well.

It is easy to make these claims, but difficult to back them up at this late date.The Murder of Franklin Delano Roosevelt

BY TONY HAYS, May 15, 2013

https://www.criminalelement.com/the-murder-of-franklin-delano-roosevelt-tony-hays/

6. Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

7. ATOMIC BOMBINGS AT 75: The Decision to Drop the Bomb on Japan and the Genesis of the Cold War

August 5, 2020, ConsortiumNews.com

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

8. A quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt

10. Britain Threatens Humanity with Nuclear Winter Extinction Without Explaining Why It Foresees War

May 8, 2021, Greanville Post


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

Red Menace # ? Joseph McCarthy 2.0

August 6th, 2021 by Philip A Farruggio

All Global Research articles 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 David Oshinsky’s fine biography of Senator Joseph McCarthy (A Conspiracy so Immense) we learn of the political climate in the early 1950s concerning the (supposed) threat of Communism.

What many do not understand about Sen. McCarthy was that he was not the first or the only force in this movement to uncover this ‘Red Menace’.

In 1950, state and local governments actually competed to see who would ‘crack down hardest’ on this Communist threat.

What I am about to repeat from Oshinsky’s book is not satire or any sort of humor… though it can be construed as such. Here goes:

Indiana forced professional wrestlers to sign a Loyalty Oath. Ohio declared Communists ineligible for unemployment benefits. Pennsylvania barred them from all state programs with but one exception – blind Communists would be cared for. In good ole Nebraska each school district was directed to inspect textbooks for ‘Foreign ideas’, and to set aside a few hours each week for the singing of patriotic songs. Birmingham, Alabama, ordered all Communists to leave town. Jacksonville, Florida, ( the state where ‘off the radar of reason’ Governor DeSantis now rules ) made it a crime to communicate with a former or present Red. When the city council of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, discussed a similar proposal, two Communists appeared to lobby against the passage of this order. One of them was jailed for ‘Disorderly conduct’. The other was run out of town.

In the Spring of that year, 1950, the anti Communist rhetoric paid big dividends in the primary elections. In California, Richard Nixon won the GOP Senatorial primary by red baiting President Truman. Nixon said, “The Commies don’t like it when I smash into him, but the more the Communists yell, the surer that I am in bringing the Red danger to the attention of the voters.”

With this pandemic still strangling us with its Delta Variant tentacles, the (what I call them) “Neo Fascists:” and the party they belong to are in full force.

The right wing media and internet sites are filled with rhetoric labeling anyone who wants to improve our general welfare as being ‘Socialists and Communists’. President Joe Biden, whom this writer has lambasted for decades for being a Neo Con empire loving tool, is now called a Red, as are most of his party.

This is the guy who still refuses (as did his buddy Obama and Ms Hillary) support for  Medicare for All, cutting this obscene military spending, closing many of our 1000+ foreign military bases, and really taxing the Super Rich instead of  through candy schemes. Yet, the pendulum and moral compass have become so out of whack that many Americans are confused… except of course the MAGA crowd. Imagine a governor of a state actually creating a law through  his minions in the statehouse which gives license for a driver to run over protestors if they get in the way. No consequences at all, just plow into them, even if they are peaceful First Amendment citizens, as once again ‘Right wing might makes right’. However, this governor, DeSantis, will overlook it when it is those patriotic Anti Communist Cubans in Miami who may be out there doing the rioting.

You see, the way this Neo Fascist mindset operates, if the pandemic began in China, and China is (technically) Communist, then it was a Communist attack on us.

If the federal government wants us to all be vaccinated and wear face masks during this variant surge, that is another signal that we are under a Communist or Socialist agenda. As the fool in Tallahassee continues to keep Florida open for business and schooling, with NO mandates or restrictions…. our state now accounts for 25% of the new cases of Covid, though Florida only has but less than 15% or our nation’s population.

Yet, instead of having a real ‘War on the Pandemic’ both the Republicans and Democrats still wish to create a new and better Cold War! Leading the charge, sadly, are many of the evangelicals and Zionists who find time to run to church each Sunday (and synagogue on Saturday) praying for their God to deliver them from this Red Menace.

If only the Jesus that I study and admire could make that visit to our crazy world and start running the lot of them out of their Churches and Temples.

*

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 author’s blog site, It’s The Empire, Stupid.

Philip A Farruggio is regular columnist on It’s the Empire… stupid website. He is also frequently posted on Nation of Change, and Countercurrents.org. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As George W. Bush entered the White House on 20 January 2001, having been granted a controversial election victory, his cabinet swiftly drew up a particularly hawkish foreign policy program. This included identifying a number of strategically important states to gain full ascendancy over, through military attack if needs be, and among the first countries selected for invasion was Afghanistan.

Due to America’s declining oil and natural gas stocks, the top priority for president Bush was to increase US influence over rich fossil fuel sources, constructing pipelines, refineries and other such infrastructure.

Contrary to what numerous mainstream outlets have claimed over the past two decades, the Bush administration was planning its invasion of Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks on America, which were then used as a pretext for armed intervention. Niaz Naik, Pakistan’s experienced former foreign secretary, has provided testimony on this.

Naik informed the BBC a week after 9/11 how he was told by senior US officials, in mid-July 2001, that Washington was preparing military action against Afghanistan (1). Naik was informed by the Americans that their invasion of Afghanistan would begin, at the latest, in the middle of October 2001, before the first Afghan snow flurries arrived. The US Armed Forces would launch their attack from bases in Tajikistan, the Central Asian country, which borders Afghanistan to the north. US advisers were present in Tajikistan by the summer of 2001.

Consequently, Bush was planning to wage a war in Afghanistan at least 8 weeks prior to the 9/11 atrocities, and indeed most probably longer than that. Naik’s comments are supported by General Hamid Gul, the former head of ISI, Pakistan’s leading intelligence agency. General Gul believed that US plans to engage militarily in Afghanistan “predated 9/11” (2). It is not terribly surprising that he came to such a conclusion. The 9/11 attacks obviously occurred on 11 September 2001, while the US-led invasion of Afghanistan commenced on 7 October 2001 – that is 26 days after 9/11.

It is not possible to prepare and initiate a large-scale military assault in less than 4 weeks, especially against a country on the other side of the world. As any commander would surely admit the planning alone takes months, before the offensive can begin.

World Trade CentreUS drones, such as the RQ-1 Predator, were hovering above the Afghan skies before 9/11. These unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were partaking in reconnaissance sorties, and collecting other information about Afghanistan, in preparation for the invasion. A US military operation in Afghanistan was not concerned with either “combating terrorists” or capturing Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda chief. President Bush said 5 months after the offensive had begun on 13 March 2002, “I am truly not that concerned about him [Bin Laden]”. The authenticity of this remark was confirmed by White House transcripts. (3)

As early as December 2001 Bin Laden was not even in Afghanistan. He was instead further south in Pakistan’s tribal regions (4). US General Tommy Franks, the commander overseeing the military operations in Afghanistan, insisted just one month into the invasion on 8 November 2001, “We have not said that Osama bin Laden is a target of this effort”.

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, outlined how “our goal has never been to get Bin Laden”. (5)

What of Bush’s state of mind? He reportedly informed diplomats at an Israel-Palestine summit in Egypt during June 2003, “I am driven with a mission from God” who the president said had told him “’George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’” and “’George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did” (6). Incredibly, the former CIA director Robert Gates (image left) acknowledged in his memoirs that those in Washington, including himself, had little comprehension of Afghanistan as a country.

The Americans didn’t understand its complex tribal make-up, ethnic groups and rivalries. Gates wrote that, “nearly always, we begin military engagements – wars – profoundly ignorant about our adversaries and about the situation on the ground”. (7)

One need only glance at Afghanistan’s position on the map, in south-central Asia, to grasp why Bush’s White House was so interested in that country. Afghanistan is situated close to the oil and gas rich Middle East, while it lies beside the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. This century, it has been discovered that Afghanistan contains millions of tons of lucrative mineral resources, from copper and gold to lithium (8). Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was well known in Washington, as the assessment of its natural resources was conducted in part by the US Geological Survey, a scientific branch of the American government.

Furthermore, Bush’s neoconservative officials wanted to construct oil and gas pipelines across Afghan terrain, to benefit US energy corporations. Bush is a former Texas oil executive dating to the 1970s, and his presidential campaign in 2000 received large donations from American fossil fuel firms, such as ExxonMobil. This assisted in him winning the White House (9). Vice-president Dick Cheney was, from 1995 to 2000, the chief executive of Halliburton, a noted US energy company. Cheney’s close links to the oil industry would continue for many years.

Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s National Security Advisor and then Secretary of State, was a director for 10 years at the Chevron Corporation, America’s third biggest oil company and the largest investor in the resource rich Caspian Sea (a body of water located a few hundred miles north-west of Afghanistan). Rice resigned from her position at Chevron on 15 January 2001, and five days later she became the National Security Advisor. Chevron had previously named an oil tanker after her, the “Condoleezza Rice”. (10)

Other Bush officials were centrally involved in the oil business, like the Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, a close friend of the president’s. Worth mentioning too is Zalmay Khalilzad, the Afghan-born American diplomat who Bush relied upon for information on Afghanistan. In the 1990s, the pro-war Khalilzad worked for a time as a consultant to the US oil giant UNOCAL (Union Oil Company of California), which was involved in constructing a Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, to run from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. (11)

Part of the thinking behind the US invasion of Afghanistan, was to allow UNOCAL to build two other oil pipelines: one across Afghanistan through neighbouring Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, while the other – the Central Asia Oil Pipeline Project (CAOPP) – would stretch for 1,050 miles from Chardzhou in Turkmenistan, which borders Afghanistan.

The Brazilian historian Moniz Bandeira wrote of US thinking, “This would prevent Azerbaijani oil from passing through Russia. And this objective was clear” (12). There were also plans to build a gas pipeline, from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan and on to Pakistan. A main factor in US government strategy was to further erode Russian strength, by moving into its previous domains, Central Asia and the Caucasus, with Afghanistan being a pawn in the great game. American control over Central Asia would in addition hamper Chinese power, while a US presence in the region posed a significant threat to arch enemy Iran.

The Americans had, since 1997, been conducting an array of military exercises in Central Asia. Three years before, they had established NATO’s so-called Partnership for Peace Program, with the ex-Soviet republics in mind. Bill Richardson, the Energy Secretary to Bush’s predecessor Bill Clinton, said that the one-time Soviet states were “all about America’s energy security” and “it’s very important to us that the pipeline map and politics come out right”. (13)

Bush was intent on gaining mastery over oil sources outside of the volatile Middle East, which there was no guarantee they could continue relying on. Some estimates in Washington indicated that the US could obtain, from the largely untapped wells of Central Asia, over 80% of America’s entire oil needs by the year 2050. (14)

US planners were focusing increasingly on the major fossil fuel reserves in the Caspian Sea, our planet’s largest landlocked source of water, considerably bigger in size than Britain. In 1998 Cheney, who was then an adviser to the Central Asian countries regarding oil infrastructure, had said, “I cannot think of a time when we had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian” (15). Its waters flow across the frontiers of Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.

The 9/11 attacks provided the White House with a remarkable justification to expand US global hegemony (16). Almost immediately following 9/11, Washington ramped up its military presence in Central Asia. By February 2002, the Americans had established bases in each of the five Central Asian states. This would facilitate US Army operations in nearby Afghanistan. Moreover, the Central Asian country of Turkmenistan contains the 6th largest gas reserves in the world, while Kazakhstan possesses the 12th biggest oil sources on earth and the 10th largest coal deposits.

The US military mission was supposedly to fight a “war on terror” in Afghanistan, for humanitarian purposes. This was, of course, propaganda relayed to the public through a pliant and naive media. It is not feasible to overcome terrorism by force of arms, and this in fact greatly exacerbates the problem; somewhat like smashing a hornet’s nest with a sledgehammer. Far from pursuing a war against terrorism, the US government was attempting to augment its world power and imperial goals, in order for example as Bandeira wrote “to ensure an environment that would make the construction of pipelines by the Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) possible, carrying the oil from Uzbekistan to the Indian Ocean”. (17)

UNOCAL would in 2005 be taken over by Chevron, the same corporation where Rice, the National Security Advisor, was formerly a board member. The Bush regime wanted also to assume control over the resource plenty Caucasus, particularly Azerbaijan, as the Third Reich had attempted to do 60 years before. Azerbaijan and Georgia, two former Soviet states, were essential in the transport of heavy American weaponry and NATO troops, which would be bound for Afghanistan not far to the east of Azerbaijan.

Germany’s president Horst Köhler said years later, in an interview over the radio, that German soldiers operating alongside the Americans were stationed abroad “to protect our interests, for example free trade routes” (18). Köhler let slip that the thousands of German troops under the NATO banner, such as in Afghanistan, were not there to fight terrorism after all, but their role was to safeguard Western commercial interests. Köhler was promptly forced to resign the presidency, because his comments were presumably too close to the mark.

Following the Soviet Union’s collapse, NATO has become a worldwide intervention force, still firmly under US auspices. During this time, NATO has executed often brutal military actions such as in Bosnia (from the early 1990s), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (from 2001) and Libya (2011). Among NATO’s aims are, as its secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer remarked bluntly in June 2007, “NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is directed for the West”; and to protect sea routes used by oil tankers along with other “crucial infrastructure” of the world energy system. So much for NATO’s stated goal of countering “Russian aggression”.

While Bush and company in the first months of 2001 were formulating their invasion of Afghanistan, at about the same time they were starting to sketch plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Two months into the Bush presidency, in March 2001 vice-president Cheney’s Energy Task Force had already developed maps outlining the oil refineries, pipelines and terminals that the US would construct in Iraq, once they had toppled Saddam through military force. (19)

These plans were beginning about 6 months before 9/11. Saddam was once a valued US ally, and his human rights violations were ignored when he was obeying orders. By early this century, however, Saddam was showing too much independence. The Iraqi dictator had signed contracts with Russia’s energy firm, Lukoil; he was pursuing talks with the French multinational Total, a fossil fuel corporation; while he was substituting the dollar for the euro as the currency for oil transactions. (20)

*

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.

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

Notes

1 BBC News, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban’ [Afghanistan]”, 18 September 2001

2 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017) p. 31

3 Ibid., p. 143

4 Arnaud de Borchgrave, “Elvis bin Laden”, Atlantic Council, 27 July 2010

5 Jeremy R. Hammond, “Ex-ISI Chief says Purpose of New Afghan Intelligence Agency RAMA is ‘to destabilize Pakistan’”, Foreign Policy Journal, 12 August 2009

6 Ewen MacAskill, “George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq’”, The Guardian, 7 October 2005

7 Robert Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (Knopf; 14 January 2014) End chapter, Reflections

8 Charles Q. Choi, “Rare Earth: Afghanistan sits on $1 trillion in minerals”, NBC, 5 September 2014

9 Brendan Montague, “George W. Bush elected in 2000 ‘floating on oil money’”, The Ecologist, 5 October 2018

10 Carla Marinucci, “Critics knock naming oil tanker Condoleezza”, SFGate, 5 April 2001

11 Graham Winfrey, “Bush’s oil cronies: Where are they now?”, Business Insider, 25 January 2010

12 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 41

13 John Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World (Verso Books, 20 February 2003) p. 111

14 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 29

15 Pilger, The New Rulers Of The World, p. 110

16 Ibid., p. 109

17 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 45

18 Sebastian Fischer, Veit Medick, “Köhler sparked a new war debate”, Der Spiegel, 27 May 2010

19 Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 81

20 Ibid.

Featured image: George W. Bush visits Hamid Karzai, who participated in the Mujahideen in the past and led the puppet government that replaced the Taliban.


waronterrorism.jpgby Michel Chossudovsky
ISBN Number: 9780973714715
List Price: $24.95
click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

They Killed People for Vaccine Profits

August 6th, 2021 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles 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.

***

So far most Covid deaths resulted from withholding treatment with known cures.  Note that health authorities approved the use on emergency basis of an untested vaccine whose efficacy and safety was unknown, but the same alleged “Covid Crisis” was not used to justify the use of known cures on an emergency basis. Health authorities claimed they did not have official clinical trials proving the safety of HCQ and Ivermectin as a Covid treatment even though both had been used for many decades without adverse effects for treatment of lupus and malaria prevention and other dangers. In many countries HCQ and Ivermectin are available over the counter without prescription.

If the dire predictions of some experts about the threat the spike protein “vaccine” poses to health and longevity are on the mark, the vaccines will sicken and kill many multiples of those who died from the Covid virus.

Greg Hunter is a former TV reporter who would not lie for the establishment and was fired.  His interviews are with qualified dissidents who challenge the official narratives and are well worth watching.

*

International award winning journalist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says the evidence is clear Covid vaccines are not safe and effective.  Dr. Roberts says,

“So, why the push for overriding everyone’s civil rights to vaccinate when you have information it doesn’t protect.  It doesn’t reduce infections, and we have all these cases of illnesses caused by the vaccine.  We also see Biden saying, quick, let’s give it full approval.  Why do they want to give it full approval?  If they have to admit there are cures after all, they have to stop using the vaccine.  This will affect the profits.  This will affect all the inflated stock prices of the vaccine companies.  They will all collapse. . . . So, they are protecting the investment in the Covid deception.”

Roberts also points out,

“We have a government pushing forward with a policy that Pfizer’s own internal documents show it is 120% erroneous.  That is what needs to be explained.  Why, when the information is now out, and not just on the internet, but in the presstitute media itself in the New York Times and in the Washington Post.  We now know the vaccine (Pfizer) does quote, ‘nothing to reduce the overall risk of death from Covid,’ closed quote.  The so-called ‘breakthroughs’ are concentrated among the vaccinated, not among the unvaccinated.  Also, the vaccinated spread the virus as easily as the unvaccinated.  This is in the internal (Pfizer) document that got out, and it’s been in the New York Times and the Washington Post. . . . It also says to proceed with vaccination is a huge serious mistake.  It makes no sense. . . .  There are agendas that they kept secret.  We know one of them is profit.  One of them is control.  Then the question remains, are there other darker agendas such as population control?  Did they want a vaccine that makes women infertile?  Did they want a vaccine that kills people in order to reduce population?  We don’t know.  But given that they are pushing ahead to vaccinate the unvaccinated when they know for a fact it is going to do more harm than good, it gives a lot of credibility to the so-called conspiracy theories.”

Dr. Roberts also points out, only a small number of the adverse vaccine reactions are reported.  Roberts says for a more accurate number, multiply the 1.8 million European injuries  and 18,000 to 20,000 deaths by a factor of 10.  Roberts says,

“You get 18 million injuries and 200,000 deaths in Europe.  Do the same math in America, and you get a huge number, and that is only the United States and Europe.  So, clearly, these potential numbers far exceed the exaggerated amount of Covid deaths. . . . The fear generated in the first year of Covid makes people terrified, and it leads them to get the vaccine. . . . Now, they are getting confused, and they are telling the vaccinated you are not protected, you have to wear a mask even though you are vaccinated. . . . This is the reason the narrative is falling apart.  This is also why they are so determined to get the experimental basis off so it won’t be challenged by cures . . .such as Ivermectin and HCQ.”

Dr. Roberts contends,

“They are withholding cures from people so they can continue the vaccine profits.  This is grounds for arrest and indictment of every one of them:  Fauci, the Head of the FDA, the Head of the CDC and everybody involved.  This is legitimate evidence for arresting them, indicting them and putting them on trial.  They killed people for vaccine profits by withholding cures. . . . The deaths from Covid, but they would not let them use HCQ, Ivermectin, and now they are blocking a cure from Eli Lilly.  This, I think, is the only case we need to make. . . . We have proof they withheld treatment.  We know that.  It’s not speculative and not a theory.  It is an absolute known fact.  They withheld treatment, and they are continuing to withhold treatment so they can sell a vaccine.”

Watch the interview below.

*

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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Iran Embraces Its Eurasian Future

August 6th, 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.

***

Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi was sworn in  as the 8th president of Iran this Thursday at the Majlis (Parliament), two days after being formally endorsed  by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei.

Representatives of the UN secretary-general; OPEC; the EU; the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU); the Inter-Islamic Union; and quite a few heads of state and Foreign Ministers were at the Majlis, including Iraq President Barham Salih and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.

The Islamic Republic of Iran now enters a new era in more ways than one. Khamenei himself outlined its contours in a short, sharp speech, ‘The Experience of Trusting the US’.

Khamenei’s strategic analysis, conveyed even before the final result of the JCPOA negotiations in Vienna in 2015, which I covered in my Asia Times ebook Persian Miniatures, turned out to be premonitory: “During the negotiations I repeatedly said they don’t uphold their promises.” So, in the end, “the experience tells us this is a deadly poison for us.” During the Rouhani administration, Khamenei adds, “it became clear that trusting the West doesn’t work”.

With perfect timing, a new, six-volume book, Sealed Secret, co-written by outgoing Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and two top JCPOA negotiators, Ali Akbar Salehi and Seyed Abbas Araghchi (who’s still involved in the current, stalled Vienna debate) will be published this week, for the moment only in Farsi.

Professor Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran summed up for me the road map ahead:

“Iran’s foreign policy decisions are pretty clear. Iran will be putting less emphasis on Western nations, especially European, and more emphasis on the Global South, the East, neighboring countries, and of course that will include China and Russia. That doesn’t mean the Iranians are going to ignore Europe altogether, if they decide to return to the JCPOA. The Iranians would accept if they abide by their obligations. So far, we have seen no sign of that whatsoever.”

Marandi could not help referring to Khamenei’s speech:

“It’s pretty clear; he’s saying, ‘we don’t trust the West, these last 8 years showed that’, he’s saying the next administration should learn from the experience of these 8 years.”

Yet the main challenge for Raisi will not be foreign policy, but the domestic framework, with sanctions still biting hard:

“With regard to economic policy, it will be tilting more towards social justice and turning away from neoliberalism, expanding the safety net for the disenfranchised and the vulnerable.”

It’s quite intriguing to compare Marandi with the views of a seasoned Iranian diplomat who prefers to remain anonymous, and very well positioned as an observer of the domestic conflict:

“During Rouhani’s 8 years, contrary to the Supreme Leader’s advice, the government spent lots of time on negotiations, and they have not been investing on internal potential. Anyhow the 8 years are now finished, and contrary to Rouhani’s promises we currently have Iran’s worst economic and financial record in 50 years.”

The diplomat is adamant on “the importance of paying attention to our internal capacities and abilities, while having powerful economic relations with our neighbors as well as Russia, China, Latin America, South Africa as well as maintaining mutual respectable ties with Europeans and the US government, if it changes its behavior and accepts Iran as it is and not always trying to overthrow the Iranian state and harm its people by any possible means.”

Iranians are heirs to a tradition of at least 2,500 years of fine diplomacy. So once again our interlocutor had to stress, “the Supreme Leader has never, ever said or believed we should cut our relations with Europeans. Quite the opposite: he deeply believes in the notion of ‘dynamic diplomacy’, even concerning the US; he said multiple times we have no problem with the US if they deal with us with respect.”

And now, let’s time travel

There are no illusions in Tehran that Iran under Raisi, much more than under Rouhani, will remain the target of multiple “maximum pressure” and/or Hybrid War tactics deployed by Washington, Tel Aviv and NATOstan, crude false flags included, with the whole combo celebrated by US Think Tankland’s analyses penned by “experts” in Beltway cubicles.

All that is irrelevant in terms of what really matters ahead in the Southwest Asia chessboard.

The late, great René Grousset, in his 1951 classic L’Empire des Steppes, has pointed out “how Iran, renewing itself for fifty centuries”, has “always given proof of astonishing continuity.” It was because of this strength that Iranian civilization, as much as Chinese civilization, has assimilated all foreigners that conquered is soil, from Seljuks to Mongols: “Every time, because of the radiance of its culture, Iranism reappeared with renewed vitality, on the road to a new renaissance.”

The possibility of a “new renaissance”, now, implies a step beyond the “neither East or West” first conceptualized by Ayatollah Khomeini: it’s rather a back to the (Eurasian) roots, Iran reviving its past to tackle the new, multipolar, future.

The political heart of Iran lies in the sophisticated urban organization of the northern plateau, the result of a rolling, pluri-millennial process. All along Grousset’s “fifty centuries”, the plateau has been the house of Iranian culture and the stable heart of the state.

Around this central space there are plenty of territories historically and linguistically linked to Persia and Iran: in Eastern Anatolia, in Central Asia and Afghanistan, in the Caucasus, in Western Pakistan. Then there are Shi’ite territories of other ethnic groups, mostly Arab, in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (the Zaidites) and the Persian Gulf (Bahrain, the Shi’ites in Hasa in Saudi Arabia).

This is the Shi’ite arc – evolving in a complex Iranization process that is foremost political and religious, and not cultural and linguistic. Outside of Iran, I have seen in my travels how Arab Shi’ites in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gulf, Dari/Farsi Shi’ites in Afghanistan, those of Pakistan and India, and Turcophone Shi’ites in Azerbaijan look up towards political Iran.

So Iran’s large zone of influence relies mostly on Shi’ism, and not on Islamic radicalism or the Persian language. It’s Shi’ism that allows political power in Iran to keep a Eurasian dimension – from Lebanon to Afghanistan and Central Asia – and that reflects once again Grousset’s “continuity” when he refers to Persian/Iranian history.

From Ancient History to the medieval era, it was always out of imperial projects, born in Southwest Asia and /or the Mediterranean basin, that came the drive to attempt the creation of a Eurasian territory.

The Persians, who were halfway between Mediterranean Europe and Central Asia, were the first who tried to build a Eurasian empire from Asia to the Mediterranean, but they were halted in their expansion towards Europe by the Greeks in the 5th century B.C.

Then it was up to Alexander The Great, in pure badass blitzkrieg mode, to venture all the way to Central Asia and India, de facto founding the first Eurasian empire. Which happened to materialize, to a large extent, the Persian empire.

Then something even more extraordinary happened: the simultaneous presence of the Parthian and Kushan empires between the Roman Empire and the Han Empire during the first two centuries of the first millennium.

It was this interaction that first allowed commercial and cultural trade and connectivity between the two extremities of Eurasia, between the Romans and the Han Chinese.

Yet the largest Eurasian territorial space, founded between the 7th and 10th centuries, following the Arab conquests, were the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. Islam was at the heart of these Arab conquests, remixing previous imperial compositions, from Mesopotamia to the Persians, Greeks and Romans.

Historically, that was the first truly Eurasian economic, cultural and political arc, from the 8th to the 11th century, before Genghis Khan monopolized The Big Picture.

All that is very much alive in the collective unconscious of Iranians and Chinese. That’s why the China-Iran strategic partnership deal is much more than a mere $400 billion economic arrangement. It’s a graphic manifestation of what the revival of the Silk Roads is aiming at. And it looks like Khamenei had already seen which way the (desert) wind was blowing years before the 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.

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 Silent Crow News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

History teaches us that eventually the fog of propaganda, no matter how thick and unrelenting, is dissipated by the sun of truth.

Not really: By truthtellers such as Michel Chossudovsky.

It often takes decades or much longer for that to happen and even then it takes openness of mind and spirit to accept it in all its disturbing reality, for propaganda often enters into the deepest recesses of the mind and soul and many find they must forever defend it even when it is patently exposed.  Even if the truth is finally accepted, however, the damage has been done.

Presently, we are far along the path to worldwide totalitarianism as a result of the corona crisis, what is euphemistically called the “New Normal.”  As C. J. Hopkins, a wise analyzer of this pathological development, has said:

We have watched as the New Normal transformed our societies into paranoid, pathologized, authoritarian dystopias where people now have to show their “papers” to see a movie or get a cup of coffee and publicly   display their ideological conformity to enter a supermarket and buy their groceries.

This crackdown on freedom and the growth of elite control has dramatically accelerated in recent days and only those blind to history refuse to see it.  It’s an old story with a new twist; create enough fear – this time with a virus – and many people will bow to the authorities. Censor dissenting voices and many will make believe it isn’t happening and that their freedoms are not at risk.  The great psychoanalyst and sociologist Erich Fromm called this refusal the “escape from freedom.”  This perennial human tendency to submit to authority whose lust for power is equally never-ending is only thwarted by the unquenchable thirst for freedom exhibited by courageous freedom fighters.

Michel Chossudovsky is a freedom fighter.

In the case of the corona crisis propaganda campaign, the truth has been available nearly from the start, and Chossudovsky, with his website Global Research, has been one of the most unrelenting voices of sanity and freedom.

Global Research has for decades been on top of the most important issues of our times, from the events of September 11, 2001 through the Iraq War, the endless so-called war on terror, the U.S. wars on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Serbia, Palestine, Cuba, Chile, Nicaragua, etc., the multiple financial crises, CIA coups and assassinations of domestic and foreign leaders, the new Cold wars against Russia and China, right up to today’s world-wide covid propaganda war.

Started by Michel Chossudovsky on September 9, 2001, the website is part of The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal, Canada.

Global Research has been a beacon of light for twenty dark years.  It has ignored no topic, no matter how controversial.  It has published an enormous amount of writing and research by many writers, exploring matters from multiple viewpoints, including conflicting ones.  Like any website that posts an enormous amount to engender debate, the quality of the articles varies, but on average it is very high.  Chossudovsky’s own writing has been outstanding and comprehensive.

Starting in January 2020, at the start of the corona crisis, he has been assiduously tracking its development in article after article. (Other contributors, such as Peter Koenig, et al., have also published very important work on the crisis at GR.)  Michel’s work (he is my friend and colleague and I am a long-time contributor) on this is similar to what he has done for twenty years since the murderous events of September 11, 2001 and the official propaganda about them. Global Research is a deep repository of research and writing exposing the official lies about those attacks.

In December 2020, he released a free E-Book entitled The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” of his corona crisis writings and has continually updated it, the last being on July 27, 2021.

In addition, he continues to write regular powerful articles on the corona propaganda and other matters.

What follows is a short quasi-review of Chossudovsky’s extraordinary contribution to exposing the vast official lies surrounding COVID-19. I say quasi because it will serve no purpose to repeat much of what he writes. Like all true gifts, his E-Book is given freely, but in the spirit of genuine gift exchange, readers of it should pass it on to others, for we are at a world-wide turning-point that has few if any precedents.  If you doubt that, a reading of his work will disabuse you of your reticence in recognizing its reality.  He introduces the E Book with these words:

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.  Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”. The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair. More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.

It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy. And there is ample evidence that the decision to close down a national economy (resulting in poverty and unemployment) will inevitably have an impact on patterns of morbidity and mortality. 

Since early February 2020, the Super Rich have cashed in on billions of dollars.

Amply documented, it’s the largest redistribution of global wealth in World history, accompanied by a process of Worldwide impoverishment. 

Those are strong words, but they are accurate.  Perhaps even an understatement.  For we have now entered the phase of this crisis where the authorities have tripled their efforts at intimidation and fear-mongering to coerce those whom Anthony Fauci recently called “the recalcitrant ones” to submit to their control.

Obey or else is being shouted daily from the corporate media’s headlines, even as they report a mélange of facts that contradict their own claims in a stupefying display of intentionally created chaos.  Their method is to fragment and polarize populations while openly announcing their intentions to mock the public who can still think and choose to do their own research.  Those who fail to do so now and simply accept the authorities propaganda will bear a heavy burden of guilt in the years to come.

Chossudovsky’s E-Book will be an eye-opener for those who have not yet faced the facts.  He chronicles the historical evolution of the corona crisis from its start and provides a timeline; explains clearly what Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are, how they are allegedly identified and estimated; lays out its devastating mental, economic and financial consequences; shows how its lockdowns have produced mass worldwide poverty and unemployment and enriched billionaires, etc.

All this based on fraudulent PCR tests, fake statistics of “cases” and deaths from Covid-19, and the promotion of experimental and unapproved so-called vaccines that are in reality very dangerous “messenger” mRNA shots that are being mandated across the board.

To what end?  A high-tech digital dystopia controlled by and for the interests of the world’s wealthiest ruling elites.  Regular people need to reject their seductive lies, for they will find that they themselves, if they have bought into the vaccine propaganda, have already seen their numbers reduced by a demonic plan created by evil nihilists.

A reading of – and a watching of the videos included in – this E-Book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined.

Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place.  And if you find what I say here to be true, support Global Research in its twentieth anniversary year. It was right about 9/11, Iraq, the war on terror, etc., and is right again about the Corona Crisis.

That is quite a legacy in twenty young years.

***

Link to the E-Book:

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

***

Link to Michel Chossudovsky’s Archive

*

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 author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

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

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


Edward Curtin 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

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

August 6th, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

The US-Japanese Alliance Against China Risks World War

By Christopher Black, August 05, 2021

Two growing empires went to war in the Pacific against each other but in the end the defeated and occupied Japanese soon joined the growing American empire in its drive for world domination and Korea was the first proof of their fealty to the US, a fealty tolerated not only because of their defeat but also because American capital and Japanese capital have the same interest; the subjugation and exploitation of China.

Hiroshima: A “Military Base” according to President Harry Truman

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 05, 2021

Did you know that tactical nuclear weapons or so-called mininukes with an explosive capacity between one third and six times a Hiroshima bomb are considered, according to scientific opinion, on contract to the Pentagon as “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”?

The Enduring Myth of Hiroshima

By John LaForge, August 05, 2021

The U.S. atomic destruction of 140,000 people at Hiroshima and 70,000 at Nagasaki was never “necessary” because Japan was already smashed, no land invasion was needed and Japan was suing for peace. The official myth that “the bombs saved lives” by hurrying Japan’s surrender can no longer be believed except by those who love to be fooled.

When Did CDC Know Their Approved COVID-19 Tests, Faulty PCR Testing Would Make Case and Death Data Unreliable?

By Frontline Doctors, August 05, 2021

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to come under fire for changing positions on masking and a lack of transparency surrounding adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines, new concerns about the agency’s guidance over PCR tests has prompted America’s Frontline Doctors to consider filing a Freedom of Information Request.

Video: Canadian Court Victory Proves COVID-19 Is a Hoax and All Restrictions Have Now Been Dropped

By Kenan SonOfEnos, August 05, 2021

Patriot Patrick King represented himself in court after being fined $1200 dollars for protesting against the Covid-Hoax, he slew the beast and emerged VICTORIOUS.

Massive Death Wave Coming Amidst Vaccine Mandates While Truth and Revolution Fill the Air

By Joachim Hagopian, August 05, 2021

Truth and revolution are in the air. With the unveiling of so many known health hazards linked directly to the Big Pharma industry’s Covid-19 vaccine rollout, the international crime cabal is now on the defensive, using the adage that the best defense is a good offense.

When Will They Lift the Blockade? Iraq and Cuba

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, August 05, 2021

The humanitarian and economic catastrophe that engulfed the nation remained largely concealed. Endless drama surrounding U.N. weapons inspections filled any news-time allocated for Iraq. Except for a steady flow of fearsome stories about Saddam Hussein.

Black August and the Legacy of Liberation Struggles

By Abayomi Azikiwe, August 05, 2021

Since 1979 when prisoners at the San Quentin Correctional Facility in California declared the month of August as a period of commemoration honoring political detainees along with those who have sacrificed their well-being and lives in the movement for African emancipation, this holiday has grown in recognition and participation.

58% of Infant Deaths Reported to VAERS Occurred Within 3 Days of Vaccination, Research Shows

By Prof. Brian S. Hooker, August 04, 2021

In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

The War in Afghanistan: The Real ‘Crime of the Century’ Behind the Opioid Crisis

By Max Parry, August 04, 2021

Corporate media would have us believe it is simply fortuitous that during the exact time opioid overdose deaths in the U.S. began to increase in the early 2000s, the so-called War on Terror began with the conquest and plundering of a country abroad that has since become the world’s epicenter for opium production.

American Medical Association Pushes to Remove Sex from Birth Certificates

By Haley Strack, August 04, 2021

A person’s biological sex would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use. Requiring public designation of sex, the AMA said, could lead to discrimination against transgenders when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Hiroshima: A “Military Base” According to President Harry Truman

All Global Research articles 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 it was announced through international media outlets in late July that the African Union Commission Chair, Moussa Faki Mahamat, had granted observer status to the State of Israel, the response has been swift in condemnations from several AU member-states.

This action which was carried out absent of any consultations with the 55 member-states and other observer status entities such as the Palestinian Authority (PA), has been described as a violation of the AU’s own legal protocols related to international relations.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa described the move by Mahamat as “appalling” particularly in light of the recent Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) bombardments of the besieged Gaza Strip and the continuing attacks by the police and IDF on Palestinian civilians in the other occupied territories.

Image on the right: South African President Nelson Mandela in solidarity with Palestine

South Africa under the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) has maintained strong ties with the Palestinian Authority. Within South Africa itself there has been a vigorous Palestine solidarity movement for many years. President Nelson Mandela (1918-2013), the founding leader of Democratic South Africa after 1994, defended the ANC’s position on Palestinian liberation as early as 1990 when he visited the United States after being released from 27 years of imprisonment under the apartheid regime.

Israel has been referred to as an apartheid state necessitating international sanctions and isolation from the world body of nations. However, it is the U.S. under successive administrations which has funded the State of Israel to the tune of billions annually while providing military assistance along with diplomatic cover. The current administration of President Joe Biden had refused to even call for a ceasefire when the IDF was destroying the entire infrastructure of Gaza, denying the Palestinians access to holy sites in Jerusalem and forcefully removing the Arab residents of neighborhoods designated by Tel Aviv as Jewish land.

It was the advent of mass demonstrations largely led by Arab Americans in cities such as Dearborn, Michigan which pressured the Biden administration to push Israel to halt the blanket bombings in Gaza and the brutal attacks in other areas of the occupied areas of Palestine. A coalition of U.S. Congresspeople were threatening to hold up an allocation of additional aid from Washington to Tel Aviv. After the declaration of a ceasefire brokered by Egypt, the same anti-Palestinian policies have continued.

Image below: Dearborn demonstration for al-Nakba Day with Palestinian Youth Movement

A South African government statement issued on July 29 from the Department of International Cooperation and Relations said of the AU Commission Chair’s action which granted observer status to Israel emphasized that:

“The decision by the AU Commission in this context is inexplicable. The unjust actions committed by Israel offend the letter and spirit of the Charter of the African Union. The AU embodies the aspirations of all Africans and reflects their confidence that it can lead the continent through the practical expression of the goals of the Charter, especially on issues relating to self-determination and decolonisation. Israel continues to illegally occupy Palestine in complete defiance of its international obligations and relevant UN resolutions. It is therefore incomprehensible that the AU Commission chooses to reward Israel at a time when its oppression of Palestinians has been demonstrably more brutal. The South African government will ask the Chairperson of the Commission to provide a briefing to all member states on this decision which we hope will be discussed by the Executive Council and the Assembly of Heads of States and Government.”

Other states such as Botswana, Namibia and Algeria are also speaking out against the failure of the AU Commission to live up to its responsibilities as outlined in the charter. The AU Commission based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia is tasked with defending the interests of the organization under the direction of the Assembly and Executive Council. (See this)

An article from the China Global Television Network (CGTN) says that:

“Botswana has dissociated itself from the African Union’s decision to grant observer status to the State of Israel. In a statement, Botswana’s Ministry of international affairs and cooperation stated that the issue is a sensitive matter that should have been brought to the attention of all AU Member States, before such a decision was reached, ‘particularly given the longstanding conflict between Israel and Palestine.’ Moreover, the government of Botswana maintains that the continued occupation of Palestine by the State of Israel goes against the letter and spirit of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, as well as its obligation to respect and implement the respective Resolutions of the United Nations.’ The statement read in part. ‘Botswana wishes to reiterate its unwavering support and solidarity with the Palestinian Authority against Israeli occupation. Botswana wishes to reiterate its unwavering support and solidarity with the Palestinian Authority against Israeli occupation.”

The Republic of Namibia, which is also a member of the sub-regional Southern African Development Community (SADC) along with South Africa and Botswana, voiced its strong objection to the arbitrary maneuvers by the Commission Chair. In a statement from the Foreign Ministry, it expresses similar sentiments as South Africa and Botswana.

Namibia emphasized:

“Granting observer status to an occupying power is contrary to the principles and objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union, particularly at a time when the State of Israel is increasing its acts of oppression in total violation of international law and disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people…. In this regard, Namibia will officially submit its objection/reservation to the chairperson of the AU Commission, in due course.”

Comparisons to the Western Sahara and Imperialist Militarism

These apparent policy shifts are reminiscent of the readmission of the Kingdom of Morocco to the AU in 2017 even though the government of this North African state has refused to implement United Nations and AU resolutions mandating the holding of elections on the future of the Western Sahara. The AU has accepted the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) as a member of the continental organization. There are numerous resolutions in support of independence of the SADR from the Kingdom of Morocco.

Morocco openly lobbied for its readmission after it had voluntarily withdrawn from the AU predecessor, the Organization of Africa Unity (OAU), in 1984 when the majority of the regional body voted to recognize the SADR. When the AU allowed Morocco to again join the organization, there were strong objections from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Algeria and at least twelve other states.

In addition to the contradictory policies related to the Western Sahara and Palestine, the increased imperialist militarization of Africa by western states has undermined the capacity of the organs within the AU to establish effective peacekeeping operations independent of the funding and logistical support from the Pentagon and allied NATO countries. Dr. Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972), the president of the First Republic of Ghana and co-founder of modern African politics, denounced imperialist military interventions on the continent. On February 24, 1966, Nkrumah was overthrown by a clique of military officers and police guided and coordinated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the State Department.

The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has thousands of troops stationed across the continent while a base in Djibouti at Camp Lemonnier houses both French and Pentagon troops. Recently, President Muhammadu Buhari of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Africa’s most populous state which is plagued by insecurity in the north and central regions of the country, requested that AFRICOM relocate its headquarters from Germany to Nigeria. Such attitudes and defeatist utterances only provide the enemies of progress on the continent with a rationale for further penetration.

In his “Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism” published in 1965 Nkrumah observes:

“A world power, having decided on principles of global strategy that it is necessary to have a military base in this or that nominally independent country, must ensure that the country where the base is situated is friendly. Here is another reason for balkanisation. If the base can be situated in a country which is so constituted economically that it cannot survive without substantial ‘aid’ from the military power which owns the base, then, so it is argued, the security of the base can be assured. Like so many of the other assumptions on which neo-colonialism is based, this one is false. The presence of foreign bases arouses popular hostility to the neo-colonial arrangements which permit them more quickly and more surely than does anything else, and throughout Africa these bases are disappearing. Libya may be quoted as an example of how this policy has failed.”

Therefore, any “normalization” of relations with imperialist states and their allies such as the State of Israel is in essence the road to even deeper levels of neo-colonial domination of the African continent. The Republic of Sudan interim Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok along with the military and technocrat administration established diplomatic relations with Israel in total contravention of the Israel Boycott Act of 1958. The existing regime in Khartoum has still not announced a date for the electing of a legislative structure for the country. This recognition of Tel Aviv has made Sudan eligible for predatory loans issued by the international financial institutions which have devastated post-independence Africa since the 1960s.

The Need for Political Rectification within the AU

These contradictory policies on Africa-Israeli relations cancel out the progressive and Pan-Africanist history of the continent. Those states, political parties and mass organizations in solidarity with Palestine, the Western Sahara and all oppressed and struggling peoples should take corrective measures aimed at reversing these unilateral decisions which can in no way benefit the masses of African workers, farmers and youth.

Such a program of rectification cannot be implemented without firmly addressing the continuing economic, political and military dependency of the African continent on the imperialist states and their financial institutions. The current public health crisis engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates the pressing need for innovative approaches to solving regional problems. While the western states are hurriedly vaccinating its populations against the pandemic, the number of inoculations administered in Africa represent less than two percent of those eligible amid a third wave of the outbreaks where cases are escalating in various states such as Senegal.

The way out lies in the adoption of an anti-imperialist and Pan-Africanist approach to the situation. Africa in order to develop and ensure its genuine independence and sovereignty must unite and move towards socialist construction.

*

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

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

All images in this article are from Abayomi Azikiwe

Featured image: African Union Commission Chair Moussa Faki Mahamat has drawn criticism over Israel observer status

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Not only is the so-called “moderate opposition” in Idlib not content with adhering to the ceasefire agreement, but militants also move outward to carry out attacks against the Damascus government.

On the morning of August 4th, a shuttle bus of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) blew up at the gate of the Republican Guard Residences in the northern part of Damascus.

Initially, the official version was that a short circuit caused the incident, but later Al-Qaeda-affiliated Horas al-Din claimed responsibility for the deadly explosion.

The terrorist group based in Greater Idlib and working under Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) said that it carried out the attack in support of Daraa’s former rebels.

HTS provided mixed signals, with one propagandist claiming that Horas al-Din don’t even join the fight on the Idlib frontlines, while a commander praised the attack “behind enemy lines.”

In Greater Idlib, SAA and the HTS-led terrorists and Turkish-backed factions are engaged in a shelling escalation, with drones added to the mix.

On August 1st, a militant home-made UAV was shot down over the town of Kafr-Nabl in Idlib governorate. It was reportedly launched from the village of Al-Bara and was aimed at searching for targets and adjusting artillery fire.

On the next day, another drone was targeted with the Syrian Buk-M2E air defense system in the Al-Eis area in the southern countryside of Aleppo, it was likely a Turkish-made UAV.

Then, on August 3rd, a Russian-made Forpost UAV was shot down near the town of Kafr Nuran in Aleppo governorate. It carried out its mission before being shot down – a vehicle was struck with precision-guided munitions in the town of Kafr Nuran.

At the same time, the SAA and Turkish-backed factions continue the artillery shelling exchange in both Idlib and Aleppo governorates.

Not too far from Aleppo, a civilian man and three of his children were killed as a result of Turkish shelling on the northern countryside of Raqqa in northeastern Syria.

Joining in on the “fun” over Aleppo is the US, which had one of its MQ-4C Triton high-altitude long endurance surveillance drones shot down by SAA. It is yet unclear if it was, in fact, a US-made drone, but footage points in that direction.

While all of this is happening in Northeastern Syria, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are trying to fight ISIS, with regularly having their positions attacked by terrorist cells.

On top of that, they are constantly subject to shelling from the Turkish Armed Forces and the Ankara-backed factions.

The situation in Greater Idlib and Northeastern Syria continues to be heavily contested and no side gives quarter.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Der folgende Artikel war eine Eilmeldung von RT.De vom 5. August um 15.59 Uhr.

.

Nach einem Aufruf des UN-Sonderberichterstatter für Folter, Nils Melzer, sind über hundert Hinweise zu Polizeigewalt bei den Berliner Corona-Demos am vergangenen Wochenende eingegangen. Jetzt kündigte er eine Untersuchung und “offizielle Intervention bei der Bundesregierung” an.

Der UN-Sonderberichterstatter für Folter, Nils Melzer, der zuvor vor allem wegen seinen Interventionen zum WikiLeaks-Gründer Julian Assange bekannt wurde,erklärte gegenüber Berliner Zeitung, dass bei seinem Team eine große Zahl an Berichten über Polizeigewalt gegen Demonstranten bei der Demonstration am 1. August in Berlin eingegangen sein:

“Wir werden jetzt das Material sichten und bewerten. Jede einzelne Mitteilung und jedes einzelne Video muss genau verifiziert werden und ich werde auch mit direkten Augenzeugen sprechen. Aber mein Eindruck ist, dass in mehreren Fällen Anlass genug für eine offizielle Intervention meinerseits bei der Bundesregierung besteht.”

*

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 Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Wegen Polizeigewalt in Berlin – UN-Sonderbeauftragter Melzer kündigt “offizielle Intervention” an

All Global Research articles 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 Article below was a breaking news item from RT.De, 5 August, at 3.59 pm. 

***

Following an appeal by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, over a hundred tips have been received about police violence at the Berlin Corona demos last weekend. Now he announced an investigation and “official intervention with the German government”.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, previously known for his interventions on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, told Berliner Zeitung that his team had received a large number of reports of police violence against demonstrators at the 1 August demonstration in Berlin:

“We will now sift through the material and evaluate it. Every single message and every single video has to be verified exactly and I will also talk to direct eyewitnesses. But my impression is that in several cases there is reason enough for an official intervention on my part with the federal government.”

*

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

The US-Japanese Alliance Against China Risks World War

August 5th, 2021 by Christopher Black

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The US-Japanese Alliance Against China Risks World War
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: US Government-Funded Media in Malaysia: “Malaysiakini”

All Global Research articles 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 article was first published in 2020, in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. We repost this important interview for the 76th anniversary.

“Not a particular country, not a particular city, and not a particular people.

The crux of the matter is whether total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever good might result? When will our moralists give us an answer to this question?”

John Hersey, Hiroshima [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The two state of the art weapons released over the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted the most devastating blasts of all time.

According to the best estimates of anti-nuclear weapons scientists, anywhere from 110,000 to 210,000 people died in the twin holocausts. Two thirds of the city of Hiroshima were wiped out in a single attack, the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. [2]

These massive mushroom clouds would go on to become a symbol of the fate of humanity encapsulated in the threat of atomic horror. For all my life, I have contemplated the prospects of nuclear incineration and the aftermath that would follow if our leaders get caught up in a tragic misstep.

What has been the careful course of a wizened populace after 75 years of careful planning?

On January 23 of this year, the doomsday clock, created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientist, announced the clock had revved up to 100 seconds before midnight. That is an all time record in the history of the time piece! Do the memories of the devastating attacks of Aug 6 and Aug 9, 1945 have some process of ever re-igniting the imaginations of a new generation of civilians and reversing the tide of Nuclear Armageddon? This is a subject we will explore on this special anniversary episode of the Global Research News Hour.

Our first guest is renowned academic and writer Professor Michel Chossudovsky. In the first half hour, he brings us up to date on how the U.S. has re-ignited interest in once again turning bombs like the ones dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki into “ready for use” weapons in the arsenal of conventional warfare.

Our second guest, Greg Mitchell, comes along in our second half hour. He elaborates on how early information about the nuclear warfare in Japan was concealed, and how a new blockbuster release from Hollywood served to falsify the news from the battlefields.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is a professor of economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, and the Founder and Editor of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the award-winning author of numerous articles and of eleven books including Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2012) and The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (2015).

Greg Mitchell is an author and journalist. He was editor of the magazine Nuclear Times and has become an outspoken expert and the role and build up of nuclear arms in Japan. His books include Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial (co-written by Robert J Lifton, 1995) , Atomic Cover-up: Two U.S. Soldiers, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, and The Greatest Movie Never Made (2011), and his latest: The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood—and America—Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (2020).

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 .

Notes:

  1. Hersey, John (1946), Hiroshima (p 105), EFL Club
  2. https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/

All Global Research articles 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 commemoration of the 76th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, we repost this important article first published on GR in 2018.

The film Hiroshima-Nagasaki 1945 was created in 1968 from Japanese footage that the US Defense Department had kept hidden for over 20 years. The filmmaker Erik Barnouw offered his 16 minute film to all the US main channels. None of them showed it. Why is obvious when looking at this three minute excert.

The atom bombs dropped by the US on those Japenese cities served no military purpose, as the Japanese were already suing for peace. President Truman, who ordered the bombs to be dropped, lied to the American people when he said that the atom bombs had saved lives and there were few civilian deaths. Up to 200,000 were killed.

Seeing the barbarous effect of these weapons, did our political and military leaders decide to rid the world of them? Far from it. Today’s nuclear weapons make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs look like water pistols in comparison, and there are enough of them to destroy not just cities but the whole world.

And who has most of these weapons of mass destruction? The only country to ever use them — the United States.

*

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: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Film They Didn’t Want You to See

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Resist.

They can’t arrest us all. They can’t keep all your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed – although I’ve got a long list of ones they should.

We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats. We can simply say no, not again.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi — you will not arrest or stop me or anyone on my staff from doing our jobs. We have all either had COVID, had the vaccine, or been offered the vaccine. We will make our own health choices. We will not show you a passport, we will not wear a mask, we will not be forced into random screening and testing so you can continue your drunk with power rein over the Capitol.

President Biden — we will not accept your agencies’ mandates or your reported moves toward a lockdown. No one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates. And if you want to shutdown federal agencies again — some of which aren’t even back to work fully — I will stop every bill coming through the Senate with an amendment to cut their funding if they don’t come to work.

No more.

Local bureaucrats and union bosses — we will not allow you to do more harm to our children again this year. Children are not at any more risk from COVID than they are for the seasonal flu. Every adult who works in schools has either had the vaccine or had their chance to. There is no reason for mask mandates, part time schools, or any lockdown measures.

Children are falling behind in school, and are being harmed physically and psychologically by the tactics you have used to keep them from the classroom last year. We won’t allow it again.

If a school system attempts to keep the children from full-time, in-person school, I will hold up every bill with two amendments. One to defund them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.

Do I sound fed up to you? That’s because I am.

I’m not a career politician. I’ve practiced medicine for 33 years. I graduated from Duke Medical School, worked in emergency rooms, studied immunology and virology, and ultimately chose to become a surgeon.

I have been telling everyone for a year now that Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health officials were NOT following science, and I’ve been proven right time and time again.

But I’m not the only one who is fed up. I can’t go anywhere these days — from work, to events, to airports and Ubers, restaurants and stores, without people coming up to me thanking me for standing up for them.

For standing up for actual science. For standing up for freedom. For standing against mandates, lockdowns, and bureaucratic power grabs.

I think the tide has turned, and more and more people are willing to stand up. I see stories from across the country of parents standing up to teacher unions and school boards.

I see members of Congress refusing to comply with Petty Tyrant Pelosi.

We are at a moment of truth and a crossroads. Will we allow these people to use fear and propaganda to do further harm to our society, economy, and children?

Or will we stand together and say, absolutely not. Not this time. I choose freedom.

*

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

Featured image is from TRIPP

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sen. Rand Paul: Mask Mandates and Lockdowns from Petty Tyrants? No, Not Again. Choose Freedom
  • Tags:

The Enduring Myth of Hiroshima

August 5th, 2021 by John LaForge

All Global Research articles 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.

***

We repost this important article for the 76th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.

The U.S. atomic destruction of 140,000 people at Hiroshima and 70,000 at Nagasaki was never “necessary” because Japan was already smashed, no land invasion was needed and Japan was suing for peace. The official myth that “the bombs saved lives” by hurrying Japan’s surrender can no longer be believed except by those who love to be fooled.

The long-standing fiction has been destroyed by the historical record kept in U.S., Soviet, Japanese and British archives — now mostly declassified — and detailed by Ward Wilson in his book Five Myths about Nuclear Weapons (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013).

The mushroom cloud from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.

Image: The mushroom cloud from the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 6, 1945.

Greg Mitchell’s Atomic Cover-Up (Sinclair Books, 2011) also helps explain the durability of the “saved lives” ruse. Wartime and occupation censors seized all films and still photos of the two atomic cities, and the U.S. government kept them hidden for decades. Even in 1968, newsreel footage from Hiroshima held in the National Archives was stamped, “SECRET, Not To Be Released Without the Approval of the DOD.” Photos of the atomized cities that did reach the public merely showed burned buildings or mushroom clouds — rarely human victims.

In Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial, (Grosset/Putnam, 1995) Robert Lifton and Mitchell note that Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, “left nothing to chance.” Even before Hiroshima, he prohibited U.S. commanders from commenting on the atomic attacks without clearance from the War Department.

“We didn’t want MacArthur and others saying the war could have been won without the bomb,” Groves said.

In fact, MacArthur did not believe the bomb was needed to end the war, but he too established a censorship program as commander of the U.S. occupation of Japan. He banned reporters from visiting Hiroshima or Nagasaki, expelled reporters who defied the ban and later said that those who complained that censorship existed in Japan were engaged in “a maliciously false propaganda campaign.”

That most people in the United States still believe the “saved lives” rationale to be true is because of decades of this censorship and myth-making, begun by President Harry Truman, who said Aug. 6, 1945, “Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. … That was because we wished this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.”

In fact, the city of 350,000 had practically no military value at all and the target was the city, not the base three kilometers away.

Taking President Truman at his word, the 140,000 civilians killed at Hiroshima are the minimum to be expected when exploding a small nuclear weapon on a “military base.” Today’s “small” Cruise missile warheads ¾ which are 12 times the power of Truman’s A-bomb ¾ could kill 1.68 million each.

Official censorship of what the two bombs did to people and the reasons for it has been so successful, that 25 years of debunking hasn’t managed to generally topple the official narrative.

In 1989, historian Gar Alperovitz reported, “American leaders knew well in advance that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not required to bring about Japan’s surrender;” and later, in his 847-page The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Random House, 1995), “I think it can be proven that the bomb was not only unnecessary but known in advance not to be necessary.” The popular myth “didn’t just happen,” Alperovitz says, “it was created.”

Kept hidden for decades was the 1946 U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey’s conclusion that Japan almost certainly would have surrendered in 1945 without the atomic bombs, without a Soviet invasion and without a U.S. invasion. Not long after V-J Day in 1945, Brig. Gen. Bonnie Feller wrote, “Neither the atomic bombing nor the entry of the Soviet Union into the war forced Japan’s unconditional surrender. She was defeated before either of these events took place.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star general and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, said in his memoirs he believed “that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.”

Adm. William Leahy, the wartime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in 1950, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material success in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

Feller’s, Ike’s and Leahy’s opinions were conspicuously left out of or censored by the Smithsonian Institution’s 1995 display of the atomic B-29 bomber “Enola Gay.”

Admiral Leahy’s 1950 myth-busting and censor-busting about the Bomb could be an epitaph for the nuclear age: “I was not taught to make war in that fashion,” he said of Hiroshima’s incineration, “and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

John LaForge writes for PeaceVoice, is co-director of Nukewatch—a nuclear watchdog and environmental justice group—and lives at the Plowshares Land Trust out of Luck, Wisconsin.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Enduring Myth of Hiroshima

Freedom in the Coming Time of Madness

August 5th, 2021 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Sadly, we are approaching a time in America during which our elected public officials will assault the liberties we have hired them to protect. Whatever the cause, the government will soon blame its failures to contain a virus on a small portion of the population and then impose restrictions on the inalienable rights of all of us.

We cannot permit this to happen again.

During the Civil War, when President Abraham Lincoln thought it expedient to silence those in the northern states who challenged his wartime decisions by incarcerating them in military prisons, he was rebuked afterward by a unanimous Supreme Court. The essence of the rebuke was that no matter the state of difficulties — whether war or pestilence — the Constitution protects our natural rights, and its provisions are to be upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, in good times and in bad.

Whether COVID-19 is coming back or not, our central planners have panicked. We do not have a free market in the U.S. in the delivery of health care; rather, we have thousands of pages of statutes, regulations and controls at the federal, state and local levels.

Those controls were revealed as manifestly deficient the last time around. The feds were so protective of their control of health care — an area of governance that the Supreme Court has ruled is nowhere delegated to them in the Constitution and, but for their power to tax those who defy them, is nonexistent — that they insisted that only the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta could be trusted to test for the virus.

It took weeks of begging by governors and mayors and health care professionals for the feds to relent. Of course, once they acknowledged that labs throughout the country were as competent as theirs, they realized that their incompetence had deprived all physicians as well as most private sector and state government-owned labs of the test kits themselves.

We all know how central economic planning diminishes freedom, produces scarcity and adds to the cost of products. Now we know that central micromanagement of health care kills people.

But these mayors and governors were not to be outdone by the feds in their totalitarian impulses. Many of them issued decrees that are as profoundly unconstitutional as Lincoln’s efforts to silence dissent.

They ordered the closing of most businesses and nearly all retail establishments. They acted as if they, and not we, owned our faces. They shuttered religious institutions. It took a year for the courts to interfere partially with this madness.

The fulfillment of these totalitarian impulses put millions out of work, closed and destroyed thousands of businesses and impaired the fundamental rights of tens of millions — all in violation of numerous sections of the Constitution that the totalitarians swore to uphold.

And now they are threatening to do this again.

The Contracts Clause of the Constitution prohibits the states from interfering with lawful contracts, such as leases and employment agreements. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from interfering with life, liberty or property without a trial at which the state must prove fault. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation when the state meaningfully interferes with an owner’s chosen lawful use of his property.

Taken together, these clauses reveal significant protections of private property in the Constitution. Add to this the threat of punishment that accompanied these decrees and the fact that they were executive decrees, not legislation, and one can see the paramount rejection of basic democratic and constitutional principles in the minds and words and deeds of those who have perpetrated them.

Add to all this the protection in the First Amendment of the rights to worship and associate, and elsewhere the judicially recognized right to travel, and it is clear that these nanny state rules were profoundly unconstitutional, indisputably unlawful and utterly unworthy of respect or compliance.

Why is this happening again?

Throughout history, free people have been willing to accept the devil’s bargain of trading liberty for safety when they are fearful. We supinely accept the shallow and hollow offers of government that somehow less liberty equals more safety. It doesn’t. This is the government’s dream — dominance without resistance.

This happened here with the Alien and Sedition Acts in the 1790s when the Federalists feared a second revolution and punished speech critical of them, during the Civil War when Lincoln feared dissent and Congress feared defeat and they locked up innocents, during World War I when President Woodrow Wilson punished the speech he hated and feared, and during the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt feared economic calamity and seized property without compensation. And, after 9/11, fearing another attack, Congress secretly crafted the Patriot Act’s circumvention of the Fourth Amendment and authorized the creation of the total surveillance state.

Of course, just one year ago, we free people were all in “lockdown” — a word used to describe confining prisoners to their cells.

This sordid history came about when the public was fearful of the unknown and trustful of the government’s bargain. But the liberty that was sacrificed for the safety that was promised is being taken away again.

Liberty is natural and personal. You can sacrifice yours, but you cannot sacrifice mine. Thus, personal liberty — the Declaration of Independence calls our rights inalienable, and the Ninth Amendment reflects freedom’s nature as limitless — is insulated from totalitarian and even majoritarian interference.

Today, the fear of contagion again gives government cover for its assaults on freedom and poses a question the government does not want to answer: If liberty can be taken away in times of crisis, is it really liberty; or is it just a license, via a temporary government permission slip, subject to the whims of the politicians in power?

We cannot permit this to happen again.

*

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.

Bayer Heads into Next U.S. Cancer Trial

August 5th, 2021 by Carey Gillam

All Global Research articles 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 Bayer AG’s efforts to put an end to costly litigation inherited in its acquisition of Monsanto, opening statements in yet another trial are set for Thursday as a woman suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma claims Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide caused her cancer.

A jury of seven men and five women have been seated in the case of Donnetta Stephens v. Monsanto in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in California.  Judge Gilbert Ochoa was hearing last-minute arguments over evidence on Wednesday.

The trial comes a week after Bayer announced it would stop selling Roundup, and other herbicides made with the active ingredient glyphosate, to U.S. consumers by 2023. Monsanto was purchased by Bayer AG in 2018, and Bayer insists, just as Monsanto has for decades, that there is no valid evidence of a cancer connection between its weed killing products and cancer.

Bayer said the move to stop selling the  herbicides to consumers was “to manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns.” The company said it will continue to sell its glyphosate-based herbicides for commercial use and for use by farmers.

Bayer also said last week it was setting aside $4.5 billion – on top of roughly $11 billion already earmarked for Roundup litigation settlements – to cover “potential long-term exposure” to liability associated with claims from cancer victims such as Stephens.

Bayer further said with respect to ongoing litigation, it “will be very selective in its settlement approach in the coming months.”

Evidence at issue

Ahead of the opening statements in the Stephens trial, many issues were being argued without the jury present on Wednesday in front of Judge Ochoa, including the scope of allowable arguments by plaintiffs that Monsanto should have provided warnings to Roundup users that certain scientific research showed links between its products and cancer.

Judge Ochoa earlier ruled – in agreement with Monsanto – that federal law regarding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight of pesticide product labeling preempts “failure to warn” claims under state law, meaning Stephens’ lawyers would not be able to pursue such claims.

The plaintiffs still hope to argue, however, that separate from the labeling issues, Monsanto could have, and should have, warned consumers about the potential cancer risk in other ways, according to Stephens’ lawyer Fletcher Trammell. He and Stephens’ other lawyers will seek to prove that Monsanto made an unsafe herbicide product and knowingly pushed it into the marketplace despite scientific research showing glyphosate-based herbicides could cause cancer.

Lawyers for Stephens say that she was a regular user of Roundup herbicide for more than 30 years and it was that extended exposure to the glyphosate-based products made popular by Monsanto that caused her non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Stephens was diagnosed in 2017 and has suffered from numerous health complications amid multiple rounds of chemotherapy since then.  She is one of tens of thousands of plaintiffs who filed U.S. lawsuits against Monsanto after the World Health Organization’s cancer experts classified glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicides – as a probable human carcinogen with an association to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The list of evidence to be presented at trial runs more than 250 pages and includes scientific studies as well as Monsanto emails and other internal corporate documents. A federal judge who has been overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation stated in a recent order that there is “a good deal of damning evidence against Monsanto—evidence which suggested that Monsanto never seemed to care whether its product harms people.”

Close to 70 people are listed as witnesses to testify at trial, either live or through deposition testimony, including many former Monsanto scientists and executives.

The first witness set to take the stand is retired U.S. government scientist Christopher Portier, who has been an expert witness for the plaintiffs in each of the prior Roundup trials. Portier has previously testified that there is clear scientific evidence showing glyphosate and glyphosate-based formulations such as Roundup can cause cancer in people. He has also testified in the past that U.S. and European regulators have not properly assessed the science and have ignored research showing cancer concerns with Monsanto’s herbicides.

Before retiring, Portier led the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Prior to that role, Portier spent 32 years with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, where he served as associate director, and director of the Environmental Toxicology Program, which has since merged into the institute’s National Toxicology Program. Portier was also an “invited specialist” to the International Agency for Research on Cancer unit of the World Health Organization when the group made its probable carcinogen classification of glyphosate in 2015.

Bayer hopes for help from Supreme Court

Monsanto has lost three out of three previous trials, with a jury in the last trial – held in 2019 – ordering a staggering $2 billion in damages due to what the jury saw as egregious conduct by Monsanto in failing to warn users of evidence – including numerous scientific studies – showing a connection between its products and cancer. (The award was later shaved to $87 million.)

In trying to free itself from the weight of Monsanto-related woes, Bayer said last week that in addition to  replacing its glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market with new formulations using alternative ingredients, it is exploring changes to Roundup labeling.

“It is important for the company, our owners, and our customers that we move on and put the uncertainty and ambiguity related to the glyphosate litigation behind us,” Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said during a recent investor call.

The company also said it will file a petition this month seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of one of its trial losses – the case of Hardeman v. Monsanto. Bayer said if the Supreme Court grants review,  the company “will not entertain any further settlement discussions” while the court reviews the appeal.

In the event of a “negative Supreme Court outcome,” Bayer said it would set up a claims’ administration program that will offer “pre-determined compensation values”  to “eligible individuals” who used Roundup and developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma over the next 15 years.

*

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

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Watch Behind The Headlines correspondent Dan Cohen explain how top foreign policy reporters are linked to the U.S. government, weapons industry and oil corporations – the very forces they are supposed to hold accountable. 

Imagine a country where there’s no separation between the government, the military, and the media. A lot of Americans would think of China, Russia or North Korea, but it’s a perfect description of the United States today. And here in Washington, the think tank inside this nondescript building – Center For A New American Security (CNAS) – is the clearest example of just that.

CNAS is a premier militarist think tank in the nation’s capital, especially for Democratic Party administrations. It is funded by the State Department and Pentagon and has taken more money from weapons companies over the last several years than any other think tank. On top of that, it’s funded by oil companies, big banks, and right wing governments – basically the most destructive forces on the planet.

For President Joe Biden, CNAS serves as a farm, from which key positions in his administration are cultivated. In fact, at least 16 CNAS alumni are now in key positions in the Biden Pentagon and State Department.

But what’s most shocking is that several national security and foreign policy reporters from elite U.S. media outlets are affiliated with CNAS – and therefore indirectly affiliated with, and likely paid by, the U.S. government and corporations – the very forces that they should be holding accountable.

For more than twenty years, New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger has relentlessly pushed deceptions to con the public into supporting U.S. aggression and war.

From the George W. Bush administration’s lies about WMDs in Iraq to lies about Iran attempting to create nuclear weapons and evidence-free claims from intelligence agencies about Russian cyberattacks – these incendiary allegations were taken at face value with a clear goal to pressure then-President Donald Trump to ramp up aggression against Moscow while conveniently filling the pockets of Sanger’s weapons-industry benefactors.

Sanger’s neocon cyberwar fantasy was even turned into a movie by HBO. Today, David Sanger is onto the COVID-19 lab leak theory. He’s been at the forefront of every propaganda campaign that not only provides justification for aggression and war but also helps generate huge profits for CNAS funders.

Sanger is just one of several New York Times, Washington Post and Foreign Policy reporters who have residencies at CNAS. Presumably, that comes with a sizable financial component. I emailed CNAS to ask whether it pays these reporters but they didn’t respond.

Sanger’s colleague Eric Schmitt, senior correspondent covering national security for The New York Times, is also in residence at CNAS.

Back in 2020, Schmitt was promoting the obviously false Russian bounties story, which was later retracted after it had served its political purpose to force Trump to take a harder anti-Russia stance.

Of course, Schmitt was a reliable promoter of intelligence claims about Russian hacking – never displaying a scintilla of skepticism.

And he dutifully portrayed the Trump administration’s aggression against Iran as defensive.

The Washington Post, at one point, found this kind of blatant media corruption at least questionable. In 2011, Time magazine launched a series in collaboration with CNAS to promote war propaganda; the Post published an article questioning the ethics of that partnership.

Fast-forward to 2013: billionaire Jeff Bezos buys the Post, and its correspondent, David Finkel, becomes a writer in residence at CNAS. During that time, Finkel wrote two books on the U.S. war in Iraq: “The Good Soldiers” and “Thank You For Your Service.” Just the kind of whitewash of the war that CNAS’s funders would want the public to consume.

Michael Gordon is another. He spent three decades at the Times. Among his greatest accomplishments was, alongside Judith Miller, promoting the Bush administration’s Iraqi WMD deception. Gordon wrote that “Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb” – citing anonymous U.S. officials.

Now at The Wall Street Journal, Gordon has spent months pumping out Wuhan lab-leakpropaganda – once again promoting claims of intelligence officials without any skepticism.

Greg Jaffe is a Washington Post national security reporter and another writer in residence at CNAS. His article on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan quotes Eliot Cohen – a former Bush administration official who is now a fellow at CNAS. Jaffe and Cohen’s shared affiliation is never disclosed in the article – an obvious breach of the most basic journalistic ethics.

Thom Shanker used to be part of the CNAS writer-in-residence program when he was at the Times writing on U.S. wars. In 2012, Shanker wrote this blog post promoting a CNAS study without revealing his affiliation. Once again, a major conflict of interest and ethics out the window.

There’s also Rajiv Chandrasekaran, who spent two decades doing public relations for U.S. wars at the Post and is now doing PR for Starbucks.

And Thomas Ricks, whose career has spanned posts at The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. Ricks is a cold-warrior who has publicly stated that Putin is attacking the United States just like Osama Bin Laden did and that Americans defending Putin are no different from those defending Bin Laden.

Some of this information isn’t new. It was reported in The Nation more than a decade ago, but the issue has only gotten worse as U.S. politics have shifted right, spy agencies have gained more power in the media, and the new cold war has accelerated.

There’s no real separation between the myriad of revolving doors and cash flow between the weapons manufacturers, think tanks, the U.S. government and media. It’s an incestuous, bloviating blob capable of producing one thing and one thing only: war.

So when you think of the military industrial complex and the permanent war state, don’t forget about what might be the most important component of all: the media.

*

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.

Dan Cohen is the Washington DC correspondent for Behind The Headlines. He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. He tweets at @DanCohen3000.

Featured image: Graphic by James Russo

A New Dawn Breaks in Tehran: New President Ebrahim Raisi

August 5th, 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.

***

On Thursday, Iran’s new president Ebrahim Raisi takes the oath of office in a ceremony in the Majlis in Tehran. This will be a defining moment in the Islamic Republic’s political history, since in many ways, the country is at the crossroads.

The Islamic system continues to enjoy a broad social base but erosion is taking place. The economy is in shambles and the lifting of sanctions will give much relief to people’s hardships. Rampant corruption has discredited the regime and caused alienation among the people. But, paradoxically, Iran’s inexorable rise as a regional power is today a compelling reality.

Raisi happens to be a popular figure, given his record as the chief justice to crack down on corruption. The participation in Iran’s national elections is restricted to candidates who are loyal to Velayat-e faqih — or, guardianship of the Islamic jurist— a system of governance that the country adopted after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which is rooted in Shia Islam and justifies the rule of the clergy over the state. But it allows free elections, since the empowerment of the people is the bedrock of legitimacy for the country’s political system. 

The United States has a problem with Raisi insofar as he was one of the deputy prosecutors associated with the trial and execution of the cadres of the militant organisation known as Mujahedin-e Khalq, which openly advocated the overthrow of the Islamic Republic through violent means.

Suffice to say, the human rights issue that is brought to the forefront to tarnish Raisi’s image is not the real issue today, but the ascendance of a new leader who is expected to consolidate Iran’s revolutionary legacy at a crucial juncture when the country’s domestic politics once again intersects with the relations with the US. 

The Shia politics is notoriously fractious. Imam Khomeini, in his far-sighted wisdom, installed in the political system checks and balances institutionally but factionalism continued, nonetheless. In this respect, Raisi’s election becomes a watershed event. For the first time since the end of the 1990s, the Presidency, the Majlis and the judiciary are set to move in tandem.

This would mean, on the one hand, much greater focus on the restoration of the social base of the revolution, which demands addressing the economic challenges of unemployment and poverty, social justice, equitable distribution of wealth and so on. At the inauguration ceremony in Tehran on Tuesday, Khamenei called on Raisi to “empower the middle and lower classes of society that are shouldering the burden of economic problems.”

On the other hand, the political system will gravitate back to the nationalist credo, turning its back on the clamour for Iran’s integration into the western economies, which had been the leitmotif of the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by the Rouhani government. 

Suffice to say, the “reformists” navigating the Iranian strategies in the past 8-year period have lost ground. The Biden Administration’s calculation was that the reformist government of President Hassan Rouhani would conclude a nuclear deal that commits the Raisi presidency to a trajectory oriented toward downstream engagement with the West. read more

But that hasn’t happened, largely due to the forceful role played by the Majlis dominated by conservative forces, in a virtual war of attrition that Rouhani ultimately lost. 

According to the New York Times, Biden’s negotiators were so bullish that “a leading American negotiator left his clothes in storage at a hotel in Vienna, where the talks took place” during the interregnum after the sixth round in Vienna. So confident was he about a final round of talks before the transfer of power in Iran in August. 

But the Iranian negotiators didn’t return to Vienna. The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke about the reasons why the US cannot be trusted in his “farewell speech” for Rouhani and his cabinet, implicitly censuring them for their naïveté about US’ hostile intentions toward Iran. read more

Even some of Iran’s partners who were keen to play a “constructive” role at Vienna were caught by surprise. On Monday, the Moscow daily Izvestia quoted Russia’s ambassador to the IAEA as lamenting, “Iran is departing further from its commitments under the initial JCPOA. In fact, there is something irrational in it because if talks lead to an agreement, all these deviations will have to be reversed. The further Iran departs from its initial obligations, the more time the process will take, which will affect the timeframe for the lifting of sanctions.” 

When asked how Russia viewed Tehran’s move to increase its enriched uranium stockpile, the ambassador noted: “We certainly aren’t enthusiastic about it.” Quite obviously, Russia is unhappy that the party broke up at Vienna. What we see here is the extent to which Iran will go to preserve its strategic autonomy.

Washington has since reacted petulantly by resiling from an understanding reached on a swap of prisoners on humanitarian grounds. The US rhetoric has also shifted to a hostile mode. The Biden Administration is hedging, as it realises that it will now have to deal with a formidable adversary in Raisi.

Basically, the US is unused to dealing with a Persian Gulf state on equal footing. Raisi has stated that he has an open mind on the negotiations at Vienna and also wants Iran to shake off the sanctions in order to realise the full potentials of development, but has underscored that he is not interested in negotiations for its own sake.

Raisi’s remarks at the inauguration ceremony in Tehran on Tuesday signalled once again that his presidency will prioritise the economy, especially the people’s livelihood. On the foreign policy front, he briefly noted, “In order to help establish sustainable security and regional stability, co-operation between regional states is needed, based on mutual trust and opposition to interference by foreign powers in the region.”

Significantly, Raisi devoted his speech almost entirely to  Iran’s internal issues. He is intensely conscious that his mandate quintessentially stems from the people’s desire for “change, justice, fight against corruption, discrimination and injustice and the message of the need to solve economic, social and cultural problems of the society.” Raisi has announced an “immediate, short-term transformation plan” to tackle 10 key issues that have been identified. read more

Raisi’s mandate is not about Iran-US relations. He will not be in any tearing hurry to negotiate a nuclear deal unless and until the US shows willingness to accommodate Iran’s key demands on the lifting of all sanctions and a verification mechanism as well as the guarantee that it will be a durable framework.

Raisi’s approach is going to put pressure on the Biden Administration since in the meanwhile Iran’s advanced centrifuges are enriching uranium at 63 percent purity already, as per IAEA estimates in early May, and the so-called “breakout time” is steadily narrowing.

*

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: Raisi speaking at a presidential campaign rally in Tehran’s Shahid Shiroudi Stadium (CC BY 4.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the golden hour cast its soft light on the remains of Beirut’s silos, thousands of people collectively held their breath as the seconds inched closer to 6:07 pm – the moment exactly one year ago the face of the city and its residents were changed forever.

With only the sounds of Lebanese flags fluttering in a light breeze and of ambulance sirens in the distance, a moment of silence, heavy with painful memories, was held at the port of Beirut.

Piercing that silence, suddenly, was a clap. First a few, back by the highway. Then the sound travelled, and applause charged towards the port like waves.

A woman began to sing. Alone, solo, singing the national anthem as an entire country mourned a disaster that was not just man-made, but made by a political class that has only sunk Lebanon deeper in the mire in the twelve months since.

At least 218 people were killed on 4 August 2020 when hundreds of tonnes of ammonium nitrate left to rot in a warehouse ignited. Vast stretches of the city were destroyed.

Now, people had come to mourn. Soon they would show their anger.

Sea of faces

It was clear early on that the crowd would be vast. Streets into central Beirut were jam packed with traffic – at least those the army hadn’t closed off.

Yet buses ploughed on, playing Fairouz and carrying determined Lebanese, Syrians, Palestinians and Beirut residents of all nationalities to the vigil. Some braved the afternoon sun to walk all the way, with the little shade available retreating the closer they got to the port.

In the sea of faces marching from the fire brigade headquarters, a nod to the firefighters who died trying to contain the warehouse fire, some cried silently, while others shouted slogans against the politicians they held responsible for the tragedy.

Many were simply unable to talk about that day.

“I’m sorry, it’s too hard for me to formulate words on a day like today,” one woman said as she turned a pained face towards her friends for support.

Others quickly spoke of a pain that has not begun to heal, and the utter lack of justice and answers provided by their leaders.

Not a single official has been held to account for the criminal negligence that allowed tonnes of the highly explosive chemicals to be stored in the heart of the capital. The official investigation has foundered and faced resistance at every turn.

And this was a fact seized upon by the victims’ families as they spoke at the port on Wednesday evening – reminding the crowd that many officials, from the prime minister to the president, had been warned of the danger.

“Our home is devoid of happiness. The cloud of that day is still hovering over us, and the flame keeps on flaring,” Abu Ziad Soboh, who lost his son Ziad in the explosion, told Middle East Eye.

“From the president to the lowest-level official, they are all responsible. None of them called me to apologise for their crime or to ask if we needed support,” he added.

“Ziad’s son was two years old when his father died, and I’m taking care of him now. He is the only reason why I’m living.”

As the memorial service was underway, news started coming in that security forces were firing tear gas at protesters near parliament, a half hour stroll from the port. People became agitated.

Beirut port blast

Not a single official has been held to account for the criminal negligence that allowed tonnes of the highly explosive chemicals to be stored in the heart of the capital (MEE/Hasan Shaaban)

“They have ruined our lives. This is a beautiful country, it’s unbelievable that such a system is still in control since the civil war. They need to know that this will not pass and they all need to go,” said 41-year-old Myriam, who lost a friend in the blast.

“After 4 August, I felt an emptiness inside me that lasted for a really long time.

“We spent that whole night trying to reassure our friend’s cousin that Christelle was fine, but the next morning we were told that she had instantly died after a wall fell on her.”

‘I’m afraid’

The plumes of tear gas rising from downtown Beirut were an early indication that the quietude of the vigil was being replaced by a police crackdown, as Lebanese began to express their fury outside parliament – a symbol of Lebanon’s endemic corruption.

As the crowd began marching into town, the popular chants of the October 2019 anti-government protest movement began to ring out.

In Martyrs’ Square, Joe, 24, watched on from the famous war-scarred bronze statue as protesters metronomically beat metal sheets boarding up expensive, empty buildings.

Lebanese protest in downtown Beirut (MEE/Hassan Shaaban)

Lebanese protest in downtown Beirut (MEE/Hasan Shaaban)

He and his friend Abby were in Broumana when the explosion happened and immediately drove back to eastern Beirut.

“We stood at the start of Gemmayzeh, staring, before taking the horrifying walk all along the street,” said Joe, whose school friend Jessica died in the explosion.

“At that moment I felt like we could never recover from this. The area was upside down.”

When Abby reached her Geitawi home, the windows and doors had disappeared. Two of her housemates were wounded.

“For around four months after the explosion, all of my friends were still deeply traumatised and tired, and it was hard for us to help each other process the trauma because we were going through the exact same thing,” Abby said.

But in truth, she said, 4 August was one of hundreds of difficult days in Lebanon, a country running out of basic necessities such as medicine and fuel as the economy nosedives. Abby said she feels angry every day, not only about the blast, but also about everything else going wrong.

For Joe, this anniversary has come too soon.

“Yesterday I took a small walk in Mar Mikhael, I almost felt like I was going to vomit from anxiety. I’m not ready for this day. I’m not ready to recognise that this had happened,” he said.

“I’m afraid. I’m afraid of my government. This government can easily kill us, remap our city, leave us without electricity, without any kind of commodity.

“I’m afraid that tomorrow something else is going to be mismanaged, and tomorrow it might be my life on the line.”

*

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: A contingent of the marchers walked from the fire brigade headquarters to the port of Beirut in a nod to the firefighters who died trying to contain the warehouse fire (MEE/Hasan Shaaban)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘I’m Afraid of My Government’: Sorrow and Rage as Beirut Marks Blast Anniversary
  • Tags: ,

CAA Opens UK Skies to Military Drones

August 5th, 2021 by Chris Cole

All Global Research articles 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 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has granted permission to US drone company General Atomics to conduct experimental flights of its new SkyGuardian drone in UK airspace. The MoD is buying 16 SkyGuardian drones, but renaming them as ‘Protector’. This is the first time that large military drones will be allowed to fly in the UK outside of segregated airspace and the decision will be seen as a breakthrough by the drone industry, who will see it as the beginning of opening UK skies to a whole host of drones to fly ‘beyond visual line of sight’ (BVLOS).

The news came in an ‘airspace alert’ issued by the CAA following the announcement that temporary airspace rules were to be put in place around the bases where the drone will be based. The terse, one-sentence paragraph in the alert said:

“The CAA has also completed an in-depth review and issued the authorisation to General Atomics operate within the UK.”

The lack of detail reflects the lack of transparency about the process to allow General Atomics to use its largely untried and untested ‘Detect and Avoid’ (DAA) equipment in the flights.

General Atomics has developed its DAA equipment to supposedly replicate an on-board pilot’s ability to ‘see and avoid’ danger. This is the bedrock upon which all air safety measures are built and – as we reported back in 2018 – regulators at the CAA were deeply sceptical as to whether remote technology can replace an on-board pilot in busy airspace such as UK skies. Test flights of the drone in the US last summer, which were due to fly over San Diego, were routed away from city after apparent concerns from US safety regulators. 

While the CAA is charged with responsibility for air safety, it says it also has a duty to implement government policy, which, under pressure from the drone industry, is to open UK airspace to large drones. Sir Stephen Hiller, former head of the RAF, was appointed as Chair of the CAA in August 2020.  However, although the use of drones is fast normalising, the technology to fly drones beyond visual line of sight is still far from mature and such drones repeatedly crash as the data we collate on military drone crashes demonstrates.

A poll of 2,000 people commission by our sister organisation, UK Drone Watch, earlier this year found that 67% were worried about the safety implications of BVLOS drone flights, while 70% agreed that if such drones were allowed to be flown in the UK, they should be flown in segregated airspace away from other aircraft.

While the MoD has had to go through a public consultation process to put in place a Temporary Danger Area (TDA) around RAF Waddington and RAF Lossiemouth to enable the drone to take-off and land, there has been no public consultation or information released about how the CAA made the decision to allow large drones to fly in UK airspace using DAA technology. We will continue to press the CAA to release more details about how and why it made this decision.

Chris Cole, Coordinator of Drone Wars UK said:

“We are extremely disappointed that the CAA has given the go-ahead to General Atomics to conduct experimental flights of its new drone in UK airspace without any public consultation.  While no doubt under pressure from those with a vested interest in expanding drone operations, as public regulator the CAA should absolutely prioritise safety and, given the public concern about such operations, at the very least, be open and transparent about its decision making process. “

As well as testing the new DAA equipment, the flights are also seen by General Atomics as a sales opportunity, with other nations being invited to observe the test flights.

Drone Wars UK and a number of other national organisations are organising protests against the  US drone’s flights in the UK.  Do join us on Saturday 14 August at RAF Waddington and Saturday 18 October at RAF Lossiemouth.  More details here.

*

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

Featured image is from Drone Wars UK

All Global Research articles 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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to come under fire for changing positions on masking and a lack of transparency surrounding adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines, new concerns about the agency’s guidance over PCR tests has prompted America’s Frontline Doctors to consider filing a Freedom of Information Request.

The CDC’s July 21st statement (Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS CoV-2 Testing) has raised serious concerns about the reliability of the approved PCR testing regime. The official CDC statement says in part, “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses…” This assertion would seem to indicate that the current generation of PCR tests do not reliably distinguish COVID from influenza, or other viral diseases. Such reliability issues would call into question data regarding cases upon which lockdowns and other government mandates have been based since the beginning of the pandemic.

AFLDS Communications Director, Dr. Teryn Clarke stated,

“This constitutes an extremely damaging lapse. If PCR testing cannot distinguish between COVID and influenza, then at least a portion of last winter’s COVID spike was likely to have been due to the normal flu season. Is this reason influenza all but “disappeared” during COVID? The CDC’s lack of transparency regarding the limitations of the PCR test caused severe and irreversible harm worldwide.”

The AFLDS Legal Team is considering options to force government transparency.

Dr. Simone Gold, founder of AFLDS added,

“The entire pandemic has been based on PCR testing– to identify cases, justify lockdowns and to ascribe cause of death. Now the CDC is saying these COVID “cases” might actually have been influenza cases? It is absolutely essential these tests are accurate, reliable, and validated. The public has a right to know how the CDC made the decision to recommend that the public rely on this test. Anything less than full transparency is tantamount to an admission that CDC manipulated data and intentionally or through incompetence misled the public.”

*

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 OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on When Did CDC Know Their Approved COVID-19 Tests, Faulty PCR Testing Would Make Case and Death Data Unreliable?
  • 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.

***

India’s and Iran’s refusal to participate in the Extended Troika on Afghanistan alongside Russia, Pakistan, China, and the US due to New Delhi’s reluctance to publicly talk to the Taliban and Tehran’s disagreements with Washington means that this peacemaking structure will always remain incomplete even though it’ll still likely manage to accomplish most of its goals without them.

The Extended Troika comprised of Russia, Pakistan, China, and the US is arguably the world’s most important peacemaking structure at the moment considering the pivotal role that it’s playing in shaping the future of Eurasia upon the US’ military withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of August. These four countries are coordinating their efforts to facilitate a political solution to the ongoing Afghan Civil War even if their interactions are imperfect and a tangible outcome has yet to be achieved. All four of them are finally on the same page with respect to their shared geo-economic vision for post-war Afghanistan related to the landlocked country functioning as the irreplaceable transit state for advancing Central Asia-South Asia connectivity.

Russia hoped that India and Iran would also join this structure due to the stakes that they have in Afghanistan’s future, but this has yet to happen due to New Delhi’s reluctance to publicly talk to the Taliban (which is a precondition for participation) and Tehran’s disagreements with Washington. This means that the Extended Troika will always remain incomplete. India will consequently have difficulty ensuring and expanding its entrenched economic interests in Afghanistan just like Iran will struggle to do the same as well as defend its security interests there too. By voluntarily declining to take a seat at the table where all relevant stakeholders are determining this interconnected region’s future, India and Iran are depriving themselves of opportunities.

In their leaderships’ minds, they’re apparently prioritizing optics over substance after calculating – whether rightly or wrongly – that it’s better to maintain their images than risk the potential soft power consequences connected with backtracking on their present policies of pertinence. To explain, India wants to show the world that it’s consistently opposed to the Taliban, which its Hindu nationalist government insists its an irredeemable terrorist group. Iran, meanwhile, doesn’t want to discuss anything with the US even in a multilateral framework until bilateral ties first improve since it’s concerned that doing otherwise might project an image of weakness when it comes to the nuclear talks and other seemingly more pressing issues for it such as Gulf security.

The emerging situation is such that India’s and Iran’s voluntary decisions to remain outside the Extended Troika place them in a position to act as spoilers to the Afghan peace process. Nevertheless, the likelihood of them successfully perpetuating the ongoing civil war there for any significant length of time is low. That’s because the Taliban controls a sizeable length of the country’s borders, Iran’s new principalist (“conservative”) government might also understandably feel uncomfortable facilitating the Indian Air Force’s overflights through its airspace to continually resupply US-backed Kabul, and New Delhi might rightly wager that the expected costs of such a campaign far outweigh the expected benefits. Even so, this is a scenario that shouldn’t be totally dismissed.

Part of the reason why Russia presumably wanted both of them to participate in the Extended Troika was to reduce the chances of this happening. If India and Iran felt empowered by this peacemaking structure and were confident that it could most effectively ensure their respective interests, then they’d be less likely to speculatively contemplate various ways to unilaterally (or perhaps even jointly with one another) promote their goals at others’ possible expense. Regrettably, neither of their leaderships want to risk the potential soft power consequences connected with backtracking on their present policies of pertinence. So long as they don’t meddle in Afghanistan, though, then none of the Extended Troika’s members have much to worry about.

In the event that one or both of them end up doing something disruptive, then they might worsen their ties with all four of that peacemaking structure’s members. The US might not be too concerned for the short term, especially if India’s responsible for stirring up trouble, since such a development would temporarily offset its Russian and Chinese rivals’ connectivity plans though as at the expense of America’s own. Be that as it may, the US can strategically afford to delay the Central Asia-South Asia integration process for the time being since the interim period of uncertainty would be more counterproductive to those two’s interests than its own, but this destabilizing scenario would still stand no choice of materializing if India and Iran joined the Extended Troika.

*

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 OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Truth and revolution are in the air. With the unveiling of so many known health hazards linked directly to the Big Pharma industry’s Covid-19 vaccine rollout, the international crime cabal is now on the defensive, using the adage that the best defense is a good offense.

Harder than ever, the ruling elite is aggressively pushing for more worldwide mandates for forced vaccination, permanent lockdown and mask mandates.

Yet the more the authoritarian governments push us, the more pushback they’re receiving from the people who are fed up and reaching their limits living under such increasing draconian tyranny.

As constitutional lawyer John Whitehead advocates, it’s time for citizens to take back their sovereign power by “recalibrating” the overreaching federal government. While the illegitimate Biden regime attempts to put the squeeze on state issued mandates for vaccines passports, more enforced mask wearing and nonstop lockdown, a number of states in America either have signed executive orders or already passed legislation against vaccine passports and/or anti-mask mandates.

Florida and Montana prohibit both private businesses and state institutions from requiring proof of vaccination. Vaccine passports are banned in all state buildings in Idaho, Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, South Carolina, Arkansas, Indiana and Texas, but sorely need to be extended across the board to all businesses. Legislation is pending on no vaccine passports or discrimination based on vaccine status in another ten states. As more truth comes out against the dangers of vaccination, the pendulum is swinging toward more states following suit to protect citizens against the elite’s genocidal insanity.

Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in late July 2021 re-recommending the wearing of face masks indoors due to the reportedly high transmissibility of the Covid-19 so called variants, Texas, Florida, Missouri, Arizona and Iowa have already made masks optional. Generally the Republican states are taking a stand against vaccine mandates while the Democrat run cities and states on the East and West Coasts tend toward the strictest mandates and full lockdown control. The party of the onetime progressives in America has degenerated from a broken, infiltrated education system into the brainwashed wokeism generation, cancel culture, race identity politics, and steeped in Marxist Communism, Political Correctness and victimization as a proudly worn social identity and banner.

Meanwhile, over the last week of July in nations across the world, an over-the-top globalist assault on humanity appears to be growing more desperate and extreme by the day. The lies and crimes of the biggest, deadliest fraud in human history are now becoming more fully exposed virtually every day.

The medical mafia led by the son of a former eugenicist head of Planned Parenthood, Bill Gates has bought and paid for the World Health Organization.

Bill Gates and his cohort Dr. Anthony Fauci have both been among the ringleaders in funding appalling “Frankensteinian” research, using aborted babies’ organs grafted onto mice in the latest exposure.

With Fauci dubbed the 21st century Dr. Mengele, this Gates-Fauci duo are today’s emperors without clothes, exposed as  potential war criminals against all humanity and life.

The latest recycled version of the elite’s divide and conquer strategy is now pitting the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated, falsely blaming death jab resistors for the current wave of so-called delta variant flareup.

National governments, the WHO and corporate media propagandists like Reuters are all now claiming hospitals everywhere are filling up with the latest declared enemy – the unvaccinated.

With the huge 80% majority of new Covid-19 cases with the dreaded “delta variant” in the US, reports from Spain (80%) to California (80%) to Utah (95%+) are all insisting that it’s the unvaccinated accounting for so many new cases, hospitalizations and deaths.

But in actuality, it’s the reverse, the majority of 60% of recent Coronavirus hospitalizations in the UK have already been fully vaccinated, matching the 60% of newly diagnosed cases in the US also fully vaccinated while 75% in Singapore during the last four weeks were fully inoculated.

All these incoming datapoints appear to indicate that wherever people are the most vaccinated, from Singapore to California, that’s where Covid-19 is the fastest spreading.

Unable to come close to meeting his masters’ quota demanding at least 70% of all Americans get the jab by July 1st, with time running out at 78 years old and unable to intelligibly articulate a single spoken sentence, sleepy Uncle Joe’s coming under mounting pressure if he wants to keep his current job… tick tock, the 25th Amendment alarm clock’s about to go off, leaving us with one of the most unpopular politicians of the modern era – Kamala Harris. One thing that’s never changed, Joe Biden’s pathological lying has him frantically drawing the battle line between the good little vaccinated robots and those evil, unruly, unvaccinated troublemakers that CNN just declared should be made to starve to death. From his website whitehouse.gov, Biden, or more probable his proxies, write:

What is happening in America right now is a pandemic — a pandemic of the unvaccinated.  Let me say that again: It’s a pandemic of the unvaccinated. Last month, a study showed that over 99 percent of COVID-19 deaths had been among the unvaccinated — 99 percent!

Biden just got the legal go-ahead from his Department of Justice to require all US federal employees as the nation’s largest workforce to undergo mandatory vaccination. On August 1, 2021, Biden’s National Institute of Health (NIH) director said that proof of vaccination would be a step “in the right direction.” When recently asked about state and municipalities issuing vaccine mandates as his backdoor method for the jab, the puppet replied:

I don’t know that yet, I’d like to see them continue to move in that direction, and that’s why I point it out. I had asked the Justice Department to determine whether that is — they’re able to do that legally, and they can. Local communities can do that. Local businesses can do that. It’s still a question whether the federal government can mandate the whole country. I don’t know that yet.

So, obviously we know the national and global agenda is hankering to enforce vaccinations on all of us, violating our sovereign right to voluntary consent as “experimental human subjects.” The criminal cabal’s stale, worn-out tactics of divide and conquer today center on demonizing the unvaccinated. But as hard as they try, it will never work because the cat’s already been let out of the bag – they’re killers!

Going back to race-baiter Obama’s time in office, another of their favorite, over-the-top ploys to divide us is with false flag mass shootings that pit races against each other. The oft-repeated meme of “white supremacist groups” lurking as America’s most dangerous threat is spewed forth by deceitful puppet talking heads – imposter Biden and FBI’s Christopher Wray. But again, that’s not working either as the vast majority of Americans are not nearly so racially divided as malicious false propagandists insist.

Their overkill desperation to divide us, especially during their death jab frenzy, has citizens around the globe finally waking up faster than ever. We the People are onto all the government and media lies and chicanery, because of their overplayed Coronavirus narrative quickly unraveling now, further exposed each passing day.

People are realizing the real public enemy #1 is the controlling Deep State puppet masters and their shamelessly desperate puppets because they know they’re losing control, over the prospect of facing military tribunals for their crimes against humanity.

Speaking of puppets, on Wednesday July 28, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) head, Dr Rochelle Walensky, actually confessed:

With prior variants, when people had these rare breakthrough [re]infections, we didn’t see the capacity of them to spread the virus to others… We have a very transmissible virus, which has the potential to evade our vaccines in terms of how it protects us from severe disease and death.

The CDC boss just admitted all their vaccines are useless in preventing the spread of the present delta virus and incoming other prescheduled variants. Back in March 2021, Dr Walensky was cocksure that those who were vaccinated could not possibly infect or spread the virus to others. But this week in yet another 180-degree bombshell turnaround, another pawn masquerading as a leading expert has been forced to admit all the vaccines will not protect recipients from the latest variants, no more than the unvaccinated, admitting that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated infected with the delta variant carry the same high viral loads.

This admitted fact alone gives zero benefit to receiving the kill shot, but only risk a whole plethora of now known adverse health effects, like premature death. Another disconcerting finding that’s emerging among the vaccinated is that their injections only provide temporary immunity lasting about six or seven weeks before it fades, which sets up the need for constant “booster” shots, feeding the Big Pharma money grab. With the fact that vaccines are useless in combating new variants, there’s absolutely no real or lasting benefit at all to death jabs, only potentially disastrous complications that risk extinction of the human species.

Tricking the public into feeling safe with the promise they wouldn’t have to wear masks once inoculated, now that their human DNA’s been permanently altered, the vaccinated are facing a potentially grim fate, with spike proteinsgraphene oxide and nanoparticles linked to serious cardiovascular disease, neurological impairment, killer blood clots, rampant infertility and possible early death.

Until death do them part, they’re now considered super-spreaders, endangering the unvaccinated, grandma and the grandkids all remaining unprotected from contagious shedding through either skin-to-skin contact or aerial transmission.

Thus, Walensky and company are back to square one, feebly recommending wearing masks even indoors on a permanent basis, and without an optimally functioning autoimmune system to boot, the vaccinated are targets for contracting the delta and other mutated variants. Per the New York Times, as of July 31, 2021, 54% of the world population has received at least one jab of the 4.13 billion total doses of Coronavirus vaccinations already administered. If those statistics are true, any way you look at it, the majority of humans on earth today are getting a raw deal – a probable one-way ticket to the nearest graveyard.

So much for putting your gullibly misguided faith into trusting today’s “science” and its so-called “experts,” claiming as their excuse the fallible limits of changing science as new information comes in. But that too is another lie as evidence shows that all the susceptibilities of medical injury were already known about prior to jabbing millions of human guinea pigs. Bottom line, everything the medical authorities and establishment have been telling us over the last year and a half are malevolent lies. As card-carrying members of a Satanic death cult, the controllers of science, mainstream media and virtually all the governments want us dead sooner than later. So, do as you’re told and get in line for your genocidal slaughterhouse death jab.

Just a week before her latest admission, on July 21, 2021 Dr Walensky and her CDC were busily once again eating crow, reluctantly forced to admit that the entire Covid-19 “pandemic” was based on a humongous fraudulent lie – the PCR test. It was publicly exposed that the PCR test never accurately diagnosed the “ever-elusive,” nonexistent virus, but only gave millions of false positive results used for misdiagnosing huge swaths of the global population while the pandemic creators knew it was totally bogus. The scamdemic plotters purposely rigged the “science,” or in this case, the PCR device was intentionally, deceptively set at too high a number of cycles to enable millions of false positive results worldwide in order to launch their global Covid-19 Dem panic (note it was also used to get anti-globalist Trump out of office).

***

 

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.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. Since 2014 Joachim has turned to independent journalism and recently completed a 5-book series published and sold on Amazon entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy and the Deep State. All his chapters can be accessed for free on his blog site at: http://empireexposed.blogspot.com as well as  https://pedoempire.org/.

Featured image is from Vaccine Injury News

History of the Communist Party of China (CCP).

August 5th, 2021 by Marc Vandepitte

All Global Research articles 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.

***

One hundred years ago, 13 men gathered for the secret foundation meeting of the Communist Party of China. Through many wanderings and adventures, the party has grown to become the largest political group in the world. It will undoubtedly and to a large extent determine the course of the 21st century. An analysis by China expert Marc Vandepitte.

Historical context

For centuries, China had been a leading and powerful empire. That situation changed dramatically after the opium wars starting in 1840.[i] The country was relegated to the status of a semi-colony. Large areas were occupied by foreign powers or fell under their sphere of influence. The imperialist countries destroyed the fledgling industrialization. The population was totally impoverished, riddled with famines.[ii] Tens of millions of Chinese perished during that period through deprivation and political violence. It was also during this period that the black slave trade was replaced by the yellow trade in Chinese people.

Repeatedly, the Chinese revolted against the poor living conditions and for national independence. In 1911 there was a revolution in which the emperor was ousted. The new president Sun Yat-sen was the founder of the Republic of China. However, he failed to get rid of foreign domination and the feudal structures of the country.

That was the context in which, ten years later, thirteen men met in secret to establish a new, Communist Party (CPC). One of them was Mao Zedong. Their great example was the Russian Revolution of 1917. At the time, the party had only 53 members.

A party focused on development

Political parties play an important role in the political life of modern societies. Historically, they originated broadly in two ways. In the center of capitalism, electoral or “election-oriented” parties emerged. After the nobility’s monopoly had been broken, the emerging bourgeoisie and later the labor movement set up their own parties to defend their own interests and facilitate participation in elections and state administration. In those countries, a strong and modern state structure had already been established.

The second type could be described as “developmental” parties. They originated in a very different context, more specifically in the periphery of capitalism. They usually grew in the womb of national liberation movements after World War II. They sought national independence and rapid development of their countries. They wanted to put an end to appalling living conditions and imperialist oppression.

In most of those countries there was no modern state structure yet. The creation of a strong and well-organized political party was necessary to achieve this.[iii] This type of political party was not created to realize political ideals through parliamentary competition. On the contrary, political parties like that strive for a new political and/or economic order. This often happens through a revolution. In order to overthrow the old systems and build a new order, development-oriented parties believed that they needed a strong organization and tight discipline.

One-party system

After the revolution in 1911, Sun Yat-sen opted for a multi-party system based on the model of Great Britain and the US. But as in most third world countries, that failed. It soon became clear to him that the model of the Russian revolution was more suited to advancing China. He organized his revolutionary party, the Guomindang (KMT), along the lines of a Leninist party.[iv]

In 1925 Sun Yat-sen died and Chiang Kai-shek became the new leader of the KMT. He was much more conservative and unleashed a veritable witch hunt against the communists, killing many. During the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), the KMT allied with the Communist Party to fight the Japanese occupation. At the time, Japan was a fascist empire, and one of the Axis powers, allies of Hitler Germany. The war became an important chapter of World War II. After the victory over Japan, the civil war between KMT and CPC started again.

The CPC had far fewer men and resources than the KMT, but was better organized and disciplined. The Communists were also much more in touch with the peasantry. It was the communists and not the KMT who were seen by the people as the patriots and the standard-bearers of the struggle against the Japanese and for China’s independence.[v] Eventually this civil war was won by the CPC in 1949 and Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China. The leaders and many supporters of the KMT fled to the island of Taiwan.

The CPC faced a formidable challenge. The party had to cope with a broken state, a destroyed economy and a totally impoverished population. At that time, China was one of the poorest countries in the world. With more than a fifth of the world’s population, the GDP was barely 4.5 percent of the world total. The standard of living, expressed in GDP per capita, was half that of Africa and one-sixth that of Latin America. Average life expectancy was 35 years.[vi]

Meeting those challenges required a strong, centralized and disciplined party. But that was not the only reason that it did and still does. The country’s proportions are enormous. China has the size of a continent: it is 40 times the size of the United Kingdom and has as many inhabitants as Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Arab countries, Russia and Central Asia combined. Translating that into the European situation would mean that Egypt or Kyrgyzstan would have to be governed from Brussels. Given these proportions, the very large differences between the regions, and the enormous challenges the country faces, a strong cohesive force is necessary to keep the country governable and to lead it vigorously. The Economist says about this: “China’s rulers believe the country cannot hold together without one-party rule as firm as an emperor’s (and they may be right)”.

In short, the current system in China is appropriate to the scale of the country and has its roots in the struggle against the Japanese occupation, against the reactionary Guomindang and against the terrible misery and backwardness in which the country had been plunged. From that struggle, the CPC has emerged as the country’s leading power, a power that has set itself the task of restoring dignity, preserving the sovereignty of the Chinese nation, lifting the country out of underdevelopment, and striving for a humane, socialist society.

The burden of history

To paraphrase Marx, “parties make their own history, but they do not make it under self-selected circumstances.” For the CPC, those circumstances were particularly harsh. The country was underdeveloped and the economy had been totally destroyed. The Cold War raged in full force, subjecting the country to a technological embargo from the West. This lasted until 1971, when relations with the US improved.

At the beginning of the revolution there was a lot of assistance from the Soviet Union, but in 1958 a conflict broke out between the two countries. All assistance was stopped and Soviet technicians were withdrawn. Mao had counted on revolutions breaking out in several Third World countries. Those countries could then form a front and strengthen each other. However, those revolutions did not materialize and China was on its own.

In the early years, there was also a real military threat from the US. Twice, in 1954 and in 1958, the US president threatened to use atomic weapons against China. Mao also saw how the Soviet Union under Khrushchev began to take an increasingly capitalist course.

Rushing ahead

In those circumstances, Mao increasingly felt the need to accelerate the country’s development and overcome backwardness in a short period of time. He launched the slogan ‘let’s overtake England in fifteen years’ time’. He thought he could compensate for the unfavorable conditions by a massive and incessant mobilization of the population.

The short sprint to Utopia led to reckless and foolish experiments. The Great Leap Forward (1958-1961) was a voluntaristic attempt to bring about the rapid industrialization of the countryside, without any serious study or preparation. The party was inexperienced and had insufficient knowledge of economic laws. The overoptimistic attempt failed completely and led to a famine resulting in millions of deaths.[vii]

Mao feared that China would follow the same path as the Soviet Union. That is why he wanted to do everything possible to suppress the pro-capitalist ideas within his own party. To this end he launched the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).[viii] This mass mobilization got completely out of hand and eventually led to an anarchy, the counteracting of which even the army had to be deployed. The Cultural Revolution was a tragic period and did much damage to the CPC.

However, Mao’s rushing ahead was not a total failure. Despite the blunders of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, China managed to feed its population quite quickly, unlike India, for example.[ix] During the first thirty years of the revolution, the country experienced a more than decent annual economic growth rate of 4.4 percent. The foundation was laid for the rapid industrial development that was to follow. During that period, per capita income tripled and the Human Development Index[x] increased by a factor of 4.5.[xi]

Economic reforms

Yet by the end of the period, the insight had grown that economic policy was due for a change of direction. The West still had an overwhelming scientific and technological monopoly, which left China particularly vulnerable. And economically, the country lost ground to the four Asian Tigers: Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

On the path toward communism, socialism is a long transitional phase in the course of which one had better not skip any stages. At least that was what the debacles of the recent years had taught. It was, according to Marx, the “historical mission of capitalism” to develop the productive forces (mainly technology).[xii] That’s what the Chinese were now fully committed to.

In the first thirty years the emphasis had mainly been on the relations of production (property relations) and class struggle. Everything had been collectivized as much as possible and the aim had been to achieve as much equality as possible. From 1978 the emphasis was placed on the development of the productive forces.[xiii]

To achieve this, two tracks were followed. First, the communists integrated the dynamizing effects of market forces into the country’s economic development. Private capital was allowed. There was still firm planning at the macro level, drawn up under the direction of the central government and geared to global development goals. But the rigid and hyper-centralized planning of the initial phase was relaxed and decentralized. The metaphor of the “bird in a cage” was used for this purpose. The bird (market forces) has some freedom to fly around, but it cannot leave the cage (central planning). The future will show whether this controlled market-oriented dynamic can be kept in check.

A second track was to attract foreign capital. Foreign investors were welcomed on the condition that they made some of their technology and know-how available. In many Third World countries, opening up the economy to foreign countries – trade, investment and financial capital flows – has had disastrous consequences. In China, this opening has been successful because it was driven by domestic needs and objectives, and because it was fully integrated into a solid development strategy.[xiv]

Success story

This two-track strategy has paid off. From 1978 to 2020, the annual average growth was nearly 10 percent. That is the fastest economic growth ever recorded by a major country. In 75 years, China will have risen from being almost the poorest country in the world to a high-income economy. The country has also managed to keep its economy afloat in the storms of the last 25 years: the Asian financial crisis in 1997, the dot-com crisis in 2001, the homegrown SARS crisis, the great financial crisis of 2008 and now most recently the COVID crisis. Reflecting on the 2008 crisis, Richard McGregor, a former Financial Times journalist, wrote that “China was better equipped than just about anywhere in the world to handle the sudden downturn”.[xv]

Great strides have also been made in technology and science. Today, Chinese companies are widely recognized as world leaders in 5G telecommunications equipment, high-speed trains, high-voltage transmission lines, renewable energies, new energy vehicles, digital payments, artificial intelligence and many other fields. In 2018, China overtook the US in the number of scientific publications, in 2019 this was the case for the number of patents.

Since 1981, 853 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty, according to the UN. That’s 76 percent of all people lifted out of poverty worldwide from 1981 until now. Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations calls it “the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history”. The most important social development indicator of a country is child mortality. At 9 per thousand, China’s score is outstanding. If India, for example, provided the same medical care and social support to its citizens as China, 680,000 fewer Indian children would die each year.[xvi]

While wages are stagnating or declining in many countries, they have tripled in China in the last decade. Between 1978 and 2015, the income of the 50 percent poorest Chinese rose by 400 percent, while in the US it fell by one percent during that period.

The resilience of Chinese society has clearly emerged during the past COVID crisis. The WHO describes the Chinese approach as “perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history”. The important role of the communist party in this has not gone unnoticed by a magazine like The Economist: “China’s efforts have involved not just mobilizing the obvious people like medical staff, community health workers, scientists and police. It has also made extensive use of the party’s network of branches to provide manpower and management expertise for a party-led operation on a scale rarely seen in the post-Mao era.”

Drawbacks

This success story also has important downsides. The introduction of market elements from 1978 onwards has reintroduced capitalist exploitation, albeit in a controlled manner. The existing gap between urban and rural areas has widened further. A huge group of 280 million “internal migrants” possess fewer social rights and are often discriminated against. Grandparents often have to step in to raise their grandchildren. The one-child policy (from 1979 to 2015) has led to illegal selective abortions and a male surplus of more than 30 million, with all the social consequences this entails.

Rapid economic development caused abuse of power and widespread corruption. The admission of private capital led to the creation of a top layer of capitalists. Both phenomena are difficult to reconcile with socialist ideals. Individualism and careerism, consumerism and the desire for luxury and glamour have affected the ideology of the CPC.

Great legitimacy

However, the downsides do not outweigh the upsides. The party can count on a broad popular support. Almost three-quarters of Chinese say they support the one-party system. In fact, support for the central government in recent years has been between eighty and ninety percent. That score is head and shoulders above that in Western countries. According to The Economist, anything but a friend of China, this should come as no surprise: “The Communist Party of China has a powerful story to tell. Despite its many faults, it has created wealth and hope that an older generation would have found unimaginable.” This also explains the great political stability of the past thirty years.

From a Western point of view this is too difficult to understand because in our view Chinese society is not democratic. But for most Chinese, democracy primarily means governing in the public interest and good governance.[xvii] We place much more emphasis on how and by whom decisions are made. The Chinese attach more importance to the quality of their politicians than to selection processes.

According to China expert Daniel Bell, the political system in China is a combination of meritocracy at the top, democracy at the bottom and room for experimentation at the intermediate levels. Political leaders are chosen on the basis of their merit and before they reach the top they go through a very tough process of formation, practice and evaluation. Direct elections are held at municipal level and for provincial party congresses. Political, social or economic innovations are first tested on a smaller scale (a few cities or provinces) and introduced on a large scale after thorough evaluation and adjustment.[xviii]

In addition, the central government conducts opinion polls on a very regular basis that evaluate government performance in the areas of social security, public health, employment and the environment, as well as polling the popularity of local leaders. Based on this, the policy is adjusted or corrected if necessary.

The political system certainly has room for improvement. Chinese leaders themselves explicitly acknowledge this. Nor are they afraid to openly admit their mistakes.[xix] The quest for a better decision-making system is far from over. But the current system has proved its worth. According to Francis Fukuyama “the most important strength of the Chinese political system is its ability to make large, complex decisions quickly, and to make them relatively well, at least in economic policy. China adapts quickly, making difficult decisions and implementing them effectively.”

Challenges

The list of challenges facing the CPC and the country is long. We limit ourselves to the most daunting. At the social level, there is the necessity of redistributing wealth and the question of the “internal migrants”. In the economic field, there is the question of ageing, the transition to an internal market and the huge debts. At the political level, there is the harmonious coexistence of the various ethnicities, the suppression of nationalist resentments, the tackling of corruption, the further development of the rule of law, a further democratization of decision-making, keeping the capitalist top layer in check, restoring socialist morality and filling the ideological vacuum. On an ecological level, there is of course global warming, mainly to be coped with by the phasing out of coal, but also by the elimination of environmental pollution.

The clash of the century

The biggest challenge, however, is the growing threat emanating from the US. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dismantling of the Soviet Union, the US established itself as the undisputed leader of world politics. The Pentagon in 1992: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” (o.c.) Thirty years later, China has become the main “rival” to be reined in. As Domenico Losurdo puts it, “China remains the last major area to escape US political influence, it is the last frontier to be conquered”.[xx]

That’s why the US has identified the People’s Republic of China as its main enemy. As part of the 2019 budget talks, Congress declared that “long-term strategic competition with China is a principal priority for the United States”. This is about a comprehensive strategy that must be pursued on several fronts. The US is trying to thwart, or as they themselves say, to “blunt” China’s economic and technological ascent.[xxi]

If necessary, this will be done by extra-economic means. The military strategy towards China follows two tracks: an arms race and an encirclement of the country.[xxii] Five strategic themes are used by the U.S. to incite hostility towards China: Taiwan, the Uyghurs, Hong Kong, Tibet and the South China Sea.  They serve on the one hand to weaken China internally and on the other hand to turn public opinion worldwide against China[xxiii] and thus justify future aggressions.

Warmongering is in the DNA of the US. The Yankees have fought in 227 years of their 244-year history. Over the past twenty years, they dropped an average of 46 bombs a day. Obama, the president who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, bombed seven countries simultaneously in 2016. The last war China fought was in 1979 against Vietnam. Except for the border incident with India of 2020, the rise of China in East Asia has been remarkably conflict-free.[xxiv]

Meanwhile, Trump’s unbalanced grandstanding on China has turned Joe Biden into a well-thought-out doctrine. That is very disturbing. “The increasingly aggressive statements and actions being taken by the US government in regard to China (…) constitute a threat to world peace and are an obstacle to humanity successfully dealing with extremely serious common issues which confront it such as climate change, control of pandemics, racist discrimination and economic development” the No Cold War Declaration states.

Beyond the Western perspective

In his influential book Clash of Civilizations Huntington wrote, “if it occurs, China’s emergence as a major power will dwarf any comparable phenomena during the last half of the second millennium”.[xxv] It could not be otherwise. The emergence of the US as a superpower from 1870 already profoundly changed world relations. But China’s 1978 population was 24 times larger than the US then, and it had a growth path more than twice as high.[xxvi] After a century of imperialist wars, occupations and humiliations, the country with a civilization that is thousands of years old is reclaiming its place on the world stage.

Until recently, the West had an absolute monopoly on technology, weapons of mass destruction, monetary and financial systems, access to natural resources and mass communications. With that monopoly it could control or subjugate the countries of the South.[xxvii] The West, led by the US, is now in danger of losing that monopoly. A unipolar world is giving way to a multipolar world. China, and in its wake India and other emerging countries, are overturning world relations at an accelerated pace and transforming the world in a way never seen before.

For the first time in recent history, a poor, underdeveloped country has risen to become an economic superpower in no time. China has shown the world that the Western model is not the only way to modernize.[xxviii] The 2008 financial crisis and the disastrous handling of the COVID crisis in the West has further challenged our capitalist model.

This is a confronting thought for us. That’s why we find it extremely difficult to look at China in an open-minded way. Martin Jacques puts it this way: “Any discussion is almost invariably colored by a value judgement that, because China has a Communist government, we already know the answers to all the important questions. It is a mindset formed in the Cold War that leaves us ill-equipped to understand the nature of Chinese polities or the current regime.”[xxix]

Whatever the case, the Chinese project is far from finished. The communist ideal is far from being achieved; the system contains too many serious imbalances for that. It is a long process that is in full swing. Extraordinary results have been achieved, but there is still a long and difficult road ahead, full of contradictions, risks and challenges. It took the French Revolution more than eighty years of mistakes, experiments and bloody wars to form a stable parliamentary republic. In any case, the Chinese leaders see their project in the context of a “longue durée”. For our judgments we had better take into account a similar long-term perspective.

*

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

Notes

[i] Between 1839 and 1860, two opium wars were fought between Britain and China. Britain smuggled opium into China, causing millions to become addicted. When China took action against this, the British launched a war against China. The wars basically served to keep China in line and impose unfavorable trade terms.

[ii] Sesam Atlas bij de wereldgeschiedenis, Deel 2, Apeldoorn 1989, p. 91; Shouy B., An Outline History of China, Beijing 2002, p. 388v.

[iii] Yongnian Z., The  Chinese Communist Party as Organizational Emperor, London 2010, p. 12-4.

[iv] McGregor R., The Party. The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers, New York 2010, p. 123; Yongnian Z., op. cit., p. 60; Chuntao X. (ed.), Why and How The CPCCPC Works in China, Beijing 2011, p. 107

[v] Jacques M., When China Rules the World. The Rise of the Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World, London, 2009, p. 92.

[vi] Maddison A., The World Economy. A Millennial Perspective, OESO 2001, p. 263, 304 and 330; Hobsbawm E., Een eeuw van uitersten. De twintigste eeuw 1914-1991, Utrecht 1994, p. 540; Chuntao X. (ed.), op. cit., p. 72.

[vii] Losurdo D., Fuir l’histoire? La révolution russe et la révolution chinoise aujourd’hui, Paris 2007, p. 69-72 and 175-6; Chuntao X. (ed.), op. cit., p. 29-30.
With the Great Leap Forward, the death rate in China doubled from 12 per thousand to 25.4 per thousand in 1960, after which it fell back to 14 and 10 per thousand in 1961 and 1962 respectively. In the deadliest year, 1960, however, that death rate hardly differed from that of India. It was 24.8 per thousand, which was a “normal” for India.

[viii] Launched by Mao Zedong, the Cultural Revolution was a revolt by Chinese students and workers to preserve socialist gains. Targeted were some party bosses and executives in the state apparatus who had settled into a comfortable position of power and cared less and less about the communist ideals of equality and solidarity. This happened against the background of a growing (political and ideological) distance from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which was accused of pursuing a pro-capitalist course (“revisionism”).

Called “social re-education”, many intellectuals, executives and students were temporarily sent to the countryside to do physical labor and learn to show solidarity with the peasants or workers. The first years of the Cultural Revolution were particularly turbulent and at one point the army had to be deployed to restore order.

[ix] By 1976, food production had increased by half compared to 1965. Petroleum production increased sevenfold during that period. Chuntao X. (ed.), op. cit., pp. 34-5.

In India, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) is 27.5, placing it among the group of countries with a serious problem. There are nearly 200 million Indians who are starving. China belongs to the category of ‘low problem’ countries (GHI < 5).

[x] The Human Development Index (HDI) is a measure of a country’s development based on, among other things, GDP per capita, standard of living, education and health. The HDI is being developed by UNDP, the UN body that deals with development and poverty in the world.

[xi] Jacques M., op. cit., p. 99.

[xii] “It is the historical mission of the capitalist system of production to raise these material foundations of the new mode of production to a certain degree of perfection.” Marx K., Capital III, p. 306. Marx elaborated on this theme in De Grundrisse.

[xiii] Thompson I., ‘China and the ‘socialist market economy’, in China: Revolution and Counterrevolution, San Francisco 2008, 87-97.

[xiv] Herrera R. & Long Z., La Chine est-elle capitaliste ?, Paris 2019, p. 29-30.

[xv] McGregor R., op. cit., p. 28.

[xvi] Calculated based on UNICEF, The State Of The World’s Children 2019, New York, p. 193-197.

[xvii] Shambaugh D., China’s Communist Party. Atrophy and Adaptation, Washington D.C. 2009, p. 37.

[xviii] Bell D., The China Model. Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy, Princeton 2015, p. 179-188.

[xix] For example, before and during the Eighteenth Congress, the country’s major problems were listed one by one, discussed and turned into action items.

[xx] Losurdo D., op. cit., p. 18.

[xxi] Rush Doshi, the new China director on President Biden’s National Security Council, describes this subversion strategy as “asymmetric blunting”.

[xxii] For a more comprehensive treatment of this, see Vandepitte M., Trump and China: Towards a Cold or Hot War?

[xxiii] This objective has already been quite successful. According to a recent Pew Research Center survey in 14 countries, unfavorable views on China have skyrocketed in the past year. The five strategic points mentioned and the reporting about them play a large part in this.

[xxiv] Jacques M., op. cit., p. 315.

[xxv] Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York 1996, p. 216.

[xxvi] Maddison A., op. cit., p. 183, 262 en 292; Herrera R. & Long Z., op. cit., p. 53.

[xxvii] Amin S., Obsolescent Capitalism, London 2003, p. 63-4.

[xxviii] McGregor R., op. cit., p. 272

[xxix] Jacques M., op. cit., p. 206.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Global Research Editor’s Note and Update

The outcome of  this legal procedure was not in favour of Patrick King.

Although successful in the court of public opinion, Patrick did not win the court case, at least NOT YET.

We suggest you view the original interview and then scroll down to view Patrick King’s powerful followup interview on Truth Talk

Patrick King has been trending on twitter due to a viral video where it is claimed that the province of Alberta rolled back on their lockdown measures as a result of Patrick’s court proceedings and this is not true as Patrick states  “I Wasn’t Successful, No I did Not Win The Court Case”.

In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth speaks with Patrick King in order to clear up some discrepancies in regards to what is happening with his case. 

***

Patriot Patrick King represented himself in court after being fined $1200 dollars for protesting against the Covid-Hoax, he slew the beast and emerged VICTORIOUS.

He issued a subpoena to the Provincial Health Minister for proof that the so-called Covid-19 Virus exists, and they were forced to admit that they had no evidence whatsoever. The virus has never been isolated, and thus the government had no legal grounds to impose any of the punishing restrictions they have inflicted on society.

Since this shocking confession came to light, the Province has since rescinded all Covid-Restrictions and now officially treats Covid-19 as nothing more than a mild flu! WE WON!

King has shown the template to be followed WORLDWIDE. This is what can happen when you are not re-presented by a BAR (British Accredited Registry) Lawyer who’s first obligation is to the Corrupted Courts and not their client.

 

WATCH ON ➜ ODYSEE

WATCH ON ➜ BITCHUTE

WATCH ON ➜ FLOTE

WATCH ON  MINDS

WATCH ON ➜ RUMBLE

 

*

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 Liberty Beacon

When Will They Lift the Blockade? Iraq and Cuba

August 5th, 2021 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

All Global Research articles 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.

***

“When will they lift the blockade?”

A polite smile did not hide her deep anxiety.

She wasn’t Venezuelan, not Iranian, not Syrian, nor a citizen of other nations struggling under U.S.-imposed sanctions.

I had just reached Baghdad on one of my missions there during the 1990s. How that question haunted me. I grew to anticipate it on each encounter inside Iraq during successive visits to cover 13 grim years of embargo.

Gracious welcomes turned solemn as my hosts raised concerns about the siege. A perfectly reasonable question: Iraqis knew that U.N. Resolution 661, imposed October 1990, was an American- orchestrated war policy. As I’d arrived from the U.S. those greeting me hoped I might have some revelation to share.

“Hard to say” became my recurring, desolate reply.

Relief looked more doubtful after April 1991 when U.N. Resolution 687 linking any respite to satisfactory removal of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ expanded the already exhaustive 661 sanctions regimen. Even as Iraq agreed to intrusive inspections– no nuclear arsenal was ever unearthed– suffering deepened, the death toll rose, deprivations mounted.

Year after year, I could offer little optimism for these essentially abandoned people. (Not to say doomed; not yet.) Neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations, nor the American public, nor the most liberal media hinted at even a slight opening in the sanctions-fortification.

The humanitarian and economic catastrophe that engulfed the nation remained largely concealed. Endless drama surrounding U.N. weapons inspections filled any news-time allocated for Iraq. Except for a steady flow of fearsome stories about Saddam Hussein.

The handful of anti-sanctions activists scattered across the globe managed to publish evidence of the calamitous consequences of that softly silent, deadly war. Despite those reports, outsiders remained woefully unaware, or unsympathetic– as Lawrence Davidson notes regarding Iran today.

So effective were threats against any extraterritorial embargo breach, no nation dared engage with Iraq. Even with Baghdad’s steady compliance to the terms of 661 and 687, the U.S. found additional reasons to continue the siege.

A decade passed. Finally, I revised my response to that wretched, heartbreaking query:

“Look at the embargo on Cuba”.

By 2000 this seemed a more realistic although still circumspect reply.

I’d avoided reference to the besieged Caribbean nation, already enduring four decades of sanctions. (A daring vote by Cuba against the U.N.-backed Gulf War should have directed Iraqi eyes in Cuba’s direction.) Anyway, would Cuba’s experience be relevant? Unlike Cuba, Iraq retained a fanciful attachment to putative oil revenues. It also clung to a farfetched prospect of accessing its foreign bank assets–at least for food and humanitarian essentials.

Unlike Cubans, Iraqis hadn’t driven out a colonizer, hadn’t overturned a dictator, hadn’t an alternative ideology to guide them. Iraq’s leadership, unchanged, presented a face not of victory but endurance.

Iraqis were naïve, or ill-informed, about how malicious and thorough modern-day blockades could be. Officials and citizens alike found comfort in a perhaps misplaced pride in 4,000-plus years of civilization. Iraq boasted its world-class doctors, scientists and artists, its many women professionals—as if they could overturn the assault. (Although year after year, their numbers would dwindle, lured abroad by America and its allies, all cognizant of Iraqi talent.)

Instead of mobilizing citizens to innovate and to study others’ experience (Cuba’s, for example), Iraq’s Baath leaders clung to the delusion that the blockade would be bearable and brief.

Although Iraqi troops had been ingloriously expelled from Kuwait –war crimes by the U.S. alliance in that military offensive are erased from history– the country’s leadership remained intact, ready to control any internal dissent.

What a contrast with Cuba! Unlike Iraq, after its revolutionary  success, Cuba joined ideologically allied parties, organizations and nations similarly engaged in political struggle and socialist revolution. Concrete alliances resulted in solid support. Cuba’s military assistance to Angola and other African nations is legendary. As are its medical missions, with thousands of health professionals dispatched to nations in need (including Covid pandemic aid).

Cuba’s socialist commitment earned Russia’s alliance as an economic partner and erstwhile military protector. Iraq had no super-power ally. It lacked a single overseas partner, no Arab friend, no religious block, no overseas immigrant voices whatsoever. Whereas Cuba’s revolutionary achievement stirred people worldwide. It welcomed the arrival of countless delegations, offering firsthand testimony not of deprivation but of a worthy socialist model. Cuba’s arrangement with Canada, while limited, provided a route for American delegations to the island to witness its progress. Returning visitors joined a committed, effective anti-sanctions lobby. Their testimonials widened support for Cuba’s transformation.

Cuba’s U.N. diplomats made steady headway: by 1992, and annually thereafter, the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of a resolution condemning America’s embargo.

Cuba’s leadership had nothing remotely akin in Iraq. Fidel Castro’s wholesome, engaging character endeared him to many. The euphoria with which the Cuban president was greeted across the globe and by African Americans is well-known. Especially significant was his historic 1960 meeting with Malcolm Xdocumented by Rosemari Mealy.

One recognizes the prudence and dignity of both Castro brothers in President Díaz-Canel Bermúdez today. His July 17th response to Washington’s exploitation of recent public demonstrations in Cuba honors his predecessors.

Two embargoed nations: their experiences, strategies and circumstances couldn’t be more dissimilar. Iraq’s sanctions, killing untold numbers, ended with a massive military invasion whose  disastrous outcome continues to unfold today, 31 years on.

Cuba’s policy was measured and resourceful. The country enjoyed wide international respect. It won successive U.N. endorsements, until, in 2015, the Obama administration signed a treaty with Cuba (only to be undone by Trump).

Today the nation, maliciously designated in 2017 as sponsoring terror, finds itself subject to extended sanctions under Biden. Whichever party rules Washington batters Cuba with this outrageous war plan. The media that endorse these policies permeate the American mind and shred its moral fiber.

Can Americans not understand others’ suffering, death and calamity without a spectacle of bombs and blood?

*

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 author’s blog site, B. Nimri Aziz.

N Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

Barbara is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from B. Nimri Aziz

CDC, FDA Faked “COVID” Testing Protocol by Using Human Cells Mixed with Common Cold Virus Fragments

By Mike Adams, August 04, 2021

In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.

Party Over in China as Communist Party Takes Back Control

By Tom Clifford, August 04, 2021

China’s second cultural revolution is hitting the brakes. This one is not about Mao’s little red book but TV remote controls, fridges, cars, mobile phones, and yes, most important, property, the trappings of the modern age, admittedly more apparent in the east of the country but aspired to greatly in the less-developed west.

Klaus Schwab’s ‘Great Reset’:”The Fusion of our Physical, Digital, and Biological Identities”

By Tim Porter, August 04, 2021

World Economic Forum’s transhumanist founder promotes ‘regionalization’ as globalism’s post-COVID compromise with nationalism. Regional blocs, regional supply chains would be an “in-between solution….a new watered-down version” of globalization.

Our Tragedy Is the Loss of Love: Are We Still Human?

By S. M. Smyth, August 04, 2021

A narrow perception of what it means to be human has led us, willy nilly—or perhaps with a chilling inevitability—to the literal transformation of people into bizarre hybrid creatures, half human, half machine.

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

While the Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that they had isolated and identified “a new type of virus” no details were provided. Then on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.

Video: Freedom Fighter Court Victory! Ends Masking, Shots, Quarantine in Alberta!

By Patrick King and Stew Peters, August 04, 2021

WE CAN WIN! Patrick King is a proud father of 2, Freedom Fighter and Patriot who took on the powerful government in Alberta, and WON! We can ALL learn from this, and we MUST battle this in every single city, every single county, every single state, every single NATION! The fight for freedom is a worldwide effort, and WE CAN WIN!

World’s Elderly Population Targeted with 3rd COVID-19 Shot for Those Who Survived the First Two

By Brian Shilhavy, August 04, 2021

According to statistics released by the CDC in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the vast majority of recorded deaths following one of the experimental COVID-19 injections has been among the elderly.

Sweden: Despite Variants, No Lockdowns, No Daily COVID Deaths

By Michael Fumento, August 04, 2021

Since the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor.

58% of Infant Deaths Reported to VAERS Occurred Within 3 Days of Vaccination, Research Shows

By Prof. Brian S. Hooker, August 04, 2021

In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Freedom Fighter Court Victory! Ends Masking, Shots, Quarantine in Alberta!
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Pursuing ‘Integrated Deterrence’ Strategy in Asia-Pacific Region, Says Austin

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Wir befinden uns zurzeit in einem gesellschaftlichen Ausnahmezustand, wie ihn die Welt noch nicht erlebt hat.

Im Namen der Gesundheit sind uns Maßnahmen aufgezwungen worden, die uns alle nicht gesünder, sondern viele von uns krank gemacht haben, und zwar nicht nur körperlich, sondern psychisch, emotional und auch wirtschaftlich.

Noch nie sind unter einem medizinischen Vorwand solche wirtschaftlichen Schäden angerichtet worden wie in den zurückliegenden sechzehn Monaten. Betriebe wurden lahmgelegt, Lieferketten zerbrochen, mittelständische Betriebe zu hunderttausenden in Existenznot getrieben und ganze Wirtschaftszweige wie der Tourismus weitgehend zerstört.

Noch schlimmer als bei uns waren die Folgen in den Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern: Allein 2020 ist der Lebensstandard von mehr als eineinhalb Milliarden Menschen gesenkt und sind mehr als 130 Millionen Menschen zum Hungern verurteilt worden.

Am entgegengesetzten Ende der Gesellschaft dagegen sah es anders aus:

Noch nie haben Regierungen mit Hilfe der Zentralbanken „Rettungsgelder“ in solcher Höhe und solchem Umfang wie 2020 vergeben. Der Löwenanteil dieser Gelder ist auf direktem Weg in die Finanzmärkte geflossen und hat dort eine Rallye befeuert, die zur größten Vermögensumverteilung von unten nach oben geführt hat, die die Welt jemals erlebt hat.

Was steckt dahinter? Wie war es möglich, unter dem Vorwand eines vermeintlichen gesundheitlichen Schutzes der Bevölkerung weltweit einen solch riesigen Wohlstands-Transfer vorzunehmen?

Die Antwort lautet: Wir sind 2020 am Ende eines historischen Prozesses und damit an einem Wendepunkt in der menschlichen Geschichte angekommen, und es ist nicht die Politik, die über den zukünftigen Kurs der Welt entscheidet, sondern eine andere – unendlich viel mächtigere – Kraft, nämlich der DIGITAL-FINANZIELLE KOMPLEX.

Dieser Komplex hat sich in den zurückliegenden 40 Jahren wie ein Krebsgeschwür über die gesamte Welt ausgebreitet und sämtliche Bereiche unseres Lebens durchdrungen. Zu seinen wichtigsten Vertretern zählen die großen IT-Konzerne und die führenden Vermögensberatungen.

Der Börsenwert der fünf größten Digitalkonzerne Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft und Facebook liegt zurzeit bei sagenhaften 8,8 Billionen Dollar, allein die beiden größten Vermögensverwalter der Welt, BlackRock und Vanguard, verwalten zusammen mehr als 16 Billionen Dollar.

Dieser Konzentrationsprozess von Geld und Macht in immer weniger Händen ist einmalig. Noch nie in der gesamten Geschichte der Menschheit haben so wenige Menschen und so wenige Unternehmen so viel Geld besessen wie heute. Noch nie haben sie so viel Macht ausgeübt und noch nie haben sie diese Macht so hemmungslos eingesetzt wie in den vergangenen 16 Monaten.

Trotzdem steht der digital-finanzielle Komplex zurzeit vor einem riesigen Problem: Das System, das ihm zu so viel Geld und so viel Macht verholfen hat, ist im März / April 2020 in sein Endstadium eingetreten und mit den herkömmlichen Methoden nicht mehr zu retten.

Deshalb verfolgen seine wichtigsten Vertreter zurzeit eine Agenda, die mit Gesundheit nichts zu tun hat. Sie besteht darin, das bestehende System in seinem Todeskampf nach allen Regeln der Kunst zu plündern und gleichzeitig im Hintergrund ein neues System vorzubereiten.

Die Plünderung des Systems erleben wir seit Monaten durch die immer neuen Einschränkungen, die vor allem den Mittelstand in die Knie zwingen und ihn in eine immer größere Abhängigkeit von der digitalen Plattformökonomie treiben. Außerdem durch die permanente Einspeisung neuen Geldes, das die Inflation immer stärker anheizt, was sowohl den Staaten als auch den Spekulanten hilft, ihren Schuldenberg abzutragen, die arbeitende Bevölkerung aber gleichzeitig schleichend enteignet.

Von der Vorbereitung des neuen Systems – der Einführung digitaler Zentralbankwährungen – erfährt die Öffentlichkeit dagegen so gut wie nichts. Und das, obwohl die großen Zentralbanken alle unter Hochdruck an diesem Projekt arbeiten. Und diese neue Währung birgt ungeheure Gefahren: Mit ihr wird man das Konsumverhalten der Empfänger gezielt steuern, ihnen das Sparen unmöglich machen und sie zwingen können, das Geld zweckgebunden innerhalb vorgegebener Zeiträume auszugeben. Man wird Wohlverhalten belohnen, Kritiker bestrafen und sogar von allen Finanzströmen abschneiden können.

Digitales Zentralbankgeld wird der Kern eines gesellschaftlichen Zwangsregimes sein, das weitgehend ohne offene Gewalt auskommen wird, weil es jede Opposition bereits im Keim ersticken kann. Digitales Zentralbankgeld ist ein fast perfektes Mittel zur Kontrolle, zur Manipulation und zur Konditionierung der Bevölkerung. Seine Einführung bedeutet nicht mehr und nicht weniger als die am tiefsten in unser Leben eingreifende Währungsreform aller Zeiten. Eine Welt mit digitalem Zentralbankgeld ist nichts anderes als ein digital-finanzielles Gefängnis, in dem für Freiheit und Demokratie kein Platz mehr ist.

Aber sind wir dieser Entwicklung hilflos ausgeliefert? Oder haben wir noch eine Chance, den Alptraum einer Welt der vollständigen Versklavung durch das Geld zu verhindern?

Das hängt nur von einem einzigen Faktor ab: dem Wissensstand der Menschen. Das gegenwärtige undemokratische, ungerechte und sozial zerstörerische System funktioniert nämlich nur deshalb, weil die Mehrheit der Menschen es nicht durchschaut. Würden die Menschen es massenhaft durchschauen, wäre es auf Dauer nicht aufrecht zu erhalten.

Da dieses System aber nur durch immer schärfere Zwangsmaßnahmen am Leben erhalten werden kann, werden in der vor uns liegenden Periode immer mehr Menschen damit in Konflikt geraten. Das wiederum bedeutet, dass sie auf Grund der entstehenden Probleme nach Auswegen suchen werden.

Wir treten also in eine geschichtliche Epoche ein, in der die Aufklärung über die tatsächlichen Strukturen und Machtverhältnisse in unserer Gesellschaft und unserer Wirtschaft bei sehr vielen Menschen auf offene Ohren stoßen wird.

Nutzen wir also diese historische Chance und treiben wir diese Aufklärung trotz aller Zensur, aller Verbote und aller Einschüchterungen voran – und setzen wir es uns zum Ziel, uns, unsere Kinder und unsere Enkel vor der Einkerkerung in einem digital-finanziellen Gefängnis zu bewahren und zukünftigen Generationen ein Leben in Würde und in Freiheit zu ermöglichen.

*

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 Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Verbotene Demo in Berlin: Meine nicht gehaltene Rede

All Global Research articles 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 the port of Beirut was destroyed on August 4, 2020, French authorities have increased the number of trips, initiatives, pressures and appeals to the international community to assist reconstruction and stabilization efforts in Lebanon. A year after the explosion, French President Emmanuel Macron and Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres organized a virtual summit in order to raise at least $350 million in emergency aid for the Lebanese people. The videoconference will have the participation of 40 heads of state, including U.S. President Joe Biden, Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, King Abdullah II of Jordan and Lebanese President Michel Aoun.

Faced with the worst economic crisis in its history, Lebanon is in the most desperate state it has been in since the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). Aid is necessary to alleviate the most immediate problems people are facing, but it does not in any way solve the overarching issues in Lebanon – deeply ingrained corruption, sectarianism and a collapsing economy.

Paris has already organized several conferences to try and resolve the Lebanese crisis. The first two were on August 9 and December 12, 2020, mobilizing €257 and €280 million respectively. On June 17, the French Defense Minister organized a virtual meeting to gather emergency aid for the Lebanese army. In addition to the humanitarian and military aid, France is also heavily involved in Lebanese politics, demonstrating that the European country is desperately trying to regain a significant foothold in its former colony.

Faced with the inaction of the Lebanese ruling class and the numerous ministerial blockages, Paris did not hesitate to toughen up its tone. On March 29, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had mentioned “stepping up the pressure” against Lebanon’s elite. Soon after, France followed through on its threats, sanctioning several Lebanese leaders, including former foreign minister and Christian ally of Hezbollah, Gebran Bassil. In this way, French sanctions towards Lebanese leaders matched Washington’s policies.

Unable to create a new government in Beirut, Paris set its sights on the irremovable governor of the Lebanese Central Bank, Riad Salameh. On June 6, the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office opened a preliminary investigation for “criminal association” and “organized money laundering” against Salameh. France had to learn the hard way that a country with deeply ingrained corruption cannot be reformed in a short time.

However, even this was problematic and demonstrated France’s lack of awareness on its Lebanon file. Macron left this file in the hands of former French Ambassador to Lebanon, Emmanuel Bonne, and Director of the Directorate-General for France’s External Security, Bernard Émié. Both are known for being in favor of the Hariri clan. The Hariri’s are one of the most powerful Sunni families in Lebanon, often holding the Prime Ministership and are worth billions of dollars. The Hariri’s have been involved in numerous scandals and have serious accusations of corruption levelled against them.

However, even Saad Hariri, close to the President of the Republic, was sidelined by Paris. Indeed, during his visit to Lebanon on June 6, Le Drian received him at the residence of the French Ambassador to Lebanon. According to diplomatic protocol, a French minister must go to his hosts and not to a place belonging to France.

Today though, it is Lebanese President Michel Aoun that is in the sights of European sanctions at the request of Paris. In the event of a non-formation of a government, Brussels could sanction Aoun. Despite this more aggressive and dissuasive policy, France is failing to gain significant influence in Lebanon.

It is recalled that during Macron’s visit to Lebanon the day after the port of Beirut explosion, he was received with much jubilation to many of the Lebanese that came out to welcome him. From August 6, two days after the disaster in Beirut, the French President was taking photos and hugging the families of victims, and saw himself as the saviour of Lebanon. Riding this wave of French empathy, some Lebanese even become nostalgic for the era of the French Mandate, i.e. colonial rule.

With two trips in less than a month, Macron had taken the Lebanese file very seriously. After the initial benevolence, he tried to impose a French initiative, a sort of political roadmap to resolve the Lebanese crisis and form a new government. Ultimately, Paris failed as Lebanon remains in a political and economic gridlock.

For France, Lebanon is its only gateway to the Middle East after it severed and destroyed ties with Damascus following the Syrian War in 2011. Macron also wanted to use success in Lebanon as part of his re-election campaign, but it is clear that no serious achievements have been made. One year on from the port of Beirut blast and France remains locked out of the Middle East and Lebanon has not made а serious step towards economic and political stability.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image: A damaged car and building are seen after a fire at a warehouse with explosives at the Port of Beirut led to massive blasts in Lebanon, 14 August 2020 [Enes Canli/Anadolu Agency]

All Global Research articles 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 week, Twitter was keen to share the news about its new arrangement with The Associated Press and Reuters “to expand our efforts to identify and elevate credible information” on its platform.  The company reiterates its commitment that people using its service are able to “easily find reliable information” hoping to “expand the scale and increase the speed of our efforts to provide timely, authoritative text across the wide range of global topics and conversations” taking place on the platform each day.

The global head of user-generated content at Reuters, Hazel Baker, was businesslike in describing a partnership that would “leverage our deep global and local expertise to serve the public conversation with reliable information.”  Tom Januszewski, Vice President of Global Business Development at AP, was “particularly excited about leveraging AP’s scale and speed to add context to online conversations, which can benefit from easy access to the facts.” 

Such promises to “leverage” could well have been matched to any shadowy information department from the Cold War with the express purpose of ensuring what news was consumed when and by whom.  Twitter will seek help from the two newswires “where facts are in dispute or when Twitter’s Curation team doesn’t have the specific expertise or access to a high enough volume of reputable reporting on Twitter.”  Those using the platform “can expect more Trends with contextual descriptions and links to reporting from trusted sources more frequently.”

Bringing aboard these news giants is no guarantee that the text and information provided will be authoritative, credible or reliable.  News wires are not immune to being disseminators of inaccurate information, or information that is slanted in favour of a power or interest.  Often, they hide behind their reputations even as they ventriloquise different interests and planted narratives. 

Take Reuters, which, by its claim, “shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters, and other media subscribers and to businesses, governments, institutions, individuals, and others with whom Reuters has or may have contracts.”  In 1941, the company created its Trust Principles in agreement with The News Paper Proprietors Associated Limited and The Press Association Limited.  These imposed obligations on the organisation and its employees to “act at all times with integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.”

Noble in print, the practise did not always stack up. In 1969, a British government document available in the National Archives called “Funding of Reuters by HMG” (Her Majesty’s Government) also outlined an agreement with Reuters to do the sort of thing that has become popular at Twitter: curate the news. 

The way that curating would take place was what mattered.  “We are now in a position to conclude an agreement providing discreet Government support for Reuters services in the Middle East and Latin America”.  The interests of HMG “should be well served by the new arrangement.”  The negotiations with the news outlet were led by the anti-Soviet propaganda unit known as the Information Research Department.  “The new relationship established with Reuters in the Middle East and Latin America,” John Peck, former head of the IRD notes in the documents, “can lead to valuable goodwill and cooperation with the Agency on a global scale.” Reuters “could and would provide” what the government needed.

The scheme also brought in that other paragon of objective journalism, the BBC, which paid an “enhanced subscription” to Reuters, which was then going through a financially lean time.  That money was duly recouped from the Treasury’s purse.  Knowledge of this arrangement, approved by the BBC’s head of external services Sir Charles Curran, was kept to a select few.

With these revelations, Reuters was keen to regard this practise as not only normal but acceptable – at least historically.  “Many news organisations received some form of state subsidy after World War Two,” was the weak explanation from the wire’s spokesperson David Crundwell.  The arrangement, he claimed, “was not in keeping with our Trust Principles and we would not do this today.”

The BBC, through a spokeswoman, similarly said that, “The BBC charter guarantees editorial independence irrespective of whether funding comes from the UK government, the license fee or commercial sources.” 

Much of this is wishful thinking.  Such working understandings have not ceased in the post-Cold War era.  If anything, the misinformation and disinformation stakes have reached a new frontier, pullulating with contenders.  Max Blumental, editor of The Grayzone, revealed last February that Reuters and the BBC had been sponsored to engage in a covert information warfare campaign against that old adversary Russia.  This involved a collaboration with the Counter Disinformation & Media Development (CDMD) section within the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).  Media organisations worked alongside various intelligence contractors, training Russian journalists under the Reuters umbrella to produce “attitudinal change in the participants”. The aim, fluffily put, was to produce a “positive impact” on their “perception of the UK.”

The development tracker of the UK government also reveals that the CDMD programme involves working with various partners “to enhance the quality of public service and independent media (including the Russian language) so that it is able to support social cohesion, uphold universal values and provide communities across Eastern Europe with access to reliable information.”

Twitter’s response to Blumenthal’s work is a sign of things to come.  Providing its own idea of context to the article, the platform placed a warning on all tweets linked to it.  Far from discrediting the sources used, the message simply went on to warn that the documents used “may have been obtained through hacking.”

As for Twitter, we already know about executive connections between its operations and the military-intelligence establishment.  In 2019, the Middle East Eye found that Gordon MacMillan, a senior executive with editorial responsibility for Middle East matters, was also moonlighting as a reservist for the 77th Brigade, the British Army’s psychological warfare unit established in 2015 to find ways of waging “non-lethal” war.  According to General Nick Carter, the unit’s primary task is to conduct researchinto “information warfare” and give the British military “the capability to compete in the war of narratives at the tactical level”.

The battle against misinformation can very often become a battle against information you do not particularly like or want people to access.  The line on this is not always clear, though hope springs eternal that the marketplace of ideas, to use that increasingly empty expression, can sort the wheat from the chaff.  Twitter’s calculating pivot towards this new information landscape shows a new strategy to anchor itself in an ecosystem already marginalising independent journalism. In doing so, it is courting the high priests who determine what counts as news and what doesn’t.  Soon, a sanitised platform will simply be code for a censored 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.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Black August and the Legacy of Liberation Struggles

August 5th, 2021 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since 1979 when prisoners at the San Quentin Correctional Facility in California declared the month of August as a period of commemoration honoring political detainees along with those who have sacrificed their well-being and lives in the movement for African emancipation, this holiday has grown in recognition and participation. 

For decades the United States government has denied the existence of political prisoners while the entire criminal justice system has grown exponentially.

Looking back even further, the centuries-long enslavement of African people has never been officially acknowledged by the U.S. capitalist state as a crime against humanity. Not even one president out of those elected since the demise of legalized slavery in 1865 has officially apologized for the pain and suffering enduring by African people between 1619 to the Civil War.

Such an admission of guilt by the state and the leading financial institutions and corporations which were built on the profits accrued through slave labor, would inevitably suggest the need for reparations. The question of reparations remains a major source of denial by the state and the capitalist system.

After the period of enslavement there were the attempts to reconstruct a democratic dispensation. However, the overthrow of Federal Reconstruction between 1877 extending to the conclusion of the century which included the passage of Civil Rights Acts and three amendments to the Constitution (13th, 14th and 15th) that specifically addressed the emancipation and the granting of “citizenship rights” to African Americans, set the stage for the criminalization of an entire people.

Resistance to national oppression has always prompted an expansion of the prison system in the U.S. In the South, facilities such as Angola in Louisiana and Parchman in Mississippi were structured in a manner quite similar to plantations. African Americans have been routinely framed for crimes in which they did not commit in order to send them to penitentiaries where they work for slave wages under dangerous and highly exploitative conditions.

African enslavement and the U.S. state (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

During the era of African enslavement there were prisons which held captured runaways from the plantation system. Plantation owners and enslavers would often place ads in newspapers during the antebellum period seeking information on Africans who had escaped their masters. The detention facilities would charge the slave owners for holding the African people and costs were levied for beatings and other forms of purported discipline.

Black August and the Struggle Against Mass Incarceration

With specific reference to Black August after its founding in 1979, an article in Teen Vogue says of its history that:

“As Dan Berger explained in an essay for Dissent, Black August remains a 31-day period for us to advocate for Black political prisoners, study Black political thinkers, and reflect on the history of Black struggle against white supremacy and state repression. The history of Black August shows us that the current targeting of protesters via carceral, shadowy methods is not new. Black organizers have long sounded the alarm about and resisted government surveillance programs like the FBI’s COINTELPRO, which worked to dismantle leftist movements. Many Black political leaders ended up imprisoned or dead as a result of the notorious covert operation. Black August calls on us to commit, even in the face of authoritarianism, to continued struggle against all forms of oppression and violence that impact Black people today.”

This same article continues by reflecting on a number of historical events which have occurred in the month of August over a period of several centuries:

“A plethora of important moments related to the struggle for Black freedom occurred in August: the beginning of the Haitian Revolution in 1791, the 2014 Ferguson uprising, the landing of enslaved Africans stolen from present-day Angola at the Jamestown settler colony in 1619, the 1963 March on Washington, the 1831 slave insurrection led by Nat Turner, and the 1965 Watts rebellion, to name a few. Joan Little, a Black woman who was charged with first-degree murder after she defended herself against sexual assault by a white prison guard, was acquitted and freed in August 1975. Brilliant Black activists and leaders like Anna Julia Cooper, James Baldwin, Marcus Garvey, Marsha P. Johnson, and Fred Hampton were all born in August. The month marks the passing of prolific Black writers and political thinkers like W.E.B. DuBois and Toni Morrison. Jonathan P. Jackson, the 17-year-old younger brother of George Jackson, was killed in August 1970 as he attempted to free his older brother and two other Black prisoners. This August also marks six years (2020) since the police killing of Michael Brown.”

African American prison intellectual and organizer George Jackson, a co-founder of the Black Guerrilla Family and Field Marshal for the Black Panther Party, was assassinated on August 21, 1971, during a rebellion and attempted escape. Several white inmates and guards were killed in the incident. Jackson was shot to death by guards firing from a prison tower.

Jackson’s assassination sent shockwaves throughout the U.S. both within and without the prison system. Anger over his death sparked other prison rebellions, the most well-known being the uprising at Attica in New York state which erupted just weeks later. The then governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller, ordered the prison retaken by the state police resulting in the deaths of 43 people including inmates and some guards held hostage for four days.

The writings of Jackson are still being read around the world. In later years, a film entitled “Black August” depicted the life, times and contributions of George L. Jackson.

U.S. Has the Highest Incarceration Rate in the World

Today in 2021, there has been a decline in the number of people held within jails, state and federal prisons in part as a result of the inmate releases due to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were huge outbreaks of coronavirus starting in the spring of 2020 in correctional institutions. The infections impacted the inmates along with the guards, visitors and administrators.

A report published by the Vera Institute of Justice based in New York City says of the present situation in the jails and prisons:

“The number of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons and local jails in the United States dropped from around 2.1 million in 2019 to 1.8 million by mid-2020—a 14 percent decrease. This decline held through the fall. This represents a 21 percent decline from a peak of 2.3 million people in prison and jail in 2008. State and federal prisons held an estimated 1,311,100 people at midyear 2020—down 124,400, or 9 percent, from 2019. Prisons declined by an additional 61,800 people in late 2020, bringing the total prison population to 1,249,300 people, a 13 percent decline from 2019 to late 2020 (the end of September or beginning of October).”

Many hope that this decline is the beginning of a trend towards lower rates of incarceration in the U.S. Nonetheless, the current economic crisis worsened by the pandemic has placed millions in deep financial distress. Large scale evictions are occurring after workers have lost their jobs or are prevented from being employed due to healthcare issues and problems related to the lack of affordable childcare. Schools and daycare centers were closed after the advent of the pandemic in the early months of 2020. These social conditions could easily lead to a renewed wave of criminalization and imprisonment particularly among Black and Brown peoples.

The prison population at its peak in 2008 represented an increase of 500% since the late 1960s, a period of mass resistance and urban rebellion. A government sponsored “war of drugs” beginning under the administration of President Richard M. Nixon was extended by subsequent U.S. leaders. Its impact resulted in higher incarceration rates for African Americans and people of Latin American descent. This disproportionate rate of incarceration among people of color is an aspect of the modern manifestations of national oppression and super-exploitation.

Political prisoners such as Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier have been locked up for decades without cause being accused of crimes and then railroaded through the courts solely based upon their activism. Repeated demands for their releases have not resulted in freedom.

Moreover, the purported labor shortages within the U.S. capitalist system stemming from the pandemic are being addressed by employers through prison labor. A recent article published by the Guardian emphasizes that prisoners on work release are being highly exploited in the industries of construction, waste management, production and food services.

The report in the Guardian written by Michael Sainato notes:

“Employers and industry groups have claimed labor shortages were stifling recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republican governors blaming unemployment benefits. Some 26 states have canceled federal extended unemployment benefits early, though economists have noted the available jobs recovery data shows there is no economy-wide labor shortage. That hasn’t stopped employers and business groups from using perceived labor shortages as a pretext to seek out cheap labor sources; employers are hiring teenagers to fill open jobs, automating some job roles to avoid raising wages, lobbying Congress to double the cap on work immigration visas and expanding the use of prison labor.”

Therefore, cheap labor exploitation is integral to the continuation of the existing racist capitalist system. The problem of mass incarceration is linked to the struggle for Black liberation and the construction of a socialist economy.

*

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

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

Featured image: Jonathan Jackson and his comrades on Aug. 7, 1970 in Marin County, California (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Has the flu and the majority of colds been eradicated from society because of mask wearing and social distancing as the so called experts contend or is it more plausible that every case of the sniffles for the past year and a half have been wrongfully diagnosed as Covid-19(84)? Are the current PCR tests reliable and what does the FDA, WHO and CDC say about its use today and in the near future? In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth covers the latest controversial announcement from the CDC which states that the “CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses”.  Dan also proves that the “fact checkers” can simply not be trusted.

*

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 Press for Truth

All Global Research articles 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.

***

At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for an amendment to a bill to prohibit US participation in a vaccine passport.

*

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.

Global Research: Delivering the Facts before They Get Erased

August 5th, 2021 by The Global Research Team

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history.

Freedom of speech and independent media are threatened. Critical analysis and dialogue are essential. 

At Global Research, our goal is to bring you timely and carefully documented articles pertaining to the ongoing crisis which is affecting the future of humanity. 

Can you help us meet our monthly running expenses and ensure that our articles stay free and accessible to a large Worldwide readership. Please see below for more information on how to make a donation or become a member of Global Research.

Online donation

Make a one time or recurring donation and/or become a Member and receive free books.  Any amount large or small will contribute to supporting Global Research

Donation by mail

Kindly send your cheque or money order to the following address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
PO Box 55019
11 Notre-Dame Ouest,
MONTREAL, Qc, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

For donations from the US, the money order should be “International” payable outside the US 


Become a member       

Our membership plans are:

Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of “Voices from Syria” by Mark Taliano, as well as a FREE copy of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy of this e-book (in PDF format) from Global Research, “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewals (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of the e-book (in PDF format) “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, as well as the e-book of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy of this e-book (in PDF format) from Global Research, “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!


Sustainer Member – $200.00/year

Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A SUSTAINER!

Thank you for supporting independent media!

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

.

.

 

***

The following article provides a summary of the authors’ more detailed article entitled

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

***

This article provides links to correspondence (pdf) with several of the Health/Science institutions.

For references purposes, below is the scan of the researchers “Freedom of Information” letter. The responses can be consulted. See links below as well as in the related article entitled:

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

***

 

****

Ninety Health/Science Freedom of Information institutions globally all failed to provide or cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever.

Below is a list of the institutions.

81. Canada’s Hastings Prince Edward Public Health (Ontario).

82. Slovenia’s Univerzitetni klinični center Ljubljana UKCLJ (University Medical Centre Ljubljana).

83. Ukraine’s Ministry of Health

84. Western Australia Minister & Department of Health

85. South Australia Minister for Health and Wellbeing

86. New South Wales Ministry of Health, Australia

87. Pennine Acute National Health Service Trust, England

88. Salford Royal National Health Service Foundation Trust, England

89. Brazil, Anvisa (Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency)

90. Brazil, Ministry of 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 90 Health/Science Institutions Globally All Failed to Cite Even 1 Record of “SARS-COV-2” Purification, by Anyone, Anywhere, Ever
  • 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.

***

 

.

 

Important article yet to be fully corroborated.

See also

Freedom of Information Requests: Health/ Science Institutions Worldwide “Have No Record” of SARS-COV-2 Isolation/Purification

By Fluoride Free Peel, August 04, 2021

***

In a shocking revelation first reported by Dan Dicks of Press for Truth (Canada), an FDA document admits that the CDC and FDA conspired to fabricate a covid-19 testing protocol using human cells combined with common cold virus fragments because they had no physical samples of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid” virus available.

Without physical reference material to use for calibration and confirmation, the test has zero scientific basis in physical reality. And all the PCR analysis based on this protocol is utterly fraudulent, flagging people as “positive” for covid when they merely possess tiny quantities of RNA fragments from other coronavirus strains circulating in their blood.

The FDA document, available from the FDA.gov website, is entitled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel .” The document astonishingly admits: (emphasis ours)

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells andviral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

In other words, they had no covid virus from which to develop and calibrate the test, so they mixed up a cocktail of human cells and RNA fragments from a common cold virus, then called it “covid.” The GenBank sequence referred to in this paragraph is simply a digital library definition that’s labeled “covid” but has no supporting reference materials in physical reality either.

That’s because no doctor or researcher has isolated “covid” from any infected, symptomatic patient. As a result, no laboratory instruments can be calibrated against actual covid, and the tests simply rely on digital libraries pushed out by the CDC and WHO, using “covid” as the label.

The PCR tests are then instructed to look for these genetic sequences obtained from the fabricated digital libraries, meaning the entire scheme is junk science circular logic with no basis in physical reality.

Why are there seemingly no certified reference materials for covid available to laboratories for instrument calibration?

I am the founder and owner of an analytical laboratory that routinely conducts quantitative analysis of food contaminants, producing high-precision analysis results for pesticides, herbicides and heavy metals. In every case where we conduct lab analysis, we calibrate the instruments against known physical samples called “external standards” or “certified reference materials.” (CRM)

Any lab can purchase CRMs for mercury, arsenic, glyphosate and even salmonella. For example, this link at Biosisto lists CRMs for various salmonella strains. Labs can purchase those reference materials and use them to calibrate their instruments, making sure their analysis is traced back to physical, real-world samples of a purified material. These CRMs, in turn, must be NIST-traceable in order to confirm their origin and authenticity. All CRMs are therefore labeled with lot numbers and expiration dates.

While labs can purchase reference materials for microbes, heavy metals, pesticides, etc. — all physical materials — I have searched far and wide and have not been able to locate any certified reference materials for SARS-CoV-2 or even a weakened, non-viable version of it. As far as I can tell, there appear to be no physical specimens of isolated covid viruses available for instrument calibrations and testing protocol quality control.

To be clear, I’m not saying that viruses don’t exist, and it’s quite clear that the Wuhan Institute of Virology colluded with Fauci, Daszak, the NIH, Baric and others to develop a weaponized spike protein. But the spike protein is not a virus by itself. It’s simply a toxic nanoparticle that can be synthesized in quantity and then either dumped on cities or added to vaccines and injected into people via immunization protocols.

I ask the big question about all this in my science lab whistleblower video here, which presents more details about all this that will have your head spinning. In essence, if “covid-19” is a real virus that can be isolated, why are there apparently no physical reference materials to calibrate laboratory instruments for covid detection? And why were no such materials used in the development of the FDA-approved, CDC-endorsed PCR testing protocols?

CDC pulls its own fraudulent covid PCR testing protocol, implying it cannot differentiate between covid and influenza

What adds to the mystery in all this is the fact that the CDC just issued a “laboratory alert,” announcing their intention to withdraw the faulty PCR testing protocol by the end of this year. As part of their announcement, they implied that the current PCR test — the same one the FDA mentioned above, which was developed without any physical covid samples for calibration — cannot tell the difference between influenza and covid.

From the CDC document:

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses.

Why might it be important to differentiate covid from influenza?

Because, as it seems, influenza cases nearly disappeared in 2020 as influenza was re-labeled “covid” due to the faulty testing.

“Percentage influenza positivity decreased by 64% (p = 0.001) and estimated daily number of influenza cases decreased by 76% (p = 0.002) in epidemiologic weeks 5–9 of 2020 compared with the preceding years,” reported the CDC in 2020.

In essence, the medical establishment simply took all the people who would normally be diagnosed with colds and the flu, and shifted them into the “covid” category in order to push a covid mass hysteria narrative that would drive people into vaccines. The vaccines, then, were formulated with spike protein toxic nanoparticles to cause the “delta” panic wave, which is largely occurring among vaccinated individuals.

From here, the plandemic scam proceeds like clockwork: People get sick from the vaccines, so more vaccine boosters are demanded, which perpetuates the illness. Rinse and repeat. It never ends until the perpetrators are arrested and people wise up to the scam.

The CDC has just published a science document that confirms the entire scam. Click here to view the PDF on our servers.

It’s entitled, “Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021” and it shockingly admits that 74% of infections occurred in fully vaccinated (double dose) people:

During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vac- cine ?14 days before exposure).

See, the vaccine is the pandemic. The vaccine is spreading the spike protein, and the fake PCR tests provide the fuel to keep the mass hysteria going.

I cover more details of all this in today’s bombshell podcast via Brighteon.com:

Also see this video from Dan Dicks, who covers the fake PCR tests as well:

*

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

“Geoengineering Governance” on the UN Agenda

August 4th, 2021 by Sara Stefanini

All Global Research articles 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 article was originally published in 2019.

No longer the preserve of science fiction, climate-hacking technologies may need international oversight, say backers of draft resolution. EURACTIV’s media partner Climate Home News reports.

Switzerland wants the world to talk about if and how to use untested technology that tampers with nature to slow climate change – and will ask the UN’s environment arm to take the lead.

Geoengineering techniques that reflect away sun rays and suck carbon from the atmosphere have long been talked about as last-resort solutions to stem the worst effects of climate change.

But as greenhouse gas emissions remain stubbornly high and geoengineering research gets underway, there is growing concern these technologies could be deployed without protections against their serious risks – and that the prospect of a technofix will be taken as a licence to keep on polluting.

To kickstart the conversation, Switzerland will introduce a resolution at the UN Environment Assembly in Kenya in mid-March, calling for an assessment of the potential methods and governance frameworks for each one by August 2020. It would be an early step towards an international system for regulating the suite of technologies.

“There is a risk that geoengineering could be applied by someone without any international control, and we are very concerned about that,” Franz Perrez, head of the international affairs division at Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, told Climate Home News. “Some are already testing solar radiation management, scientific research is already going on. We cannot close our eyes anymore and say ‘This is only science fiction’.”

The resolution is backed by Burkina Faso, Micronesia, Georgia, Lichtenstein, Mali, Mexico, Montenegro, Niger, South Korea and Senegal, according to the latest version dated 25 February.

Geoengineering refers to a wide range of techniques for modifying the climate system, from planting trees to fiddling with clouds.

Untested technologies to manage solar radiation – essentially, dim the sun –  pose the biggest concerns. Ideas include releasing aerosol particles from airplanes to reflect sunlight away (mimicking the effects of volcanic eruptions) and spraying seawater drops into clouds to make them more reflective. But they could also change weather patterns, disrupting agriculture and exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

And if this is not accompanied by emissions reductions, more will be needed to sustain the temperature effect – “practically forever”, Douglas MacMartin, a leading geoengineering scientist working at Cornell University and Caltech, told a Chatham House conference in London last week.

Yet with government oversight, it may be preferable to runaway global warming.

“You would not take chemotherapy drugs just for fun, you would not sit in your car and set off your airbags just for fun,” MacMartin said. “There are clearly serious challenges to solar geoengineering, but they only make sense to face in context with the challenges of climate change itself.”

Better-known options, which remove CO2 from the air, include afforestation and combining biomass power plants with technology to catch and store their emissions (known as BECCS). But even simple interventions like tree-planting may call for international rules to ensure that emissions cuts in one place aren’t cancelled out somewhere else.

Attention to geoengineering is growing as the global temperature remains on course to rise by at least 3C compared to pre-industrial levels. The UN’s panel of climate scientists suggested last October it would be difficult to meet the Paris Agreement’s stretch limit of 1.5C without some of these more radical techniques.

“The reality is that [carbon dioxide removal] is no longer a question of whether or not [according to the UN science report]. It’s which one, which technology, how much, when do you start, who pays for it,” said Janos Pasztor, executive director of the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative and the former UN assistant secretary-general on climate change.

“But there has been very little debate [about solar radiation management] in the circles beyond scientists… it’s still looked at as esoteric, science fiction, crazy, difficult, challenging – and all of those things apply,” he told CHN at the Chatham House conference.

For some, however, geoengineering is so dangerous that it should be banned altogether.

It could worsen the climate, be weaponised and exacerbate geopolitical imbalances, said Silvia Ribeiro, Latin America director at ETC Group, an organisation that looks at socioeconomic and ecological issues around new technologies. “Investments in geoengineering are already providing justifications for high greenhouse gas emitters to continue emitting and postpone real reductions.”

The UN has so far taken a cautious, piecemeal approach. Th 190-plus parties to its Convention on Biological Diversity extended a moratorium on all climate-related technologies in 2016, while a 2013 convention on marine pollution prohibited geoengineering of the oceans. The UN’s climate change secretariat regulates global emissions accounting, including from forestry and bioenergy.

ETC Group worries the Swiss resolution implicitly assumes that geoengineering is acceptable and just needs international governance.

Perrez countered that the country wants the UN Environment Programme to assess the state of the science and the research gaps, the risks, benefits and uncertainties, the actors working on research and deployment, and how it could all be governed. Then, he said, countries can start talking about what to allow and how.

But the way emissions are going now, “it’s hard to say that it will not be needed”, Pasztor said, referring to CO2 removal. “The reality is that emissions reductions alone are no longer enough, because we have already put so much carbon into the atmosphere that even if we stop today we’re still going to keep this climate change for hundreds of years.”

*

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

Featured image is from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center / Flickr

All Global Research articles 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.

***

World Economic Forum’s transhumanist founder promotes ‘regionalization’ as globalism’s post-COVID compromise with nationalism. Regional blocs, regional supply chains would be an “in-between solution….a new watered-down version” of globalization.

Since 1971, influential economist and transhumanist Klaus Schwab has hosted his annual hobnob winter retreat in Davos, Switzerland, for thousands of like-minded globalists and invited guests.

In its early years, Schwab focused his Davos affair on Europe’s place in the world, but in 1987 Schwab expanded his global vision, and the World Economic Forum was launched. Its complete name, “World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation,” gives a better understanding of Schwab’s grand corporatist (fascist) sentiments.

Over the years, Schwab’s late-January confab has attracted a veritable who’s who of the world’s leading business executives, politicians, economists, financiers, academics, media moguls and environmentalists, jet-setting to the Davos slopes for discussions on all things global. Even President Donald Trump appeared to present his “America First” rebuttals to globalism in 2018 and 2020.

Pastor and author Rick Warren (right) remarks while seated on a panel next to fellow Council on Foreign Relations member David Harris, president and C.E.O. of the National Jewish Democratic Council, at the 2008 World Economic Forum. Seated next to Harris is former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Religious figures from around the world have also attended, including best-selling author and Council on Foreign Relations member Rick Warren. His book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” has persuaded many evangelical churches to steer away from traditional worship toward modernism, ecumenism and social service.

In the midst of the 2020 COVID-19 scare, Schwab released his book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset.” The book describes his ideas on how globalism can recover its mojo after incurring major setbacks the past few years, most notably by Trumpian and Brexit nationalism, and by the economic shutdowns, travel restrictions, border closings, and global supply chain interruptions during the COVID scare.

Transhumanism

Schwab’s audacious plans for the rest of us are not limited to those mentioned in his Great Reset. Garnering understandably the most sensationalist attention and criticism are his transhumanist views.

In a speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2019, Schwab paraphrased a statement from the printed introduction of his 2016 book, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” an event which, he told the audience, “will lead to a fusion of our physical, digital, and biological identities.”

For those naive to the apocalyptic implications of that statement, Schwab had made it clear in a 2016 televised interview. Asked when the world would see chips implanted in humans, Schwab replied,

“Certainly in the next ten years. At first we will implant them in our clothes, and then we could imagine that we will implant them in our brains or in our skin. And in the end, maybe, there will be a direct communication between our brain and the digital world. What we see is a kind of fusion of the physical, digital and biological world.”

“Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body….implanted devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals,” Schwab wrote in “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

Klaus Schwab’s “COVID-19: The Great Reset” pages 83-84

Regionalization

Public reaction to these audacious “in your face” ideas, by comparison, may appear to have buried some of Schwab’s other topics like “regionalization” into the obscure pages of his Great Reset. But regionalization should merit the audacious label in its own right, as its establishment would mark an unprecedented era in modern history, rendering national sovereignty obsolete.

According to Schwab, the COVID scare may well be the pretext to prompt regional blocs around the world, like the European Union, to assume regulation of their own regional supply chains. That would be their near-term compromise between globalism and nationalism. It supposedly would diffuse nationalist patriots within all nations by diverting their pushback against the overreach of global supply chain vulnerabilities and regulatory threats to national sovereignty that were obvious even before COVID.

So Schwab’s “new watered-down version of globalization” would be limited to national populations’ own regional neighborhoods, at least in the near term. Americans would no longer need to be concerned about being dependent upon products made in China, but they would have to settle on having the phrase, “Made in North America” stamped on those products instead of “Made in USA.”

But Schwab’s “pragmatic,” incremental approach toward world government through regionalism is certainly not a new idea among globalists. Some of their most extolled, Henry KissingerZbigniew BrzezinskiLincoln BloomfieldStrobe TalbottRichard N. Gardner, and Guy Verhofstadt, have all euphemistically stated that globalism would eventually come about only through the regionalization process, with its “institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership.”

Globalist quotes: Their regionalizaion process to world government

It appears, then, that globalism’s major setbacks in recent years have not been unforeseen at all, but were factored beforehand into the more pragmatic regionalization approach to globalism. That approach matches the “Hagelian dialectic” method of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” strategy that has been employed by every human manipulator from contract negotiators to despots throughout world history.

In this case, with the thesis (the still-current reality) being the nation-state, then the imposed antithesis (“way-out,” unsustainable opposite) has been overreached globalism in its current, chaotic state. That allows regionalization to be offered as globalism’s synthesis (solution) to which nationalists, by then beleaguered by globalism’s open-border chaos, theoretically would finally acquiesce. Two steps forward for globalism, one back.

Once regional governments get established and consolidate power, they could then merge into authoritarian globalism with minimal opposition.

“Ten kings”

That incremental approach to globalism also matches even the most famous reference to a future oppressive world government, the Bible’s Revelation account. For those of us who believe the Bible account has credibility, it is important to note that the biblical text does not introduce that future one-world government as such, but as initially governed by “ten kings” (see Rev 13:1 with Rev 17:12-13). It enters the narrative not as a monolithic “one-world” government, or even three consolidated “trilateral” governments as some maintain, but as ten. Globalists currently are having a hard enough time corralling the world’s nations into ten governments, let alone three or one.

Regional blocs attempted to gain a foothold during the Bush-Obama years, but President Trump’s nationalism almost single-handedly drove into disarray any momentum toward regionalizion. Trump curtailed U.S. funding of United Nations programs and other foreign aid projects having to do with economic/military nation building and multilateral region building.

Trump: I will not surrender U.S. to false song of globalism.

Meanwhile, Brexit jolted the European Union, South Asia’s SAARC bloc hasn’t gotten beyond the India-Pakistan standoff, and Russia’s economy has limited capacity to underwrite the Eurasian Union. The EU-style “unions” envisioned by both South America and Africa are dysfunctional, as various factions and instability, along with some nationalist pushback, prevent any consensus from their respective member nations to buy in totally. Southeast Asia’s ASEAN cannot project strength without dealing with Myanmar’s coup d’état and China’s maritime bullying, while the Arab (Persian) Gulf”s GCC bloc has to contend with Yemen’s civil war and threats from Iran.

But now the COVID scare ironically has breathed new life into the globalist narrative, although it comes, as Schwab describes, “with a regional twist.” With Trump seemingly out of the way and globalist, “Build Back Better” Biden purportedly in charge, Schwab’s Great Reset is now in vogue among corporatist elites and leftists.

If that group can keep Trump nationalism at bay and maintain their media monopoly on their narrative, it’s not hard to project that Schwab’s separate regional supply chains would lead to Kissinger’s “new mercantilism” of competing “regional units.” That new mercantilism likely would trigger Bloomfield’s quintessential “grave crisis,” leading ultimately to Verhofstadt’s federated New World Order of regional blocs.

*

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

All images in this article are from The Liberty Sentinel

All Global Research articles 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.

***

China’s second cultural revolution is hitting the brakes. This one is not about Mao’s little red book but TV remote controls, fridges, cars, mobile phones, and yes, most important, property, the trappings of the modern age, admittedly more apparent in the east of the country but aspired to greatly in the less-developed west.

Four decades of turbo-charged growth have given way to Xi Jinping thought. Enough is enough. Total party supremacy is what matters now.

This ushers in the profits, not of doom, but slow growth. Entrepreneurs will feel the party’s wrath unless they heed it in every respect. Consequently, party cadres, with no business experience, have and will have a greater say in corporate decision making.

Deng Xiaoping launched China’s pro-market reforms in the late 1970s specifically to avoid this scenario. He knew party interference stifled innovation. Deng grasped that the country was destitute because it was isolated from the world. Deng and his successors lifted controls on private investment, trade, foreign business, travel, education and almost every aspect of society.

The booster rockets were ignited.  Growth and wealth followed, albeit in an unbalanced way with the east coast benefitting most. Politics and profit, commerce and communism, could co-exist, or so it seemed.

Xi takes a different line. The booster rockets have been jettisoned. The West’s version of commerce, albeit more honored in the breach, sees the customer as king, has boards that are answerable, offers choices (except for online mega-corporations), would only serve to nurture conditions where one day the party itself would face questioning and criticism. If people felt they had a right to question commercial decisions then they may well feel emboldened to question the party’s policies.

Now state-owned enterprises, inefficient and top heavy, have more bank loans granted, while private companies have seen their market expansion slow.

Even the Covid response plays into this narrative. Not since the cultural revolution, the one of the little red book, have foreigners got such a bad press in China. Americans (accused by Chinese media of denying science and being obsessed with individual rights at the cost of society) are portrayed as too selfish, divided, and ignorant to fight the virus. Prime time TV news delights in images of mask-less Westerners on crowded beaches and streets or at anti-lockdown protests.

Chinese officials are fired if a case is discovered and whole cities can be plunged into lockdown, much stricter than the version in the west.

The government fosters a sense of grievance among the people that they are not getting the praise they think they deserve from the West for tackling Covid. This feeling of being scorned adds fuel to the propaganda fire. US politicians are accused of China-bashing to cover up their own incompetence and (in excess of) 600,000 pandemic deaths.

What is not covered on the TV news or any news is where the virus originated from and how it first became widespread.

But events can sometimes take unexpected turns. One fact rarely commented on in the West and never mentioned in China is how many people are leaving.  In the 1960s, tens of thousands of people, not surprisingly, fled China’s cultural revolution. That was at a time when passports were hard to get. As the country stabilized, that number dropped. The number is rising rapidly once again.

From 2012 and 2020 when the West was recovering from the financial crisis and China was booming, the annual number of asylum-seekers from China rose from 15,362 to 107,864, according the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Since Xi took power at the end of 2012, 613,000 Chinese nationals have applied for asylum in another country. The majority, about 70 percent, sought a new life in America. More freedom, protecting their wealth and a better quality of life are the main, and obvious, reasons for the exodus.

Xi wants the party to work harder to ensure its grip on power. Part of this is to make sure that China can stand on its own if the US launches a fully-fledged economic war against it. But China, within in living memory, has stood on its own. Something is amiss when such a scenario repeating itself is even the vaguest of possibilities.

*

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 Party Over in China as Communist Party Takes Back Control
  • 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.

***

Some have said that the only thing that will save humanity is love.  But, as Sinclair Lewis’s character, Elmer Gantry, asks: ‘what is love?’

Our culture seems to have supplanted love with avarice, with greed, with an avid obsessive possessiveness, a.k.a. cupidity. Which might have surprised Cupid, a.k.a Eros, and those who believe ‘love conquers all.’

The present push towards ‘transhumanism,’ sometimes touted as an enhancement of our capabilities, is in fact a disastrous narrowing of our perception, a path to the mental and spiritual slavery of Huxley’s ‘Brave New World.’

A narrow perception of what it means to be human has led us, willy nilly—or perhaps with a chilling inevitability—to the literal transformation of people into bizarre hybrid creatures, half human, half machine. 

Knowledge may or may not be power but, in a cybernetic age, wisdom is conflated with knowledge, knowledge with information, and information with data. In the process we have been turned into cyphers. At least in the minds of our overlords, who wish to turn our human consciousness, our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual being, into bits and bytes—into a series of ones and zeros floating in an ephemeral digital cloud. 

The lust for power, for control, for conquest, has infected human culture for millennia. The addiction to power, the compulsion to control, has tainted the human race as a drop of ink tints a glass of clear water. 

And with this comes a certain attitude to others, an attitude which sees others not as ‘thou’ but as ‘it,’ as Martin Buber says. Others are seen not as people, as fellow sentient beings, but as tools who are valued only as useful to those ‘who matter.’ I.e. the rich and powerful. The ‘players,’ the ‘stakeholders’ in the poker game of life. The rest, when not of use, are merely ‘useless eaters.’

Now it seems these number in the billions, to be experimented on, and finally eliminated, in a giant con game to which the Third Reich seems only a preliminary, a taster, an hors d’oeuvre to the banquet, the feast of flesh.

The desire to turn human beings into machines, logically enough, stems from a mechanical world view.

This sees life as essential lifeless. The cosmos is not intelligent, it has neither feeling nor awareness. People are made from letters strung out on spiral coils of DNA.

And we can be remade from manipulated synthetic material, from nanobots, from self-assembling graphene hydrogels which will upload new programs into us with each and every ‘inoculation.’ Our brains are merely gelatinous computers, our heads hi-tech jelly doughnuts. And, as our consciousness is transformed by the mind parasites, we transition in a diabolical transubstantiation, into cyborgs–totally controlled, yet unaware that the thoughts we are thinking and the feelings we are feeling come not from ourselves, but from an AI algorithm conjured up by scientific sorcery.

The tragedy of the spiritual dwarves pulling the strings on the greatest crime in human history is that they, unable to embrace the love of life, are compelled to kill the life of everyone, bringing the rest of us down with them, like monstrous dogs in a planetary manger. And what sop do we have for them, as Cerberus was pacified at the gates of Hell?

Are they more to be pitied than censured? Can we hate the sin but not the sinner? Can we love-bomb them into becoming human themselves before, in the blind agony of the death throes of the last vestiges of their shrivelled souls, they kill the humanity in all of us?

Perhaps love is not so much an emotion as a kind of perception, an awareness, an appreciation of the miracle of life, of life’s very aliveness. Joy and wonder may be more elusive than ever, but this is our birthright.

We still have the opportunity, as well as the duty, to accept this precious gift.

*

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.

***

These two titles from Global Research Publishers are available in PDF (e-book) format delivered directly to your inbox, as well as in print format. 

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Buy this book in PDF (e-book) format – $9.40

Buy this book in print format

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.


The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order 

by Michel Chossudovsky

 Buy this book in PDF (e-book) format – $9.50

Buy this book in print format

In this expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.

This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.

In this enlarged edition – which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction — the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.


Special Offer on our Global Research PDF Collection – 6 PDF Books for 1 Price

Contains PDF versions of:

*The Globalization of War

*The Dirty War on Syria

*Towards a World War III Scenario

*America’s “War on Terrorism”

*The Globalization of Poverty

*The Global Economic Crisis

List Price: $53.85

Special Price: $39.00

CLICK HERE TO ORDER


Browse the rest of our titles and special offers on our online bookstore:

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of War & The Globalization of Poverty: Two Important Titles by Michel Chossudovsky

All Global Research articles 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 COVID — especially the Delta variant — surges among the fully vaccinated, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., said the more the variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on July 27, issued an update on breakthrough infections, stating they “happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant.”

The CDC’s statement, however, stands in contrast to what the director of Israel’s Public Health Services told viewers of the CBS program “Face the Nation” on Sunday — that 50% of new infections reported in Israel are from fully vaccinated people.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and chief medical advisor to President Biden, and Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, director of Israel’s Public Health Services, were interviewed during the program.

Israel and the U.S. began administering COVID vaccines in December 2020.

During the interview, Fauci adhered to the CDC’s position — that breakthrough infections are happening only in a small proportion of fully vaccinated people — while Alroy-Preis said Israel is seeing breakthrough infections occurring in 50% of those who test positive for COVID.

Despite mounting evidence COVID vaccine protection is waning over time, Fauci told “Face the Nation”:

“…the predominant message is that if you are vaccinated and you get a breakthrough infection … you’re much, much more protected against getting infected than an unvaccinated [person] who is completely vulnerable.”

A breakthrough case refers to a person who is diagnosed with COVID after being fully vaccinated. A person is considered fully vaccinated 14 days after receiving the second dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID vaccine, or two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.

The CDC’s latest breakthrough numbers, as of July 25, show 6,587 fully vaccinated people with COVID breakthrough cases. Of those, 6,239 people were hospitalized and 1,263 people died.

In May, the CDC revised its guidance for reporting breakthrough cases, stating it would count only those cases that result in hospitalization or death. Previously, the agency had included in its breakthrough count anyone who tested positive for COVID.

According to the CDC, the surveillance system for breakthrough cases is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, which may not be complete.

In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness, the CDC said.

NBC News investigated breakthrough cases not reported by CDC

NBC News contacted health agencies in 50 states and the District of Columbia to collect information on breakthrough cases, citing a lack of comprehensive data available from the CDC.

Data collected from 38 states showed more than 125,000 fully vaccinated Americans tested positive for COVID, and 1,400 died.

This conflicts with the CDC’s data published July 26. Research by NBC News indicates the number who have been hospitalized or died passed 7,300 in just 30 states providing data.

The total number of breakthrough cases is likely higher than 125,683, as nine states, including Pennsylvania and Missouri, did not provide information, while 11 states did not provide death and hospitalization totals. Four states gave death and hospitalization numbers, but not total cases.

In addition, vaccinated adults who had breakthrough cases but showed no symptoms could be missing from the data altogether, officials told NBC.

For states like Utah, where full data was published, breakthrough cases accelerated in the past two months. As of June 2, just 27 (8%) of 312 new cases in the state were breakthrough cases. As of July 26, there were 519 new cases and almost 94 cases (20%) were breakthroughs, according to state data.

In Virginia, total breakthrough cases resulting in death from COVID increased from 17 in mid-July to 42 on July 30.

In Oklahoma, breakthrough cases are up by 67%, with incidents of breakthrough greater with J&J’s vaccine than with Moderna.

Delta variant more transmissible, but not more pathogenic than original strain

World Health Organization (WHO) officials said they are still trying to understand why the Delta variant is more transmissible than the original COVID virus strain.

“There are certain mutations in the Delta variant that, for example, allow the virus to adhere to a cell more easily,” said Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, WHO’S technical lead on COVID, at a press briefing July 30. “There are some laboratory studies that suggest that there’s increased replication in some of the modeled human airway systems.”

The CDC warned lawmakers July 29 of new research indicating the Delta strain is more contagious than chickenpox. It also appears to have a longer transmission window than the original COVID strain, and may make older people sicker, even if they’ve been fully vaccinated, CNBC reported.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., Children’s Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, said while the Delta variant is likely more transmissible, it’s also likely less pathogenic. “What we’re seeing is virus evolution 101,” Hooker said.

Hooker explained:

“Viruses like to survive, so killing the host (i.e. the human who is infected) defeats the purpose because killing the host kills the virus, too.

“For this reason, new variants of viruses that circulate widely through the population tend to become more transmissive but less pathogenic. In other words, they will spread more easily from person to person, but they will cause less damage to the host.”

Hooker said the more the variant deviates from the original sequence used for the vaccine, the less effective the vaccine will be on that variant, which could explain why fully vaccinated people are getting infected with the Delta variant. But this isn’t the case for natural immunity, he explained.

Hooker said:

“The vaccine focuses on the spike protein, whereas natural immunity focuses on the entire virus. Natural immunity — with a more diverse array of antibodies and T-cell receptors — will provide better protection overall as it has more targets in which to attack the virus, whereas vaccine-derived immunity only focuses on one portion of the virus, in this case, the spike protein. Once that portion of the virus has mutated sufficiently, the vaccine no longer is effective.”

As The Defender reported Monday, vaccinated people may play a key role in aiding the evolution of COVID variants.

According to research published last week in Scientific Reports, the highest risk for establishing a vaccine-resistant virus strain occurs when a large fraction of the population has already been vaccinated but the transmission is not controlled.

The data was consistent with a study released July 30, by the CDC which showed vaccinated people may transmit the Delta variant — now responsible for 80% of COVID cases in the U.S. — just as easily as the unvaccinated.

The team of scientists who published the data in Scientific Reports said their findings follow what’s known as selective pressure — the force that drives any organism to evolve.

“Generally, the more people infected, the more the chances for vaccine resistance to emerge,” said Fyodor Kondrashov of the Institute of Science and Technology Austria.

“So the more Delta is infectious, the more reason for concern,” Kondrashov said. “By having a situation where you vaccinate everybody, a vaccine-resistant mutant actually gains a selective advantage.”

U.S. senator and Kentucky state senator test positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday he tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, The Hill reported.

Graham said:

“I started having flu-like symptoms Saturday night and went to the doctor this morning. I feel like I have a sinus infection and at present time I have mild symptoms. I will be quarantining for 10 days.”

Graham’s announcement came amid growing public concern of breakthrough cases.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) warned reporters against sensationalizing the news about Graham, as it would “probably discourage some people at least from getting the vaccine.”

Blunt has been talking to CDC officials about how to make sure reports of fully vaccinated people getting COVID aren’t overshadowed by the fact that it is less likely to result in a severe case.

Kentucky Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr also tested positive for COVID despite being fully vaccinated, she announced on Facebook Monday night.

Forgy Kerr said in the post three other family members who were also fully vaccinated tested positive in the last three weeks as well, The Enquirer reported.

“Please be careful out there,” she wrote. “This Delta variant is a ‘new ballgame’ apparently.”

At least 233 staffers at two major hospitals test positive for COVID, majority vaccinated

At least 233 staffers at two major San Francisco hospitals tested positive for COVID — the majority of whom were fully vaccinated and became infected with the Delta variant.

Between 75% and 80% of the more than 50 staff members infected with COVID at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital were fully vaccinated, Dr. Lukejohn Day, the hospital’s chief medical officer, told The New York Times Saturday.

The University of California, San Francisco Medical Center said in a statement Friday, 153 of its 183 infected staff members had been fully vaccinated. Some of the cases were asymptomatic, but most involved mild to moderate symptoms with two requiring hospitalization, officials said.

Day said the number of staff infections reported in July is almost as many as during the peak of the winter surge. Despite the majority of staffers infected having been vaccinated, Day said without vaccinations the hospitalization rate would be much worse.

Yankee starting pitcher latest player to get COVID

The Yankees’ top starting pitcher tested positive for the virus and will miss his next game, Manager Aaron Boone announced Monday.

“Gerrit will not be pitching tomorrow,” Boone said. “He’s actually tested positive for COVID.”

Twice this season the Yankees have had outbreaks among fully vaccinated members that involved several players or staff, but Monday’s news was limited to Cole.

Boone did not say whether Cole is vaccinated or not. The majority of COVID cases among Yankees players and staff this season have occurred in those who were fully vaccinated, The Times reported.

*

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.

***

WE CAN WIN! Patrick King is a proud father of 2, Freedom Fighter and Patriot who took on the powerful government in Alberta, and WON!

We can ALL learn from this, and we MUST battle this in every single city, every single county, every single state, every single NATION!

The fight for freedom is a worldwide effort, and WE CAN WIN!

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

All Global Research articles 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 a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

In a new research paper published in the journal Toxicology Reports, author Neil Z. Miller reports on the relationship between sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) death and the timing of vaccination, based on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database.

SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant that remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system, according to the National Center for Health Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Volume II, Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, 1991.

Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, SIDS — sometimes referred to as “crib death” — was so infrequent it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics.

After the national immunization campaigns were initiated in the U.S. in the 1960s, for the first time in history, most U.S. infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps and rubella vaccines.

Shortly after, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term — sudden infant death syndrome.

In 1973, the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category — SIDS — to the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the U.S.

As Miller points out in his article, the ICD category for vaccine-related death, or cause of death as “prophylactic inoculation and vaccination,” was eliminated when the ICD was revised in 1979 — despite the fact that this information would be useful in trying to understand the relationship between vaccination and death.

But Miller, a medical research journalist and the director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, provides an alternative route for establishing such a correlation — by observing the temporal relationship between vaccines and reported infant deaths, including SIDS deaths, in the CDC’s VAERS database.

Miller found that out of a total of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS from 1990 through 2019, the majority “clustered” in close temporal proximity to vaccination — 58% occurred within three days of vaccination, and 78% occurred within seven days of vaccination.

Miller found the excess deaths within these ranges were statistically significant (p<0.00001), meaning the chance that this result is random is less than 0.001%.

The same type of clustering was present in the 1,048 reports of infant deaths (out of the total 2,605) reported to VAERS specifically as SIDS.

According to Miller, if there were no correlation between vaccination and infant deaths, one would expect to see an even spacing of deaths within the time range reported prior to vaccination —- not a clustering of deaths as Miller found.

Miller included a comprehensive literature review in his paper refuting the “official” claim that the SIDS epidemic was curtailed by having infants sleep on their backs — as recommended by the “Back to Sleep” campaign, initiated in 1992 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The subsequent rate of SIDS dropped by an annual average of 8.6% between 1992 and 2001. However, the neonatal mortality rate due to “suffocation in bed” increased during that same time at an average annual rate of 11.2%.

Other similar causes of infant death also increased significantly during this period, as reported by Miller. Further, from 1999 through 2015, the U.S. SIDS rate declined 35.8%. while infant deaths due to accidental suffocation increased 183.8 %.

Miller also affirms his main results from the paper (i.e., the temporal clustering of SIDS deaths with vaccination) through the discussion of seven additional peer-reviewed studies and two confidential reports.

On average, these authors found that substantial proportions of infant deaths occurred within one day (mean = 25%), three days (mean = 49%) and seven days (mean = 71%) post-vaccination, matching the results of the present study.

Mechanistically, vaccine injury has been tied to SIDS multiple times. Matturri et al. (2014) examined 13 SIDS deaths occurring within seven days of a hexavalent vaccine.  Analysis of the brainstem and cerebellum of the deceased infants showed brain edema and congestion in all victims.

The authors hypothesized that

“several compounds and immuno-potentiation adjuvants of the hexavalent vaccine might easily go beyond the blood-brain barrier, which in the first year of life is still immature and quite permeable, inducing neuronal molecular alterations in DNA, RNA and proteins of brainstem neurons regulating vital functions, with consequent fatal disorganization of respiratory control in particularly predisposed infants.”

Specifically, these authors implicated aluminum-based adjuvants in the dysregulation of respiratory control.

Scheibner and Karlsson (1991) monitored infant breathing during sleep before and after the DPT vaccination, revealing an increase in episodes where breathing nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes, which continued for several weeks post-vaccination, were not seen prior to vaccination.

Despite the official insistence that SIDS deaths are not caused by vaccination, as Miller points out, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (NVICP) is set up to compensate families of individuals who are injured and/or die from vaccine administration.

Death from vaccination is compensated with $250,000 for “pain and suffering” to family members of the deceased victim. Conditions typically leading to death that are considered “table injuries” to be compensated under the NVICP include anaphylaxis and encephalopathy or encephalitis.

‘Healthy babies just don’t die for no apparent reason’

Kari Bundy, who lost her son after his four-month vaccinations, said she’s always been “flabbergasted” at the denial of the medical community of the link between SIDS and vaccines. “For me, it was too obvious to even attempt to ignore,” Bundy said.

Bundy lost her third-born child, Mason, in 2011.

“A few days after his routine four-month vaccinations, my husband and I discovered his dead body in the middle of the night, laying on his side, his body still warm,” Bundy said

Mason’s autopsy came back “unremarkable,” aside from some thymic petechiae, which is the most common gross finding in SIDS cases at autopsy.

“I was assured time and time again that he had not suffocated,” Bundy said.

When Mason died, Bundy learned if you can’t pay for a funeral, you can’t have one. So a few months after Mason’s death, she founded a nonprofit called Mason’s Cause, to provide grants to cover funeral costs for families who had experienced the loss of a child under the age of 1.

“I never wanted any parent to experience this devastating loss and not be able to bury their child,” Bundy said. She continued running the charity for just under 2 years, during which time she worked with 94 different families who experienced the death of a child under age 1.

Of those 94 infant deaths, 87 died from SIDS, or from causes “unknown.” Of the SIDS cases, 81 — or 93% — died within seven days of routine vaccinations.

“When I realized SIDS seemed to be undeniably related to vaccines, I realized I could no longer dedicate my life to running a charity that would help bury babies,” Bundy said. “That’s when I realized I wanted to save babies by speaking out about the real risks of vaccination.”

Bundy, who works for Children’s Health Defense as translations coordinator, said she’s grateful for research like Miller’s because it shows what she and all SIDS parents already knew — healthy babies don’t just die for no apparent reason.

*

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 S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding California where he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 58% of Infant Deaths Reported to VAERS Occurred Within 3 Days of Vaccination, Research Shows
  • 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.

***

According to statistics released by the CDC in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the vast majority of recorded deaths following one of the experimental COVID-19 injections has been among the elderly.

According to the CDC, 60% of all reported deaths following COVID-19 injections have been in people age 44 or higher, 50% of all reported deaths have been in people age 65 or older, and 35% of all recorded deaths have been in people age 75 or older.

When you consider that 38% of all recorded deaths following COVID injections the age is “unknown,” then those percentages among the elderly are most certainly even higher.

Source.

For those who refuse to accept the CDC’s explanation that all these deaths recorded following the COVID-19 injections had nothing to do with the shots, then it is clearly obvious that the elderly are being killed in much higher numbers from these shots than the rest of the population.

We have documented many of these stories of mass deaths in senior care homes earlier this year, often in homes where few or no deaths occurred in all of 2020 during the COVID-19 Plandemic. In some cases, these seniors were forcibly injected against their will.

For those who survived the injections, there are now plans in motion to roll out a 3rd COVID-19 “booster” shot to be injected into the seniors who survived the first two shots.

We reported last week that Israel was the first nation to announce a 3rd booster shot by Pfizer beginning with people over the age of 60.

Israel Becomes First Country in the World to Push 3rd COVID Shot for Already Vaccinated

And now The Telegraph out of the UK is reporting that the UK will also roll out “booster shots” for COVID-19, targeting the people over the age of 50.

Booster vaccines are to be offered to 32million Britons starting early next month with up to 2,000 pharmacies set to deliver the programme, The Telegraph can disclose.

Amid fears that the efficacy of the vaccines may begin to decline, ministers are planning to deliver an average of almost 2.5million third doses a week starting in the first week of September.

Pharmacies will be at the forefront of the vaccine programme so that GPs and other NHS staff can focus on the growing backlog of patients waiting for other treatments.

All adults aged 50 and over, as well as the immuno-suppressed, will be offered the booster jabs.

The campaign could start as soon as Sept 6, which would see the rollout completed by early December if it goes to plan. It is hoped the timetable will leave at least a fortnight for the final people vaccinated to benefit from the jab’s effect before Christmas. (Source.)

Germany is planning something similar, beginning September 1st.

Germany plans to start offering Covid-19 booster shots to the elderly and at-risk from September 1, according to a draft document seen by AFP on Sunday, as concerns grow about the spread of the Delta variant.

Health Minister Jens Spahn and Germany’s 16 regional health ministers are expected to finalise the plans, drawn up by ministry officials, in a meeting Monday.

Mobile vaccination teams will be sent into care and nursing homes to offer Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna booster shots to residents, regardless of which vaccine they had originally, says the document.

Doctors will also be able to administer the booster jab to those who qualify, such as the elderly and people with weakened immune systems.

The text justifies the initiative by citing recent studies showing that protection from infection declines with time, putting vulnerable people at risk again.

Although Germany is currently enjoying relatively low infection rates compared with neighbouring countries, case numbers have been creeping up in recent weeks mainly because of the more contagious Delta variant.

There are also concerns about a slowdown in the country’s vaccination rate, with just over 52 percent of the population fully jabbed. (Source.)

No doubt the rest of Europe and the United States will soon follow this plan.

Can we please stop pretending that this is not a eugenics genocide plan to get rid of as many in the elderly population as possible?

It’s been happening already for years with the flu shots, but combined with the propaganda fear of COVID-19 and locking down these seniors and separating them from their family members and health advocates, deaths are now obviously skyrocketing.

Why Aren’t These Experimental Injections Killing or Injuring Everyone who Takes Them?

A legitimate question that is probably asked of everyone who is trying to warn others about how dangerous and deadly these injections are, is why are there so many people who have received one or two shots, and are relatively unaffected by them in terms of side effects?

There are theories that some of the batches from the COVID-19 shots are placebos, but I have not seen any credible evidence to support that yet.

The more likely explanation is that these are new products never before mass produced and mass distributed, and some of them are just “duds” either because they were manufactured improperly, or after manufacturing they were not handled properly.

For this explanation, we most certainly have ample evidence.

Back in March, for example, we reported on some leaked documents that were supplied to European Medicines Agency (EMA) last December for approval of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 shots.

Reports on those documents that were published in the BMJ stated that the EMA had major concerns that only 55% of the samples even had intact mRNA strands. The EMA gave approval anyway, because “the amounts of a potential protein produced by the truncated mRNA would be too low to constitute a safety risk.” See: Leaked Pfizer Documents Reveal Only 55% of Some COVID Vaccine Samples had RNA Intact Prior to European Approval Exposing Huge Quality Control Issues

This past June we published a video from a CVS pharmacist who quit her job because she refused to inject people with a COVID-19 injection. During that video she stated that one of her co-workers was fired, because he failed to handle doses of COVID-19 injections properly. See: Pharmacist Quits CVS Job Over Refusal to Kill People with COVID-19 Shots and Becomes a Whistleblower (Video)

With the tens of thousands of pharmacies across the U.S., most of which are severely under-staffed right now, we can certainly expect this is happening quite a bit.

The Pfizer doses need to be kept at temperatures below -70 degrees, and when thawed there are very specific ways of handling the doses to keep them “viable.”

There have been numerous reports of manufacturing issues in the plants where these shots are produced, so it is not only plausible, but highly likely, that many people are getting shots from doses that are either inactive or not fully active enough to produce all the side effects causing injuries and deaths, which is already very high.

It is also possible that some batches are either weakened or placebos, but I have just not seen credible evidence to support that yet. If it is true, the one sector where I could see that they would have a motivation to inject placebos, would be in professional sports, where major side effects and reduced athletic performance would be quickly noticed, giving very negative publicity for the shots.

For years it was known that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs created loss of muscle function, long before the FDA issued warnings about this side effect, but it was well known in the field of Sports and players were forbidden from taking these drugs.

The other motivation to inject a major portion of the population with placebos, especially during an initial roll-out, is to reduce the negative publicity the side effects create in the first doses.

Because as we move towards mandatory vaccinations, it is quite well-known that the most vocal voices opposing mandatory vaccinations are those who were previously pro-vaccine and have now been injured by them, or had a close friend or loved one being seriously injured or killed.

The ones who get the first shots and survive, become willing repeat customers for future “booster” shots.

Mark Dice released a video yesterday that he shot in San Diego, where he posed as someone taking a survey and asking strangers passing by on the street to sign a petition to force people who refuse the COVID-19 shots to be arrested and jailed.

You will be amazed (or maybe not) at how many people willingly gave their name and birthdate to sign this fake petition to arrest and jail their fellow citizens who refuse to take the COVID-19 shots.

*

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

All Global Research articles 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 the Covid pandemic broke out, Sweden has been fought over more than any other part of Europe since Germany in the 30 Years War. In refusing to use an iron fist to control a virus, lockdown advocates claimed it was either committing murder or suicide; choose your favorite metaphor. Relatively few such as me, in three separate articles, claimed the Nordic country was sparing both the economy and something called “liberty” with its light-handed approach. My favorite title (editor chose it): “Media Enraged That More Swedes Aren’t Dying.”

Thus last year we saw such headlines as CNN’s “Deaths Soar In Country That Didn’t Lock Down. Officials Identify Big Reason Why.” Around the same time “Sweden Steadfast In Strategy As Virus Toll Continues Rising,” claimed another source. “Sweden’s Coronavirus Strategy Drives Up Infection Rate,” screamed the BBC. Everyone was playing pile-on. “Sweden Has The Highest Daily Coronavirus Death Rate In The World – And It’s Getting Worse.” That’s from Yahoo Sports. Sports?

Modelers desperately tried to scare Sweden into locking down. One predicted an incredible median of 96,000 deaths, with a maximum of 183,000. At Sweden’s Lund University an academic used the parameters in the now-infamous Neil Ferguson/Imperial College modelto warn that it meant 85,000 deaths for Sweden. An Uppsala University team also found the nation paying a terrible price with 40,000 Covid-19 deaths by May 1, 2020 and almost 100,000 by June.

Total Swedish Covid deaths at this writing: 14,651.

It’s not that Sweden did nothing – but very little. “From the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Public Health Agency . . . embarked on a de-facto herd immunity approach, allowing community transmission to occur relatively unchecked,” declared a scathing editorial in the leftwing medical journal The Lancet last December. “No mandatory measures were taken to limit crowds on public transport, in shopping malls, or in other crowded places,” it said. “Coronavirus testing, contact tracing, source identification, and reporting, as recommended by WHO, were limited and remain inadequate.” High schools closed temporarily, but grade schools never.

“In our view,” snarled The Lancet, “there is still not sufficient recognition in the national strategy of the importance of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission, aerosol transmission, and use of face masks.”

Time to revisit Sweden as much of the world starts locking down and masking again regardless of vaccination levels, blaming the Delta variant. And those impudent Swedes are pretty much refusing to die of Covid at all.

Not to say that vaccines haven’t contributed to the current low numbers, but … cases peaked during the first week of January while vaccinations didn’t even begin until the end of that month. Currently Sweden ranks 18th in Europe in vaccines per capita, right in the middle. Likewise, there are those who say Sweden finally buckled down and imposed serious restrictions. It didn’t. It imposed more restrictions in the second week of January, perhaps more in response to international opprobrium than anything else. But yes, it was after cases not only had started dropping but actually plummeted by more than half.

What’s happening? According to an as-yet unpublished but online study by two Svenske researchers, it appears the country has reached that Holy Grail of Covid called “herd immunity.” That means a level where those already protected are significantly guarding those without exposure. Mind, they say, it’s not all from Covid-19 per se but possibly in great part to “pre-immunity” from other infections. Four coronaviruses are known to cause colds, but the researchers actually don’t even mention that. It’s just that previous exposure to something seems to be providing natural inoculation. And it shouldn’t be as unique to Sweden as Ingrid Bergman.

Mind, the current figures are just a snapshot. Did the country pay an awful price en route to the apparent herd immunity? Well, certainly the Swedish death rate is higher than its Nordic neighbors Norway, Denmark, and Finland. Those are the comparisons you’ll hear. But it’s well below the rates for larger-population European countries including Belgium, Italy, the U.K., Romania, Spain, France, and Portugal. The U.S., too.

Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, who caught absolute hell, feels vindicated.

“Locking down is saving time,” he said last year. “It’s not solving anything.” In essence the country “front-loaded” its deaths and decreased those deaths later on.

Meanwhile, the Swede haters have also insisted that in exchange for its “butcher’s bill” the country was deriving little or no economic benefit from not shutting down.

“Sweden unlikely to feel economic benefit of no-lockdown approach,” warned the Financial Times in a May 10, 2020 headline. It admitted that so far Sweden has fared better, but select “analysts” cautioned it wouldn’t last.

Wrong. Despite Sweden inevitably feeling undertow from economies that did lock down, “Covid-19 has had a rather limited impact on its economy compared with most other European countries,” according to the Nordetrade.com consulting firm. “Softer preventative restrictions against Covid-19 earlier in the year and a strong recovery in the third quarter contained the GDP contraction,” it said.

Thus the country the media loved to hate is reaping the best of all worlds: Few current cases and deaths, stronger economic growth than the lockdown countries, and its people never experienced the yoke of tyranny.

Not surprisingly, it’s not just Sweden’s pro-freedom position on Covid that sticks in the MSM’s craw. Though routinely labeled “socialist,” it ranks 10th out of 190 economies for ease of doing business, according to the World Bank’s Doing Business report for 2020.

Which for a lot of people is presumably another good reason to hate 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.

Michael Fumento is a lawyer, author, and journalist who has been writing on epidemic hysterias for 35 years. His Website is www.fumento.com.

Featured image is from AIER

All Global Research articles 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 editor-in-chief of Germany’s top newspaper Bild has apologized for the news outlet’s fear-driven coverage of COVID, specifically to children who were told “that they were going to murder their grandma.”

In a speech delivered to camera, Julian Reichelt said sorry for Bild’s coverage which was “like poison” and “made you feel like you were a mortal danger to society.”

Reichelt directed his main sentiment towards children who have been terrorized by fearmongering media coverage which has caused child depression and suicides to soar across the world.

“To the millions of children in this country for whom our society is responsible, I want to express here what neither our government nor our Chancellor dares to tell you. We ask you to forgive us,” he said.

“Forgive us for this policy which, for a year and a half, has made you victims of violence, neglect, isolation, and loneliness.”

“We persuaded our children that they were going to murder their grandma if they dared to be what they are, children. Or if they met their friends. None of this has been scientifically proven.”

“When a state steals the rights of a child, it must prove that by doing so it protects him against concrete and imminent danger. This proof has never been provided. It has been replaced by propaganda presenting the child as a vector of the pandemic.”

Reichelt noted how moderate voices who attempted to offer calmer perspectives on the pandemic “were never invited to the expert table” and urged viewers “don’t believe this lie,” when encountering alarmist proclamations from the government.

The journalist called on authorities to open schools and sports halls instead of polling stations, warning that those who imposed brutal lockdown measures, “will have on their conscience and will leave in the history books, a multitude of innocent souls.”

Bild has a daily circulation of 1.24 million copies and is the best-selling newspaper in Europe, adding even more weight to this story.

As we highlighted yesterday, Germans protesting against plans to impose domestic vaccine passports were brutalized by police during demonstrations that took place in Berlin.

The ugly scenes prompted the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer to put in a request for eyewitnesses ahead of a potential investigation.

Germans were protesting against plans to ban unvaccinated people from a plethora of different venues, including restaurants, cinemas and stadiums.

As we previously highlighted, Germany’s domestic spy agency is monitoring anti-lockdown protesters, claiming they are potentially involved in a plot to subvert the country.

*

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 4.0

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Public Inquiry into the murder of the resourceful journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia handed down its findings on July 29.  Firm aim was taken at the Maltese State, which had “to shoulder responsibility for the assassination because it created an atmosphere of impunity, generated from the highest levels in the heart of the administration of the Office of the Prime Minister”.  Such conditions proved expansive “like an octopus” and “spread to other entities like regulatory institutions and the police, leading to the collapse of the rule of law.”  

In such a climate, the State duly failed in recognising “real and immediate risks” including from criminally minded third parties facing Caruana Galizia and also “failed to take measures within the scope of its powers which, with reasonable judgment […] was expected to take to avoid that risk.”

Caruana Galizia was killed on October 17, 2017 by a car bomb.  For years she produced exemplary copy, baffling her peers and causing those flutters of irritation that eventually became headaches for the authorities.  Her efforts involved an incremental unmasking of rotting institutions.  She unearthed the network of offshore companies ranging from the British Virgin Islands to Panama, linking them to funnelled funds from Malta’s government officials in alleged money laundering efforts.  She exposed the cash-for-passports scheme in 2013 which was described by members of the European Parliament as “fomenting corruption, importation of organized crime and money laundering.”  Members of the Maltese government preferred to call this a matter of being “business friendly”.

According to the Board, the murder of Caruana Galizia was “intrinsically, if not exclusively, linked to her investigative work, which included allegations of irregularities and administrative abuses in the commission of major development projects in the country.”

During the course of its work, the inquiry faced a number of institutional impediments and warnings.  On December 15, 2019, Maltese Prime Minister, Robert Abela, lectured the Board that it would have to “shoulder the responsibility of its decisions and the consequences they bring” after the panel ruled to extend the inquiry’s deadline and terms of reference.  Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis added to the threatening atmosphere in parliament.  “If the public inquiry is not completed, the rule of the jungle will take over.”

But pressure from the European Union’s various branches was brought to bear.  In 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution by 581 votes to 26 that “any risk of compromising the investigations (…) must be excluded by all means”, warning that risk would remain “as long as the Prime Minister remains in office.” 

Parliamentary Resolution 2293, adopted that same year, claimed that the murder and continuing failure of the authorities to bring the alleged perpetrators to trial or identify those who gave the order for the assassination raised “serious questions about the rule of law in Malta.” 

Much of the resolution reads like a grand rebuke of the Maltese political system.  The expansive powers of the Prime Minister and his office was noted, covering “responsibility for various areas of activity that present particular risks of money laundering, including online gaming, investment migration (‘golden passports’) and regulation of financial services, including cryptocurrencies”. 

The Prime Minister’s powers in appointing judges and magistrates, the resolution noted in disapproval, was unfettered; the attorney general, as a PM appointee, potentially compromised the separation of powers given the office’s role in prosecuting criminal offences. Senior officials in the civil service were also executive appointments made “through non-transparent procedures”.

The site of the explosion was at the top of Bidnija Road, limits of Mosta (upper right-hand corner). (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Suspects behind the murder were found in erratic fashion, but it took till February this year to secure the conviction of Vincent Muscat, the hit man behind the operation, on six charges. That same day, the Agius brothers Adrian and Robert, and associate Jamie Vella, were also arrested on suspicion of supplying the murderous weapon.

The conviction of Muscat caused further concern among the MEPs in April, given “the possible involvement of ministers and political appointees in the case.”  While acknowledging the progress in the investigation and “steps taken by the Maltese authorities to protect independent journalism”, there were “persisting and new issues relating to media freedom and the EU values in the country.”

The Board proposes a range of recommendations for implementation, many touching on the protection of journalists and freedom of expression.  They involve specialised protection for the fourth estate, and specially attuned training for the Police Corps “to have a thorough understanding of the role of the journalist as a guardian of democracy and the value of journalism as a valid collaborator with law enforcement to ensure the rule of law.”

Constitutional reforms are also suggested, including greater recognition for freedom of expression, and institutional changes such as the creation of an Ombudsman on journalistic ethics.  Further recommendations touch on the legislative aspect: reforming the Media Defamation Act to prevent vexatious suits by politicians against the press and amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to ensure greater compliance with freedom of information requests.  

The Public Inquiry’s findings are impressive not merely for revealing the appalling conditions that sowed the seeds of tolerance for such monstrous violence.  They also show the probing, relentless effectiveness of a journalist who demonstrated the power of the pen in the face of institutional depravity.  The price of doing so was immeasurably ghastly.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is licensed under Fair use

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Boy or girl? If it was up to the American Medical Association (AMA), not even parents would know.

Once again revealing the organization’s highly politicized motives, the AMA said sex should be removed as a legal designation on birth certificates.

“Designating sex on birth certificates as male or female, and making that information available on the public portion, perpetuates a view that sex designation is permanent and fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity. This type of categorization system also risks stifling an individual’s self-expression and self-identification and contributes to marginalization and minoritization,” said AMA Board Chair-Elect Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, M.D.

A person’s biological sex would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use. Requiring public designation of sex, the AMA said, could lead to discrimination against transgenders when they register for school or sports, adopt, get married, or request personal records.

Robert Jackson, MD, who’s with the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, told WebMD Health News he opposed the measure.

“We as physicians need to report things accurately,” Jackson said. “All through medical school, residency, and specialty training we were supposed to delegate all of the physical findings of the patient we’re taking care of. I think when the child is born, they do have physical characteristics either male or female and I think that probably should be on the public record. That’s just my personal opinion.”

The obvious should be stated: Biological sex accounts for medical differences. The AMA has faced plenty of backlash for wanting to eliminate this important biological distinguishment. In some cases, it could mean the difference between life or death. In 2019, a biological female who identified as a male birthed a stillborn baby because ER nurses didn’t think to check if she was pregnant.

By neglecting to specify sex on the hard copy of a birth certificate, medical professionals could improperly treat someone. But instead of recognizing medical truths, the AMA is rallying behind people who flat out deny biology.

The AMA supports health care for transgender children, noting that “it is imperative that transgender minors be given the opportunity to explore their gender identity under the safe and supportive care of a physician.” For an organization that blindly supports genital mutation on minors, it’s no surprise that they want to eliminate sex on a birth certificate.

*

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.

Haley Strack is an intern at The Federalist and a student at Hillsdale College studying politics and journalism. Follow her on Twitter @StrackHaley or reach her at [email protected].

Featured image is from Pixabay

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israel’s return to the African Union (AU) as an observer state has sparked a huge backlash in the continent with as many as 14 countries said to be ready to form a block to reject the occupation state’s membership.

Online newspaper Rai Al-Youm reported that Algeria has agreed with South Africa, Tunisia, Eritrea, Senegal, Tanzania, Niger, ‌the Comoro Islands, Gabon, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Liberia, and Seychelles to expel Israel from the AU.

It’s reported that the new block will reject the decision to include Israel in the AU to preserve the principles of the union and support the Palestinian Arab state.

Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra is expected to discuss the issue of Israel’s membership in the African Union in his upcoming trips to Tunisia, Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt. He has previously stressed that Algeria will not stand idly by while Israel is allowed to join the block with the consent of its members.

Though Rai Al-Youm did not include Namibia on its list of countries to have agreed with Algeria to block Israel’s admission, the southwest African state’s ministry of international relations released a strongly worded denunciation of the AU’s decision to grant observer status to the occupation state.

“Granting observer status to an occupying power is contrary to the principles and objectives of the Constitutive Act of the African Union,” Penda Naanda, executive director of Namibia’s Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation, said in a statement.

Naanda said it was wrong to grant Israel observer status, particularly at this time, when the state of Israel is increasing its acts of oppression in total violation of international law and disregard for the human rights of the Palestinian people. He stressed that the AU Commission’s decision was against the usual firm and solid commitments made by several African heads of state and government who unequivocally support the Palestinian cause.

“Namibia, therefore, disassociates itself from granting observer status to the state of Israel,” the statement said.

South Africa was one of the first countries to express condemnation of the AU’s decision. It said that it was “appalled” by the decision to grant observer status to the 55-country block.

*

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.