• Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Myanmar’s Crisis Follows Predictable ‘Libya Model’ Pattern

mRNA Vaccine Inventor Erased from History Books

July 6th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube

Malone is concerned about government not being transparent about risks, and that people are being coerced into taking these experimental injections, which violates bioethics laws

He believes the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection

Five days after his DarkHorse podcast appearance, Malone’s scientific accomplishments and contributions were scrubbed from Wikipedia

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. June 16, his name was removed and his accomplishments attributed to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute, the University of California, and the University of Wisconsin

*

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology,1 Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections, hosted by Bret Weinstein, Ph.D. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube and Weinstein was issued a warning.

To censor a scientific discussion with the actual inventor of the technology used to manufacture these COVID-19 shots is beyond shocking. But the censorship of Malone goes even further than that. As reported in the video above, Malone’s scientific accomplishments are also being scrubbed.

Wikipedia Scrubs Malone’s Scientific Contributions

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

In 1990, he demonstrated that “in-vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver genetic information into the cell to produce proteins within living cell tissue.” Malone was also part of the team that conducted the first mRNA vaccine experiments. In short, his scientific knowledge of mRNA vaccines is unquestionable.

wikipedia entry

Two days later, June 16, 2021, just five days after Malone’s appearance on the DarkHorse podcast, his name was removed from the Wikipedia entry. Now, all of a sudden, the discovery of mRNA drug delivery is accredited to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute and the University of California, and his 1990 research confirming that injected mRNA can produce proteins in cell tissue is accredited to nameless scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

wikipedia entry removed

Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko is now suddenly praised by mainstream media as the inventor of mRNA vaccines.2 It’s a convenient choice, considering Kariko is the senior vice president of BioNTech, the creator of Pfizer’s COVID injection. Kariko’s unofficial biography also includes being a communist-era police informant.

As noted in the featured video, this goes beyond censoring. It’s revisionism — a “1984”-style rewriting of history to fit the official narrative of the day. The danger of this trend is incalculable.

What Did Malone Say About mRNA Vaccines?

Watch the video here.

The take-home messages Malone delivered on Weinstein’s podcast were that government is not being transparent about the risks, that no one should be forced to take these experimental injections, that the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection. In a June 24, 2021, interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News (above), Malone said:3

“I am of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines … My concern is I know there are risks but we don’t have access to the data … We don’t really have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.”

A significant part of why we don’t have adequate data is because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration purposely decided not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation. This too was revealed in Malone’s DarkHorse interview.

Why did the FDA opt for lax data capture on a brand-new, never before used technology slated for mass distribution? Clearly, without post-injection data capture, there’s no way to evaluate the safety of these products. You cannot identify danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

First Risk-Benefit Analysis of COVID Shots

Malone also points out that risk-benefit analyses have not been done, and that’s another objection he has. What data we do have, however, indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen.

For example, the reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,4 which historically has been the most hazardous. The COVID shots are also seven times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.5

Coincidentally, a peer-reviewed risk-benefit analysis6 was in fact published in the medical journal Vaccines the same day Malone spoke to Carlson. It revealed that the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death using the Pfizer injection is between 9,000 and 50,000, and that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two are killed by the injection. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

In his DarkHorse interview, Malone noted that he had warned the FDA that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 shots instruct your cells to make — could pose a health risk.

The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely. As it turns out, they were wrong on both accounts.

It’s since been established that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not stay near the injection site,7and that it is biologically active. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body, heart problems and neurological damage.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 gene therapy. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.8,9,10

Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies. For more in-depth information about how the spike protein can wreck your health, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

COVID Jab Campaign Violates Bioethics Laws

In his interviews with Weinstein and Carlson, Malone stressed that there are bioethical principles and bioethics laws in place to prevent undue risks in medical experimentation, and that those laws are currently being violated. He went into far more detail on this in a May 30, 2021, essay:11

“… the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.

And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.12 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,13 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,14 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Americans, indeed the people of the entire planet, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone in his essay:15

“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.

If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.

In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.

1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.

2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.

3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”

Clearly, Malone is preeminently qualified to speak on the topic of COVID gene therapy: Not only is he a highly ethical physician committed to integrity, but he actually invented the very technology and performed the first mRNA vaccine studies. The fact that he is now censored by Big Tech and outright being erased from scientific history is a crime in and of itself, and something that should worry just about everyone.

This egregious example of censorship vividly demonstrates just how degenerated the media has become. The only possible explanation is that anyone or any piece of information that interferes with as many people getting the COVID jab is removed. Nothing that counters this narrative is tolerated despite every bit of information is making it clear that these COVID jabs are the biggest crime against mankind in the history of humanity.

If Malone can be erased, what chance do the rest of us have to not encounter the same fate? The parallels between everyday reality and the fictional but uncannily prophetic book “1984” are mounting by the day. Where it will take us is obvious. We’ll end up in a world where faithful adherence to the lies of the day is the only choice. To prevent such a fate, we have to get engaged and expose the lies by sharing facts, data and truth in every which way we can.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1, 11, 15 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

2 The New York Times June 10, 2021

3 Fox News June 24, 2021

4, 10 Trial Site News May 25, 2021

5 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

6 Vaccines 2021; 9(7): 693

7, 8 Trial Site News June 6, 2021

9 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162) Original Biodistribution Study in Japanese, English follows page 10. Ovary data see English page 7 (PDF)

12 World Medical Association WMA Declaration of Helsinki

13 Nuremberg Code of 1947

14 HHS.gov The Belmont Report

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)

The Failure of “Vaccine Passports”

July 6th, 2021 by Swiss Policy 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.

***

With vaccine effectiveness down to just 60%, the case for “vaccine passports” implodes.

SPR and some other independent expert groups warned very early on that “vaccine passports” – promoted by Bill Gates and his ID2020 alliance – are doomed to fail (from a medical perspective), simply because covid vaccines cannot achieve sterilizing immunity (i.e. prevent infection and infectiousness), especially not against new coronavirus variants.

New data from Israel now confirms that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against infection and even against mild symptoms caused by the Indian variant has already dropped to just 64%, while effectiveness against severe disease remains above 90%. The effectiveness of DNA adenovector vaccines like AstraZeneca is likely already below 60% (against infections).

In a particularly remarkable case, a vaccinated Israeli caught the Indian variant in London, infected another vaccinated person in Israel, who infected another vaccinated person, who infected about 80 students at a high school party. In all likelihood, most of these transmissions occurred pre-symptomatically, i.e. without people knowing they were infected and infectious.

The status of “vaccine passports” in the US (Technology Review)

As the above map shows, many US states have already banned “vaccine passports”, though people may still require them for international travel. In the UK, the situation remains somewhat uncertain, whereas the EU and several Asian countries remain determined to implement their “vaccine passport” schemes. Israel phased out its “green pass” in June, but there are talks of “reactivating” it.

After face masks, lockdowns and “contact tracing apps” (inserted into three billion mobile phones by Google and Apple), “vaccine passports” are yet another major “failure” in the international response to the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the goal should be to achieve vaccine protection against severe disease in the high-risk group, avoid vaccine casualties in the low-risk group, and make progress in the research and use of effective and affordable early treatment options.

*

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 Freedom Articles

All Global Research articles 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 French government is considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone aged 24-59 in response to concerns over a “fourth wave” of infections.

After Prime Minister Jean Castex announced that he would push for the compulsory vaccination of caregivers, the French Senate expressed their desire to expand the measure to cover young and middle-aged adults.

“The body published a report from its Common Mission of Information on Thursday, advocating for mandatory vaccinations of young to middle-aged adults on the grounds it could significantly lower hospitalization rates and deaths,” reports RT. The report issued a stern warning: “act now to limit impact”.”

Mandatory vaccines are being pushed partly because the country is lagging behind other European countries in their rollout, with under a quarter of people aged 30-49 having been inoculated and only half of 50-64 year-olds receiving the jab.

The government is also considering sending doctors lists of people who haven’t taken the vaccine so they can be pressured into getting it, while the ability for the unvaccinated to submit negative COVID tests in order to be able to travel could also be withdrawn.

This isn’t the first time that France has considered imposing draconian measures to make people take the vaccine.

Back in December, a bill was proposed that would have banned unvaccinated people from being able to use basic services like public transport.

The proposed law mandated that citizens have proof of a negative COVID test or “preventative treatment, including the administration of a vaccine” in order to “access transport or to some locations, as well as certain activities.”

However, the legislation was dropped after fierce protests. One wonders if French people will have the same reaction to the prospect of mandatory vaccinations.

*

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 America’s Frontline Doctors

It’s Saigon in Afghanistan

July 6th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The end of the 20-year US war on Afghanistan was predictable: no one has conquered Afghanistan, and Washington was as foolish as Moscow in the 1970s for trying. Now, US troops are rushing out of the country as fast as they can, having just evacuated the symbol of the US occupation of Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base.

While perhaps not as dramatic as the “Fall of Saigon” in 1975, where US military helicopters scrambled to evacuate personnel from the roof of the US Embassy, the lesson remains the same and remains unlearned: attempting to occupy, control, and remake a foreign country into Washington’s image of the United States will never work. This is true no matter how much money is spent and how many lives are snuffed out.

In Afghanistan, no sooner are US troops vacating an area than Taliban fighters swoop in and take over. The Afghan army seems to be more or less melting away. This weekend the Taliban took control of a key district in the Kandahar Province, as Afghan soldiers disappeared after some fighting.

The US is estimated to have spent nearly 100 billion dollars training the Afghan army and police force. The real number is likely several times higher. For all that money and 20 years of training, the Afghan army cannot do its job. That’s either quite a statement about the quality of the training, the quality of the Afghan army, or some combination of the two.

Whatever the case, I am sure I am not the only American wondering whether we can get a refund. The product is clearly faulty.

Speaking of money wasted, in April, Brown University’s Cost of War Project calculated the total cost of the Afghanistan war at more than two trillion dollars. That means millions of Americans have been made poorer for a predictably failed project. It also means that thousands of the well-connected contractors and companies that lurk around the US Capitol Beltway pushing war have become much, much richer.

That’s US foreign policy in a nutshell: taking money from middle-class Americans and transferring it to the elites of the US military and foreign policy establishment. It’s welfare for the rich.

Meanwhile, the Costs of War Project also estimated that the war took more than a quarter of a million lives.

The Biden Administration may believe it is saving face by installing a military command of nearly 1,000 troops inside the US Embassy in Kabul, but this is foolish and dangerous. Such a move establishes the US Embassy as a legitimate military target rather than a diplomatic outpost. Has anyone at the Pentagon or the State Department thought this through?

Plans to occupy the airport in Kabul are also unlikely to work. Does anyone think that, having come this far, an emboldened and victorious Taliban are going to sit by as US or allied military occupy the Kabul airport?

Trillions of dollars wasted and millions either killed or displaced from their homes. For nothing. The lessons of Afghanistan are simple: bring all US troops home, defend the United States as necessary, and leave the rest of the world to its own business. We’ve tried it the other way and it clearly doesn’t work.

*

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. Army Sgt. Christian Cisineros takes a moment to speak with his interpreter March 17, 2009, while on a dismount patrol mission near Forward Operating Base Baylough in the Zabul Province of Afghanistan. Cisineros is assigned to  Company B, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini/Released)

10 Years Since the Arab Spring

July 6th, 2021 by James J. Zogby

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A decade ago, we were in the throes of what observers in the West termed the “Arab Spring.” An assessment is now in order.

Because Western analysts assumed that these uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen were organically linked, mirroring the revolutions that brought down the Communist regimes operating under the protective cover of the Soviet Union, they termed them the “Arab Spring”. These Arab uprisings, however, were not threads of one unraveling region. While sharing some common characteristics, in each instance local factors shaped them.

One shared feature was their almost exclusive occurrence in the so-called “Arab Republics”, countries that for decades had been ruled by military regimes that lacked broad legitimacy and had become increasingly ossified and corrupt. Also, each of these uprisings started as largely non-violent youth-led protests focused on poverty, employment, and the desire for greater freedom and political rights.

Despite being branded “revolutions”, only in Tunisia, though it is still in a fragile state, has there been a true revolution, bringing about a change in governance.

In Egypt, nothing close to a revolution occurred, with the military retaining control after deposing Mubarak and later the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite Egyptians’ deep concern with the Brotherhood’s attempt to impose its agenda, the military may have created a problem for themselves. Our polling shows that, as a result of increased repression, Egyptians’ approval of the military has plummeted by more than 35 points, and Egyptians now say they are worse off than they were before and have less hope for the future.

The experiences of Syria, Libya and Yemen have been different. As societies fragmented by sect, tribe and region, with the deposing of old regimes, groups either sought or were sought out by external powers, resulting in prolonged bloody civil conflicts; outcomes remain uncertain.

Even with this checkered record, new uprisings are still occurring, including sustained mass protests in Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon and Iraq in recent years. While distinct and not fundamentally linked, each uprising has exploded for similar reasons: lack of jobs and needed services, bad governance, and hopelessness.

The revolts in Algeria and Sudan are somewhat similar to those in the other “Arab Republics” with only Sudan a potential success story. With Sudan’s military dictator deposed, and after continuing protests, the military agreed to form a new government sharing power with civilian leadership. With a projected three-year run for this “experiment”, only time will tell whether the transition leads to full civilian control.

The outcomes in Lebanon and Iraq, where the demands are similar, and include an end to sectarianism, are even more difficult to predict. The repressive violence of Iranian-supported militias in both countries, and the stubbornness of corrupt sectarian elites in Lebanon, pose real roadblocks to change.

Ten years after the first uprisings, the fragile “stability” that once characterised the old order of the “Arab Republics” has given way mostly to chaos. Despite their uneven success and uncertain futures, there are lessons to be learned.

Regimes should know that repression cannot replace unresponsive governance. Leaders should respond to the protestors’ legitimate concerns and offer them real hope for change.

The protesters, especially in Lebanon and Iraq, must develop a coordinated leadership, a coherent program of demands, and a plan for implementation. Where possible (e.g., Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq), protestors must organise politically for the next election, to prevent the uprisings from being co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood or other politicised sectarian movements.

The US must understand that any new Iran deal must include pressure to stop exploiting sectarian divisions and end its meddlesome and violent behaviours in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And the US should focus future assistance to these governments on job creation, private sector growth, and improvements in education, healthcare, and delivery of social services.

*

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 writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

María will finally be leaving the United Kingdom today, Monday, bound for Valencia, after a nightmare that has lasted two weeks. She still doesn’t know when she’ll be getting her passport back, but she is taking it for granted that the document will now permanently reflect that she was deported from a European country.

María is not her real name. She is aged 25, and would rather remain anonymous. Like dozens of other youngsters, she thought that an adventure in the United Kingdom was still possible. But she came crashing down to Earth after falling foul of the reality of Brexit and the country’s new immigration laws, which are very tough and highly restrictive.

On May 3, María was detained on arrival in Gatwick Airport, and was taken to the Yarl’s Wood migrant holding center in Bedfordshire. For four days, she received no information about her situation, could not access her personal belongings, and had to live with the suspicion and fear that a Covid-19 outbreak could see her stuck there indefinitely.

“I can’t say that I was badly treated,” she told EL PAÍS. “Fortunately I had my own room, given the need to isolate us. But I felt very confused, because there was absolutely no information about the situation. As far as I remember, in the canteen, there was a girl from the Czech Republic, an Italian, an American and two South Americans.”

The British government and the European Union countries have spent more than two years releasing information about the rights and situation of European citizens who travel to or work in the United Kingdom, and vice versa. All of those who can prove that they were living in the country six months before Brexit finally became a reality, on December 31, 2020, have the right to apply for EU Pre-Settled Status or EU Settled Status, the temporary or definitive right to remain in the UK and which grants bearers the same rights they enjoyed before the country left the EU.

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: A baggage check-in point at Gatwick Airport in the UK. (Source: El Pais)

All Global Research articles 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 thing you won’t find in corporate media obituaries of Donald Rumsfeld is any estimate of how many people died in the wars he was in charge of launching.

You do see occasional references to the US troops he sent to their deaths—as in the AP‘s obit (6/30/21):

Defiant to the end, Rumsfeld expressed no regrets in his farewell ceremony, at which point the US death toll in Iraq had surpassed 2,900. The count would eventually exceed 4,400.

And in the New York Times (6/30/21):

Mr. Rumsfeld, more than four years out of office, still expressed no regrets over the decision to invade Iraq, which had cost the United States $700 billion and 4,400 American lives.

But the Afghan and Iraqi lives lost as the result of the wars Rumsfeld managed—which by the most careful estimates outnumbered the US dead by a factor of a hundred or more (PLOS Medicine, 10/15/13; Lancet, 10/12/06)—simply go unmentioned. This, of course, greatly facilitates the job of the obituary writer, who is required to present every deceased member of the Washington establishment as a complicated, ultimately lovable character, regardless of the scale of their crimes.

Or as the Washington Post (6/30/21) put it: “Mr. Rumsfeld was more complex and paradoxical than the public caricature of him as a pugnacious, inflexible villain would suggest.”

‘Handling’ Iraq

Of course, a catastrophe on the scale of the Iraq War can’t be presented as an unvarnished success for Rumsfeld. But neither can it be presented as a criminal act of aggression, because that would indict Rumsfeld’s co-conspirators, many of whom are still alive and plenty of whom still have jobs either in the federal government or the nation’s premier media outlets. (During that war, many professional journalists covered Rumsfeld with an enthusiasm that approached idol worship, referring to him as “America’s new rock star,” a “father figure,” a “sex symbol” and “America’s stud”—Extra!, 3–4/02).

So you need a strategy for criticizing Rumsfeld without directly addressing the fact that he supervised wars of aggression that killed multitudes of people.  Perhaps it was his management style, as the Post suggested when it reported that “his handling of the Iraq War eventually led to his downfall.”

Rumsfeld “failed to set a clear policy for the treatment of prisoners,” the Post‘s Bradley Graham wrote, which is a peculiar way of saying that Rumsfeld specifically approvedmost of the forms of torture used at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, including the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, isolation, sexual humiliation and threats from dogs—along with “mild, non-injurious” beatings.

He could have been more of a people person, the Post intimated:

While capable of great charm and generosity, he often seemed to undercut himself with a confrontational, gruff and belittling manner that many found offensive.

Or, perhaps, Rumsfeld was really the victim and not the perpetrator of the Iraq War—as the AP suggested with its original headline, “Donald Rumsfeld, a Cunning Leader Undermined by the Iraq War.” AP later switched that to “…Who Oversaw a Ruinous Iraq War,” but the attempt to evoke pity for Rumsfeld is still there is reporter Robert Burns’ lead:

Calling Donald H. Rumsfeld energetic was like calling the Pacific wide. When others would rest, he would run. While others sat, he stood. But try as he might, at the pinnacle of his career as Defense secretary he could not outmaneuver the ruinous politics of the Iraq War.

‘Success’ in Afghanistan

Another tactic employed by AP was to “balance” the problematic Iraq experience with the supposed bright spots of Rumsfeld’s career—notably the invasion of Afghanistan:

US forces invaded Afghanistan on October 7, and with Rumsfeld at the Pentagon helm the Taliban regime was toppled within weeks…. Within months of that success, President George W. Bush’s attention shifted to Iraq, which played no role in the September 11 attacks.

The Washington Post likewise presented Afghanistan as an example of Rumsfeld’s characteristic brilliance:

Mr. Rumsfeld was initially hailed for leading the US military to war in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks…. In the wake of the Afghan invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld hoped to devise a similarly innovative war plan for toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

Reading these tributes, you could almost forget that in Afghanistan Rumsfeld launched the US’s longest overseas war, one that has killed nearly a quarter of a million people (including 70,000 civilians) without achieving any of the democracy-building, rights-protecting goals that were used to sell the occupation—or even completing its original task of capturing Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. (He was instead assassinated years later in Pakistan.)

Describing Rumsfeld’s arrival in Washington, the Times‘ Robert McFadden wrote:

He seemed like an All-American who had stepped off the Wheaties box—a strikingly handsome Midwesterner radiating confidence, taking on big tasks and doing everything well.

Could any war criminal ask to be remembered more fondly?

*

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.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, and has edited FAIR’s print publication Extra! since 1990. He is the co-author of The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader. He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. Born in Libertyville, Illinois, he has a poli sci degree from Stanford. Since 1997 he has been married to Janine Jackson, FAIR’s program director.

Featured image is from FAIR

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Principia Scientific International is delighted to share with our readers a stunning legal letter from a UK doctor putting the NHS and politicians on notice that they engage in a conspiracy of “lies” about the COVID19 pandemic and the dangerous “vaccines” being deployed.

The medical doctor is Dr Sam White who worked for 17 years as an NHS practitioner until his conscience told him he could no longer serve the corrupt purpose of mass deception and unethical medical conduct over the fake pandemic. Dr White gained an enormous following online after posting this video below:

Watch the video here.

We urge our British readers to use Dr White’s carefully worded, lengthy legal letter as a template to send to their own National Health General Practitioners and health authorities. A link to the PDF with more precise references is here.

Ask your doctor/health authority representative: is this letter correct? That way they have a duty of care to give a formal reply.

Thereby, we can all play our part in holding to account those who are either evil, too lazy or ignorant to defend lives against this crime against humanity.

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

Sir Simon Stevens

Chief Executive Officer NHS England

2 July 2021

Dear Mr Stevens

Re: My Client: Dr Sam White

I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP.

Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.

Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.

Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021. Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.

The reasons given for my client’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing. What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.

My client’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended. My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.

All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content.

The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person.

The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client. It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.

The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrongdoing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.

My client’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:

  1. The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
  2. That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.

My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head. Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.

The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you must. I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.

I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.

The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.

The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.

The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations are:

  1. HM Government.
  2. The Executive Board of the NHS.
  3. SAGE.
  4. Senior public office holders within the civil service.
  5. The Executive Board of the MHRA.

In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations. The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.

The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study.

A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body. I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.

To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes. The Vaccination Roll Out: Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine:

  1. To do no harm.
  2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated. The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery. Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent. 1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.[1]
  3. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments. [2]
  4. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the material risks of declining the vaccine.

Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.

At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.

The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.

Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.

1. Montgomery Guideline 1: Sufficiency of Information:

The provision of information has been inadequate. The principal source of information

to the public has been the following:

  1. The Daily Press Conferences.
  2. The NHS badged advertisements.
  3. The Patient Information Leaflet.

The information presented has not informed the public of the following material risks:

  1. The material risk of being infected with the coronavirus.
  2. The material risk if infected of being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
  3. The material risk if infected of not being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
  4. The material risk of dying from the coronavirus infection.
  5. The material chance of recovering from the coronavirus infection.
  6. The material chance of having an asymptomatic infection.
  7. The numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or memorised T cell response.

Before we come to what information has been presented to the public it should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry.

Public Office Holders should act with integrity and transparency when presenting information to the public, particularly information relating to public health.

Those financial links include direct investment in the vaccine industry as well as financial assistance with grants from charitable foundations set up by those with investments in the vaccine industry. [4]

It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 [5] in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna [6], one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein. [7]

Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.

The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation. [8]

Finally, the former secretary of state did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts [9] over which Matt Hancock had responsibility.

When presenting information on a public health matter the Nolan Principles require transparency.

The Nolan Principles requires those presenting the information to declare any interests publicly so that those receiving the information can determine whether the information has been presented in an objective way or in a way that lacks balance and may favour any undeclared interests.

How many people know for example that our Chief Medical Officer has been or is involved in Vaccine organisations which have been substantially funded by the Gates Foundation as well as other vaccine businesses? [10]

How many people know that our Chief Scientific Officer has substantial investments in Astra Zeneca?

Dominic Cummings talked about Mr Gates’ influence in government during his session in select committee.

If a Public Office Holder is presenting information about public health to the public, those people should be upfront and transparent about their interests and who has funded those interests as they might have a bias towards vaccination when other more optimal routes may be available.

Vaccination should not be presented as the only route out of the declared pandemic when there are other routes that can be run in tandem.

The Officials should level with the public.

It seems from day one the Public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route.

Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.

Taking each risk in turn:

The material risk of being infected:

  1. The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public information on the number of infections.
  1. That information does not differentiate between:
  2. Those individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid.
  3. Those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.
  4. The principal diagnosis tools have been:
  • The lateral flow test.
  • The PCR test.
  • Primary Care in the form of General Practice Doctors have by and large been kept out of the diagnostic loop.

The NHS’s internal leaflet says that a positive test should not be relied on alone but a clinician, a Doctor or nurse, should confirm the fact of infection by clinical diagnosis.

6.The tests have been subject to major criticism for being unreliable and producing false positives. [11] The writer of this letter has a letter from his MP stating that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.

  1. Dr Fauci admitted that PCR tests do not test for infectiousness. [12]
  2. Reports of schoolchildren testing positive using lemon juice show how unreliable these tests are. [13]
  3. The inventor of the PCR test has also stated that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnosis tool.
  4. The Portuguese Court of Appeal said it is contrary to international law for a positive test result alone to be used without a Doctor or nurse also seeing the person with that test result and diagnosing an infection. [14]
  5. The public do not know how many people have been classed as an infection on test alone or on test and clinical diagnosis. That is a major failing in gathering data and presenting data.
  6. The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.
  7. The WHO suggested re-setting the cycle rate on the PCR test in January 2021 it is unknown whether the NHS has adopted that advice. [15]
  8. The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented has in my client’s view exaggerated the numbers in a material way.
  9. There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease. [16]

The material risk of being hospitalised with covid:

  1. The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts.
  2. That information has not differentiated between:
  3. Those presenting in hospital with covid illness.
  4. Those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently been tested positive for coronavirus.
  5. Whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.
  6. The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.
  7. In assessing material risk the public need to have adequate information.
  8. The allegation is that the information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are.

This has either been intentional or grossly negligent. Presenting information in a distorted way affects the public’s ability to weigh up the material risk that coronavirus presents.

The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.

The material risks of dying from covid:

  • The information presented to the public does not differentiate between:
  • Those dying from covid.
  • Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death.
  • Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
  • The death certificates are allowed to be signed by Doctors who may not have seen the individual who has died before death.
  • Anyone who has died within 28 days of a positive test is recorded as a covid death.
  • The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable. The CDC in the USA has recently presented its information in a different way to enable any individual to find out how many people have died from covid alone without having any other medical condition or co-morbidity. [17]
  • A Portuguese Court has recently found that the numbers of people said to have died from covid has been exaggerated. [18]
  • The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings. [19, 20]
  • The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven.
  • Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid.
  • The risk is asymmetrical.
  • The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.
  • The government’s communication on vaccination has been inconsistent.
  • The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity.
  • The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms [21]. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction.
  • It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability. [22]
  • None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.
  • Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy. [23]
  • Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed.
  • Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed.
  • Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
  • Providing inconsistent and changing information does not enable the public to have adequate information to give informed consent.

The Patient Information Leaflet:

The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated.

That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way:

  1. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.
  2. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.
  3. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy. [24]
  4. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.
  5. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.
  6. The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
  7. By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1 percent [25] means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent. [28]
  8. The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
  9. The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

Information on Vaccine Passports:

  • HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. [29]
  • Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
  • HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
  • A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
  • The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.

Advertising of the vaccine:

The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination. It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.

  1. None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA [2]6. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from.
  1. Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 [27] make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law in my client’s view.
  2. The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.
  3. The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent. [28]
  4. The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
  5. The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

Information on Vaccine Passports:

  1. HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. [29]
  2. Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
  3. HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
  4. A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
  5. The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.
  6. Montgomery Guideline 2: Availability of other treatments:
  7. The NHS has published no information in its Patient Information Leaflet on the efficacy of other available treatments available to combat coronavirus infection or the disease of covid.
  • The body has an incredible way of treating itself if it is infected.
  • It’s called the immune system.
  • The NHS should not be proposing a medical intervention when most people have a readily available treatment system to combat the infection and disease namely their immune system.
  • The immune system for most people will fight off the infection by the production of antibodies.
  • Further that immune response will be memorised by the T cells and B cells and will provide long lasting protection.
  • It is proven from SARS Coronavirus 1 in 2002 that T cells and B cells memorise the antibody response for many years. [30,31]
  • There has been very little information to the public on the efficacy of the immune system to fight off any covid infection. The immune system is the first line of defence yet has been ignored by our NHS and by the government and SAGE.
  • It is accepted that the thymus gland which produces T cells and B cells gets less efficient over the age of 70 or if a person is immune compromised.
  • Taking vitamin D will enhance the immune system. These have only been provided as supplements.
  • At no time during any of the press conferences has the government and its advisers stressed the importance of the immune system and how to take care of it as a first line of defence against coronavirus. It’s only ever been about the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate information of the role of the immune system is an egregious breach of Montgomery.
  • Immunity gained via infection is better than any immunity enhancement from vaccination.[32]
  • Professor Whitty, to be fair, did say that for most people covid will be a mild illness. He therefore implied, without expressly stating it, that most people’s immune system will fight off the illness arising from a coronavirus infection.
  • There is now ample data that there are a number of therapeutics that will work to prevent infection, and prevent hospitalisation and death.
  • Those therapeutics are:
  • Ivermectin. There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, it is also proven safe [33, 34] Courts have ordered the use of Ivermectin in some jurisdictions.[35]
  • HCQ and Zinc.[36]
  • Budoneside or anti-inflammatory respiratory inhalers [37, 38]
  • The evidence has been available for some time that all these work to prevent infection, to prevent, hospitalisation and to prevent death.
  • There is limited or no information in the Patient Information Leaflet on available treatments other than vaccination.
  • Why haven’t these medicines been made available? These medicines have been successful in a number of other countries and have prevented death and hospitalisation.
  • Why hasn’t the MHRA investigated these other available and cheaper alternatives before granting emergency use authorisation to vaccines with no proven long term safety record?
  • My client cannot understand why the NHS does not make available safe and effective medicines. This is grossly negligent.
  • These safe and effective medicines and the immune system are the elephant in the room. The NHS does not want to look at them. The regulator does not want to look at them. SAGE does not want to look at them. The government does not want to look at them. Who’s pulling the strings?
  • The question is why isn’t the public being given a choice? Do commercial considerations and political agendas take precedence over public health? If so that’s an extremely serious matter.
  • The NHS and the government appear to be very quick to vaccinate the population but very slow to consider and make available cheaper, safer and effective alternatives, to give the people an option. Why is that?

2. Montgomery Guidelines: Risks of Vaccination:

  • At none of the press conferences have the risks of vaccination been presented.
  • The advertising campaigns infer that the vaccines are safe.
  • The mRNA method of vaccination is considered a gene therapy product according to the US FDA. [39]
  • Serious adverse event data is being collected by the MHRA. But is not being disseminated to news outlets or via the press conferences [40]
  • That serious adverse event data is not being presented by Government or the NHS in its Patient Information Leaflet.
  • Data from deaths falling within 28 days of vaccination is not being collected, let alone communicated.
  • The Salk Institute has found that the spike protein, a constituent component in the vaccine or the vaccine’s mode of action, is a toxin.[41]
  • The Japanese medicine regulator has found that those who have been vaccinated have a concentration of spike proteins in every organ of their body, in particular the ovaries [42]. This study is a called a bio-distribution study.
  • The NHS does not appear to have done any bio-distribution study of those who have been vaccinated.
  • The MHRA has not required a bio-distribution study to be conducted to check the safety of vaccination and if there has been a bio-distribution study conducted it has not been communicated to the public.
  • A number of regulators around the world have required health authorities to stop using the vaccine on health grounds.
  • The last UK emergency vaccine after swine flu was also suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths.
  • The material risks from vaccination known to date are:
  • Death in extreme cases. Over 1300 deaths reported on the yellow card system.[43]
  • Bells Palsy.
  • Thrombo-embolic events with low platelets.
  • Capillary Leak Syndrome
  • Menstrual disorder and extreme bleeding.
  • Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
  • Antibody dependant enhancement.
  • The public is not able to give informed consent to vaccination as the data on the material risks on vaccination is being inadequately collated and the data that is collected is then not communicated to the public at any Press Conference.
  • The public is being informed that the vaccination is a public health benefit, the risks of vaccination are not being communicated in as systematic way as coronavirus infections and deaths are communicated.
  • It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to take material risks, however low the likelihood of the risk materialising, yet no or inadequate information is being presented on those risks.
  • Adults may shortly be asked to give consent to vaccination for their children when the risks of coronavirus to children is exceptionally low. This is one of the reasons my client did not want any involvement in the vaccination programme.
  • Every clinician vaccinating any individual must tell the individual of the risk of a serious adverse event, however small that risk is. This requirement does not appear to be built into the vaccine roll out in any systematic way.

My client is raising these concerns in this letter and these concerns are consistent with his obligation as a professional to act in accordance with the law and with professional ethics. The public who paid his wages up until recently deserve nothing less.

The second issue is the requirement for the public to wear masks in the NHS setting.

  • The requirement to wear a mask in an NHS setting is unlawful for the following reasons:
  • The requirement is for the public and clinicians to wear masks on NHS facilities.
  1. The mask is not defined.
  2. If the mask is a piece of PPE, the 1992 PPE Regulations are engaged. [44]
  3. The employer is obliged under regulation 6 to evaluate both the risks and the suitability of the PPE.[45]
  4. Any evaluation of the risks would have to pose three questions:
  5. What are the risks of asymptomatic infection?
  6. What are the risks of symptomatic infection?

How are those risks best mitigated?

  1. To answer the first question the risk of asymptomatic infection is low. [46] Dr Fauci said that asymptomatic infection has never been the driver of any respiratory virus.
  2. The risks of symptomatic transmission are higher.
  3. What is the best way to mitigate the risks?
  4. To provide category 3 PPE masks is the answer as they show efficacy in reducing transmission. These have not been provided or indeed mandated by the Health Secretary.
  5. PPE Regulations require all masks to meet EC standards and to be category three in the case of the risk posed by biological agents. [47]
  6. The masks provided to NHS clinicians are not category three. It is against the law to provide unsuitable PPE. It is also mandatory to follow the PPE regulations. [48]
  7. The NHS has issued guidance that any person on NHS facilities must wear a mask. There is however no requirement for the public to wear a category three mask.
  8. The requirement for the public to wear any mask in any NHS facility does not provide any benefit to the public. [49, 50]
  9. The requirement for the public to wear a mask in any NHS facility poses a material risk. The risks of mask wearing is of bacterial infection plus a risk of hypoxia for prolonged use. [51]
  10. There is also the risk posed by CO2 and a RCT reported in JEMA found 6 times the safe level of CO2 in children wearing masks. [52]
  11. Anything other than a Category 3 mask is inadequate as PPE for the risk of infection posed by a biological agent.
  12. The NHS has a policy that any patient or relative must wear a mask as must any clinician.
  13. However there is no requirement that the masks have to be PPE. The masks therefore pose more risk than benefit.
  14. The masks that are being worn by the public are unregulated.
  15. Some of the masks have been manufactured in China and contain toxins.[53]
  16. The NHS has failed the public in its guidance as unregulated masks pose more risks than benefits.
  17. The NHS has failed its staff by requiring all staff to wear masks which pose more risks than benefits.

The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly.

They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.

How can the National Health Service be endorsing the government policy of vaccine passports when that policy:

  1. Makes those who wish to rely on their own immune system second class citizens.
  1. That policy gives privileges to citizens who take a medical intervention, vaccination.

By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent.

Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?

The writer of this letter has a backlog of whistle blowers to advise with examples of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the covid pandemic, including exaggeration of covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation, such pressure is unethical and contrary to the standards the public expect in public health settings.

Please feel free to contact me directly for any further clarification, in the meantime we have copied in the relevant regulators who no doubt will conduct a full and independent and robust enquiry into the issues raised in this letter.

I look forward to hearing from you with a full response to the points raised.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

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 Principia Scientific

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Throughout the scope of human history, information was wielded by the “elites” as a means of conditioning the masses to accept inequality and comply with the status quo. The most powerful weapon ever created by mankind was not the atomic bomb, media has always been the ruling class’s most potent ordnance. It’s for this reason that the Bible was once monopolized by the Catholic church and why Nazis burned books; the more information people have, the harder it is to keep them subjugated.

Information is power and those who own it are all powerful.

It is precisely because the flow of information is so imperative that wars are fought in the realm of public opinion as much as they are on battlefields. A coworker who served in the US Army once told me that the most dangerous job in the military belongs to comms personnel. She described how all military campaigns start with trying to take out the enemy’s ability to communicate; a fighting force that is not informed and loses situational awareness is one that is easily defeated.

Social media was supposed to break the iron grip the plutocracy have over information and democratize news in ways that empower the average Jane and Joe. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the like promised to deliver a new day of citizen-journalism that could truly create a marketplace of ideas where the winners and losers are not determined by money but by the merit of people’s content. This grand experiment in self-determination was aborted the minute the major social media platforms decided to go public and seek fortunes ahead of their principles.

Far from breaking the paradigm where information is consolidated and monopolized by governments and the billionaire class who own them, Facebook and Twitter cast their lot with the establishment by silencing dissent and censoring people who don’t agree with conventional wisdom. The muzzling of independent journalists like me and countless millions who do not comply with the edicts of the government-media-corporate complex did not start 18 months ago when this dreaded pandemic shattered normal and plunged us head first into the abyss of fear and uncertainty; to the contrary this Orwellian level of censorship we are witnessing started by targeting people on the fringes only to see the net expand and ensnare anyone who dares to question authority.

I have been writing about the safety and efficacy, or lack thereof, of the Covid-19 “vaccines” since December of 2020. The more my articles drew eyeballs, the more I was censored. Over the past three months, my Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and LinkedIn accounts have all been deleted as if I’m a danger to the public. Yet nearly everything I’ve been writing about, from the origins of the virus to the fact that these “vaccines” do not prevent contraction nor transmission of the Coronavirus, have been proven right. The job of a journalist is not to copy and paste biotech corporations and government talking points but to challenge them to ensure transparency. I have been continuously silenced for exercising my rights which are enumerated and guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This malicious silencing of journalists and people who commit the cardinal sin of asking questions about Covid-19 and Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson’s experimental “vaccines” has nothing to do with protecting the public. A full three months before Coronavirus was detected in Wuhan, a global exercise by the name of “Event 201”—an event sponsored by none other than Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and my alma mater Johns Hopkins University—outlined steps that were to be taken in the event of a “hypothetical” pandemic.

One of the actions that was called for was for social media sites to censor people who question the “vaccines”. What you are now doing is something that we premeditated and planned months if not years before Covid-19 arrived to take my mom and nearly 4 million people around the world.

I write this open letter to employees at Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit and other social media sites who are engaging in censorship. My aim is not to vilify you but to appeal to your sense of morality and justice. I know the vast majority of you are good and decent people who go to work daily trying to contribute to the betterment of society. Moreover, I also know that a lot of you do not agree with what is taking place as you watch news being manipulated and society being engineered through algorithms and newsfeed suppression. I know this is not what you signed up for; you did not spend fortunes going to college and sacrificed long hours to graduate with honors only to become minders of governments and to be the capos of corporations.

I fully expect to be deplatformed by Twitter after they permanently suspended my primary account three months ago. Facebook did likewise as they deleted an account I opened up in 2007. But if the price of seeking truth and questioning authority is banishment and exclusion from the 21st century’s public square, so be it. I have experienced far worse in my life, including nearly two years of homelessness, for me to be cowed into compliance by threats of censorship. However, it greatly saddens me to see America, the country that gave refuge to my family and me when my homeland turned us into refugees, reverting to the practices of tyrants like Mengistu Hailemariam who forced us to flee in 1983.

A society that censors is one that is on its deathbed. I really ask you to look into your hearts and ask yourselves if you are OK with the way things turned out at your place of employment. If you are not, instead of seething everyday you go to work knowing that you are complicit in this ongoing abrogation of truth, reach out to some of your fellow workers and find ways to defy in order to stand up for justice. If enough of you raise hell and demand change, it can happen overnight. We are headed for very dark times over the coming days and weeks, I implore you to be on the right side of history instead of following orders you know in your hearts to be unjust.

*

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 Ghion Journal

All Global Research articles 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 June 10, 2021, 2,400 liters of “firefighting water” containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were accidentally released from the U.S. Army Oil Storage Facility into Uruma City and other nearby locations, according to Ryukyu Shimpo, an Okinawan news agency.

The Okinawa Defense Bureau said the toxic materials flowed out of the base due to heavy rain. The concentration of PFAS in the release is unknown and the Army is not forthcoming. The spill is believed to have emptied into the Tengan River and the sea.

During past investigations conducted by the prefecture, the Tengan River has been found to have high concentrations of PFAS. Poisonous releases of toxic chemicals by the U.S. military are commonplace in Okinawa.

Agent Orange ingredients found at Okinawa military dumpsite | The Japan Times

Excavation of toxic waste at military dumpsite in Okinawa revealed 61 barrels of Agent Orange ingredients made by Dow Chemical. [Source: japantimes.co]

Consider how the latest spill is treated in the Okinawan press:

“On the evening of June 11, the Defense Bureau reported the incident to the prefectural government, Uruma City, Kanatake Town, and the fishermen’s cooperatives concerned, and asked the U.S. side to ensure safety management, prevent recurrence, and promptly report the incident. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveyed its regrets [about the incident] to the U.S. side on June 11. The Defense Bureau, the city government, and the prefectural police confirmed the site. Ryuko Shimpo has inquired about the details of the incident to the U.S. military, but as of 10 P.M. on June 11, there has been no response.”

If the Army responds, we know what they are likely to say. They will say they are concerned about the health and safety of Okinawans and are committed to ensuring safety management and making sure there’s no recurrence. That’ll be the end of the story. Deal with it, Okinawa.

Okinawans are considered second-class Japanese citizens. The Japanese government has repeatedly demonstrated it cares little about the health and safety of Okinawans in the face of repeated toxic releases from U.S. bases. Although the small island of Okinawa comprises just 0.6% of Japan’s land mass, 70% of the land in Japan that is exclusive to U.S. forces is located there. Okinawa is about one-third the size of Long Island, New York, and has 32 American military facilities.

Okinawans eat a lot of fish that are contaminated by exorbitant levels of a particularly deadly variety of PFAS that flows into surface waters from the American bases. It is a crisis on the island, due to the high concentration of American military installations. Eating seafood is the primary source of human ingestion of PFAS.

The four species listed above (from top to bottom) are swordtail, pearl danio, guppy, and tilapia. (1 nanogram per gram, ng/g = 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt), so the swordtail contained 102,000 ppt)  The EPA recommends limiting PFAS in drinking water to 70 ppt. [Source: Created by Kunitoshi Sakurai (Okinawa Environmental Network Caretaker, Professor Emeritus, Okinawa University]

Futenma

On April 17, 2020, a fire suppression system in an aircraft hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma discharged a massive volume of toxic firefighting foam. Foamy suds poured into a local river and cloud-like clumps of foam were seen floating more than a hundred feet above the ground and settling in residential playgrounds and neighborhoods.

The Marines were enjoying a barbecue in a massive hangar outfitted with an overhead foam suppression system that apparently discharged when the smoke and heat were detected. Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki said, “I truly have no words,” when he learned that a barbecue was the cause of the release.

Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki shakes hand with U.S. Marine at Futenma base in 2019. [Source: thereaderwiki.com]

And what would be an appropriate response from the governor now? He could say, for example, “The Americans are poisoning us while the Japanese government is willing to sacrifice Okinawan lives for the never-ending U.S. military presence. 1945 was a long time ago and we’ve been victims since then. Clean up your mess, United States Forces Japan, and get out.”

Organic fluorine compound contamination detected at six times index value in Uchidomari River

Giant carcinogenic foam puffs settled in residential neighborhoods near the Futenma Marine Corps base in Okinawa. [Source: ryukushimpo.jp]

When pressed to comment, David Steele, commander of Futenma Air Base, shared his words of wisdom with the Okinawan public. He informed them that “if it rains, it will subside.”

Apparently, he was referring to the bubbles, not the propensity of the foams to sicken people. A similar accident occurred at the same base in December 2019 when a fire suppression system mistakenly discharged the carcinogenic foam.

Marine General Apologizes for Massive Firefighting Foam Leak on Okinawa | Military.com

U.S. Marine Corps Col. David Steele, commanding officer of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, explains to Okinawa Vice-Governor Kiichiro Jahana where some of the firefighting foam was captured in a base underground storage tank on April 17, 2020. [Source: military.com]

In early 2021, the Okinawan government announced the groundwater in the area around the Marine Corps base contained a concentration of 2,000 ppt of PFAS. Some U.S. states have regulations in place that prohibit groundwater from containing more than 20 ppt of PFAS, but this is occupied Okinawa. A report by the Okinawa Defense Bureau said that the foam releases at Futenma “had almost no effect on humans.”

Meanwhile, Ryukyu Shimpo newspaper sampled river water near the Futenma base and found 247.2 ppt of PFOS/PFOA in the Uchidomari River (shown in blue.) Seawater from Makiminato fishing port (top left) contained 41.0 ng/l of the toxins. The river had 13 varieties of PFAS that are contained in the military’s aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

The foamy water flowed out of sewer pipes (red x) from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. The runway is shown on the right. The Uchidomari River (in blue) carries the toxins to Makiminato on the East China Sea. [Photo courtesy of Pat Elder]

So, what does it mean that the water has 247.2 parts per trillion of PFAS? It means people are getting sick.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says surface water levels that exceed 2 ppt pose a threat to human health. The PFOS in the foams wildly bioaccumulate in aquatic life. The primary way people consume these chemicals is by eating fish. Wisconsin recently published fish data near Truax Air Force Base that shows PFAS levels remarkably close to the concentrations reported in Okinawa.

This is about human health and the extent to which people are being poisoned through the fish they eat.

In 2013, another accident at Kadena Air Base spread 2,270 liters of fire-extinguishing agents out of an open hangar and into storm drains. A drunk Marine activated the overhead suppression system. The recent Army accident released 2,400 liters of the poisonous foam.

PFAS-laced foam fills Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, in 2013. A teaspoon of the foam in this photo could poison an entire city’s drinking reservoir. [Source: jonmitchellinjapan.com]

In early 2021 the Okinawan government reported that the groundwater outside of the base contained 3,000 ppt of PFAS. Groundwater drains into surface water, which then flows to the sea. This stuff doesn’t just disappear. It continues to run out of the base and the fish are poisoned.

The Army’s Kin Wan Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant storage facility in Uruma City is immediately adjacent to the pier, which is used to receive different types of weapons and ammunition.

According to the commander of Fleet Operations Okinawa, “Tengan Pier is a popular off-base spot for surfers and swimmers. Located in Tengan Bay on the Pacific Ocean side of Okinawa, this particular spot offers one of the highest concentrations of marine life found anywhere in this region.”

That’s just swell except for one problem: U.S. military activities threaten the continued health of that very marine life, and the marine life of the ocean. In fact, the new base construction in Henoko threatens the ecosystem of coral reefs, the world’s first extinct ecosystem. Nuclear weapons may once again be stored in Henoko, if the base is ever completed.

Kin Wan receives, stores, and issues all aviation fuel, automotive gasoline, and diesel fuel used by the United States Forces on Okinawa. It operates and maintains a 100-mile petroleum pipeline system that reaches from Futenma Marine Corps Air Station in the south of the island, through Kadena Air Base, to Kin Wan.

This is the aorta of the American military presence in Okinawa.

U.S. military fuel depots like this around the world are known to have used vast quantities of PFAS chemicals since the early 1970s. Commercial fuel depots have largely stopped using the deadly foams, switching to equally capable and environmentally friendly fluorine-free foams.

Takahashi Toshio is an environmental activist who lives adjacent to the Futenma Marine Corps base. His experience in fighting to control noise levels from the base provides a valuable lesson in the necessity for resisting the Americans who are ruining his homeland.

He serves as the secretary of the Futenma U.S. Air Base Bombing Lawsuit Group. Since 2002, he has helped to pursue a class-action lawsuit to end the noise pollution caused by U.S. military aircraft. The court ruled in 2010 and again in 2020 that the noise caused by the operation of U.S. military aircraft is illegal and beyond what is considered legally tolerable, that the Japanese government is also responsible for the damage caused to the residents and must financially compensate the residents.

Residents holding placards reading US Military out protect the relocation of the new U.S Marine Airbase construction on...

Okinawan residents call for removal of U.S. military bases. [Source: teenvogue.com]

Since the Japanese government does not have the authority to regulate the operation of U.S. military aircraft, Takahashi’s appeal for a “flight injunction” was rejected, and the damage caused by aircraft noise continues unabated. A third lawsuit is currently pending in Okinawa District Court. It is a large class-action lawsuit with more than 5,000 plaintiffs claiming damage.

“After the Futenma foaming incident in April of 2020,” Takahashi explained, the Japanese government (and the local government and residents) were unable to investigate the incident that occurred inside the U.S. military base. The U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, gives priority to U.S. forces stationed in Japan and prevents the government from investigating the site of the PFAS contamination and the circumstances of the accident.”

In the recent Army case in Uruma City, the government of Japan (i.e., the government of Okinawa) is also unable to investigate the cause of the contamination.

Takahashi explained, “It has been shown that PFAS contamination causes cancer and can affect fetal development and cause disease in small children, so investigating the cause and cleaning up the contamination is essential in order to protect the lives of residents and fulfill our responsibility to future generations.”

Takahashi says he has heard that progress is being made in the U.S., where the military has investigated PFAS contamination and has assumed some degree of responsibility for the cleanup. “This is not the case with U.S. troops stationed overseas,” he argues. “Such double standards are discriminatory and disrespectful to the host countries and to the regions where U.S. troops are stationed, and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

*

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

Pat Elder is a peace and environmental activist who has run for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Southern Maryland. He can be reached at: [email protected].

The Plandemic: A Sudden Tyranny Imposed by an Entity that Shall Remain Unnamed

By Peter Koenig, July 05, 2021

People in BC are free to move around, without wearing masks, without social distancing, without any of the restrictive measures imposed by the Trudeau Government on 18 March 2020. Coerced vaccination is over. And no more vaccination certificates.

World Economic Forum (WEF) Announces Creation of Orwellian ‘Global Coalition for Digital Safety’

By Leo Hohmann, July 05, 2021

The World Economic Forum announced June 29 it will initiate a new “public-private partnership” with Big Tech and governments around the world to identify and uproot all opinions from the Internet that it considers “harmful.” The WEF is one of those elitist organizations that wields enormous influence over the elected leaders of Western nations but which almost nobody in the general population has heard of.

New Study of Israeli Data Shows COVID-19 Vaccines Lack of Benefit and Much Harm

By Informed Choice Washington, July 05, 2021

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

FDA Ethically Obligated to Pull COVID Injections Off the Market, or Risk Becoming Complicit in Crimes Against Humanity

By Lance Johnson, July 05, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was under intense political pressure to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to three experimental injections manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now that these experiments have been carried out on roughly one third of the US population, serious issues have emerged.

Father and Daughter Died Four Days Apart Despite Taking Different Brands of COVID Vaccines

By Angela Bininger, July 05, 2021

This is tragic story out of Michigan that was disclosed by Kathryn Kendall. She lost both her father and her sister within four days of one another, and they were vaccinated with different brands of covid vaccines.

To Prevent Three Deaths, COVID Jab Kills Two

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 05, 2021

If there were any reasonable safety standard in place, the COVID injection campaign would have been halted in early January 2021. The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,1 which historically has been the most hazardous.

Is Foreign Meddling in Ethiopia Actually a Proxy War Against China?

By Andrew Korybko, July 05, 2021

Africa’s second most populous country of Ethiopia has recently experienced a surge in foreign meddling over the past year. This former kingdom, which was among the world’s oldest prior to its 1974 revolution, has always proudly defended its independence. Emperor Menelik II defeated the Italians in 1896 and secured his compatriots’ independence during the height of European colonialism.

Drinking Coffee in the Early Morning Rain and Thinking of Donald Rumsfeld

By Edward Curtin, July 05, 2021

I think of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on his recent deathbed.  Here was a man whose entire life was dedicated to the American Empire.  He spent all his allotted time making war or making money from the spoils of war.  He was a desert maker, a slaughterer for the Empire.  No doubt he died very rich in gold.

Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues

By Senator Ron Johnson and Kristina Borjesson, July 05, 2021

Called a conspiracy theorist and vilified in the mainstream press for questioning the safety of covid vaccines while promoting the use of cheap, safe drugs that frontline doctors say work well for early treatment of their covid patients, Senator Johnson describes a mind-b oggling gauntlet of roadblocks and malfeasance preventing him from conducting a proper investigation of the origins of the virus, the management of the pandemic, and the suppression of lifesaving treatment information.

1,007,253 Injuries 1,403 Dead in the UK Following COVID-19 Injections According to UK Government

By Brian Shilhavy, July 05, 2021

The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, July 1, 2021. The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through June 23, 2021, for the three experimental COVID “vaccines” currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna.

Latest CDC VAERS Data Show Reported Injuries Surpass 400,000 Following COVID Vaccines

By Megan Redshaw, July 05, 2021

This week’s number of total adverse events for all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 400,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Anglo-American Tripwire Traps Russian Bear

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 05, 2021

The Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated in black and white during a nationally telecast interview on June 30 that the mysterious incident a week earlier involving a British guided missile destroyer HMS Defender off Crimea in the Black Sea was an act of ‘provocation’. Putin called it an Anglo-American operation. 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Emergency Program Act Ministerial Order No. M275

“I, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety, and Solicitor General, order that, effective at the end of the day on June 30, 2021, the attached declaration of a State of Emergency throughout the whole of the Province of British Colombia, made on March 18, 2020, and subsequently extended, is canceled.”

“The Province of British Columbia has formally extended the provincial state of emergency, allowing health and emergency management officials to continue to use extraordinary powers under the Emergency Program Act (EPA) to support the Province’s COVID-19 pandemic response.

The state of emergency is extended through the end of the day on July 6, 2021, to allow staff to take the necessary actions to keep British Columbians safe and manage immediate concerns and COVID-19 outbreaks.” (emphasis added)

 

In other words, the State of Emergency in British Colombia, as a possible precursor for the rest of Canada, is no longer valid?

People in BC are free to move around, without wearing masks, without social distancing, without any of the restrictive measures imposed by the Trudeau Government on 18 March 2020. Coerced vaccination is over. And no more vaccination certificates.

This is the approximate date (mid-March 2020) of the general lockdown throughout the world, in all of the 193 UN member countries at once. A sudden tyranny imposed by an entity that shall remain unnamed, “high-above the UN system”, has been cowardly accepted by the UN system and by all its coopted member governments.

Yes, all 193 UN member governments have been coerced, by threat or reward, to follow this nefarious criminal and deadly agenda – a depopulation and life-digitization agenda to be implemented under the guise of a pandemic, actually, a plandemic. It is virologically impossible that a virus, deadly or not, spreads throughout the world as a pandemic at once, within days.

And even less so, a virus, like the corona virus which is essentially a flu virus – with mortality rates from about 0.3% to 0.8%. This “new” covid virus is not a new version. It is an updated version of the SARS virus that was directed at the Chinese genome in 2002 / 2003.

In retrospect, the 2002 / 2003 SARS virus was like a trial balloon. Both the 2002 / 2003 and today’s versions were laboratory-made – certainly not in China, as the west keeps claiming. Readers may have noticed, western lies are endless, repetitive and ever viler and more vicious.

Today’s covid-lie version which is supposed to invade and lock down the entire world, has been renamed as SARS-Cov-2, and in January 2021 renamed again by WHO as Covid-19. This worldwide plandemic was planned for decades before. See also the 2010 Rockefeller Report.

 

The master “trial” i.e., simulation before launching the virus globally, was Event 201, a computer simulation in New York City on October 18, 2019. It was sponsored by the World Economic Forum – WEF, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which, by the way, is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. May it be noted that the Gates and the Rockefellers are among the most notorious eugenists on the planet.

The Event 201 was attended by professionals with links to UN agencies, especially WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the IMF, and more, as well as renowned national health agencies including the CDC. See this.

The 201 simulation produced some 65 million deaths and a gutted world economy – massive unemployment, famine, misery and more death from famine and desperation.

The Covid-19 Plandemic

In reality, the worldwide damage done during these last 15 months is unfathomable.

As of today, this plandemic has already affected at least 2 to 4 billion people throughout the world – and more – many more – will be affected within the next five to ten years – “coincidentally” the so-called UN Agenda 2030, or Agenda 2021 – if, and this is the Big IF – We, the People, do not wake up and stop this crime of epical proportions in solidarity.

Part of this agenda is an extreme, well-planned food shortage throughout the world.

Reports are coming out of India that the government buys up food crops from farmers at preferred prices – just to let it rot and destroy. Millions of tons of food crops are being devastated, expected to be leading to massive death by famine.

These food shortages in India and elsewhere may also affect Europe, the US and other parts of the world. In the US, Bill Gates has recently become the largest single “farmer”, as his foundation bought up more than 269,000 acres of farmland throughout the United States (about 110,000 hectares).

 

Is this land being used for producing food, or for preventing food production? The Gates farmland purchase was reported by NBC – but strangely, the NBC reference to their report has been deleted from the internet. Fortunately, it is still available on different other websites, i.e., on this one.

As it stands, Canada may be leading the way for the rest of the world to peel off the criminal covid restrictions and – most importantly, Canada is legally pursuing and prosecuting the perpetrators of these human rights infringing covid measures. They are supported by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, German-American lawyer, and his team of lawyers, and the large German Investigative Committee. Dr. Fuellmich’s claims of crimes against humanity have already been accepted by Canadian’s Highest Courts.

All of this – or most of it, especially the abrogation of the nefarious Canadian “Declaration of the State of Emergency”, may not yet be known to the wide Canadian public, because mainstream media do not report it. Therefore, people may still be subject to – totally illegally – pressure and coercion of mask wearing, vaccination and constant and dangerous PCR-testing.

May this refreshingly good news, the abrogation of the Emergency Law, soon be surfacing for all to see and understand – so that a massive solidarity move can bring back Canada to normal.

May Canada become a shining example for the world, in overcoming this deadly psychopathic attempt by a few dirty-rich “non-humans” – to drastically reduce world population and digitize the survivors into “robotic humanoids”.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Plandemic: A Sudden Tyranny Imposed by an Entity that Shall Remain Unnamed
  • 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.

***

.

Abstract

Background

COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.

Method

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

Result

The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

Conclusions

This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

View full text here.

*

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

All images in this article are from Informed Choice Washington

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Study of Israeli Data Shows COVID-19 Vaccines Lack of Benefit and Much Harm
  • 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 tyrannical, brutal cynicism of keeping Julian Assange in Belmarsh prison remains one of the more inglorious marks of the British legal system and, it should be said, its sponsors and colluders. Having won his case against extradition to the US, if only in deeply qualified terms, the UK keeps the WikiLeaks publisher banged up as the appeals process stutters.

The case against Assange could have been thrown out under any number of grounds. Unfortunately, the judgment halting his extradition to the US on 17 charges based on the Espionage Act and one charge of computer intrusion was framed in purposely narrow terms, ignoring the patently political nature of the proceedings.  Were it not for District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s January 4 ruling accepting the state of his precarious health, risk of suicide and the dangerous conditions he would face in the US legal system, the publisher would no doubt be facing special administrative measures and, most likely, the life-sucking interior of a supermax.

A central, and impairing problem in the ruling, was its comfortable acceptance of virtually everything submitted by the prosecution, including the contention that Assange was no journalist, and that he conspired with various associates to hack and make off with classified material.  The judgment also refused to consider – given the ongoing investigation in Spain against the security firm UC Global – that the Central Intelligence Agency had compromised the legal credibility of proceedings by bugging Assange’s privileged conversations in the Ecuadorian embassy.  “This court has no access to the information discovered from this investigation,” reasoned a dismissive Baraitser.  Sordid proposals by US intelligence officials to abduct or assassinate Assange, adduced in court by two anonymous witnesses formerly in the employ of UC Global, could be dismissed as having no bearing on the case.

As if this was not sufficient to sink the matter and open the prison doors of Belmarsh to the founder of WikiLeaks, another dire revelation was made in the Icelandic biweekly Stundin on June 26.  A vital prosecution witness wished to come clean on his testimony.  Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, that sketchiest of characters, admitted that the testimony gleefully used by US prosecutors had been riddled by fabrications.

In 2011, Thordarson piqued the interest of the FBI after planning a DDoS attack on an Icelandic website in concert with Hector Xavier Monsegur (“Sabu”).  Monsegur, posing as a member of the hacking outfit LulzSec, had become an informant for the FBI.  With touted links to WikiLeaks and Assange (Thordarson was not the shy, retiring type), the FBI sought the teenager’s services.  Thordarson had, in fact, been a noisy volunteer tasked with raising money for the organisation.  During the course of his revenue raising operations, he embezzled over $50,000.    

Not content with these additions to his resume, the teenager shamelessly rode the WikiLeaks reputation train, making contacts with journalists, being subsidised on trips where he could claim to be an official representative of the organisation.  During this time, he pilfered material from WikiLeaks, copying the documents of Renata Avila, a lawyer assisting Assange and the organisation.    

The DoJ indictment does not explicitly name Thordarson or the Icelandic nexus, but little is left to the imagination, given that Assange was visiting Iceland “in early 2010” to aid the country’s politicians and media outlets prepare the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.  The IMMI resolution, unanimously adopted in the Icelandic Parliament on June 16, 2011, aimed to make Iceland a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers by protecting freedom of expression and freedom of information.   

The indictment alleges that Assange, in early 2010 and while in contact with Chelsea Manning for reasons of obtaining “classified information […] met a 17-year old in NATO Country-1 (‘Teenager’), who provided [him] with data stolen from a bank.”  The indictment goes on to claim that Assange asked the “Teenager” in question “to commit computer intrusions and steal additional information, including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials of the government of NATO Country-1, including members of the Parliament of NATO Country-1.” 

This nasty filling to the superseding indictment expanded the allegedly conspiratorial nature of Assange’s conduct, a measure undoubtedly designed to tag a few more years to any prison sentence that would be handed down.  This would also blacken Assange’s journalistic credentials and any claims to free speech protections.

No longer a callow teenager and having served time for financial fraud and sexually abusing minors, Thordarson told Stundin “that Assange never asked him to hack or to access phone recordings of MPs.”  He now insists that he had “received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained.”  Thordarson failed to go through the files, or even verify whether they had audio recordings as claimed by the third party source.  The allegation that Assange instructed him to access computers in order to find such recordings is also dismissed as false.

The Stundin article also delves into the chat logs and new documents “never before published”.  While Thordarson did gather them himself – a warning of self-partiality there – they do cover conversations with WikiLeaks staff and his unauthorised contact with various hacking groups, connections made when moderating the online IRC WikiLeaks forum. 

The logs are not flattering.  They reveal a person prone to embellishment and mendacity.  The big headed “Siggi” considered himself a “chief of staff”, the fictional director of communications in WikiLeaks, and second in pecking order in terms of finding recruits for the organisation. Independently of WikiLeaks, he urged hackers to target Icelandic entities and websites with distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.  Thordarson, roguishly, gives the impression that such conduct was expected of him by Assange, though there is no evidence that he was ever spurred on to do so.  Further to that point, any purported instructions by Assange to pursue such an enterprise would have been at odds with his fruitful relationship with Icelandic politicians and press outlets at that point.

The sinister conclusion to draw here, notably through the FBI link, is that a DDoS attack was conducted against the websites of several Icelandic government entities with the approval of US authorities.  Linking Monsegur to the supposedly WikiLeaks-directed Thordarson would be one way of implicating Assange.  The US authorities, reasons Ögmundur Jónasson, Iceland’s Interior Minister at the time, “were trying to use things here [in Iceland] and use people in our country to spin a web, a cobweb that would catch Julian Assange.”

Despite having chalked up a decent prison record and possessing the profile of a fully-fledged sociopath, Thordarson was revisited by US authorities in 2019.  The prosecution of Assange, seen as a legal and risky cul-de-sac by Obama era officials, became a priority for President Donald Trump’s Attorney General William Barr.  In May 2019 Siggi was offered an immunity deal by the DoJ’s deputy assistant attorney general in the department’s National Security Division, Kellen S. Dwyer.  In addition to giving Thordarson immunity from prosecution by US authorities for his testimony, Stundin revealed the guarantee by the DoJ that they “would not share any such information to other prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies.”  Iceland’s law enforcement authorities would be kept in the dark.

The Stundin exposé might have been an early birthday present of sorts for Assange, who turned 50 on July 3.  But instead of hearing news of an impending release, the Australian publisher had to content himself with faithful commemorations held in his honour and sketchy coverage about these latest revelations in the mainstream press.  The UK continues to remain Washington’s deputised jailor, while Thordarson, emboldened by his agreement with the DoJ, continues his habitual forgeries.

*

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 Morgunblaðið/Árni Sæberg/Iceland Monitor

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Africa’s second most populous country of Ethiopia has recently experienced a surge in foreign meddling over the past year. This former kingdom, which was among the world’s oldest prior to its 1974 revolution, has always proudly defended its independence. Emperor Menelik II defeated the Italians in 1896 and secured his compatriots’ independence during the height of European colonialism. One of his successors, Emperor Haile Selassie, promoted the Ethiopian cause at the League of Nations after Italy’s fascist invasion in the run-up to World War II. His efforts generated global sympathy for Ethiopia and etched its struggle in the minds of many.

In the present day, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is following in the tradition of his predecessors by standing firm against the latest foreign meddling campaigns that once again threaten Ethiopia’s independence. The most pressing is the American-led Western pressure against him following his decision to commence a law enforcement operation in the rebellious Tirgray Region last November. To oversimplify a complex situation, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) – previously the most powerful member of Ethiopia’s former ruling coalition – broke with PM Abiy, launched a separatist campaign, and was designated a terrorist group.

The TPLF was upset at the pace and scope and PM Abiy’s ambitious socio-economic reforms. They were also reportedly very unhappy with his success in ending Ethiopia’s nearly two-decade-long conflict with neighboring Eritrea which separated from the former in 1993 following a three-decade-long struggle. PM Abiy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for ending this war. Although he began his rule by implying a vision of broader decentralization, PM Abiy ultimately had to recalibrate his policies due to the inadvertently centrifugal consequences thereof. This generated dissent among some of its diverse people that the TPLF then exploited.

The lingering conflict there has prompted US-led Western accusations of war crimes against the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF), which in turn were the pretext for Washington to impose sanctions against several individuals allegedly linked to them. America is also leading the charge in warning about a supposedly impending famine in the Tigray Province that its perception managers strongly imply would be solely due to the ENDF. Furthermore, an airstrike in the region last month is reported to have caused many civilian casualties, thus leading to more US pressure. Addis Ababa described all of this as an “orchestrated attack” against Ethiopia.

Concurrent with this is another meddling campaign led by Egypt through the Arab League. Cairo accuses Addis Ababa of weaponizing the Nile River due to its plans to fill the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The North African state recently succeeded in getting the Arab League to call on the UNSC to intervene in this dispute. Ethiopia, meanwhile, believes that only an African Union-led resolution is acceptable. China also supports this proposal, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said earlier this month that his country opposes foreign interference in Ethiopia’s internal affairs.

The recent surge in foreign meddling there might be part of a proxy war against Chinese interests in Africa. Ethiopia’s developmental paradigm was powerfully influenced by China’s after the end of the former’s civil war in 1991. China is Ethiopia’s top trade and investment partner. The People’s Republic also helped construct the Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway, which serves as the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project in the Horn of Africa. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ethiopia was Africa’s fastest-growing economy. The Chinese-Ethiopian Strategic Partnership is mutually beneficial and serves as a shining example of South-South cooperation.

Foreign meddling aims to undermine this partnership and could potentially result in Ethiopia’s disastrous “Balkanization” in the worst-case scenario. This makes Ethiopia the latest victim of Hybrid War, and the stakes couldn’t be higher considering that it’s Africa’s second most populous country. Nevertheless, just as it’s historically done, Ethiopia is standing strong against the latest foreign pressure. The US, its Western allies, and the Arab League must stop meddling in Ethiopia’s internal affairs and the GERD issue should be resolved via African Union-led talks, not the UNSC. No matter what happens, Ethiopia can always count on China’s support.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan: Police Superintendent Malik Imtiaz Mahmood Drops Dead Minutes after Experimental COVID-19 “Vaccine”

All Global Research articles 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 Israeli Health Ministry yesterday blocked scores of Twitter accounts belonging to Israeli citizens critical of Ministry vaccine policy, especially regarding vaccines for 12-15-year-olds.

The purge was apparently done in coordination with a recent public thread that included tagging a “list” that was recommended to be blocked “as an act of herd immunity” against those critical of the new policy.

Children’s medical rights advocate Dr. Avshalom Carmel wrote:

“The Ministry of Health is blocking citizens who criticize it? That’s called McCarthyism, isn’t it? Is it Coronafascism, or just the misuse of high-tech knowledge by an unknown programmer?”

Legal experts in Israel called the Health Ministry move “definitely illegal,” explaining that the State Comptroller in 2016 ruled that social media blocking by elected officials infringes on freedom of expression and is prohibited. There have also been administrative petitions in the past, resulting in decisions affirming that a government ministry is prohibited from depriving a person of access to information and participation in discourse.

A morning show in Israel said they would “look into the matter”.

The Israeli Health Ministry did not immediately respond to an America’s Frontline Doctors  request for clarification.

*

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 iStock

All Global Research articles 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.

***

They were in the country for the extraordinary summit of Heads of State and Government organized by the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The event was primarily called to review progress made in the implementation of the theme of the 40th SADC Summit; SADC: 40 Years Building Peace and Security, and Promoting Development and Resilience in the Face of Global Challenges, which was earlier endorsed by the SADC Summit in August 2020.

The first SADC Business Forum featured prominently as part of the comprehensive agenda, and other significant issues discussed included regional integration, cooperation and development.

The topic that got special attention was regional security and its possible impact on business and investment climate, with a particular focus on Mozambique and from broader perspectives, as a whole in southern Africa.

Under the Chairperson of SADC and the Extraordinary Summit, President of the Republic of Mozambique, Filipe Jacinto Nyusi together with 15 leaders from Southern Africa, finally, after several months of go-forth and back negotiations agreed to form a regional Standby Military Force.

The sources of funding for the force made up of a contingency fund and contributions from the Member-States that participate in the force, which should contribute between themselves with $7 million (€5.8 million).

While multiple barriers including high tariffs, customs rules and pitfalls on border-crossing with stocks still remain and hamper regional economic integration, Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi, in a speech, reaffirmed commitment to turn SADC into an example of regional integration, taking into account its geostrategic position and the existing energy potential.

Mozambican leader, during the Public-Private Dialogue and Business Forum, urged speeding up the ratification of protocols essential to economic integration.

The establishment of a customs union that evolves into a single market and monetary union is still a huge challenge. It delays the process of ratifying protocols on regional trade. The imbalances that characterize each of the states, such as great differences in macroeconomic stability, uneven levels of industrialization, lack of complementarity in the structure and production base and inefficiencies in the value chain.

Comparing all regional economic blocs in Africa, SADC seems unique but it is critical to fast-track reforms for a better business environment and macroeconomic stability, which are indispensable for attracting foreign investment to the regional bloc. Thus, the SADC Business Forum was, purposely held to bring together initiatives and projects, and match synergies to create opportunities.

Agostinho Vuma, the President of the Confederation of Economic Associations of Mozambique (CTA), has acknowledged, over the years, that tariff and non-tariff barriers are an obstruction to economic integration in southern Africa. There are so many challenges, such as the prevalence of tariff and non-tariff barriers, that stand as roadblocks to regional integration, according to Agostinho Vuma.

On the other hand, low production capacity and prohibitive interest rates imposed by banks weaken economic development and regional integration.

Some reforms are practically needed, that are conducive to the strengthening of private sector companies in southern Africa and that could drive the rapid integration of the region’s economies in a future free trade area, and that could attract foreign investors to strategic sectors in the region, he explained taking his turn at the podium.

The SADC Business Forum also debated the socio-economic impact of COVID-19 and post-pandemic recovery strategies, infrastructure and regional corridor development. Industrialization focused on improving the balance of trade within the countries of the region, the role of the energy and mineral resources sectors and the participation of national business in megaprojects were thoroughly discussed.

Domestication of the SADC Industrialization Strategy with a Focus on Improving the Trade Balance. The session, moderated by Ciyong Zou, UNIDO Program Director, drew many participants who reviewed the processes on the integration and popularization of the strategy by the private sector.

Infrastructure: Development of SADC Regional Corridors. The participants here reviewed regional transport corridors that support the trade and regional integration agenda and further focused on interventions needed to form structures and attract investments. The establishment of the SADC Regional Development Fund in 2015 aims at mobilizing funds for key infrastructure and industrialization projects.

Industrialization remains SADC main economic integration agenda since April 2015, when the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap 2015-2063 was approved. The Vision 2050 is also premised on three inter-related pillars, namely industrial development and market integration; infrastructure development in support of regional integration; and social and human capital development.

In order to make entrepreneurship an asset in the collective structure of the region, the discussion panels share, reflect and promote the existing regional dynamics and good practices, with a global impact on the ecosystem and initiatives for the development of entrepreneurship.

Energy, Mineral Resources and the Local Content Value Chain; Agribusiness: promoting and linking regional reference value chains; Entrepreneurship in SADC: Ecosystem and Development; Socio-economic impact of COVID-19 in the region and recovery strategies. The participants looked at the challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, and what needs to be done as recovery pathways in the strategic regional sector.

Zimbabwe, through ZimTrade, show-cased its trade and investment opportunities. It related to the realization of its foreign policy objectives, particularly the development and integration agenda, according to Zimbabwe Chronicle.

The SADC region, with a market of 350 million consumers, seeks to leverage the existing potential, to raise trade and investment within the region, and within Africa and to the outside world.

Statistics on various economic areas are difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, the SADC Secretariat in an email told this research writer that in 2018, SACD’s total exports amounted to $154 billion and the total imports were $149 billion.

The SADC comprises 16 states: Mozambique, Angola, South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, Tanzania, Zambia and Comoros.

Within its framework, the bloc collectively seeks to promote sustainable and equitable economic growth and socio-economic development, forge deeper cooperation and integration, to ensure good governance and durable peace and security, so that the region emerges as a competitive and effective player in the southern region, in Africa and the world.

*

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

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Southern African Leaders Discuss Regional Economic Integration
  • 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.

***

Over a year and a half ago, in mid-October 2019, Chile experienced a wave of massive protests calling for structural changes and these self-organised marches reached a level of coordination and magnitude unprecedented for decades in the country. The social upheaval, which started against the increase in public transport fares, installed one of the deepest political crises of the last period, giving way to demands for the fall of the current constitution, elaborated during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1980 , validated by the redemocratization governments.

In response to these revolts, the Chilean national congress called a plebiscite, institutionalizing the constituent process that had already begun in the streets with popular organization. Despite the numerous criticisms of the agreement of November 15, 2019 (“Acordo por la Paz” [Agreement for Peace]) between parliamentarians to establish a popular consultation, citizens enthusiastically attended the polls. And the results of the referendum finally ended up reflecting not only the plural social effervescence of the “estallido social” (social explosion) of 2019, but also decades of demands for profound transformations.

Still facing the complexities of the pandemic, the Chilean people went to the polls on October 25 in 2020, and with the highest voter turnout in the past 8 years, chose to end the Pinochetista constitution. With a resounding result of 78.27%, the option to derogate from the neoliberal constitutional text was achieved, and with 78.99% it was decided that the drafting body would be composed of members fully elected to conform to the constituent convention. The 2019 cry of indignation was legitimized with a significant and undisputed presence at the polls (50.9%), when a country with a history of low electoral participation managed to change the country’s politics deeply .

After the triumph of “Apruebo” [Approve] and “Convención Constitucional” [Constitutional Convention] in the plebiscite, and as a result of the increase in the numbers of Covid19 contagions, the government of Sebastián Piñera postponed municipal, regional and 155 assembly elections from 10, 11 and 15 April 1to 16 May. Amidst an unequal dispute with the candidacies raised by the economic elite and the invisibility of the proposals and campaigns of the left, the people answered the call to choose their representatives. And once again, the citizenry voted to be consistent with the outcry of the 2019 social uprising, and also to bury the parties that form part of the “political duopoly” (traditional right and center-left), those that ruled for 30 years of democratic transition.

A light of hope

In response to the clamor in the streets and to protect the constitutional process, Chile took a sharp turn to the left. The message to the political parties that formed part of the democratic transition was clear, and both the official right and the center left suffered a historic defeat. However, more than a punishment to the traditional political elite, it is important to highlight that the excellent results of the last election are due to the articulation of popular struggles and social organization. With the 2019 revolt, the country saw a growth in politicization and social organization in neighborhoods, among organized football fans, cyclist collectives, popular assemblies raised in occupations for decent housing, “olla comunes” – instances of community participation raised by women. There were more and more feminist collectives exploding in every corner of the country, in addition to the interest in discussing the constituent process.

Without a doubt, this was the cry that was heard at the polls on 15 and 16 May, when an electoral process unique in Chile’s history marked the new victory of leftist forces in the election of Constitutional Convention, municipalities and regional governments, the latter being carried out by direct vote for the first time in the country. A surprising result that reduces the right to the place of a minority in the constituent process, even though it is over-represented with its 37 elected representatives (23.9%), however, without reaching the two thirds quorum established by the “Agreement for Peace”, criterion that could obstruct the deep transformations of the Constitutional Convention. Fortunately it wasn’t like that.

The big surprises in the election of the constituent assemblies were the “Lista del Pueblo” (The List of the People), a pact that formed mostly candidacies of social fighters and won 16.1% of the seats; and also the independent candidacies, which total 41 assembly members distributed in different lists. To close the great result of the left forces, the “Lista Apruebo Dignidad” (List of Approve Dignity), a pact of the Chilean Communist Party and Broad Front – a radical left coalition that emerges in 2017, formed by leaders of the 2011 student movement – was the great winner among party coalitions with 18%, of the constituent seats.

The Chilean constituent process was marked by the principle of parity, a demand raised by women, and which also elected 17 representatives of native peoples with reserved seats. Such mechanisms of equity and historical reparation mobilized feminists and Mapuche indigenous peoples after the Agreement for Peace to influence their participation in the construction of the new Constitution. Regarding the municipal election, there was a renewal led by the left and a significant rise of women to positions in city halls and as councilors. One highlight was the election of Irací Hassler from the Communist Party, a 31-year-old feminist who defeated Felipe Alessandri from the National Renewal (the party of rightist President Sebastian Piñera) and will be the new mayor of the commune of Santiago, the capital and largest city of Chile.

The List Approve Dignity was also successful in the Region of Valparaíso, electing as governor Rodrigo Mundaca, a long standing social fighter in defense of water as a universal right in Chile, in addition to guaranteeing victories in the city halls of the cities of San Antonio, Valparaíso, Quilpué and Villa Alemana, almost all led by feminist women. A resounding success that will undoubtedly mark the trend for the presidential race that takes place in November 2021.

The struggles that built today

The “estallido social” (social explosion) that had already taken place in the first months of 2020, added to the context of the health crisis, unquestionably highlighted the main failures that Chilean society had already been denouncing for years. The Chilean working class, it should be remembered, was not until that moment on a sleepwalking and lethargic pilgrimage inside a false propaganda of democratic stability and the overcoming of poverty. During the last 15 years in the country, the struggles in defense of the environment, the feminist movement and the student movement (in 2006 with the “Revolución Pingüina” [Penguin’s Revolution] and 2011 with the “Revolución Estudiantil” [Student Revolution]) have given the guidelines to reconfigure the collective political sense, placing the crisis of the neoliberal model at the center of the public debate.

Beyond the student movement, We must emphasize the strength of the Chilean feminist movement, which was also the protagonist of this awakening. The uprisings of 2019 and the opening of a constituent process – which will write the first joint constitution in the world – cannot be explained without the organizing and convening capacity of feminists. Not now, not at other times. Feminists played such a fundamental role in the entire process of social resistance in Chile, not only in the current constituent process, or when they massively led people again to question institutional violence in 2018. It is important to remember that Chilean feminists also have a history of powerful resistance against the Pinochet dictatorship.

A feminist historical legacy that adds strength and recognition, not only in academic spaces, but appropriating everyday discussions, establishes the need for a political dispute to achieve a structural change in social relations. Without a doubt, the feminist struggles in Chile today, as well as the student movement, are part of a continuum of unified struggles. Struggles that question how commercial education serves to maintain the sexual and reproductive division of work and care, which point to the feminization of poverty that the Chilean neoliberal system reproduces in its privatized pension system, which denounces the fierce precariousness of life through defense of profit in all areas.

In this way, the entire process that has taken place in Chile since October 2019 was more than anything a political opportunity to challenge, that is; to challenge the neoliberal model and demand the construction of a new country, with a feminist, anti-colonial perspective , anti-predatory and economically extractive, anti-racist, and also claiming a plurinational state. Nevertheless, one of the central challenges is to convert this force expressed in the ballot boxes into an organizational force that does not loosen the constituent process, taking up the “cabildos” (instance of direct representation of the communities) and linking them with the elected representatives. Above all, it remains clear that it is necessary to continue fighting so that our efforts do not end up again redesigning another neoliberal social agreement, this time renewed and legitimized by the ballot box.

*

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.

Sabrina Aquino is director of Fundación País Digno and feminist activist of Convergencia Social.

Featured image is from Brave New Europe

All Global Research articles 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 reported yesterday, the CIA Director William J. Burns travelled to Brazil to meet Bolsonaro government ministers. The reason for the meetings had been kept secret, but Jair Bolsonaro during his daily social media broadcast to his supporters, claimed he had a meeting with Burns (although not on his official schedule). The Brazilian president openly admitted that the meeting was held with the purpose of discussing the political situation in South America, or more specifically the new rise of the left, and Bolsonaro attacked neighbouring countries: 

“I’m not going to say that this was dealt with him, but we analyzed how things are going in South America.  We can’t stand to talk about Venezuela anymore, but look at Argentina.  Where is Chile going?  What happened in Bolivia?  The Evo Morales gang returned.  And even more: the president who was there in the interim term is in prison, accused of undemocratic acts. Are you feeling any resemblance to Brazil?”. 

As published here at Brasil Wire, Bolsonaro played an active role in the 2019 coup in Bolivia and in the same year aided repression promoted by Sebastian Piñera in Chile.

Before arriving in Brazil, Burns had been in Colombia.

In a speech on the 1st of July, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro spoke about the “tour” of US authorities in the region and of a “plan against Venezuela”:

“The commander of the Southern Command and the head of the CIA are prowling around Venezuela, and they are received like heroes in Colombia, Brazil, to make plans against you,” the Venezuelan head of state said in a Television address.

“In Colombia there was the commander of Southern Command, Craig Faller, and they told me that the director of the CIA was also there recently.  They are working on some secret plan to harm Venezuela,”he said.

Maduro has a point. According to the Colombian Foreign Ministry on the 28th of June, Joe Biden and Iván Duque had a phone call where they spoke about the situation in Venezuela and its regional impact, and highlighted the importance of seeking an international consensus for “free and fair elections” in the country. 

Burns’ Agenda

During the day, the US authority visited the Palácio do Planalto and met with members of Jair Bolsonaro’s government.

In the afternoon, Burns attended an audience with the director of the Institutional Security Office (GSI), General Augusto Heleno.  Also present at the meeting were Alexandre Ramagem, director general of ABIN, the Brazilian Intelligence Agency, and General Walter Braga Netto, Minister of Defence.

In the evening, the director of the CIA participated in a dinner with Heleno and with the Government Secretary, General Luiz Eduardo Ramos.

There is no exact information on where exactly the CIA director met with Bolsonaro. As Burns held meetings with Generals at the heart of the Bolsonaro regime, Bolsonaro announced that he would not relinquish the presidency at the 2022 election in the event of “election fraud”. The president of the TSE (Electoral Court) last week denounced Bolsonaro’s plan for Brazil’s return to a system of printed votes, as a “return to election fraud” and threat to democracy.

Bolsonaro’s statement has caused concern, especially given that baseless allegations of voter fraud were the pretext for both the 2019 US-backed coup in Bolivia, and the current situation in Peru, with efforts to prevent its election winner, socialist Pedro Castillo, from taking office. Former president Lula da Silva, Bolsonaro’s would be opponent in 2018, who led polls before being jailed in the joint US-Brazil anti-corruption operation Lava Jato, is now absolved and free to run, with opinion polls showing he that he would win the 2022 election in the first round, with a 30% lead over the sitting president.

In Brazil, Chile and Colombia, the United States’ three key allies in South America, left wing candidates currently lead election polls for forthcoming elections, against a backdrop of massive street protests against their far-right, US-supported leaders, in what many are describing as a repeat of the “pink tide” that swept the continent twenty years ago.

*

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 Brasil Wire

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Called a conspiracy theorist and vilified in the mainstream press for questioning the safety of covid vaccines while promoting the use of cheap, safe drugs that frontline doctors say work well for early treatment of their covid patients, Senator Johnson describes a mind-boggling gauntlet of roadblocks and malfeasance preventing him from conducting a proper investigation of the origins of the virus, the management of the pandemic, and the suppression of lifesaving treatment information.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues
  • Tags: ,

US ‘Airstrike Diplomacy’ Continues in Syria-Iraq

July 5th, 2021 by Brian Berletic

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 27, 2021 the US carried out additional strikes against targets along the Syrian-Iraqi border. The attacks were condemned by both the Syrian and Iraqi governments and represent not only a dangerous escalation by American military aggression in the region, but the continuation of US aggression in the Middle East spanning two decades regardless of who occupies the White House or Congress.

 A US Department of Defense statement dated June 27, 2021 regarding the US strikes would claim:

At President Biden’s direction, US military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region. he targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq.

The statement would also claim:

We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq for the sole purpose of assisting the Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS.

And that:

As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense. The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect US personnel in Iraq.

While “assisting Iraqi Security Forces in their efforts to defeat ISIS” (a terrorist organization, banned in Russia) is the official excuse for US forces remaining in Iraq – the truth is that US forces have occupied Iraq illegally since the US-led invasion in 2003 which was deemed very much illegal by the UN.

A 2004 Guardian article titled, Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan,” would note:

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN’s founding charter.

And despite claims that the US is in Iraq “at the invitation of the Government of Iraq” in a bid to justify its military aggression, the government of Iraq itself has unequivocally condemned the US strikes as a violation of the nation’s sovereignty.

The New York Times in a June 28, 2021 article titled, “Iraq Condemns US Airstrikes on Iran-Backed Militias,” would report:

The Iraqi government on Monday condemned US airstrikes on Iranian-backed militias near the Iraqi-Syrian border, and one of the targeted paramilitary groups vowed “open war” against American interests in Iraq.

The New York Times also notes that the militias targeted by the US and characterized as “Iranian-backed” are actually “on the [Iraqi] government payroll.”

Not mentioned by the New York Times is that these militias played a key role in the defeat of the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) in both Iraq and neighboring Syria. The New York Times mentions the US assassination of General Qassim Suleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, which – under General Suleimani’s leadership – also played a key role in the defeat of ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.

General Suleimani was also in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government when the US carried out air strikes to assassinate the Iranian military commander.

Washington’s claims of maintaining its military occupation of Iraq to “assist” in defeating ISIS is contradicted by its campaign of violence against Iraq’s Iranian allies who are likewise assisting in the defeat of extremist forces – not only in Iraq – but also in neighboring Syria.

Unlike the US, however, Iran is not allied with ISIS’ key state sponsors. In 2016, then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a leaked e-mail would mention key US allies – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – by name as providing “clandestine financial and logistical support” to ISIS and “other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Of course, the US itself was also funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping extremist groups fighting alongside Al Qaeda (also banned in Russia) and ISIS.

An August 2017 New York Times article titled, “Behind the Sudden Death of a $1 Billion Secret CIA War in Syria,” would mention reports that:

…some of the CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda further sapped political support for the program.

The same article would claim that extremist organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda “often fought alongside the CIA-backed rebels” and admitted that by the end of the US program these extremist organizations dominated the so-called opposition in Syria.

Had the US been genuinely funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping moderate rebels to the tune of billions of dollars, who was funding, arming, training, and otherwise equipping extremists even more – allowing them to eventually displace US-backed rebels on Syria’s battlefields?

The answer is that there never were any moderate rebels to begin with. The US set out arming extremist forces deliberately as part of its proxy war against Damascus.

As early as 2007, journalists like Seymour Hersh in his article, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?,” would expose Washington’s preparations to do exactly that, warning (emphasis added):

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Thus it is clear that not only did the United States give rise to Al Qaeda and ISIS across the region  and specifically in Syria and Iraq, it did so deliberately. It is using the threat of extremism it and its regional allies sponsored to begin with as a pretext to remain in the region militarily and as a smokescreen behind which it is carrying out an escalating campaign of aggression against Iraq and Syria’s allies who actually aided in Al Qaeda and ISIS’ defeat.

The US attempts to cite international and US domestic laws in a bid to depict its ongoing aggression as “self-defense” regarding US forces stationed thousands of miles from American shores and who are in the Middle East as a direct result of an illegal war of aggression predicated two decades ago on deliberately fabricated accusations of “weapons of mass destruction” Washington claimed the Iraqi government possessed at the time.

Today, the US is attacking militias paid by the Iraqi government – attacks protested loudly by the Iraqi government – all while claiming the US presence within Iraqi territory is “at the invitation of the Government of Iraq.”

This ongoing US aggression along the Iraqi-Syrian border is a dangerous illustration of how despite claiming US forces are essential for stability and security in the region, the US is in fact the primary driving force of instability and a constant threat to security across the Middle East. It also illustrates how much more work Syria, Iraq, and their actual allies have ahead of them in both eliminating extremists the US simultaneously sponsors and claims to be fighting, and pushing out the United States’ otherwise perpetual military occupation of the region without triggering a war with a nuclear-armed aggressor..

*

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

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.

The United States believes it has the right to bomb, militarily occupy, and economically strangulate any country, anywhere, without consequence. But the world’s peoples are standing up more and more to the global dictatorship of US hegemony.

On June 27, Washington launched airstrikes against forces in both Iraq and Syria, two sovereign countries illegally occupied by the US military, which have repeatedly called for American troops to leave.

The US attack proved to be a gift to the genocidal extremists in ISIS: it helped provide cover as remnants of the so-called “Islamic State” launched a terror attack on a power grid in northern Iraq. Similarly, the US bombing killed several members of Iraqi government-backed units who had been protecting their nation from ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

It is far from the first time Washington has clearly been on the same side as far-right Takfiri fanatics. For example, current US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in an email to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that “AQ is on our side in Syria.” And the US government supported al-Qaeda extremists in its wars on Yemen and Libya.

In addition to aiding notorious terrorist groups, these US strikes on Iraq and Syria were glaringly illegal under international law. Moreover, they constitute a clear act of aggression against the peoples of West Asia, who for decades have struggled for self-determination and control over their own, plentiful natural resources – resources that the US government and its all-powerful corporations seek to control and exploit.

The Pentagon tried to justify its attack claiming it was an act of “self-defense.” Absurdly, the US Department of Defense – the world champion in violating international law – even cited international law to try to legitimize the airstrikes.

In reality, the US military’s presence in Iraq and Syria is illegal. And under international law, a military power that is illegally occupying a territory does not have the right to self-defense. That is true just as much for apartheid “Israel” in its settler-colonial aggression against Palestine as it is for the United States in its imperial wars on the peoples of Iraq and Syria.

Iraq’s prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, made that clear. He condemned the US strikes as a “blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security.”

In January 2020, in response to Washington’s assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis – a criminal act of war against both Iraq and Iran – the democratically elected parliament in Baghdad voted 170 to 0 to expel the thousands of US troops occupying Iraq.

Washington simply ignored the vote, silencing the voices of the Iraqi people – while threatening more economic sanctions on their government. In addition, the Pentagon stressed that the vote was nonbinding. Still, even the US government-backed RAND Corporation acknowledged that there “is no treaty or status of forces agreement (SOFA) authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.”

Likewise, the United States is illegally occupying one-third of Syrian sovereign territory. The internationally recognized government in Damascus has repeatedly called on the US military occupiers to leave, but they have refused, in a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty.

“The presence of Americans in Syria is a sign of occupation, and we believe that all nations and governments must stand up to their unlawful presence in the region,” Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis declared in 2020, after the US assassinations of the top Iraqi and Iranian military leaders.

While former Republican President Donald Trump radiated a kind of neocolonial arrogance, boasting that US troops would illegally remain in Syria because “we want to keep the oil,” the Democratic Joe Biden administration has not acted much differently.

President Biden appointed hardline neoconservative operative Dana Stroul as the top Pentagon official for Middle East policy. In 2019, Stroul bragged that Washington “owned” one-third of Syrian territory, including its “economic powerhouse,” which includes the vast majority of its oil and wheat reserves.

Stroul’s promotion was an unambiguous sign that the Democrats are endorsing the same sadistic Trumpian strategy, to militarily occupy Syria, steal its natural resources, starve its government of revenue, deny its people bread and gasoline, and prevent reconstruction of what Stroul snidely referred to as the widespread “rubble.”

The reality is that militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.

Trump launched airstrikes against Syria in April 2018 on totally unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus had carried out “gas attacks,” claims that have since been proven false by multiple whistleblowers from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Then in December 2019, the Trump administration bombed anti-ISIS militias in both Syria and Iraq.

Biden carried out a similar, illegal attack on these same fighters in eastern Syria in February 2021. Another example of Washington serving as the de facto air force for the remnants of the so-called “Islamic State.”

The December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 US airstrikes targeted the Iraqi government-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), known in Arabic as the al-Hashd al-Sha’abi. In its official statement on the June bombing, the Pentagon stated unequivocally that it was attacking Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, two prominent Iraqi armed groups in the Hashd.

The Department of Defense misleadingly referred to these units as “Iran-backed militia groups.” The US government and the corporate media outlets that act as its obedient mouthpiece always describe the Hashd as “Iran-backed” to try to downplay their role as indigenous protectors of Iraqi sovereignty and deceptively portray them as foreign proxies of Washington’s favorite bogeyman.

In reality, the PMFs are Iraqi units supported by the elected, internationally recognized government in Baghdad. The Hashd played a leading role in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist Takfiri groups in both Iraq and Syria – while the United States, apartheid “Israel”, and NATO allies spent billions of dollars backing Salafi-jihadist death squads in their genocidal war on the people of Syria.

The Hashd do indeed receive assistance from Tehran, and they have every right to do so. After all, Iran is Iraq’s neighbor, whereas the United States is on the other side of the planet. But Washington, NATO, and their de facto stenographers in the corporate press corps seek to discredit all resistance to criminal US aggression in West Asia by erasing its organic, indigenous roots and lazily depicting it as a vast conspiracy controlled by an omnipresent Iranian controller.

The PMFs made it clear that they will not tolerate Washington’s assault on their nation’s sovereignty. “We reserve the legal right to respond to these attacks and hold the perpetrators accountable on Iraqi soil,” the Hashd declared.

Unlike the US military occupiers, the people of Iraq and Syria do have a right to exercise self-defense in response to strikes by foreign aggressors. They can legally resist American military occupation and neocolonialism, just as the people of Palestine have the right to resist Israeli military occupation and Zionist settler-colonialism. It is a right enshrined in international law – and an inalienable right that any nation would defend.

If Washington wants to stop attacks on its troops, there is an easy way to do that: withdraw them from the region where they are not wanted. American soldiers will be much safer at home.

*

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 Al Mayadeen English


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Gabriela, you are part of the four percent of the world’s population that celebrates today, July 4th, as Independence Day. We are in the extreme minority of the earth’s inhabitants that claim citizenship within the belly of the beast of the global empire, the United States.

Today, many Americans will attend parades, barbecues, and fireworks shows wearing apparel donned with the patriotic red, white, and blue. This holiday is generally a happy occasion to see family and friends for an early summer celebration. However, rarely is the cause for this celebration inspected.

Questions that usually go unasked on this day include: Why are we celebrating this nation? What, if any, benefits have been brought to the world by the existence of the United States?

My hope is that as you age you consider these questions and investigate some of the assumptions many Americans hold about their nation. This day can be an opportunity to make an honest assessment of this country’s past and present, with the goal of working toward a more humane future. During this reflection, your father hopes that you take into account the following considerations.

You have been born into an empire with asymmetric power!

Gabriela, your incidental birth within the United States means you are part of a citizenry that has a collective proverbial gun pointed at the people of the rest of the world. You are a member of a nation that holds unprecedented military and economic power on the global stage. This understanding should serve as a framework for all exploration into your nation’s relationship with the global community.

The statistics speak for themselves. The United States’s annual near $800 billion military budget is more than the next 10 nations’ military spending combined. The next highest funded armed forces, China’s, spends less than one-third of what the U.S. does.

Chart, bar chart Description automatically generated

The United States spends more than the next ten highest spenders combined on power projection through military force [Source: nationalpriorities.org]

Comparing the U.S. military budget to other supposed rivals becomes almost comical, withRussia spending just over $60 billion, Iran spending $15 billion, and North Korea’s budget remaining lower than that of the New York City police department at $4 billion. Further illustrating this asymmetric power in the globe are the 800 foreign military bases possessed by the U.S. compared to a combined 70 possessed by the rest of the world’s nations.

A quick glance at a map of where the bases are should remove all doubt as to which country maintains hegemony over the world’s people. U.S. military bases and installations threateningly surround every alleged adversary from Iran, to China, to Russia. Of course, the U.S. would never permit those aforementioned adversaries to place their bases anywhere near the U.S. border.

VINE Base Nation

Map of U.S. overseas military bases, 2016. [Source: geographicalimaginations.com]

Lastly, only the United States approaches the world with a mindset so imperial in nature that it divides the earth’s regions into different “commands” for its military to police. These include U.S. Southern Command, which “presides” over Central and South America, Central Command (Centcom) for the Middle East, and Africa Command (Africom) which, with echoes from the 19th century Berlin Conference, claims jurisdiction in Africa. Contrastingly, other nations possess neither the will nor the capability of setting up similar patrols of the earth’s surface.

Economically the United States’s treasure wields the power to cripple the economies of entire societies through sanctions. The citizens of Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Venezuela and Syria are quite familiar with this destructive capability of the global superpower. The economic sanctions leveled on these nations by the U.S. disproportionately harm the most vulnerable, and the deprivation they cause has devastated the lives of millions in just the past few years. Conversely, no nation is capable of instituting an economic war on the U.S. that would cause proportionate levels of suffering among the populace.

The United States levels crippling economic sanctions on a significant portion of the world’s population. No nation has the ability to inflict similar levels of suffering on the U.S. (Source: newsweek.com)

An acknowledgment of this asymmetry in power between the U.S. and all other nations should underscore the importance of maintaining a critical interpretation of this nation’s historical and current affairs. Given the enormity of its potential for violence, this nation is in desperate need of being restrained from within.

Exceptional? No. We are extreme! Our “normal” is radical by global and historical standards

Gabriela, I hope you can understand that here in the U.S., what we consider to be normal is extreme in both the international and historical sense. The challenge here is reminiscent of the popular phrase, “not being able to see the forest for the trees.” Recognizing the extreme nature of the “forest” we live in is challenging because, as Americans, we are able to live amongst the trees, mostly incurious about the larger context of the world or history. Taking a wider view, it becomes clear that our society exists in a radical departure from global and historical norms. Understanding this can be useful in catalyzing resistance to our nation’s behavior.

And how are we extreme? Well, aside from the above-discussed military and economic power, other actions and policies of the U.S. are also unparalleled in the global community. One distinguishing aspect of America is that our nation has the ignominious title of the world’s largest carceral state, imprisoning some 2.3 million people. This would seem to run counter to the narrative of freedom that on this July 4th we are led to believe is such a deeply ingrained American value.

Of those millions denied basic freedom, some 80,000, at any one time, are subjected to solitary confinement, a practice the United Nations has determined to be a form of torture.Furthermore, as a testament to the vindictive rather than restorative nature of the criminal justice system, our country remains in the minority of nations that maintain the death penalty.

The United States is by far the largest penal colony in the world, contradicting the notion that this is “the land of the free.” [Source: prisonpolicy.org]

Even the “free” population of the U.S. is subject to extreme policies. The United States is alone in the industrialized world in the fact that its citizens are not guaranteed health care.

Adding to this absurdity is the fact that Americans spend far more than other wealthy nations on medical care, yet have far worse health outcomes. U.S. life expectancy is lower and infant mortality rates are higher than its international counterparts.

Another aspect of our “normal” includes being the only advanced nation to deny new parents paid family leave after the birth of a child. In that same vein of sacrificing basic needs in the interests of capitalist profiteering is the fact that the United States, unlike its industrialized counterparts, does not guarantee paid sick leave. Indeed, the status quo in this nation is anti worker, anti-family, and fundamentally callous toward the large majority of the domestic population.

The “normal” behavior of the U.S. in the international arena is even more extreme. Even an examination of U.S. foreign policy limited to your parents’ lifetimes is revealing in this regard. Just since your mother and father’s births in the mid-1980s, the United States has invaded, conducted airstrikes, and engaged in destabilizing covert operations in dozens of other nations.

A non-exhaustive list of nations victimized by U.S. violence in the last four decades would include Iraq, Panama, Afghanistan, Serbia, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Pakistan. Needless to say, all of these actions have been in direct violation of the targeted nation’s sovereignty and international law.

Reciprocally, in that same period of time, no nation has engaged in international aggression even approaching the standard set by the U.S. China, an alleged U.S. enemy, has not engaged in a war since 1979 (a war supported by the U.S. against communist Vietnam).

Russia has engaged in comparatively few military conflicts in the same period of time, fighting several small wars in bordering states, and coming to the aid of (and at the invitation of) the Syrian government in that Arab nation’s civil war.

Also setting the United States apart from the normative behavior for nations in the global community is its conduct toward and within international institutions. The U.S. is consistently in the extreme minority in its votes in the United Nations.

The global superpower weaponized its permanent seat on the Security Council to upheld injustices such as Israeli and South African apartheids, and its Cuba embargo against overwhelming global opposition to these policies. Also at the UN, America has revealed itself to be in the extreme minority by opposing seemingly obvious policies that would serve to decrease human suffering. This has included Uncle Sam’s refusal to sign onto the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and being the only nation to vote “no” on a UN resolution to make food a human right.

America’s unique intransigence extends to other global institutions. This has included ignoring decrees by the International Court of Justice and a refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court. When a nation’s criminality is extreme in the global sense, it should not be surprising that it would go to extreme measures to avoid accountability for its behavior.

The United States infamously refused to honor a ruling by the International Court of Justice ruling that dictated that the U.S. should be held accountable for the 1980s dirty war on Nicaragua. [Source: theguardian.com]

Indeed, as the most powerful empire in human history, our nation holds many shamefully distinctive qualities. These also include the facts that the U.S. is the only nation to ever target a civilian population with nuclear weapons, that the U.S. has engaged in foreign election interference significantly more than any other nation, and that the U.S. operates international programs of kidnapping, torture, and assassination.

The fact that this extreme behavior can persist is an indication that it is acceded to, tolerated, and often supported by U.S. citizens. It demands a reconsideration of our perception of our “exceptionalism” that alleges our superiority as a nation. We need a serious reconciliation with the ignominious aspects of our society that actually do render us unique. Only then can we move toward a more humane “normal.”

Violence begets violence: You live in a nation birthed in barbarism and ensconced in violence

Gabriela, sadly another tragic feature for us in the United States is rampant gun violence. Naturally, occasions of mass shootings evoke emotional responses from much of the American public. Atrocities like the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012 or the Parkland shooting of 2018 correctly shock the conscience of most Americans. However, tragically such occasions seem less out of the ordinary when considering that this is a nation for which violence has been a foundational and consistent element of its history.

This nation was born out of the violence of genocide and race-based chattel slavery. Pre-dating the founding of the nation, the land that would become the 13 colonies and eventually the United States was taken by force by European conquerors, and utilized to build profits of elites through the exploitation of free labor.

Our foundational accounts often sanitize this legacy. For instance, while our Thanksgiving narrative points to a harmonious 17th century feast shared between the Indigenous peoples and white colonists, the reality is much harsher. In the same New England colony in which the legendary November feast took place, the white settlers carried out a campaign of extermination against the native inhabitants.

Emblematic of the brutality of this policy was the Pequot War, which saw the forebears of American society burn hundreds of Indigenous women and children alive in an attack on Fort Mystic, Connecticut.

A participant in the massacre and eventual governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, William Bradford, described the barbarity: “It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire … and horrible was the stink … but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God.” Such a statement makes apparent the level of acceptance of industrial-scale violence against innocents that is ingrained into the very origins of this nation.

Pequot War | History, Facts, & Significance | Britannica

White settlers slaying the Pequot in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [Source: britannica.com]

During the American Revolution, the Iroquois tribe along with many other Indigenous nations, recognized the imperial ambitions of the American colonists, and thus sided with Great Britain. This decision drew the ire of white colonists, who had already developed a racist disdain for the original inhabitants of North America.

A general in the Continental Army directed his subordinates to conduct a genocidal war on the Iroquois, demanding the total destruction and devastation of their settlements.” He also demanded that the army ruin their crops now in the ground and prevent their planting more.”

The campaign that proceeded was described by historian Page Smith as “the most ruthless application of scorched-earth policy in U.S. history.”

The general who ordered this violence has become appropriately known as “town destroyer” by surviving Iroquois. Simultaneously, the large majority of Americans know this same individual as the man to whom monuments are dedicated, roads and bridges are named after, and whose face graces currency: the first president of the United States, George Washington.

These signs memorialize the Iroquois victims of America’s war for independence (Source: onondaganation.org)

That the supposed heroes in this nation’s war for independence engaged in such sadism toward Native Americans would foreshadow the violent nature of the United States.

The century that followed the nation’s birth saw the new republic expand across the continent using methods similar to Washington’s during the revolution. “Manifest destiny” was accomplished by employing genocidal violence against the indigenous nations to ethnically cleanse them from lands coveted by white Americans. The “Sea to Shining Sea” continent-spanning behemoth we live in today was also attained through armed seizure of half of Mexico.

By the turn of the 20th century, the conquest of the continent had apparently not satiated the United States’s appetite for violence. To this end, the budding superpower exported atrocity to the Philippines, killing up to a million people in another blatant war of conquest.

The decades that followed would see American savagery visited on Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, and many more nations. History shows us that war—the purest expression of violence—is as American as apple pie. The U.S. has been at war nearly every year of its existence, including the year of your birth and the 20 years that preceded it.

I would ask that you consider the horror of domestic shootings within the context of a nation that engages in industrial-scale massacres as policy. Place these horrific events within the larger canon of a nation that perpetrates drone strikes on civilian gatherings such as weddings and funerals, bombs densely populated cities, and implements economic sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands. These atrocities hardly register as news in the United States, even as they inflict exponentially more suffering than the aforementioned mass shootings.

This inconsistency in attention paid to some instances of violence but not to others is at the heart of the understanding that I hope you gain about this country.

This is a nation that Martin Luther King, Jr., accurately characterized in his 1967 Beyond Vietnam speech as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.”

Such a label was preceded by King considering the inconsistency of denouncing acts of violence committed by individuals within the United States, while the United States government was simultaneously conducting a war of extermination in Vietnam.

To call attention to the sadistic nature of U.S. policies does not serve to obfuscate or minimize the suffering of victims of violence at home. Rather, this approach calls for global empathy, a recognition of the equality, common humanity, and equal potential for suffering of all the earth’s peoples within the U.S. borders or outside of them.

Indeed, a visiting Martian would likely find it obvious that a nation whose foundation was based in slavery and genocide, whose proceeding three centuries have been defined by perpetual war, who devotes so much of its resources toward its armed forces, and remains the largest arms dealer on earth, is a nation with violence deeply embedded in its DNA.

The scourge of mass shootings are but a symptom of a deranged and sick society. If we wish to most effectively address this symptom, it starts with the correct diagnosis of our nation as a pathologically violent society.

The real privilege of being an American

On July 4th, along with many days on the calendar, you will be besieged by the patriotic fervor of U.S. politicians and citizens stating how proud they are to be an American. You may even be met with demands from nationalistic types that you admit how “lucky” you are to be here. (This is especially likely if you voice any of the aforementioned critiques of this nation.) The reality, though, is we are actually quite fortunate to be U.S. citizens, albeit for reasons entirely different than an American chauvinist would claim.

One of the greatest benefits of being an American citizen is that we are (mostly) shielded from the horrors inflicted by our government abroad. American wars are fought on other people’s territory, destroy foreign cities, and upend the lives of non-Americans. U.S. citizens are generally spared the agony created by their government’s foreign policies. There are of course caveats to this, including the many ways that U.S. wars come homebut, nonetheless, Americans suffer comparatively less than those in the nations targeted by our government. One could cynically argue that this is a “blessing” for U.S. citizens.

This wall of protection is also a curse: As U.S. citizens, we have become so detached from the imperial behavior of our government that it has created a total misunderstanding of other nations and historical events.

The devastation inflicted by our government has no parallel in similar American experience. For instance, after the American revolution, the U.S. was not invaded by 16 foreign nations attempting to destroy the new nation, as was the Soviet Union upon its formation.

America has never endured a genocidal aerial bombing campaign that killed millions, and leveled every major city, as North Korea suffered at the hands of the U.S. Our government has never been overthrown by a foreign power’s intelligence agency, which then installed a repressive regime to rule over Americans, as the U.S. has done dozens of times to other nations.

In the U.S., our weddings and religious gatherings are not turned into massacres by Hellfire missiles launched by Predator drones. The same cannot be said for Pakistanis and Afghans in recent years.

There has never been a scourge of hundreds of thousands of American babies dying due to the economic warfare of a foreign power, the exact punishment that the U.S. has inflicted on Iraq and Yemen in recent years.

In short, our government creates life-altering trauma for people the world over, but Americans remain blissfully detached and unempathetic to those on the receiving end of U.S. imperialism.

This detachment is, of course, all too convenient for the managers of the empire. The American populace’s ignorance of the suffering of their targeted populations is necessary to perpetuate the imperial project.

However, Gabriela, this collective apathy is not in OUR interests. The future of humanity will depend on global empathy and cooperation to combat the greatest challenges of our time, including nuclear proliferation, world hunger, and climate change.

U.S. imperialism presents a huge barrier to such cooperation. Of course, understanding that we are isolated from the effects of our nation’s violence is not sufficient alone. From there it is incumbent on us to find resources to challenge the American exceptionalist and imperialist narrative.

We already have the other side of the story! In fact, we are bombarded with it!

Gabriela, as you grow older and form your own opinions, you may read this letter and conclude that it presents a gratuitously critical perspective on the United States, its history, and its current place in the world. However, I encourage you to take stock of the sheer weight of the uncritical pro-America message we are bombarded with on a daily basis.

All of our major sporting events begin with the National Anthem. Those same events almost always are accompanied by blind worship of militarism with time devoted to “support the troops,” often accompanied by a flyover of fighter jets (as the crowd undoubtedly cheers).

The Military and Sports – Bracing Views

Worship of militarism has become the norm at sporting events. [Source: bracingviews.com]

Popular entertainment in the form of feature films, television shows, and video games all contribute to an uncritical patriotic narrative, as imperial institutions such as the CIA and Pentagon wield tremendous influence over production of these media.

Our mainstream news media are often an instrument of imperial militaristic propaganda as well. With just six corporations owning 90% of media, the spectrum of opinion presented is extremely limited to what a small group of oligarchs considers acceptable. These same outlets are over reliant on narratives of the intelligence agencies, military, and corporate funded think tanks, rather than alternative sources of criticism such as activists or real investigative journalists.

Lastly, just take stock of the everyday features of your life, such as faces on our currency, the namesakes of major cities and infrastructure, and the commemorative statues you’ll find in municipalities around this nation. Here you’ll find that the message communicated is one of reverence not for those who challenged power but, rather, for the slave owners, militarists, and managers of an internally and externally repressive American empire.

I am stressing the importance of rejecting traditional American exceptionalist narratives because (at the risk of sounding cliché) you are the future. In spite of the injustices perpetrated by this nation historically and currently, there have been moments of hope whereby progress toward a more just world was accomplished. Positive change, however, has rarely been the result of the actions of leadership, but rather the result of bottom-up activism.

The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, civil rights legislation, labor protections, and the end of South African apartheid was made possible, not because of top-down edicts, but because of the collective actions of grassroots movements.

Historically, agents of change have never been satisfied with the aggrandizing narratives about their nation, and looked upon their society and found it wanting in terms of equality and justice.

If a United States that is actually a force for good in the world is possible, it is only because your generation and those that follow will make it so. Each July 4th that passes is an occasion to reflect honestly on what this nation is. From there, we can direct our actions toward creating a society worthy of celebration.

*

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.

Matt Mckenna is a teacher in Bergen County New Jersey and teaches AP United States History. Prior to that job, he was a teacher for a decade in the Bronx (2007-2017). He can be reached at: [email protected]

Featured image is from newjerseyleisureguide.com

To Prevent Three Deaths, COVID Jab Kills Two

July 5th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years

The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate

A recent study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death, finding that for every three people spared from COVID-19 death, the COVID gene therapy injections kill two. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy”

There’s evidence that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is deleting reports of side effects, especially deaths related to COVID injection. So, not only does VAERS generally capture only 1% to 10% of side effects, but they also appear to be manually wiping reports

A case report reviews two neurosurgical cases in which patients developed new onset of neurological symptoms shortly after their COVID shots. The two patients were found to have two different types of brain tumors. The authors hypothesize that the shots may trigger inflammation that contributes to neuro-oncologic diseases

*

If there were any reasonable safety standard in place, the COVID injection campaign would have been halted in early January 2021. The reported rate of death from COVID-19 shots now exceeds the reported death rate of more than 70 vaccines combined over the past 30 years, and it’s about 500 times deadlier than the seasonal flu vaccine,1 which historically has been the most hazardous.

The COVID shots are also five times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.2,3 In a June 24, 2021, peer-reviewed article4 in the medical journal Vaccines, titled, “The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccination — We Should Rethink the Policy,” an international team of scientists warns that we’re killing nearly as many with the shots as would die from COVID-19 itself.

UPDATE: This peer reviewed article was retracted. Please see twitter thread for details.

For Every Three COVID Deaths Spared, Two Die From the Jabs

To compare the risks and benefits, they calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death. The data came from a large Israeli field study and two adverse drug reactions databases, one with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and one with the Dutch National Register.

To prevent one case of COVID-19 using the mRNA shot by Pfizer, the NNTV is between 200 and 700. The NNTV to prevent one death is between 9,000 and 50,000, with 16,000 as a point estimate.

Meanwhile, the number of people reporting adverse reactions from the shots is 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. For serious side effects, there are 16 reports per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is 4.11 per 100,000 vaccinations.

The final calculation suggests that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two die from the shots. “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy,” the authors state in conclusion.

Understand that doesn’t even factor in the anticipated far greater death toll from the COVID jab in the fall, as a result of paradoxical immune enhancement. These numbers will escalate to shocking ratios as the deaths start to increase in the fall.

Toxicologist Calls for End to COVID Vaccination Program

Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., a prominent toxicologist and molecular biologist who works with M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Houston, says the current COVID-19 injection campaign is a “massive clinical trial” using the general population as subjects, and is calling for the program to end.

Lindsay, described by investigative journalist Jennifer Margulis as having “extensive experience in analyzing the molecular profile of pharmacologic responses,”5 told the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) that Pfizer’s and Moderna’s gene therapy injections have multiple safety concerns and should not be given to children or women of childbearing age.

You can hear her comment in the video above. A transcript of her three-minute comment can be found on Algora.com.6

She pointed out “there is a credible reason to believe that the COVID vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes,” and that there are enough pregnancy losses reported thus far to warrant stopping the vaccines. Lindsay should know, seeing how she worked on a vaccine back in the ‘90s that unexpectedly ended up causing permanent sterility.

Margulis contacted Lindsay after the meeting to see what additional information she had that she was not allowed to present due to the three-minute time restriction. In a written response, Lindsay said:7

“There is strong evidence for immune escape and that inoculation under pandemic pressure with these leaky vaccines is driving the creation of more lethal mutants that are both newly infecting a younger age demographic, and causing more COVID-related deaths across the population than would have occurred without intervention. That is, there is evidence that the vaccines are making the pandemic worse.”

Spike Protein Linked to Heart Inflammation and Much More

The podcast, A Shot in the Dark, also interviewed Lindsay for nearly an hour about her concerns, June 24, 2021, which you can listen to above.8 Importantly, she points out that regulatory agencies and vaccine makers feigning surprise that the COVID shots are causing heart inflammation is completely absurd, as there are “hundreds of studies” linking coronavirus spike proteins to this effect.

She also dismisses the claim that heart inflammation is somehow only affecting younger people. Heart attacks in adults are also a clear sign of this effect, she says. Additionally, clinical evidence given to her by health care professionals who are treating patients injured by these shots suggest the spike protein your body produces in response to them have toxic effects on your bone marrow.

Disturbingly, like many others, Lindsay says there’s evidence that the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is deleting reports of side effects, especially deaths, post-COVID injection. So, not only does VAERS generally capture only 1%9,10 to 10%11 of side effects, but they also appear to be manually wiping reports.

Brain Tumors Have Developed Post-COVID Jab

In related news, a peer-reviewed case report12 published June 15, 2021, reviews two neurosurgical cases in which patients developed new onset of neurological symptoms shortly after their COVID shots. The two patients were found to have two different types of brain tumors.

The authors point out that even though these processes are considered “unrelated to vaccination,” their hypothesis is that the COVID shots “may induce an inflammatory cascade with the ability to uncover underlying sinister pathology.”

For this reason, they strongly recommend “careful evaluation in the setting of new-onset neurologic symptoms after COVID-19 vaccination.” Of course, by then, it’s going to be too late, so in my view, people need to carefully consider these risks before they submit to these shots.

The first case was a 58-year-old woman who eight years previously had surgically removed melanoma on her right arm. Within two weeks of her second dose of a COVID-19 injection, she developed slurred speech, facial droop on the left side and left arm and leg weakness. Computed tomography (CT) of the head revealed a 3.4 centimeter intraparenchymal hemorrhage in her right lobe, causing a 3-millimeter shift in the midline of the two lobes.

No overt abnormalities were found in her bloodwork. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the woman’s brain further revealed a large hemorrhagic cavity in the right frontal lobe and a hemorrhagic mass. Surgical biopsy diagnosed it as a metastatic malignant melanoma.

The second case was a 52-year-old woman with a history of hypothyroidism and breast cancer. About four days after her first dose of COVID “vaccine,” she developed a severe headache, neck stiffness and intermittent high-grade fevers.

CT imaging and contrast-enhanced MRI of her head revealed a 5.8 cm mass in her corpus callosum. No obvious problems were detected in her blood work. Biopsy revealed the mass to be an IDH-wildtype Grade IV glioblastoma. According to the authors:13

“Administration of these vaccines was unrelated to the oncologic diagnoses themselves. However, these two independent processes both came to the clinical forefront following vaccination. We hypothesize that the inflammatory response to the COVID vaccine may have played a role in increasing clinical symptoms in these patients, potentially in relation to the COVID-19 spike protein …

Although the precise mechanism of post-vaccination inflammation is unknown, it is known that spike proteins can initiate inflammatory cascades and cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in COVID-19 infections.

It is possible that encoded spike proteins post-vaccination therefore cross the BBB and enhance inflammatory responses to nascent pathology within the brain following vaccine administration.

We believe that an augmented inflammatory response following vaccination called attention to these neuro-oncologic diseases by exacerbating peritumoral edema and worsening clinical symptoms.”

CDC Is Hiding Breakthrough COVID Infections

VAERS is not the only place where data are being manipulated to hide problems associated with the COVID shots. The CDC is also manipulating its data collection and reporting of breakthrough cases, meaning people who contract COVID-19 after being partially or fully “vaccinated,” to make the shots appear more effective than they really are. In a June 24, 2021, Trial Site News article, Joel Hirschhorn writes:14

“How well does the artificial immunity provided by experimental COVID vaccines really work to protect people from getting infected? The answer is revealed by how many ‘breakthrough’ infections develop two weeks or more after full vaccination. But can we trust the federal government to collect comprehensive data on them? Now, the answer is NO.”

Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a PCR cycle threshold (CT) of 4015 when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This, despite CTs above 35 were known to create a false positive rate of 97% or more.16 By using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed to have COVID-19. The pandemic fraud was further propped up by falsely claiming that asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a large portion of the spread.

Now, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, the CDC has lowered the CT considerably — from 40 to 28 or lower17 — when testing “vaccinated” individuals. So, as vaccinated individuals are contracting the illness, they’re now far less likely to register as positive cases.

But that’s not all. To boost the appearance of vaccine efficacy even further, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.”

The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19 — are those that result in hospitalization or death.18 Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case.

As of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections,19 which it admitted was a “substantial undercount,” as they’re using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments.20 May 17, 2021, that number was slashed to 1,949, as the new guidance took effect.

Alas, breakthrough cases continue to rapidly accumulate, even with the laxer reporting rules. By June 21, 2021, the CDC reported 4,115 breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization and/or death.21

Hospitalized or fatal COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases

COVID Shot Increases Your Susceptibility to COVID Death

As noted by Hirschhorn,22 several doctors are now reporting that the majority of COVID-19 cases they see are fully vaccinated individuals. Dr. Harvey Risch of Yale, for example, claims the fully vaccinated account for 60% of his COVID caseload.23 This clinical observation stands in stark contrast to what you’ll read in the mainstream news. Lately, a slew of articles has been published declaring that most COVID deaths are now occurring in unvaccinated people.

U.K. data also show vaccinated people are at significantly increased risk of dying from the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated ones, which suggests antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) might be at play.

A June 11, 2021, report24 by Public Health England shows that as a hospital patient, you are nearly six times more likely to die of the COVID Delta variant if you are fully vaccinated, than if you got no COVID shots at all. The information shows up in Table 6 on page 15, which lists emergency care and deaths by vaccination status and confirmed Delta cases from February 1, 2021, to June 7, 2021.

Of 33,206 Delta variant cases admitted to the hospital, 19,573 were not vaccinated. Of those, 23 (0.1175%) died. But, of the 13,633 patients who were vaccinated with either one or two doses, 19 (0.1393%) died, which is an 18.6% higher death rate than for the unvaccinated patients.

Seven of the 5,393 patients who had received one dose 21 days or more before admission died (0.1297%). Of the 1,785 patients who had both vaccine doses 14 days or more before admission, 12 (0.6722%) died. This death rate is 5.72 times higher than that for unvaccinated patients. To put this into perspective, if all 33,206 patients had been fully vaccinated, there would have been 223 deaths instead of 42.

COVID Shots Are Clearly Far Riskier Than Advertised

As noted in a June 22, 2021, Wall Street Journal article,25 while VAERS cannot tell us whether the shots were causative in any given side effect report, when you see clusters of reports that form a trend, it’s time to investigate.

Four serious adverse effects that are currently trending are thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), noninfectious myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially in those under 30, deep-vein thrombosis and death.26

For such effects to be tolerable, even if rare, the vaccine (or drug) would need to be absolutely crucial for survival. That is not the case for COVID-19 however, which has a lethality rate on par with the seasonal flu for all but the elderly and those most frail. The vaccine would also need to be an actual vaccine — something that provides immunity. COVID-19 gene therapy injections don’t do that either.

Overall, it’s clear that deaths and injuries from these shots are being swept under the rug, and we cannot allow that to continue. We must keep pushing for transparency, honesty and accountability.

If you missed my interview with Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, I encourage you to listen to it now. In it, we review protocols you can use to protect yourself, your family or those that you love who now regret getting the COVID jab.

If you’ve gotten the shot and are suffering side effects, please report it to VAERS. In the video below, National Vaccine Information Center cofounder Barbara Loe Fisher discusses the importance of filing a report if your doctor won’t, and the information you’ll need to provide.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1 Trial Site News May 25, 2021

2 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

3 CNBC March 25, 2021

4 Vaccines 2021; 9(7): 693

5, 7 Jennifer Margulis, Halt Covid Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

6 Algora.com Public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay

8 Player.fm A Shot in the Dark, Episode 95 Janci Chunn Lindsay interview June 24, 2021

9 AHRQ December 7, 2007

10 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

11 BMJ 2005;330:433

12, 13 Cureus June 15, 2021; 13(6): e15664

14, 22, 23 Trial Site News June 24, 2021

15 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35

16 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491

17 CDC.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation Guidelines (PDF)

18 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, Identifying and Investigating COVID-19 Breakthrough Cases

19 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting May 25, 2021

20 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, How to Interpret These Data

21 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting as of May 17, 2021

24 Public Health England Briefing 15 June 3, 2021

25, 26 WSJ Opinion June 22, 2021 (Archived)

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It’s been raining incessantly for three days.  It is a cool early morning in the beginning of July and I have just made a cup of coffee. Now an electrical power outage has occurred and so I am sitting in a rocking chair in the semi-darkness savoring my coffee and feeling thankful that I made it in time.  I have a close relationship with coffee and the end of night and the break of day.  As for time, that is as mysterious to me as the fact that I am sitting here in its embrace. The electric clocks have stopped.  I think: To exist – how amazing!

More than the coffee, however, I am luxuriating in the sound of the tumbling rain.  Its beautiful music creates a cocoon of peace within which I find temporary joy.  The joy of doing nothing, of pursuing no purpose.  Of knowing that whatever I do it will never be enough, for me or anyone, and the world will continue turning until time stands still, or whatever time does or is according to those who invented it.  I will be gone and others will have arrived and the water will flow from the skies and the clocks will still tell people what they don’t know – time – although they will continue to tell it.

Humans are the telling animals.

A few weeks ago, when this area was in a mini-drought, the local newspaper, in the typical wisdom of such cant, had a headline that said “there is a threat of rain later this week.”  They are experts at threats.  This is the corporate media’s purpose.   Rain is a threat, joy is a threat, doing nothing is a threat, the sun is a threat – but the real threats they conceal.  To create fear seems to be their purpose, as they do not tell us about the real threats.  Their purpose is not to tell the truth, but if you listen closely you can hear it.

In the middle of the night I woke up to go to the bathroom, and outside the small bathroom window I watched the rain engulfing the lower roof and sluicing down the shingles in two heavy streams.  I thought how the desiccated mind of the headline writer must be feeling now, but then I realized that he or she was asleep, as usual.  There is a moist world and a dry one, and the corporate media is run by arid souls who would like to make the world a desert like their masters of war in Washington.

Then as I sit here my brief peace is roiled by the memory of reading Tacitus, the Roman historian, and his famous quote of Calgacus, an enemy of Rome:

These plunderers of the world [the Romans], after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.

I think of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on his recent deathbed.  Here was a man whose entire life was dedicated to the American Empire.  He spent all his allotted time making war or making money from the spoils of war.  He was a desert maker, a slaughterer for the Empire.  No doubt he died very rich in gold.

I can no longer hear the rain because my mind is filled with the loud thought of what Rumsfeld thought as he lay dying.  Was he sorry?  Did he believe in God or was his god Mars, the Roman god of war?   Did he smile a bloody smile or say he was sorry and beg for forgiveness from all his innocent victims?  Did he see the faces of the children of Iraq that he slaughtered?  Or did he pull an Eichmann and say, “I will leap into my grave laughing”?

Your guess is as good as mine, but mine leans toward the bloody smile of a life well spent in desert making.  But that is a “known unknown.”

Rolling thunder and a lightning strike in the east jolt me back from my deaf dark thoughts.  The sound of the rain returns.  The coffee tastes great.  Peace returns with the unalloyed gift of the ravishing rain.

Yet the more I sit and listen and watch it soundly stipple the garden and grass, the more thoughts come to me, as my father once told me: Thoughts think us as much as we think thoughts.  It’s what we do with our thoughts that count, he said, and like lightning, if we don’t flash when we are given the gift of life, when we’re gone, it will be as if we never were, like the lightning before it flashed.

Thomas Merton’s prophetic words from his hermitage in the Kentucky woods in 1966 think me:

Let me say this before rain becomes a utility that they can plan and distribute for money. By ‘they’ I mean the people who cannot understand that rain is a festival, who do not appreciate its gratuity, who think that what has no price has no value, that what cannot be sold is not real, so that the only way to make something actual is to place it on the market. The time will come when they will sell you even your rain. At the moment it is still free, and I am in it. I celebrate its gratuity and its meaninglessness.

There are moments in many lives when, if one is lucky, they are initiated into a ritual that sustains them throughout life.  To others these experiences can easily seem paltry and meaningless, but to the receiver they offer a crack into deeper dimensions of being and becoming.  For me it was my introduction to coffee during a hurricane.

My father had driven my mother, three of my sisters, and me to Jones Beach on Long Island.  This was before people checked the weather every minute.  The sky in the southwest grew darker as we drove, but on we went.  The beach was deserted except for some gulls and the parking lot empty.  My father parked the car close to the beach and while my sisters and mother sat in the car, and my mother, listening to the weather reports, issued warnings to us, my father and I ran like wild dogs into the heavy surf despite her admonitions that the hurricane from the south was arriving sooner than expected.  It started to rain hard. The surf picked up.  We swam and got battered and shouted exultantly and came out shaking with the chills.  A pure white sea gull landed on my wet head and my father laughed.  Awe-struck, I stood stock still and my shaking stopped. In its mouth the sea gull held a purple ribbon, which it dropped at my feet as it flew off.  I grabbed the ribbon and we jogged up to the concession building where there was one man working.  My father ordered coffee and a hot chocolate for me.  But they had run out of hot chocolate.  So my father ordered two coffees and filled mine with three or four sugars. I had never sampled coffee and didn’t like the smell, but my father said to drink it, with the sugar it will taste good and it will warm you up.  It strangely tasted like hot chocolate. We toasted our adventure as I drank my Proustian madeleine at eleven-years-old.

I had put the ribbon on the counter as we drank.  When we were going back to the car, I noticed there were words on the ribbon. They said: Rest in peace.  I have long lost the ribbon but retain its message.

So now every morning between the end of night and the break of day, I sit with my coffee and listen.  And even when it isn’t raining, I watch the birds emerge from their nightly rests to greet the day with their songs.  They tell me many things, and they are all free.

This morning I am wondering if Donald Rumsfeld ever heard them.

I suspect their message was an “unknown unknown” for him, just like the gift of rain.  He preferred the rain of death from the skies in the form of bombs and missiles.  He was only doing his job.

He made a desert and called it peace.

*

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

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). 

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

To order his book click the cover page.

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

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

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

Hijacking My Flag!

July 5th, 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.

***

Well, as a baby boomer who has seen lots of instances of the empire using MY flag as their own private property, this newest one ‘takes the cake’. I mean, my generation went through the whole ‘America, love it or leave it’ rhetoric during the Vietnam debacle. Many of us, either old or new to activism,  just tossed that aside as Bullshit! Yet, a majority of my friends and neighbors unfortunately bought into the hype and spin that the flag, and our national anthem, were to be sacrosanct… beyond reproach.

Many anti war demonstrations actually had our flag burned, which this writer did disagree with as a tactic of protest. The more powerful and thought provoking protest was to turn the flag upside down to reveal the upside down manner of this empire. As with Alice in Wonderland, the opposite was usually correct in most instances.

How it sickened me and many others when we turned on the boob tube to watch Bob Hope entertaining our soldiers in the Nam… as if this was WW2 all over again. In Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now (1979) he has one scene, reminiscent of those Bob Hope ‘visiting the troops with lots of tits and ass’, which revealed the perverted sense of what phony wars do to the soldiers. The helicopter dropped off two beautiful starlets, dressed like Vegas hookers, onto a stage deep within the macabre recesses of  an ‘off the radar’ jungle post. The VC across the river are held at bay by our pounding weaponry so as to allow the show to go on. Finally, the young sex starved GIs rush the stage to grab some T&A and pussy as the giant bird in the sky barely is able to whisk the lovelies away.

The Cheney/Bush gang (we who ‘knew better’ realized that Cheney was the controller and Junior the ‘idiot emperor’ with no clothes) lied and deceived us into this new ‘War on Terror’, holding our flag hostage. They had the suckers, saps and lollipops hang it over garage doors in my neighborhood, or on their cars and trucks (lots of pickups in Bushland), making it the phony symbol of patriotism. How many dead or wounded for life US soldiers, and (by a factor of 10 times) Iraqi and Afghan civilians before our foolish neighbors realized the truth? Sadly, most of them never did! Thus, this phony ‘War of Terror’ still goes on and on, always with new and more dangerous enemies. This empire is so ‘smoothly diabolical’.

Another July 4th once again celebrating our ‘independence’ from Britain is really counterfeit on many fronts. Researchers like Dean Henderson can give interesting and concise accounts of how our nation never was freed from the influence of England and its infamous ‘City of London’, the banking bandit center of the world. His The Federal Reserve Cartel (2014) covers most of this information. The second counterfeit point is that the celebration of not only our flag but our military in this current climate of empire is actually unpatriotic! No, to really celebrate our great flag and our military is to have this empire pulled back and save our nation from the fiscal and moral bankruptcy that is approaching. To paraphrase the great Malcolm X, from one of his fine speeches, many of my good and decent friends and neighbors have been “bamboozled, conned and lead astray!” A true ‘Independence Day’ would be a great awakening from the greedy and evil ones who run this empire.. and the many who serve 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.

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 a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Savvapanf Photo/Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On Friday, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has approved a new military command structure that will be based out of the US embassy in Kabul, which will oversee Afghanistan operations after most US combat troops leave the country.

The new embassy-based military office, dubbed Forces Afghanistan-Forward, will be headed by Navy Rear Admiral Peter Vasely. The US has tried to portray its plans to keep troops at its embassy in Kabul as only for security purposes. But Pentagon spokesman John Kirby described what sort of operations the new office will oversee, which goes beyond guarding the embassy.

“That presence will remain focused on four things over the course of the coming period. One, protecting our diplomatic presence in the country. Two, supporting security requirements at Hamid Karzai International Airport. Three, continued advice and assistance to Afghan National Defense and Security Forces as appropriate. And four, supporting our counterterrorism efforts,” Kirby said.

Kirby said the embassy office would be supported by another Afghanistan office that will be established in Qatar. Under the plan, the authority to bomb Afghanistan will be transferred from the top US commander in the country, Gen. Scott Miller, to Gen. Frank McKenzie, the head of US Central Command. Airstrikes in Afghanistan will be carried out by warplanes based outside of the country, mostly in the Gulf region, what the Pentagon has dubbed “over the horizon capability.”

Although nothing has been confirmed, reports say the US plans to leave 650 troops at the embassy. The US embassy in Kabul is a sprawling 36-acre compound and has the room to host thousands of people. That means besides troops, there could also be CIA or civilian contractors that don’t need to have a declared presence.

The US might also leave some troops to help Turkey control the Hamid Karzai International Airport, which is also in Kabul. The US sees control of the airport as key to its post-withdrawal plans, and Washington and Ankara are working out an agreement that would keep the approximately 500 Turkish troops at the airport that are currently guarding it.

Recent media reports said the bulk of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan would be completed by July 4th. But both the Pentagon and the White House said on Friday the drawdown would probably be done by the end of August.

“We currently expect it to be completed by the end of August.  So, as you know, the president decided to withdraw remaining US troops from Afghanistan and finally end the US war there after 20 years,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Friday.

While Psaki said President Biden wants to remove all “remaining troops,” it’s clear based on the fact that Austin approved a new military command for Afghanistan that troops will stay. The plan will fuel more violence since the Taliban will view it as a clear violation of the Doha agreement that called for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan.

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

NATO reports that it conducted what is described as air defense exercises in the Black Sea on July 2. Evidently the maneuvers were independent of the 32-nation Sea Breeze naval and air exercises occurring simultaneously. And of the recent port visits and participation in exercises by the HMS Defender guided-missile destroyer and the HNLMS Evertsen frigate in the same sea, the first almost triggering an international incident if not a war on June 23.

U.S. and NATO warships, military aircraft, missiles and troops are so consistently in the Black Sea region in overlapping military exercises that it’s a wonder any commercial vessels can find room to maneuver or that the sun ever breaks through on the sea’s waves.

Two days ago NATO Air and Maritime forces (as distinct from or as a combination of NATO’s Allied Air Command and NATO’s Maritime Command) held an Air Defence Exercise (ADEX) in the Black Sea “to improve Alliance cooperation, practise air-maritime communications and build stronger relationships between Allies.” In shorthand, to prepare for war with Russia in and off the coasts of the Black Sea.

Participating in the not in the least imaginary or abstract warfighting scenario were combat aircraft from Greece, Romania and Turkey, a NATO AWACS aircraft, a Romanian C-27 transport aircraft, a Turkish military patrol aircraft and three frigates from the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG 2): the Italian Navy flagship Fasan, the Romanian Navy’s Regina Maria and the Turkish Navy’s Barbaros. The three frigates are transiting across the Black Sea currently and will participate in the Sea Breeze war games – if they remember which NATO war game they’ve been assigned to on any given day.

A NATO press release on the exercise described it like this: “The air-maritime integration training demonstrates NATO’s capabilities, readiness and resolve to protect Allied populations; with our ships and aircraft peacefully operating off the Romanian coast we also assure the Allies in the region.”

This is how NATO interprets “protecting allied populations”:

“While initially Turkish Air Force F-16 fighters simulated attacks on the NATO ships which trained defence drills against these attacked, the Greek and Romanian F-16s, in a separate event, conducted similar training manoeuvres with the Greek fighters attacking the ships which responded in a joint manner with the Romanian fighters. Subsequently, the Greek and Romanian fighters conduct air-to-air combat drills.”

One wonders if the NATO ships, to lend them an air of authenticity, flew the Russian flag for the occasion.

Try to keep an image of the above in your mind as you read these words of Allied Air Command Deputy Chief of Staff Brigadier General Andrew Hansen:

“Overall the air-maritime integration training demonstrates NATO’s capabilities, readiness and resolve to protect Allied populations; with our ships and aircraft peacefully operating off the Romanian coast we also assure the Allies in the region.”

It appears the world will only learn of the ongoing war – because it is that – when it’s been declared over.

*

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.

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This is tragic story out of Michigan that was disclosed by Kathryn Kendall. She lost both her father and her sister within four days of one another, and they were vaccinated with different brands of covid vaccines.

John Robert Kendall Jr. had his second Moderna vaccine in April, and within days he had a heart attack and passed away. He died on April 28, 2021.

John spent time as a U.S. Marshall, and has a lengthy resume in public service. John was also the cofounder of DK security, and is said to have been a phenomenal leader.

Kimberly St. Charles, John’s daughter, got her vaccine towards the end of April. She chose the Johnson & Johnson viral vector covid injection. Unfortunately Kimberly began showing reaction symptoms the same day she took the vaccine. She ended up in ICU within days of her shot, and never recovered. She was only 49 with no known health problems and a mother of four children.

Many are grateful and applaud Kathryn Kendall’s courage in speaking out so others are made aware of such tragic outcomes. Our thoughts will be with Robert & Kim’s friends and family as they mourn the loss of such remarkable people.

If you or a loved one have/has had an adverse reaction due to these experimental EUA covid injections, please contact me. We need more courageous people like Kathryn speaking up.

Your silence is consent.

*

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

All images in this article are from The Empowerer

Selected Articles: Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

July 5th, 2021 by Global Research News

Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

By Colin Todhunter, July 02, 2021

How do you make a potentially dangerous and ineffective drug appear like a miracle of modern science? You could, for instance, enrol only certain people in clinical trials and exclude others or bring the study to a close as soon as you see a spike in the data that implies evidence of effectiveness.

Horn of Africa: Washington’s Next Arab Spring?

By F. William Engdahl, July 02, 2021

The Biden State Department has just named career diplomat Jeffrey Feltman to be Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa. Given the geopolitical powder keg in the region and given the dark history of Feltman, especially in Lebanon and during the infamous CIA Arab Spring interventions after 2009, the relevant question is whether Washington has decided to explode the entire region from Ethiopia down to Egypt into a repeat of the Syria chaos only far more dangerous. And it’s not only the US which is active in the region.

Today’s Science Deniers: What We Owe Galileo After 400 Years

By Prof Susan Babbitt, July 02, 2021

On June 22, 1633, a sick and beaten old man, on his knees, had to “abjure, curse and detest” his view that “the earth moves and is not the centre of the world.” It was “one of the most deplorable acts of the Inquisition”, relevant to our times, according to astrophysicist Maria Livio in a new book.

Who Ordered the Killing of Malcolm X?

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, July 02, 2021

On Sunday February 21, 1965, at 3:00 p.m., Malcolm X was gunned down at the Audubon Ballroom on Broadway and 166th Street in Manhattan while delivering a speech to an audience of about 400 people.

The Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heist. The Suppression of Ivermectiin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 02, 2021

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.

5 Bizarre New Plagues that Have Made Headlines in the United States Within the Last 30 Days

By Michael Snyder, July 02, 2021

Everywhere you look, things are getting weird, and I don’t mean that in a good way.  Throughout all of our ups and downs over the decades, one thing that our society could always count on for a certain degree of consistency was nature.  But now nature is going haywire at the same time that the very fabric of our society seems to be unraveling all around us.

The Gladiators Are Back. The Tyrannical Drive to Vaccinate More than 7 billion People on Mother Earth

By Peter Koenig, July 02, 2021

gladiator (Latin for “swordsman”) was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and later in the Roman Empire, in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. The fights were to the people’s delight. At the end of a fight the winner looked to the yelling, hurling and screaming audience or to the “moderator” – what to do next? – Thumbs up meant give him mercy, let him live; thumbs down: kill ‘em.

China: The Long and Winding Multipolar Road

By Pepe Escobar, July 02, 2021

On the day of the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), President Xi Jinping, in Tiananmen square, amid all the pomp and circumstance, delivered a stark geopolitical message: The Chinese people will never allow foreign forces to intimidate, oppress or subjugate them. Anyone who tries to do this will find themselves on a collision course with a large steel wall forged by more than 1.4 billion Chinese.

Heavy-Handed Marketing of COVID Vaccines, Passports Brings George Orwell’s ‘Freedom Is Slavery’ to the Fore

By Children’s Health Defense, July 02, 2021

Vaccine “passports” being put in place by the European Union and Australia as well as some U.S. states and businesses are one of the more alarming instruments advancing the “heart and soul of Technocracy and Scientific Dictatorship.”

US Censorship Is Increasingly Official

By Alan MacLeod, July 02, 2021

The Biden administration made headlines last week as it moved to shut down the websites of 33 foreign media outlets, including ones based in Iran, Bahrain, Yemen and Palestine. Officials justified the decision by claiming the organizations were agents of “disinformation.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

All Global Research articles 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 UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, July 1, 2021.

The report covers data collected from December 9, 2020, through June 23, 2021, for the three experimental COVID “vaccines” currently in use in the U.K. from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna.

They report a total of 1,403 deaths and 1,007,253 injuries recorded following the experimental COVID injections.

Here are the breakdowns from the three shots:

  • AstraZeneca: 936 deaths and 762,706 injuries. (Source.)
  • Pfizer- BioNTech: 439 deaths and 223,404 injuries. (Source.)
  • Moderna: 5 deaths and 18,548 injuries. (Source.)
  • Unspecified COVID-19 injections: 23 deaths and 2595 injuries. (Source.)

In addition to these official UK Government statistics, last Friday, 25 June 2021, Public Health England released a report showing that those dying in the UK with a diagnosis of “COVID”, usually referred to as “COVID deaths” whether or not it can be proven that a positive COVID test result means that COVID caused the death, 62% of these deaths were people who had already received one of the COVID-19 jabs.

So why are people still getting them??

*

Whilst you’ve been distracted by Hancock’s affair, PHE released a report revealing 62% of alleged Covid deaths are people who’ve been vaccinated

by The Daily Expose

Breaking news on the morning of Friday June 25th revealed Matt Hancock has been having a secret affair with his aide Gina Coladangelo. We imagine it’s all the nation has been talking about since the images of Hancock embracing the millionaire lobbyist were published, it’s certainly all over the mainstream media and we doubt it will cease to be front page news any time soon.

But because you’ve been busy delighting in Hancock’s embarrassment, you’re probably not aware that Public Health England released a report on the very same day which showed the majority of alleged Covid-19 deaths are significantly higher in people who have had at least one dose of the Covid-19 vaccine, with the highest number of deaths occurring in people who are supposed to be fully vaccinated.

The report titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England’, is the 17th technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom and makes for extremely interesting reading once you realise what the statistics are actually telling us.

PHE have compiled a helpful table which shows the number of alleged confirmed Delta variant cases in the UK alongside the number of alleged deaths due to the variant. The table shows that since the 1st February 2021 up to the 21st June 2021 there have been 9,571 alleged confirmed cases of the Delta variant in people over the age of 50. Of these 8,025 had been confirmed in the past 28 days alone.

But the data shows that people over the age of 50 who are unvaccinated account for just 10% of the alleged confirm Covid cases, whilst those who are fully vaccinated account for 37% of the alleged confirmed cases. A further 40% of the alleged cases are people who had received one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine at least 21 days prior to their alleged confirmed Covid-19 infection.

As you can see from the above table the number of people over 50 who are fully vaccinated with an alleged confirmed case of the Delta variant outnumber those who are unvaccinated by 3 to 1, whilst the number of people over 50 who have had at least one dose of the Covid jab and have an alleged confirmed case of the Delta variant outnumber those who are unvaccinated by nearly 9 to 1.

When the Covid-19 vaccines were given emergency use authorisation the authorities did not have a clue as to whether they would work. The limited trials carried out only measured whether or not a vaccinated person suffered serious disease if infected with Covid-19, they did not measure whether a vaccinated person could still become infected with Covid-19, and they did not measure whether or not a vaccinated person could still spread the virus in line with the mainstream accepted germ theory.

It is claimed that the vaccines reduce the chances of suffering serious illness if infected with Covid-19 significantly, so although a significantly higher amount of vaccinated over 50’s have a confirmed case of the Delta variant compared to those who are unvaccinated, you would assume that the opposite would be seen in the number of people who have allegedly died to the Delta variant?

Because Mr Hancock has told us time and time again that the Covid-19 vaccines are our only route back to normal and we must come forward, roll up our sleeves and get the jab when called upon to do so.

So the vaccines must surely do what they say on the tin? It’s not as if Mr Hancock would lie to us, is it? He might have lied to his wife of fifteen years and engaged in an affair with an aide who he appointed to scrutinise the Department of Health as well as awarding her Taxpayers money for doing so, but he wouldn’t lie to the British people, would he?

Unfortunately, it looks like Mr Hancock has been lying again and instead of the Covid-19 vaccines being our route back to normal they are instead quite the opposite. Because the data published by Public Health England shows us that the number of alleged deaths due to the Delta variant are highest among those who have received two doses of the vaccine.

Read the full article at The Daily Expose.

*

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.

***

VAERS data released today by the CDC showed a total of 441,931 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 6,985 deaths and 34,065 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 25, 2021.

This week’s number of total adverse events for all age groups following COVID vaccines surpassed 400,000, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date.

Data released today show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and June 25, 2021, a total of 411,931 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 6,985 deaths — an increase of 872 deaths over the previous week. There were 34,065 serious injury reports, up 2,825 compared with last week.

From the 6/25/21 release of VAERS data

In the U.S, 321.2 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of June 25. This includes: 132 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 177 million doses of Pfizer and 12 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

Of the 6,985 deaths reported as of June 25, 22% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 15% occurred within 24 hours and 38% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

This week’s data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

This week’s total VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020 to June 25, 2021, for all age groups show:

Pfizer to request emergency approval of COVID vaccine for kids ages 5-11 by fall

Fox News reported July 1, younger children could become eligible for a COVID vaccine this fall, according to a top executive at Pfizer who said the company has plans to request emergency approval of its vaccine in kids aged 5 to 11 by September or October. Pfizer’s vaccine is currently authorized for use in individuals aged 12 and older.

Dr. Alejandra Gurtman, vice president of vaccine clinical research and development at Pfizer, appeared along with representatives from other major drugmakers to discuss data and timelines behind pediatric clinical trials during a Johns Hopkins University and University of Washington virtual symposium.

Despite growing reports of heart inflammation in teens linked to the vaccine, Gurtman said Pfizer “felt very comfortable to move down in age,” speaking to the trials involving participants aged 6 months to 11 years.

Man dies after second dose of Moderna following rare blood clotting disorder linked to the vaccine

As The Defender reported June 29, doctors in Pennsylvania reported a case of a U.S. patient who developed blood clots after receiving the Moderna COVID vaccine. In a case report, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, healthcare professionals said a 65-year-old man arrived at the hospital with a serious form of blood clotting known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS) just 10 days after receiving his second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

Two days later, the unnamed patient died, with doctors concluding his symptoms were consistent with vaccine-induced clotting, also known as VITT. The man’s treatment providers did not recognize VITT earlier, so he did not receive the specialized treatment given to people who suffer from that condition, but instead was treated with heparin.

Doctors at Allegheny Health said their research “complicates” theories that prior clotting cases were solely caused by adenovirus-based vaccines, as some experts have previously speculated. Doctors also stated they believed this to be the first reported case of blood clots following an mRNA vaccine, despite thousands of reported cases to VAERS.

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson holds new conference with families injured by COVID vaccines

As The Defender reported June 29, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) held a news conference Monday to discuss adverse reactions related to the COVID vaccines — giving individuals who have been “repeatedly ignored” by the medical community a platform to share their stories.

The group that spoke was put together by Ken Ruettgers, a former Green Bay Packers offensive lineman, whose wife suffered an adverse reaction after receiving a COVID vaccine. Ruettgers, who now lives in Oregon, started a website to bring awareness of COVID vaccine reactions to the medical community.

“We are all pro-vaccine,” Johnson said at the onset of the news conference. In fact, Johnson has had every flu shot since the Swine flu, is current on all of his vaccines and was a huge supporter of Operation Warp Speed, though he has not had a COVID vaccine because he already had COVID.

Five people from across the U.S., including a 12-year-old girl who was part of the Pfizer clinical trial, joined the conference at the federal courthouse in Milwaukee. They described their reactions to the COVID vaccines, including neurological, cardiac and gastrointestinal issues, debilitating health problems and hospitalizations.

Johnson said his goal was to provide a platform for these individuals who were injured by COVID vaccines so the health community and mainstream media would acknowledge them and get to the root cause.

Johnson argued that while most people don’t suffer significant side effects following vaccination, he is concerned about “that small minority that are suffering severe symptoms.”

FDA adds heart inflammation warning to Pfizer, Moderna COVID vaccines

The Defender reported June 28, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on June 25 added a warning to patient and provider fact sheets for Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines indicating an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly following the second dose and with onset of symptoms within a few days after vaccination.

The FDA’s update followed a review of information and discussion by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting on June 23 where the committee acknowledged 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in 16- to 24-year-olds.

Health officials said the benefits of receiving a COVID vaccine still outweigh any risks. Physicians and other public commenters accused the CDC during the meeting of exaggerating the risk to young people of COVID, and minimizing the risk of the vaccines.

Two new studies show link between COVID vaccines and heart inflammation

As The Defender reported June 30, in a study published June 29 in JAMA Cardiology, 23 male military patients with a median age range of 25 years were evaluated between January and April 2021 for acute-onset chest pain following vaccination with an mRNA COVID vaccine.

All military members were previously healthy with a high level of fitness. They were physically fit by military standards and lacked any known history of cardiac disease, significant cardiac risk factors or exposure to cardiotoxic agents. Seven military members received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine and 16 received the Moderna vaccine.

According to the study, physicians expected to find eight or fewer cases of myocarditis among the 436,000 male military members who received two mRNA doses. But 20 military members developed inflammation after their second dose, including 14 after the Moderna shot and six after the Pfizer shot. Three developed myocarditis after their first vaccine.

Researchers stated that while the true incidence of myocarditis is unknown at this time, the presentation pattern and clinical course suggest an association with an inflammatory response to vaccination.

A separate study published in JAMA Cardiology on June 29 investigated seven cases of acute myocarditis between Feb. 1 and April 30. Four cases occurred within five days of receiving a second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.”

“It is possible that these four cases of acute myocarditis represent a rare, potential adverse event linked to mRNA COVID-19 vaccination,” researchers wrote. “The findings from the present report raise the possibility of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and acute myocarditis.”

CDC reports 4,115 COVID breakthrough cases resulting in hospitalization or death

As The Defender reported June 29, more than 4,100 people have been hospitalized or died with COVID in the U.S. despite having been fully vaccinated, according to new data from the CDC.

As of June 21, nearly half (49%) of cases occurred in females and 76% were aged 65 years and older. There were a total of 3,907 hospitalizations and 750 deaths among those who had breakthrough infections, although not all of the hospitalizations may have been due primarily to COVID.

According to the CDC’s website, the number of COVID vaccine breakthrough infections are likely an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons due to passive and voluntary reporting.

On May 1, the CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to only reporting cases resulting in hospitalization or death, a move the agency was criticized for by health experts.

States report increase in breakthrough cases

On July 1, Fox6 Milwaukee reported that 21 people in Wisconsin have died of COVID since March 1 despite being fully vaccinated. The median age was 82 and all 21 people had underlying health conditions. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services said no gene sequencing was conducted so it is not clear whether anyone was infected with the Delta variant.

As Tulsa World reported July 1, data released for the first time Wednesday by the Oklahoma State Department of Health showed 737 infections in people who were fully vaccinated or had previously recovered from a COVID infection. Of 737 infections, 69 resulted in hospitalization and 11 people died, according to a state epidemiology report.

On July 1, 8NewsNow reported a Southern Nevada Health District released data showing a total of 70 breakthrough hospitalizations, including 11 breakthrough deaths, in Clark County alone.

People injured by COVID vaccines turn to GoFundMe for help  

The Defender reported July 2, a prominent vaccine injury law firm — Maglio Christopher & Toale— says it can’t help people injured by COVID vaccines because COVID vaccines are not covered under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), forcing many to raise funds for their injuries online.

Renée Gentry, director of the Vaccine Injury Litigation Clinic at the George Washington University Law School, said COVID vaccine claimants have two rights: “You have the right to file,” she said. “And you have the right to lose.”

According to research compiled by a group in Mesa County, Colorado, as of June 25 there were 180 GoFundMe accounts seeking help for people who had suffered injuries after receiving a COVID vaccine and were left with large medical bills and other expenses.

116 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries

According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.

The individual received our request for information from VAERS, but said she had never received our list of questions, even though employees we talked to several times said CDC press officers were working through the questions and confirmed the representative had received them. We provided the list of questions again along with a new deadline, but never received a response.

On May 19, a CDC employee said our questions had been reviewed and our inquiry was pending in their system, but would not provide us with a copy of the response. We were told we would be contacted by phone or email with the response.

On June 24, we contacted the CDC and were told nobody knew the specialist from the agency’s Vaccine Task Force who contacted us in March, and that our request was still pending in the system. It has been 116 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports and we have yet to receive a response.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

*

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.

***

Britain’s Middle East minister James Cleverly is regularly refusing to provide answers to written questions posed to him by members of parliament, especially on UK arms exports to Israel, contravening House of Commons rules.

James Cleverly has been accused of breaking the UK’s Ministerial Code and of “obfuscation” in refusing to properly answer questions put to him in the House of Commons.

Declassified has found 14 recent cases where the foreign minister has failed to provide direct answers to written questions by MPs.

Cleverly, who is also a reserve officer in the British army’s royal artillery regiment, has been particularly evasive when asked if UK arms were used by Israel during its latest bombardment of Gaza, which saw 66 Palestinian children killed in May.

The UK has sold over £400-million worth of military equipment to Israel since 2015 and applies no restrictions on how these supplies might be used.

Under the Ministerial Code, ministers have a duty to “be as open as possible with parliament” and to “give accurate and truthful information”. A House of Commons guide states that “this requirement governs the answers ministers provide to parliamentary questions”.

While ministers routinely provide minimal information to parliament, it is not normal for them to refuse entirely to directly address specific questions.

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran has asked Cleverly three times whether British arms or Land Rover vehicles have been used by Israel against Palestinians.

Cleverly’s response has been to say that the UK “takes its export control responsibilities very seriously” and that arms export applications are considered “thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework”, but without attempting to directly answer the questions.

Moran, who is the first MP of Palestinian descent, received the same rebuff from Cleverly when she asked if the government will “investigate” whether UK arms have been used by Israel.

When Labour MP Stephen Timms put a similar question to Cleverly earlier this month, the minister responded using the same wording about the UK’s arms export “responsibilities”.

Cleverly has also failed to answer two questions from Green MP Caroline Lucas, who asked last month whether Britain collects data on the UK-funded aid structures demolished by Israel in the occupied West Bank.

Cleverly did not attempt to answer the question, noting only that the UK “regularly raises the demolition of Palestinian property with the Government of Israel”.

Another question by Lucas, asking what assessment the government has made of the effectiveness of its statements criticising Israel’s settlement expansion, was similarly not directly answered.

Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “This failure by the government to answer questions about arms exports to Israel is shamefully consistent with its systematic disregard of its own regulatory guidelines regarding arms exports, and its broader unwillingness to hold Israel to account for its violations of international law and the rights of the Palestinian people.”

He added: “It also shows a contempt for Parliament’s role in holding it to account. It is shameful and it is incumbent on all MPs to pressure the government to provide the answers it has failed to.”

Cleverly is not the only minister in Boris Johnson’s government to fail to answer parliamentary questions. The Department for International Trade was recently asked by Alba MP Kenny MacAskill what assessment it had made of “similarities” between current UK arms exports to Israel and 12 licences that were temporarily suspended in 2014.

Those licences included components for tanks, combat aircraft, targeting equipment, military radars and munition launching equipment that were halted due to their potential use to the Israeli military in an attack on Gaza.

In response to the question, trade minister Ranil Jayawardena failed to comment on any similarities and repeated the government’s arms exports policy.

Another senior official, foreign minister Lord Ahmad, has also failed to recently answer parliamentary questions, although not on the scale of Cleverly.

Openness and transparency

MacAskill told us: “It’s just not good enough. Ministers are required to adhere to the Ministerial Code. It’s not optional but obligatory to be as open as possible. This is far from that. Tory sleaze may be all over papers, but sadly military relations with Israel are denied even to elected members”.

He added: “Openness and transparency are essential in government. Even more so when it relates to the military and in areas where conflict is occurring. The obfuscation here further increases concerns about a policy agenda being pursued which many would oppose.”

The Ministerial Code states that ministers have a duty to parliament to “be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments” and that “it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament”.

The Code adds that “ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with the relevant statutes and the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.

Cleverly has also recently failed to answer parliamentary questions about the use of UK arms exported to Turkey, and about whether foreign secretary Dominic Raab raised the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi during Raab’s meeting with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Other questions the minister failed to answer include whether the UK considers Morocco to be illegallyoccupying Western Sahara.

The UK is deepening its military relationship with Israel, involving military training, joint exercises, arms deals and intelligence cooperation, outside of any significant British press coverage.

The Foreign Office did not respond to a request for comment.

*

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.

Mark Curtis is editor of Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world.

Featured image: Official portrait of Rt Hon James Cleverly MP (CC BY 3.0)

Anglo-American Tripwire Traps Russian Bear

July 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.

***

The Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated in black and white during a nationally telecast interview on June 30 that the mysterious incident a week earlier involving a British guided missile destroyer HMS Defender off Crimea in the Black Sea was an act of ‘provocation’. Putin called it an Anglo-American operation. 

In Putin’s words,

“This is, of course, a provocation, which is absolutely clear. What did these provocateurs want to show and what goals did they seek to achieve? First of all, it [the provocation] was comprehensive and was staged not only by the British but also by the Americans because the British warship ventured into our territorial waters in the afternoon while early in the morning, at 07:30, a US strategic reconnaissance plane took off from a NATO airfield in Greece, from Crete, I believe. I later received a report on that. We saw and observed it clearly.” 

Putin added,

“It was obvious that the destroyer intruded in pursuit of military aims, trying to find out with the help of a reconnaissance plane what our armed forces’ countermeasures to this sort of provocations might be, to see what facilities are activated, where they are located and how they work. We did see that and knew that, so we disclosed only the information that we found appropriate. Possibly, I’ve blabbed out a secret, my apologies to the military.” 

Putin spoke with deliberation one full week after the incident of June 23. He probably wouldn’t have spoken if the Deep State in the UK and US hadn’t needled him and made him look ‘weak’. The Deep State forced him to speak up. read more 

According to the Britain’s Daily Telegraph, the decision to allow HMS Defender to pass near Crimea was made at the highest level of British government by Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It is improbable that US President Joe Biden was kept in the dark, considering that the provocation was planned against the backdrop of a US-led massive military exercise in the Black Sea with the participation of many NATO countries currently under way, which Moscow says is ‘is provocative muscle flexing… conveys an obvious anti-Russian message’ and was “coordinated’ with the incident involving the British destroyer’ — ‘a clear indication NATO is pushing ahead with its aggressive policy towards Russia.’

Three days before Putin spoke, London cooked up a melodramatic event of ‘classified’ British defence documents containing details about HMS Defender having been ‘found’ in a ‘in a soggy heap behind a bus stop’ in Kent in southern England, which apparently disclosed — per the BBC who had the exclusive right to propagate the information — that the warship’s transit ‘close to the south-west tip of Crimea’ was indeed an audacious act ‘conducted in the expectation that the Kremlin might respond aggressively.’ read more

The Brits literally mocked at the Kremlin. The episode was staged, in other words, to expose that the Kremlin bark actually has no bite — that Moscow lacks the grit to take on a NATO power militarily. 

On the contrary, Putin disagrees. He saw a ‘political component’ in the entire episode, which didn’t exactly ‘put the world on the brink of a global war’. He paid back in the same coin, claiming that even if Russia had sunk the British warship, ‘those who did this’ wouldn’t have gone to war as they’d know ‘they could not win a war like that’ against Russia. 

Putin thinks that the provocation aimed at ‘emphasising that these people do not respect the Crimeans’ choice to join the Russian Federation.’ This puts Moscow in a dilemma in terms of international law — akin to what Beijing faces in the South China Sea.

The fact is, the international community at large does not recognise Russia’s annexation of Crimea. A centerpiece of modern international law is that territory changes hands between states only by consent. Of course, Russia is a veto-holding Permanent Member of the UN Security Council and a thermonuclear power and the international community’s response to the Russian annexation of Crimea has been muted.

The international law has no policeman. Nonetheless, arguably, if Russia had used force to sink the British vessel or board the warship, it would have amounted to an act of war with profound consequences. read more  

This issue is not ending here. The Kremlin senses that Washington and London have fired the opening shot to test the Russian resolve. It is like poking the bear in its den. Quite obviously, as if in anticipation of shape things to come, in a presidential decree [in Russian] published on the Kremlin’s website on July 1, Putin has allowed the Russian military to block the territories and waters around protected facilities to stop attempts of illegal infiltration. 

Interestingly, the explanatory note to the document says that the Russian National Guard protects the waters of the Kerch Strait, the bridge over it and the water area around the Russian power grid link with Crimea.

Map of Sea of Azov, Kerch Strait and the Crimean Peninsula

In addition, the decree provides legal underpinning for Russian armed forces to cordon these areas during attempts of ‘illegal crossing and infiltration’ into the surrounding water area and attempts to leave it. This has come exactly a week after the the British destroyer HMS Defender allegedly entered the ‘Russian territorial waters’ in the Black Sea. The British position is that the destroyer made a peaceful passage through Ukraine’s territorial waters in accordance with international law and there were no warning shots fired. 

Thus, Russia has de facto taken control of the Kerch Strait via domestic legislation. Whereas, the Kerch Strait is jointly controlled by Russia and Ukraine under a 2003 treaty. With the presidential decree, Moscow will henceforth control all access to the Sea of Azov (which is an inland sea under international law with passage to the Atlantic Ocean going through the Black, Marmara, Aegean and Mediterranean seas.) 

To be sure, a new flashpoint has appeared due to Moscow’s escalation, as the economic lifeline of Mariupol, a crucial Ukrainian industrial port city with a population of around 500,000 located on the shore of the Sea of Azov turns into a choke point. The Kerch Strait is of crucial importance for the export of grain and steel from Ukraine. 

Putin has flagged that if any repetition of of the July 23 provocation will be duly dealt with, but Russian reaction may be ‘asymmetrical’. This latest decree could be a telling example of the new thinking. The international community will not accept that Moscow has created another fait accompli in the Ukraine dossier but cannot do much about it, either. read more 

It is entirely conceivable that the plot to poke the bear in its den would have been a grand design of British ingenuity aimed at ensuring that the EU’s sanctions against Russia over Ukraine since 2014 will remain indefinitely pending a settlement of the Crimea question. Trust post-Brexit UK to continue to set the EU’s agenda.

The big question is, what did Putin gain out of the Geneva summit? His acolytes hailed that he ‘won’. But it appears Biden walked away laughing. The fact of the matter is that the high-level decision in Washington and London to needle the Kremlin could have been taken either in the run-up to the Geneva summit or in its immediate downstream. Either way, it defines the summit. 

*

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 Indian Punchline

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan, Ruslan Kazakbaev, was in the capital of Azerbaijan on July 2, where he proposed a strategic partnership between the two nations, both members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace military program and of the soon-to-be-expanding Turkic Council. (Russia also touts a strategic partnership with Azerbaijan.)

In April Kyrgyzstan was involved in a deadly border clash with Tajikistan and at the time the Turkic Council met and announced, “The Turkic Council will continue to maintain close contact with brotherly Kyrgyzstan, a founding member of the Turkic Council.”

The Turkic Council, the embodiment of present-day pan-Turkism/pan-Turanism, currently consists of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, and has made overtures to countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Hungary, Turkmenistan and Ukraine. It is a Turkish initiative or, more accurately since the Shusha Declaration of June 15, that of the Turco-Azeri “one nation, two states” pan-Turkic entity.

Turkey’s defense minister, Hulusi Akar, recently visited Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

In the visit of the Kyrgyz foreign minister to Baku on July 2, he proposed, according to Turkey’s Anadolu Agency, an alliance that many observers have anticipated since the dissolution of the Soviet Union thirty years ago: the consolidation of a bloc from the Black Sea to the Chinese border, one under Turkish and as such NATO domination (although neither would be a formal partner). In his words: “We propose the establishment of a cooperation platform between Central Asian and Southern Caucasus countries in 5+3 format [Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan + Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia]. We propose to make the dialogue between Central Asian and south Caucasian countries more active.”

All eight countries are former Soviet republics. All eight are members of NATO’s Partnership for Peace. Four – Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – are also members of the moribund Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, which is increasingly resembling the Robert Louis Stevenson story aptly titled The Suicide Club.

The immediate effects of such an organization would be the culmination of Russia’s quarantine in former Soviet space (once Belarus is dispensed with), Turkish-dominated oil, natural gas, railroad and mineral transport corridors, the opening up of the Caspian Sea Basin to the West and the diminution of Iranian and Russian influence in that region. That enterprise was adumbrated, and heartily endorsed, by Zbigniew Brzezinski in regard to the neo-Ottoman geopolitical blueprint of now former Turkish foreign and prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu in his 2012 volume Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power. (Page 1361[1])

But behind those objectives, as the Shusha Declaration of Turkey and Azerbaijan foreshadows, is a military-security bloc dominated by Turkey and supported by NATO.

If the new Bucharest Nine format (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), the realization of the century-old Intermariam project to cordon Russia off from Europe, is the vertical line, the proposed 5 +3 bloc will be the horizontal one in the West’s pincer movement.

*

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.

Rick Rozoff, renowned author and geopolitical analyst, actively involved in opposing war, militarism and interventionism for over fifty years. He manages the Anti-Bellum and For peace, against war website

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

Notes

[1] On the international scene, the increasingly modern and basically secular Turkey of today is beginning to attain a regional preeminence geographically derived from its imperial Ottoman past. Turkey’s new foreign policy, shaped by its geopolitically minded Foreign Minister (Ahmet Davutoğlo, the author of the concept of “Strategic Depth”), is premised on the notion that Turkey is a regional leader in the areas once part of the Ottoman Empire, including the Levant, North Africa, and Mesopotamia….Davutoğlo’s plan posits that Turkey should exploit its current socioeconomic dynamism – in 2010 it ranked as the world’s seventeenth-largest economy – to rebuild relationships that existed historically but faded during the twentieth century because of Kemalist concentration on internal secularization and inculcation of a specifically Turkish nationalism. (2012)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5 + 3: Turkic Superstate in Caucasus, Central Asia Under NATO Tutelage
  • 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.

***

Divided strictly along ideological lines, the Supreme Court construed what was left of the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA) to uphold two Arizona voter suppression laws that civil rights organizations had challenged for disproportionately burdening voters of color. This decision sends a dangerous signal to states that the courts are likely to uphold their voter suppression laws that make it harder for people of color to vote.

In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court’s six right-wingers ruled, over the dissent of the three liberals, that Arizona’s “out of precinct policy” and “ballot harvesting” provision did not violate Section 2 of the VRA. Section 2 forbids any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.”

Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that voting restrictions should be struck down only if they impose substantial burdens on voters of color that prevent them from voting. He said, “where a State provides multiple ways to vote, any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.”

Alarmingly, the majority says the prevention of “voter fraud” — that bogus mantra of Republicans and Donald Trump during the election — is a legitimate state interest that can overcome proof of a burden on voters and uphold a voting restriction.

In her dissent, Elena Kagan lambastes the majority for writing “its own set of rules” and “limiting Section 2 from multiple directions.” The majority, Kagan charges, rests its decision “on a list of mostly made-up factors, at odds with Section 2 itself.” She says the “important circumstances” that the Court invents “all cut in one direction — toward limiting liability for race-based voting inequities.”

The “out of precinct policy” requires election officials to discard a ballot that was cast at the wrong precinct. If a voter’s name does not appear on the voting rolls in a certain precinct, she can cast a provisional ballot, but if it is later determined that she voted at the wrong precinct, her ballot will be thrown out.

The other voting restriction, known as “ballot harvesting,” makes it a felony for an individual to collect and deliver another person’s ballot. Although the provision contains exceptions for family members, caregivers, election officials and letter carriers, it criminalizes the assistance of community organizers, campaign workers, and others who help deliver ballots for people.

Last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stuck down both provisions as violative of Section 2 because they disproportionately disadvantage voters of color.

Section 2 provides:

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color….

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

The Majority’s New Rules Would Support Voter Suppression Measures

Alito wrote that “any circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is ‘equally open’ and affords equal ‘opportunity’ may be considered” in the calculation of “the totality of circumstances.” Although he said this is not an exhaustive list, Alito cited five “important circumstances” that “should be mentioned.” When these circumstances are taken together, it would be difficult to prove a Section 2 violation in the future. They are:

  1. The “highly relevant” size of the burden. “After all, every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort” and people “must tolerate the ‘usual burdens of voting,’” Alito wrote. He said that “mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation of section 2.”
  2. How much the voting rule departs from the standard practice when Section 2 was amended in 1982. “It is relevant that in 1982 States typically required nearly all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day and allowed only narrow and tightly defined categories of voters to cast absentee ballots,” Alito wrote.
  3. The size of any disparities in the impact a rule has on members of different racial or ethnic groups. “Small disparities are less likely than large ones to indicate that a system is not equally open,” Alito said. “But the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
  4. Other available voting opportunities provided by the state’s entire voting system.
  5. “The strength of the state’s interest served by a challenged voting rule.” For example, Alito wrote, “[o]ne strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” which, he said, could “undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.” Alito stated that even in the absence of evidence of fraud, “it should go without saying that a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur and be detected within its own borders.”

The majority held, “In light of the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s justifications,” the rule did not violate Section 2 of the VRA.

But Kagan pointed out that in 2012, about 35,000 ballots throughout the country were thrown out for being cast at the wrong precinct, and nearly one-third of them — 10,979 — were cast in Arizona. She noted, “Elections are often fought and won at the margins — certainly in Arizona,” adding that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by just 10,457 votes last year.

The Court also held that the ballot harvesting provision did not create a disparate burden on the voter. The “modest evidence of racially disparate burden,” Alito wrote, was overcome by the State’s justification, which was fraud prevention.

Kagan retorted that this provision disproportionately impacted Native American communities without regular access to mail service.

Majority Creates Exceptions to Save Laws Like Arizona’s, Kagan Writes

“If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality,” Kagan begins her passionate dissent. But, she continues, “If a single statute reminds us of the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it was — and remains — so necessary.”

Kagan notes, “Rarely has a statute required so much sacrifice to ensure its passage. Never has a statute done more to advance the Nation’s highest ideals. And few laws are more vital in the current moment. Yet in the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse.”

Indeed, the Court dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder, when it struck down Section 5 of the VRA that had required preclearance of new voting rules in jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” In his majority opinion in Shelby, John Roberts provided assurances that Section 2 was still available to protect voting rights because those aggrieved could litigate after their injuries. But in Brnovich, the Court eviscerates Section 2 as well.

Kagan takes aim at the majority’s deference to standard practice in election rules in 1982. She cites the use of fraud allegations as pretexts to defend voter suppression laws, and notes that there has never been evidence of fraud or threats of fraud involving ballot collection in Arizona.

Kagan’s dissent accuses the majority of creating “a set of extra-textual exceptions and considerations to sap the [Voting Rights] Act’s strength, and to save laws like Arizona’s.” Charging that the Court is usurping Congress’s role, Kagan adds, “No matter what Congress wanted, the majority has other ideas.”

Referring to Section 2, Kagan concludes, “That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by this Court.”

Since Shelby was decided — and exacerbated by Trump’s spurious claims of fraud — voter suppression legislation has proliferated. At least 880 bills proposing major changes have been introduced in 49 states. Of those, at least 28 major bills have been enacted in 14 states.

“In recent months, State after State has taken up or enacted legislation erecting new barriers to voting,” Kagan wrote. “Those laws shorten the time polls are open, both on Election Day and before. They impose new prerequisites to voting by mail, and shorten the windows to apply for and return mail ballots. They make it harder to register to vote, and easier to purge voters from the rolls. Two laws even ban handing out food or water to voters standing in line.”

The ball is in Congress’s court. Two federal voter protection bills are pending, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In addition, the Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13. That could provide an opportunity to dilute the right-wing agenda of the current six members of the Court who voted to open the floodgates of voter suppression legislation.

*

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.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

She 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.

***

From the Bagram Airbase they left, leaving behind a piece of the New York World Trade Centre that collapsed with such graphic horror on September 11, 2001.  As with previous occupiers and occupants, the powers that had made this venue a residence of war operations were cutting their losses and running. 

Over the years, the base, originally built by the Soviets in the 1950s and known to US personnel as Bagram Airfield, became a loud statement of occupation, able to hold up to 10,000 troops and sprawling across 30 square miles.  It was also replete with cholesterol hardening fast food restaurants (Pizza Hut, Burger King), jewellers, car dealerships and such amenities as swimming pools, spas and cinemas. 

Bagram also had room to accommodate the unfortunates captured in that anomalously worded “War on Terror”: detainees, many al-Qaeda suspects, faced torture in what came to be known as Afghanistan’s Guantanamo.  US forces relinquished control of the prison, now sporting the benign name of Parwan Detention Facility, to Afghan security forces in December 2014. Ill-treatment of prisoners continued.

After two decades, it seemed that the US armed forces could not wait to leave.  The departure date, scheduled for September, was being brought forward, though President Joe Biden denied that anything had changed. 

“A safe, orderly drawdown,” stated the Pentagon press secretary John Kirby, “enables us to maintain an ongoing diplomatic presence, support the Afghan people and the government, and prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists that threatens our homeland.”

There was little fuss in the way things unfolded on July 1 – at least initially.  The New York Times observed that the final withdrawal “occurred with little fanfare and no public ceremony, and in an atmosphere of grave concern over the Afghan security forces’ ability to hold off Taliban advances across the country.”

The signal for chaos and mayhem had been given.  Darwaish Raufi, Afghanistan’s district administrator for Bagram, found himself confronting an ominous spectacle.  There had been confusion and uncertainty about the logistics of the operation.  With the base unsecured, around 100 looters capitalised, seizing gas canisters and laptops.  “They were stopped and some have been arrested and the rest have been cleared from the base.”  The district governor was left puzzled.  “American soldiers should share information with the Afghan government, especially local officials, but they didn’t let me know.”

US military spokesman Colonel Sonny Leggett disagreed

“All handovers of Resolute Support bases and facilities, to include Bagram Airfield, have been closely coordinated, both with senior leaders from the government and with our Afghan partners in the security forces, including leadership of the locally based units respective to each base.”

Across the country, the Taliban are smacking their lips in anticipation of further gains.  “We consider this withdrawal a positive step,” said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. “Afghans can get closer to stability and peace with the full withdrawal of foreign forces.”  So far, the peace negotiations move at snail-like speed.  The Taliban refuse to declare a ceasefire.  Districts in the country have been falling with regularity to their forces.  Demoralised Afghan soldiers have been leaving their posts, though this is justified on the basis of strategic soundness (urban centres need protection). 

With a security vacuum gapingly prominent in parts of the country, regional militias have promised to mount resistance.  “Having reached home,” Nishank Motwani, Deputy Director of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation in Unit in Kabul gloomily remarked, “Americans and allied forces will now watch what they fought so hard to build over 20 years burn down from afar and knowing that the Afghan men and women they fought with risk losing everything.”

Former UK chief of the defence staff Lord David Richards could hardly improve on that, telling the BBC that, “A country that we promised a huge amount to now faces … almost certain civil war, with the likelihood that the Taliban will get back to where they were in 2001, occupying most of the major cities and the majority of the country.” 

General Richard Dannant, formerly chief of the general staff, kept matters paternalistic; as with other civilising missions of imperial days past, he wrote of a task that had failed.  “Taliban force of arms has prevailed, and the people of that country have been denied the chance to choose a better way of life.”

The Biden administration continues to offer its model of hollow assurance for an ally it has cut loose, accompanied by a promise to provide security assistance to the value of $3 billion in 2022.  The President’s meeting with President Ashraf Ghani and chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah on June 25 saw the recapitulation of unconvincing themes.  All three “concurred on the need for unity among Afghan leaders in support of peace and stability”.  Biden “reaffirmed the US commitment to fully support intra-Afghan negotiations.”  Despite the departure of US troops, “the strong bilateral partnership will continue.” 

In a State Department briefing on July 1, officials continued to patch up the façade of support.  When asked by a journalist how the US could claim to be supporting the Afghan government “when we’re not going to be there”, department spokesperson Ned Price was prepared with some casuistry: “we are withdrawing our military forces, as the President announced, but we intend to maintain a diplomatic presence in Kabul.”  The country would not be abandoned; support would be undiminished.

At a White House press conference, Biden suggested how far down Afghanistan, and its fate, features in US policy circles.  In a moment of frankness, he put a halt to questions on that doomed country and wished to “talk about happy things, man.  I’m not going to answer any more questions on Afghanistan.”  It was a matter of priorities.  “It’s the holiday weekend. I’m going to celebrate it.  There’s great things happening.”  Just not in Afghanistan.

*

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: This image shows aircraft of the Afghan Air Force during U.S. President Eisenhower’s visit in 1959. (Public Domain)

First posted by GR on May 25, 2001

All Global Research articles 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 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was under intense political pressure to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to three experimental injections manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now that these experiments have been carried out on roughly one third of the US population, serious issues have emerged.

A well-cited petition has been filed by Children’s Health Defense and Millions Against Medical Mandates, calling on the FDA to revoke EUAs for all experimental covid vaccines. After a careful review of the evidence, the FDA is ethically obligated to pull covid injections off the market, or the agency and all its affiliates risk becoming complicit in crimes against humanity.

The CDC’s passive vaccine injury surveillance system, VAERS, has managed to capture 192,954 adverse events and 4,057 deaths between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 7, 2021. Similarly, Europe’s vaccine injury surveillance system, EudraVigilance has tallied 405,259 injuries and 10,570 deaths as of May 8, 2021. These crimes against humanity would never have been tolerated decades ago. In 1976, the swine flu vaccine campaign was cut short after thirty deaths and four hundred cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome.

The covid vaccine holocaust is coming to light, despite the censorship

Fact checking organizations that work for the vaccine industry are trying to downplay the hundreds of thousands of vaccine injuries and thousands of premature death reports, claiming that healthcare workers and patients are making their vaccine injuries up, and misleading the public with their exaggerated first-hand experiences.

Even though doctors and patients are heavily discouraged from reporting vaccine injury, the reports are still flooding into the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. One forum on reddit has over 25,000 reports of vaccine injury. Facebook has taken down groups that report on tens of thousands of vaccine injuries. The CDC is now limiting the tracking of “breakthrough” coronavirus infections that occur in fully vaccinated people, to make the shots appear effective.

The authoritarian push for vaccine compliance has led many people to hide their medical issues following vaccination or pretend their week-long sickness after vaccination is somehow a normal part of the scientific process. Some medical professionals still cling to the promise that vaccines are 100 percent safe, while many others are beginning to speak up about the problems they see with vaccinated patients.

Petition calls on FDA to pull disastrous covid vaccines from the market

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense have joined up with Millions Against Medical Mandates, challenging healthcare practitioners, military members and others to speak out to the FDA. Children’s Health Defense has filed a petition on behalf of the American people, calling on the FDA to revoke the EUAs and immediately remove covid vaccines from the market.

The petition states:

“FDA should revoke all EUAs and refrain from approving any future EUA, NDA [new drug application] or BLA [biologics license application] for any COVID vaccine for all demographic groups because the current risks of serious adverse events or deaths outweigh the benefits, and because existing, approved drugs provide highly effective prophylaxis and treatment against COVID, mooting the EUAs.”

Now is the time to speak up to the FDA, to stop the vaccine propaganda and predatory coercion. The industry has already begun to target children, with no data to justify it. The petition cites that children are at low risk to covid infection, and it calls on the FDA to revoke all EUAs that allow pharmaceutical companies to experiment on children under age 18.

The petition also urges the FDA to revoke its recommendation to inoculate pregnant women with the experimental vaccines. The petition includes seventy-two references to support the request for revocation and to stop the fraudulent marketing of COVID vaccines as “safe and effective.”

“Pending revocation of COVID vaccine EUAs, FDA should issue guidance that all marketing and promotion of COVID vaccines must refrain from labeling them “safe and effective,” as such statements violate 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3,” the petition states.

The FDA is now ethically obligated to protect Americans and pull covid injections off the market, or risk becoming complicit in crimes against humanity. This historic petition is available for review and comment.

*

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 Vaccine Injury 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.

***

The World Economic Forum (WEF) published its new Global Coalition for Digital Safety program this week “to counter health misinformation, violent extremist and terrorist content, and the exploitation of children online.”

Of course, they get to define all the forms of “health misinformation” which include any dissenters to the COVID-19 bioweapon shots.

And we have already seen what they mean by “the exploitation of children online” which means preventing children from getting dissenting views, as several places in Canada and around the U.S. have already started injecting children as young as 12-years-old with COVID-19 shots without their parents’ knowledge or approval.

On the WEF website explaining about this new initiative, they feature a short video of Julie Inman Grant from Australia who states “we’re not policing the Internet for harmful material,” and then proceeds to explain how they are policing the Internet for harmful material.

No, I didn’t mistype that. Listen for yourself:

They’re going to rely on citizens to spy on their friends and neighbors and then report them to Big Tech.

Leo Hohmann published an article about this today, and said one of his readers sent him a screenshot from Facebook showing that this is already being implemented.

The World Economic Forum announced June 29 it will initiate a new “public-private partnership” with Big Tech and governments around the world to identify and uproot all opinions from the Internet that it considers “harmful.”

The WEF is one of those elitist organizations that wields enormous influence over the elected leaders of Western nations but which almost nobody in the general population has heard of.

Its members are internationalist corporate honchos and technocrats who meet once a year in Davos with the stated goal of working to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

It made a big splash last year with its highly touted “Great Reset,” which promises to use the pandemic as an “opportunity” to crash the world’s dollar-based, capitalist economic system and “build back better” under a more socialist and globally integrated system that mirrors the United Nations Agenda 2030 goals for Sustainable Development.

Any politician you hear using the term “build back better” [Biden-Harris-Trudeau-Johnson repeat this mantra daily] you know has drunk the poisonous Kool-Aid of the World Economic Forum and its founder, Klaus Schwab.

Schwab’s latest venture is the so-called “Global Coalition for Digital Safety” that consists of execs from Big Tech and government officials with the goal of creating a “global framework” for regulating speech on the Internet, wiping it of so-called “harmful content.”

[I could not help but think of the Committee of Public Safety that conducted the reign of terror during the French Revolution.]

And who gets to define what’s “harmful”? Why, the global coalition set up by the elitist WEF of course!

Microsoft immediately announced it was all in with the WEF’s plan for cracking down on free speech over the internet.

Chief digital safety officer for Microsoft Courtney Gregoire stated:

“Technology offers tools to learn, play, connect, and contribute to solving some of the world’s greatest challenges. But digital safety harms remain a threat to these possibilities. As the World Economic Forum is uniquely positioned to accelerate the public-private collaboration needed to advance digital safety globally, Microsoft is eager to participate and help build whole-of-society solutions to this whole-of-society problem.”

Facebook is also excited to get started on this new project. The social media giant has begun sending cryptic messages to some of its users that read as follows:

“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?”

See screenshot below of this message that one user received from Facebook and sent to this reporter.

Full article here.

For those of you who have watched the presentation on Freemasonry y Altiyan Childs, you will know that the Satanic symbols so prevalent in our modern culture and hidden in plain sight are also shown in the WEF logo with 666:

In Canada, some places are apparently taking this one step further, and not only policing online digital communication, but preventing large gatherings in person as well, where people might talk about the wrong things.

As I have been warning our Health Impact News readers for weeks now, the worst is yet to come!

This is an all-or-nothing gamble by the Satanic Globalists’ power grab to completely restructure society, including the financial sector, making everyone a slave to their medical procedures as these eugenicists move towards reducing the world’s population for their own purposes.

The first round in the first half of 2021 has already seen a dramatic decrease in the population of the pro-vaccine crowd. Those who are left from that demographic are now being recruited to spy on the dissenters.

The only thing standing in their way now is a non-compliant public willing to count the cost to resist.

But will that happen?

As I have recently written, I have more hope for massive resistance in the UK due to recent large protests there.

But in the U.S., I fear that the plan is to allow Donald Trump to return to power to pacify the Right into compliance, while the Left gets ready to burn down our major urban centers and cause widescale chaos, deflecting attention from banding together to fight the real enemy and the Luciferian Globalists who are the ones actually controlling the country right now from Wall Street, and the Trump family is most definitely a part of that group.

*

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.

***

Let us be clear. The recent rise in Wokeness is another symptom of America’s “reality deficit disorder (RDD),” a condition that continues to proliferate across the American landscape since the Age of Enlightenment and the 19th century’s advent of scientific materialism as a secular religion.  The proponents of modern behaviorism and the neurosciences are likewise saturated with RDD. The gurus of modern Critical Race Theory, the Woke self-congratulating experts and false prophets, are its public face.  These are plastic intellectuals who have found a righteous purpose to spread the message in the Woke Critical Race movement’s bible, Robin DiAngelo’s bestseller White Fragility. Identity politics, efforts to consolidate groupthink in order to promulgate illusions about race, social status, and gender have found their voice in DiAngelo’s and Ibram Kendi’s writings.

Despite the widespread adulation DiAngelo has received from liberal educators, the mega-corporate elite, and the liberal media, she has managed to jockey herself away from the deep scrutiny her writings and lectures deserve.  An exception is Jonathan Church, author of Reinventing Racism, who brilliantly exposes DiAngelo’s flaws and deconstructs her façade of being objective.  Church takes a more philosophical offensive to shed light on DiAngelo’s implicit biases and contradictions that in turn distort the very ideas she attempts to proselytize. While we agree wholeheartedly with Church’s polemic, we would take a more scientific approach and state that DiAngelo’s racial theories of irredeemable Whiteness have no basis in reality whatsoever.

White Fragility reads like a tantrum by an author deeply confused about her own identity and with a third-rate intellect. “All white people,” DiAngelo wants us to believe, “are invested in and collude with racism.” If you were born White then racism is built into your genetic inheritance. There can be no escape from this curse, DiAngelo suggests, no redemption or purification by fire regardless of how much penitence, public service or charity you perform for the greater good. We wonder whether she would include the indigenous White Finno-Ugric peoples inhabiting the most northern forests and tundra of Scandinavia and Russia’s Kola Peninsula are also genetically colluding in perpetuating the world’s racism.

The author reminds us of someone who has read every published book about chocolate and thus feels qualified to write one of their own; however, the person has never actually tasted chocolate. Philosophy and postmodern sociology in general, notably the modern philosophies of science and mind, suffer from this mental affliction. They write books about other philosophers’ books who in turn wrote books about their predecessors’ scribbling. Many authors writing about religion suffer from this same malady.  Right-wing critics to RCT Wokeness likewise indulge in a similar cognitive hallucination built upon feeble-minded pre-Galilean superstitions.  When the time comes to take their last breath, they will have failed to achieve any conscious lucidity to read the last page in the novel of their lives.  Their perceptions of themselves and the world, their righteous anger and biases, will be revealed as dreamscapes –nevertheless the phantoms they have conjured will have had dire consequences to the welfare of innocent victims prejudiced and canceled by their vitriol and condemnation.

There have always been conflicting ideologies, cherished beliefs and inflamed emotions towards racial discrepancies, social order or how the nation should be governed. But today these cognitive afflictions, masquerading as passions and righteous causes such as Woke Culture’s anti-racism, have disintegrated into tribalism. This is now fomenting new class and racial distinctions and struggles as well as media turf wars. No one can accurately predict where this collective reality deficit disorder will lead ultimately but it certainly won’t contribute to any positive advancement of human well-being. It repeats the old adage of garbage in, garbage out.

“The greatest need of our time,” the Trappist monk Thomas Merton wrote in his Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, “is to clean out the enormous mass of mental and emotional rubbish that clutters our minds and makes all political and social life a mass illness. Without this housecleaning we cannot begin to see. Unless we see we cannot think.”  Merton believed that this “purification must begin with the mass media.”  We would suggest it also begins with our educational institutions. Teachers who embrace White Fragility’s social folly, need to introspectively gaze and observe the destructive ataxia nesting in their own minds.  If anyone wonders why the nation is so angry, screaming and protesting, it is because the failed neoliberal experiment, the culture of political nepotism, a captured and biased media, and a thoroughly corrupt judiciary have created this horror show. DiAngelo seemingly wants to gather tinder to keep racial conflagrations burning.

“Nothing in all the world is more dangerous,” Martin Luther King lamented, “than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” It is our deep ignorance about not knowing ourselves and appreciating our intrinsic interconnections with each other and the environment that perpetuates the suffering around us. These deeper existential relationships outsmart and surpass any value Critical Race Theory might offer. This includes our attachments to whatever accomplishments and failures we experience in our lives through racial identity, which lead to a reality deficit with all of its superiority complexes, apathy and depression.

First, there is sufficient empirical science to reach a consensus that we are a culture that has become habituated to mistaking its unfounded perceptions about itself and the world as reality-based. This applies to our cognitive conceptions of Whiteness, Blackness, Yellowness, etc. Church makes this clear; DiAngelo’s use of the term Whiteness is “nebulous” and “vague.”  He points out that her logic falls into a Kafka Trap, referring to Kafka’s novel The Trial when an unassuming man is dragged into court and accused for an unspecified crime; subsequently his unwavering denial is itself interpreted as absolute proof that the accusation is true. “Yes, all white people are complicit with racism,” writes DiAngelo, “People will insist that they are not racist… This is the kind of evidence that many white people used to exempt themselves from that system. It is not possible to be exempt from it.” Consequently, for DiAngelo and Kendi, Whites can only speak about their “whiteness” in terms of how it reinforces systemic racism. But from a neuro-scientific perspective, all colored racisms are skewed perceptions of reality.

For example, when we gaze into a deep azure sky we immediately assume there is physical blue over our heads. However, there are no blue-colored photons reaching our retinas. Rather, our brains receive the emitted photons and through a complex channeling of information from the eye to the visual cortex the brain then Photoshops the color azure and projects it through our glance into the empty space of the sky. The same is true whether we gaze at a verdant forest canopy, a fiery sunset, the fluorescent, shimmering hues of a fanning peacock’s feathers or observing an African, Asian or European person crossing the street.

There is nothing mysterious behind this; it is visual brain science 101. No neuroscientist questions this visual phenomena.  We reify the sensory stimuli the brain receives from the objective world and then grasp and cling to these as being factually real. Theoretically race may be understood as only a conventional or relative appearance arising to our mental perceptions. No absolutely objective claims can be made about it; therefore, there cannot be any absolute analyses or solutions for confronting racism either.

In striking contrast to White Fragility’s cognitive deficiencies, we may consider an argument posed by the great German and Jewish existentialist philosopher Martin Buber. Buber speaks of an I-You relationship when we engage with another person as another subject instead of as an object. There’s a subject there, and that subject is every bit as real as the subject over here. As much as I care about my own well-being, then so do you. To transcend Critical Race Theory’s divisions and its many shortcomings, which relate to others as I-Its — as mere objects — we simply need to be aware of Buber’s advice, and become fully engaged with that reality. Buber highlights this as a profoundly existential problem in modern society. It is debilitating.  It is dehumanizing and horrid, although for DiAngelo and Critical Wokeness preserving racial I-It relationships is not only valid but essential. When we regard others simply in terms of whether the color of their skin is appealing or unappealing, pleasant or unpleasant, superior or inferior, and so forth we are bifurcating impressions that have no substance in reality. We are simply treating other sentient beings as if they have no more sentience, no more subjectivity, no more presence from their own side than a robot or computer. But that seems fine for DiAngelo and her tragic dehumanizing dogma, the output of a massive reality deficit disorder.

If DiAngelo were unintelligent or had severe brain damage, we might understand and would certainly sympathize. But she and Ibram Kendi — and we would argue all of their followers who carry White Fragility’s banner into school classrooms — are likely very educated people. That is the calamity and the clear evidence for the deep-seated spiritual impoverishment when a person is viewed as nothing more than the race of their physical bodies.

If anti-racial Wokeness is true, then the more deeply we probe and investigate it, the truer it should appear. This is one of William James’ fundamental principles when he made efforts to turn the psychology of his day into a real science. If James’ methodololgy had not been obliterated by the rise of behaviorism in 1910, psychology would be completely different today. We would actually be treating and curing people of mental disorders, and without life-long medications. On the other hand, if DiAngelo’s hypothesis is false, the more deeply you investigate, which includes introspection, the more false it will appear. That is where robust inquiry comes in: to determine what is simply true regardless of whatever your personal unsubstantiated and biased beliefs about it might be. What you believe has absolutely no impact upon whether something is true or not. This is also basic Buddhist epistemology that has been repeatedly replicated by contemplatives for several millennia. However, for the Woked who cling to their beliefs most fiercely they are trapped in a cave of their own system’s illusions.

Neuroscience, including its gross failures and tendencies towards metaphysical realism, has more to tell us about the inherent dangers in White Fragility’s doctrine. First, modern brain science has not produced an iota of evidence to confirm that the mind and consciousness are solely a product or output originating in neuron and synaptic activity. None. Contrary to the evidence, most neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists nevertheless embrace this opinion as being a settled matter. But it is ridiculous to believe that evolution somehow dragged along our ancient single-celled ancestors until some point was reached when a conscious mind — a “nothing” that is not observable, not measurable, not quantifiable, without atoms or photons, mass, electric charge or spin – mysteriously arose out of something, such as genes and biomolecular phenomena. Therefore cognitive scientists pretend to know something about the mind and consciousness when in fact they haven’t a clue.

If the genetic determinism of DiAngelo and other materialists populating the evolutionary and biological sciences is correct, then it would break the fundamental physical laws of energy conservation and causal efficacy. Rather the absolutist determinism that underpins White Fragility’s entire message is just the inverse side of the coin with Evangelical creationism. In effect, DiAngelo is saying White people have no choice. It’s genetic chemistry or its genetic chemistry; either way its genetic chemistry.  By disguising and recasting an evolutionary and genetic determinism about racist Whiteness into her critical race theory, DiAngelo is in fact admitting that her own perceptions about reality are fundamentally flawed.

Why is that?

Dr. Donald Hoffman has been a professor of neuroscience at the University of California at Irvine for over three decades. He has an impeccable background having studied artificial intelligence at MIT. But unlike the vast majority of his colleagues, Hoffman broke ranks and passed beyond neuroscience’s 19th century mechanistic base and dared to study modern quantum physics and relativity theory. Theoretical physics is almost anathema in human biological research and medicine, which is why these soft sciences have made so little progress to improve human health and well-being. Hoffman has performed hundreds of thousands of simulations comparing different species and their chances for survival based upon their ability to perceive and comprehend reality more accurately or not. His discoveries are startling and utterly revolutionary.

Hoffman discovered, across the board, species that best perceive reality go extinct more rapidly than competing species that only perceive what is necessary for them to remain fit and survive. During an interview following a TED Talk, Hoffman stated, “according to evolution by natural selection,” – and here he is limiting himself solely to evolutionary biological theory not quantum theories about the natural world or the deeper theories about the nature of consciousness – “an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.” In other words, evolution has nothing to do with perceiving reality more clearly, but only to be more fit in order to adapt, survive and procreate. And now physicists are even telling us that perceiving reality accurately is consciousness itself, which has no association whatsoever with natural selection. Yet this only occurs after we have subdued our connate perceptual obscurations, which are not hardwired, and conditioned mental and emotional afflictions that keep us chained to reality deficit disorder

For example, Professor Edward Witten, regarded as “the world’s smartest” physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, has been compared to Newton and Einstein. Witten doesn’t believe science will ever understand consciousness. “I think consciousness will remain a mystery,” Witten stated during a lecture, ”I have a much easier time imagining how we understand the Big Bang than I have imagining how we can understand consciousness.” Or we can listen to Stanford University theoretical physicist Andre Linde:

“The current scientific model of the material world obeying laws of physics has been so successful that we forget our starting point as conscious observers, and conclude that matter is the only reality and that perceptions are only helpful for describing it. But in fact, we are substituting the reality of our experience of the universe with a conceptually contrived belief…”

One may feel our critique is too abstract with no practical application; however to at least conceptually understand race in terms of our sensory perceptions can have enormous benefits to cut through and lessen the false semblances that arise from reality deficit disorder and then produce books such as White Fragility and How To Be An Antiracist.

Therefore, if neuroscientists and modern neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Robin DiAngelo, who believe they are telling the complete story about human existence, racial differences and a physical causality to the human mind, and that all of these emerged from natural selection, then Hoffman has shown they undermine their own credibility. The entire course of natural selection that gave rise to these scientists and the intellectuals behind Critical Race Theory has nothing to do with knowing reality as it is, including Blackness or Whiteness. Consequently, there is no reason to believe their sociological and scientific convictions are accurate. If we did not evolve to know reality as it is, then their science and philosophies are also irrelevant. They are birdbrained beliefs because none of us – if we take their Darwinian assumptions to their full conclusion — did not evolve to perceive reality in the first place. Our sole purpose is to make babies and try to survive contently into old age.

Finally, contrary to DiAngelo, British journalist Melanie Phillips offers a clearer understanding for why we should not rely upon the pundits of anti-racial wokeness to save us from ourselves. Despite disagreeing with Phillips on many of her other socio-political positions, she correctly identifies the fundamental flaws being voiced by arrested development Wokeness across our campuses and within the Democrat party. First, it is unable to establish a hierarchy of values and morals. For example, if one refuses to say that any lifestyle or culture is better than another, then it cannot be said that liberalism is better than conservatism or any other ideology. Consequently, faux Woke liberalism cannot legitimately defend the very principles upon which it defines itself: racial and gender equality, freedom of speech and religion, tolerance, and class struggle.  It contradicts its own principles and follows DiAngelo’s footsteps to remove the dignity of the individual, which in the past was at the heart of authentic liberalism and once served as its moral backbone. What we are witnessing therefore in Woke liberalism – and in DiAngelo’s and Kendi’s reinvention of racism — is “the strong dominating the weak,” and this is an ill-liberal ideology that is already showing signs of having catastrophic consequences in classrooms and the workplace.

*

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.

Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD direct Progressive Radio Network. They are frequent contributors to Global Research.

By the late Kevin Zeese. His Legacy will live.

First published on Global Research on July 4, 2011

.

.

A Question for Reflection

It is a shame to have to ask whether democracy is a mirage in the United States, no doubt most Americans would rather be celebrating U.S. democracy than questioning it.  But the reality of the disconnect between government and the people has become so stark it is impossible to ignore.

Gallup reports that Americans belief in our form of government and how well it works is now at only 42% (in 2002 it was at 76%). Less than a quarter of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, yet because of manipulation of the political process, the drawing of voting districts, the impact of campaign money and the power of incumbency, more than 90% will be re-elected.

A major problem is the two party duopoly acts much like a two party dictatorship. Despite nearly 60% of Americans wanting a third party and only 35% believing the two parties do an adequate job, the two parties work together to prevent more choices on the ballot. They have put up road blocks to independent challengers through ballot access laws, campaign finance rules, exclusion from debates and the winner take all electoral system. The corporate media plays an important role of keeping independent candidates off the air so people do not hear about their existence or positions.  As a result only the two parties, both funded by the corporate oligarchy, and their corporate-approved candidates appear on most ballots. Most Americans end up voting against their interests for what has commonly become known as voting for ‘the lesser evil.’

The courts, which play an essential role in applying constitutional limits on government in the U.S. Republic, have become a tool of the financial elite, actually weakening elections further. They have issued rulings that further empower the money-class in their control of democracy.  The court has allowed unlimited spending by corporations and individuals in the Citizens United decision; and recently found the Arizona Clean Elections Act unconstitutional.  Thus striking two blows for the wealthy – they can spend as much as they like, but government cannot provide matching public funds for elections.

President Obama, rather than pushing for clean elections, is going from big donor event to big donor event to become the first candidate to run a billion dollar campaign.  More and more Americans recognize that his health care policy, which re-enforced and expanded the power of the insurance industry, likely resulted from their $20 million in donations to his first campaign.  Obama kept single payer out of the debate despite years of polls showing large majorities of Americans want single payer and vast evidence showing it is the best model to control costs and the only model to provide health care to all. The insurance company’s profits came before the necessities and preferences of the people. We see people from Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and other big financial institutions not only being bailed out but being put in the Obama administration rather than prosecuted for crashing the economy despite strong evidence of criminal wrongdoing. These are two examples of many. Obama has advocated corporatism on every issue and is now going to those special interests to fund the most expensive campaign in history.

In the United States more and more recognize the disconnect between government and the needs of most Americans. They see how crony capitalist policies lead to the largest wealth divide we have known with increasing poverty, joblessness, underemployment and insecurity. At the same time the Congress, Treasury and Federal Reserve funnel trillions of dollars to the big banks, but demand cuts for programs that would create jobs, fund state and local government, build the infrastructure, provide basic necessities and protect the environment. This is the first generation of Americans who see that their children are likely to be worse off than they are.

What can Americans do to create a representative democracy and shift the power to the people from major corporations?  In fact, the U.S. is not the only country facing the problem of oligarchy.  One example that has not gotten a lot of attention in the U.S. media is Spain. The people have been in revolt since March 15th.  Hundreds of thousands have taken control of public spaces across the country.  Their protests continue and more major protests are being planned.  The Spanish movement has been only minimally reported in the U.S. commercial media, perhaps because some of the complaints are so similar to what we hear in living rooms, schools and restaurants when Americans talk among themselves.

Here’s a sampling of what they are saying in Spain:

–          Politicians and economic powers have perverted the democratic ideal.

–          A professor from Barcelona explains – the political structures, instead of protecting our welfare and living standards the government is doing the opposite.  It is the institutional machine that is creating mass unemployment, precarious employment and unprecedented limitations on future hopes and expectations.

–          Another says the political parties have lost touch with the people. They have limited the exercise of democracy to every four years and have stripped democracy of its true meaning.

–          “They have reduced us to nothing. They tell us go vote, go vote, go vote – you go vote, pal.”

The Spanish call themselves Real Democracy Already (Democracia Real Ya (DRY)). Like Americans they live under a two party system.  There are other small parties, but they are shut out of real participation. The statement of DRY speaks mostly about creating a true democracy. They say:  “Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even listen to us. . . Lust for power and its accumulation in only a few; create inequality, tension and injustice. The obsolete and unnatural economic model fuels the social machinery in a growing spiral that consumes itself by enriching a few and sends into poverty the rest. . . The will and purpose of the current system is the accumulation of money, not regarding efficiency and the welfare of society. Wasting resources, destroying the planet, creating unemployment and unhappy consumers. Citizens are the gears of a machine designed to enrich a minority which does not regard our needs. We are anonymous, but without us none of this would exist, because we move the world.”

Sounds familiar, like echoes of conversations many Americans are having. As a result thousands of Americans have joined www.October2011.org.  This is a movement to demand an end to corporatism and militarism.  Like the Spanish, the Greeks, Tunisians and Egyptians, among others, October2011, will be taking over a public space, Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC beginning on October 6.  This day is the beginning of the 11th year of the Afghanistan War and that week is the beginning of a new federal fiscal year with an austerity budget for everything except the military. October2011.org has written the activists around the world seeking a common agenda of economic justice and real democracy letting them know that their revolution is our revolution. It seems much of the world is waking up to the need to topple the oligarchy at the same time.

Like Spain, October2011.org is led by individuals, not organizations.  People from a wide range of issues see the common problem of corporate control of government preventing the change America needs.  This includes ending the ongoing wars, reducing the military budget, better pay and jobs for workers, Medicare for all, reversal of the degradation of the environment, ending the wealth divide and putting in place a clean, sustainable energy economy, among others.

The solutions to the critical issues facing the country are evident to many but the corporate interests who profit from the status quo prevent real change. The electoral system is closed to all but the corporate parties. To transform the government into one that puts the peoples interests before those of the economic elite, will require a showing of power.  It will require an ongoing, independent movement that demands real change and has the power to insist on it.  On October 6th a major step to showing the development of such a movement and demanding real change begins. Join us.

In Spain, the protesters sing to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”:

They call it democracy but it isn’t
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes
They call it democracy but it isn’t
Oh yes, oh yes, oh yes

Are the people of the United States ready to face the reality of the corruption of U.S. elections and the lack of representation and do something about it? History is knocking. The time is now to answer.

Kevin Zeese is on the steering committee of October2011.org and a peace and economic justice advocate.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 4th of July: Is the United States a Representative Democracy or a Mirage Democracy?
  • Tags:

Fourth of July: “Put Away the Flags”

July 4th, 2021 by Howard Zinn

This article was first published by The Progressive and Global Research in July 2010

On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.

Is not nationalism — that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder — one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?

These ways of thinking — cultivated, nurtured, indoctrinated from childhood on — have been useful to those in power, and deadly for those out of power.

National spirit can be benign in a country that is small and lacking both in military power and a hunger for expansion (Switzerland, Norway, Costa Rica and many more). But in a nation like ours — huge, possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction — what might have been harmless pride becomes an arrogant nationalism dangerous to others and to ourselves.

Our citizenry has been brought up to see our nation as different from others, an exception in the world, uniquely moral, expanding into other lands in order to bring civilization, liberty, democracy.

That self-deception started early.

When the first English settlers moved into Indian land in Massachusetts Bay and were resisted, the violence escalated into war with the Pequot Indians. The killing of Indians was seen as approved by God, the taking of land as commanded by the Bible. The Puritans cited one of the Psalms, which says: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the Earth for thy possession.”

When the English set fire to a Pequot village and massacred men, women and children, the Puritan theologian Cotton Mather said: “It was supposed that no less than 600 Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day.”

On the eve of the Mexican War, an American journalist declared it our “Manifest Destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence.” After the invasion of Mexico began, The New York Herald announced: “We believe it is a part of our destiny to civilize that beautiful country.”

It was always supposedly for benign purposes that our country went to war.

We invaded Cuba in 1898 to liberate the Cubans, and went to war in the Philippines shortly after, as President McKinley put it, “to civilize and Christianize” the Filipino people.

As our armies were committing massacres in the Philippines (at least 600,000 Filipinos died in a few years of conflict), Elihu Root, our secretary of war, was saying: “The American soldier is different from all other soldiers of all other countries since the war began. He is the advance guard of liberty and justice, of law and order, and of peace and happiness.”

We see in Iraq that our soldiers are not different. They have, perhaps against their better nature, killed thousands of Iraq civilians. And some soldiers have shown themselves capable of brutality, of torture.

Yet they are victims, too, of our government’s lies.

How many times have we heard President Bush tell the troops that if they die, if they return without arms or legs, or blinded, it is for “liberty,” for “democracy”?

One of the effects of nationalist thinking is a loss of a sense of proportion. The killing of 2,300 people at Pearl Harbor becomes the justification for killing 240,000 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The killing of 3,000 people on Sept. 11 becomes the justification for killing tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And nationalism is given a special virulence when it is said to be blessed by Providence. Today we have a president, invading two countries in four years, who announced on the campaign trail in 2004 that God speaks through him.

We need to refute the idea that our nation is different from, morally superior to, the other imperial powers of world history.

We need to assert our allegiance to the human race, and not to any one nation.

Howard Zinn, a World War II bombardier, was the author of the best-selling “A People’s History of the United States” (Perennial Classics, 2003, latest edition). This piece was distributed by the Progressive Media Project in 2006.

Howard Zinn died on January 7 2010. Please read Matthew Rothschild’s “Thank you, Howard Zinn,” for more about his legacy.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fourth of July: “Put Away the Flags”

This incisive article was written by the late Danny Schechter, renowned author, television producer, filmmaker and contributor to Global Research, first published on July 4th, 2014. Danny’s thoughts and analysis will be remembered.

*    *    *

The wheel of the calendar has turned again, and July 4th is upon us once again, a day for the consumption of 155 million pounds of  hot dogs, and fireworks—75% of the pyro technics industry’s revenues ignite in an average 1400 displays on the federal holiday marking the anniversary of American Independence.

Patriotric rituals r’ often us, although, never mind, that American celebrations only began after the war of 1812,  and that it took quite a while for London to even respond to our declaration.

Quiet as its kept, actual independence only arrived on September, 3, 1783 when Great Britain formally abandoned its claims to its colonies and signed the Treaty of Paris.

Recall also that one of the pledges in the document of documents was a “Decent Respect for The Opinions of Mankind,” a vow undercut somewhat by a ruling by an appointed intelligence advisory body this past week—based on who knows what legal foundation—that US Spying on mankind is now and forevermore “legal” under our constitution.

Record this fact, too,that July 4th only became a holiday on June 28, 1870, a decision promulgated in the aftermath of our bloody civil war to encourage some semblance of unity in a still divided nation.

Back in ‘76, the independence war has been on for a year before the often feuding anddisunited politicians of the day decided a declaration was needed. It followed from a resolution by Richard Henry Lee of Virginia that began: “Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

Even as Tom Jefferson drafted the words for the document, there was discordant music in the background. In the end, of the 13 colonies, nine voted yes, two — Pennsylvania and South Carolina — voted No. Delaware was undecided and New York abstained.

And so, it was on this basis, that the “United” States decided proclaim itself.

Of all the oratory and debate that on “our” independence, nothing in the literature surpasses the speech by abolitionist, editor and former slave, Frederick Douglass, whose oration about July 4th deserves to be much better known.

His famous speech has the title, “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” It was delivered on July 5, 1852, eight years before the eruption of the war against the Confederacy’s secession from the union.

Douglass began slowly:

“Who could address this audience without a quailing sensation, has stronger nerves than I have. I do not remember ever to have appeared as a speaker before any assembly more shrinkingly, nor with greater distrust of my ability, than I do this day. A feeling has crept over me, quite unfavorable to the exercise of my limited powers of speech. The task before me is one which requires much previous thought and study for its proper performance. I know that apologies of this sort are generally considered flat and unmeaning….

The papers and placards say, that I am to deliver a 4th [of] July oration. This certainly sounds large, and out of the common way…The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, the distance between this platform and the slave plantation, from which I escaped, is considerable — and the difficulties to be overcome in getting from the latter to the former, are by no means slight. That I am here to-day is, to me, a matter of astonishment as well as of gratitude. You will not, therefore, be surprised, if in what I have to say I evince no elaborate preparation, nor grace my speech with any high sounding exordium. With little experience and with less learning, I have been able to throw my thoughts hastily and imperfectly together; and trusting to your patient and generous indulgence, I will proceed to lay them before you.

This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom. This, to you, is what the Passover was to the emancipated people of God. It carries your minds back to the day, and to the act of your great deliverance; and to the signs, and to the wonders, associated with that act, and that day. This celebration also marks the beginning of another year of your national life; and reminds you that the Republic of America is now 76 years old. I am glad, fellow-citizens, that your nation is so young.”

He went on and on, praising the founders and sympathizing with their cause before dropping the bomb he had, no doubt, been invited to drop—a condemnation of slavery a “peculiar institution”—what a euphemism that was– that some say now was one prime reason for the revolt in the colonies,  based on the opposition to Britain’s decision to end its inhumanity, a choice many of the signatories to the Declaration opposed, no doubt, in part, because they, with whatever doubts or trepidations, held slaves themselves.

Douglass did not rush that day to get to his point, and the point, saying to all assembled, “Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. — The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mineYou may rejoice, I must mourn.”

Ba Boom! He did not mince words:

 “Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.”

So much, back then, for American “exceptionalism,” and,  so much for the deep debate that is still with us, when, in rare moments, our polity and media even recognizes the great gaps and inequalities that aredividing and impoverishing the nation.

Douglass ended his soaring declamation with hope, not despair, calling for a renewal of the values of the Declaration and arenewed commitment to justice. He quoted, the “fervent aspirations” of William Lloyd Garrison:

God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o’er


When from their galling chains set free,
Th’ oppress’d shall vilely bend the knee,

And wear the yoke of tyranny
 Like brutes no more.


That year will come, and freedom’s reign,


To man his plundered fights again
Restore.

Amen to that call to restore “plundered rights” on that July 4th and all that would follow.

Sadly, one promised set of holiday fireworks I was waiting for this year, seems to have been postponed or squashed, according to Op-ed News:

I am referring to the promised explosions by Glenn Greenwald who some see as a Douglass for our age. He had promised  aJuly 4 extravaganza, writing last month:

I think we will end the big stories in about three months or so [June or July 2014]. I like to think of it as a fireworks show: You want to save your best for last. There’s a story that from the beginning I thought would be our biggest, and I’m saving that. The last one is the one where the sky is all covered in spectacular multicolored hues. This will be the finale, a big missing piece. Snowden knows about it and is excited about it.

Writes Donn Marten: “For now at least the fireworks show has been postponed, with the incessant fear-mongering that has now overtaken the USA!, USA!, USA! over the new Islamic caliphate and Obama sending more American troops back into Iraq it is probably better than even money that it will be cancelled altogether in the interests of national security.”

True? In the spirit of Frederick Douglass, this is not a time to surrender. There will be fireworks. Declare your independence.

Newsdissector Danny Schechter blogs at Newsdissector.net and works on Mediachannel.org. His latest book is Madiba A-Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela. (Madibabook.com) [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on July 4: “Patriotic Rituals R Us”. American Independence and Frederick Douglass’ Echoes Through The Ages
  • Tags:

Covidian Creed

July 3rd, 2021 by Prof. Graeme MacQueen

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

.

 

***

I believe in Covid-19, the Danger Almighty,

Terror of heaven and earth.

I believe in The Vaccine, his only Son, our Lord.

I believe in the World Economic Forum,
the Bill & Melinda Gates Founation,
the World Health Organization,
the digitizing of loneliness,
the covering of our faces,
and the lockdown everlasting.

Amen.

*

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.

Prof. Graeme MacQueen is an author and distinguished professor of religious studies, Hamilton, Ont. Canada. he is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

What does America’s national celebration mean to those under the heel of “Manifest Destiny,” at home and abroad? “

For the victims of US imperialism, the 4th of July is indeed a ‘hollow mockery’ and ‘mere bombast, fraud, and deception’ as Frederick Douglass so eloquently put it in his famous speech.”

first published on July 4, 2014

The Declaration of Independence implicitly legalized the enslavement of Black people and the genocide of Native people within the context of the developing American capitalist nation-state.”

July 4th is once again approaching and principled left forces need to use the day as a teaching moment. In a speech given on July 4th, 1852, Frederick Douglas spoke before a packed Rochester Hall and did just that, highlighting the hypocrisy that stains the July 4th celebration of the American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence, as Douglass emphasized, held no worth to the millions of Black people in the United States whose existence was subjected to the racism and exploitation of chattel bondage. Over a century and a half later, the celebration of July 4th remains not only a practice of hypocrisy, but also a blatant co-sign US imperialist plunder all over the planet.

Liberty, independence, and equality are abstract ideas. Their presence in the Declaration of Independence must be placed in proper political-historical context. White capitalists, many of them slave-owners, wrote the Declaration of Independence. Independence from the British Crown for the American, slave-owning colonial bourgeoisie meant the ability to develop a settler colonial-capitalist order free from the British Empire’s restrictive policies. Most notably, the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were concerned about a British mandate to abolish chattel slavery in its colonies, a policy that had the potential to severely weaken the colonial bourgeoisie and prevent further expansion of the capitalist system in North America. The Declaration of Independence implicitly legalized the enslavement of Black people and the genocide of Native people within the context of the developing American capitalist nation-state.

The likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were concerned about a British mandate to abolish chattel slavery in its colonies.”

This is the type of  “liberty” that is celebrated annually every 4th of July. Douglass addressed the antagonisms brought forth by the July 4th “holiday” when he asked:

“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; y our national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.”

Douglass’s indictment of the American way of life remains true. Despite the relentless misinformation war waged by the US imperialist corporate media and education system, the conditions of oppressed people are far worse now than they were at the date of Douglass’s speech. Black America and Native peoples reside in the US in a state of neo-slavery. As indigenous nations battle against President Obama’s pipe-line incursions for survival under genocidal exclusion in forced residence on reservations, Black America’s masses live with the daily colonial realities of police-state terror, mass imprisonment, and economic and social death. Undocumented immigrants, many of whom are indigenous Chicanos, are super exploited for their labor and have been deported in record numbers by Obama Administration. The internal landscape of US imperialism is by definition the highest stage of Anglo-American settler colonialism, the founding social system that inspired Douglass’s July 4th analysis.

The US settler state is now an imperialist one that ensures the exploitation and misery of billions of people around the globe. The US has nearly 1000 military bases all over the world and spends trillions per year in overt and covert military operations. Recent corporate media focus has been on the re-invasion of Iraq to “protect” the Iraqi state from terrorist insurgents. This ignores the 1.6 million Iraqi people that died during the decade-long US occupation alone. Imperialist rhetoric of bringing “stability” to Iraq flies in the face of the fact that the US military-intelligence apparatus sponsors ISIS and other terror groups all over the Middle East and North Africa inside the allied nations of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the GCC and NATO alliances. US imperialism is scorching the earth, either by militarizing neo-colonial allies or conducting “humanitarian intervention” to justify overt invasion, as was the case in Libya and now again in Iraq. For the victims of US imperialism forced to live under imperialist political instability and economic dependence, the 4th of July is indeed a “hallow mockery” and “mere bombast, fraud, and deception” as Douglass eloquently put it in his speech.

Black America’s masses live with the daily colonial realities of police-state terror, mass imprisonment, and economic and social death.”

In the era of Obama, US imperialism has been very vocal in its disregard for humanity. In 2010, President Obama joked that he would “predator drone” the Jonas Brothers band, making a mockery out the thousands of people his Administration has murdered by drone strike. The Obama Administration’s left-flank imperial politics has branded imperialism and corporate exploitation with anti-Black racism (see Obama’s 2013 Morehouse graduation speech) and fascist nationalism (see Obama’s 2014 West Point Commencement speech).  Additionally, Hilary Clinton is making quite a name for herself in mainstream political discourse after stating on CNN that  “Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay.” This answer came after the question of immigration was raised in relation to the thousands of children that have been crossing the border of Mexico from Central America. The architects of imperialism are exposing their own illegitimate system, and by extension, the sham that July 4th represents.  The ruling class’s vocal and visible ruthlessness is both a signal of decay in the US imperialist system and of the political crisis among left forces in the US that allow such brutality to be carried out with impunity.

In the spirit of Frederick Douglass, this July 4th should be a moment not of celebration, but of deep reflection for left political forces. What does “American Independence” really mean? Does it mean the freedom for US imperialism to destabilize nations, murder millions, and force the world into its political and economic sphere of influence? Does it mean the independence for US imperialism to imprison the largest number of (mostly Black) people in the world? Is “liberty” defined by the US imperialist system’s centuries-long colonization of Native and Black America, now taking form in the privatization of entire cities like Black Detroit?  The answer is yes to all of the above. The masters of deceit can’t and won’t end the imperialist system the July 4th holiday represents. Only we can do that. Instead of going out to celebrate this farcical holiday, let’s organize our communities and people in the direction of liberation from the US imperialist system.

Danny Haiphong is an activist and case manager in the Greater Boston area. You can contact Danny at: [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What is July 4th to US Imperialism? What is it to the Oppressed?
  • Tags:

On June 14, 2022. Friends and family met up to celebrate Kari Polyani Levitt’s 99th birthday.

While Kari’s health is fragile, she constitutes a powerful voice in the understanding and analysis of the global political economy. here first book, entitled with tremendous for

Below is the transcript of her interview with Michael Welch in July of last year

Many “corrections” are still needed to rid Canada of the structural violence and systemic racism that has evolved here over the past five centuries. One step in this process is to revise our understanding of history and to do away with national creation myths that portray Cartier and Cabot as heroic founders of Canada. We should instead acknowledge them as the official founding criminals of this fictive nation which has been built on a captivating web of myths that continue to deceive.”Richard Sanders, quoted in Press for Conversion #69

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The 154th anniversary of the birth of Canada as a country was marked not by festive celebrations, but by rallies crewed by community members dressed in orange shirts to mourn the far too many victims of the nation’s residential schools.

Thousands showed up in gatherings in several cities including Regina, Toronto, London and Montreal. Vancouver actually had city hall and the Burrard Bridge lit up in lights of orange. There was a massive day of revelation full of sacred pipe ceremonies, healing dance and rows of the shoes of little children on Parliament Hill in the capital of Ottawa. And in Winnipeg, in addition to the hundreds of people marching in the downtown, a small group actually defaced and then toppled the statues of two very famous monarchs, the past Queen Victoria and the present Queen Elizabeth.

It seems unusual to abandon, in some cases, the usual fireworks in favor of sentiments regretting the mistreatment of an entire people. Although it is well deserved. The historical persecution of those people from whom this land was gifted to us must once and for all register on those people who are rewarded for the mortal sins of our fathers.[2]

And what kind of a future can we look forward to? As the nation’s elite seemed to find wealth in more and more continental integration with the United States, a string of initiatives from growing dependence on US foreign direct investment to ‘free trade’ deals and the like saw this country seeming to lose its sovereignty to Uncle Sam.

The prime minister said days in advance that Canada Day should be a day of reflection rather than a day of merriment:

“Many, many Canadians will be reflecting on reconciliation, on our relationship with Indigenous Peoples and how it has evolved and how it needs to continue to evolve rapidly. We have so many thing we need to work on together and I think this Canada Day, it will be a time of reflection on what we’ve achieved as a country but on what more we have to do.”[3]

Looking at ourselves through the mirror of an honest ethical inventory is the theme of this week’s special audio portait on the Global Research News Hour.

In the first half of the show we have the great pleasure of having Kari Polanyi Levitt join us. She focuses her attention on how Canada is losing its sovereignty and its independence on the world stage and on how we might be able to claim the soul of a proud nation once again.

In the second half of the program, we are joined once again by Richard Sanders. He outlines more about the way we have continued to elevate our country’s history on narratives which like those that animated the Church-run residential schools, are fictitious.

Kari Polanyi Levitt is a Canadian economist and Emeritus Professor of Economics from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, as well as the daughter of the famous thinker Karl Polanyi. Her books include From the Great Transformation to the Great Financialization: On Karl Polanyi and Other Essays: Kari Polanyi Levitt (2013), Reclaiming Development: Independent Thought and Caribbean Community (2005), and Silent Surrender: the Multinational Corporation in Canada (1970).

Richard Sanders is the coordinator of the Coalition Opposed to the Arms Trade, and has a history of involvement in anti-war activism that spans three decades. He is also a researcher and the publisher and editor of Press For Conversion Magazine. In 2017 he released issue #69 dealing with what he calls Fictive Canada: Indigenous Slaves and the Captivating Narratives.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript- Interview with Professor Polanyi Levitt, June 30, 2021

Global Research: Since you wrote that article 50 years ago to the present, there seems to have been more integration between our two countries, right?

Kari Polanyi Levitt: There has been, yes.

GR: I mean is it something that you may have foreseen way back when? Or is this more of a, I mean, from the time you wrote that book to today, is this pretty much the kind of result you would have expected?

KPL: Well, yes, I think those of us who were concerned about the way in which Canadian business was selling themselves out to American multinationals, we were concerned that it would lead to a loss of sovereignty. And I think it has. It has happened. We have less sovereignty than we had some time ago.

GR: The growth since that time, I mean, we’ve had their Free Trade Agreements, right? In the 1980s the Canada US Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA, and we had military…our militaries became more and more tightly connected. Which strengthened continentalism even further. Where all of these separate decisions just added onto US investments to increase US control of Canada or was it part of the same pattern. First you increase investment then you try more and more integration—

KPL: I would think, yes, part of the same pattern.

GR: Yeah, so are you saying that, what I’m asking is, how far back had the various stages of integration been planned? Is it kind of like a timeline where you say, now this, and then, and then we’re going to throw in a Free Trade Agreement when the time is right? Or did this idea of free trade and then other aspects of integration just sort of come along when the time was right?

KPL: Well, the Free Trade Agreement of the kind we’re talking about were a global phenomenon they were not unique to Canada. But we had what they like to call globalization which really meant they… the power of international capital, particularly the financial capital. What I would like us to talk about is that as we are approaching Canada Day and many people are questioning whether they should celebrate or rather concern themselves about the phenomenon of the residential schools and the young people in the unmarked graves. I like to talk about the present and what happened since I wrote that book. It is an important book. And it remains important.

GR: Well for certain, I mean, in 2021 we are recognizing now that the residential schools have definitely had a, have been a horrific part of our past. But have we really come to the point where…is something special happening now, or are we just seeing our whole, are we just seeing our whole… just finding a way of shifting our dependence on the residential schools to something else. Because it seems as if, for all the acco–… everything that the prime minister is saying, Indigenous peoples are still being subjected to brutal things like the higher-than-average representation in the jails for example. What is your take on that?

KPL: The fact is that the way that this country was built, it was built by, by people who saw the Indigenous people in a very negative way. And the residential schools would never have happened if it were not part of the culture of this country. And I think many people are seeing that this is regrettable and bad. And that something should be done to improve the relationship between the settler communities that constitute the Canadian population and the Indigenous people.

GR: Yeah, do you…do the signs show that we are going to be going in that direction?

KPL: I’m not sure. There are obviously an increasing number of Canadians who are only now learning about this, and they are concerned. But to tell you the truth, when you called me about discussing foreign policy, I thought that’s what we were going to do. And what I think is that Canada, in many ways, has a good name in the world but we are not acting on our own initiative. We are following in the wake of the United States in foreign policy. And I think that this is a very dangerous situation because no matter how much I consider the existence of challenges facing humanity, one of them is how to prevent ourselves from engaging in mutual destruction by the use of atomic weapons. And because we are a party to NATO, Canada is not following an independent foreign policy but his only going along with whatever is the current concern of the United States. I would like us to exert our independence, and that is one of the advantages of having nations.

GR: The military is…there’s no clear division between the militaries, but can you see the nation in any way…I mean are we so united that we can’t break loose even if we wanted to? I mean, when it comes to votes at the UN on nuclear missiles or anything like that, I mean do we even have the power any more to stand up against the United States?

KPL: We have as much or as little as we ever had before. We don’t have less. Although the scandal of the residential schools is a negative. It reduces the legitimacy with which Canada can play a role on the international stage. It’s a blot on our record. And for all kinds of good reasons, something has to be done. But I am thinking about is more, what could Canada do as a medium power in the world with a good reputation, and its sort of commitment to the United Nations. And I think that we should examine what has been our foreign policy.

GR: Is there a particular foreign policy where we could start expressing our independent way of thinking that we could distance ourselves from the United States?

KPL: Well, the obvious one is the field of diplomacy, I mean, we had developed a lot of independent economic and political relations with China, which is the up-and-coming power in the next century.

GR: What about in terms of military policy, getting out of any relationship with the United States on shooting down missiles, well basically what NORAD does, you know, is that something we could even break out of?

KPL: Well, maybe so, but I think more to the point, we should develop our independent relations with other countries. What is clear, is that in the world, that we have to have a… what do they call it again…a world order that is multinational. In other words, there are a number of legitimate political entities in this world who have to be included in a multi-polar world. And that multi-polar world would include China and the United States and Canada. But we should be included, not as a satellite of the United States, but on our own independence. And I think we have, we, the government of Canada made a big mistake in acceding to this demand by the Americans to arrest the lady representing the very important IT company. That was a…because what she was accused of was a violation of US sanctions again Iran, and this is not a criminal act in Canadian law, because Canada did not agree to sanctions against Iran. So that was a big mistake, and it was done entirely because our government said, under some compulsion to act in the way that it did. There was a compulsion to play a subsidiary role regarding relation with the US. And we have done huge damage to Canada’s relationship with China and there are individuals now, Canadian individuals in China who are paying the price.

GR: I know that…there’s an election coming up possibly this fall, I’m wondering if your views on Canada’s need to distinguish itself could possibly play any role in this election and who would you need more inclined to vote towards?

KPL: I don’t know…I couldn’t announce it. I know I would not vote for the Conservatives. I do not trust them. So, I don’t know yet who I’m going to vote for. But what I would like to see the Government of Canada do is to take some initiative in the matter of banning new nuclear weapons. And there was a motion introduced in the General Assembly of the UN some months ago to that effect. And Canada shamefully did not express an opinion in favour of what is clearly the popular view of the majority of member states of the UN.

GR: Kari Polanyi Levitt, I really appreciate everything you’ve had to say today, and I know that we’re kind of getting to the end of her time, but I just wanted to offer you the opportunity to close with any thoughts that you may have that you, that we as Canadians can be more alert to as we move forward toward and beyond the next election.

KPL: Well, I think that Canada should certainly consider its membership of NATO because, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and it is a military alliance and in recent years it has been involved in military conflicts in the regions of the Middle East which are having really nothing to do with the North Atlantic. And I don’t think that…. I think we have to, we should reconsider, and the reasons why it might be difficult for the Canadian government to take a position against nuclear weapons is precisely because North America is so closely integrated with the US, and the US would never never agree to that request. I think I will just leave it there.

GR: Professor Polanyi Levitt I think we’ve come to the end, and I wanted to know how, I feel extremely privileged to have this conversation with you, and I wish you all the best in your coming years.

KPL: That is very kind of you, thank you. And I really like the work that Global Research is doing. I disagree with them about some things, about global warming, but that’s it, a minor disagreement, in my opinion. And one other thing. In order as a Canadian I can again feel proud of, to be a national of this country, our government has to take some action, whether it’s in the area of international diplomacy or some other area, because I do not see it as accountable to be only ashamed of the Government of Canada for what they have done relationship with the Indigenous people. I would like to feel good about the country, which has a lot of good things going for it.

GR: Yeah, that’s a good way to close going into Canada Day. So that’s…Well, you take care and again thank you so much for this interview.

KPL: Thank you!

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. coat.ncf.ca/P4C/69/69_8-14.htm
  2. Honouring for the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015); ehprnh2mwo3.exactdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf
  3. www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-day-an-opportunity-for-reflection-pm-trudeau-1.5485651

 

First published by Global Research on May 25, 2008.

Author’s Note: 

This article below was offered to the Canadian media as an exclusive piece last week, and was rejected or ignored by the following newspapers: 

The Globe and Mail, The National Post, The Montreal Gazette, The Toronto Star, The Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun, The Winnipeg Free Press, The Edmonton Sun, The Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Alberni Valley Times, The Epoch Times, and the Victoria Times Colonist: 

Rend your hearts, and not your garments Joel 2:17

Kevin Arnett, May 25, 2008

***

All major newspapers in Canada refused to publish the truth regarding the residential schools as conveyed by Rev. Kevin Arnett. We are reposting this important article on Canada Day 2021.

Let us reflect on our history and how our history has been the object of censorship and distortion (including online censorship and the manipulation of search engines)

Please forward Kevin Arnett’s article far and wide,

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Canada Day 2021

 

***

Imagine for a moment that your own child goes missing and never comes home. Years pass, and one day, the person responsible for your child’s death is identified, but he evades arrest and imprisonment simply by issuing to you an “apology” for your loss. He even speaks of seeking “reconciliation” with you.

How would you feel?

Hold on to that feeling, and now multiply your loss by many thousands of children, and make the guilty person the government and churches of Canada. Do so, and you will have arrived in a human way at the Indian Residential Schools atrocity.

One of my former parishioners put it another way:

“What we did to those native children was an abomination, and abominations aren’t resolved with words and money. We need to have our hearts torn in two and be changed. We’ve got to stand, ourselves, under the judgment of God.”

I doubt that Stephen Harper would be satisfied with an apology if his own kids were hauled off and killed for being practicing Christians. Yet on June 11, 2008, he will stand up on our behalf and try to apologize to other nations for having exterminated their children.

The whole effort seems more than ludicrous, or obscene. One cannot, after all, apologize to the dead. But the truth is, the government’s planned “apology” to native people is an enormous exercise in deception – primarily self-deception.

Do we even know the meaning of that easily uttered term, “apologize”?

It actually has a double meaning, according to the internet Dictionary: a) “an acknowledgment of regret for a fault or offense” and b) “a formal justification, defense or excuse for one’s actions”.

That is, in our vernacular understanding of the term, an “apology” can be a genuine regret for one’s acts; but it can equally be a way to evade responsibility for one’s acts, by justifying oneself before one’s victim.

The legal understanding of the word, however, is more specific, and has nothing to do with regret: “apology” is defined simply as “a disclaimer of intentional error or offense”.

A disclaimer.

Now, I’m assuming that the government of Canada relies on legal definitions – operating, as it claims, “under the rule of law” – rather than popularly understood ones. So we must realize that when the government and its Prime Minister uses the term “apology”, its understanding of the word is the legal one: namely, “a disclaimer of intentional error or offense”.

In other words, on June 11, Stephen Harper will issue to the world a disclaimer to the effect that the Indian Residential Schools were not an intentional offense.

It’s not surprising that the Prime Minister will be making such an outrageous and unsupportable claim, since if he ever admitted that the residential schools were intentional, he’d be the first defendant in the dock at an international war crimes trial.

But more important, this effort by our government – and the churches it is protecting – to be absolved of their own crimes is taking place under the illusory pretense of making amends with native people, when its purpose is simply to legally exonerate itself of culpability for the deaths of thousands of children.

This, indeed, has been the norm for both church and state ever since the first lawsuit was launched by residential school survivors in February of 1996. An army of court scholars and legal experts has generated a mountain of “holocaust denial” at every level of Canadian society during the past dozen years, to convince the world that the daily death and torture at the residential schools was not intentional at all.

Such an “apologetic” agenda defies logic and common sense, as in the statements from the government’s misnamed “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” scholars that, while evidence shows that residential school children were being buried “four or five to a grave”, and that the death rate in these schools stayed constant at fifty percent for over forty years, these deaths were “not intended”.

To believe that, one has to ignore the evidence of senior government officials like Dr. Peter Bryce, who found that children were regularly being “deliberately exposed to communicable diseases” in residential schools, and left to die untreated. The word Bryce used was “deliberately”. How else, after all, do so many children die?

All of this legal hoop jumping and evasion of responsibility might make sense to the government, and pay the salaries of their intellectual mercenaries, but it does nothing to advance the cause of truth telling and humanity in Canada, and snuffs out the lives of our victims ever more quickly.

I know this all too well, having spent most of my waking hours for years as a counsellor, advocate and chronicler for many aboriginal survivors of the death camps we like to call residential schools. And what I’ve learned from such work is that we cannot come to grips with something that we don’t understand.

The truth is, Euro-Canadian society still doesn’t understand what these “schools” were, either at a “head” or a “heart” level. If one believes the officers of the churches and government, the residential schools “issue” is all about money and verbal gymnastics. Yet none of these officials, as far as I know, have broken down and wept in public over the deaths of so many innocent ones; nor have they even offered to return their remains to their families for a proper burial.

Oddly enough, the very same officials continually and glibly speak about “healing the past”, without even knowing their own history, and about “solutions” to the “residential school problem”, as if they understand what that problem is – not realizing that, to quote William Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

For in truth, there is not now, nor has there ever been, an “Indian problem” in Canada. Rather, the problem is a “white” one. The problem is with us.

I won’t point to collapsing eco-systems or troops in Afghanistan to prove this point. Nor need I pose the paradox of how educated men and women, with families of their own and a professed “Christian morality”, could drive needles through infants’ tongues at Indian residential schools, throw three year olds down stairs, sterilize healthy kids, and deliberately allow children to cough their lives away from tuberculosis, and then bury them in secret graves.

The evidence of the problem is more immediate, and far closer to home, in our continued segregation of aboriginal people into a lower standard of humanity that allows them to die at a rate fifteen times greater than other people of this country.

After all, if we Canadians are who we imagine ourselves to be – an enlightened society that “assimilated” native people into our ranks, and made them our equals – then why has not a single person ever been brought to trial for the death of a residential school child? Why is the disappearance of tens of thousands of native children in these schools not the subject of a major criminal investigation? And why is there an Indian Act, and not an Irish or an Italian Act?

Being, in reality, an unofficially apartheid society that operates, in practice, with two standards of justice – one for native people, and one for the rest of us – Canada can no more cure the legacy of the residential schools than it can stop chewing up the earth for short-term comfort and profit. At least, not this side of a fundamental moral and social revolution.

The fact that we are far from such a change struck home to me a few months ago when the the government’s fraudulent “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” announced that, although criminal acts did indeed occur in the residential schools, there would be no criminal investigation of these schools: an unbelievably brazen subversion of justice that evoked not a murmur of protest in the media or among the good citizens and politicians of Canada.

Regardless of this, there are things that can be done to overcome the genocidal residential schools legacy, and do justice, for once, to the survivors.

Rather than issuing verbal and self-serving “apologies” which change nothing, or staging a sham “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” that has no power even to subpoena evidence, the government and all of us could take these kind of bold measures:

1. Declare an Official Nation-wide Day of Mourning for Residential School Victims, dead and living.

2. Fully disclose what happened in the residential schools – naming the crimes, the perpetrators, and the cover-up – by launching an International War Crimes Tribunal with the power to subpoena, arrest and prosecute those responsible.

3. Bring home the remains of all children who died in these schools for a proper burial, and establish public memorial sites for them.

4. Create National Aboriginal Holocaust Museums.

5. End federal tax exemption for the Catholic, Anglican and United Church of Canada, in accordance with the Nuremburg Legal Principles concerning organizations complicit in crimes against humanity.

6. Abolish the Indian Act and Indian and Northern Affairs.

7. Recognize indigenous sovereignty and return all stolen lands and resources to indigenous nations.

An Irish relative once told me that the way her country is evolving away from eight centuries of warfare is through a simple formula:

“First you remember; then you grieve; then you heal”.

Instead of skipping the first two steps, as Mr. Harper and too many of our people are trying to do “apologetically”, it is time that Canadians found the courage to truly remember and admit to the world what we did to the first peoples of this land, and grieve our actions in the manner of people who truly rend their own hearts and want to change.

Perhaps then “healing and reconciliation” can become something more than an overworked political catch-phrase.

Kevin Annett is a community minister in Vancouver who is the author of two books on Indian Residential Schools and an award-winning film maker.

Posted by MNN Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on First Nations: Why an Apology is Wrong, and Deceptive: Bringing Humanity to Bear on the Residential School Atrocity
  • Tags:

Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

July 2nd, 2021 by Colin Todhunter

All Global Research articles 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.

***

How do you make a potentially dangerous and ineffective drug appear like a miracle of modern science? You could, for instance, enrol only certain people in clinical trials and exclude others or bring the study to a close as soon as you see a spike in the data that implies evidence of effectiveness.

There are many ways to do it.

According to health practitioner and writer Craig Stellpflug in his article ‘Big Pharma: Getting away with murder’ (2012), the strategy is to get in quick, design the study to get the result you want, get out fast and make lots of money.

Stellpflug says:

“If a study comes up negative for your favorite drug, just don’t publish it! 68 per cent of all drug studies are swept under the carpet to keep those pesky side effects from being reported. Only 32 per cent of studies come up positive and a lot of those studies are ‘shortened’ to limit the long-term findings. Studies cut short were found to overestimate the study drug’s effectiveness and miss dangerous side effects and complications by an average of 30 per cent. This would explain the amazing 85 per cent drug study success rate in the hands of Big Pharma according to the Annals of Internal Medicine.”

Of course, it helps to get the regulatory agencies on board and to convince the media and health officials of the need for your wonder product and its efficacy and safety. In the process, well-paid career scientists and ‘science’ effectively become shaped and led by corporate profit margins and political processes.

And what better way to make a financial killing than by making a mountain out of a molehill and calling it a ‘pandemic’?

COVID-19 vaccine concerns

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by two health professors who said politics — not science — is behind the failure of health officials and the media to fully inform the public about the potential risks associated with COVID vaccines.

Although the article is available in full to subscribers only, the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) website provides an informative summary.

The CHD notes that Dr Joseph A Ladapo, associate professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine, and Dr Harvey A Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, wrote that while prominent scientists have raised concerns that the safety risks of Covid-19 vaccines have been underestimated, the politics of vaccination has relegated their concerns to the outskirts of scientific thinking.

The two professors noted that clinical studies do not always tell the full story about the safety of medications and that the health effects often remain unknown until the medicine is rolled out to the general public. Examples include Vioxx, a pain reliever that increased the risk of heart attack and stroke; antidepressants that appeared to increase suicide attempts among young adults; and an influenza vaccine used in the 2009-10 swine flu epidemic that was suspected of causing febrile convulsions and narcolepsy in children.

The authors added that clinical trials often enrol patients who are not representative of the general population and more is learnt about drug safety from real-world evidence. With this in mind, they said the large clustering of side effects following COVID vaccines is concerning as is the silence around these potential signals of harm.

Serious adverse events reported by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System include low platelets, heart inflammation, deep-vein thrombosis and death. However, the two scientists argue this is likely to be a fraction of the total number of adverse events.

They criticise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ignoring the reported serious COVID vaccine side effects.

The authors acknowledge the risks of COVID vaccines in certain populations, not least children, may outweigh the benefits. They also state that not a single published study has demonstrated that patients with a prior infection benefit from COVID-19 vaccination. Something which is not readily acknowledged by the CDC or Anthony Fauci, an indication, according to the authors, of how deeply entangled pandemic politics is in science.

They conclude that public health authorities are making a mistake and risking public erosion of trust by not being forthcoming about the possibility of harm from the vaccines.

Merck and Vioxx

It is revealing that the two scientists refer to Vioxx, which was once popular for treating the symptoms of arthritis. It was removed from the market in 2004 after concerns that it may have injured hundreds of thousands of patients, while possibly killing tens of thousands in the US.

Dr David Graham, whistleblower and senior FDA investigator, criticised the FDA’s approval process of Vioxx (rofecoxib), an anti-inflammatory drug administered orally. In various interviews and congressional hearings, he described the outcome of Vioxx as disastrous and unparalleled in the history of the US. He added that the saga surrounding Vioxx had constituted an unprecedented failure of the nation’s system of drug approval and oversight.

In 2004, Graham argued that the painkiller had caused 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks in the US – 30-40 per cent of which were fatal – over the previous five years. Nevertheless, manufactured by Monsanto (a company with a proven track record of corrupt practices) and co-marketed by Merck, Vioxx became a leading drug in providing pain relief from the symptoms of various forms of arthritis.

Research presented to the FDA in early 2001 showed that patients taking Vioxx had a higher risk of heart attack compared to those taking some of the older alternatives.

However, the real game-changer came in 2004 when Dr Graham released the findings that found Vioxx increased the chance of heart attack and death from cardiac arrest significantly more than its biggest rival on the market. Dosages of Vioxx in excess of the recommended daily dose of 25 milligrams were also found to more than triple a patient’s risk compared to those who had not taken painkillers.

In September 2004, Vioxx was pulled from the market. But in 2006, more damning findings were revealed by a study that showed that some patients had likely suffered from a heart attack much sooner after starting treatment with Vioxx. Appearing in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study showed that 25 per cent of the patients who had heart attacks while taking Vioxx did so within two weeks of starting the drug. This indicated that Vioxx-related cardiovascular risks may occur much earlier than previously thought.

The FDA was criticised for its close relationship with Merck and witnesses at a senate finance committee hearing described how danger signals of Vioxx went ignored. Indeed, a 2007 article published by the National Institutes of Health alleged that even though scientists at Merck knew that the drug might adversely affect the cardiovascular system, none of the intervention studies submitted to the FDA in 1998 were designed to evaluate such risk.

Robber barons and guinea pigs

Merck reported over $11 billion in Vioxx sales during the five years the drug was on the market. To date, the company has paid nearly $6 billion in litigation settlements and criminal fines over Vioxx. Still, in hard-nosed commercial terms, it was a massive success, resulting in a $5 billion gain for the company.

In May 2021, it was reported that Covid-19 vaccines had created at least nine new billionaires. According to research by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, the new billionaires included Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel and Ugur Sahin, the CEO of BioNTech, which has produced a vaccine with Pfizer. Both CEOs were then worth around $4 billion. Senior executives from China’s CanSino Biologics and early investors in Moderna have also become billionaires.

Although the nine new billionaires are worth a combined $19.3 billion, the vaccines were largely funded by public money. For instance, according to a May 2021 report by CNN, BioNTech received €325 million from the German government for the development of the vaccine. The company made a net profit of €1.1 billion in the first three months of the year, largely thanks to its share of sales from the Covid-19 vaccine, compared with a loss of €53.4 million for the same period last year.

Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine sales reached $1.7 billion in the first three months of this year and it had its first profitable quarter ever. Moderna is expected to make $13.2 billion in Covid-19 vaccine revenue in 2021. The company received billions of dollars in funding from the US government for development of its vaccine.

Big Pharma has every reason to perpetuate the notion of a deadly global pandemic and to inflate the efficacy of and need for its vaccines. And it, along with its associates in government and at the WHO, has every reason to discredit alternative and arguably more effective treatments like Ivermectin (see the online article ‘The Campaign against Ivermectin: WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence‘).

There is no need to cover ground here that has been covered extensively elsewhere but it is now abundantly clear that many continue to question the overall official COVID-19 narrative, the fear propaganda, the specific data, the PCR testing protocols, the apparent conflicts of interest and vaccine efficacy.

Moreover, A group of 57 leading scientists, doctors and policy experts recently released a report calling in to question the safety and efficacy of the current Covid-19 vaccines. They are calling for an immediate end to all vaccine programmes.

There are hundreds of scientists who have questioned government and WHO strategy and who have brought attention to the extremely low risks posed by COVID to the bulk of the population as well as the destructive (ineffective) policies and decisions pertaining to lockdowns and other restrictions.

There are many other top scientists who are questioning the need for mass vaccination and who have also pointed out credible and extremely disturbing side effects (real and potential) of such a strategy, not least Dr Robert Malone, credited with developing mRNA vaccine technology, Dr Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist, and Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, a prominent virologist and vaccine expert.

Unlike Merck and Vioxx, it will be governments (the public) that foot any future indemnity costs of these experimental vaccines that have escaped proper (long-term) testing. And given the scale of the rollout, the damage caused could make the adverse effects of Vioxx seem a mere blip.

Vaccines that were brought to market via emergency authorisation use for an ‘emergency’ constructed on the basis of deaths so often wrongly attributed to COVID-19.  Brought to market on the basis of flawed PCR test protocols with magnification cycles primed to create a ‘casedemic’.

To borrow from Dr David Graham: are we currently witnessing something more disastrous and unparalleled in the history of the world, let alone the US: an unprecedented failure of gobal drug approval and oversight?

In the meantime, while billions of vaccinated people serve as human guinea pigs, the newly crowned vaccine kings will make hay while the sun shines (and the fear continues).

*

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.

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer and analyst specialising in development, food and agriculture based in Europe/India.

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”

According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%

Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance

*

While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments. At this point, it seems quite clear that this was done to protect the COVID jab rollout.

The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other alternatives available. In a sane world, the COVID gene therapies would never have gotten an EUA, as there are several safe and effective treatment options available.

One treatment that stands out above the others is ivermectin, a decades-old antiparasitic drug that is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medications.

What makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is the fact that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, as well as the inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary. It’s been shown to significantly inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro,1 speed up viral clearance and dramatically reduce the risk of death.

Gold Standard Review Supports Use of Ivermectin

Dr. Tess Lawrie, a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd (video above).2 in the U.K., has been trying to get the word out about ivermectin. To that end, she helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel3and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference,4 which was held online, April 24, 2021.

Twelve medical experts5 from around the world shared their knowledge during this conference, reviewing mechanism of action, protocols for prevention and treatment, including so-called long-hauler syndrome, research findings and real world data. All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.6

Lawrie has published several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looking at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment.”7

Her February 2021 meta-analysis, which included 13 studies, found a 68% reduction in deaths. This is an underestimation of the beneficial effect, because one of the studies included used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the control arm. Since HCQ is an active treatment that has also been shown to have a positive impact on outcomes, it’s not surprising that this particular study did not rate ivermectin as better than the control treatment (which was HCQ).

Two months later, March 31, 2021, Lawrie published an updated analysis that included two additional randomized controlled trials. This time, the mortality reduction was 62%. When four studies with high risk of bias were removed during a subsequent sensitivity analysis, they ended up with a 72% reduction in deaths.

(Sensitivity analyses are done to double-check and verify results. Since the sensitivity analysis rendered an even better result, it confirms the initial finding. In other words, ivermectin is unlikely to reduce mortality by anything less than 62%.)

Lawrie reviewed the February and March analyses and other meta-analyses in an interview with Dr. John Campbell, featured in “More Good News on Ivermectin.” Lawrie has now published her third systematic review. According to this paper, published June 17, 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics:8

“Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared to no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38 …) … Low-certainty evidence found that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86% … Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence.

Low-certainly evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for ‘need for mechanical ventilation,’ whereas effect estimates for ‘improvement’ and ‘deterioration’ clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials …”

World Health Organization Refuses to Recommend Ivermectin

Despite the fact that most of the evidence favors ivermectin, when the WHO finally updated its guidance on ivermectin at the end of March 2021,9,10 they largely rejected it, saying more data are needed. They only recommend it for patients who are enrolled in a clinical trial.

Yet, they based their negative recommendation on a review that included just five studies, which still ended up showing a 72% reduction in deaths. What’s more, in the WHO’s summary of findings, they suddenly include data from seven studies, which combined show an 81% reduction in deaths. The confidence interval is also surprisingly high, with a 64% reduction in deaths on the low end, and 91% on the high end.

Even more remarkable, their absolute effect estimate for standard of care is 70 deaths per 1,000, compared to just 14 deaths per 1,000 when treating with ivermectin. That’s a reduction in deaths of 56 per 1,000 when using the drug. The confidence interval is between 44 and 63 fewer deaths per 1,000.

Despite that, the WHO refuses to recommend this drug for COVID-19. Rabindra Abeyasinghe, a WHO representative to the Philippines, commented that using ivermectin without “strong” evidence is “harmful” because it can give “false confidence” to the public.11

Why Ivermectin Has Been Censored

If you’ve been trying to share the good news about ivermectin, you’re undoubtedly noticed that doing so is incredibly difficult. Many social media companies are banning such posts outright.

Promoting ivermectin on YouTube, or even discussing benefits cited in published research, violates the platform’s posting policies. DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein, Ph.D., is but one of the victims of this censorship policy.

His interviews with medical and scientific experts such as Dr. Pierre Kory, a lung and ICU specialist, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the president and chief medical officer12 of the FLCCC, and Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology,13 have been deleted from the platform. The interview with Malone had more than 587,330 views by the time it was wiped from YouTube.14

But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15

“What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?

What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’

The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.

The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.”

The WHO and Drug Companies Are Severely Compromised

The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16

As reported by Bannister, Merck, the original patent holder of ivermectin, also has severe conflicts of interest that appear to have played a role in the rejection of ivermectin. He writes:17

“Ivermectin has been used in humans for 35 years and over 4 billion doses have been administered. Merck, the original patent holder,18 donated 3.7 billion doses to developing countries … Its safety is documented at doses twenty times the normal …

Merck’s patent on Ivermectin expired in 1996 and they produce less than 5% of global supply. In 2020 they were asked to assist in Nigerian and Japanese trials but declined both.

In 2021 Merck released a statement claiming that Ivermectin was not an effective treatment against Covid-19 and bizarrely claimed, ‘A concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies’ of the drug they donated to be distributed in mass rollouts, by primary care workers, in mass campaigns, to millions in developing countries.

The media reported the Merck statement as a blinding truth without looking at the conflict of interests when days later, Merck received $356m from the US government to develop an investigational therapeutic.

The WHO even quoted Merck, as evidence, that it didn’t work, in their recommendation against the use of Ivermectin. It’s a dangerous world when corporate marketing determines public health policy.”

FLCCC Calls for Widespread and Early Use of Ivermectin

In the U.S., the FLCCC has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19,19,20 and Kory has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 202021 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.22

As noted by the FLCCC:23

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”

The FLCCC has published three different COVID-19 protocols, all of which include the use of ivermectin:

  • I-MASK+24 — a prevention and early at-home treatment protocol
  • I-MATH+25 — an in-hospital treatment protocol. The clinical and scientific rationale for this protocol has been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine26in mid-December 2020
  • I-RECOVER27 — a long-term management protocol for long-haul syndrome

In addition to Lawrie’s meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics, the FLCCC has also published a scientific review28 in that same journal.

This paper, “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” published in the May/June 2021 issue, found that, based on a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials, ivermectin produces “large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance.”

Ivermectin Significantly Reduces Infection Risk and Death

The FLCCC also found that when used as a preventive, ivermectin “significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19.” In one study, of those given a dose of 0.4 mg per kilo on Day 1 and a second dose on Day 7, only 2% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 10% of controls who did not get the drug.

In another, family members of patients who had tested positive were given two doses of 0.25 mg/kg, 72 hours apart. At follow up two weeks later, only 7.4% of the exposed family members who took ivermectin tested positive, compared to 58.4% of those who did not take ivermectin.

In a third, which unfortunately was unblended, the difference between the two groups was even greater. Only 6.7% of the ivermectin group tested positive compared to 73.3% of controls. According to the FLCCC, “the difference between the two groups was so large and similar to the other prophylaxis trial results that confounders alone are unlikely to explain such a result.”

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.

It’s worth noting that ivermectin’s effectiveness appears largely unaffected by variants, meaning it has worked on any and all variants that have so far popped up around the world. Additional evidence for ivermectin will hopefully come from the British PRINCIPLE trial,29 which began June 23, 2021. Ivermectin will be evaluated as an outpatient treatment in this study, which will be the largest clinical trial to date.

Ivermectin in the Treatment of Long-Haul Syndrome

The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.

Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.

Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.

While ivermectin has a good track record when it comes to prevention and early treatment, it can be tricky to obtain, depending on where you live and who your doctor is.

A highly effective alternative that anyone can use, anywhere, is nebulized hydrogen peroxide. It’s extremely safe and very inexpensive. The biggest cost is the one-time purchase of a good tabletop jet nebulizer. To learn more, download Dr. Thomas Levy’s free e-book, “Rapid Virus Recovery,” in which he details how to use this treatment.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) recently posted more than 50 video presentations from the pay-for-view Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination held online October 16 to 18, 2020, and made them available to everyone for free.

The conference’s theme was “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century” and it featured physicians, scientists and other health professionals, human rights activists, faith community leaders, constitutional and civil rights attorneys, authors and parents of vaccine injured children talking about vaccine science, policy, law and ethics and infectious diseases, including coronavirus and COVID-19 vaccines.

In December 2020, a U.K. company published false and misleading information about NVIC and its conference, which prompted NVIC to open up the whole conference for free viewing. The conference has everything you need to educate yourself and protect your personal freedoms and liberties with respect to your health.

Don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity. I was a speaker at this empowering conference and urge you to watch these video presentations before they’re censored and taken away by the technocratic elite.

*

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

Notes

1 Antiviral Research June 2020; 178: 104787

2 Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.

3 Trial Site News April 9, 2021

4 Ivermectin for COVID Conference

5 Ivermectin for COVID Conference Speakers List

6 Bird-group.org Conference videos

7 Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis January 3, 2021 (PDF)

8 American Journal of Therapeutics June 17, 2021 [Epub ahead of print]

9 WHO Therapeutics and COVID-19: Living Guideline March 31, 2021

10 WHO March 31, 2021

11 The Blaze April 1, 2021

12 FLCCC Alliance

13 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

14 Taibbi Substack June 19, 2021

15, 16, 17 Biz News May 12, 2021

18 Merck Statement on Ivermectin Use During COVID Pandemic February 4, 2021

19, 21 FLCCC December 8, 2020

20 Medpage Today January 6, 2021

22 FLCCC January 7, 2021 Press Release (PDF)

23 Newswise December 8, 2020

24 FLCCC Alliance I-MASK+ Protocol

25 FLCCC MATH+ Hospital Protocol

26 Journal of Intensive Care Medicine December 15, 2020 DOI: 10.1177/0885066620973585

27 FLCCC I-RECOVER protocol

28 American Journal of Therapeutics May/June 2021; Volume 28(3): e299-e318

29 Principletrial.org

Featured image is from The Conservative Woman

Horn of Africa: Washington’s Next Arab Spring?

July 2nd, 2021 by F. William Engdahl

All Global Research articles 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 Biden State Department has just named career diplomat Jeffrey Feltman to be Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa. Given the geopolitical powder keg in the region and given the dark history of Feltman, especially in Lebanon and during the infamous CIA Arab Spring interventions after 2009, the relevant question is whether Washington has decided to explode the entire region from Ethiopia down to Egypt into a repeat of the Syria chaos only far more dangerous. And it’s not only the US which is active in the region.

The group of African countries stretching from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia, astride the geopolitically strategic Gulf of Aden and Red Sea comprise the formal Horn of Africa. It is extended politically and economically often to include Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya and Uganda. This region is strategic among other reasons as the source of the Nile, Africa’s most important river, that flows some 4100 miles north to the Mediterranean in Egypt. The Horn of Africa is also a gateway to major world shipping flows via the Red Sea and the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean. The recent bizarre blockage of a huge container ship that blocked the canal for days, backing up a significant portion of world trade, is indicative of the region’s importance.

A political volcano

The Horn of Africa is clearly being made the target of a new wave of covert and overt destabilization. Now that the Democrats again took control of the US Presidency, the interventions into the region that reached a high point in 2015, with the proxy US war in Syria and the installation of US-backed Muslim Brotherhood regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya in the misnamed Arab Spring Color Revolutions, are apparently resuming, as a high Washington priority.

The February 2021 UN appointment of Volker Perthes as UN Special Representative for Sudan and the June appointment by the Biden Administration State Department of Jeffrey Feltman as US Special Representative to the Horn of Africa signal what is being put into action. Feltman and Perthes worked closely together in black operations during the Arab Spring on the destruction of Lebanon and the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Both were allegedly closely working with the CIA as well.

In accepting his new post in April, coming out of “semi-retirement,” Feltman notably told Foreign Policy magazine that the region had the potential to spiral into a full-blown regional crisis that would make Syria look like “child’s play.” Feltman said, “Ethiopia has 110 million people. If the tensions in Ethiopia would result in a widespread civil conflict that goes beyond Tigray, Syria will look like child’s play by comparison.” He outlined his intended focus: “In terms of an immediate focus, without question, there has to be attention paid to Tigray,” adding that his other leading priorities were the Ethiopia-Sudan border dispute, and the tensions over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

Here we have the preconditions for the destabilization of Africa and the entire region.

Tigray war

The Western powers, including the US Government’s National Endowment for Democracy, have been quietly preparing the coming destabilization for several years. A key step was the 2018 regime change in Ethiopia. In a complex agreement the minority ruling coalition of Tigrayan ethnics agreed after months of well-organized protest to cede power to a broad coalition including their bitter opponents in the Oromo ethnic group. The Tigray in the north contains a minority of 6% in Ethiopia and the Oromo are the largest minority with 34%. In April, 2018 under major international pressure and clear NED regime change intervention, the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front who had ruled with an iron fist since 2012, were forced to step down and agree a transitional coalition until elections to be held in 2020. Abiy Ahmed from the broad ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front and first Oromo to be prime minister. He immediately began steps to replace the EPRDF coalition that has been dominated by the TPLF with a new Prosperity party under his domination.

Here it gets complicated. One of his first acts as Prime Minister was a US-brokered move to end a 20 year war with neighboring Eritrea and sign a treaty which won the British-educated Abiy a Nobel Peace Prize. Eritrea fought a 30-year war until 1991 for independence from Ethiopia. Border disputes between the Tigray Region and Eritrea kept the two at war until the Abiy peace agreement. Suspiciously, Abiy excluded the Tigray TPLF from the peace talks. Now it is being claimed that Abiy had a sinister motive to move against the well-armed regional government in Tigray. Indeed he soon enlisted a willing Eritrean government to create a brutal two-front assault on Tigray forces. In August 2020 when Abiy broke the transitional agreement for national elections, the Tigray region ignored the indefinite postponement and held Tigray regional elections, resulting in armed conflict with the Ethiopian national army, which has since 2020 been joined by Eritrean forces against Tigrayans.

The Tigray group accused Nobel Peace Prize winner Abiy of moving to create an Oromo dictatorship. Oromo people were a principle target of Tigray rule before they stepped down in 2018. The transitional agreement, somewhat like that under Mandela in South Africa, was an agreement of national reconciliation despite past injustices.

It also promised the Tigray region political autonomy and protection against foreign (i.e. Eritrean) forces. But rather than prepare for free elections to create a truly federal state as agreed, Abiy began “purging, and persecution of many key members of the Tigray TPLF including army generals and businesses. This led the TPLF and majority Tigrayan elites to believe they were deceived into giving up power with false promises,” as Jawar Mohammed, an architect of the reconciliation and a leading organizer of the 2016 Ethiopian protests, described it. This is the broad background to the present situation. Jawar, an Oromo, coordinated the protests from the US where his Minneapolis-based Oromia Media Network of satellite TV was based. After he returned to Addis Ababa in 2018 hailed a hero of the liberation movement, the Stanford-educated Jawar was jailed in September 2020 as a terrorist on a phony pretext by Abiy. Abiy’s bent for power was becoming clear.

The damn dam

As he consolidated power, Abiy also refused to negotiate a compromise on one of the most explosive issues in Africa—construction of the huge Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) that, when completed has the potential not only to generate electricity for Ethiopia, but also to cut off vital water from the Nile to Sudan and Egypt. For Abiy the GERD dam is a symbol of his drive to create a national unity around his rule.

 

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile that provides 85 percent of the Nile’s discharge, began construction in 2011 at an estimated cost of $4.9 billion. It is some 30 kilometers from the border with Sudan. Abiy’s regime has so far refused every attempt at negotiation on the dam with Egypt and Sudan. For around 100 million Egyptians, the Nile’s waters are their “single source of livelihood.” More than 90% of water in Egypt comes from the Blue Nile. Egypt has called for UN intervention which Ethiopia’s Abiy rejects out-of-hand. Abiy has begun filling the dam, a process that will take some 5-7 years, with no consultation on rate of fill or other vital features with either Sudan or Egypt. Egypt has threatened possible military action as has Sudan.

Enter Jeffrey Feltman

Image on the right: Jeffrey Feltman (CC BY 2.0)

Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, United Nations, Jeffrey Feltman (15943859392).jpg

Into this explosive region now the Biden State Department has sent Special Envoy Jeffrey Feltman to deal with the Horn of Africa. Feltman has a murky, even dark history. According to French strategic analyst Thierry Meyssan who lived in Damascus, Feltman as US Ambassador to Lebanon in 2005 organized the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. He organized a UN commission that suggested Syria’s Assad was involved with the crime, part of a US plan to split Lebanon from the protection of Syria. Feltman then organized a Color revolution, dubbed the Cedar Revolution, demanding Syrian military and security forces leave Lebanon. 

Feltman, working together with then-head of the German government-funded foreign policy think-tank, SWP, Volker Perthes, a Syria specialist, advanced the Obama-Clinton Arab Spring across the Middle East from Cairo to Tripoli and beyond. Their focus after 2011 was to topple Bashar al-Assad in Syria and turn the country into rubble with support from Erdogan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Their aim was to bring the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia) into power across the Mideast. Feltman was then the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs under Secretary Clinton. The two, Feltman and Perthes, continued their regime change collusion under UN auspices after June 2012, when Feltman was appointed Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, a position he held until April 2018.

Feltman at the UN had a $250 million budget to intervene where he saw a “UN” necessity, and Syria was at the top of his list. The UN post took focus away from Washington’s role in the Arab Spring destabilizations. He oversaw the recruiting of tens of thousands of Islamist mercenaries from Al Qaeda, ISIS (terrorist organizations, both banned in Russia) and other foreign terrorists to destroy Assad and Syria. It was part of a 2010 top secret Obama Presidential Study Directive-11 (PDS-11), calling for Washington’s backing of the secret fundamentalist Islamic Muslim Brotherhood paramilitary sect across the Middle Eastern Muslim world—and with it, the unleashing of a reign of terror that would change the entire world.

Feltman, working quietly with Perthes who became UN’s Special Envoy to Syria from 2015 to 2016 under Feltman, organized the Syrian opposition as well as financial support to recruit ISIS and Al Qaeda from abroad to destroy the Syrian regime aided by Turkey. The project hit a major roadblock after September 2015 when Russia, on request of the Syrian government, entered the Syrian war. In May 2021, the European Union renewed for one year its sanctions against any person or firm participating in the reconstruction of Syria, in accordance with the secret instructions issued, in 2017, by Jeffrey Feltman when he was serving as UN Under-Secretary General. The document was made public in 2018 by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.

Now Feltman is back in the region as Envoy to the Horn of Africa. His old co-conspirator, Volker Perthes, since February , 2021 is officially UN Special Representative of the Secretary General for Sudan. To round out the old regime change team, Biden State Department has named Brett H McGurk to be National Security Council head for Near East and North Africa. When Feltman was organizing the Arab Spring and the destruction of Syria, McGurk served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran from 2014 through January 2016. McGurk previously worked as advisor in 2004 to Iraq Ambassador John Negroponte and General David Petraeus to organize the Sunni vs Shi’ite civil war in Iraq that led to the later creation of ISIS.

And China…

The regrouping of the Feltman team now in the Horn of Africa region suggests prospects for enduring peace and stability there are grim indeed. As Feltman put it, the Horn of Africa could make Syria look like “child’s play.” It remains to be seen how China, the country with the largest investment in not only Ethiopia, but also in Eritrea, Sudan and in Egypt, will react to the new US deployments in the Horn of Africa. Virtually all of the sea trade between China and Europe passes the Horn of Africa along the Red Sea on its way to the Egyptian Suez Canal.

China has extended well over $1 billion in credits to construct the electricity grid from the GERD dam to cities in Ethiopia. Beijing was far the largest foreign investor during the Tigray TPLF rule with some $14 billion in various projects as of 2018. Since the peace agreement with Ethiopia, China has bought two major mines in Eritrea for gold, copper and zinc. Previously Beijing was the largest investor in Eritrea during the years of war with Ethiopia, and has invested in modernizing of Eritrea’s Massawa port to export copper and gold from China’s mines there. In Sudan where Chinese oil companies have been active for more than two decades, China has a major stake in both Sudan and South Sudan. In Egypt where President El-Sisi has formally joined China’s Belt and Road, there are major ties as well with Chinese investments into the Suez Canal region, container port terminals, telecommunications, light railways and coal power plants to as much as $20 billion. And just to add to the complexity, since 2017 the China PLA Navy has operated China’s first overseas military base directly adjacent to the US Navy base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti at the Horn of Africa. 

All this creates a geopolitical cocktail of ominous scale, and Washington is not bringing the most honest diplomats into the cocktail bar, but rather regime change specialists like Jeffrey Feltman.

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Of relevance to the current corona crisis, this article was first published on June 15, 2020

***

On June 22, 1633, a sick and beaten old man, on his knees, had to “abjure, curse and detest” his view that “the earth moves and is not the centre of the world.” It was “one of the most deplorable acts of the Inquisition”, relevant to our times, according to astrophysicist Maria Livio in a new book. [i] He’s right, but not because of “fake news” and “alternative facts”. Galileo’s relevance hits much closer to home.

He thought abstractly. In his Discorsi he imagines how a body would behave acted upon by no force whatsoever. It is hard to do because friction is ubiquitous, slowing down every motion. Galileo had “a truly phenomenal power of abstraction”, according to Livio. It was part of his science.

He had capacity for philosophy and art. Galileo did not see mountains on the moon. He saw blemishes and reasoned they were mountains. His artistic experience, with light and perspective, helped him. Galileo had an extraordinary grasp of Aristotle. And Galileo took poetry seriously.

All this is in the book. But Livio does not follow Galileo. Worse,  he is unaware. He says there should not be “two cultures”: science and humanities. But there is more to the connection between art and science than simply declaring them connected. Art and science were torn apart by a vision of human beings. José Martí, leader of Cuba’s last war of independence, found the European view so damaging he declared it a greater danger to Latin American independence than US power itself.

It undermines truth.

Livio writes that René Descartes’ individualism enabled the “Galileo phenomenon”, by which he means resistance to truth-denying convention.  Descartes’ individualism, though, was unscientific. He was great, true, but for his question – how to know? —  not his answer. Descartes and David Hume, also mentioned uncritically, were wrong. We study them for this, to go beyond, as Galileo with Aristotle.

Descartes separated mind and body. Hume gave us the “fact/value distinction”, saying we know what is but not what ought to be. No truth about value. They’ve been refuted, whichis progress. Or it should be, if we expected truth from philosophy, which Galileo did. It means some philosophers were wrong, like some great scientists were wrong. Cuban philosopher, Raúl Roa, argued in 1953 that the uncritical acceptance of European liberalism, solidified by the rise of US global power, was “the world’s gravest crisis,” separating art and science, feelings and intellect, body from mind.

Art gives truth. Toni Morrison’s Beloved is a work of fiction. The story is fiction. But when you feel Sethe’s reality as a dehumanized slave, and you understand her choice to kill her children out of love, you get truth. It is true about slavery that it can make it reasonable (not morally right, a different question) for a mother to kill her children out of love.

It is a truth about slavery, and colonialism and imperialism. It is why philosophers in the South, like Roa, and others – Juan Marinello, José Carlos Mariátegui, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz – did not split art and science.  They knew, as Galileo did, that sensitivity and imagination permit naming what you see. Galileo did not see mountains, and many, in a dehumanizing world, do not see human beings, or some.

Descartes’ appealing (mistaken) picture presumes individuals are discreet entities, unified by some coherent story we pursue our entire lives, but which can never in fact be coherent. Dostoevsky knew this. Whatever his politics, Dostoevsky’s understanding of the human condition was closer to Marx and Lenin than Descartes. It was because he observed human beings and he trusted intuitions.

He described his writing as “experimental”.[ii] He felt ideas, but ideas “only flash; and what’s needed is full embodiment, which always comes about unexpectedly and suddenly”. That is, he follows no script but instead, like a good improvisor, has a feel for direction, grounded in real life.

Dostoevsky’s characters are contradictory. They face contradictions. In The Idiot, Ippolit, expecting death, makes a surprising declaration: “So be it! I will die looking straight into the well spring of force and life”.He speaks truth. In fact, we all die “looking straight into the well spring of force and life”. We die day by day, moment by moment, as we live. It is the nature of existence: decay, decay, decay.

We avoid this truth in ways Ippolit identifies and rejects. He decries “Christian morality”: “the happy thought that, essentially, it is even better that you’re dying. (Christians like [the prince] always get to that idea: It’s their favorite hobby horse).” The “hobby horse” is obsession with silver linings. Ippolit does not buy it. It is what Lenin called “philosophies of hope”, dependence on invented futures.

Lenin shouldn’t be buried with Stalin.[iii] In the heat of political organizing, preparing revolution, he urged revolutionaries toward Hegel, not Kant. He knew the value of abstract thinking, which is always integral to political organizing, to any organizing, just as it’s needed to identify mountains. Hegel was a relational thinker. Marx was influenced by Hegel although he turned his dialectic upside down.

Lenin knew the nature of truth has practical consequences. According to Livio this very question concerned Galileo his whole life. But Livio doesn’t address it. He tells us there is progress in the Humanities, as in science. But if he believed it, as Galileo did, he’d ask — about Galileo’s question – who got it right and who didn’t.

Marx got it more right than Descartes. Dostoevsky’s characters, realistically, lack the mythical unity Lenin called “hocus pocus of priests”, the real “opiate of the people”, namely, a “yearning for harmony” of self and community that distracts from the reality of existence, which is contradictory. “Les extremités se touchent”,[iv] Ippolit says. Unity of opposites.

It matters to how we live in the world, or ought to. Ippolit declares that his impending death does not in fact distinguish him from the wild, rich, sensual Rogozhin who leads an “immediate, full” life. He even declares that Rogozhin knows it. It is probably true. Most of us know, in quiet moments.

Galileo believed that “facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant observation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.” This includes facts about truth and existence, which is causally interdependent. We can know from science, from philosophy that respects science, and from art showing reality as it is, even if it hurts.

In Galileo’s time, there was “almost religious acceptance of [Aristotle’s] general approach to science.” Today, the “almost religious acceptance” is of Descartes’ individualism and Hume’s denial of moral and philosophical truths. Galileo was not one for such “hocus pocus”. For this, his story matters now.

*

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.

Notes

[i] Galileo and the Science Deniers(Simon and Schuster 2020). See review here https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/galileo-and-science-deniers

[ii] Cited in Richard Pevear, “Introduction”, The Idiot (Vintage 2002)

[iii] E.g. Tomás Krautz, Reconstructing Lenin: An Intellectual biography(NY: Monthy Review Press, 2015)

[iv] The extremes meet.

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

July 2nd, 2021 by Global Research News

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

Who Ordered the Killing of Malcolm X?

July 2nd, 2021 by Jeremy Kuzmarov

All Global Research articles 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 probe into Malcolm X’s killing is part of a new CAM series on the political assassinations of the 1960s. In January 2019, a group of 60 prominent U.S. citizens called upon Congress to reopen the investigations of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X, which we support. The necessity of the investigation is underscored by recent events; notably the near-fascist takeover of the United States under Donald Trump and January 2021 Capitol riot, which may very well have been instigated by agents provocateurs or served as a dress rehearsal for a full-blown coup attempt.

The power of the political right today in the U.S. has resulted from historical factors that were shaped by political developments in the 1960s. The assassination of magnetic liberal leaders at the time—Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy—left a leadership vacuum in the liberal movement that has yet to be refilled. The assassinations presented would-be progressives the message that if they challenged the imperatives of class rule in the U.S. and U.S. military empire—even only mildly—then they would be toast.

This series will provide updated overviews about what we know about the four major political assassinations of the 1960s and address their political implications. We hope to contribute to a push for official reinvestigation of these crimes and uncovering of the complete truth. This would allow for a better public understanding of the forces that have corrupted and destroyed U.S. democracy, with the hope that they might be effectively counteracted.—CovertAction Magazine Editors]

*

On Sunday February 21, 1965, at 3:00 p.m., Malcolm X was gunned down at the Audubon Ballroom on Broadway and 166th Street in Manhattan while delivering a speech to an audience of about 400 people.

Born Malcolm Little, Malcolm X had converted to Islam while in prison and emerged as a powerful spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI)—which he broke with a year before his death—and the radical wing of the U.S. civil rights movement.[1]

Historian John Henrik Clarke wrote that Malcolm’s assassination “extinguished the brightest light we had produced in the 20th century and our movement was set back a generation.”[2]

When Malcolm began his speech at the Audubon, a man’s voice drowned him out by shouting in the middle of the ballroom, “Nigger, get your hands out of my pocket.” As heads turned to hear what the commotion was all about, an incendiary device was triggered at the back, sending smoke into the air.

With people’s attention distracted, a man stood up in the fourth row with a sawed-off shotgun and fired point blank into Malcolm’s chest.

Two men in the front row further jumped up with pistols in their hands and coolly took aim at Malcolm and shot at him like a firing squad, according to a female eyewitness in the third row. Afterwards, they emptied their revolvers into Malcolm’s prone body before fleeing the scene.[3]

As Malcolm fell backwards to the floor, the ballroom was filled with pandemonium.

Text Description automatically generated

Summary of the FBI investigation into Malcolm X’s assassination, February 22, 1965. [Source: cbsnews.com]

NOI Minister Louis Farrakhan characterized Malcolm’s bodyguards as “damn cowardly dogs” and “damn punks” who were “ducking and running” as the bullets flew, implying that they had been compromised.[4]

Two of the gunmen escaped through a narrow seldom-used flight of stairs leading down to the street, while the others formed a column and tried to escape through the front.[5]

Talmadge Hayer, 22, of Paterson, New Jersey, was shot in the leg, allegedly by Malcolm’s Secretary, Reuben Francis.

He was subsequently trapped by a mob and almost torn apart before he was arrested by two police officers whose squad car was cruising in the neighborhood.

Hayer was found with a clip of .45-caliber bullets in his pocket which matched the murder weapons found at the scene. In court, he confessed to the crime, though never said who sent him to kill Malcolm, only that he was a foot soldier, a “part of a machine.”[6]

Hayer served 44 years in prison before his release in April 2010, at which time he claimed to have had “deep regrets” about his involvement in Malcolm’s murder.

Wrongful Convictions

The two other men convicted for Malcolm’s murder, Thomas Johnson (Khalil Islam), 30, and Norman Butler (Muhammad Aziz), 26, each spent about 20 years in prison.

Johnson and Butler were both members of the NOI’s Harlem mosque and lieutenants in the private Muslim army called the Fruit of Islam.

They were out on bail after being charged with shooting Benjamin Brown, a defector from Elijah Muhammad who had opened an independent mosque in Harlem.

At the trial, Hayer told the court that Johnson and Butler had nothing to do with Malcolm’s killing and that he did not even know them. He stated: “I was there. I know what happened. I know the people that did take part in it and they (Butler and Johnson) wasn’t any of the people that had anything to do with it. I want the jury to know.”[7]

In 1977 and 1978, Hayer gave the names of four men who he said were his accomplices as part of an affidavit given to civil rights lawyer William Kunstler in which he laid out a detailed time line of the assassination plot.

Kunstler said that he did “not know of any comparable case in American jurisprudence history in which an accomplice described a crime in such detail without a thorough reinvestigation.”

The four men Hayer identified were part of the NOI’s Newark, New Jersey, Temple Number 25.

According to Hayer, a man he knew as “Wilbur” or “Kinly,” later identified as Wilbur McKinley,[8] shouted and threw a smoke bomb to create a diversion.

A man named “Willie,” later identified as William Bradley (aka Al-Mustafa Shabazz), 28, a stick-up man, had a shotgun and was the first to fire on Malcolm X after the diversion.

Hayer asserted that Bradley and a man named “Lee” or “Leon,” later identified as Leon Davis,[9] both armed with pistols, fired on Malcolm X immediately after the shotgun blast. Hayer also said that a man named “Ben,” later identified as Benjamin Thomas,[10] was involved in the conspiracy.

After the assassination, Bradley served time in jail for robbery, aggravated assault and drug possession and then settled in Newark where he ran a boxing gym and even appeared in a political ad for former Newark Mayor and New Jersey Senator Corey Booker in 2010 before passing away in 2018.[11]

Baba Zak A. Kondo, author of the 1993 book Conspiracys (ies): Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X, said that he interviewed a retired Newark police officer who knew Bradley and contended that “a surprising number of people in Newark knew that Bradley was a killer.” The former policeman recalled once sitting in a bar talking to Bradley. Shortly after the assassin left, another brother looked at him and said, “You know, that’s a killer.” Years later, the officer learned that Malcolm had been one of Bradley’s victims.[12]

As part of the frame-up, Butler (aka Muhammad Aziz) received a fake $10,000 check right after Malcolm’s killing with a note “congratulating him for a job well done.”

The number on the check led to the Harlem Progressive Labor Party (PLP) in an account that had been closed in 1962.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—which had the capability to discover the bank account numbers of the PLP—may have written the check in an attempt to discredit both the PLP and Butler.[13]

On the day of Malcolm’s killing, Butler, a karate expert, said he was at home recovering from thrombophlebitis of the leg, which made the scenario in which he leaped from the window of the lady’s room before making his escape implausible.

A doctor who treated Aziz at Jacobi Hospital in the Bronx before Malcolm’s murder, Kenneth Saslowe, took the stand in Butler’s defense, stating that he had treated him the morning of Malcolm’s death.[14]

Johnson—a house painter and former heroin addict who had at one time been part of Malcolm’s security detail—said that on the day Malcolm was killed, he was in his apartment across from the Bronx Zoo with his pregnant wife, sick in bed with a rheumatoid arthritis condition, and learned of the killing at 4:00 p.m. when he was visited by his Muslim friends.[15]

Johnson was well-known as an enforcer with the Harlem Mosque #7 and would have been recognized at the Audubon Ballroom if he was there. Later, in prison, he passed a polygraph test that had been paid for by Muhammad Ali.[16]

A Rigged Trial

The Judge assigned to Hayer, Johnson and Butler’s trial, Charles Marks, was known for his harsh sentencing—he once gave a confessed rapist and robber 60-100 years in prison, at that time one of the longest sentences for non-murder in history—and fixed enormously high bail for Black Panther Party members accused of plotting to terrorize New York City.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) allegedly had films of Malcolm X’s killing that were never displayed at trial.

A key witness in identifying Butler, named Sharon, had a connection with the Newark mosque that was never explored.[17]

Her boyfriend, whom she sat next to, Linward Cathcart, the Lieutenant of Newark Mosque 25, wore a pin displaying his loyalty to Elijah Muhammad, was pictured laughing next to Malcolm’s dying body, and was identified by one investigator as being part of the assassination team.[18]

Another witness identified Ben Thomas of the Newark mosque as an assassin, though this lead was never followed up.[19]

The testimony of other key prosecution witnesses was riddled with exclusions, distortions and outright lies; the witnesses were coached and manipulated by the police and District Attorney’s office.

One was arrested on trumped-up charges and had to cooperate with the prosecution to avoid jail.[20]

Another “star witness,” Cary Thomas, one of Malcolm’s bodyguards, was held in jail on $50,000 bond. He had previously been admitted to a psychiatric facility for shouting in the streets about killing Jesus—a fact the judge refused to admit as evidence in court.[21]

Thomas was a heroin addict and alcoholic and told different stories before two grand juries.

Before one, he said that Hayer and Butler caused a diversion and Johnson fired the shotgun that killed X, though in the other he swore that Johnson and Butler caused the diversion and Hayer fired the shotgun.[22]

Neither the prosecution nor the defense called Reuben Francis, Malcolm’s bodyguard who shot Hayer, to testify at the trial, or Malcolm’s right-hand man, Benjamin Kamin (aka Benjamin Goodman), who manned the door at the Audubon on the day of the killing.[23]

Karim had actually told police detectives and Assistant Attorney General Herbert Stern that he knew both Butler and Johnson and that they were not in the Audobon ballroom on the day of Malcolm’s assassination; their only response, however, was to become angry at him.

“As If They Wanted It to Happen:” Police Misconduct

Days before his assassination, Malcolm’s home in Queens had been firebombed, yet there was no police detail supplied to the Audubon when he was murdered. An exception was patrolman Gilbert Henry who was told to conceal himself some distance from the main auditorium where Malcolm spoke.[24]

Henry testified that he had been told to stay where he could not be seen and communicate by walkie-talkie with a police detail concealed across the street in the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center complex where Malcolm’s body was taken after the shooting, and to tell them to notify police in the hospital if anything happened.

At previous Malcolm X rallies there had been at least half a dozen police officers present. In this case, with no security at the door, the assassins were easily able to walk in.

A picture containing text, building, outdoor, road Description automatically generated

Exterior view of the Audubon Ballroom in the Harlem section of Manhattan where Malcolm was killed. [Source: pennlive.com]

The police later claimed that they offered protection, but that Malcolm refused it—though Malcolm had complained to Alex Haley that the police did not take his requests for protection seriously.

On the day of the shooting, journalist Jimmy Breslin received a tip from the NYPD that he should go to the Audubon ballroom, indicating someone in the NYPD knew what would transpire.

When the police arrived at the scene after Malcolm had been shot, according to eyewitnesses, they displayed no sense of urgency; it was “as if they wanted it to happen [Malcolm’s death].”[25]

Earl Grant said he saw “an incredible scene” in which “a dozen police [were] strolling into the ballroom” after the shooting at “about the pace one would expect of them if they were patrolling a quiet park. They did not seem to be at all excited or concerned about the circumstances [and] not one had his gun out. As a matter of absolute fact, some of them even had their hands in their pocket.”

Afterwards, the NYPD did not secure the scene of the crime as they normally would. A dance at the Audubon went on as scheduled at 7:00 p.m. with bullets still in the wall. A rostrum with bullet holes was found in the basement of the Audubon Ballroom years later; it had never been examined by the police.

A room full of tables and chairs Description automatically generated with low confidence

Ballroom after it was roped off by police. A dance went on as scheduled that night. [Source: pennlive.com]

FBI and CIA Involvement

Historian David Garrow, a biographer of Martin Luther King, Jr., stated on the 2020 Netflix documentary Who Killed Malcolm X that by never taking a serious interest in investigating Malcolm’s death, white-run institutions and law enforcement agencies sent the message that they did not value what his life represented.

In Garrow’s view, FBI informants within the NOI were likely involved in Malcolm’s assassination—he was almost certain of this.

The FBI at the time under its infamous Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) was promoting a war within the NOI in an attempt to destroy the organization, fearing that Malcolm was a “black messiah” who would lead a social revolution.[26]

The FBI’s Chicago office, four years after Malcolm’s death, boasted that it had “developed” the blood feud between Malcolm and the NOI.

On the day that Malcolm was killed, the FBI hadnine informants in the Audubon Ballroom, none of whom was asked to testify at Hayer, Butler and Johnson’s murder trial.

The day before, Hayer was spotted meeting in the Americana hotel with John Ali, who had stolen money from the NOI while serving as its national secretary and previously worked for the FBI.[27]

Malcolm told Alex Haley the day before his assassination that he no longer believed it was the Muslims who were planning his death but something bigger.

Malcolm’s sister, Mrs. Ella Collins, believed that her brother had been “murdered by the CIA.”[28]

During his travels to the Middle East and Africa, CIA agents followed Malcolm’s every move—boarding every flight he took, watching his hotels and keeping him under surveillance during meal-time—and allegedly tried to poison him twice.[29]

The CIA’s Deputy Director of Plans, Richard Helms, was scrutinizing Malcolm’s activities up to the hour of his assassination.[30] The State Department had required Helms to treat X as a “foreign agent or enemy of the United States.”[31]

Mysterious Second Shooter

On the day of Malcolm’s killing, the early edition of both The New York Times and New York Herald Tribune reported that the NYPD had apprehended two suspects.

Later editions of both papers, however, changed their headlines and reported that only one suspect, Hayer, was apprehended.[32]

Discrepancy in headlines in the New York Herald Tribune about number of suspects the police arrested. [Source: Breitman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 53]

Black nationalists and Trotskyites noticing the discrepancy charged that the NYPD had covered up its involvement in the assassination and that the assailant was a BOSSI (Bureau of Special Services and Investigation) agent whom the crowd recognized as one of the killers because they had beaten and then shot him.[33]

The NYPD and mainstream journalist Peter Goldman attributed the confusion about the number of suspects to the fact that reporters had debriefed NYPD officer Thomas Hoy at the scene and another NYPD officer, Alvin Aronoff, at the station house, not realizing they were talking about the same man.[34]

Great Headlines Speak For Themselves… Malcolm X assassinated… | History's Newsstand Blog

Los Angeles Times article also claims more than one suspect was arrested. [Source: blog.rarenewspapers.com]

However, in a news video made right after the assassination, the NYPD’s chief inspector reported two suspects being in custody.

Herman Ferguson, a founding member of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), said that he witnessed an olive complexioned man who had been shot being taken by the NYPD away from the hospital across the street (Jewish Memorial Hospital—which would have been a natural place given his injury) and in the direction of the Hudson River.[35]

The FBI reported that Hayer was treated after being taken into custody at the Jewish Memorial Hospital across from the Audubon, where Malcolm was also taken, meaning that he was not the one witnessed by Ferguson in the patrol car.

Eric Norden reported that the olive-skinned man had been rushed into the patrol car by the cops and told to “get down between the seats.”[36] Thin-lipped and wearing a turtleneck sweater, he bore an uncanny resemblance to a man who had tailed Malcolm on a trip to London through his return flight to New York one week before the assassination.[37]

Red Squad

After Malcolm gave a press conference announcing his split from the NOI, William C. Sullivan, the FBI’s #2, contacted the directors of BOSSI and asked them to recruit several African-Americans to infiltrate Malcolm’s new organization.

Two of the directors, Jack J. Caulfield and Anthony Ulasewicz—who got his start with BOSSI spying on New York’s annual May Day parade—were later implicated in the Watergate scandal.[38]

They were happy to comply with Sullivan’s request because Malcolm had been a thorn in the side of the NYPD for more than a decade.

Ulasewicz wrote that he considered Malcolm “the flip side of George Lincoln Rockwell [American Nazi whom Ulasewicz had also shadowed]. [Malcolm’s] stated goal was to cut down the white man’s forest, move in on his land, and send him packing.”[39]

BOSSI agents—several of whom were in the ballroom—claimed that Malcolm’s assassination took them by surprise, though Chicago Police Department Captain William Duffy, head of the city’s intelligence division, based on a tip, and Sergeant Edward McLellan, of the division’s subversion unit, revealed that they had warned New York of a possible murder attempt on Malcolm.[40]

When Malcolm’s home was firebombed, the NYPD blamed Malcolm for setting the fire and BOSSI agents planted gasoline on his dresser.

RED SQUAD

NYPD Red Squad or BOSSI c. early 1970s. [Source: store.cinemaguild.com]

BOSSI had been modeled after the FBI and spent decades infiltrating left-wing and other radical political organizations and spying on New Yorkers.

Its detectives were expert in techniques of provocation, that is, in coercing subversive groups to commit violent and unlawful acts that would discredit them in the eyes of the public.[41]

Tony Bouza, a former BOSSI detective and lieutenant from 1957 to 1965, explains that the NYPD, and not the FBI, was the primary agency conducting surveillance of Malcolm, who was considered a “dangerous man” and “grave threat” to public order. In the Netflix documentary Who Killed Malcolm X? Bouza refers to Malcolm X as a “thug.”

Elsewhere, Bouza suggested that the NYPD failed to take basic and minimal steps to protect Malcolm and failed to disclose all that it knew about the assassination. “The investigation was botched,” he said, and a “parallel tragedy lies in the NYPD’s obvious stonewalling of any release of records.”

“Remarkable Undercover Work”

A handwritten note from Japanese-American activist Yuri Kochiyama, written during a meeting of the OAAU Liberation School following Malcolm’s death, stated that “Ray Woods [sic] is said to have been seen also running out of Audubon; was one of two picked up by police. Was the second person running out.”[42]

Wood was a black NYPD officer from Chester, South Carolina with an Air Force background who began his career by infiltrating the Bronx Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) chapter in 1964 under the name Ray Woodall.

Posing as a 27-year-old graduate of Manhattan College studying law at Fordham University, Wood was named CORE’s housing chairman and talked chapter chairman Herbert Callender into making a “citizen’s arrest” of Mayor Robert Wagner for discriminating against blacks and misappropriating public monies, telling him that the arrest was legal when it was not.[43]

By 1965, “Woodall” had been reassigned under his real name to infiltrate a group calling itself the Black Liberation Movement (BLM).[44]

He was subsequently credited with foiling a bomb plot by the BLM that targeted the Statue of Liberty and other national monuments, just a week before Malcolm X’s assassination.

The idea for the bombing had been Wood’s—under the direction of an FBI agent—and he did most of the planning, though he lied about this in court to comply with his supervisor’s directions to not implicate himself.[45]

One of the four arrested and convicted in the plot was Walter Bowe, who co-chaired the cultural committee in Malcolm’s OAAU. Another, Khaleel Sayyed, was essential to Malcolm X’s security team.[46]

A collage of a person Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Culprits in Statue of Liberty bomb plot. Bowe is second from the left, and Sayyed is third from the left. Wood is featured on the far right with his back to the camera. [Source: coolopolis.blogspot.com]

Described as “the all-American boy” with tremendous “leadership abilities,” Wood was promoted to detective second grade for making the arrests in the Statue of Liberty bombing case, and received New York City’s highest award for heroism, the Medal of Honor.

U.S. Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach wrote a letter to New York City Police Commissioner Michael Murphy with a note of special congratulations to Wood for his “remarkable undercover work.”[47]

Dwayne Bey, a photography student and former activist from Brooklyn CORE, said that, “in CORE, we suspected the white folks as the cops of the organized leftists but who would have looked at him?”[48]

In a 2011 letter relayed through his cousin, Reggie Wood, Wood admitted that he had entrapped two members of Malcolm’s security team in a criminal plot to blow up the Statue of Liberty, which left Malcolm vulnerable at the Audubon Ballroom.

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

Reggie Wood, left, with Attorney Ben Crump and three daughters of Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz, at a press conference where Ray Wood’s confessional letter about the Statue of Liberty plot was read. [Source: bluetoad.com]

Wood, who died in 2020, stated that his assignment was “to draw the two men into a felonious federal crime so that they could be arrested by the FBI and kept away from managing Malcolm X’s Audubon Ballroom door security on February 21st, 2021.”

Wood also revealed that he was inside the Audubon Ballroom at the time of Malcolm’s assassination along with another NYPD undercover officer, Gene Roberts, a member of BOSSI, who had infiltrated the OAAU (group Malcolm founded after leaving the NOI), and become part of Malcolm’s security detail.[49]

Wood said that he had been “under instructions to watch and not interfere”; thus, he did not try to stop a gunman who was running out of the ballroom.[50]

After the shooting, Wood was attacked by a mob who suspected him in the killing and then taken away from the scene in an NYPD patrol car and put in a holding cell for three hours where he realized the significance of the Statue of Liberty plot.[51]

Wood acknowledged subsequently that “Johnson was innocent and was arrested to protect my cover and the secrets of the FBI and NYPD.”[52]

Socialist and Anti-Imperialist Views

Journalist Eric Norden wrote in a 1967 article that “[p]owerful forces, including the U.S. State Department and the CIA, had been deeply alarmed by Malcolm’s growing impact, particularly his efforts to internationalize the American racial question by bringing it before the United Nations under the Human Rights provision of the UN charter.”

A strong proponent of pan-Africanism, Malcolm’s travels overseas had put him in contact with socialist and anti-imperialist leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Ahmed Ben Bella of Algeria, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara, with whom he established a firm bond when they met at the UN in December 1964.

At the time, Malcolm was disillusioned by growing authoritarianism and corruption within the NOI, and split with his mentor, Elijah Muhammad, to form a new movement, The Muslim Mosque Inc., which was aligned with the OAAU.

Planning to coordinate voter registration drives and local organizing against police brutality, Malcolm was gunned down on the very day he was to announce his call for the United Nations to denounce American racial practices as human rights violations.

The week before, on February 14th, he had given a powerful speech condemning the Western “rape” of Congo because of its rich mineral wealth, and bombing of the country by CIA-trained mercenaries,[53] which most white liberals were silent about.

Like Martin Luther King, Jr., at the time of his death, Malcolm increasingly identified as a socialist.[54]

He established contacts with the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party (SWP), urging his followers to read its publication, The Militant, and told its 1964 presidential candidate, Clifton DeBerry, that he hoped to live long enough to build a viable organization based on his current ideas.[55]

Comparing capitalists to “vultures” and “bloodsuckers,” Malcolm said before his death that the “domestic exploitation of American Negroes was part and parcel of ‘American imperialism’s’ world-wide drive to control the poorer, predominantly non-white nations.”[56]

In an interview with the The Militant, Malcolm noted further that “this system is not only ruling us in America, it is ruling the world.”[57]

A person speaking to a crowd of people Description automatically generated with low confidence

Malcolm X. speaking before a large crowd in Harlem. Before his death, Malcolm increasingly espoused socialist and anti-imperialist views. [Source: liberationschool.org]

Elsewhere, he noted that “the racists and segregationists in power exercise the same form of brutal oppression against dark-skinned people in the South and in North Vietnam, or in the Congo or in Cuba, or in any other place on this earth where they are trying to exploit and oppress; that is a society whose government doesn’t hesitate to inflict the most brutal form of punishment and oppression upon darker skinned people all over the world.”

Malcolm was an uncompromising opponent of the U.S. war in Vietnam long before Martin Luther King, Jr.

He told a meeting of the Militant Labor Forum in 1964: “What America is doing in South Vietnam is criminal, but the oppressed people of South Vietnam … have been successful in fighting off the agents of imperialism.… Little rice farmers, peasants, with a rifle, up against all the highly mechanized weapons of warfare—jets, napalm, battleships, everything else. And America can’t put those rice farmers back where they want them. Somebody’s waking up.”[58]

In 1958, Malcolm had similarly noted that Korea had “won the war against the white man with just a bowl of rice, sneakers and a gun.”[59]

By the time of his death, Malcolm was adopting mostly pro-Chinese positions on international questions, stating that the explosion of China’s first atom bomb was “one of the greatest things that has happened because up until now, the nuclear devices have been in the hands of Europeans.”

Malcolm went on to express hope that the Chinese would in the future be able to “build bigger and better nukes” because “the only language that America understands is the language of power and a dark nation has to be in a position to talk or speak the language that these imperialists understand.”[60]

Gangland Execution

The media coverage after Malcolm’s murder was indicative of the deeply engrained prejudices directed against Black Muslims and radical Black groups in the 1960s.

The New York Herald Tribune ran an editorial on February 23, 1965, titled “Hate Full Cycle,” which stated that “the slaying of Malcolm X has shown again that hatred, whatever its apparent justification, however, it may be rationalized, turns on itself in the end. Now the hatred and violence that [Malcolm X] preached has overwhelmed him and he has fallen at the hands of Negroes.”[61]

The New York Times, in an article entitled “Malcolm X Lived in Two Worlds White and Black,” blamed Black nationalist extremists for Malcolm’s death, describing him as “an extraordinary and twisted man, turning many true gifts to evil purpose … Malcolm had the ingredients for leadership, but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the civil rights movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It also marked him for notoriety and for a violent end.”[62]

Time magazine a few days later editorialized that Malcolm “had been a pimp, cocaine addict and a thief. He was an unashamed demagogue. His gospel was hatred.”[63] Life magazinfollowed suit by describing Malcolm as “the “shrilled voice for black supremacy,” while The Saturday Evening Post considered his death the result of a “gangland execution.”[64]

A picture containing text, person, newspaper Description automatically generated

Spread in Life magazine after Malcolm’s death in which he was characterized as “the shrilled voice for black supremacy.” [Source: discovernikkei.org]

These depictions soured the public on an investigation and ensured that no outcry was raised when the wrong men were convicted.

Other Suspicious Deaths

Like with the Kennedy assassination, Malcolm’s assassination resulted in other suspicious deaths. One was of Louis Lomax, an African-American journalist who befriended Malcolm X in the late 1950s and claimed to have solved the riddle of the assassination.[65]

On July 31, 1970, Lomax died in an auto accident in New Mexico.[66] At the time, he had a contract from 20th Century Fox to make a movie about Malcolm that would expose the U.S. intelligence community’s role in his assassination.

The brakes on his car failed and Lomax skidded across a highway and died.

Lomax believed that Malcolm X was betrayed by a former friend—thought to be John Ali—who reportedly had ties to the intelligence community. Lomax called the suspect “Judas.”[67]

The second suspicious death was of Leon Ameer, Malcolm’s New England representative and Cassius Clay’s (Muhammad Ali’s) former secretary, who had “vowed to carry on Malcolm’s work” after his assassination.[68]

The former karate teacher was found unconscious in the bathtub at Boston’s Sherry Biltmore Hotel on March 13, 1965, hours after he had appeared at the Socialist Workers meeting in Boston. In a speech there, he said that the government was responsible for Malcolm’s death and that he would shortly produce tapes and documents of Malcolm’s to prove it.

Ameer stated in his speech that he had “facts in my possession as to who really killed Malcolm X,” and that “this is probably the last time you’ll see me alive.”[69]

The Suffolk County medical examiner stated initially that Ameer, only 31 at the time, died of natural causes and suffered from an overdose of a medical drug called Domadeen which induces sleep.[70]

Later, it was claimed that Ameer died of an epileptic fit or heart attack and had been found with froth in his mouth. But his wife said he had a medical check-up one month before and there was no hint of epilepsy or heart trouble—and he had not had an epileptic fit in the previous 11 years.

On his death, Ameer’s blackened tongue protruded between his lips. In an epileptic seizure severe enough to cause death, the tongue is usually swallowed, causing asphyxiation.[71]

Conclusion

Malcolm’s supporters appear to have had the right intuition in thinking that he was murdered on “orders from the U.S. government.”[72]

Precisely who gave those orders, however, remains unknown.

The Innocence Project is currently working with civil rights attorney David Shanies and the Conviction Integrity Program of the New York County District Attorney’s Office to re-investigate Butler and Johnson’s convictions.

In February 2021, New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance reopened the case in order to determine if the wrong men were convicted.

Vance tapped experienced prosecutors Charles King and Peter Casolaro, who was a member of the team that investigated and cleared the Central Park Five.

Whatever the outcome of their investigation, Malcolm X’s death, alongside those of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1960s had a profound impact on American politics, helping to usher in a period of conservative ascendancy.

USA sixties | Malcolm x, Robert kennedy, Martin luther king

[Source: pinterest.com]

The tenets of American exceptionalism presume that political assassinations only occur in totalitarian states like Russia and China; an investigation into Malcolm X’s killing, however, reveals that this is simply not the case.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. On his life history, see The Autobiography of Malcolm X, as told to Alex Haley, rev. ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1992). Malcolm’s father, a follower of Marcus Garvey, was killed by the Klu Klux Klan in Lansing, Michigan. Malcolm became a delinquent in Harlem before experiencing his transformation in prison and falling under the sway of Elijah Muhammad and the Black Muslim organization, where he emerged as an important leader.
  2. Clarke quoted in Michael Friedly, Malcolm X: The Assassination (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), 67. 
  3. Eric Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X,” The Realist, February 1, 1967, 1. 
  4. One guard, Charles Blackwell, took a lift afterwards to New Jersey from a suspected member of the assassination team. 
  5. Manning Marable, Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 438. 
  6. Peter Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, rev. ed. (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013), 410. 
  7. Friedly, Malcolm X: The Assassination, 48. 
  8. McKinley was 30 at the time of Malcolm’s assassination and owned his own construction firm that did work around the Newark mosque. He was a member of the Fruit of Islam. He is suspected of being an accomplice with Hayer in a 1963 gun-store robbery. 
  9. Davis was 20 or 21 at the time of the murder and worked in an electronics plant in Paterson and was also a member of the Fruit of Islam and Mosque 25 in Newark. 
  10. Thomas was 27 at the time of Malcolm’s killing and the assistant secretary of the Newark mosque. A basketball player, he worked as an envelope cutter in an envelope manufacturing company in Hackensack, New Jersey. He died in 1986. 
  11. When investigator Abdur-Rahman Muhammad asked about Bradley in the Newark area, as featured in the Netflix documentary Who Killed Malcolm X? he was told that this was a sensitive topic, and that Bradley was walking around because he was “protected by the state.” 
  12. Baba Zak A. Kondo, Conspiracys (ies): Unraveling the Assassination of Malcolm X (Nubia Books, 1993). 
  13. Friedly, Malcolm X: The Assassination, 37. 
  14. Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 341. 
  15. Historian Manning Marable said that Johnson was innocent, that as a well-known enforcer for mosque #7 in the Bronx he would have been recognized if he were present on the day of Malcolm’s killing at the Audubon Ballroom. See Mark Jacobsen, “The Man Who Didn’t Shoot Malcolm X,” New York Magazine, September 28, 2007. 
  16. Johnson was paroled in 1987 and died in 2009. Butler, who is still alive, was paroled in 1986. Journalist Peter Goldman reported that Johnson’s left thumbprint was found on a scrap of film in the smoke-bomb, insinuating his guilt in the slaying. Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 422. 
  17. Marable, Malcolm X, 452. 
  18. Cathcart was never asked to testify at Hayer, Butler and Johnson’s trial. After Malcolm’s death, he was the one to offer a lift to Charles Blackwell, one of Malcolm’s sentries, who appears to have sold out his boss. 
  19. Marable, Malcolm X, 452. 
  20. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  21. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  22. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Charles Blackwell also gave a different story to the grand jury and contradicted himself. 
  23. George Breitman, Herman Porter, Baxter Smith, The Assassination of Malcolm X (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1991), 107. 
  24. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  25. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Jimmy Breslin’s recollections are highlighted in Lisa Pease, A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (Port Townsend, WA: Feral House, 2018), 294.
  26. Karl Evanzz, The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1992), 15; Clayborne Carson, Malcolm X: The FBI File (New York: Skyhorse, 2012); James W. Douglass, “The Murder and Martyrdom of Malcolm X,” in The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, ed. James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease (Los Angeles, CA: Feral House, 2003), 399.The FBI spied on Malcolm as early as 1950 when he was in prison. They took special attention beginning in the late 1950s when he was appointed as Elijah Muhammed’s intermediary to foreign revolutionaries.
  27. Ali admitted to interviewing with J. Edgar Hoover for a job at the FBI, but claimed he was not hired. 
  28. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  29. Louis E. Lomax, To Kill a Black Man (Los Angeles, CA: Holloway House Publishing Co., 1968), 177; Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Allegedly, the CIA tried to poison Malcolm in Cairo in July 1964 and was about to try again in Paris, though French counterintelligence learned of this, and he was barred from entering the country. 
  30. Evanzz, The Judas Factor, xix
  31. Evanzz, The Judas Factor, 15; Douglass, “The Murder and Martyrdom of Malcolm X,” in The Assassinations, ed. DiEugenio and Pease, 399. 
  32. The Times’s later story continued to mention a second suspect apprehended by Officer Thomas Hoy, but then mention of him disappeared. Breitman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 52. 
  33. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X;” Brietman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X
  34. Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 287. 
  35. Other witnesses also reported an olive-skinned man with a leg wound who had been rescued by the NYPD from a lynch mob. 
  36. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  37. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Hoy was later impossible for the media to reach. Norden believed that the mystery man was Puerto Rican or Cuban, which tied him potentially to the CIA which recruited anti-Castro Cuban exiles. 
  38. See Tony Ulasewicz, with Stuart A. McKeever, The President’s Private Eye: The Journey of Detective Tony U. from NYPD to the Nixon White House (New York: Masam Publishing, 1990). In June 1955, Ulasewicz testified before the Subversive Activities Control Board in a proceeding initiated to prove that the United May Day Committee was a Communist Party front organization. Ulasewicz first met Nixon in the early 1950s while serving on Dwight Eisenhower’s security detail. In July 1969, Ulasewicz was sent to Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts to investigate the car wreck incident involving Edward Kennedy that resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, one of Bobby Kennedy’s former secretaries. Allegations were made that Ulasewicz was spotted on the island before news of the accident had been made public, raising questions about his involvement in a potential conspiracy.
  39. Ulasewicz, The President’s Private Eye, 147. 
  40. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  41. Frank Donner, Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 169.
  42. See Garrett Felber, “Malcolm X Assassination: 50 years on, mystery still clouds details of the case,” The Guardian, February 21, 2015. 
  43. The Ray Wood Story: Confessions of a Black NYPD Cop in the Assassination of Malcolm X, as told to Reggie Wood (New York: Madera, 2021); Donner, Protectors of Privilege, 175; Ulasewicz, The President’s Private Eye, 154, 155, 156. Callender was sent to Bellevue for psychiatric evaluation. 
  44. Once he achieved this, Wood proposed radical measures such as blowing up New York’s sewer system. Donner, Protectors of Privilege, 175. 
  45. The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, 75, 76. 
  46. The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, 69-89; Donner, Protectors of Privilege, 175; Brietman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 54. Explosives were obtained from a Montreal TV host and Quebec separatist, Michelle Duclos, as part of the sting operation. She served three months in jail after testifying against her co-conspirators and later served as a Quebec provincial representative to Algeria under Premier Bernard Landry
  47. Susan Brownmiller, “Statue of Liberty Case: View from the Inside: I Remember Ray Wood,” The Village Voice, June 3, 1965, in The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, vii; Ulasweicz, The President’s Private Eye, 170. 
  48. Susan Brownmiller, “Statue of Liberty Case: View from the Inside: I Remember Ray Wood,” The Village Voice, June 3, 1965, in The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, viii. 
  49. Roberts was a Navy veteran who, in 1968, helped found the New York chapter of the Black Panther Party. He helped set up members of the “Panther 21” including Tupac Shakur’s mother, Afeni, by encouraging them to blow up several Manhattan department stores. In an interview for a 1994 documentary on Malcolm X, he acknowledged: “There are a lot of people in the black community that consider me a traitor to my race and the community.”For more on him, see Edward Conlon, “The Undercover Lives of NYPD’s Black Officers,” Esquire, March 21, 2017, https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a53648/nypd-undercover-black-radical-groups/; Douglass, “The Murder and Martyrdom of Malcolm X,” in The Assassinations, ed. Di Eugenio and Pease, 411, 412. Roberts said that he reported to his superiors seeing a walk through of the assassination at the Audubon a week before, though they did not respond.
  50. The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, 103. 
  51. The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood, 65, 101. This revelation confirmed Kochiyama’s note and journalist Eric Norden and the SWP’s suspicion about a second suspect who was an undercover agent. The question lingers as to why the crowd suspected Wood of being involved and attacked him after someone yelled “get that son of a bitch.” Perhaps someone recognized him as an undercover informant because his face had appeared in the paper after the Statue of Liberty plot, albeit with his head turned. Another unanswered question is why Wood was instructed to go to the ballroom if he was not there to protect Malcolm. 
  52. The Ray Wood Story, as told to Reggie Wood. Raymond Wood’s daughter Kelly claimed that the 2011 letter issued by her father admitting to his involvement in black operations was a forgery. Suggesting that the signature on the letter was not her father’s, she said: “My father is not a coward. He would have never, ever asked anyone to speak on his behalf after his passing. If he had something to say, he would have said it when he was alive.” 
  53. The CIA mercenaries were anti-Castro Cubans who fought alongside South African white supremacists. A detailed history of this sordid intervention is provided in Piero Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003). In his speech Malcolm said: “And they’re able to take these hired killers, put them in American planes, with American bombs, and drop them on African villages, blowing to bits Black men, Black women, Black children, Black babies, and you Black people sitting over here cool like it doesn’t even involve you. You’re a fool. They’ll do it to them today, and do it to you tomorrow. Because you and I and they are all the same.” They’re able to do all of this mass murder and get away with it by labeling it “humanitarian,” “an act of humanitarianism.” Or “in the name of freedom,” “in the name of liberty.” All kinds of high-sounding slogans, but it’s cold-blooded murder, mass murder.” X’s speech included discussion of U.S. support for Moise Tshombe, the head of the Katanga province, who had murdered Patrice Lumumba. Malcolm called him a “cold blooded murderer” and “the worst African ever born,” and said that “to show the type of hired killer he is, as soon as he’s in office he hires more killers from South Africa to shoot down his own people. And you wonder why your American image abroad is so bankrupt.” At the end of the speech, Malcolm said: “[A]nother reason they don’t intend to give up [the Congo] is if you look at the map you’ll see that it is so strategically located geographically. Wherein, if a real genuine African government were to come in power over the Congo, then it would be possible for African troops from all countries to invade Angola—which is a Portuguese possession. And if Angola fell, and it would fall, then it would only be a matter of time before South-West Africa, Southern Rhodesia, and Butuanoland also would fall. And it would put African troops right on the border of South Africa. And that’s where they really want to get, that man down there in South Africa. And the United States’ interests are involved in blocking this, yes! Some of these liberals who grin in your face like they’re your best friends, they have money tied up in the Congo. Some of the most powerful political figures in this country, come up and governors over states, [have] got interests in the Congo, and got interests in South Africa, and got interests all over the African continent, and go there! And as the Africans awaken and realize, they—it makes them full of the incentive to never rest until that exploiter is driven out.” 
  54. Breitman, et al., The Assassination of Malcolm X, 39; Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” On King’s turn toward socialism, see Michael Eric Dyson, I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Free Press, 2001). 
  55. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X;” Carson, Malcolm X, 448, 449; Lomax, To Kill a Black Man, 178. 
  56. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” Malcolm stated: “It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck … and it can only suck the blood of the helpless [like a vulture].” 
  57. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  58. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  59. In Evanzz, The Judas Factor, 15. 
  60. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  61. Quoted in Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 
  62. Marable, Malcolm X, 454. 
  63. Marable, Malcolm X, 455. 
  64. Marable, Malcolm X, 455. 
  65. Lomax published the book, When the Word Is Given: A Report on Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X and the Black Muslim World (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1963), and To Kill a Black Man: Shocking Parallel of the Lives of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.(Los Angeles: Holloway House Publishing, 1968). 
  66. Thomas Aiello, “Louis Lomax’s Relationship with Malcolm X and Its Role in the Evolution of the Nation of Islam’s Popularity and Lomax’s Philosophy,” The Journal of African American History, 104, 4 (September 2019), 584-618. 
  67. Evanzz, The Judas Factor, xxiv. 
  68. “Malcolm X Aide Dead in Boston: Body of Leon Ameer Found in Hotel Room by Maid,” The New York Times, March 14, 1965, 57. 
  69. Goldman, The Death and Life of Malcolm X, 308; Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X”; “Malcolm X Aide Dead in Boston: Body of Leon Ameer Found in Hotel Room by Maid,” The New York Times, March 14, 1965, 57. Norden claims that Ameer was found strangled to death. 
  70. “Murder Is Doubted in Death of Leon 4X,” The New York Times, March 14, 1965; Carson, Malcolm X, 411. 
  71. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X”; “Malcolm X Aide Dead in Boston,” 57; Carson, Malcolm X, 411. 
  72. Norden, “The Murder of Malcolm X.” 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Brazil Suspends Covaxin Contract as Scandal Becomes Too Hot for Bolsonaro

Federal Judge Grants Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss in CHD v. Facebook

July 2nd, 2021 by Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against CHD’s complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims.

“While the decision is disappointing, we are not shocked,” said Mary Holland, CHD president and general counsel. “The line of Judge Illston’s questioning at oral argument suggested that she was inclined to rule in favor of Facebook’s motion to dismiss. Cases like these are challenging because they are novel; there have never been social media behemoths with such extraordinary powers. Congress explicitly created an environment where they would face few legal impediments, so it is challenging to hold them to account.”

CHD is reviewing its legal options. The fight to get truthful information to the public about vaccines and 5G technologies, without censorship and without being characterized as “misinformation” or “disinformation,” will continue.

CHD is far from alone in seeking greater accountability from social media giants — Facebook may well be heading for a fall. On Monday, the Federal Trade Commission’s case against Facebook on antitrust grounds was also dismissed. Pressure on Congress is mounting to update laws on social media.

“As emergency orders and regulations continue, more than a year after the COVID-19 pandemic started, the public is hungrier than ever for truthful information,” Holland remarked. “CHD will continue to battle censorship on Facebook and in other media. Stay tuned.”

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Federal Judge Grants Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss in CHD v. Facebook
  • 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.

***

Yesterday, 6/25/21, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put out a poll on social media. It was a simple statement the agency interrogated as a TRUE/FALSE query: “If you’ve already had #COVID-19 and recovered, your should still get vaccinated against COVID-19.”

55,559 Twitter members participated in the poll over the course of 24 hrs. With over 70% of respondents designating the CDC statement as “FALSE”.

Of course, this is not a “scientific poll”. But it does represent the overall opinion of folks on Twitter. And we all know how powerful this social media platform is in channeling messages and revealing public sentiment. To be clear, a President of the United States was elected and governed based on Twitter messaging. So, I don’t think it’s wise for anyone to ignore the result of this CDC poll on Twitter.

In my opinion, the results of the CDC poll on vaccination of COVID-recovered Americans is pointing a serious national security threat.

But what exactly is the national security threat?

Wherever government policy and recommendations, especially ones that are being “mandated” and imposed on American citizens, are vastly mismatched from where the public stands — a serious threat to our republic is revealed.

Now, the CDC “experts” may claim that the public is “misinformed” on this issue. But, of course, when it comes to vaccination of the COVID-recovered they truly do not have that leg to stand on either.

In fact, within minutes of the CDC realizing that its Twitter poll is going in the opposite direction of agency policy, they put out tweet linked to their poll that read: “True! Experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from #COVID-19. Get your COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can.

In other words, they “believe” that the American people who responded to their twitter poll are wrong. And even though their own “experts do not yet know”, they want us to get these shots anyway — presumably in what their marketing and PR folks would call an “abundance of caution”.

Of course, the CDC and its director, Harvard’s Rochelle Walensky, know full well that both basic clinical/scientific principles AND emerging epidemiological data from Cleveland Clinic, Cornell University and Israel show that the COVID-recovered and naturally immune stand to gain little to no benefit from added vaccination.

In fact, to the contrary, though the COVID-19 vaccines do benefit the majority of un-immune people, they also have a range of unique and terrible risks of injury and harm to a minority subset of people. These risks include risks of blood clotting, myocarditis and neurological injury. But even more importantly, the epidemiological data is bearing out that COVID-recovered persons are at higher risk of developing adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination.

So, really, wouldn’t acting out of an “abundance of caution” be for CDC NOT to rush into vaccinating the COVID-recovered Americans? Instead of idiotically stating “True! Experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from #COVID-19. Get your COVID-19 vaccine as soon as you can.”

Basically, CDC is saying to you, the American people, “we don’t know how long your immunity will last, but even though you are most likely immune and even though this vaccine has some bad side-effects that might harm previously infected people disproportionately — just, trust us, go ahead and get the shots….Because we and our ‘experts’ say so…”

And when they are called on their unsafe logic and dangerous clinical “guidance”, they simply state that they are only “guiding the American public” and that it’s up to private enterprises and individual choice to make decisions about vaccination.

I CALL BULLSHIT!

The Biden administration’s CDC is giving a green light to liability averse American enterprises to impose a draconian and incorrect vaccine mandate on millions of Americans with natural immunity from a prior infection —irrespective of the clear lack of medical necessity and the very real potential for totally avoidable bodily harm.

To be very clear, CDC is now aware, based on its own Twitter poll, that a vast majority of people in America are very likely opposed to their policy of indiscriminate vaccination of the COVID-recovered and already immune — of whom there are literally millions in America. They are also aware that basic science and clinical judgement tells us that the vast majority of infected folks ARE well immune (it’s IMMUNOLOGY 101, Dr. Walensky!). AND, they are aware that strong epidemiological data is showing that naturally infected people are well protected from re-infection — almost as well as vaccinated folks are protected from de novo infection.

Dr. Walensky and her colleagues also know that the American people are being mandated and, in many cases, coerced into getting vaccinated, based on the CDC’s “guidance”, by private American corporate enterprises and educational institutions — not nefariously, but because American private enterprises are risk averse and fear liability. So when CDC of FDA make a “guidance” private enterprises are far more likely to mindlessly create draconian and harmful policies that provide them with federal level legal defense in court. No matter how unethical or unsafe the policy at hand may be. Federal “guidances” are not benign entities, they have moving power on a broad scale!

You might ask: “why is the Biden administration’s CDC acting in such a terrible and mindlessly dangerous fashion?”

Really, the only rational explanations for the CDC’s dangerous and irrational behavior in insisting that COVID-recovered folks be vaccinated are the following: a) the agency is not operating on a well-rounded, ethical and objective scientific foundation, b) the agency “experts” are captured or brain-washed by the vaccine industry and the politics of ego and professional dynamics and c) the agency believes that the American people are stupid, misinformed and incapable of making correct choices to preserve their own health, so they are electing to use a “one-size-fits-all” guidance.

Any one or a combination of the above problems at CDC is a terrible problem and hazard to the lives of unsuspecting Americans.

But most concerning, as I stated above, is that the result of the CDC Twitter poll points to a vast and alarming chasm between public opinion and our federal government’s policy, guiding no less than a mandated bodily treatment of individual American citizens numbering in the millions. This problem the Biden administration and its CDC have created and are handling with mindless imprecision and carelessness is a serious problem of trust. Because at the root of a functional democratic republic is a requirement for voluntary public trust by a vast majority of citizens.

By last check when 70% of Americans disagree with a federal government policy affecting their very bodies — we have a very big national security problem in our republic.

When the people no longer trust government policies, governing bodies fail and fall.

It is tragic to see that the Biden administration, its CDC and its “experts” are failing to see with clarity that a vast majority of Americans oppose vaccination of COVID-recovered and naturally immune folks — AND that the feds opening the door to and allowing American private enterprises to mandate vaccination, is simply demolishing public trust in US government.

It’s time for CDC to stop its insane “one-size-fits-all” vaccine marketing campaign and become rational and clinically cogent. It’s time for CDC to stop assuming the American people are either “stupid” or “misinformed”. Because the FDA and CDC are, at the moment, posing a grave threat to US national security by directly causing the public to lose trust in government.

I suppose despite the CDC’s goal of creating a marketing tool using the poll it put out on Twitter yesterday, the fact that the poll was put out is a good thing. Because it provides an opportunity and window for CDC leaders and the Biden administration to correct a huge political and public health error they are making in this vaccine campaign.

Alas, I don’t think CDC and its leaders and “experts” are smart and savvy enough to see the problem they are causing.

My prediction is that CDC’s PR apparatus will spin the results of this Twitter poll to claim that the American people are being misled by “misinformation” from nefarious players, foreign or domestic…Or maybe they’ll try to claim that the 70% respondents are Russian, Chinese or Iranian spies and bots. But, the majority of the American people are on to that stale old narrative that’s born in elitist echo-chambers that are tearing the foundation of America apart.

Unfortunately for the Biden administration’s CDC, Twitter is actually manned mostly by Americans. And most Americans are calling the CDC on its vaccine BS using their own Twitter poll.

In summary, I write here for the record and to publicly warn the Biden administration, the CDC and FDA of a grave national security error they are committing by their “one-size-fits-all” approach to COVID-19 vaccination of the COVID-recovered in the United States — in a setting where millions of such Americans are being forced and coerced into getting shots they believe (correctly) do not benefit them, and might harm 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.

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This past year, we have seen many lawmakers in the U.S. and other countries vote to eliminate or severely restrict civil liberties in the name of the public health.1 2 3  One of the most outrageous legislative actions violating parental and human rights took place in Washington, DC in November 2020 when City Council officials gave doctors the power to vaccinate children as young as 11 years old and hide what they did from parents.4 5 6 7 8 The DC Mayor refused to veto the bill 9 10 and, in January 2021, the U.S. Congress sat on its hands11 12 and gave tacit approval to enactment of the most dangerous child vaccination law in America.

In a breathtaking violation of medical ethics and several federal laws, the new vaccine concealment law in Washington, DC allows doctors to extract “informed consent” from young children too immature to know what informed consent13 means or what a vaccine reaction looks and feels like.14 15 16 The DC City Council majority, with only three members dissenting, cruelly disempowered parents by voting to make it illegal for a doctor, insurance company or school administrator to divulge a child’s vaccination history in records that can be seen by the child’s mother or father.17

Watch the video here.

Parents Won’t Have Information to Protect Child From Vaccine Injury

An 11-year old child does not know or understand his or her personal health history but most parent do. If a child has experienced previous vaccine reactions, has severe allergies or other health conditions that could increase vaccine risks,18 19 parents kept in the dark will not have a way to protect their child from further harm.

Parents who don’t know which vaccines their children have been given will not be able to monitor them for signs of a potentially life-threatening vaccine reaction that requires immediate medical treatment.20 If the child is injured or dies after vaccination, parents will not know they must apply to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) before the filing deadline expires.21

Parents will not know their insurance company has been billed for vaccines. Parents will not know that a school the child attends is in possession of their child’s secret vaccination records even when there is a vaccine exemption for religious belief reasons on file with the school.

This blatant violation of a parent’s moral right and legal responsibility to make medical risk decisions on behalf of a minor child was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics22 and pushed through by the DC City Council, while the Mayor and the US Congress looked the other way.

Washington, DC Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Federal Laws

First, DC’s vaccine concealment law violates vaccine safety provisions of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a federal law that confirmed vaccine injuries and deaths are real and made preventing vaccine reactions a national priority. Parents of DPT vaccine injured children secured vaccine safety provisions in the 1986 Act, which directs doctors and other medical workers to give parents written vaccine benefit and risk information before a child is vaccinated 23 and also mandates that vaccine providers record which vaccines the child is given in a record the parents can access.

Specifically, the 1986 Act mandates that “health care providers who administer a vaccine” must give a child’s legal representative ”a copy of the information materials” developed by the Centers for Disease Control QUOTE “prior to the administration” of a vaccine.24 25 The 1986 law also requires each person administering a vaccine to QUOTE “ensure that there is recorded in such person’s permanent medical record or in a permanent office log or file to which a legal representative shall have access upon request” certain information: Number 1: the date of administration of the vaccine; Number 2: the vaccine manufacturer and lot number of the vaccine; and Number 3: the name and address and, if appropriate, the title of the health care provider administering the vaccine.”26

These informing and recording vaccine safety provisions were included in the 1986 Act specifically to provide parents with information they need to make well informed vaccine decisions for their minor children; and to help parents recognize and prevent vaccine reactions; and to ensure a vaccine reaction is reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).27 28

If a doctor can secretly inject a young child with one or more vaccines and hide the vaccination records, how will parents know what is happening when a vaccine reaction occurs? They won’t have the information they need to take their child to an emergency room or be able to make the connection between the vaccinations and a child’s regression into poor health.

This lack of critical information about their child’s medical history also means parents will likely miss the deadline for filing a claim in the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which has awarded more than 4.5 billion dollars to the vaccine injured over the past three decades.29

DC’s vaccine concealment law violates the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, known as FERPA, which guarantees parents the legal right to have access to their children’s education records, including health and vaccine records, at the primary and secondary school level.30

Vaccine Concealment Law Violates Informed Consent Rights

DC’s vaccine concealment law also violates the long standing ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking,31 which has governed the ethical practice of human research and medical practice since the Nuremberg Code was published in 1947 after the Doctor’s Trial.32 33 Informed consent is exercised on behalf of minor children by parents, who are morally and legally responsible for the well-being and financial support for their children until they are old enough to live independently.34 35 36

Child development specialists have documented how young children and teenagers lack the critical thinking skills and emotional maturity to exercise good judgment when assessing risks.37 38 39 40 Pre-adolescents are more susceptible to pressure from peers and authority figures.41 42 43 44

Doctors and Other Vaccine Administrators Have No Liability for Vaccine Injuries and Deaths

Doctors are the ultimate authority figures in our society today, and many are serving as authoritarian implementers of one-size-fits-all federal vaccine policies and state vaccine mandates.45 46 Like vaccine manufacturers, doctors and other persons who administer vaccines cannot be held liable in civil court when a child dies or is injured.47 Congress passed special legislation in 2020 to make sure that doctors or anyone else who administers a Covid-19 vaccine cannot be sued.48

When the risks of vaccination turn out to be 100 percent for a child, it is the mother and father raising that child on a day-to-day basis who will be left with the life-long consequences – not the doctor who has been given the power to secretly persuade the child to take vaccines, and not the politician who voted to give doctors that power.

The DC Council sponsor of the bill entitled the “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act” originally wanted doctors to be able to vaccinate children of any age – no matter how young – without the knowledge or consent of their parents. She argued that minors of any age can get an abortion in Washington, DC and get treated for a sexually transmitted disease or substance abuse without the knowledge or consent of their parents.49

She told Medscape Medical News that parents with “anti-science” beliefs were not vaccinating their children based on a “disproven belief” that vaccines may cause harm, which puts other people at “extreme risk” for disease.50

A dissenting DC City Council member countered with “Medical professionals and schools should not be permitted to coerce impressionable minors into procedures capable of causing injury or death behind their parents’ back.”51

DC Vaccine Concealment Law A Profound Betrayal of Public Trust

The Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights states that:

“The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society;” and “For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests;” and “Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.”52

It is a profound betrayal of public trust for any city, state or federal government to strip parents of their God given right to protect their children from harm by allowing a doctor to give a child a pharmaceutical product without getting a parent’s permission. Science is not perfect, doctors are not infallible, and pharmaceutical products like vaccines come with risks that can be greater for some individuals than others,53 54 55 which is why parents must retain the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking on behalf of their minor children.

Will the vaccine concealment bill that is now law in Washington, DC be exported to your state next?

Take Action Today To Protect Parental Rights

If you want to protect parental and informed consent rights, register for the free online NVIC Advocacy Portal today and stay up to date on vaccine laws being proposed in your state so you can contact your legislators and take positive action.

Never be the one who has to say you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow.

It’s your health. Your family. Your choice.

And our mission continues: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

*

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

Notes

1 Fisher BL. How Fear of a Virus Changed Our World. NVIC Newsletter June 1, 2020.  

2 Anderson A. These Endless Public Health Mandates Threaten American’s Liberty. Heritage Foundation Mar. 15, 2021.

3 Weisberg L, Molnar P. With vaccination rates up and COVID-19 cases way down, California is poised to ditch masks and social distancing, but there are still some rules and protections in place as we navigate a new pandemic landscape. LaJolla Light June 14 2021.

4 Council of the District of Columbia. B23-0171-Minor Consent for Vaccination Amendment Act of 2019. (Effective from Mar. 16, 2021).

5 Al-Arshani S. Kids as young as 11 years old would be able to consent to vaccinations under a new bill proposed in Washington, DC. Business Insider Oct. 21, 2020.

6 Richardson D. DC Bill B23-0181 Allowing Children 11 Years Old and Older to Be Vaccinated Without Parental Knowledge or Consent Advances. The Vaccine Reaction Oct. 26, 2020.

7 Smith W. D.C. to Legalize Vaccination of 11-Year Olds Without Parental OK. National Review Nov. 5, 2020.

8 Turner M. DC Council to make final vote on bill that would allow minors to get vaccines without parental consent. WUSA-9 Nov. 12, 2020.

9 Austermuhle M. D.C. Activists Want Bowset to Veto Bill That Would Allow Minors to Consent to Vaccines.NPR Dec. 7, 2020.

10 Ault A. 11-Year-Olds Could Receive Vaccines Without Parental Consent in DC. Medscape Dec. 24, 2020.

11 McNeely M. Bill to Let 11-Year Olds Make Medical Decision: Will Congress Say No? Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) Feb. 24, 2021.

12 Parentalrights.org. Breaking DC Update: Lee Attempts “Common Consent.” Mar. 3, 2021.

13 FindLaw. Understanding Informed Consent and Your Rights as a Patient. June 6, 2018.

14 Blakemore SJ, Robbins TW. Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature Neuroscience 2012; 15: 1184-1191.

15 Fisher BL. Do You Know How to Recognize A Vaccine Reaction? NVIC Newsletter Aug. 27, 2018.

16 National Vaccine Information Center. If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions.

17 Austermuhle M. D.C. Activists Want Bowser to Veto Bill That Would Allow Minors to Consent to Vaccines.NPR Dec. 7, 2020.

18 CDC. Contraindications and precautions to commonly used vaccines. May 4, 2021.

19 CDC. COVID-19 Vaccines: Summary Documents for Interim Clinical Considerations. June 1, 2021.

20 Fisher BL. Do You Know How to Recognize A Vaccine Reaction? NVIC Newsletter Aug. 27, 2018.

21 Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. June 2021.

22 Ault A. 11-Year-Olds Could Receive Vaccines Without Parental Consent in DC. Medscape Dec. 24, 2020.

23 English A, Shaw FE, McCauley MM et al. Legal Basis of Consent for Health Care and Vaccination for Adolescents. Pediatrics 2008; 121 (Supplement 1): S85-S87.

24 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public Health Service. Subchapter XIX – Vaccines. Part 2 – National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Subpart c – ASSURING A SAFER CHILDHOOD VACCINATION PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 300aa-26. Vaccine information.

25 CDC. Vaccine Information Statements (VISs): Required Use. July 28, 2020.

26 42 U.S.C. United States Code, 2016 edition. Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 6A – Public Health Service. Subchapter XIX – Vaccines. Part 2 – National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Subpart c – ASSURING A SAFER CHILDHOOD VACCINATION PROGRAM IN THE UNITED STATED STATES Sec. 300aa-25. Recording and reporting of information.

27 MedAlerts. Search the U.S. Government’s VAERS Data and Reporting Vaccine Reactions to VAERS.

28 Fisher BL. DIY If Your Doctor Won’t Report Vaccine Reactions to VAERS. NVIC Newsletter June 2, 2021.

29 Health Resources Services Administration (HRSA). National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  VICP Data & Statistics June 2021. Who Can File A Petition and Filing Deadlines.

30 Family Education and Privacy Act. Title 34: Education.

31 Nunez K. What You Need to Know About Informed Consent. Healthline Oct. 11, 2019.

32 Encyclopedia.com. Nuremberg Code Establishes the Principle of Informed Consent.

33 Komesaroff PA, Parker M. Ethical Aspects of Consent. Issues Magazine March 2009.

34 Otterstrom K. The Legal Right and Responsibilities of a Parent. Lawyers.com Apr. 9, 2015.

35 Findlaw. How Long Do Parents’ Legal Obligations to Their Children Continue? Nov. 17, 2018.

36 Fisher BL. The Moral Right to Conscientious, Philosophical and Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination. Oral and referenced presentation to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee May 2, 1997.

37 Kelley AE, Schochet T, Landry CF. Risk taking and novelty seeking in adolescence: introduction to part I.Ann NY Acad Sci 2004; 1021-1032.

38 Steinberg L. Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends Cogn Sci 2005; 9(2): 69-74.

39 Harvard Mental Health Letter. The adolescent brain: Beyond raging hormones. Harvard Health PublishingMar. 7, 2011.

40 Blakemore SJ, Robbins TW. Decision-making in the adolescent brain. Nature Neuroscience 2012; 15: 1184-1191.

41 Steinberg L. Monahan KC. Age Differences in Resistance to Peer Influence. Dev Psychol 2007; 43(6): 1531-1543.

42 Knoll LJ, Magis-Weinberg L, Speekenrbrink M et al. Social Influence on Risk Perception During Adolescence. Psychological Science May 25, 2015.

43 Koleva G. Authoritarian Doctors, Timid Patients, and a Health Care Gridlock. Forbes May 29, 2012.

44 Heath S. Understanding the Power Hierarchy in Patient-Provider Relationships. Patient EngagementHITJuly 23, 2019.

45 Koleva G. Authoritarian Doctors, Timid Patients, and a Health Care Gridlock. Forbes May 29, 2012.

46 Fisher BL. The National Plan to Vaccinate Every American. NVIC Newsletter Mar. 21, 2020.

47 NVIC. National Vaccine Information Center Cites “Betrayal” of Consumers by US Supreme Court Giving Total Liability Shield to Big Pharma. Businesswire Feb. 23, 2011.

48 Fisher BL, Parpia R. 2005 PREP Act and 1986 Act Shield Vaccine Manufacturers from Liability. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 10, 2020.

49 Ault A. 11-Year-Olds Could Receive Vaccines Without Parental Consent in DC. Medscape Dec. 24, 2020.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Oct 19, 2005.

53 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Adverse Effects of Vaccines. Evaluation of Biologic Mechanisms of Adverse Effects: Increased Susceptibility. Chapter 3 (p. 82). Washington, D.C. The National Academies Press 2012.

54 National Vaccine Information Center. Vaccination: Know the Risks and Failures. 2019.

55 Fisher BL. Why Is Informed Consent to Vaccination a Human Right? National Vaccine Information Center June 28, 2017.

Featured image is from NVIC

All Global Research articles 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.

***

gladiator (Latin for “swordsman”) was an armed combatant who entertained audiences in the Roman Republic and later in the Roman Empire, in violent confrontations with other gladiators, wild animals, and condemned criminals. The fights were to the people’s delight. At the end of a fight the winner looked to the yelling, hurling and screaming audience or to the “moderator” – what to do next? – Thumbs up meant give him mercy, let him live; thumbs down: kill ‘em. A cheering crowd would watch these horrendous games of mostly men fighter. There were some female exceptions. As in today’s world – there are also some female gladiators.

Today, there are female competitions in almost all sports. But they are generally in lesser demand than men-events. After all, we live in a macho-world. Wars and other conflict confrontations are mostly led by men – and those who suffer most, are women, children and the elderly.

The Gladiator fights date back to the 3rd Century BC. Nowadays’ gladiator games are adapted to the 21st Century.

The origin of gladiatorial combats is not clear. There is some evidence that they were used in funeral rites during the Punic Wars of the 3rd Century BC. The Punic Wars were a series of confrontations fought between the Roman Republic and the Ancient Empire of Carthage (based in what today is Tunisia and stretching over western North Africa). Those were for pure entertainment of the masses, to deviate from war losses, and to show winner’s ego, pride – propaganda for more fighting and more violence.

 

The tradition of gladiator games lasted for almost a thousand years, until the 6th Century AD. Their origins appear like ceremonial, but later, when the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire – they served as brutal entertainments for the masses to deviate their attention from what the empire was doing at home, or “cooking” abroad, in foreign lands, with resources – “taxes” – taken from the people. Resources of the people being diverted to causes that served only a small elite.

Not unlike today, where resources from the people, “taxes” from peoples’ earnings are used for purposes that are decided by the elite in power to a large extent, for reasons and projects that do not serve the people at all. Just take the military budgets – they serve a small group the war and destruction industry, but not the people. People do not want wars.

In the early years of the first millennium (70 AD), the Roman Colosseum was built, where most gladiator games were fought. They were entertaining “compensation-deviation” for the people, so they would not think about what was going on with their monetary resources in foreign lands or even at home – against their vital interests of wellbeing. Their attention was focused on small-scale violence – leaving the big behind-the-scenes stuff to the elite.

The gladiator battles that pitted armed combatants against one another in brutal but often highly choreographed duels to the death, were by far the most popular kind of entertainment that unfolded in the Colosseum.

Today, modern-day Colosseums are football and soccer stadiums. Thus, modern-day gladiator fights are back. They are not as violent and as deadly as those fought in the ancient Roman Colosseum, but today’s emotion-loaded sports events are also destined to deviating peoples’ attention from the “deadly games”, games played by a minute world elite, well hidden from the entertained masses. So well hidden and prepared for decades that they hit the people like a ton of bricks, when they are finally let loose on the innocent masses – masses for years misled by their governments’ propaganda machine.

Right now, the plandemic, called covid-19, has within 18 months already devastated the lives of several billion of people throughout the UN’s 193 UN member countries – not by disease (SARS-CoV-2) caused death, but rather by a devastated economy, induced poverty, famine, despair and eventually death from desolation, famine and misery.

Within a year and a half, basic human rights have been stolen, abridged, taken away, in warp speed, and what were thought to be at least remnants of democracies, especially in the Global North, have become tyrannies, almost overnight; legalized tyrannies many of them under swiftly and semi-clandestinely passed martial law.

Driven by fake news and lavishly paid false propaganda, people have been lulled into fear – constant fear of death from an invisible enemy “V” for virus – from a monstruous fear-machine – false and fabricated disease figures, that they – and the entire society, what’s left of it, is breaking apart, incapable of living normal lives. Indeed, because normal life has been extinguished with the well-in-advance planned pandemic, i.e., plandemic.

An obscure ultra-rich world elite that pretends to call the shots on everything, ordered governments to submit to The Virus, a corona virus, SARS-Cov-2, the version two of the SARS virus launched principally on China in 2002 / 2003. The “order” came on 11 March 2020, from the pharma-compromised World Health Organization (WHO) declaring SARS-Cov-2, alias Covid-19, a worldwide pandemic. It is virology 101, no virus strikes naturally the entre world all 193 UN member countries at once. This was the beginning of the UN Agenda 2030, also called Agenda 21.

It’s also the beginning of the modern-days’ gladiator games.

In this ten-year-program, UN Agenda 2030, a complete structural change of society, if not our civilization, is planned to be implemented, leaving behind what the World Economic Forum (WEF) calls “The Great Reset”, a world that belongs to a few diabolical dark, rich beings, served by a drastically reduced world population.

The death knell to bring the population down, is a gigantic drive of “vaccination” with precisely what the CDC calls an “experimental gene-therapy”, so-called mRNA jabs. Governments around the globe lie, calling it a vaccine. They spend the peoples’ billions, if not trillions, in tax money to lavishly reward the pharmaceuticals – in return for “vaccines”.

Already the immediate reaction to the coerced jabs is a severe death toll, reaching within the first 6 months of the “vaxx-drive” reported serious injuries and deaths that are exponentially higher than those of regular vaccinations over the past 50 years together.

The European Union reports 1.5 million serious vaccine injuries and 15,500 Deaths from the mRNA-jabs, as of 25 June 2021. See this. And by far, not all injuries are reported.

That already indicates that this tyrannical drive to vaccinate more than 7 billion people on Mother Earth, against a virus which has a proven death rate of no more than 0.3% to 0.8 %, about equivalent to the common flu, has nothing to do with health; absolutely nothing. To the contrary.  Its wanton injury, and even better: death. And 193 UN member governments are coopted, either by (deadly) threats or by lush rewards, or simply by being given a placebo instead of a deadly mRNA-experimental toxin.

While all is done to convert the lie – a universal crime of biblical proportions – into the truth, by billions of dollars or euros spent on false propaganda, the real truth does slowly seep through. Real science is exiting the matrix of the bought and corrupted science – and is revealing against all odds and threats the truth. It is still largely suppressed, but gradually emerging – and ever more of the lulled masses are waking up to life-threatening lies and crimes of their governments.

“It’s time to insert a break” – so, the elite, those who shall not be named, but are invisibly commanding the visible elite of our governments. And mind you, those who resist may disappear.

It’s time for the modern-days gladiator games, sports events like soccer championships, the European Cup, the American Cup, a variety of tennis championships, Wimbledon (UK), French Open, US Open, Australian Open, the summer Olympics starting these days in Japan…

Fights between today’s gladiators are normally not about death and life – but they nevertheless let bottled-up emotions explode — like you’d never think humans are capable of letting off so much steam. Just watch the slow-motion replays of a goal in one of these soccer championships matches. It is almost unbelievable the energy let loose, by the players, as well as by the public. Reality is forgotten. That’s the plan.

Just imagine the shall-remain-unnamed billionaires, and others belonging to the dark and wicked masterminds behind the scenes and above the governments – leaning back in their armchairs, watching a soccer game – elated of joy, smiling – we have them where we want them to begiv’em another month or two of diversion, then we’ll lock them down again. This time even harsher, so they get used to it – become familiar with the method – with the infamous carrot and stick approach.

And the stick is getting bigger and bigger and the carrot proportionately smaller – just a little piece of sugar, of hope to have you accept the master’s scepter coming down on you, ever more forcefully, bringing ever more hardship, misery, disease and death. You shall learn to be obedient.

Tyrants Don’t Create Tyranny. Our Obedience Does. See also this.

This may well be the plan. The covid-tyrants will tell the media: After all, it’s their fault. We told them to be careful, to wear masks, keep social distancing; get vaccinated….

And the media go in over-drive: The new strong variants, like the ever-stronger Delta variant is spreading rapidly. It’s affecting sports players as well as spectators. The media is already warning – that “infection cases” are rising, related to the sports events, that people were careless in their behavior – and may have to bear the consequences at the end of summer, or before, when the virus – or new “variants” of the virus hit and over-buren hospitals.

The Fourth Wave is in the coming – its already being announced openly by the media. They never fail to announce their plan in advance – it’s part of the “diabolical ritual”?

In Australia the “Delta Variant” has already locked down, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and maybe other cities. This is scary. Others be prepared, You may be next.

In the meantime, to keep spirits up and going, to incite even more “transgressions” against obedience, marketing outlets (are being sold to) say that flying in the Global North may be back to “normal” by 2022. Giving hope to normalcy. Nothing is more deceiving than one’s hopes being crashed – and that for “mea-culpa” because we, the people, transgressed against all precautions, against risks.

The winter may hit us hard. Lower our moral. Make us more obedient. Make us see the stick, the ever-present stick.

They say, the “D” for Delta Variant is so much stronger – they are already developing a new vaccine for it. So, those who have had already their two shots and are still alive, may need to get a third one, to ward off the Delta Variant. Such a nonsense. Variants are usually weaker than the original virus and they usually differ no more than 5% from the original in the case of corona viruses.

But in the meantime, and while we live the northern summer, lets enjoy, football, soccer, tennis, Olympics – what have you – all sorts of sports that brings out the animal in us, in terms of emotions, and yelling and screaming and mass waving for a team, a player , mass celebrations — thumbs up, and thumbs down – lets do and be gladiators and enjoy their game.

It’s nothing but a prep for the real killing game, where We, The People, are in the arena, exposed to the “swordsmen” – and those high above us, social media giants, computer moguls, eugenists, bankers of the “chosen ones” – again, they shall remain unnamed – those above the UN and all the member governments, those who are watching us, have been watching us for at least the last century – these un-people, will eventually lift or lower their thumbs, when they see us crumbling and already beaten by fear.

Shall we live or die?

It really depends on us.

Do we want to wake up, step out of the Matrix and take the Red Pill, taking responsibility for a new world which WE, the People are to create in solidarity? – Or do we – as a majority – submit to comfort and to the agenda of the WEF’s Global Resetters, and those that command the Global Resetters, hoping and trusting to be happy at the end when we own nothing.

Mind you, this gladiator game – call it also “the process”, is currently planned to end by 2030 – or earlier, if we continue the way we have been. The way it looks right now, from the Global Gladiators vintage point – we will continue to just submitting to massive vaxxing, followed by horrifying “side effects” and death, hoping to survive, being happy as digitized humanoids, owning nothing and being managed by AI robots, becoming the new norm.

*

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

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

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