All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In a newly released book, members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior, a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in the U.K., admit government is using fear to control and manipulate the population
SPI-B, which advocated for the use of fear messaging, now says it was unethical, totalitarian and a regrettable mistake
Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data — which was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways — fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused
Giving out contradictory recommendations is being done on purpose, to keep you psychologically vulnerable. By layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally. Once driven into an illogical state, you are easily manipulated
Government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, and are increasing
*
Governments are using fear to control and manipulate their citizens. That has now been admitted by members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B), a subcommittee that advises the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the U.K. And they should know, because they advocated for it, and now say it was a regrettable mistake. As reported by The Telegraph, May 14, 2021:1
“Scientists on a committee that encouraged the use of fear to control people’s behavior during the COVID pandemic have admitted its work was ‘unethical’ and ‘totalitarian.’ Members of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behavior (SPI-B) expressed regret about the tactics in a new book about the role of psychology in the Government’s COVID-19 response.
SPI-B warned in March last year that ministers needed to increase ‘the perceived level of personal threat’ from COVID-19 because ‘a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened.’
Gavin Morgan, a psychologist on the team, said: ‘Clearly, using fear as a means of control is not ethical. Using fear smacks of totalitarianism. It’s not an ethical stance for any modern government. By nature I am an optimistic person, but all this has given me a more pessimistic view of people.’”
Psychological Warfare Is Real
The Telegraph quotes several of the SPI-B members, all of whom are also quoted in the newly released book, “A State of Fear: How the UK Government Weaponised Fear During the Covid-19 Pandemic,” written by Laura Dodsworth:2
“One SPI-B scientist told Ms Dodsworth: ‘In March [2020] the Government was very worried about compliance and they thought people wouldn’t want to be locked down. There were discussions about fear being needed to encourage compliance, and decisions were made about how to ramp up the fear. The way we have used fear is dystopian.
The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared’ …
One warned that ‘people use the pandemic to grab power and drive through things that wouldn’t happen otherwise … We have to be very careful about the authoritarianism that is creeping in’ …
Another member of SPI-B said they were ‘stunned by the weaponization of behavioral psychology’ during the pandemic, and that ‘psychologists didn’t seem to notice when it stopped being altruistic and became manipulative. They have too much power and it intoxicates them.’
Steve Baker, the deputy chairman of the COVID Recovery Group of Tory MPs, said: ‘If it is true that the state took the decision to terrify the public to get compliance with rules, that raises extremely serious questions about the type of society we want to become. If we’re being really honest, do I fear that government policy today is playing into the roots of totalitarianism? Yes, of course it is.’”
The Manufacture of Fear
For nearly a year and a half, governments around the world, with few exceptions, have fed their citizens a steady diet of frightening news. For months on end, you couldn’t turn on the television without facing a tickertape detailing the number of hospitalizations and deaths.
Even when it became clear that people weren’t really dying in excessive numbers, the mainstream media fed us continuous updates on the growing number of “cases,” without ever putting such figures into context or explaining that the vast majority were false positives.
Information that would have balanced out the bad news — such as recovery rates and just how many so-called “cases” actually weren’t, because they never had a single symptom — were censored and suppressed.
They also refused to put any of the data into context, such as reviewing whether the death toll actually differed significantly from previous years. Instead, each new case was treated as an emergency and a sign of catastrophic doom.
Don’t Be Confused — Contradiction Is a Warfare Tactic
Aside from the barrage of bad-news-only data — which, by the way, was heavily manipulated in a variety of ways — fear and anxiety are also generated by keeping you confused. According to Dodsworth, giving out contradictory recommendations and vague instructions is being done intentionally, to keep you psychologically vulnerable.
“When you create a state of confusion, people become ever more reliant on the messaging. Instead of feeling confident about making decisions, they end up waiting for instructions from the Government,” she said in a May 20, 2021, interview on the Planet Normal podcast.3
An example provided by Dodsworth are the pandemic measures implemented over Christmas 2020:
“Family Christmases were on, then off, then back on, then off again. You have got someone tightening the screw, then loosening the screw, then tightening it again. It’s like a torture scenario.”
But that’s not all. As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, by layering confusion and uncertainty on top of fear, you can bring an individual to a state in which they can no longer think rationally. Once driven into an illogical state, they are easily manipulated. I have no doubt driving people into a state where logic and reason no longer registers is the whole point behind much of the conflicting information we’re given.
The Fear Factory
In her book, Dodsworth details a number of branches of the British government that are using psychological warfare methods in their interaction with the public. In addition to the SPI-B, there’s the:4
• Behavioral Insights team, the so-called “nudge unit,” a semi-independent government body that applies “behavioral insights to inform policy, improve public services and deliver positive results for people and communities.”5 This team also advises foreign nations.
• Home Office’s Research, Information and Communications Unit (RICU), which is part of the U.K.’s Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, advises front groups disguised as public “grassroots” organizations on how to “covertly engineer the thoughts of people.”
• Rapid Response Unit, launched in 2018, operates across the British Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister’s office (colloquially known as “Number 10” as in the physical address, 10 Downing Street in London) to “counter misinformation and disinformation.” They also work with the National Security Communications Team during crises to ensure “official information” gets maximum visibility.6
• Counter Disinformation Cell, which is part of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Both monitor social media and combat “fake news” about science in general and COVID-19 in particular, with “fake news” being anything that contradicts the World Health Organization’s guidance.7
• Government Communications Headquarters (QCHQ), an intelligence and security organization that provides information to the U.K. government and the armed forces. According to Dodsworth, QCHQ personnel, and even members of the 77th Brigade, have been enlisted as so-called sockpuppets and trolls to combat anti-vaccine and anti-lockdown messaging on social media.
According to Dodsworth, there are many others. In her book, she claims at least 10 different government departments in the U.K. are working with “behavioral insights teams” to manipulate the public.
We’re Just Seeing It Now
Importantly, government’s reliance on behavioral psychology didn’t just happen as a result of the pandemic. These tactics have been used for years, for myriad PR purposes, and while the pandemic may be winding down, Dodsworth warns that more and more behavioral scientists are being hired:8
“It’s growing and growing. Right now, I feel we are in a maelstrom of nudge,” she says. “In the past, there have been calls to consult the public on the use of behavioral psychology, and those calls have come from the behavioral scientists themselves. And yet it hasn’t happened. We haven’t yet been consulted on the use of subconscious techniques which effectively strip away our choices …
I fervently hope this book [‘The State of Fear’] is actually going to inspire a much-needed conversation about the use of fear, not just in the epidemic, but the way we use behavioral psychology overall.
It’s not just a genie that has been let out the bottle. It’s like we’ve unleashed a Hydra and you can keep chopping its head off, but they keep employing more of these behavioral scientists throughout different government departments. It’s very much how the Government now does business. It’s the business of fear …
I think ultimately people don’t want to be manipulated. People don’t enjoy being hoodwinked and they don’t want to live in a state of fear. We maybe need to be a bit bolder about standing up more quickly when something is not right.”
Fear Is Contagious
Fear has long been the tool of tyrants. It’s profoundly effective, in part because it spreads from person to person, just like a virus. The contagion of fear is the topic of the Nova “Gross Science” video above, originally aired in mid-February 2017. Among animals, emotional distress responses are telegraphed through pheromones emitted through various bodily secretions such as sweat and saliva.
As explained in the video, when encountering what is perceived as a serious threat, animals with strong social structures, such as bees and ants, will release alarm pheromone. The scent attracts other members of the hive or colony to collectively address the threat.
Humans appear to have a very similar capability. When scared or stressed, humans produce chemosignals, and while you may not consciously recognize the smell of fear or stress, it can have a subconscious impact, making you feel afraid or stressed too.
Humans also tend to mimic the feelings of those around us, and this is yet another way through which an emotion can spread like wildfire through a community or an entire nation — for better or worse. Behavioral psychologists refer to this as “emotional contagion,” and it works both positive and negative emotions.
For example, if you’re greeted by a smile when meeting someone, you’re likely to smile back, mimicking their facial expression and behavior. If someone looks at you with an angry scowl, you’re likely to suddenly feel angry too, even if you weren’t before and have no subjective reason to — other than that someone looked at you the “wrong” way.
However, while both positive and negative emotions are contagious, certain emotions spread faster and easier than others. Research cited in the Nova report found that “high arousal” emotions such as awe (high-arousal positive emotion) and anger or anxiety (high-arousal negative emotion) are more “viral” than low-arousal emotions such as happiness or sadness.
The Nova report also points out that researchers have been mining Twitter and other social media data to better understand how emotions are spread, and the types of messages that spread the fastest. However, they ignored the primary culprits, Google and Facebook both of which steal your private data and use it to manipulate your behavior.
At the time, in 2017, they said this information was being harvested and used to develop ways to avoid public messaging that might incite mass panic. But the COVID-19 pandemic suggests the complete opposite. Clearly, behavioral experts have been busy developing ways to generate maximum fear, anxiety and panic.
How to Inoculate Yourself Against Negative Contagion
At the end of the report, Nova cites research detailing three effective ways to “immunize” yourself against negative emotional contagions.
Distract yourself from the source of the negative contagion — In the case of pandemic fearporn, that might entail not reading or listening to mainstream media news that for the past year have proven themselves incapable of levelheadedness.
Project your own positive emotions back at the source of the negative contagion — If talking to someone who is fearful, they might end up “catching” your optimism rather than the other way around.
Speak up — If someone is unwittingly spreading “negative vibes,” telling them so might help them realize what they’re doing. (This won’t work if the source is knowingly and purposely spreading fear or anxiety though.)
Pandemic of Panic
In a recent Tweet,9 Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer who researches the root causes of chronic disease, shared a short video detailing the root cause of the panic pandemic. Why has the whole world seemingly gone mad from fear?
As explained by Cummins, the outsized level of public fear is the result of a catastrophic feedback loop system where political and mainstream media drivers are pushing fear onto the public, and public fears are then feeding the media (fear sells) and pushing politicians to take action, which generates more fear messages. And so, round and round it goes.
However, at a certain point, this engine of fear starts losing steam. To keep the pandemic pandemonium going, academics bearing doomsday predictions were brought in to scare politicians and provide more fearporn fodder for the media.
Aiding the academic drivers are unelected, undemocratic organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Big Pharma (just to name a few), all of which support these academic doomsday prophets from behind the scenes or openly promote them.
All of the organizations Cummins mentions are part of a technocratic, unelected elite that are making decisions for the entire world. If we were to somehow shut down this secondary engine that feeds into the first, the global insanity would probably start to abate.
The question is, can that be done? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has likened our current predicament to “an apocalyptical battle,”10 as we’re facing formidable undemocratic forces with seemingly unlimited financial resources, political influence and the ability to control the global landscape of communications.
We’re facing a globalist agenda that ultimately seeks to gain total control by stripping away human rights and the rights of countries, and they’re using “biosecurity” as justification for it all.
Exposing the Grand Plan
As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report,11 the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.
It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, antihumanity intents. As noted in the book, “Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order”:12
“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”
In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” journalist Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:13
“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’
Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties … The practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:
One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).
And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’
The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”
These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand-new financial instruments that can then be traded. For example, Zero-Budget Natural Farming is now being introduced in India. This is a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.
The Pandemic Has Been a Psychological Operation
There’s not a single area of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan. The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.
It goes without saying that to radically transform every last part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool for inducing compliance there is.
The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.
Social Engineering Is Central to Technocratic Rule
Technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering. Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “science” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-science,” and any science that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”
The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it. We’ve seen this first-hand during this pandemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the WHO, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.
If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. So, we simply must keep pushing for transparency, truth, medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy.
Recognizing that the fear we feel has been carefully manufactured can help free us from its grip, and once we — en masse — no longer believe the lies being put before us, the engine driving the fear and panic will eventually run out of steam.
*
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).
“There are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” – Mark Twain
It has long been known that benign coronavirus species are capable of causing 15 – 30 % of common colds (usual symptoms: runny nose, cough, sore throat). This reality was recently mentioned by an internationally-famous virologist from Germany, in an interview where he also admitted that laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 is next to impossible given the high incidence of both false-positive “COVID-19” PCR swab tests and false positive “COVID-19” serum antibody tests.
Apparently, neither test seems to be able to distinguish between the benign coronaviruses that can cause common colds and the more serious coronavirus that actually causes COVID-19!
Dr Fauci’s ignorance of (or his ”conflict of interest-generated” failure to reveal) that fact justified his oft-repeated assertions in his endless media rounds and White House press conferences prior to the ill-fated economic shut-down:
“I think we should be overly aggressive (even if we) get criticized for over-reacting. I think Americans should be prepared … to hunker down.”
Anthony Fauci, as everybody should know, is the long-time director of the NIH’s NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases). He is, significantly, also a holder of many HIV vaccine patents and the holder of the patent for the Sanofi-Pasteur Corporation’s Dengue virus vaccine that recently killed 600 Philippine children.)
Another expert, Dr Christian Drosten, pictured on the right, is the Director of Berlin University’s Institute of Virology. He is known at “Germany’s real face of the coronavirus crisis”.
The quotes below came during an interview that Dr Drosten made last month, in which he revealed that the benign coronavirus that causes the common cold cannot be differentiated from the actual Covid-19 virus by the PCR test kits, over 200 of which are currently in development by profiteering medical device companies!
“Some virologists now assume that there are people who have become immune to COVID-19 unnoticed because they have had a relatively harmless corona cold in the past.”
“It is quite the case that we expect that there may be an unnoticed background immunity – due to cold coronaviruses, because they are related to the SARS CoV-2 virus in a certain way.”
“15 percent of common colds are caused by well-known coronaviruses. These are so similar to the current (COVID-19) virus that they can even cause false positive antibody tests.”
“It could be that certain people who had a cold virus a year or two ago are protected in an unprecedented way.”
*
COVID-19’s Phony Death Numbers
Covid-19’s Phony Death Numbers are the justification for unprecedented lockdown measures, euthanasia of the elderly, social distancing, detrimental masking, possible mandatory vaccines of dubious effect, all of which are causing the destruction of life and livelihood. But, why do this? And whose interests are being served?
By F. William Engdahl
Not only are the coronavirus models being used by the World Health Organization (WHO) and most national health agencies based on highly dubious methodologies, and not only are the tests being used of wildly different quality-only indirectly confirming evidence of a possible COVID-19 infection-but now the actual designations of deaths related to COVID-19 are being revealed to be equally problematic for a variety of reasons. It gives alarming food for thought as to the wisdom of deliberately putting most of the world’s people–and with it the world economy–into Gulag-style lockdown on the argument that it is necessary to contain deaths and prevent overloading of hospital emergency services.
When we take a closer look at the definitions used in various countries for “death related to COVID-19” we get a far different picture of what is claimed to be the deadliest plague to threaten mankind since the 1918 “Spanish” Flu.
The USA and CDC Definitions
Right now the USA is said to be the nation with the largest number of COVID-19 deaths, as of this writing, with media reporting some 68,000 deaths. Here is where it gets very dodgy.
The US Government agency responsible for making the cause of death tally for the country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is making huge changes in how they count so-called novel coronavirus deaths.
As of May 5, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) of the CDC in Atlanta, the central agency recording causes of death nationwide, reported 39,910 COVID-19 deaths. A footnote defines this as “Deaths with confirmed or presumed COVID-19”.
How a doctor makes the “presumed” judgment leaves huge latitude to the hospital and health professionals. Although the coronavirus tests are known to be subject to false results, CDC states that even where no tests have been made a doctor can “presume” COVID-19. Useful to note for perspective is the number of USA deaths recorded from all causes during the same period of February 1 through May 2, that was 751,953!
Now it gets even more murky. The CDC posted this notice: “As of April 14, 2020, CDC case counts and death counts will include both confirmed and probable cases and deaths.” From that time the number of so-called COVID-19 deaths in USA has exploded in an alarming manner – or so it would appear. On that day, April 14, New York City’s coronavirus death toll was revised with 3,700 fatalities added, with the provision thatthe count now included “people who had never tested positive for the virus but were presumed to have it.”
The CDC now defines “confirmed” as “confirmatory laboratory evidence for COVID-19,” which as we noted elsewhere included tests of dubious precision. Then they define “probable” as “with no confirmatory laboratory testing performed for COVID-19.” Just a guess of the doctor in charge.
Now leaving aside the major discrepancy between the CDC headline COVID-19 deaths as of May 5 of 68,279 and their detailed total of 39,910 deaths for the same period, we find another problem. Hospitals and doctors are being told to list COVID-19 as cause of death even if, say, a patient age 83 with pre-existing diabetes or cardiac issues or pneumonia dies with or without COVID-19 tests.
The CDC advises, “In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID cannot be made but is “suspected” or “likely” (e.g. the circumstances are compelling with a reasonable degree of certainty) it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as ‘probable’ or ‘presumed.’”
This opens the door ridiculously wide for abuse of coronavirus death numbers in the United States.
A Big Money Incentive
A provision in the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as the CARES Act, gives a major incentive for hospitals in the US, most all of them private, for-profit businesses, to deem newly-admitted patients as “presumed COVID-19.” By this simple method the hospital then qualifies for a substantially larger payment from the government Medicare insurance, the national insurance for those over 65. The word “presumed” is not scientific, not at all precise but very tempting for hospitals concerned about their income in this crisis.
Dr Summer McGhee, Dean of the School of Health Sciences at the University of New Haven, notes that,
“The CARES Act authorized a temporary 20 percent increase in reimbursements from Medicare for COVID-19 patients…” He added that, as a result, “hospitals that get a lot of COVID-19 patients also get extra money from the government.”
Then, according to a Minnesota medical doctor, Scott Jensen, also a State Senator, if that COVID-19 designated patient is put on a ventilator, even if only presumed to have COVID-19, the hospital can get reimbursed three times the sum from the Medicare.
Dr Jensen told a national TV interviewer,
“Right now, Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much.”
Little wonder that state governors, such as Massachusetts’ Governor Charlie Baker, suddenly began back-dating causes of death (totals back to March 30, significantly inflating COVID death numbers, or that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo began demanding 30,000 ventilators and emergency equipment around the same early April time, equipment that was not needed.
In short, the COVID-19 death statistics in the USA are highly dubious for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the huge financial incentives to hospital administrators who had been told to cancel all other operations to make extra room for a “predicted” flood of coronavirus illnesses. That “rising” death toll said to be “COVID-19-or presumed to be-COVID-19” brings on the decisions to lock down the economy and in effect create an economic pandemic of unparalleled dimensions.
The lack of uniformly agreed tests and the inaccuracies of many tests used, as well as the extremely doubtful criteria for declaring a cause of death as being “from” COVID-19 suggests that it is well past time to re-examine the unprecedented lockdown measures, social distancing, masking, possible mandatory vaccines of unproven effect, all of which are producing personal, social and economic devastation.
*
De-mystifying the Misleading COVID-19 Statistics
Understanding the Statistics: Provisional Death Counts and COVID-19
“There are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics” – Mark Twain
Part Three: The CDC’s National Vital Statistics System is where the numbers come from
Provisional death counts deliver our most comprehensive picture of lives lost to COVID-19.
These estimates are based on death certificates, which are the most reliable source of data and contain information not available anywhere else, including comorbid conditions, race and ethnicity, and place of death.
How it Works
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) uses incoming data from death certificates to produce provisional COVID-19 death counts. These include deaths occurring within the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
COVID-19 deaths are identified using a new ICD–10 code.
When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause— the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation.
Why These Numbers Are Different
Provisional death counts may not match counts from other sources, such as media reports or numbers from county health departments. Our counts often track 1–2 weeks behind other data for a number of reasons:
Death certificates take time to be completed. There are many steps involved in completing and submitting a death certificate. Waiting for test results can create additional delays. States report at different rates.
Currently, 63% of all U.S. deaths are reported within 10 days of the date of death, but there is significant variation among jurisdictions.
It takes extra time to code COVID-19 deaths. While 80% of deaths are electronically processed and coded by NCHS within minutes, most deaths from COVID-19 must be coded manually, which takes an average of 7 days. Other reporting systems use different definitions or methods for counting deaths.
Things to Know About the Data
Provisional counts are not final and are subject to change. Counts from previous weeks are continually revised as additional records are received and processed.
Provisional data are not yet complete.Counts will not include all deaths that occurred during a given time period, especially for more recent periods. However, we can estimate how complete our numbers are by looking at the average number of deaths reported in previous years.
Death counts should not be compared across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions report deaths on a daily basis, while others report deaths weekly or monthly. In addition, vital record reporting may also be affected or delayed by COVID-19 related response activities.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired rural family physician from Duluth, Minnesota. For the past decade since his retirement, Dr Kohls has written a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, Duluth’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His column, titled Duty to Warn, has been re-published and archived at websites around the world.
Dr Kohls practiced holistic mental health care in Duluth for the last decade of his family practice career, primarily helping psychiatric patients who had become addicted to their cocktails of dangerous, addictive psychiatric drugs to safely go through the complex withdrawal process. His Duty to Warn columns often deal with various unappreciated health issues, including those caused by Big Pharma’s over-drugging, Big Vaccine’s over-vaccinating, Big Medicine’s over-prescribing, over-screening, over-diagnosing and over-treating agendas and Big Food’s malnourishing and sickness-promoting food industry.
Dr Kohl is a 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).
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) summit in Brussels on Monday reminds us once again of what a hoax the United States had perpetrated on the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 by assuring him that the western alliance would expand “not one inch eastward” once Moscow allowed German Unification and disbanded the Warsaw Pact.
Briefing Book #613 dated December 12, 2017 at the US National Security Archive located at the George Washington University in Washington, DC says as follows:
“U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.
“The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
“The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.” read more
It is this cold-blooded treachery and back-stabbing by the Bill Clinton Administration that rankles most in the Russian mind today, as the NATO enters the Black Sea and slouches toward Russia’s western borders. read more…
Suffice to say, Washington’s post-Cold War diplomacy in Europe has met with astounding success. The heart of the matter is that today the US critically depends on NATO:
To exercise its global hegemony;
To provide a captive market for export of hundreds of billions of dollars worth American weaponry;
To pin down major European powers (especially Germany) to an alliance system that puts brakes on their strategic autonomy and pursuit of independent foreign policies;
To gain “strategic depth” to undertake military operations globally as part of an alliance system rather than blatantly as an interventionist power;
To justify the deployment of thousands of American forces and store nuclear missiles in Europe; and,
To cement the US’ dominance of the transatlantic system.
The NATO brings to mind the classic paradigm of someone all dressed up and nowhere to go. It has to constantly reinvent a reason for its existence. Russia has been providing that reason — although, Moscow has no intentions of capturing territories beyond its borders. Of course, there is no question of a war between the NATO and Russia, either, since the latter is a thermonuclear power that can destroy the US many times over.
The NATO summit’s final communique issued yesterday once again puts Russia on the alliance’s crosshairs. It develops the theme in six paragraphs that are based on a self-serving narrative (Para. 9 to 15). And the alliance’s entire build up for the foreseeable future devolves upon tackling this perceived “Russian threat.”
NATO’s new narrative
Meanwhile, the Brussels communique for the first time in the alliance’s history also brings in China’s rise as posing a potential challenge. The US has been pressing for this in the recent years and has succeeded in including some references to China in the communique. (Paras 56-57.) The communique makes the following points with regard to China:
“China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security”;
NATO is concerned over China’s “coercive policies”;
China is “rapidly expanding” its nuclear capabilities and is developing “a larger number of sophisticated delivery systems to establish a nuclear triad”;
China is “opaque in implementing its military modernisation and its publicly declared military-civil fusion strategy”;
China has military cooperation with Russia and has participated in in Russian exercises in the Euro-Atlantic area; and,
NATO is concerned with China’s “frequent lack of transparency and use of disinformation”; and, China is not upholding its international commitments and acting “responsibly in the international system, including in the space, cyber, and maritime domains, in keeping with its role as a major power.”
But, typically, the communique softens the blow by dissimulating a conciliatory attitude, saying NATO maintains “a constructive dialogue” and welcomes “opportunities to engage” with China in information exchange on respective policies and activities, to enhance awareness and discuss potential disagreements.
The communique urges China “to engage meaningfully in dialogue, confidence-building, and transparency measures regarding its nuclear capabilities and doctrine. Reciprocal transparency and understanding would benefit both NATO and China.”
Make no mistake, this is Washington’s hand writing the NATO communique. Hence this mixed message. The fact of the matter is that many European allies would feel uneasy. For, China poses no military threat to the western alliance. The Europeans visualise a challenge from China largely in the economic sphere — trade, investment, technology, setting up global standards and so on.
China appears to have anticipated the US’ shenanigans. China’s mission to the EU promptly reacted with facts and figures, pointing out that in 2021, Beijing’s military spending stood at $209 billion in comparison with the alliance’s $1.17 trillion, which is over half of the entire global military expenditure and 5.6 times that of China. The statement said, “We will unswervingly defend our sovereignty and development interests, and keep a close eye on NATO’s strategic adjustments and policies toward China.”
An editorial in the Global Times said, “This NATO summit can be seen as a key point in the US and Europe’s attitude toward China in the security arena. Washington has raised the curtain for a political mobilisation campaign to use the NATO bloc to carry out strategic competition with China.
“The US wants to create a narrative that equates its own hegemony to the collective strategic advantage of the West and form a consensus among 30 countries. As long as NATO countries are bound by a common hatred for China, the interest links between Western countries and China will lose its moral basis and the US could force small European countries to serve its China strategy, politically exploiting them for US interests.”
QUAD is a shaggy-dog story
Beijing’s diplomatic countermove will be to strengthen China-European Union cooperation. It works to China’s advantage that the US does not have the sort of clout to dictate policies to the EU as it has on the NATO platform. (German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already counselled caution about NATO closing the door on China.)
What is Washington’s strategy in creating a China vector for NATO, which was in the first instance formed for the security of the Euro-Atlantic space?
Here the parallels are striking with the mid-1990s when the US turned its back on the assurances given to Gorbachev and proceeded with the NATO expansion in anticipation of a Russian resurgence in a conceivable future.
The US anticipates that within the coming decade, China must be stopped from overtaking it as the number one global power. The US needs an alliance system to cope with China’s emergence. The QUAD is a shaggy-dog story, in reality.
Second, to assuage the Russian apprehensions regarding the NATO’s eastward expansion, Bill Clinton administration had offered to Boris Yeltsin that Moscow would be consulted on the NATO plans. Thus was born the NATO-Russia Council. But it was an empty gesture as the US anyway went ahead and did whatever it wanted with NATO expansion.
Similarly, the NATO claim that it has a “constructive dialogue” with China is sheer sophistry. The NATO will go through the charade of a dialogue for a while to calm Chinese nerves before taking the gloves off within 2-3 years at the most.
Third, NATO’s expansion in the 1990s was helpful for Washington to create a window to forge a unified strategic posturing with European allies vis-a-vis Russia. Similarly, the US has begun working hard for the past year or two to get the European allies on board its strategy toward China. The NATO becomes the hub where this work in progress is best handled.
Fourth, the NATO expansion in the 1990s inevitably complicated Russia’s aspirations to become part of a new common security space between Vancouver and Vladivostok. On the contrary, the US secured a say in Russia’s bilateral relations with the NATO countries.
Similar US strategy is at work here to complicate China’s relations with its European partners. Already, the US could block its major NATO allies from partnering with China in 5G technology. The US aims to vanquish China’s BRI projects in Europe on security grounds.
Equally, per NATO guidelines, China can be eventually denied access to western technologies altogether. The point is, while the 30 heads of state and government have expressed concern over China’s “coercive policies”, “opaque ways”, its “use of disinformation” and have upfront called on Beijing to “uphold its international commitments and to act responsibly in the international system.”
Whither ‘Asian Century’?
Finally, as in the case with Russia, the US is pushing China toward an infructuous arms race. Of course, this creates the rationale for increased defence spending by NATO countries, which would in turn promote exports of US military technology to Europe.
Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II are expected to sell in the hundreds, if not thousands, to the US’ allies through 2035. Already, the planned initial buyers include Japan (147 aircraft), South Korea (80) and Australia (upto 100).
The NATO is a lucrative hunting ground for the American arms industry. The bigger the NATO’s threat perceptions, the greater the scope for US exports of weaponry.
In the final analysis, NATO’s naming of China as a systemic challenge would have profound implications for international security. Prima facie, it will draw China and Russia even closer together.
As the US strategic containment of China intensifies, Beijing will come under pressure to boost its deterrence and rapidly increase the number of commissioned nuclear warheads and the DF-41s, the strategic missiles that are capable of long-range strikes and have high-survivability.
China will be on guard as regards its sovereignty and will prepare for an intense showdown. Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of Global Times, wrote recently, “In this scenario, a large number of Dongfeng-41, and JL-2 and JL-3 (both intercontinental-range submarine-launched ballistic missile) will form the pillar of our strategic will. The number of China’s nuclear warheads must reach the quantity that makes US elites shiver should they entertain the idea of engaging in a military confrontation with China.”
There is an African proverb, ‘When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.’ To be sure, the Asian region is becoming the theatre where the US-China tensions will play out. Inevitably, this would cast shadows on the region’s extraordinary prospects for growth and development. The prospects for the ‘Asian Century’ may diminish. And that can only work splendidly for the US, but Asian countries themselves will be the poorer for 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.
Featured image: Family Portrait of NATO Allies, Brussels, Belgium, June 14, 2021 (Source: Indian Punchline)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Israel’s “change government”, which brought down 15-year Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, will struggle to be an instrument of change because its eight diverse components disagree on how to handle core issues. On Palestine, this government will almost certainly continue Netanyahu’s policies of colonisation and repression because any attempt to effect change on this existential issue would blow up the coalition. Its partners extend from parties representing the far right through centre right, the left and Israel’s Palestinian citizens.
Prime Minister Naftali Bennet — who heads an ultranationalist religious party with only six seats in the 120 member Knesset — is a hardliner on Israel’s colonial enterprise and rejects any Palestinian entity in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
His unlikely partner for several years of the engineer of the disparate coalition, Yair Lapid. He is regarded as a centrist on Israel’s political spectrum which has shifted right-wards since the Likud took power in 1977. If the coalition survives until September 2023, alternate prime minister Lapid is slated to take over the top job. He will hardly seek to attempt any ”changes” that will prevent him from taking over.
The third prime mover of the coalition is Avigdor Lieberman, head of the secular right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who has been determined to bring down Netanyahu for several years. He has served in several Israeli governments as foreign and defence minister and is to assume the influential post of finance minister. He has expropriated the post of chairman of the Knesset finance committee for a member of his faction.
Two ministers were in Netanyahu’s most recent Cabinet. Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz, retains the defence portfolio, and New Hope founder Gedeon Sa’ar, the justice ministry. Both are deputy prime ministers.
All five have served under Netanyahu and broken with him personally due to his authoritarianism, failure to honour commitments, and arrogance, rather than his policies.
Ministries assigned to the centre-right Labour Party and leftist Meretz cover areas where there can be moderate change on the domestic front while the Ra’am, the Israeli’s Palestinian fundamentalist partyhas not claimed a ministry but chairmanship of key Knesset committees.
Ra’am is the first Palestinian party to participate in an Israeli government although there have been Palestinian ministers belonging to other parties in government. Until now only Zionist Jewish parties have been at the heart of the ruling establishment. Ra’am’s head Mansour Abbas has secured promises of benefits for Israel’s 20 per cent neglected and marginalised Palestinian minority, including funding for municipalities, schools, and public services, increased policing to fight a spike in crime, and an end to Israeli bullying of bedouin.
While Abbas may have bought benefits for Palestinian Israelis, many if not most are uncertain about Ra’am putting in power a coalition, heavily weighted in favour of the right. During the Netanyahu years, they have forged increasingly close connections with Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, rejected being called “Arab {rather than Palestinian] Israelis” and reclaimed their Palestinian identity.
Furthermore, the “change government” will have to deliver some if not major change. World public opinion has been alienated by the Netanyahu era, moved away from regarding Israel as a special case entitled to impunity over its never-ending occupation, land grab, harsh treatment of Palestinians, and attempts to drag the US and the West into a war with Iran.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched investigations into alleged Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UN Human Rights Council has set up a permanent commission to probe Israel’s May onslaught on Gaza and other actions against the Palestinians. Amnesty International has dared to apply the word “apartheid” to the system of governance Israel imposes on theWest Bank.
“The perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity have evaded justice for more than half a century. An ICC investigation marks a long-overdue step towards justice for victims, and is a chance to end the cycle of impunity that is at the heart of the human rights crisis in the [occupied territories],” said Saleh Higazi, Amnesty’s deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa.
Last month, Ireland’s parliament adopted a motion branding Israeli settlements and policies in the occupied West Bank “de facto annexation”. This amounts to the most forthright characterisation of the situation in the West Bank by any European Union legislature. Ireland is not alone.
Democratic Party members of the US Congress have castigated Israel and urged the US government to suspend $3.8 billion in military funding for Israel as well as millions proposed to resupply its “Iron Dome” system which has protected Israel from rockets from Gaza while Israeli warplanes bomb the unprotected coastal strip with a population of two million Palestinians.
Having ignored developments on the international scene for most of his latest 12-years in power Netanyahu continues to behave as usual — hectoring opponents and accusing “change” of betraying Israel and risking its security. He enjoys the support of his Likud Party, the largest in the Knesset, and the hard right nationalist and religious parties. However, a slender majority of Israelis are fed up with him. They have shifted to parties represented in the coalition — mainly because they are weary and wary of Netanyahu — and resent his drive to exploit Israeli divisions in order to evade prison for breach of trust, fraud and bribery in his ongoing trial in a Jerusalem court. Now that he is not prime minister he could be the second Israeli premier to do jail time — after fellow Likud leader Ehud Olmert.
*
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).
From 1950 through May 23, 2021, the mandate of the UN Security Council has been either violated or ignored, contributing to the gross destabilization of the world, and the Security Council has authorized four virtually genocidal wars through resolutions based upon fabricated justifications. The Security Council supported war on the DPRK in 1950, which continues in some form up to the present, and which obliterated the DPRK between 1950 through 1953, provoking the People’s Republic of China to intervene. China, at that time was not a member of the United Nations.
Resolution 678 in 1990, led to the NATO bombing campaign that destroyed the infrastructure necessary to sustain human life in Iraq, reducing that previously functioning progressive state to rubble, and a current incubator of terrorism.
Resolution 1973 quickly adopted in 2011, led to the NATO bombing campaign that destroyed the infrastructure necessary to sustain human life in Libya, formerly a progressive, functioning state, now an incubator of terrorism. Most recently the Security Council failed to produce even a paltry press statement calling for a cease fire in the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, and by its inaction helped make possible the destruction of the electricity system and the sewerage system of Gaza, reducing much of the city to rubble in May, 2021. Of course the human deaths were more than 200 in Gaza, and approximately 40 in Israel.
On June 8, 2021 at the Security Council, Russian Deputy Permanent Representative Gennady Kuzmin stated to the Estonian President of the Council, at a meeting in connection with the consideration of the report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals:
“It is noticeable with what elated mood you spoke today, with what enthusiasm you reported on your achievements. How they were in a hurry to share the news about the conviction of another high-ranking Serb. The announced verdict against Ratko Mladic is a continuation of the politicized line set by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. An iconic stain on the reputation now of the Residual Mechanism. …For nearly 30 years, almost a third of a century, the biased and costly flywheel of the Hague justice systematically grinds the fates of the participants in the Balkan war….The war that destroyed the once united state – Yugoslavia….How easy it is, given impunity, NATO countries can step over the UN Charter and start a military operation in a third country. Has anyone been responsible for the massive aerial bombing of civilian targets, incl. in the city limits of Belgrade and other large cities, for the killing and wounding of thousands of civilians, including journalists at the Belgrade TV Center and the Chinese Embassy? Why at one time he chose to close his eyes to the obvious crimes of the Kosovar Albanians, and now their cases are being dealt with by the Special Court of Kosovo?”
“The ICTY went down in history as an instrument of vengeance, and not as an organ of justice. The ICTY and the Residual Mechanism, alas, did not become institutions of reconciliation in the heterogeneous Balkan society. The reason for this is the lack of justice in the decisions made, attacks on one side of the conflict and the silence of the sins of others.”
On September 29, 2020 “Euronews.com” published a lengthy article entitled:
“Leaked Files, Organ Removal and Irrepressible Anger: What’s behind the Kosovo war crimes probe?”…
”The leaked files, which apparently named President Hashim Thaci and other leading KLA figures as well as charges against them, to journalists. The Kosovo Specialist Chambers, which is probing claims that the KLA members committed war crimes during and after the war, said that the veterans association was aiming to ‘undermine the proper administration of justice.’….Less than 24 hours after Gucati was arrested ‘for intimidation of witnesses, retaliation and violation of secrecy of proceedings….the charges against Gucati and Haradinajis are a sideshow to another arrest in Kosovo last week, that of former KLA commander Salih Mustafa, on war crimes charges. Mustafa is accused of arbitrary detention, torture and murder at a detention centre in April 1999….Internationally the KLA – which carried out attacks on Serbian police stations and politicians, was regarded as a terrorist organization……..In 1998 the KLA became the main player in the struggle for Kosovan independence, winning the backing of the United States and benefiting from a massive influx of cash… Although the KLA was disbanded as a military force after the war, their leaders acquired top jobs with Hasim Thaci becoming President.”
However, in 2008 Carla Del Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia published her memoirs:
“Confrontation with Humanity’s Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity.’…She alleged that serious crimes had taken place during the conflict in Kosovo against Serb nationals during and after the war, but these crimes had not been seriously investigated. Major figures in the post-war Kosovar government were involved. As well as abuse, murder and disappearance of prisoners at a wide-ranging network of KLA detention facilities in northern and central Albania, Del Ponte highlighted claims that human organs were removed from Serb prisoners in Albania, transported abroad and sold”…Del Ponte’s claims provoked an investigation led by Council of Europe MEP Dick Marty, which in December 2010 backed the accusations of human organ trafficking and implicated KLA leaders. Among them it named President Thaci.
By 1998 Marty stated that Thaci “not only had support within Kosovo, but had become the preferred partner in Washington, an endorsement which Marty stated made him ‘untouchable.’
Following the NATO bombing campaign in June, 1999, the Drenica group, headed by Thaci had ‘unfettered control’ in which to carry out various forms of smuggling and trafficking. KLA units were deployed into Kosovo; Serb inhabitants, along with Roma and other minorities quickly became targets for revenge.
Albright and KLA leader Hashim Thaci
Marty’s report corroborated Del Ponte’s allegations of human organ trafficking, quoting testimonies that ‘spoke credibly and consistently of a methodology by which all of the captives (mostly Serb) were killed, usually by a gunshot to the head, and were operated upon to remove one or more of their organs, ‘harvested’ for sale,” an enormously lucrative business. The KLA regularly cannibalized Serb human corpses, among other atrocities. Of course, it is also possible that they “operated on” live Serbs to extract their vital organs in even more barbaric methods.
On June 8, 2021 Russian Deputy Ambassador Kuzmin was undoubtedly referring to the demonization of the Serbs, and “silence on the sins of others,” among which were KLA leaders and President Hasim Thaci, himself.
The NATO bombing of Serbia in 2000, followed by barbaric treatment of Serb prisoners by KLA leaders, recalls Western European and especially Vatican complicity throughout the slaughter of the Serb prisoners at Jasenovac concentration camp in World War II, where the fascist Ustasha tortured to death more than half million Serbs, exterminating the orthodox Christian Serb population, much as Hitler exterminated German Jews. Archbishop Stepinovac, advisor to the Ustasha fascist state was appointed by Pope Pius XII. Stepinovac was ultimately responsible for this genocide at Jasinovac concentration camp.
These buried crimes, both at the concentration camp, Jasenovac in WW II and those perpetrated by the KLA following the NATO bombing of Belgrade and other Serb cities in 1999, still cry out for justice, and these are, no doubt the “sins lacking justice” to which Russian Deputy Ambassador Kuzmin referred at the United Nations Security Council on June 8, 2021.
A rare and perhaps unique record of these crimes and the abhorrent consequence of the demonization of the Serbs was published by the late Vladimir Dedijer, formerly Yugoslavian delegate to the UN, and considered a leading authority on 20th Century genocide; Dedijer, together with Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre and Nobel Laureate Harvard Professor Dr. George Wald, chaired the Bertrand Russell International Tribunal on War Crimes. Dedijer’s documentation of the Ustasha’s atrocities appear to have been obscured until in 1990 Dedijer published his monumental work, “The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, the Massacre of the Serbs in World War II.”
*
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.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Public health insiders increasingly are calling out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the “insanity” of pushing COVID vaccines on people who have already acquired natural immunity.
Although accurate numbers are difficult to come by, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conservatively estimates more than a third of Americans (at least 114.6 million) have been infected with SARS-CoV-2. There is ample reason to believe that in most of these individuals, SARS-CoV-2 infection “induces long-term immunity.”
For example, a December 2020 study by Singapore researchers found neutralizing antibodies (one prong of the immune response) remained present in high concentrations for 17 years or more in individuals who recovered from the original SARS-CoV.
Even back in March 2020, the NIH’sDr. Anthony Fauci shared his view (in an email [p. 22] to Ezekiel Emanuel) that “their [sic] would be substantial immunity post infection.”
Yet despite these recent findings, health authorities are largely ignoring natural immunity’s stellar track record. In fact, as the American Institute of Economic Research reported, it appears in order to promote the COVID vaccine agenda, key organizations are not only “downplaying” natural immunity but may be seeking to “erase” it altogether.
Until recently, the Mayo Clinic reported that individuals who survived the 1918 influenza pandemic were immune, 92 years later, to H1N1 influenza. However as economist Jon Sanders noted, the Mayo Clinic removed the mention of 1918 influenza immunity from its website this spring. And late last year, the WHO was caught attempting to unscientifically exclude “immunity developed through previous infection” from the very definition of herd immunity.
Why, asks Sanders, are Americans being kept in the dark about the fact that so many “have faced COVID-19 and won” — and, therefore, “don’t need a vaccine?”
Policy reversal
The evidence that natural immunity is strong and long-lived goes back decades. In contrast, the one-dimensional immunity conferred by vaccination and vaccine boosters is often fickle, short-lived or altogether absent.
The well-studied phenomenon of vaccine failure observed following mass vaccination against illnesses such as measles, pertussis and influenza — and the serious or fatal “breakthrough infections” we are now observing after COVID shots — have proven this point repeatedly.
The CDC’s indiscriminate advice to the segment of the population that has recovered from COVID-19 to get a COVID vaccine stands in stark contrast to the agency’s approach to other infections.
For example, CDC does not recommend measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination for individuals who have confirmation of past infection or who were born in the pre-MMR era, when everyone got those childhood diseases.
Recognizing that vaccination is beside the point for people who acquire immunity naturally — by experiencing a given illness naturally — CDC likewise tells individuals who have lab confirmation of “disease-induced immunity” against varicella that they do not need to get a chickenpox vaccine.
Surprising criticism from insiders
Online medical news outlet MedPage Today, owned by “leading Internet information and services company” J2 Global, describes itself as “a trusted source for clinical news coverage across medical specialties.”
For the most part, this translates into bland mainstream coverage that, in the COVID era, has included heavy promotion and endorsement of the public health party line on vaccination.
However, the publication’s “Enterprise & Investigative team” also professes to be willing to “shine a light on wrongdoing in medicine — whether individual, corporate or governmental” as well as “following the money in healthcare.”
Of late, this investigative team appears to have decided to blow the whistle on the suppression of discussion about natural COVID immunity. On May 28, MedPage published an op-ed bluntly titled “Quit Ignoring Natural COVID Immunity.” Days later, Dr. Marty Makary, MedPage Today editor-in-chief, in public interviews reiterated many of the arguments laid out in the op-ed.
Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, one of the op-ed’s two co-authors, is a former CDC medical officer and “frequent advisor to the CDC, NIH and WHO.” In their op-ed, Klausner and co-author Noah Kojima ask why we are “so focused on vaccine-induced immunity … while ignoring natural immunity” and also criticize policy-makers for ignoring the “complexities of the human immune system” — including the evidence that both B cells and T cells contribute to post-COVID cellular immunity.
Arguing that protection among COVID-recovered individuals “is similar to or better than vaccine-induced immunity,” they also condemn the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) advice against using antibody testing, instead urging the following:
“[P]olicymakers should include natural immunity as determined by an accurate and reliable antibody test or the documentation of prior infection … as evidence of immunity equal to that of vaccination [emphasis added]. That immunity should be given the same societal status as vaccine-inducted [sic] immunity. Such a policy will greatly reduce anxiety and increase access to travel, events, family visits, and more … allowing [those who have recovered] to safely discard their masks, show their faces, and join the legions of those vaccinated.”
In his public statements, Makary has been even more outspoken, describing the sidelining of natural COVID immunity — which he believes is “probably lifelong” — as “[o]ne of the biggest failures of our current medical leadership.”
According to Makary, the CDC’s relentless focus on vaccine-induced immunity and its “demonizing” of individuals who choose not to get a COVID vaccine makes the agency “the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history.”
Makary, whose other professional roles include professor of medicine and public health at Johns Hopkins University and election to the National Academy of Medicine, also remarked, “I never thought I’d say this, but please ignore the CDC guidance.”
Makary has also expressed dissent on the topic of COVID vaccines and children. In a June 10 opinion piece in MedPage Today, Makary told parents to “think twice before giving the COVID vax to healthy kids,” characterizing the risk of a healthy child dying of COVID as “between zero and infinitesimally rare.” (Blunting the force of this statement, however, Makary signaled his support of COVID-19 vaccination in “any child with a medical condition, including being overweight” — which means at least 54% of American children).
In a June 13 television appearance, Makary continued to criticize the CDC, accusing it of “sitting on a lot of data,” including important information about the serious heart complications now being experienced by adolescent recipients of the COVID injections. According to a news account, Makary suggested that “fanaticism” governs the aggressive push for COVID vaccination, again citing “the insanity of insisting on a vaccine to immunize those already immune.”
Scientists recently offered a dramatic explanation for some of these adverse outcomes, disclosing that the spike protein in the Pfizer and Moderna injections is actually a pathogenic toxin that accumulates in organs and tissues and crosses the blood-brain barrier.
In this context, reminders about the role and benefits of natural immunity can counterbalance the dangerous and false herd immunity rhetoric that seeks to justify COVID vaccines for kids.
Readers of The Defender are also likely familiar with the numerous conflicts of interest that make it so difficult to trust advice from officials at captured agencies like the CDC and the FDA. When insiders cloaked with titles and prestige from the public health establishment put forth critiques of these agencies, we would be foolish not to pay attention.
In the context of the growing censorship of any information that runs counter to government and industry claims, pushback from all corners is welcome, particularly when it is grounded in both evidence and common sense.
*
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.
***
For the first time since its mass-vaccination campaign kicked off three months ago, Hong Kong’s vaccination indemnity fund has paid out a total of HK$450,000 ($58,000) as compensation for patients who suffered particularly severe reactions to inoculation against COVID.
Out of more than 3MM doses of vaccines that have been administered in the city-state since February, HK’s Food and Health Bureau said it had received 74 applications for compensation as of June 10, 58 of which were still being processed. As of Sunday, 3,605 people had reported an adverse reaction to their jabs, roughly 0.12% of all vaccination recipients. Only 1.2MM, or 16.3% of the city’s population, has been fully vaccinated.
Awards were given to patients whose reactions were deemed especially severe.
“The principles of severity assessment include fairness to applicants, prudent use of public funding, transparency to the public, and based on medical science,” the bureau said in a statement. “Severity of individual cases is subject to case-by-case assessment according to their circumstances.”
The compensation figures were revealed while authorities also confirmed a new imported case from Sri Lanka, which brought the city’s official tally to 11,881, with 210 related deaths. So far 21 deaths have been recorded involving people who received a jab two weeks before dying, although no connection has been made between he vaccination and the deaths, according to the state authorities.
Between May 17 and Sunday, Hong Kong’s public hospitals reported 2.8 deaths for every 100K vaccinated adults. That’s compared with 58.1 in 100K among the rest who were not.
One of the patients who received a payout from the HK$1 billion ($129MM) fund suffered an allergic reaction that nearly killed them, according to the SCMP.
Of the three claims of vaccine-related deaths, two have already been processed while one was rejected because of a lack of an official vaccination record.
Family members of fatal cases could receive up to HK$2.5MM if a patient is below the age of 40, or a maximum of HK$2MM for patients aged 40 or older.
To be eligible for a payout, a registered doctor must certify all serious adverse events. Another condition is the expert committee monitoring side effects of vaccines cannot rule out that the event is not related to the jab.
Tim Pang Hung-cheong, a patients’ rights campaigner from the Society for Community Organisation, also supported the payout, but said the amount should have been higher to reflect the loss of income and work ability caused by the side effects. He also said the government should publish in detail the reasons for approving or rejecting each claim, to give confidence to those thinking of getting a jab.
*
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).
It requires major suspension of disbelief to consider the G7, the self-described democracy’s most exclusive club, as relevant to the Raging Twenties. Real life dictates that even accounting for the inbuilt structural inequality of the current world system the G7’s economic output barely registers as 30% of the global total.
Cornwall was at best an embarrassing spectacle – complete with a mediocrity troupe impersonating “leaders” posing for masked elbow bump photo ops while on a private party with the 95-year-old Queen of England, everyone was maskless and merrily mingling about in an apotheosis of “shared values” and “human rights”.
Quarantine on arrival, masks enforced 24/7 and social distancing of course is only for the plebs.
The G7 final communique is the proverbial ocean littered with platitudes and promises. But it does contain a few nuggets. Starting with ‘Build Back Better’ – or B3 – showing up in the title. B3 is now official code for both The Great Reset and the New Green Deal.
Then there’s the Yellow Peril remixed, with the “our values” shock troops “calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms” with a special emphasis on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
The story behind it was confirmed to me by a EU diplomatic source, a realist (yes, there are some in Brussels).
All hell broke loose inside the – exclusive – G7 room when the Anglo-American axis, backed by spineless Canada, tried to ramrod the EU-3 plus Japan into an explicit condemnation of China in the final communiqué over the absolute bogus concentration camp “evidence” in Xinjiang. In contrast to politicized accusations of “crimes against humanity”, the best analysis of what’s really going on in Xinjiang has been published by the Qiao collective.
Germany, France and Italy – Japan was nearly invisible – at least showed some spine. Internet was shut off to the room during the really harsh “dialogue”. Talk about realism – a true depiction of “leaders” vociferating inside a bubble.
The dispute essentially pitted Biden – actually his handlers – against Macron, who insisted that the EU-3 would not be dragged into the logic of a Cold War 2.0. That was something that Merkel and Mario ‘Goldman Sachs’ Draghi could easily agree upon.
In the end the divided G7 table chose to agree on a Build Back Better World – or B3W – “initiative” to counter-act the Chinese-driven Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Reset or else
The White House, predictably, pre-empted the final G7 communiqué. A statement later retracted from their website, replaced by the official communique, made sure that, “the United States and our G7 partners remains deeply concerned by the use of all forms of forced labor in global supply chains, including state-sponsored forced labor of vulnerable groups and minorities and supply chains of the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors – the main supply chains of concern in Xinjiang.”
“Forced labor” is the new mantra handily connecting the overlapping demonization of both Xinjiang and BRI. Xinjiang is the crucial hub connecting BRI to Central Asia and beyond. The new “forced labor” mantra paves the way for B3W to enter the arena as the “savior” human rights package.
Here we have a benign G7 “offering” the developing world a vague infrastructure plan that reflects their “values”, their “high standards” and their way of business, in contrast to the Yellow Peril’s trademark lack of transparency, horrible labor and environmental practices, and coercion methods.
Translation: after nearly 8 years since BRI, then named OBOR (One Belt, One Road) was announced by President Xi, and subsequently ignored and/or demonized 24/7, the Global South is supposed to be marveling at a vague “initiative” funded by private Western interests whose priority is short-term profit.
As if the Global South would fall for this remixed IMF/World Bank-style debt abyss. As if the “West” would have the vision, the appeal, the reach and the funds to make this scheme a real “alternative”.
There are zero details on how B3W will work, its priorities and where capital is coming from. B3W idealizers could do worse than learn from BRI itself, via Professor Wang Yiwei.
B3W has nothing to do with a trade/sustainable development strategy geared for the Global South. It’s an illusionist carrot dangling over those foolish enough to buy the notion of a world divided between “our values” and “autocracies”.
We’re back to the same old theme: armed with the arrogance of ignorance, the “West” has no idea how to understand Chinese values. Confirmation bias applies. Hence China as a “threat to the West”.
We’re the builders of choice
More ominously, B3W is yet another arm of the Great Reset.
Carney is a uniquely positioned player: former governor of the Bank of England, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, adviser to PM Boris “Global Britain” Johnson and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, and a trustee of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
Translation: a major Great Reset, New Green Deal, B3W ideologue.
His book – which should be read in tandem with Herr Schwab’s opus on Covid-19 – preaches total control on personal freedoms as well as a reset on industry and corporate funding. Carney and Schwab treat Covid-19 as the perfect “opportunity” for the reset, whose benign, altruistic spin emphasizes a mere “regulation” of climate, business and social relations.
This Brave New Woke World brought to you by an alliance of technocrats and bankers – from the WEF and the UN to the handlers of hologram “Biden” – until recently seemed to be on a roll. But signs in the horizon reveal it’s far from a done deal.
Something uttered by B3W stalwart Tony Blair way back in January is quite an eye-opener: “It’s going to be a new world altogether… The sooner we grasp that and start to put in place the decisions [needed for a] deep impact over the coming years the better.”
So here Blair, in a Freudian slip, not only gives away the game (“deep impact over the coming years”, “new world altogether”) but also reveals his exasperation: the sheep are not being corralled as fast as necessary.
Well, Tony knows there’s always good old punishment: if you refuse the vaccine, you should remain under lockdown.
BBW, incidentally, accounts for a heterodox category of porn flics. B3W in the end may reveal itself as no more than toxic social porn.
*
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.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On the “Dark Horse Podcast,” Dr. Robert Malone, creator of mRNA vaccine technology, said the COVID vaccine lipid nanoparticles — which tell the body to produce the spike protein — leave the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues.
On June 10, Dr. Robert Malone, creator of mRNA vaccine technology, joined evolutionary biologist Bret Brownstein, Ph.D., for a 3-hour conversation on the “Dark Horse Podcast” to discuss multiple safety concerns related to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
In this short outtake from the full podcast, Malone, Brownstein and tech entrepreneur Steve Kirschtouch on the implications of the controversial Japanese Pfizer biodistribution study. The study was made public earlier this month by Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist.
They also discuss the lack of proper animal studies for the new mRNA vaccines, and the theory, espoused by virologist Geert Vanden Bossche, Ph.D., that mass vaccination with the mRNA vaccines could produce ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.
As The Defender reported June 3, Bridle received a copy of a Japanese biodistribution study — which had been kept from the public — as a result of a freedom of information request made to the Japanese government for Pfizer data.
Prior to the study’s disclosure, the public was led to believe by regulators and vaccine developers that the spike protein produced by mRNA COVID vaccines stayed in the shoulder where it was injected and was not biologically active — even though regulators around the world had a copy of the study which showed otherwise.
The biodistribution study obtained by Bridle showed lipid nanoparticles from the vaccine did not stay in the deltoid muscle where they were injected as the vaccine’s developers claimed would happen, but circulated throughout the body and accumulated in large concentrations in organs and tissues, including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and — in “quite high concentrations” — in the ovaries.
The mRNA — or messenger RNA — is what tells the body to manufacture the spike protein. The lipid nanoparticles are like the “boxes” the mRNA is shipped in, according to Malone. “If you find lipid nanoparticles in an organ or tissue, that tells you the drug got to that location,” Malone explained.
According to the data in the Japanese study, lipid nanoparticles were found in the whole blood circulating throughout the body within four hours, and then settled in large concentrations in the ovaries, bone marrow and lymph nodes.
Malone said there needed to be monitoring of vaccine recipients for leukemia and lymphomas as there were concentrations of lipid nanoparticles in the bone marrow and lymph nodes. But those signals often don’t show up for six months to three or nine years down the road, he said.
Usually, signals like this are picked up in animal studies and long-term clinical trials, but this didn’t happen with mRNA vaccines, Malone said.
Malone said there are two adverse event signals that are becoming apparent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). One of them is thrombocytopenia — not having enough platelets, which are manufactured in the bone marrow. The other is reactivation of latent viruses.
Malone found the ovarian signal perplexing because there is no accumulation in the testes.
Malone said the original data packages contained this biodistribution information. “This data has been out there a long time” within the protected, non-disclosed, purview of the regulators across the world, he said.
According to Malone, the FDA knew the COVID spike protein was biologically active and could travel from the injection site and cause adverse events, and that the spike protein, if biologically active, is very dangerous.
In fact, Malone was one of many scientists to warn the FDA about the dangers of the free spike protein.
Malone suggested autoimmune issues may be related to free-circulating spike protein which developers assured would not happen. To pick up autoimmune issues, a 2- to 3- year follow-up period in phase 3 patients would be required to monitor for potential autoimmune consequences from vaccines — but that monitoring didn’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Pfizer and Moderna also didn’t conduct proper animal studies, Brownstein said. What the animal models give us is a signal that alerts us to what we need to follow up on in humans.
Brownstein said:
“We’ve got very alarming short-term stuff. We’ve got short-term stuff that is alarming on the basis of where we find these lipids, where we find the spike proteins — those things are reasons for concern because it wasn’t supposed to be this way. We’ve also got an alarming signal in terms of the hazards and deaths or the harms and the deaths that are reported in the system and there are reasons to think they are dramatic under-reports.”
Vaden Bossche got it right
One of the potential harms from the vaccines, Brownstein said, was made famous by Vanden Bossche, a vaccinologist who worked with GSK Biologicals, Novartis Vaccines, Solvay Biologicals, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Discovery team in Seattle, and Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization in Geneva.
Earlier this year, Vanden Bossche put out a call to the World Health Organization, supported by a 12-page document, that described the “uncontrollable monster” that a global mass vaccination campaign could potentially unleash.
Vanden Bossche said a combination of lockdowns, and extreme selection pressure on the virus induced by the intense global mass vaccination program, might diminish the number of cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the short-term, but ultimately, will induce the creation of more mutants of concern. This is what Vanden Bossche calls “immune escape” (i.e. incomplete sterilization of the virus by the human immune system, even following vaccine administration).
Immune escape will in turn trigger vaccine companies to further refine vaccines that will add, not reduce, the selection pressure, producing ever more transmissible and potentially deadly variants.
The selection pressure will cause greater convergence in mutations that affect the critical spike protein of the virus that is responsible for breaking through the mucosal surfaces of our airways, the route used by the virus to enter the human body.
The virus will effectively outsmart the highly specific antigen-based vaccines being used and tweaked, depending on the circulating variants. All of this could lead to a hockey stick-like increase in serious and potentially lethal cases — in effect, an out-of-control pandemic.
Malone said:
“Vanden Bossche’s concern is not theoretical. It is real and we have the data. We’re stuck with this virus or its downstream variants pretty much for the rest of our lives and it’s going to become more like the flu. We will have continuing evolution and circulation of variants, and that is an escape.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The world’s nine nuclear armed states have downsized their military arsenals, but made up for their loss by increasing the number of weapons on high operational alert, according to a new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
As a result, the world is increasingly within striking distance of nuclear weapons—either by accident or by design.
The most vulnerable region is Asia, which is home to four of the world’s nine nuclear powers, namely, India, Pakistan, China and North Korea, the rest being the US, UK, France, Russia and Israel.
The study says the nine countries collectively possessed an estimated 13,080 nuclear weapons at the start of 2021.
This was a decrease from the 13, 400 that SIPRI estimated these states possessed at the beginning of 2020, since some of these weapons have gone into “retirement”.
But despite this overall decrease, the estimated number of nuclear weapons currently deployed with operational forces increased to 3,825, from 3,720 last year.
Around 2,000 of these—nearly all of which belonged to Russia or the US—were kept in a state of high operational alert ready for a strike.
World nuclear forces, January 2021
Source: SIPRI Yearbook 2021
While the US and Russia continued to reduce their overall nuclear weapon inventories by dismantling retired warheads in 2020, both are estimated to have had around 50 more nuclear warheads in operational deployment at the start of 2021 than a year earlier.
Russia also increased its overall military nuclear stockpile by around 180 warheads, mainly due to deployment of more multi-warhead land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
The deployed strategic nuclear forces by both countries remained within the limits set by the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), although the treaty does not limit total nuclear warhead inventories, according to SIPRI.
Meanwhile, a new report released last week by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), warned that nuclear-armed states spent $72.6 billion on their nuclear weapons – even as the pandemic spread in 2020, an increase of $1.4 billion from 2019.
The report, Complicit: 2020 Global Nuclear Weapons Spending, showcases how during the pandemic, which had devastating health and economic consequences last year, governments were increasingly channeling tax money to defence contractors, which in turn increased the amounts to lobbyists and think tanks to encourage a continued increase of spending.
Out of the $72.6 billion that countries spent on nuclear weapons in 2020 globally, $27.7 billion went to less than a dozen defence contractors to build nuclear weapons, which in turn spent $117 million lobbying and upwards of $10 million funding most major think tanks writing about nuclear weapons.
“The climate and Covid emergencies are showing us what we really need for our security and safety as human beings, and it’s not nuclear weapons,” said Dr Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy (AIDD) and a UK-based member of ICAN’s Steering Group.
“The UN system is struggling because its efforts to build cooperative peace and security are constantly undermined and strangled by aggressive nation states. Most people can see we need cooperation and sharing to solve global challenges, from vaccines to sustainable resources,” she told IPS.
But a minority of governments with nuclear dependencies and militaristic economies create the most dangers for everyone, said Dr Johnson.
“With their aggressive posturing, new types of weapons and corrupt selling practices they arm rivals, feed insecurity and wars, and undermine international security, law and human rights, she warned.
“As the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) entered into force this year, it has come as little surprise to see some governments kick back with extra bells and whistles on their pointless and insecure nuclear weapons”.
She said privileged governments with vested interests have engaged in similar angry retaliations when faced with other international treaties that bring much-needed legal constraints.
Professor M. V. Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, and Director, Liu Institute for Global Issues, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, told IPS the ICAN report documents the power of the political control wielded by companies involved in nuclear weapons production and maintenance is.
These companies profit enormously from their involvement in making these weapons of mass destruction and use a share of these profits to lobby for and shape the decision-making process in ways that further their profits, and loosen any semblance of democracy in this sphere, he said.
“To have such actions continue during a global pandemic is shocking, and reveals the completely misguided priorities of these nuclear weapon states and their allies,” said Dr Ramana, a scholar at the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.
According to a breakdown provided by ICAN on global spending on nuclear weapons, the US leads the list:
United States: $37.4 billion
China: $10.1 billion
Russia: $8 billion
United Kingdom: $6.2 billion
France: $5.7 billion
India: $2.4 billion
Pakistan: $1 billion
North Korea: $667 million
The top 5 companies profiting from nuclear weapon contracts were:
Northrop Grumman ($13.6 billion)
General Dynamics ($10.8 billion)
Lockheed Martin ($2 billion)
Raytheon Technologies ($449.5 million)
Draper ($342 million)
Dr Johnson said stigmatising and banning nuclear weapons not only affects the profits of military-industrial businesses, but the careers of many bureaucrats, academics and politicians who for decades have promoted spending taxpayer’s money on these weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) instead of investing more in their countries’ health, education, peace-building relations and environment-saving technologies.
“Like all peace and security objectives, nuclear disarmament is not a one-off project, but a transformative process that needs to be built and maintained throughout our lives.’
She said the TPNW puts UN bodies and activists in a stronger position in terms of international norms and law, but as will be seen as States Parties hold their first meeting in 2022, we have a lot of work ahead of us to construct the vital institutional, humanitarian and verification infrastructures for the Treaty to become universally effective.”
“Nuclear weapons still have the potential to cause great harm, so these dying kicks of nuclear colonialism need to be stopped. In Britain, many are now promoting the TPNW while campaigning for ‘Nurses not Nukes’ and accusing Boris Johnson’s government of violating Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations with recent policies that increase the role and numbers of UK nuclear weapons,” said Dr Johnson.
“ICAN’s recent nuclear spending report ‘Complicit’ deals with another dimension where civil society can exert very effective pressure. Not only does ICAN expose the high financial costs to the nuclear armed governments (and therefore people), but also names some of the major military-industrial and bureaucratic-academic profiteers”.
She said naming names is important, as civil society continues to lift the covers and expose the corrupt and dependent relations that have kept nuclear weapons in business since 1945.
*
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.
Thalif Deen is a former Director, Foreign Military Markets at Defence Marketing Services; Senior Defence Analyst at Forecast International; and military editor Middle East/Africa at Jane’s Information Group. He is also the co-author of “How to Survive a Nuclear Disaster” (New Century, 1981).
Featured image: Euratom inspectors conduct safeguards inspections at URENCO in the Netherlands. Credit: IAEA/Dean Calma
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On 3 June 1941 a meeting of the Soviet Supreme Military Council was chaired in Moscow. Its goal was to ratify instructions for the Red Army’s political workers, which would stress the need for vigilance and caution against the growing Nazi threat.
When Joseph Stalin’s close associate, the Soviet politician Georgy Malenkov, read the paperwork regarding this conference he dismissed it by saying, “The document is formulated in primitive terms, as though we were going to war tomorrow”. (1)
War was in fact just over two weeks away, and there was every need for Russian preparations to proceed at a frantic pace. Nevertheless, Stalin supported Malenkov’s stance, and the directive for gearing towards imminent conflict was not issued. One of the clearest indications, that Stalin was not preparing for war in 1941, can be seen in the following: On 6 June 1941, Stalin sanctioned a comprehensive strategy for an unrushed transfer of Soviet industry to military production.
The American journalist Harrison E. Salisbury, who spent extensive time in Russia, wrote of Stalin’s war policy, “This timetable called for completion of the plan by the end of 1942! It was an excellent, detailed schedule, calling for the conversion of large numbers of civilian plants to military purposes, and the construction of much-needed defense facilities”. The relaxed pace at which Stalin wanted to achieve a transformation to a full war economy, reveals his lack of immediate concern about Adolf Hitler’s intentions. The Soviet foreign minister, Vyacheslav Molotov, remembered Stalin saying shortly after Germany had routed France, “we would be able to confront the Germans on an equal basis only by 1943”. (2)
After 1 June 1941 Soviet personnel continued to arrive in Germany for holiday breaks, bringing with them their wives and children. The Soviet embassy in Berlin noticed a worrying development. On the Unter den Linden boulevard in central Berlin was located the studio of Hitler’s personal photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann. In the display window of Hoffmann’s business, he previously placed maps of European theatres, where the Germans were going to wage war.
In the spring of 1940 Hoffmann erected maps of the Netherlands and Scandinavia in his front window; in April 1941 charts of Yugoslavia and Greece featured; in late May 1941, a great map of the western USSR appeared, including Belorussia, the Ukraine and the Baltic states. (3)
On the same day (6 June 1941) that Stalin ratified his war plan, the Soviet leader received a report from the NKGB, Russia’s intelligence service. The NKGB evaluation calculated that four million German soldiers were now amassed along the Soviet frontiers, in preparation for Operation Barbarossa. (4)
Also on 6 June, the Wehrmacht replaced their guards near Soviet borders with field troops. The Germans put military directors in charge of all hospitals. An estimated 200 Axis troop trains every day were passing through Nazi-dominated central Europe, and arriving beside the Ukrainian or Polish boundaries. The noise of German and Axis vehicles was such that local residents had difficulty sleeping at night.
It was at this time that SS First Lieutenant Otto Skorzeny was transferred to the Eastern front by rail, along with the rest of his unit. Skorzeny later recalled, “Our Das Reich division therefore spent several weeks working exclusively to put our rolling stock in working order and, at the beginning of June 1941, we received the order to entrain the division. After we had driven around Bohemia-Moravia, our train reached Upper Silesia and finally Poland. Where were we going? We had no idea and gave our imaginations free reign… None of us came up with the idea that we might attack Russia, and so have to fight on two fronts”. (5)
In mitigation to Stalin, not all of the Nazi divisions themselves were aware of Hitler’s design to invade Russia. Yet the Germans could not shield from Russian eyes masses of their soldiers, whose lines stretched across the horizon for miles. Along the crucial River Bug frontier in eastern Poland, where the Soviet 4th Army was stationed, more than 40 German divisions were sighted by 5 June 1941.
After Winston Churchill’s failed earlier efforts to convince Stalin of a German invasion, on 10 June 1941 – just 12 days before the Germans attacked – the British again warned Moscow. Alexander Cadogan, British Permanent Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, invited to his office Ivan Maisky, the Soviet Ambassador to Britain. Cadogan told Maisky, “Take a piece of paper and write down what I’m going to dictate”. Cadogan thereupon stated in detail the identity and positioning of German divisions beside the Soviet borders (6). Maisky was alarmed at hearing this and sent the data by urgent cipher to Moscow.
Three days later on 13 June 1941 a report from TASS, the Russian news agency, brushed aside rumours of a German-Soviet war, claiming it to be a British provocation. Stalin was unshakeable in his belief that reports of a Nazi invasion in 1941 were a British trick, to sow trouble between Germany and Russia.
In mid-June 1941 Stalin stressed to General Georgy Zhukov, “Germany is involved up to its ears in the war in the west, and I believe Hitler will not risk creating a second front for himself by attacking the Soviet Union”. (7)
Altogether, 600,000 German oil-guzzling motor vehicles were being prepared to roll eastwards on Hitler’s order. From where did resource-poor Germany obtain the quantities of oil necessary, so as to launch the largest military operation in history? To begin with briefly, in 1938 the Nazis domestically produced around 3 million tons of oil; 2.5 million of which was synthetically created; and the other 0.5 million or so from natural extraction on German terrain (8); such as the oil present at Nienhagen and Rietberg in the northern half of Germany.
From 1936 to 1939, synthetic oil production in Germany almost doubled (9). As the Germans attacked western Poland on 1 September 1939, there were 14 synthetic hydrogenation plants churning out oil at full capacity in the Reich, and another six being built. With the German annexation of Austria, on 12 March 1938, came oil rich areas which the Germans quickly exploited – like the newly discovered Prinzendorf field in the Vienna Basin. After 1938, the Austrian part of the Nazi empire was by itself producing almost 900,000 tons of oil a year. (10)
In early October 1938, Germany had annexed the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia, which held restricted oil reserves but was more plentiful in other mineral resources. Richard Overy, the English historian, wrote how “the Sudeten areas contained rich deposits of lignite, or brown coal, which was far more suitable for synthetic production” (11). The German takeover of the Sudetenland boosted their ability to create oil from hydrogenation processes.
The Wehrmacht’s advance into Poland ensured, furthermore, that Germany had access to oil rich parts of that country, such as at the town of Jaslo. The capturing of Polish territory like Jaslo provided the Nazis with “a substantial amount of petroleum, and almost immediately replaced the oil reserves which Germany had expended to take Poland”, the US historian Arnold Krammer wrote, who often focused on German history (12). The following spring and summer, of 1940, saw swift Nazi victories secured against Denmark, Norway, France and the Low Countries, which did not put an intolerable strain on Berlin’s fuel stocks.
In December 1939, Hitler had reached an important agreement with Romania. They consented to export on average 130,000 tons of oil each month to Germany, in return for Nazi arms sales. Just prior to the German conquest of western and northern Europe, from 6 March 1940 Romania’s oil shipments to Germany increased further; 200,000 tons of Ploesti oil was funnelled to the Reich, in both March and April 1940, as noted by the Romanian academic Gavriil Preda. (13)
A grateful Hitler sold heavy weaponry in return to Bucharest. The Romanians were worried about possible Russian encroachment, which that summer would materialise in Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia; but the latter territory had belonged to the Russian Empire for a century until World War I.
By the beginning of 1940, oil consumption for the civilian population in Germany was dramatically scaled back, to benefit the Wehrmacht. Non-military German oil use had burnt up around 200,000 tons monthly, but in early 1940 civilian oil usage had dropped to 71,000 tons (14). This policy was saving the Nazis over 100,000 tons of oil a month, not inconsiderable. The German defeat of France, in June 1940, guaranteed them the wells of Pechelbronn, in the province of Alsace in eastern France. From July 1941, the Alsace fields provided the Reich with between 60,000 to 65,000 tons of oil annually, a small amount. (15)
With Romania joining the German-led Axis alliance on 23 November 1940, deliveries of Romanian oil to the Nazis grew substantially again, under their new autocratic leader Ion Antonescu. In 1941 the Ploesti wells produced 5.5 million tons of oil and in 1942 another 5.7 million tons; of these totals, Antonescu supplied the Germans from 1941 with about 3 million tons per annum of refined Romanian oil (16). According to professor Clifford E. Singer, of the University of Illinois, the Wehrmacht consumed “an average of 4.6 million tons of oil per year for 1941-1943”. (17)
Hungary’s decision to join the Axis, on 20 November 1940, allowed the Germans to exploit the oil resources of Nagykanizsa, in the far west of Hungary. During 1940 the Hungarian wells yielded an insignificant 231,000 tons of oil, but under German technical expertise this output sharply increased. In 1944 Hungary produced 809,000 tons of oil (18). Almost all of this went to the German war machine, and Hungary’s oil remained in Nazi hands almost to war’s end. Hitler’s last large-scale offensive, Operation Spring Awakening, was concerned partly with having continued control over the Hungarian oil fields.
Through the 1930s, and into the 1940s, around 150 companies from America engaged in various business deals with the Nazis, an incredibly high number (19). Some of these were among the largest corporations in existence such as Standard Oil, Texaco, General Motors and the Ford Motor Company.
Standard Oil, in co-operation with General Motors, furnished the Nazis in 1935 with the vital tetraethyl lead formula. It was a substance which greatly improved the performance of German oil expending engines, notably Luftwaffe aircraft. In pursuing its Blitzkrieg warfare, Nazi Germany was reliant on acquiring rubber, synthetic and natural. Standard Oil was also heavily implicated in the supplying of synthetic rubber to the Nazis, the butyl rubber process, via Standard’s operations with IG Farben, the infamous German chemical conglomerate. (20)
Through the Nazi-Soviet Pact’s terms, Russia was obliged among other things to dispense with thousands of tons of natural rubber to Germany. In one month alone, April 1941, Stalin sent 4,000 tons of raw rubber to the Reich across Siberia (21). Stalin further allowed the Germans to trade with the Middle East and further afield.
In mid-1940, Stalin agreed that 15,000 tons of rubber from India be transported across Soviet land, along the Trans-Siberian Railway, ending up in Germany (22). The Soviets supplied Berlin too with significant deliveries of iron ore, scrap metal, pig iron, etc. The German historian Heinrich Schwendemann realised, “By the summer of 1940, the Soviet Union had become the most important supplier of raw materials to the Third Reich”.
Russian deliveries of oil to Germany up to June 1941 amounted to at least 900,000 tons. The English military author, Antony Beevor, puts the number at more than 2 million tons of Soviet oil shipped to the Nazis (23). The 2 million-plus figure does seem excessive, however, and the 900,000 total is the more commonly cited.
In the summer of 1940, Hitler outlined that the German need for Soviet oil was “most pressing” and the Reich’s oil levels “will not become critical as long as Romania and Russia continue their supplies, and hydrogenation plants can be adequately protected against air attacks”. (24)
Nothing is said by Hitler here of American oil deliveries to the Reich, yet in the 1930s and early 1940s the Germans did receive some shipments of oil from US transnationals, with America then being the earth’s biggest oil producing country by far. It includes Standard Oil, Texaco and Phillips Petroleum operations with Hitler’s Germany, which invariably goes unmentioned by mainstream scholars. US oil supplies to the Nazis sometimes arrived through neutral states, such as Switzerland and Sweden (25). Quite early in the war, on 11 December 1941 Hitler declared hostilities with America which certainly complicated, but did not entirely end, further US business ventures in Germany.
There is a real scarcity of statistics available for public viewing, as to how much American oil the Nazis actually got. Also there are the logistical problems involved, in shipping oil across a vast and turbulent ocean like the Atlantic; notwithstanding that American businessmen owned or had major stakes in subsidiaries based in fascist Europe.
After the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR on 22 June 1941, eastern territories under Nazi occupation opened up other oil sources for the Reich. There were considerable reserves of raw materials in the region of Galicia, which covers parts of western Ukraine and eastern Poland. Galicia fell entirely into German hands during Barbarossa’s opening days, and the German-held Galicia refineries had a capacity to produce 390,000 tons of oil a year. (26)
More oil wells were present in Estonia, conquered by German Army Group North in July 1941, and which before the invasion produced a limited 120,000 tons a year of shale oil. Russian troops largely destroyed the Estonian refineries, but they were promptly put back in working order by the Germans. Modest quantities of oil were located in western Ukraine, in the city of Drohobych, which was taken by the Wehrmacht in early July 1941.
Across that fateful year of 1941, Nazi-controlled Europe manufactured about 12 million tons of oil (27). This amount was still not sufficient to sustain Hitler’s thousand year Reich, especially with his invasion of Russia stalling and an extended war looming; as seen by the German attempt to capture the Caucasus’ giant oil reserves; in particular Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, which during World War II furnished the Soviet Union with 80% of its oil (28). The Baku wells peaked in 1941, providing the Russians that year with an eye-watering 23.5 million tons of oil, approximately double of what was available to the Axis powers in 1941.
German thinking behind their attack on the USSR was not only to destroy Bolshevism, but to gain mastery over the world’s second biggest oil producing state at the time.
*
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.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
1 Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad (Da Capo Press, 30 Sep. 1985) p. 69
2 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 Apr. 2010) p. 406
3 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 70
4 Ibid.
5 Otto Skorzeny, My Commando Operations: The Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Daring Commando (Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1 Jan. 1995) p. 76
6 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 70
7 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East: The Nazi-Soviet War, 1941-1945 (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 36
8 Gavriil Preda, German Foreign Policy towards the Romanian Oil during 1938-1940, International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 3, No. 3, May 2013, p. 1 of 4
22 Heinrich Schwendemann, German-Soviet Economic Relations at the time of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, 1939-1941, January to June 1995, p. 2 of 18, Jstor
23 Antony Beevor, The Second World War (Phoenix Press, 2013) p. 189
24 Tobias R. Philbin, The Lure of Neptune: German-Soviet Naval Collaboration and Ambitions, 1919-1941 (University of South Carolina Press; First edition, 1 Nov. 1994) p. 48
25 Jacques R. Pauwels, “Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler”, Global Research, 7 June 2019
26 Krammer, Fueling the Third Reich, p. 15 of 29, Jstor
27 Ibid., p. 16 of 29
28 Emil Lyutskanov, Leila Alieva, Mila Serafimova, Energy Security in the Wider Black Sea Area – National and Allied Approaches (IOS Press, 15 Aug. 2013) p. 10
War against the Soviet Union was what Hitler had wanted from the beginning. He had already made this very clear on the pages of Mein Kampf, written in the mid-1920s. Furthermore, as a German historian has recently convincingly demonstrated, it was a war against the Soviet Union, and not against Poland, France, or Britain, that Hitler had wanted and planned to unleash in 1939.
Medical researcher and health consultant Matthew Grace interviews grieving parents Pam and Jeff Goodman to discuss and dissect the coverup and criminal promotion of the Covid 19 “vaccination.” Many shocking revelations and irrefutable facts are presented here to help keep you and your family safe. “Mass Deception in the History of Humankind”.
Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”. SARS-2 is upheld as the “killer virus”. And now the Covid vaccine is presented to public opinion as the “solution”, which will allow us to resume a “normal life”.
On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for “her act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”
A pharmacist who used to work for CVS has gone public with details about how the pharmacy chains are handling the roll outs of the COVID-19 injections. She obviously has done her homework as a pharmacist, and was convinced that these shots were harming people.
Human beings have a long history of worship, of seeking to secure some certainty in the face of forces beyond their control: wind and weather, wild beasts, and things that go bump in the night. Through ritual and sacrifice, people tried to control the unknown, to shape the world to their liking: to survive and thrive.
Ano Turtiainen, member of Parliament of Finland, gave a straight speech 9.6.2021 about possible COVID vaccine genocide going on in Finland. He warned all members of the Finnish Parliament and media by letting them know if they would still continue misleading our citizens by telling them fairy tales about safe vaccines, they are intentionally involved in several different crimes, the most serious of these may be even genocide.
The relentless digitalisation of every day life since the advent of the Internet has led to many accepting as inevitable the eventual emergence of a cashless society. For the last few years, a fierce debate has taken place in the public sphere involving politicians, economists and sociologists alike, on the ethical boundaries of such a society and the threat it poses to individual freedom, privacy and civil liberties.
The US Marine Corps has after nearly a century of integrating tanks into its fighting forces, abandoned armored warfare in favor of missiles and drones to “confront China” in the Indo-Pacific region.
For those spared the ordeal of sifting through the NATO summit communique, here’s the concise low down: Russia is an “acute threat” and China is a “systemic challenge”. NATO, of course, are just a bunch of innocent kids building castles in a sandbox. Those were the days when Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first secretary-general, coined the trans-Atlantic purpose: to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Campaign Against Ivermectin: WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Outraged farmers threatened to disrupt a federal order to stop the flow of irrigation water from a lake amid a severe drought in the US state of Oregon. They warned that right-wing militias will back them in case of confrontation.
Farmers are protesting because they own the water in the Upper Klamath Lake, farmer Dan Nielsen told RT’s Ruptly video agency. He stood outside an American flag-colored tent that was set up next to the canal headgates, which control the flow of irrigation water from the lake.
“It’s ours and the federal government actually just stole it. No due process of law, no compensation,” Nielsen said, adding that federal officials had violated the locals’ property rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Protesters brought signs saying “Water for Farms” and “Open the Gates. No Water. No Food. No Life.”
They spoke about releasing the water themselves if the government does not back down. “If they don’t budge… I think we’re just going to end up taking it,” Nielsen said. “It’s the only way the government gets it.” In order to avoid confrontation, officials must let farmers use the water for their crops or purchase the land from the farmers, he said.
The US Bureau of Reclamation closed the canal last month, saying that due to the extreme drought there was not enough water left for it to operate properly. The bureau also said that releasing the water will threaten the endangered species of salmon that inhabit the lake. The fish have agricultural and spiritual significance to the Native American tribes who live upstream.
According to local media, thousands of farmers on the Oregon-California border were left without a steady water supply after the closure of the canal. Klamath Irrigation District president Ty Kliewer said that “the impacts to our family farms and these rural communities will be off the scale.”
An outraged Nielsen and another farmer, Grant Knoll, purchased a vacant lot near the federal waterway, where they set up a tent dubbed ‘Water Crisis Info Center’. Protesters told Jefferson Public Radio (JPR) that they had teamed up with People’s Rights, a group founded by well-known conservative militia leader Ammon Bundy.
They showed JPR a text conversation with Bundy and said the militiamen will get a heads-up when the farmers make their move. “I’m planning on getting DC’s attention,” Knoll told JPR this month. “We’re going to turn on the water and have a standoff.”
The Bundy family first became famous for their 2014 armed standoff with the US government in a dispute over grazing fees. Two years later Ammon Bundy led a group of militiamen that seized the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge office in Harney County, Oregon.
The occupation ended with FBI agents giving chase during which one militiaman was killed and Ammon Bundy’s brother, Ryan Bundy, was wounded. The brothers were later acquitted in the case that stemmed from the refuge office takeover.
Ben DuVal, a farm owner and president of the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), told Ruptly that the situation on the ground has been getting tense because the lack of water hurts not only farmers, but also businesses in the city of Klamath Falls. “Farmers like myself are looking at basically zero irrigation water this year.”
DuVal said the protesters were “doing a good job of bringing some enthusiasm and some awareness to this issue.” At the same time, he stressed that the protest must remain peaceful. “I don’t want anything to happen at the headgates that is going to reflect poorly on our community.”
KWUA previously released a statement condemning the decision to stop releasing the water from Upper Klamath Lake, with DuVal calling it a “failed experiment that has produced no benefit for the [fish].”
Klamath Tribes Chairman Don Gentry acknowledged that the severe drought has “really put us at odds” with the farming community. “The agriculture folks… often too referred to [the lake] as ‘reservoir for our folks’, which is kind of strange because it has been here forever; they are using it like a reservoir,” he said.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown, who declared the Klamath Basin a drought emergency area in April, urged everyone to remain peaceful while the state government was “doing everything we can” to help those affected by the extreme weather.
*
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 Ruptly video
This GRTV video was first published on August 26, 2015
The “Chinese dragon” of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by many as an economic miracle.
Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.
This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV, with James Corbett and Michel Chossudovsky.
War against the Soviet Union was what Hitler had wanted from the beginning. He had already made this very clear on the pages of Mein Kampf, written in the mid-1920s. Furthermore, as a German historian has recently convincingly demonstrated, it was a war against the Soviet Union, and not against Poland, France, or Britain, that Hitler had wanted and planned to unleash in 1939. On August 11 of that year, Hitler explained to Carl J. Burckhardt, an official of the League of Nations, that “everything he undertook was directed against Russia,” and that “if the West [i.e., the French and the British] is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this, he would be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and defeat the West, and then turn back with all his strength to strike a blow against the Soviet Union.”
This is in fact what happened. The West did turn out to be “too stupid and blind,” as Hitler saw it, to give him “a free hand” in the east, so he did make a deal with Moscow — the infamous “Hitler-Stalin Pact” — and then unleashed war against Poland, France, and Britain. But his ultimate objective remained the same: to attack and destroy the Soviet Union as soon as possible. Hitler and the German generals were convinced they had learned an important lesson from World War I. Devoid of the raw materials, such as oil and rubber, needed to win a modern war, Germany could not win their planned new edition of the “Great War.” In order to win such a war, Germany would have to win it fast, very fast. This is how the blitzkrieg concept was born, that is, the idea of warfare (Krieg) fast as lightning (Blitz).
Blitzkrieg meant motorized war, so in preparation for such a war Germany, during the thirties, cranked out massive numbers of tanks and planes as well as trucks to transport troops. In addition, gargantuan amounts of oil and rubber were imported and stockpiled. As we have seen, much of this oil was purchased from US corporations, some of which also kindly made available the “recipe” for producing synthetic fuel from coal. In 1939 and 1940, this equipment permitted the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe to overwhelm the Polish, Dutch, Belgian, and French defences with thousands of planes and tanks in a matter of weeks; blitzkriege, “lightning-fast wars,” were invariably followed by blitzsiege, “lightning-fast victories.”
The victories against Poland, France, et cetera were spectacular enough, but they did not provide Germany with much loot in the form of vitally important oil and rubber. Instead, “lightning warfare” actually depleted the stockpiles built up before the war. Fortunately for Hitler, in 1940 and 1941 Germany was able to continue importing oil from the still neutral United States, mostly via other neutral (and friendly) countries such as Franco’s Spain. Moreover, under the terms of the Hitler-Stalin Pact the Soviet Union herself also supplied Germany rather generously with oil. However, it was most troubling for Hitler that, in return, Germany had to supply the Soviet Union with high-quality industrial products and state-of-the-art military technology, which was used by the Soviets to modernize their army and improve their weaponry. Another headache for Hitler was the fact that the terms of his deal with the Soviets had permitted the latter to occupy eastern Poland, thus shifting their border, and their defences, a few hundred kilometres to the west, making the planned march to Moscow much longer for the German military. (As the Wehrmacht did actually make it to the outskirts of Moscow in late 1941, it can be argued that they would probably have taken the city, and perhaps won the war, had they been able to launch their attack from positions further east.)
In 1939, Hitler had reluctantly shelved his plan for war against the Soviet Union. But he resurrected it very soon after the defeat of France, in the summer of 1940. A formal order to prepare plans for such an attack, to be code-named Operation Barbarossa (Unternehmen Barbarossa) was given a few months later, on December 18, 1940.4 By 1940 nothing had changed as far as Hitler was concerned: “The real enemy was the one in the east.”5 Hitler simply did not want to wait much longer before realizing the great ambition of his life, that is, destroying the country he had defined as his arch-enemy in Mein Kampf. Moreover, he knew that the Soviets were frantically preparing their defences for a German attack which, as they knew only too well, would come sooner or later. (The notion that, on account of their 1939 non-aggression pact, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were friendly “allies” is hopelessly erroneous.) Since the Soviet Union was getting stronger by the day, time was obviously not on Hitler’s side. How much longer could he wait before the window of opportunity would close? Furthermore, waging a blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union promised to provide Germany with the virtually limitless resources of that huge country, including Ukrainian wheat to provide Germany’s population, experiencing wartime shortages, with plenty of food; minerals such as coal, from which synthetic oil and rubber could be produced; and — last, but certainly not least — the rich oil fields of Baku and Grozny, where the gas-guzzling Panzers and Stukas would be able to fill their tanks to the brim at any time. Steeled with these assets, it would then be a simple matter for Hitler to settle accounts with Britain, starting, for example, with the capture of Gibraltar. Germany would finally be a genuine world power, invulnerable within a European “fortress” stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, possessed of limitless resources, and therefore capable of winning even long, drawn-out wars against any antagonist — including the US — in one of the future “wars of the continents” conjured up in Hitler’s feverish imagination.
Image on the right: OKH commander Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch and Hitler study maps during the early days of Hitler’s Russian Campaign (Public Domain)
Hitler and his generals were confident that the blitzkrieg they prepared to unleash against the Soviet Union would be as successful as their earlier lightning wars against Poland and France had been. They considered the Soviet Union as a “giant with feet of clay,” whose army, presumably decapitated by Stalin’s purges of the late 1930s, was “not more than a joke,” as Hitler himself put it on one occasion. In order to fight and, of course, win the decisive battles, they allowed for a campaign of four to six weeks, possibly to be followed by some mopping-up operations, during which the remnants of the Soviet host would “be chased across the country like a bunch of beaten Cossacks.” In any event, Hitler felt supremely confident, and on the eve of the attack, he “fancied himself to be on the verge of the greatest triumph of his life.”
In Washington and London, the military experts likewise believed that the Soviet Union would not be able to put up significant resistance to the Nazi juggernaut, whose military exploits of 1939–40 had earned it a reputation of invincibility. The British secret services were convinced that the Soviet Union would be “liquidated within eight to ten weeks,” and the chief of the Imperial General Staff averred that the Wehrmacht would slice through the Red Army “like a warm knife through butter,” and that the Red Army would be rounded up “like cattle.” According to expert opinion in Washington, Hitler would “crush Russia [sic] like an egg.”
The German attack started on June 22, 1941, in the early hours of the morning. Three million German soldiers and almost 700,000 allies of Nazi Germany crossed the border. Their equipment consisted of 600,000 motor vehicles, 3,648 tanks, more than 2,700 planes, and just over 7,000 pieces of artillery. At first, everything went according to plan. Huge holes were punched in the Soviet defences, impressive territorial gains were made rapidly, and hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers were killed, wounded, or taken prisoner in a number of spectacular “encirclement battles.” The road to Moscow seemed to lay open. However, all too soon it became evident that the blitzkrieg in the east would not be the cakewalk that had been expected. Facing the most powerful military machine on earth, the Red Army predictably took a major beating but, as propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels confided to his diary as early as July 2, also put up a tough resistance and hit back very hard on numerous occasions. General Franz Halder, in many ways the “godfather” of Operation Barbarossa’s plan of attack, acknowledged that Soviet resistance was much stronger than anything the Germans had faced in Western Europe. Wehrmacht reports cited “hard,” “tough,” even “wild” resistance, causing heavy losses in men and equipment on the German side. More often than expected, Soviet forces managed to launch counterattacks that slowed down the German advance. Some Soviet units went into hiding in the vast Pripet Marshes and elsewhere, organized deadly partisan warfare, and threatened the long and vulnerable German lines of communication. It also turned out that the Red Army was much better equipped than expected. German generals were “amazed,” writes a German historian, by the quality of Soviet weapons such as the Katyusha rocket launcher (a.k.a. “Stalin Organ”) and the T-34 tank. Hitler was furious that his secret services had not been aware of the existence of some of this weaponry.
The greatest cause of concern, as far as the Germans were concerned, was the fact that the bulk of the Red Army managed to withdraw in relatively good order and eluded destruction in a huge encirclement battle, in the kind of repeat of Cannae or Sedan that Hitler and his generals had dreamed of. The Soviets appeared to have carefully observed and analyzed the German blitzkrieg successes of 1939 and 1940 and to have learned useful lessons. They must have noticed that in May 1940 the French had massed the bulk of their forces right at the border as well as in Belgium, thus making it possible for the German war machine to encircle them. (British troops were also caught in this encirclement but managed to escape via Dunkirk.) The Soviets did leave some troops at the border, of course, and these troops predictably suffered the Soviet Union’s major losses during the opening stages of Barbarossa. But — contrary to what is claimed by historians such as Richard Overy — the bulk of the Red Army was held back in the rear, avoiding entrapment. It was this “defence in depth” — facilitated by the acquisition of a “glacis,” a territorial “breathing space,” in Poland in 1939 — that frustrated the German ambition to destroy the Red Army in its entirety. As Marshal Zhukov was to write in his memoirs, “the Soviet Union would have been smashed if we had organized all our forces at the border.”
As early as the middle of July, as Hitler’s war in the east started to lose its Blitz-qualities, countless Germans, military as well as civilians, of low as well as high rank, including Hitler himself, lost their belief in a quick victory. And by the end of August, at a time when Barbarossa should have been winding down, the Wehrmacht’s high command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW) acknowledged that it might no longer be possible to win the war in 1941. A major problem was the fact that, when Barbarossa started on June 22, the available supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts, et cetera, were good enough for only about two months. This had been deemed sufficient because it was expected that within two months the Soviet Union would be on its knees and its unlimited resources — industrial products as well as raw materials — would therefore be available to the Germans. However, by late August the German spearheads were nowhere near those distant regions of the Soviet Union where oil, that most precious of all martial commodities, was to be had. If the tanks managed to keep on rolling, though increasingly slowly, into the seemingly endless Russian and Ukrainian expanses, it was to a large extent by means of fuel and rubber imported, via Spain and occupied France, from the US.
The flames of optimism flared up again in September, when German troops captured Kiev, and, further north, made progress in the direction of Moscow. Hitler believed, or at least pretended to believe, that the end was now near for the Soviets. In a public speech in the Berlin Sportpalast on October 3, he declared that the eastern war was virtually over. And the Wehrmacht was ordered to deliver the coup de grâce by launching Operation Typhoon (Unternehmen Taifun), an offensive aimed at taking Moscow. However, the odds for success looked increasingly slim, as the Soviets were busily bringing in reserve units from the Far East. (They had been informed by their master spy in Tokyo, Richard Sorge, that the Japanese, whose army was stationed in northern China, were no longer considering attacking the Soviets’ vulnerable borders in the Vladivostok area.) To make things worse, the Germans no longer enjoyed superiority in the air, particularly over Moscow. Also, sufficient supplies of ammunition and food could not be brought up from the rear to the front, since the long supply lines were severely hampered by partisan activity. Finally, it was getting chilly in the Soviet Union, though no colder than usual at that time of the year. But the German high command, confident that their eastern blitzkrieg would be over by the end of the summer, had failed to supply the troops with the equipment necessary to fight in the rain, mud, snow, and freezing temperatures of a Russian fall and winter.
Taking Moscow loomed as an extremely important objective in the minds of Hitler and his generals. It was believed, though probably wrongly, that the fall of its capital would “decapitate” the Soviet Union and thus bring about its collapse. It also seemed important to avoid a repeat of the scenario of the summer of 1914, when the seemingly unstoppable German advance into France had been halted in extremis on the eastern outskirts of Paris, during the Battle of the Marne. This disaster — from the German perspective — had robbed Germany of nearly certain victory in the opening stages of the Great War and had forced it into a lengthy struggle that, lacking sufficient resources and blockaded by the British navy, it was doomed to lose. This time, in a new Great War fought against a new arch-enemy, the Soviet Union, there was to be no “miracle of the Marne,” that is, no defeat just outside the capital, and Germany would therefore not have to once more fight, resourceless and blockaded, a long, drawn-out conflict it would be doomed to lose. Unlike Paris, Moscow would fall, history would not repeat itself, and Germany would end up being victorious. Or so they hoped in Hitler’s headquarters.
The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves only thirty kilometres from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow, tantalizingly close as the city may have been, and that even doing so would not bring them victory. On December 3, a number of units abandoned the offensive on their own initiative. Within days, however, the entire German army in front of Moscow was simply forced on the defensive. Indeed, on December 5, at three in the morning, in cold and snowy conditions, the Red Army suddenly launched a major, well-prepared counterattack. The Wehrmacht’s lines were pierced in many places, and the Germans were thrown back between 100 and 280 kilometres with heavy losses of men and equipment. It was only with great difficulty that a catastrophic encirclement could be avoided.
On December 8, Hitler ordered his army to abandon the offensive and to move into defensive positions. He blamed this setback on the supposedly unexpected early arrival of winter, refused to pull back further to the rear, as some of his generals suggested, and proposed to attack again in the spring. Thus ended Hitler’s blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union, the war that, had it been victorious, would have realized the great ambition of his life, the destruction of the Soviet Union. More importantly, such a victory would also have provided Nazi Germany with sufficient oil and other resources to make it a virtually invulnerable world power. As such, Nazi Germany would very likely have been capable of finishing off stubborn Great Britain, even if the US would have rushed to help its Anglo-Saxon cousin, which, in early December of 1941, was not yet in the cards. A blitzsieg, that is, a rapid victory against the Soviet Union, then, was supposed to have made a German defeat impossible, and would in all likelihood have done so. (It is probably fair to say that if Nazi Germany had defeated the Soviet Union in 1941, Germany would today still be the hegemon of Europe, and possibly of the Middle East and North Africa as well.) However, defeat in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941 meant that Hitler’s blitzkrieg did not produce the hoped-for blitzsieg. In the new “Battle of the Marne” just to the west of Moscow, Nazi Germany suffered the defeat that made victory impossible, not only victory against the Soviet Union itself, but also victory against Great Britain and victory in the war in general. It ought to be noted that the United States was not yet involved in the war against Germany.
Bearing in mind the lessons of World War I, Hitler and his generals had known from the start that, in order to win the new Great War they had unleashed, Germany had to win fast, lightning-fast. But on December 5, 1941, it became evident to everyone present in Hitler’s headquarters that a blitzsieg against the Soviet Union would not be forthcoming, and that Germany was doomed to lose the war, if not sooner, then later. According to General Alfred Jodl, chief of the operations staff of the OKW, Hitler then realized that he could no longer win the war. And so it can be argued, as a German historian, an expert on the war against the Soviet Union, has done, that the success of the Red Army in front of Moscow was unquestionably the “major break” (Zäsur) of the entire world war.
In other words, the tide of World War II can be said to have turned on December 5, 1941. However, as real tides turn not suddenly but rather gradually and imperceptibly, the tide of the war turned not on a single day, but over a period of days, weeks, and even months, in the period of approximately three months that elapsed between the (late) summer of 1941 and early December of that same year. The tide of the war in the east turned gradually, but it did not do so imperceptibly. Already in August 1941, astute observers had started to doubt that a German victory, not only in the Soviet Union but in the war in general, still belonged to the realm of possibilities. The well-informed Vatican, for example, initially very enthusiastic about Hitler’s “crusade” against the Soviet homeland of “godless” Bolshevism, started to express grave concerns about the situation in the east in late summer 1941; by mid-October, it came to the conclusion that Germany would lose the war. Likewise in mid-October, the Swiss secret services reported that “the Germans can no longer win the war.” By late November, a defeatism of sorts had started to infect the higher ranks of the Wehrmacht and of the Nazi Party. Even as they were urging their troops forward toward Moscow, some generals opined that it would be preferable to make peace overtures and wind down the war without achieving the great victory that had seemed so certain at the start of Operation Barbarossa. When the Red Army launched its devastating counteroffensive on December 5, Hitler himself realized that he would lose the war. But he was not prepared to let the German public know that. The nasty tidings from the front near Moscow were presented to the public as a temporary setback, blamed on the supposedly unexpectedly early arrival of winter and/or on the incompetence or cowardice of certain commanders. (It was only a good year later, after the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad during the winter of 1942-43, that the German public, and the entire world, would realize that Germany was doomed; which is why even today many historians believe that the tide turned in Stalingrad.)
*
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.
Jacques R. Pauwels is the author of The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002 and The Great Class War 1914-1918, James Lorimer, Toronto, 2016. Dr. Pauwels is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Medical researcher and health consultant Matthew Grace interviews grieving parents Pam and Jeff Goodman to discuss and dissect the coverup and criminal promotion of the Covid 19 “vaccination,”
Many shocking revelations and irrefutable facts are presented here to help keep you and your family safe.
“Mass Deception in the History of Humankind”.
Below is an interview with the parents of their son who died shortly after the vaccine.
He was murder by J and J.
“Where are the unbiased reports. It’s gone.”
“The media has created a fear culture”
“You have to dig to find the truth”.
The information pertaining to the dangers of the Covid vaccine are being deliberately withheld.
Both the government and the media are responsible for crimes against humanity.
Facebook, Google and Twitter are involved in suppressing both the data and scientific analysis pertaining to the mRNA vaccine.
Google is involved in blocking access to independent online reports on the 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).
The highly anticipated Putin-Biden Summit resulted in very few tangible outcomes, but obsessing over that fact misses the most important point, which is that their leaders confirmed that there’s a mutual will to improve their relations.
Presidents Putin and Biden went into Wednesday’s summit with the intention of rescuing their bilateral relations from their lowest level since the end of the Old Cold War, and while their efforts resulted in few tangible outcomes, they nevertheless succeed in confirming that they both have the will to improve their ties. The only visible successes were the decision to return their ambassadors and set up a variety of working groups, with the most important one focusing on strategic security issues. They also revealed that they discussed the Arctic, cybersecurity, and regional conflicts like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, as well as Iran’s nuclear program. Both leaders also expressed a desire to improve trade in the future too.
Differences still persist, however, especially over issues that the US describes as “democracy” and “human rights”. Nevertheless, these aren’t serious enough to impede the improvement of their relations. They simply agreed to disagree and that’s that. It’s much more important for both leaders to resolve their strategic security problems first and foremost, especially by negotiating a successor to the recently extended New START upon its expiry. They also needed to discuss the “rules of the road”, as President Biden put it, when it comes to their overall competition with one another. Both leaders confirmed that the talks were held in a positive atmosphere free from threats, which further confirms their desire to resolve whatever issues they realistically can.
Since not a lot of specific details were disclosed, it’s difficult to predict exactly what form their possible cooperation could take on the wide range of issues that they discussed. Even so, what’s most important is that they talked about those topics and sought to find a convergence of interests between them. This further speaks to their positive intentions in responsibly regulating their comprehensive competition with one another, the end effect of which could be a reduction of tensions in Europe. That in turn could free up the US to more aggressively “contain” China on the other side of Eurasia, but nobody should expect an intensification of such efforts anytime soon since it’ll still take some time to make progress on the Russian front, if it happens at all.
The reason for such caution is that there are still some rabidly anti-Russian members of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) who could try to sabotage their incipient rapprochement. They already tried doing so by provoking this April’s tensions in Ukraine as well as setting President Biden up during an interview around that time to agree with his interlocutor that his Russian counterpart is a so-called “killer”. Those efforts failed to derail what the world now knows was their behind-the-scenes talks this entire time which helped pave the way for Wednesday’s summit.
That being said, the anti-Russian faction of the American “deep state” might still not given up on trying to ruin bilateral relations. Even in the event that they stage another provocation, however, it’s unclear whether Russia would react to it or even whether those closest to Biden who were responsible for organizing Wednesday’s summit would fall for it. President Putin sincerely seems to believe that his American counterpart wants to improve relations, and even though neither leader trusts the other, they appear to understand that this vision is in their mutual interests. For that reason, the anti-Russian faction of the “deep state” might not succeed.
Speculation aside, there’s no question that Wednesday’s summit was a positive development for both countries. Their leaders finally had the chance to talk face-to-face and sort out as many of their problems as possible. It’ll now be up to those below them to see to it that tangible progress is achieved on everything that they discussed. The world might have to wait some time before seeing the visible fruits of their efforts, but they should expect that they’ll eventually see something, even if only in the sphere of strategic security. That would make Wednesday’s summit a success even if nothing else improves, whether in general or right away.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
First published on June 3, 2021
On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for “her act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”
The Mumbai-based IBA is an association of lawyers who strive to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian justice system. It is actively involved in the dissemination of legal knowledge and provides guidance and support to advocates and ordinary people in their fight for justice.
The legal notice says Dr Swaminathan has been:
“Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists,”
and
“Issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.”
The IBA states that legal action is being taken against Dr Swaminathan in order to stop her from causing further damage to the lives of citizens of India.
The IBA says that Dr Swaminathan has ignored these studies and reports and has deliberately suppressed the data regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin, with an intent to dissuade the people of India from using it.
However, two key medical bodies, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, have refused to accept her stand and have retained the recommendation for Ivermectin, under a ‘May Do’ category, for patients with mild symptoms and those in home isolation, as stated in ‘The National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.
It is interesting to note that the content of several web links to news articles and reports included in the notice served upon Dr Swaminathan, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted.
It seems that the vaccine manufacturers and many governments are desperate to protect their pro-vaccine agenda and will attempt to censor information and news regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin.
The article ‘COVID Vaccines: A Faltering Framework’ on the OffGuardian’ website is also recommended. The author argues that for the Pfizer vaccine, 119 people must be injected for it to reduce a ‘COVID case’ in one person; the other 118 receive no benefit whatsoever but placed themselves at genuine (potential) risk from the vaccine itself. The Lancet suggests that 119 number might be even higher.
*
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 a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific 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).
Doing his best to justify President Biden’s $750 billion military budget, Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that China’s military has been building its military capabilities at “a very serious and sustained rate.”
Well, of course it has been. How else would the U.S. national-security establishment justify its ever-increasing budgets? I’m just surprised that Milley didn’t mention Russia in the same breath, as well as North Korea, Cuba, the Taliban, Venezuela, Iran, and all the other minor official enemies, maybe even communist Vietnam too.
China and Russia were the two official enemies — or “rivals,” “opponents,” “enemies”— during the Cold War that kept the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA in high cotton. That was when both countries were supposedly part of an international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Moscow. If increasing amounts of U.S. taxpayer money were not shifted into the coffers of the U.S. national-security establishment, it was argued, America would end up falling to this international communist conspiracy.
In fact, it was this supposed threat of “godless communism” that was emanating from Moscow that was the justification for converting the federal government to a national-security state in the first place. For more than 150 years, the federal government operated as a limited-government republic with limited powers. After World War II, it was converted to a national-security state to wage the Cold War against China, Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union, other communist countries, and communism in general. That’s when the U.S. national-security establishment acquired omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.
As we pointed out in our recent online conference “The National Security State and the Kennedy Assassination,” by the summer of 1963 President Kennedy had achieved a breakthrough and recognized that this Cold War fear-mongering was nothing more than a racket. At his Peace Speech at American University, he threw the gauntlet down by declaring an end to the Cold War and an intention to have the United States exist in peaceful harmony with the communist world.
That sealed John Kennedy’s fate. No president since Kennedy has dared to do that.
After Kennedy was removed from office, Americans got the Vietnam War and another 25 years of ever-increasing money, influence, and power for the national-security establishment,
It was always assumed by most everyone that the Cold War racket would go on forever. To the shock of the U.S. national-security establishment, the Soviet Union unilaterally called it quits in 1989. China was, of course, still around, just as North Korea and Cuba were. But the Pentagon and the CIA knew that without the Soviet Union, their Cold War racket would no longer be sufficiently powerful to justify ever-increasing budgets.
That’s when they went into the Middle East and began killing, destroying, and humiliating people, knowing that this would almost certainly produce terrorist “blowback” or retaliation. And sure enough, it did: the World Trade Center in 1993, the USS Cole, and the U.S. embassies in East Africa. But none of them was large enough to become a gigantic new official enemy that would replace the Soviet Union and godless communism.
But then the 9/11 attacks came, which provided the new official enemy to replace communism — “terrorism.” The Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were back in high cotton again with ever-increasing annual budgets to wage their “global war on terrorism.”
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were then used as the excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.S. forces wreaked massive death and destruction over many years, which guaranteed more anger and rage, which ensured a never-ending supply of new terrorists.
Thus, the Pentagon and the CIA had found another official enemy, one that was likely to last for decades, perhaps even longer than the Soviet Union and godless communism.
But after 20 years of interventionism in Afghanistan and the Middle East, U.S. forces are now in retreat, which means that all the fear-mongering about how the terrorists are coming to get us will lack the impact it had on Americans in the years after the 9/11 attacks.
What to do now? The answer is obvious: It’s now time to return to China and Russia as America’s old and new official enemies. Oh, sure, the threat of an international conspiracy involving godless communism supposedly emanating from Moscow will not be available but the hope is that Americans will nonetheless be just as afraid, so that they don’t question the ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer largess going into the military-intelligence coffers.
There is only one solution to this sordid, deadly, destructive, and corrupt racket: the dismantling, not the reform, of the national-security state apparatus and the restoration of America’s founding governmental system of a limited-government republic. That’s the way to lead America to peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
A pharmacist who used to work for CVS has gone public with details about how the pharmacy chains are handling the roll outs of the COVID-19 injections.
She obviously has done her homework as a pharmacist, and was convinced that these shots were harming people.
But apparently she was such a good employee, that originally they allowed her to stay on even though she made it clear that she was NOT going to be injecting anybody with these shots.
In fact, she states that not only was she not going to inject anyone, she was actually going to try to convince CVS customers NOT to take the injections.
She laments the fact that most people did not care, and took the shots anyway.
She reveals how the pharmacy chains are getting a lot of money to administer COVID-19 bioweapon shots.
If you (her administrative colleagues) don’t see a problem with what’s going on – there’s a problem there. Or you’re just doing this for the money that all of the pharmacy chains are getting.
And don’t think that they’re not getting A LOT OF MONEY!
CVS was advertising for the longest time for PRN casual pharmacists. They were advertising paying $6500 a week to pharmacists who would come on board and go to old folks’ homes and kill them. Or I mean give them the “vaccine.”
$6500.00 a week! So that’s $6500.00 a week, per pharmacist per neighborhood area, per community, per city, per region, per county, per state, for the whole United States.
So for “casual labor” do you think that’s coming out of their own pocket? They’re not going to do it unless they are getting a lot of money from the government to make sure that they fulfill their contractual duty with the government in getting this distributed and into people.
This is mainly a result of President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed from last year, that gave a blank check to Big Pharma to distribute these injections that many doctors and scientists are now calling “bioweapons.” He gave them $TRILLIONS to spend, and to this day he is very proud of this fact, and mentions it every chance he gets.
This is where states are getting their millions of dollars to entice people to get the shots with lotteries, free beer, free marijuana, and many other incentives, along with a $BILLION dollar advertising campaign designed to use propaganda to fool the public into believing that these shots are safe and necessary to “return to normal.”
She continues with what she said to her former employer:
I let them know that a lot of people, especially with this particular vaccine, or series of vaccines, a lot of people are relying on your educational expertise to help guide them, to tell them whether this is OK or not OK.
They’re relying on you! Your education, your integrity and your honesty.
And you don’t have a problem with vaccinating people with the professional package insert…
You know, I was dying waiting for the first batch of vaccines to come, to get a hold of this (holding package insert in her hands) to see what they were going to put on the package insert.
And of course when we got them, look! They’re blank. Both sides.
And what does it say?
“INTENTIONALLY BLANK”
So you’re putting this into people without knowing what the hell you’re putting in them?
And you don’t see a problem?
Or, if you do realize there’s a problem, because you yourself understand that it’s not statistically possible to have in the middle of a flu season, to go on the State Department of Health website, to MMWR Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report, to look at the number of flu cases per year, and we’re at ZERO, ZERO, ZERO.
That’s not statistically possible.
And then we have all the people who simply could not see through the lies that, “Oh we had a non-existent flu season because everybody was doing a bang-up job at masking up and social distancing.”
But then they would turn around and say that the COVID numbers were just spiking and further out of control and we needed more and more things implemented because people were not wearing masks and social distancing!
You can’t have it both ways.
If you happen to be a health professional, and you can’t see this, you’ve got big problems, and you’ve got serious blood on your hands.
Now, I’ve had a couple of colleagues tell me, “Well you know what, I just kind of view this as my employer is making me do this, you know, so I gotta do it.”
No, you don’t! This is a choice, this is an individual choice that YOU are making. You’re going to be held accountable.
There’s nothing that would allow me to do something that is so wrong. You’re killing people. You’re damning them. You’re wounding them.
We are very indebted to this brave woman coming forward and addressing the public. She talks about many issues, as an insider, such as batch control and targeting certain ethnic groups, which we know fits into their eugenic goals.
She does not identify her name or location in this video, but she is apparently in Florida. I could not initially find the original source of this video, but she put her screen name at the end, and through that I found what appears to be her YouTube Channel here.
She understands that this video will not last long on YouTube and encourages others to share it on other platforms.
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).
Ano Turtiainen, member of Parliament of Finland, gave a straight speech 9.6.2021 about possible COVID vaccine genocide going on in Finland. He warned all members of the Finnish Parliament and media by letting them know if they would still continue misleading our citizens by telling them fairy tales about safe vaccines, they are intentionally involved in several different crimes, the most serious of these may be even genocide.
Thank God for this man Ano Turtiainen, who is daring to tell the truth!
Here is his complete speech as seen on this video:
”Honorable Chairman, the committee’s report mentions a wide range of real challenges to Finland’s security. This report however lacks a very serious challenge to the safety of Finland and Finns in our present everyday life. I refer to these so-called COVID vaccines which have also divided our people in two; awake and misguided.
Dear members of the Parliament (MP´s), I will now give you the following information so that you can never again plead ignorance after hearing this information about the risk to which Finnish citizens have been exposed. Finland is currently injecting its citizens with toxins disguised as COVID vaccines. Listen carefully. None of these injected poisons disguised as COVID vaccines has a marketing licence in Finland but only a conditional marketing authorisation from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The terms of a conditional licence state that the authorization is conditional, quote: “The available information must demonstrate that the benefits of the medical product outweigh its risks.”
Secondly, dear colleagues, despite the repetition of the media we have so far officially zero COVID deaths in Finland. According to THL (equivalent to CDC) the official causes of death from the year 2020 will not be published until 2022. However according to Fimea (equivalent to VAERS) 78 people have died from COVID vaccines in Finland and there are 1,306 serious adverse reaction reports and 3,630 unprocessed reports. About 57% of processed reports are estimated to have serious adverse reactions. The source for this is Fimea (www.fimea.fi).
Thirdly, conditional marketing licence for these toxics which are disguised as COVID vaccines also says, quote: ”The applicant must be able to provide comprehensive clinical information in the future.” Dear colleagues, this text is taken directly from the website of European Medicines Agency (EMA). I have said here many times that this is a human experiment. In violation of the Nuremberg Code, Finns have not been told that this is a human experiment.
Now with this speech, I have made all of you, as well as the media, aware that this is a human experiment and that its results are terrible. By comparison, the previously failed vaccine experiment Pandemrix was stopped with 32 times fewerside effects than what we have now. So, now I ask you all: how many more people should die or get injured before we interrupt this killing of people?
Dear colleagues, you are now aware of this extreme severe security threat facing our nation and that the disadvantages from the injections outweigh the benefits. You no longer have a reason not to act to save our nation.
Finally, if you still continue misleading our citizens by telling them for example fairy tales that vaccines are safe and have a marketing licence you are intentionally involved in several crimes, the most serious of these may be even genocide. Once again, I remind everyone of you here: a crime becomes intentional when it is committed knowingly. Now you are all aware. Thank you.”
-Finnish MP, Ano Turtiainen
*
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).
“God is dead. . . And we have killed him. . . . Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? — “Nietzsche
Appeasing the Gods
Human beings have a long history of worship, of seeking to secure some certainty in the face of forces beyond their control: wind and weather, wild beasts, and things that go bump in the night.
Through ritual and sacrifice, people tried to control the unknown, to shape the world to their liking: to survive and thrive.
The means have been varied: shamanic dancing, religious chanting, alchemy, animal sacrifice, and even cannibalism, whereby warriors sought to assimilate the virtues of their respected and formidable enemies.
To many, the whole of the natural world was sacred, each animal, tree, or blade of grass. The very ground on which they stood was imbued with religious significance. They had mythic names for each feature of the local geography.
Each mountain was a magic mountain.
I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, From whence cometh my help.— Psalms, King James Bible
Over time, slouching toward what we now call ‘civilization,’ polytheism gave way to monotheism. One god to rule us all. A giant bearded paterfamilias even if, occasionally, God the Father displayed some of the characteristics of The Godfather.
Sooner or later, as the priest kings of old were stalked and killed in the sacred grove by the new god king, the old monolithic and wrathful God of the Old Testament was bound to be dethroned.
So, what’s a worshipper to do? The urge to worship is deep, so something or someone must be found to fill the power vacuum of a people ‘alone in a hostile world’ as Karen Horney describes the basic mind-set of the neurotic.
If one feels powerless—or at least not powerful enough—to cope with life’s dangers, be they physical or social, one must find the most powerful force with whom to ally oneself.
If God the Father made man in his own image, why cannot a mighty man create God in his own image. Indeed, why cannot he be a veritable god himself? The king is dead. Long live the king!
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason,
If you are a Roman emperor you can get away with that, at least until your kingdom comes crashing about your ears.
For most people, however, the declaration ‘I am God’ would land you drooling in the corner of a psychiatric day-room, doped up to the gills with powerful pharmaceuticals.
The key to pulling off this caper is the amount of power you have at your disposal. As might makes right, the more power you have the more ‘right you are, if you think you are.’ You decide what reality is, and the faithful must believe in their god, and his pronouncements from his own personal Olympus.
Bamboozling the World
If you have wealth beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, media companies, advanced technology and legions of scientists at your command, the world is literally your oyster. You are ‘king of the world.’ What you say goes, and the common herd dutifully swallows your version of reality, submissively bleating: ‘Yes sir, no sir. Three bags full, sir!’
Insanity Turned on its Head
When the lunatics are in charge of the asylum, what was insane becomes sane; sanity becomes insanity—even criminally insane. Some will be considered dangerous terrorists, akin to heretics of old, insofar as they disturb the delicate equilibrium of the madhouse.
Reality is defined by the most powerful and, in a culture that reveres power, the powerful are revered, even worshipped, and their word is law, the revealed gospel truth.
Naturally, when flattered by nearly universal reverential kowtowing, ego-inflated, megalomaniac master magicians believe their own publicity. They believe, in fact, that they are ‘as gods,’ joining the other worshippers in worshipping themselves.
Now they have formed their own religious sect, and evangelized most of the known world, there is no stopping them—no chance they will come to their senses this side of the grave. They may even believe they have found the elusive ‘Fountain of Youth’ and achieved immortality.
So, like ‘Mad King George,’ they will require a force and a will greater than their own to destroy their diabolical delusions, along with their illusory virtual world, before they destroy us all, and the very real and beautiful planet we live on.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
S.M. Smyth was a founding member of the 2006 World Peace Forum in Vancouver, and organized a debate about TILMA at the Maple Ridge City Council chambers between Ellen Gould and a representative of the Fraser 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).
Keir Simmons: Mr President, it’s been a long time since you sat down with an American television network. Almost three years, I think. Thank you for your time. There’s a lot to discuss. I hope we have time to get to all of the issues.
But I want to begin with some news from the US just today. In the US it’s reported that Russia is preparing, perhaps within months, to supply Iran with an advanced satellite system, enabling Tehran to track military targets. Is that true? (COMPLETE MISTRANSLATION TWICE – ABOUT HACKING AND GIVING IRAN TECHNOLOGY FOR ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM)
Vladimir Putin: Would you mind repeating the question again, that we are preparing to hack what kind of facilities?
Keir Simmons: No. It’s in the report today that Russia is preparing to give or to offer to Iran a satellite technology which will enable Iran to target military, to make military targets. (Laughter.)
Vladimir Putin: No. We don’t have that kind of programmes with Iran. No, it’s just nonsense all over again, yet again. We have cooperation plans with Iran, including military and technical cooperation. And all of this fits the framework of the decisions that were agreed upon in our programme, in regard to Iran’s nuclear programme in the context of UN decisions together with our partners in the preparation of the JCPOA whereby some point sanctions, including in the area of military and technical cooperation, should be lifted from Iran. We have certain programmes which concern conventional weapons, if it gets that far. However, we haven’t even gone to that stage yet. We don’t even have any kind of real cooperation in the conventional weapons area. So if anybody is inventing something regarding modern space-based technology, this is just plain fiction. This is just fake news. At the very least, I don’t know anything about this kind of thing. Those who are speaking about it probably know more about it. It’s just nonsense, garbage.
Keir Simmons: So, presumably you’d agree that giving Iran satellite technology that might enable it to target US servicemen and women in places like Iraq or to share that information with Hezbollah or the Houthis in Yemen so they could target Israel and Saudi Arabia, that giving Iran that kind of satellite technology would be dangerous?
Vladimir Putin: Look, why are we talking about problems that don’t exist? There is no subject for discussion. Somebody has invented something, has made something up. Maybe this is just a bogus story so as to limit any kind of military and technical cooperation with Iran. I will say once again this is just some fake information that I have no knowledge about. For the first time I’m hearing about this information from you. We don’t have this kind of intentions. And I’m not even sure that Iran is even able to accommodate this kind of technology. This is a separate subject, a very high-tech subject.
We don’t rule out cooperation with many world nations in space. But probably everybody knows very well our position in terms that we are categorically against space militarisation all together. We believe that space should be free from any and all kinds of weapons located in near-Earth orbits. We don’t have this kind of plans or any plans, especially concerning the transfer of technology of the level that you have just described.
Keir Simmons: Ok. Let’s move on to your summit with President Biden.
The context for the summit is that he’s meeting with the G7, a group that you used to belong to, with NATO, with European leaders. President Biden has defined his first trip to Europe as quote, ”about rallying the world’s democracies.“ He views you as a leader of autocrats, who is determined to undermine the liberal democratic order. Is that true?
Vladimir Putin: Well, I don’t know. Somebody presents it from a certain perspective. Somebody looks at the development of this situation and at yours truly in a different manner. All of this is being offered to the public in a way that is found to be expedient for the ruling circles of a certain country.
The fact that President Biden has been meeting up with his allies, there is nothing unusual about it. There’s nothing unusual about a G7 meeting. We know what G7 is. I have been there on numerous occasions. I know what the values are in that forum. When people get together and discuss something, it’s always good. It’s better than not to get together and not to discuss. Because even in the context of the G7 there are matters that require ongoing attention and consideration because there are differences, strange as it may seem. There may be differences in assessments of international events on the international arena and among them. And very well then, let’s get together and discuss it.
As far as NATO, I have said on many occasions, ”This is a Cold War relic.“ It’s something that was born in the Cold War era. I’m not sure why it still continues to exist.
There was a time and there was some talk that this organisation would be transformed. Now it has been kind of forgotten. We presume that it is a military organisation. It is an ally of the United States. Every once in a while, it makes sense to meet up with your allies, although I can have an idea of how the discussion goes on there. Clearly everything is decided by consensus. However, there is just one opinion that is correct. Whereas the other opinions are not quite that right, putting it in careful terms. Well, there we go. Allies are getting together. What’s so unusual about it? I don’t see anything unusual about it. As a matter of fact it’s a sign of respect to the US allies before a summit between the US and Russian presidents. Probably it is being presented as desire to find out their opinion on the key issues of the current agenda, including those issues that President Biden and I will discuss. However, I’m inclined to think that despite all of these niceties, the United States, as far as their relationship with Russia, will be promoting what they consider important and necessary for themselves, above all for themselves, in their economic and military interests. However, to hear what their allies have to say about – it probably never hurts. This is working procedure.
Keir Simmons: So let’s talk about your meeting with President Biden, the summit that will happen after those meetings. President Biden asked you to meet with him. He didn’t make any preconditions. Were you surprised?
Vladimir Putin: No. We have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to what is the lowest point in recent years. However, there are matters that need a certain amount of comparing notes and identification and determination of mutual positions, so that matters that are of mutual interest can be dealt with in an efficient and effective way in the interests of both the United States and Russia. So, there is nothing unusual about it. In fact, despite this seemingly harsh rhetoric, we expected those suggestions because the US domestic political agenda made it impossible for us to restore the relationship at an acceptable level. This meeting should have taken place at some point. So, President Biden launched this initiative. Prior to that, as you know, he had supported the extension of the START treaty, which of course was bound to meet with support from our side. We believe that this treaty in the area of containment of strategic offensive weapons has been worked through and thoroughly, and meets our interests, and meets the US interests. So this offer could be expected.
Keir Simmons: Will you go into the summit agreeing to begin more arms control talks immediately after the summit? Because as you mentioned, President Biden has extended New START by five years. Washington would like that to be the beginning, not the end of that conversation.
Vladimir Putin: We know what matters and what problems Americans want to discuss with us, we understand these questions, matters and problems. We’re prepared for this joint work. We have certain if not differences than different understandings of what pace – at what pace and in what directions we need to be moving. We know what constitutes priorities for the US side. And this is, generally speaking, a process that needs to be advanced at the professional level along the lines of the Foreign Ministry and Defence Ministry on the Russian side, the Pentagon and State Department of the US side. We are prepared for this work.
We’ve heard signals that the US side would like to see these negotiations resumed at the expert level of professionals. We will see if the conditions for this have been created following the summit. Of course, we are not saying no. We are ready to do this work.
Keir Simmons: President Biden wants predictability and stability. Is that what you want?
Vladimir Putin: Well, this is the most important thing. This is the most important value, if you will, in international affairs.
Keir Simmons: Sorry to interrupt you. But he would say that you have caused a lot of instability and unpredictability.
Vladimir Putin: Well, he says one thing. I say another thing. But maybe at some point in certain ways our rhetoric varies and is different. But if you ask my opinion now, I am telling you what it is. The most important value in international affairs is predictability and stability. And I believe that on the part of our US partners, this is something that we haven’t seen in recent years. What kind of stability and predictability could there be if we remember the 2011 events in Libya where the country was essentially taken apart, broken down? What kind of stability and predictability was there?
There has been talk of a continued presence of troops in Afghanistan. And then all of a sudden, boom!, the troops are being withdrawn from Afghanistan. Is this predictability and stability again?
Now the Middle East events. Is this predictability and stability, what all of this will lead to? Or in Syria? What is stable and predictable about this?
I’ve asked my US counterparts, ”You want Assad to leave? Who will replace him? What will happen when he’s replaced with somebody?“ The answer is odd. The answer is, ”I don’t know.“ Well, if you don’t know what will happen next, why change what there is? It could be a second Libya or another Afghanistan. Do we want this? No. Let us sit down together, talk, look for compromise solutions that are acceptable for all the parties. That is how stability is achieved. It cannot be achieved by imposing one particular point of view, the ”correct“ point of view, whereby all the other ones are incorrect. That’s not how stability is achieved.
Keir Simmons: Let’s get to some other issues. I want to just talk a little bit more about your relationship with President Biden. This will not be the Helsinki summit. President Biden is not President Trump. You once described President Trump as a bright person, talented. How would you describe President Biden?
Vladimir Putin: Well, even now, I believe that former US President Mr Trump is an extraordinary individual, a talented individual, otherwise he would not have become US President. He is a colourful individual. You may like him or not. And he didn’t come from the US establishment. He had not been part of big time politics before, and some like it, some don’t like it but that is a fact.
President Biden, of course, is radically different from Mr Trump because President Biden is a career man. He has spent virtually his entire adulthood in politics. He has been doing it for a great deal of years and I have already said that and that is an obvious fact. Just think of the number of years he spent in the Senate, and how many years he was involved in the matters of international politics and disarmament, virtually at the expert level. That’s a different kind of person, and it is my great hope that yes, there are some advantages, some disadvantages, but there will not be any knee-jerk reactions on behalf of the sitting US President, that we will be able to comply with certain rules of engagement, certain rules of communications and will be able to find points of contact and common points.
Keir Simmons: Well, President Biden said one time when you met, you were inches away from each other, close to each other. And he said to you, ”I’m looking into your eyes, and I can’t see a soul.“ And you said, ”We understand each other.“ Do you remember that exchange?
Vladimir Putin: As far as soul, I’m not sure. One has to think about what soul is. But I do not remember this particular part of our conversations, to be honest with you. I do not remember. We all, when we meet, when we get together, when we talk, when we work and strive and achieve some solutions, we all proceed from the interests of our nations and our states. And this is fundamental and is the bedrock of all our actions and intentions. And this is the driving force and the motive for organising meetings of this kind. And as far as soul goes, that’s something for the church.
Keir Simmons: Yeah. You are a religious man. President Biden is saying he told you to your face, ”You don’t have a soul.“ (Laughter.)
Vladimir Putin: I do not remember this. ”Something is wrong with my memory.“
Keir Simmons: He says it was about 10 years ago when he was vice president.
Vladimir Putin: Well, he probably has good memory. I do not rule this out, but I don’t remember this. In personal encounters, people try to act appropriately. I do not remember any inappropriate elements of behavior on the part of my counterparts. I don’t think that anything like that has happened. Perhaps he did say something, but I do not remember.
Keir Simmons: Would you have felt that was an inappropriate thing to say?
Vladimir Putin: Well, that depends on the context. It depends on what form they’re said in. One can say this in different ways. It can be presented in different ways. But generally, people meet up in order to establish a relationship and create an environment and conditions for joint work, with a view to achieving some kind of positive results. If one is going to have a fight with somebody else why bother and have a meeting? One’s better off looking into budget and social policies domestically. We have many issues that we have to resolve. What’s the point then? It’s just a waste of time.
Of course, one can present this for domestic political consumption, which I believe is what has been done in the US in the last two years, where the US-Russia relationship was sacrificed for the sake of a fierce political strife inside the US.
We can see that. We know it very well. We have been accused of all kinds of things: election interference, cyberattacks and so on and so forth. And not once, not one time did they bother to produce any kind of evidence or proof. Just unfounded accusations. I’m surprised that we have not yet been accused of provoking the Black Lives Matter movement. That would have been a good line of attack. But we didn’t do that.
With NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.
Keir Simmons: What do you think of the Black Lives Matter movement?
Vladimir Putin: I think that, of course, this movement was used by one of the political forces domestically in the course of election campaigns. But there are some grounds for it. Let’s remember Colin Powell who was Secretary of State, was in charge of the Pentagon. He even wrote in his book that even he as a high-ranking official had felt some kind of injustice towards himself his entire life as someone with a dark complexion.
Even from the Soviet days, we in Russia, we have always treated with understanding the fight of African Americans for their rights. And there are certain roots to it. And there is a certain foundation for this. But no matter how noble the goals that somebody is driven by, if it reaches certain extremes, if it spills over into… if it acquires elements of extremism, we cannot approve this. We cannot welcome it. So our attitude to this is very simple. We support African Americans’ fight for their rights, but we are against any types and kinds of extremism, which unfortunately sometimes, regrettably, we witness these days.
Keir Simmons: You mention cyberattacks and deny any involvement by Russia. But Mr President, there is now a weight of evidence, a long list of alleged state-sponsored cyberattacks. Let me give you five.
There’s a lot, but it makes a point. The US intelligence community says Russia interfered with the 2016 election. Election security officials said Russia tried to interfere with the 2020 election. Cybersecurity researchers said government hackers targeted COVID vaccine researchers, hacking for COVID vaccines.
In April, the Treasury Department said the SolarWinds attack was the world’s worst, including nine federal agencies. And just before your summit, Microsoft says it has discovered another attack with targets including organisations that have criticised you, Mr Putin.
Mr President, are you waging a cyber war against America?
Vladimir Putin: Dear Keir, you have said that there is a weight of evidence of cyberattacks by Russia. And then you went on to list those official US agencies that have stated as much. Is that what you did?
Keir Simmons: Well, I’m giving you information about who said it so you can answer.
Vladimir Putin: Right. You are conveying information to me as to who said that. But where is evidence that this was indeed done? I will tell you that this person has said that, that person has said this. But where is the evidence? Where is proof? When there are charges without evidence, I can tell you that you can take your complaint to the International League of Sexual Reform (SIC).
This is a conversation that has no subject. Put something on the table so that we can look and respond. But there isn’t anything like that.
One of the latest attacks, as far as I know, was against the pipeline system in the US. Right, yes. So what?
Keir Simmons: But this is… but you mention…
Vladimir Putin: Just a moment. As far as I know, the shareholders of this company even made a decision to pay the ransom. They paid off the cyber gangsters. If you have listed an entire set of US special services (powerful, global, respectable), after all they can find whoever the ransom was paid. And once they do that, they will realise that Russia has nothing to do with it.
Then there’s the cyberattack against a meat processing plant. Next time they will say there was an attack against some Easter eggs. It’s becoming farcical, like an ongoing farcical thing, never-ending farcical thing. You said ”plenty of evidence,“ but you haven’t cited any proof. But again, this is an empty conversation, a pointless conversation. What exactly are we talking about? There’s no proof.
Keir Simmons: You’ve moved on to this question of ransomware and criminals. Russian-speaking criminals is the allegation, are targeting the American way of life: food, gas, water, hospitals, transport. Why would you let Russian-speaking criminals disrupt your diplomacy? Wouldn’t you want to know who’s responsible?
Vladimir Putin: You know, the simplest thing to do would be for us to sit down calmly and agree on joint work in cyberspace. We did suggest that to Obama’s administration…
Keir Simmons: In September.
Vladimir Putin: In October. We started in September, and during his last year in office. In October at first they didn’t say anything. Then in November, they came back to us and said that, yes, it was interesting. Then the election was lost.
We restated this proposal to Mr Trump’s administration. The response was that it is interesting, but it didn’t come to the point of actual negotiations.
There are grounds to believe that we can build an effort in this area with the new administration, that the domestic political situation in the US will not prevent this from happening. But we have proposed to do this work together. Let’s agree on the principles of mutual work. Let’s find out what we can do together. Let’s agree on how we will structure counterefforts against the process that is gathering momentum. We here in the Russian Federation have cybercrimes that have increased many times over in the last few years. We are trying to respond to it. We are looking for cyber criminals. If we find them, we punish them.
We are willing to engage with international participants, including the United States. You are the ones who have refused to engage in joint work. What can we do? We cannot build this work, we cannot structure this work unilaterally.
Keir Simmons: Well, I’m not the government, Mr Putin. I’m just a journalist asking you questions.
Vladimir Putin: I understand that.
Keir Simmons: But if you clearly want to negotiate, you must have something to negotiate with. You don’t ask for a truce unless you’re fighting in a war.
Vladimir Putin: You know, as far as the war, NATO, and I’d like to draw your attention to that, has officially stated that it considers cyberspace a battlefield, an area of military action, and it conducts exercises in that battlefield.
Keir Simmons: And you are involved in that field.
Vladimir Putin: No.
Keir Simmons: Russia is fighting on that battlefield. Correct?
Vladimir Putin: No, no, that is not correct.
Keir Simmons: Really?
Vladimir Putin: That is not current. Really. If we wanted to do that… NATO said that it considers cyberspace an area of combat. And it prepares and even conducts exercises. What stops us from doing that? If you do that, we will do the same thing. But we don’t want that, just like we don’t want space militarised, in the same manner we don’t want cyberspace militarised. And we have suggested on many occasions, agreeing on mutual work in the cybersecurity area in this area. But your government refuses to.
Keir Simmons: It isn’t, I mean. I saw your proposal from September, from just in September. Isn’t what you’re proposing? That if you can come to an agreement over hacking and election interference, then you’ll call off the hacking and the election interference if America agrees not to comment on your elections and your political opponents?
Vladimir Putin: What we count on is that nobody should interfere in domestic internal affairs of other countries, neither the US in ours nor we in the USA’s political processes or any other nations. All nations of the world should be given an opportunity to develop calmly. Even if there are crisis situations they have to be resolved by the people domestically, without any influence or interference from the outside.
I don’t think that this call by the US administration, today’s administration is worth anything. It appears to me that the US government will still continue to interfere in the political processes in other countries. I don’t think that this process can be stopped, because it has gained a lot of momentum. However, as far as joint work in cyberspace for the prevention of some unacceptable actions on the part of cyber criminals, that is definitely something that can be agreed upon. And it is our great hope that we will be able to establish this process with our US partners.
Keir Simmons: If you were in America, what would you fear might happen next? The lights being switched off the way they were in western Ukraine in 2015?
Vladimir Putin: You mean if I were in America, what I would be afraid of? Is that the question?
Keir Simmons: What should Americans worry about? What might happen next if there’s no agreement on cyber?
Vladimir Putin: You know, this is just like space militarisation. This is a very dangerous area. At some point, in order to achieve something in the nuclear area in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons, the USSR and the United States did agree to contain this particular arms race. But cyberspace is a very sensitive area. As of today, a great deal of human endeavours rely upon digital technologies, including the functioning of government. And of course interference in those processes can cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses. And everybody understands that. And I am repeating for the third time: Let’s sit down together and agree on joint work on how to achieve security in this area. That is all. What’s bad about it? I don’t even understand.
I’m not asking you. I’m not trying to put you on the spot. But for me as an ordinary citizen, it would not be clear and understandable, why is it that your government refuses to do it? Accusations keep coming, including up to interference, involvement in a cyberattack against some kind of a meat processing plant. But our proposal to start negotiations in this area are being turned down. This is some kind of nonsense, but that’s exactly what’s been happening.
I repeat one more time. It is my hope that we will be able to start engaging in positive work in this area.
In terms of what’s to be afraid of, why is it that we suggest agreeing on something? Because what people can be afraid of in America, are worried about in America, the very same thing can be a danger to us. The US is a high-tech country. NATO has declared cyberspace an area of combat. That means they are planning something. They are preparing something. So obviously this cannot but worry us.
Keir Simmons: Do you fear that American intelligence is deep inside Russian systems and has the ability to do you a lot of damage in cyber?
Vladimir Putin: I’m not afraid, but I bear in mind that it is a possibility.
Keir Simmons: Let me ask you about human rights, an issue that President Biden will raise. Mr President, he’ll raise the issue of Alexei Navalny, targeted for assassination, now in a Russian jail. Mr President, why are you so threatened by opposition?
Vladimir Putin: Who says that I feel threatened by opposition or we are threatened by opposition? Who told you that I’m scared by opposition? It’s just funny.
Keir Simmons: Well, a Russian court has just… Excuse me, I’m sorry. A Russian court has just outlawed organisations connected to Mr Navalny. Literally every non-systemic opposition figure is facing criminal charges. In journalism Meduza and VTimes have been hit with ”foreign agent“ labels and face collapse. Mr President, it’s as if dissent is simply not tolerated in Russia anymore.
Vladimir Putin: You are presenting it as dissent and intolerance towards dissent in Russia. We view it completely differently. You have mentioned the law on foreign agents, but that’s not something that we invented. That law was passed back in the 1930s in the United States. And that law is much harsher than ours, and it is directed and intended, among other things, at preventing interference in the domestic political affairs of the United States.
Keir Simmons: But Mr President…
Vladimir Putin: And on the whole, I believe that it is justified.
Keir Simmons: Look, I’m just going to…
Vladimir Putin: Do you want me to keep answering?
Keir Simmons: In America, we call what you’re doing now ”whataboutism.“ ”What about this? What about that?“ It’s a way of not answering the question. Let me ask you a direct question.
Vladimir Putin: Let me answer. You’ve asked me a question. You are not liking my answer, so you’re interrupting me. This is inappropriate. So there we go. In the United States, this law was adopted a long time ago. It’s working, and sanctions under that law are much harsher than here, up to imprisonment.
Keir Simmons: There you go, still talking about the United States.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes. Again you are not letting me… But I will revert to us. I will go back to us. Don’t worry. I will not just be focused on US problems. I will revert and go back, and comment on what’s happening here.
Keir Simmons: Mr President, I thought your belief was that nations shouldn’t intervene in other countries’ domestic affairs, shouldn’t comment on other countries’ politics. But there you are, doing it again.
With NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.
Vladimir Putin: No. If you muster patience and let me finish saying what I mean to say, everything will be clear to you. But you are not liking my answer. You don’t want my answer to be heard by your audience. That is the problem. You are shutting me down. Is that free expression? Is that free expression American way?
Keir Simmons: Please, answer.
Vladimir Putin: Here we go. The US adopted this law. We passed this law very recently in order to protect our society against outside interference. When in some of the states, a foreign observer comes to a polling station, the prosecutor says, ”Come a few feet closer, and you’ll go to jail.“ Is that normal? Is that democracy in the modern world? But that is an actual practice in some of the states. We don’t have anything like that.
When I talk about these laws, about non-interference or attempts at interference, what do I mean as applied to Russia? Many entities of the so-called ”civil society“ – the reason I say ”so-called civil society“ is because many of those entities are funded from abroad. Specific relevant action programs are prepared. Their core members are trained abroad. And when our official authorities see that, in order to prevent this kind of interference in our domestic affairs, we make relevant decisions and adopt relevant laws. And they are more lenient than yours.
We have a saying: ”Don’t be mad at the mirror if you are ugly.“ It has nothing to do with you personally. But if somebody blames us for something, what I say is, ”Why don’t you look at yourselves?“ You will see yourselves in the mirror, not us. There is nothing unusual about it.
As far as political activities and the political system, it is evolving. We have 44 registered parties. Well, 34, I think. And 32 are about to participate in various electoral processes across the country in September.
Keir Simmons: Those are the registered.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes.
Keir Simmons: We only have a limited amount of time, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: There is also non-systemic opposition. You have said that some people have been detained. Some people are in prison. Yes, that is all true. You mentioned certain names.
Keir Simmons: Those are the ones that are being…
Vladimir Putin: Yes, yes. I will talk about it. Yes. I will not leave any of your questions unattended.
Keir Simmons: Alexei Navalny is his name.
Can I just ask you a direct question? Did you order Alexei Navalny’s assassination?
Vladimir Putin: Of course not. We don’t have this kind of habit, of assassinating anybody. That’s one.
Number two is I want to ask you: Did you order the assassination of the woman who walked into the Congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman? Do you know that 450 individuals were arrested after entering the Congress? And they didn’t go there to steal a laptop. They came with political demands. 450 people…
Keir Simmons: You’re talking about the Capitol riot.
Vladimir Putin: …have been detained. They’re facing a jail time, between 15 and 25 years. And they came to the Congress with political demands. Isn’t that persecution for political opinions? Some have been accused of plotting to topple, to take over government power. Some are accused of robbery. They didn’t go there to rob.
The people who you have mentioned, yes, they were convicted for violating their status, having been previously convicted, given convent, given suspended sentences which were essentially warning to not violate the Russian laws. And they completely ignored the requirements of the law. The court went on and passed and turned the conviction into real jail time. Thousands and thousands of people ignore requirements of the law – and they have nothing to do with political activities – in Russia every year and they go to jail. If somebody is actually using political activities as a shield to deal with their issues, including achieve their commercial goals, then it’s something that they have to be held responsible for.
Keir Simmons: There you go again, Mr President. ”What about America?“ when I’ve asked you about Russia. Let me ask. You mentioned Congress. Let me ask you another direct question that you can answer. And it’s an allegation that has been made, an accusation that has been made again and again now in the United States. The late John McCain in Congress called you a killer. When President Trump was asked, was told that you are a killer, he didn’t deny it. When President Biden was asked whether he believes you are a killer, he said, ”I do.“ Mr President, are you a killer?
Vladimir Putin: Look, over my tenure, I’ve gotten used to attacks from all kinds of angles and from all kinds of areas under all kinds of pretexts and reasons and of different calibre and fierceness. And none of it surprises me. People with whom I work and with whom we argue, we are not bride and groom. We don’t swear everlasting love and friendship. We are partners. And in some areas, we are rivals or competitors.
As far as harsh rhetoric, I think that this is an expression of overall US culture. Of course, in Hollywood, because we mentioned Hollywood at the beginning of our conversation, there are some deep things in Hollywood macho which can be treated as cinematographic art but more often than not it’s macho behavior that is part of US-political culture where it’s considered normal.
By the way, not here. It is not considered normal here. If this rhetoric is followed by a suggestion to meet and discuss bilateral issues and matters of international policies, I see it as desire to engage in joint work. If this desire is serious, we’re prepared to support it.
Keir Simmons: I don’t think I heard you answer the question, the direct question, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: I did answer. I will add, if you let me. I have heard dozens of such accusations, especially during the period of some grave events during our counterterrorism efforts in North Caucasus. And when it happens, I’m always guided by the interests of the Russian people and Russian state. And sentiments in terms of who calls somebody what, what kind of labels, this is not something I worry about in the least.
Keir Simmons: Let me give you some names. Anna Politkovskaya, shot dead. Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned by polonium. Sergei Magnitsky, allegedly beaten and died in prison. Boris Nemtsov, shot moments from the Kremlin, moments from here. Mikhail Lesin died of blunt trauma in Washington, DC. Are all of these a coincidence, Mr President? (Laughter.)
Vladimir Putin: Look, you know, I don’t want to come across as being rude, but this looks like some kind of indigestion, except that it’s verbal indigestion. You mentioned many individuals who indeed suffered and perished at different points in time for various reasons at the hand of different individuals.
You mentioned Lesin. Lesin used to work in my administration. I liked him very much. He died, he perished or died in the United States. I’m not sure if he perished or died. We should ask you how exactly he perished. I regret to this day that he is not with us. In my opinion, he’s a very decent person.
As far as the others, we found some of the criminals who committed those crimes. Some are in prison, and we are prepared to continue to work in this mode and along this avenue, identifying everybody who violate the law and by their actions cause damage, including to the image of the Russian Federation.
However, just piling everything together is meaningless, inappropriate and baseless. If one sees it as a line of attack, then very well. Let me listen to it one more time. But I’d like to repeat that I have heard it many times. But this doesn’t baffle me. I know which direction to move in to secure the interests of the Russian state.
Keir Simmons: Let’s move on to Belarus and Ukraine, two issues that will certainly come up in your summit with President Biden. Did you have prior knowledge that a commercial airliner would be forced to land in Belarus and that a journalist would be arrested?
Vladimir Putin: No, I did not know about this. I didn’t know about any airliner. I didn’t know about the people who were detained there subsequently. I found out about it from the media. I didn’t know, I didn’t have a clue about any detainees. I don’t know. It is of no interest to us.
Keir Simmons: You appear to have approved of it judging by your meeting with President Lukashenko soon afterwards.
Vladimir Putin: Not that I approve of it. Not that I condemn it. But, well, it happened. I said recently in one of the conversations with a European colleague, the version of Mr Lukashenko who told me about it was that information had been given to them that there was an explosive device on board the plane. They informed…
Keir Simmons: And you believe that?
Vladimir Putin: …the pilot without forcing the pilot to land. And the pilot made a decision to land in Minsk. That is all. Why should I not believe him? Ask the pilot. It’s the simplest thing. Ask the chief pilot. Ask the commander of the aircraft. Did you ask him if was he forced to land? Because I have not heard or seen an interview with the commander of the aircraft that landed in Minsk. Why not ask him? Why not ask him if he was forced to land? Why don’t you ask him? It’s actually even odd. Everybody accuses Lukashenko, but the pilot hasn’t been asked.
You know, I cannot but recall another similar situation where the plane of the President of Bolivia was forced to land in Vienna, the order of the US administration.
Air Force One, a presidential plane, was forced to land. The President was taken out of the aircraft. They searched the plane. And you don’t even recall that. Do you think it was normal, that was good, but what Lukashenko did was bad?
Look, let us speak the same language and let us use the same concepts. If, well, Lukashenko is a gangster, how about the situation with the Bolivian President? Was it good? In Bolivia, they viewed it as humiliation of the whole country. But everybody kept mum not to aggravate the situation. Nobody is recalling that. By the way, this is not the only situation…
Keir Simmons: You’re recalling it.
Vladimir Putin: This is not the only situation of this kind.
Keir Simmons: With respect, you’re…
Vladimir Putin: If it’s him, you gave him an example to follow.
Keir Simmons: …recalling it, but it is a completely different example, Mr President. We are talking about (Laughter.) a commercial flight. Shouldn’t people be able to take a commercial flight across Europe without fear of being shot down like in the case of MH-17 or forced down so that a dictator can arrest a journalist?
Vladimir Putin: Yes. Look, I will tell you one more time. What President Lukashenko told me, I don’t have any reason not to believe him. For the third time, I’m telling you: Ask the pilot. Why don’t you ask the pilot: Was he…
Keir Simmons: But you…
Vladimir Putin: …being scared? Was he being threatened? Was he being forced? The fact that information appeared that there was a bomb on the plane, that individuals, people who had nothing to do, who were passengers, who had nothing to do with politics or any kind of domestic conflicts, that they could perceive it negatively, could be worried about it, of course that’s a bad thing. There is nothing good about this. And obviously, we condemn everything that has to do with this, and international terrorism, and the use of aircraft. Of course, we are against this. And you’ve told me that the landing of the aircraft of the President of Bolivia is a completely different matter.
Yes, it is different except that it is ten times worse than what was done, if anything was done in Belarus. But you just won’t acknowledge it. You are ignoring it, and you want millions of people around the world to either not notice it or forget about it tomorrow. You won’t get away with it. It won’t happen.
Keir Simmons: In the case of neighbouring Ukraine earlier this year, the European Union said you had more than 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border. Was that an attempt to get Washington’s attention?
Vladimir Putin: Look, first, Ukraine itself constantly – and I think is still doing that – kept bringing personnel and military equipment to the conflict area in the southeast of Ukraine, Donbass. That’s one. Two is that we conducted exercises in our territory and not just in the south of the Russian Federation but also in the Far East and in the north, in the Arctic.
Simultaneously, military exercises were being held in different parts of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the US was conducting military exercises in Alaska. Do you know anything about it? Probably not. But I’ll tell you that I do know. And that is in direct proximity to our borders. But that’s in your territory, on your land. We didn’t even pay attention to it.
What is happening now? Now, at our southern borders, there is a war game, Defender Europe, 40,000 personnel, 15,000 units of military equipment. Part of them have been airlifted from the US continent directly to our borders. Did we airlift any of our military technology to the US borders? No, we did not.
Keir Simmons: Many of those…
Vladimir Putin: Why are you worried then?
Keir Simmons: But many of those exercises are a response to your actions, Mr President. Do you worry that your opposition to NATO has actually strengthened it? For six years, NATO has spent more on defence.
Vladimir Putin: Some defence. During the USSR era, Gorbachev, who is still, thank God, with us, got a promise, a verbal promise that there would be no NATO expansion to the east. Where is that…
Keir Simmons: Where is that…
Vladimir Putin: …promise? Two ways of expansion.
Keir Simmons: Where is that written down? Where is that promise written down?
Vladimir Putin: Right, right. Well done. Correct. You’ve got a point. Got you good. Well, congratulations. Of course, everything should be sealed and written on paper. But what was the point of expanding NATO to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders, and all of this before saying that we are the ones who have been acting aggressively?
Why? On what basis? Did Russia after the USSR collapsed present any threat to the US or European countries? We voluntarily withdrew our troops from Eastern Europe. Leaving them just on empty land. Our people there, military personnel for decades lived there in what was not normal conditions, including their children.
We went to tremendous expenses. And what did we get in response? We got in response infrastructure next to our borders. And now, you are saying that we are threatening somebody. We’re conducting war games on a regular basis, including sometimes surprise military exercises. Why should it worry the NATO partners? I just don’t understand that.
Keir Simmons: Will you commit now not to send any further Russian troops into Ukrainian sovereign territory?
Vladimir Putin: Look, did we say that we were planning to send our armed formations anywhere? We were conducting war games in our territory. How can this not be clear? I’m saying it again because I want your audience to hear it, your listeners to hear it both on the screens of their televisions and on the internet.
We conducted military exercises in our territory. Imagine if we sent our troops into direct proximity to your borders. What would have been your response? We didn’t do that. We did it in our territory. You conducted war games in Alaska. God bless you. But you had crossed an ocean, brought thousands of personnel, thousands of units of military equipment close to our borders, and yet you believe that we are acting aggressively and somehow you’re not acting aggressively. Just look at that. The pot calling the kettle black.
Keir Simmons: Moving on, the Biden administration has said that at your summit they will bring up the case of two US prisoners in Russia, Paul Whelan and Trevor Reed. They are two former Marines. Trevor Reed is suffering from COVID in prison. Why don’t you release them ahead of the summit? Wouldn’t that show goodwill?
Vladimir Putin: I know that we have certain US citizens who are in prison, have been convicted, found guilty. But if one considers the number of Russian Federation citizens who are in US prisons, then these numbers don’t even compare. They cannot be compared. The United States has made a habit in the last few years of catching Russian Federation citizens in third countries and take them to back to the US in violation of all international legal norms and put them in prison.
Keir Simmons: It’s just that there’s a limited amount of time, Mr President. Unless we can have more time, I’d be very happy to have to keep going for another 30 minutes.
Interview to NBC correspondent Keir Simmons.
Vladimir Putin: I determine the time here, so don’t worry about time. Your guy, the Marine, he’s just a drunk and a troublemaker. As they say here, he got himself shitfaced and started a fight. Among other things, he hit a cop. It’s nothing. It’s just a common crime. There is nothing to it.
As far as possible negotiations on the subject, sure it can be talked about. Obviously we’ll raise the matter of our citizens who are in prison in the US. Yes, it can be a specific conversation. Sure. We’re happy to do it although it doesn’t seem that the US administration has raised that matter. But we’re prepared to do that.
Our pilot Yaroshenko has been in prison in the US for a good, I don’t know how many years, 15, maybe 20 years. And there also the problem seems to be a common crime. We could and should talk about it. We haven’t been talking about this, but we could. If the US side is prepared to discuss it, so are we.
Keir Simmons: So his family will find that incredibly distressing to hear you talk about him that way. It does sound though as if you would consider some kind of a prisoner swap.
Vladimir Putin: There is nothing offensive about it. He got drunk on vodka and started a fight. He fought a cop. There is nothing offensive about it. These things happen in life. There is nothing horrible about it. It happens to our men as well. Somebody gulps down some vodka and starts a fight. So you violate the law, you go to prison. What would have happened if he’d fought a cop, if he’d hit a cop in your country? He would have been shot dead on that spot, and that’s the end of it. Isn’t that the case?
Keir Simmons: And on the prisoner swap question, is that something that you would consider? Are you looking to negotiate? You’re meeting with the President.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. Even better would be a discussion of the possibility of entering into an agreement on extradition of individuals who are in prison. This is standard international practice. We have such agreements with several countries. We’re prepared to enter into such an agreement with the United States.
Keir Simmons: Just to be clear so we hear it from you, which Russian prisoners in the US would you be hoping to bring back to Russia by name?
Vladimir Putin: Well, we have a whole list. I just mentioned a pilot, a pilot named Yaroshenko who was taken to the US from a third country and was given a lengthy sentence. He has major health issues, but the prison administration is not paying attention to this. You have mentioned that your citizen has coronavirus, but nobody’s paying attention to the health issues of our citizen.
We’re prepared to discuss these issues. Moreover, it makes sense, as you correctly said, and I completely agree with you, there are matters of humanitarian nature. And why not discuss them as long as they pertain to the health and life of specific individuals and of their families? Of course. Sure thing.
Keir Simmons: Just quickly before I move on, on the subject of prisons, again with Alexei Navalny, will you commit that you will personally ensure that Alexei Navalny will leave prison alive?
Vladimir Putin: Look, such decisions in this country are not made by the President. They’re made by the court whether or not to set somebody free. As far as the health, all individuals who are in prison, that is something that the administration of the specific prison or penitentiary establishment is responsible for.
And there are medical facilities in penitentiaries that are perhaps not in the best condition. And they are the ones whose responsibility it is. And I hope that they do it properly. But to be honest, I have not visited such places for a long time.
I visited one in St Petersburg some time ago and that was a very grave impression that was made on me by the medical facilities in a prison. But since then, I hope, some things have been done to improve the situation. And I proceed from the premise that the person that you have mentioned, the same kind of measures will apply to that person, not in any way worse than to anybody else who happens to be in prison.
Keir Simmons: His name is Alexei Navalny. People will note that you weren’t prepared to say…
Vladimir Putin: Oh, I don’t care.
Keir Simmons: …that he would leave prison alive.
Vladimir Putin: Please, listen to me carefully. His name can be anything. He’s one of the individuals who are in prison. For me, he is one of the citizens of the Russian Federation who has been found guilty by a court of law and is in prison. There are many citizens like that.
By the way, our so-called prison population, the people who are in prison, has in the last few years been reduced by almost 50%, which I consider a big victory for us and a major sign of our legal system becoming more humane.
He will not be treated any worse than anybody else. Nobody should be given any kind of special treatment. It would be wrong. Everybody should be in an equal situation. This is called the most favoured nation treatment. Not worse than anybody else. And the person that you have mentioned, that applies to him as well.
Keir Simmons: Appreciate the extra time, Mr President. The team has been in quarantine for almost two weeks, so this interview is very important to us.
I want to ask you about China. China is working on its fourth aircraft carrier. It has two. Russia has one, and it’s not in service at the moment. China refused to take part in arms control talks last year. You complain so much about NATO to your west. Why do you never complain about China’s militarisation to your east?
Vladimir Putin: The first thing I want to say is that over the last few years, the last few decades, we have developed a strategic partnership relationship between Russia and China that previously had not been achieved in the history of our nations, a high level of trust and cooperation in all areas: in politics, in the economy, in the area of technology, in the area of military and technical cooperation. We do not believe that China is a threat to us. That’s one. China is a friendly nation. It has not declared us an enemy, as the United States has done.
Keir Simmons: China hasn’t…
Vladimir Putin: Don’t you know anything about this? That’s number one.
Number two is that China is a huge, powerful country, 1.5 billion. In terms of purchasing power parity, the Chinese economy has exceeded that of the United States. And in terms of trade for the previous year, last year, China has tied Europe for the first place, whereas the US has dropped to the second position. Do you know about this?
China has been developing. And I understand that what’s beginning is a certain kind of confrontation with China. Everybody understands it. We can see it. Why hide from and be scared of these issues? However, we’re not alarmed by it, including, among other things, by the fact that our defence sufficiency, which is how we describe it, is at a very high level, including because of this. But the most important thing is the nature and level of our relationship with China.
You said China will have four aircraft carriers. How many does the United States have?
Keir Simmons: A lot more.
Vladimir Putin: There you go. That’s my point. Why would we worry about the Chinese aircraft carriers? On top of everything else, we have a hugely vast border with China, but it’s a land border. It’s a land border. What? Do you think the Chinese aircraft carriers will cross our land border? This is just a meaningless conversation.
Keir Simmons: But you also have a Pacific coast.
Vladimir Putin: You are right, that there will be four of them. It is correct that there will be four of them. Right.
Coast? Well, the coast is huge. But the bulk of the border between us and China is a land border. And, yes you’re right that there will be four of them because one needs to be in maintenance, one needs to be on combat duty, one needs to be in repairs. There is nothing excessive here for China.
That is why what you said, that China won’t engage in negotiations on arms control, it refuses to negotiate reductions in nuclear offensive weapons. You should ask the Chinese about it, whether it’s good or bad. It’s for them to decide. But their arguments are simple and understandable: in terms of the amount of ammunition and warheads and delivery vehicles, the United States and Russia are far, far ahead of China. And the Chinese justly say, ”Why would we make reductions if we are already far behind what you have? Or do you want us to freeze our level of nuclear deterrence? Why should we freeze? Why we, a country with a 1.5 billion population, cannot at least set the goal of achieving your levels?“ These are all debatable issues that require thorough consideration. But making us responsible for China’s position is just comical.
Keir Simmons: What do you think of China’s treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I have met certain Uyghurs. It’s always possible to find individuals who criticise the central authorities. I have met Uyghurs on my trips to China, and I assure you at the very least what I heard with my own ears, that on the whole they welcome the policies of the Chinese authorities in this area. They believe that China has done a great deal for people who live in this part of the country from the perspective of the economy, raising the cultural level, and so on and so forth. So why should I offer assessments looking at the situation from outside?
Keir Simmons: You know there are many Uyghurs who do not say that and that America has accused China of genocide. The Secretary of State has accused China of genocide against the Uyghurs. There is the accusation of a million Uyghurs in so-called concentration camps. Is that your message to the Muslim communities in the former Soviet Union? You don’t think anything wrong is happening there?
Vladimir Putin: As far as the Muslim community in Russia, I need to give a message to it through policies of the Russian authorities vis-à-vis Muslims in the Russian Federation. That is how I need to give my message to the Muslim community in the Russian Federation. We’re an observer in the Organisation of Islamic Conference.
About 10% of our population, probably a little more, are Muslims. They are citizens of the Russian Federation who do not have any other fatherland. They’re making a colossal contribution to the development of our country. And that pertains to both clerics and ordinary citizens.
Why should I speak to and build a relationship with this part of our population by reference to the situation in China without understanding thoroughly what is happening there? I think that you’re better off asking about all these problems the foreign minister of the People’s Republic of China or the US State Department.
Keir Simmons: It’s just a question of whether you are prepared to criticise China. China, for example, abstained on Crimea at the Security Council. China’s biggest banks have not contravened American sanctions against Russia. Do you think you get 100% support from China?
Vladimir Putin: You know, we are neighbouring countries. One does not choose one’s neighbours. We are pleased with the level, as I said, – unprecedentedly high level of our relationship as it has evolved over the last few decades, and we cherish it, just like our Chinese friends cherish it, which we can see. Why are you trying to drag us into some kind of matters that you evaluate as you see it fit for building your relationship with China? I will tell you completely… Can I speak…?
Keir Simmons: Please, yeah.
Vladimir Putin: Can I be completely honest? We can see attempts at destroying the relationship between Russia and China. We can see that those attempts are being made in practical policies. And your questions, too, have to do with it.
I have set forth my position for you. I believe that this is sufficient, and I’m confident that the Chinese leadership being aware of the totality of these matters, including the part of their population who are Uyghurs, will find the necessary solution to make sure that the situation remains stable and benefits the entire multi-million-strong Chinese people, including its Uyghur part.
Keir Simmons: You understand, of course, I’m just trying to question you about Russia’s position in relation to China and the United States. Let me ask you in a different way. Are you splitting off from the US space programme and moving forward with China?
Vladimir Putin: No, why? We are prepared to work with the US in space. And I think recently the head of NASA said that he could not imagine development of space programmes without its partnership with Russia. We welcome this statement and we value it.
Keir Simmons: I’ll just explain. Because the head of the Russian space agency has threatened leaving the international space programme in 2025 and specifically talked about sanctions in relation to that threat.
Vladimir Putin: Well, honestly, I don’t think that Mr Rogozin, that is the name of the head of Roscosmos, has threatened anyone in this regard. I’ve known him for many years, and I know that he is a supporter of expanding the relationship with the US in this area, in space.
Recently, the head of NASA spoke in the same vein. And I personally fully support this. And we have been working with great pleasure all of these years, and we’re prepared to continue to work.
For technical reasons though, and that’s a different matter, is that the International Space Station is coming to an end of its service life. And maybe in this regard, Roscosmos does not have plans to continue their work. However based on what I heard from our US partners, they, too, are looking at future cooperation in this particular segment in their certain way. But on the whole, the cooperation between our two countries in space is a great example of a situation where, despite any kind of problems in political relationships in recent years, it’s an area where we have been able to maintain and preserve the partnership and both parties cherish it. I think you just misunderstood what the head of the Russian space programme said.
We are interested in continuing to work with the US in this direction, and we will continue to do so if our US partners don’t refuse to do that. It doesn’t mean that we need to work exclusively with the US. We have been working and will continue to work with China, which applies to all kinds of programmes, including exploring deep space. And I think there is nothing but positive information here. Frankly, I don’t see any contradictions here. I don’t think any mutual exclusivity here.
Keir Simmons: Let me ask you one more way just to understand the relationship between China, Russia and America. If the People’s Liberation Army made a move on Taiwan how would Russia respond to that?
Vladimir Putin: What? Are you aware of China’s plans to militarily solve the Taiwan problem? I don’t know anything about it.
As we frequently say, politics do not require the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is inappropriate in politics. There is no ”could be“ and ”would be“ in politics.
I cannot comment on anything that is not a current reality of the modern world. Please, bear with me. Don’t be angry with me. But I think this is a question about nothing. This is not happening. Has China stated that it intends to solve the Taiwan problem militarily? It hasn’t happened. For many years, China has been developing its relationship with Taiwan. There are different assessments. China has its own assessment. The US has a different assessment. Taiwan may have its different assessment of the situation. But fortunately, it hasn’t come to a military clash.
Keir Simmons: I’m being told to wrap up. But if I could just ask you a couple more questions.
Vladimir Putin: Sure, please. Go ahead.
Keir Simmons: Our own Andrea Mitchell saw just this month the last border crossing into Syria where supplies literally keep people alive. You’re threatening to close that crossing in July at the Security Council. Why would you do that, knowing that it will cause the death of refugees?
Vladimir Putin: Look, unfortunately, there are a great deal of tragedies there already. And all our actions in their totality need to be geared at stabilising the situation and bringing it into a normal course. And with support of Russia, Syria has been able, the Syrian authorities have been able to bring back under their control over 90% of the Syrian territory.
What needs to be set up now is just humanitarian assistance to people, irrespective of any kind of political context. But our partners in the West, in the West in general, both the US and Europeans have been saying that they’re not going to give help to Assad. What does Assad have to do with it? Help out people who need that assistance. Just the most basic things. They won’t even lift restrictions on supplies of medications and medical equipment even in the context of the coronavirus infection. But that is just inhumane. And this kind of cruel attitude to people cannot be explained in any way.
As far as the border crossings, there is the Idlib area where combatants are still robbing people, killing people, raping people. There is nothing’s happening. There is the Al-Tanf Zone, which by the way is controlled by US military.
Recently there we caught a group of gangsters, bandits who came, who had come from there. And they directly said that they had specific goals as far as Russian military facilities. As far as border crossings, our position is such that assistance needs to be given just as it should be done in the entire world, as it is provided for in the provisions of international humanitarian law. Assistance should be given through the central government. It shouldn’t be discriminated against. And if there are grounds to believe that the central government of Syria will plunder something, well, set up observers on the part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent oversee everything.
I don’t think that anybody in the Syrian government is interested in stealing some part of this humanitarian assistance. It just needs to be done through the central government. And in this sense, we support President Assad because a different mode of behavior would be undermining the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. And that’s all.
As far as the Idlib zone, the Turkish troops there effectively control the border between Turkey and Syria, and convoys cross the border without any restrictions on their numbers in both directions.
Keir Simmons: Mr President, you extended the Constitution so that you could be President of Russia until 2036. Do you worry that the longer you are in power and without any sign of someone to replace you, the more instability there may be when you finally do choose to leave office?
Vladimir Putin: What will collapse overnight? If we look at the situation in which Russia was in the year 2000, where it was balancing on the brink of preserving its territorial integrity and sovereignty, the number of individuals below the poverty line was colossal. It was catastrophic.
The GDP level had dropped below anything that’s acceptable. Our FX and gold reserves were $12 billion, whereas our foreign debt was $120 billion, if we count it in dollars.
Now, there are many other problems. The situation is completely different. Of course, somebody will come and replace me at some point. Is all of this going to collapse? We’ve been fighting international terrorism. We have nipped it in the bud. Is it supposed to come back to life? I don’t think so. Another matter is that on the political scene, different people can emerge with different points of view. Great. Very good.
You know, I have linked my entire life, my entire fate to the fate of my country to such an extent that there isn’t a more meaningful goal in my life than the strengthening of Russia. If anybody else, and if I see that person, even if that person is critical of some areas of what I have been doing, if I can see that this is an individual who has constructive views, that he or she is committed to this country and is prepared to sacrifice his entire life to this country, nor just some years, no matter his personal attitude to me, I will make sure, I will do everything to make sure that such people will get support.
It is a natural biological process. At some point, someday, we will all be replaced. You will be replaced at where you are. I will be replaced at where I am. But I am confident that the fundamental pillar of the Russian economy and statehood and its political system will be such that Russia will be firmly standing on its feet and look into the future confidently.
Keir Simmons: And would you look from that person for some kind of protection the same way that you offered to Boris Yeltsin when you took over?
Vladimir Putin: I am not even thinking about that. These are third-tier issues. The most important thing, the single most important thing is the fate of the country and the fate of its people.
Keir Simmons: Very good. Thank you very much for your time, Mr President. We’ve gone over, and I really appreciate it. It was a really interesting conversation, so thank you.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Thousands of Israelis waved flags and marched in a Palestinian neighborhood of Jerusalem, asserting Israeli control over the city and testing the feeble ceasefire in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The march had been delayed from last month out of concern it would escalate the violence in the city just as fighting was breaking out between Israel and Palestinian groups on May 10th.
Hamas vowed a response to the recent escalation, and returned to its usual military practice: launching incendiary balloons into Israeli territory.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said that 20 fires were sparked by these attacks over the past 24 hours, and in response scrambled warplanes to carry out airstrikes on the Gaza Strip.
The IDF said that it had targeted Hamas military compounds, used by the group’s operatives.
The Israeli strikes in Gaza appeared to cause no deaths or injuries.
But the Israeli military warned that it was “prepared for any scenario, including a resumption of hostilities, in the face of continuing terror activities from the Gaza Strip.”
Israel also deployed Iron Dome to the country’s south to guarantee security.
Tel Aviv’s government needed to show that it had security under control, especially since it hosted a full delegation of former US generals who met with various IDF officials.
Earlier on June 15th, in Jerusalem, mostly young Israelis marched to the main entrance to the Old City’s Muslim quarter.
Many of them chanted “Death to Arabs”.
There, a few thousand dancing demonstrators had gathered to celebrate Israel’s contested control of East Jerusalem.
Scores of stone-throwing Palestinians took part in running street battles with Israeli security forces, who used rubber bullets, batons and water cannons spraying foul-smelling water to scatter those trying to disrupt the nationalist celebration outside the Old City walls.
At least 33 people were injured, including a 14-year-old boy hit by a rubber bullet, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.
Israeli police said that two officers were lightly wounded and 17 people were arrested during the protests.
Hamas leaders had urged Palestinians to take part in a “day of rage” to challenge the protest outside the Old City’s Muslim Quarter, and the militant group then launched incendiary balloons.
The march’s organizers are former allies turned political enemies of new Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who has drawn ire from Israel’s right-wing population for forming a coalition that also includes the left-wing and an Arab party.
Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that him being removed from his post was just temporary and he would be back in a short time-span, as Israel is essentially lost without him.
Any sort of escalation in the West Bank is in his favor, as he may claim that his competition is not effectively dealing with the situation.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The relentless digitalisation of every day life since the advent of the Internet has led to many accepting as inevitable the eventual emergence of a cashless society. For the last few years, a fierce debate has taken place in the public sphere involving politicians, economists and sociologists alike, on the ethical boundaries of such a society and the threat it poses to individual freedom, privacy and civil liberties. There are logical fears that the eradication of cash would accelerate the already alarming disparities between rich and poor and leave citizens at the mercy of the international banking system, with little to zero control over their personal data.
Sky News Australia host Cory Bernardi argues that a cashless society would mark ‘the end of privacy’. Indeed, a move towards a wholly digital society would represent a global victory for big tech, big data and big government. It is argued that “the abolition of paper and metal currency is often presented as an improvement on the current way of doing business. It is indeed, but only for banks and governments, not so much for the citizens and customers which they are supposed to serve.” The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the process of a move towards a cashless global economy.
So what are we risking by removing cash completely from our economies? Would it represent the final nail in the coffin for personal privacy? Is it really worth giving up our civil liberties to pander to the minacious ambition of big tech and authoritarian governments?
Mass Surveillance and the Cashless Economy
A move towards a cashless economy has alarmed many who believe such a step would mean a drastic move towards a mass surveillance state. With every bank transaction able to be monitored by the banks and other financial intermediaries, and therefore by governments, only cryptocurrency transactions would remain private and hidden from third-party view. The idea that every purchase you make is “authorised and recorded by a privately run commercial bank, giving it a transaction-by-transaction history of your entire commercial life”, represents for many a somewhat dystopian future.
From Sweden to China, serious moves are being made to completely remove physical cash transactions from the economy. China in particular has launched a country-wide experiment to introduce a centralised ‘digital yuan’, with individuals’ funds being stored on a ‘digital wallet’, easily accessible to central government. This would in theory create the “world’s largest repository of financial transactions data, allowing the authoritarian CCP unprecedented access to ramp up surveillance of ordinary citizens.”
To opponents of cashless societies, handing over such control to either public or private organizations would represent another draconian shift towards authoritarianism. Laura Poitras highlighted in Der Spiegel how “the NSA monitors banks and credit card transactions — sometimes in apparent violation of national laws and global regulations. The European SWIFT financial transaction network is being tapped on different levels, internal documents from the US spy agency show.” Cashless economies would remove citizens ability to avoid such under-the-table practices.
The existence of these third-parties (banks or payment intermediaries like VISA or Mastercard) and the ever-growing power they wield facilitates this trend towards the expansion of surveillance states. They have unique access to every financial transaction in an economy, described by Brett Scott in the Guardian as “a big data economic macro-surveillance system.” Advocates for solid cash therefore extol the virtues of coins and notes as the most “flexible and anonymous medium for quick small transactions that don’t involve an intermediary.”
An Attack on Our Civil Liberties?
‘Cashless society’ is a euphemism for the “ask-your-banks-for-permission-to-pay society”, asserted Brett Scott in a 2016 article for the New Statesman. The level of subtle control exercised over one’s daily activities would be significant. Scott underlines how “you’d have no choice but to conform to the intermediaries’ automated bureaucracy, giving them a lot of power, and a lot of data about the microtexture of your economic life.” This phenomenon has already begun creeping into Western societies; London buses stopped accepting cash in 2014, Norway has become a ‘world leader’ in cashless transactions, with banknotes accounting for only 3-4% of transactions in the country.
Many argue that the anonymity of ‘classic’ payment processes is vital for our civil liberties and individual freedoms. Expanding the cashless economy would surely mean that non-adherents and opponents could easily be cut off from the system for refusing to comply. On a more human level, individuals must be protected from invisible power structures, third-party actors who could use their unfettered access to individuals’ data for nefarious reasons.
A 2019 report claimed that up to 8 million people in Great Britain would not be able to cope with the removal of cash from the economy. Would ostracising such a large section of society be worth it for convenience, cost, personal preference and the avoidance of tax evasion? As things stand, the arguments against continue to outweigh the arguments for.
*
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.
Sophia Wright holds a degree in political economy, law and politics. She has worked as an analyst in Europe for various banking institutions, as well as for European institutions. She is also a mother, and what she has seen of macroeconomic and macro-political developments motivates her to alert the younger generation to the dangers of a host of measures in the pipeline.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The US Marine Corps has after nearly a century of integrating tanks into its fighting forces, abandoned armored warfare in favor of missiles and drones to “confront China” in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Marine Times in a 2020 article titled, “The Corps is axing all of its tank battalions and cutting grunt units,” would explain:
…the Corps is making hefty cuts as the Marines plan to make a lighter and faster force to fight across the Pacific to confront a rising China.
As part of Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger’s plan to redesign the force to confront China and other peer adversaries by 2030, the Marines are axing all three of its tank battalions, and chucking out all law enforcement battalions and bridging companies…”
Since the announcement, the Marine Corps’ tank battalions have been fully deactivated.
Defense News in another 2020 article, this one titled, “Here’s the US Marine Corps’ plan for sinking Chinese ships with drone missile launchers,” would note:
The US Marine Corps is getting into the ship-killing business, and a new project in development is aimed at making their dreams of harrying the People’s Liberation Army Navy a reality.
The article cited Marine Corps requirements and development chief Lieutenant General Eric Smith, who would explain:
“They are mobile and small, they are not looking to grab a piece of ground and sit on it,” Smith said of his Marine units. “I’m not looking to block a strait permanently. I’m looking to maneuver. The German concept is ‘Schwerpunkt,’ which is applying the appropriate amount of pressure and force at the time and place of your choosing to get maximum effect.”
Smith describes a concept where the US fleet can herd Chinese ships into a contested area where the Marines can do damage from the shore.
The invocation of “Schwerpunkt” – a concept utilized as part of Nazi Germany’s war of aggression against both Western Europe and the Soviet Union during World War 2 – is incredibly instructive in understanding the pathology at play within US foreign policy and defense strategy.
Washington’s Obsession with Primacy
Washington’s overall strategy toward China is one of encirclement and containment along with the preservation of what US policymakers call America’s “primacy” over the Indo-Pacific region – a region the US itself is not located in.
US military strategists have a long, passionate, but otherwise inexplicable and disturbing admiration of Nazi Germany’s fabled military prowess. It is inexplicable because ultimately Nazi Germany not only lost World War 2 but ceased to exist entirely after losing the war. It is distrubing considering what little Nazi Germany did manage to accomplish was confined to death and destruction.
Concepts like “Schwerpunkt” and “Blitzkrieg” served as tools of an aggressor nation fighting and winning battles (at least initially) amid an ultimately lost war.
These concepts were imagined by Nazi strategists as able to overwhelm numerically, economically, and militarily superior adversaries if done fast enough – with Berlin hoping to overwhelm Soviet forces in a single season.
In reality the logistics of a sustained war of aggression, deep within another nation’s territory, across such vast distances made “overwhelming” a superior opponent impossible. Soviet forces were able to adapt and overcome German invaders while simultaneously enjoying advantages in manpower, industrial capacity, and much shorter logistical lines. Soviet forces also possessed the moral imperative of defending their own territory while German soldiers were left wondering why they were fighting and dying hundreds of miles from their own borders.
The US now finds itself emulating the failed strategy of Nazi Germany – both overall as an aggressor nation on an international level but also upon hypothetical battlefields thousands of miles away from its own shores.
US strategists imagine that these same concepts served them well in the 1990’s during the Persian Gulf War – failing to note the numerical and economic (and thus technological) advantages the US had over Iraqi forces which played a much more important role.
Imagining that these same tactics will work against a numerically and economically superior opponent with at least peer-level military technology is deeply flawed.
Much of US foreign policy today is fundamentally flawed, however, predicated on many false assumptions. The most central false assumption is that the US can or should maintain primacy over the Indo-Pacific region and that China should be subordinated within a US-dominated “international order.”
China today has a population many times larger than the US. Annually, China generates millions more graduates in fields relative to enhancing its technological and industrial capacity than the US does. China’s economy will most certainly surpass the US and its influence and relations throughout the Indo-Pacific region are both more sustainable and more desirable for the people living in the region than America’s policy of “either us or them.”
There is no logical reason why China should not surpass America as the most powerful nation on Earth both economically and militarily. To suggest it shouldn’t implies that despite possessing every possible advantage over the United States – the people of China are still somehow “inferior,” thus enabling America’s continued primacy over Asia. It is this fundamentally flawed assumption – along with many others – driving American foreign policy and defense strategy toward ever-increasing and unsustainable extremes.
China’s Military Advantages
Militarily, China already possesses a larger navy than the US does – a gap that will only widen in coming years. While some have claimed that the US possesses more capable ships and can augment its fleet size with the ships of its allies – this ignores the fact that the US uses its navy to dominate others around the entire planet – not just in seas along China’s peripheries.
China currently and will likely well into the future continue to concentrate its naval forces in the defense of its own actual territory and “near abroad.”
The US Navy and Marine Corps’ dreams of “herding” Chinese warships into carefully prepared kill-zones consisting of straits the US imagines itself controlling fails to account for the fact that China could maintain a significant naval force on both sides of any given strait in question without ever needing to enter it.
Advances in missile and drone technology is a two-way street and one China is not idle in regards to. Numbers of missiles and drones operating on a hypothetical battlefield anywhere in the Indo-Pacific region will consist of Chinese and American forces at the very least matched numerically, but with China ultimately enjoying shorter logistical lines and much more substantial reserve forces on hand and able to mobilize across much shorter distances.
What This Really Means for the US Marines and America’s Actual Defense
What a US Marine Corps without its tanks truly represents is a storied branch of America’s armed forces neutered by an increasingly irrational foreign policy driving an equally irrational national defense strategy.
The Marine Corps until now existed as a highly versatile and mobile force with aviation, armor, and infantry capable of responding to virtually any battlefield challenge imaginable with a full range of combined arms options – from close-up urban combat to warfare on open battlefields at great distances. These were capabilities unique to the US Marine Corps that no other US service could offer.
Now the US Marine Corps has been specifically tailored to fight a war of aggression thousands of miles from American shores, in a specific theater, against a very specific opponent. It is a war the US has already lost before ever fighting, and in the process has cost its Marine Corps its ability to respond to other potential threats to America’s actual defense at home.
The only beneficiaries of the US Marine Corps’ disfigurement are arms manufacturers like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin building the missile systems US Marines imagine themselves using against China, and defense contractors like Oshkosh building the vehicles carrying them into these hypothetical, far-flung battles. Also benefiting – of course – are the generals and politicians on the take of America’s oversized and out-of-control arms industry while Americans themselves are left to pay the bills.
*
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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The West is the best The West is the best Get here and we’ll do the rest Jim Morrison, The End
For those spared the ordeal of sifting through the NATO summit communique, here’s the concise low down: Russia is an “acute threat” and China is a “systemic challenge”.
NATO, of course, are just a bunch of innocent kids building castles in a sandbox.
Those were the days when Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first secretary-general, coined the trans-Atlantic purpose: to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”
The Raging Twenties remix reads like “keep the Americans in, the EU down and Russia-China contained”.
So the North Atlantic (italics mine) organization has now relocated all across Eurasia, fighting what it describes as “threats from the East”. Well, that’s a step beyond Afghanistan – the intersection of Central and South Asia – where NATO was unceremoniously humiliated by a bunch of Pashtuns with Kalashnikovs.
Russia remains the top threat – mentioned 63 times in the communiqué. Current top NATO chihuahua Jens Stoltenberg says NATO won’t simply “mirror” Russia: it will de facto outspend it and surround it with multiple battle formations, as “we now have implemented the biggest reinforcements of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War”.
The communiqué is adamant: the only way for military spending is up. Context: the total “defense” budget of the 30 NATO members will grow by 4.1% in 2021, reaching a staggering $1.049 trillion ($726 billion from the US, $323 billion from assorted allies).
After all, “threats from the East” abound. From Russia, there are all those hypersonic weapons that baffle NATO generals; those large-scale exercises near the borders of NATO members; constant airspace violations; military integration with that “dictator” in Belarus.
As for the threats from China – South China Sea, Taiwan, the Indo-Pacific overall – it was up to the G7 to come up with a plan.
Enter “green”, “inclusive” Build Back Better World (B3W), billed as the Western “alternative” to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). B3W respects “our values” – which clownish British PM Boris Johnson could not help describing as building infrastructure in a more “gender neutral” or “feminine” way – and, further on down the road, will remove goods produced with forced labor (code for Xinjiang) from supply chains.
The White House has its own B3W spin: that’s a “values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership” which will be “mobilizing private-sector capital in four areas of focus – climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equality – with catalytic investments from our respective development institutions”
The initial “catalytic investments” for BW3 were estimated at $100 billion. No one knows how these funds will be coming from the “development institutions”.
Seasoned Global South observers already bet they will be essentially provided by IMF/World Bank “green” loans tied to private sector investment in selected emerging markets, with an eye on profit.
The White House is adamant that “B3W will be global in scope, from Latin America and the Caribbean to Africa and the Indo-Pacific”. Note the blatant attempt to match BRI’s reach.
All these “green” resources and new logistic chains financed by what will be a variant of Central Banks showering helicopter money would ultimately benefit G7 members, certainly not China.
And the “protector” of these new “green” geostrategic corridors will be – who else? – NATO. That’s the natural consequence of the “global reach” emphasized on the NATO 2030 agenda.
NATO as investment protector
“Alternative” infrastructure schemes already proliferate, geared to contain “Russia bullying” and “Chinese meddling” off from the EU. That’s the case of the Three Seas Initiative, where 12 EU member-states from Eastern Europe are supposed to better interconnect the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas.
This initiative is a pale copy of China’s 17+1 mechanism of integrating Eastern Europe as part of BRI – in this case forcing them to build very expensive infrastructure to receive very expensive American energy imports.
The offensive against “threats from the East” is bound to fail. Dmitry Orlov has detailed how “Russia excels at building and operating huge energy, transportation and materials production systems” and, in parallel, how “the technosphere…has quietly relocated and is now busy telecommuting between Moscow and Beijing.”
As every geek knows, China is way ahead in 5G and is the world’s top market for chips. And now the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law – significantly approved right before the G7 in Cornwall – will “safeguard” Chinese companies from “unilateral and discriminatory measures imposed by foreign countries” and the US “long arm jurisdiction”, thus forcing Atlanticist capital to make a choice.
It’s China as a rising global power that in fact has proposed an “alternative” to the Global South in the first place, a counterpunch to the endless IMF/World Bank debt trap of the past decades. BRI is a highly complex sustainable development trade/investment strategy with the potential to integrate vast swathes of the Global South.
That’s a direct connection to Chairman Mao’s famous theory on the division of the Three Worlds ; the emphasis then on the post-colonial Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), of which China was a stalwart, now encompasses the whole Global South. In the end, it’s always about sovereignty against neocolonialism.
B3W is the Western, essentially American, reaction to BRI: try to scotch as many projects as possible while harassing China 24/7 in the process.
Unlike China or Germany, the US hardly manufactures products the Global South wants to buy; manufacturing accounts for only 5% of a US economy essentially propped up by the US dollar as reserve currency and the – dwindling – Pentagon’s Empire of Bases.
China churns out ten top engineers for every US “financial expert”. China has perfected what is known among bilingual tech experts as an effective system to make SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) development plans – and implement them.
The notion that the Global South will be convinced to privilege B3W – a hollow PR coup at best – over BRI is ludicrous. Yet NATO will be regimented to actively protect those investments that follow “our values”. One thing is certain: there will be blood.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.
After months of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg mercilessly – tediously – denouncing Russia and China ahead of yesterday’s summit, the communiqué issued after it finally raised China’s ire. Two of the document’s 79 points addressed China. The second was conciliatory; the first was confrontational. It was the first time the 30-nation military bloc so overtly directed harsh language of that nature at China in an official publication.
Simone Scott, a 19-year-old freshman at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., died June 11 of complications from a heart transplant she underwent after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of the Moderna COVID vaccine.
Although Florida has been largely free of state-based COVID restrictions and never had a mask mandate, several counties, such as Alachua, zealously instituted unconstitutional regulations until fairly recently. In a landmark ruling on Friday, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had erred in tossing out the lawsuit against Alachua County’s mask mandate because it should be held as presumptively unconstitutional.
Joe Biden travelled to Brussels riding the wave of his “America is back” mantra. Far from rebuilding the US-NATO relationship, he used NATO as a prop to help set the stage for his upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin. The United States is facing a perfect storm of crises of its own making.
Studies have shown ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses, inhibits inflammation through several pathways, lowers viral load, protects against organ damage, prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure, speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients.
On June 16, 2021, the late rap icon Tupac Shakur would have turned 50 had he survived a still unsolved drive-by shooting in Las Vegas 25 years ago. Few knew that behind his “gangsta rap” façade, Tupac was an activist leader who worked to counter CIA drug trafficking through street gangs.
Palestinians see the Israeli annual raid of the Old City (including the Haram al-Sharif complex, where al-Aqsa mosque is housed) in celebration of the occupation, annexation and Judaization of Jerusalem under the flag of the Zionist Jewish state as an abomination.
The country is 90% self-sufficient in food. 99% of the population have electricity in their homes that is now generated with 70+% green energy; International financial Institutions including the World Bank, the International Development Bank and The Central American Bank for Economic Integration praise Nicaragua for its excellent, efficient project execution.
Today’s Alternative Visions radio show analyzes the just released Consumer Price Index inflation for May and reports on the latest developments in the ‘Infrastructure Follies’ phony negotiations going on in Congress and the Biden administration. How ‘smoke & mirror’ offers and counter-offers are steadily reducing the level of infrastructure spending and, in turn, how Biden is cutting out his tax hike proposals in turn (and what tax items are likely next).
Election results have been considered as fair by the pro-US, pro-capitalist Organization of American States (OAS). The same organization that supported the post-election US-instigated coup against Evo Morales in November 2019. Either they have learned a lesson of ethics, or there were too many international observers watching over OAS’s election observations. Or, as a third option, Washington may have yet a different agenda for this part of their “backyard”.
The events of September Eleventh 2001 shook America and they shook the world. Nearly 3,000 people died at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. The day has divided our history into pre-9/11 and post-9/11 worlds.
The so-called Covid variants, officially designated as mutations, are being used to extend the British lockdown. However, Dr. Luc Montagnier, a Nobel laureate and former director of the Retrovirology Lab at the Pasteur Institute reports that in fact it is the vaccinations that are producing the variants.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
“This is the G7 summit. They are all arriving by private jets, there is no quarantine, no masks being worn.
So why are they able to do whatever they want but we are stuck having to do what they tell us to do?
These are G7 leaders — not socially distancing, not quarantining, not wearing masks. …”
[Unfortunately, some harsh language in the last two sentences]
Video
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Hands on hips, she stood behind the counter, glaring. “No face, no service.”
“What?” I blurted, as the door swung behind me, jingling a bell.
“This is a bakery, not a bank,” she responded with all the sharpness of a knife swiftly slicing bread.
I took a few slow steps forward and shook my head in non-understanding. The overwhelming smell of fresh sourdough penetrated the polyester mask stretched over my nose, mouth and chin. The twenty-something girl with a slight German accent raised a hand mirror from the countertop. She aimed it at me.
“You look like a bank robber.”
So opens the first chapter of my forthcoming novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story – a book I hope will help derail the corona craze before it’s too late. (Note: The working titles were previously COVID-27 and Brave New Normal.)
“…politicians, governments fear books,” says Richard Evans, author of the New York Times bestseller The Christmas Box, in an interview. “Every revolution started with a book. Every single one of them — whether it is religious, cultural or political — there is always a book at the base of it.”
Uncle Tom’s Cabin had such an effect on the Civil War. When Lincoln met author Harriet Stowe he’s been quoted as saying: “So this is the little lady who started this great war.”
Alabama author Mark Childress credited Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird with having a similar impact on the civil rights movement: “I think the book really helped [white people] come to understand what was wrong with the system in the way that any number of treatises could never do, because it was popular art…”
Likewise, in the battle against totalitarianism, here are five dystopian classics:
Back in March, when lockdown began, I put down the urban fantasy novel I’ve been (re)writing for the last ten years; and picked up my pencil to write a short story set in a grim COVID future. 85,000 words later I was faced with a novel about the novel coronavirus: Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. It’s a story which seeks not to predict the outcome of the corona hoax but to prevent it.
I’ll release the novel in three parts; and then altogether as a single book. Part one is coming soon. Subscribe for behind-the-scenes updates.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The events of September Eleventh 2001 shook America and they shook the world. Nearly 3,000 people died at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and United Airlines Flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania. The day has divided our history into pre-9/11 and post-9/11 worlds. In the aftermath of the attacks some family members who lost loved ones began to ask questions and pressed for an investigation into how the attacks could have happened. The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission was formed and after over a year of pressure, the administration of President George W. Bush established the 9/11 Commission.
In Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission ignored, author Ray McGinnis explores the efforts of these families to keep the 9/11 Commission on track. Their purpose was clearly stated by Kristen Breitweiser who said “We are going to get to the bottom of this and we are going to make sure someone is held responsible so that nobody else ever had to walk in our shoes.” While many think of the families who lost loved ones only in the context of the published obituaries of September Eleventh victims, and anniversary observances, Unanswered Questions examines the exemplary citizen advocacy of those who survived, and why these families unanswered questions still matter.
Endorsements
Gaze at an intriguing portrait. Contemplate the unanswered questions of September Eleventh, the victims’ family members posing them with rising urgency, and the U.S. government stonewalling their search for answers. What is going on here? Ray McGinnis is an artist. He allows the members of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission to speak for themselves. They do so eloquently, raising a host of queries challenging the public story. The government’s devastating non-response provokes still deeper questions. Can a government investigate itself for a crime that has given it the rationale for a permanent war on others? What has been going on here for almost two decades?
Take a deep breath. Read and absorb this brilliant narrative, seen through the courage of those who turned suffering into demands for every scrap of evidence to be found in the sanitized crime scene and the more-accessible public domain. See the post-September-Eleventh world we live in through their enlightening questions.
– James W. Douglass, author of JFK and the Unspeakable. For more information about the work of James Douglass
Finally, the 9/11 book I have been waiting for. Unsensational, fact-based, and devastating to the official story. It’s easier to show what didn’t happen than what did, which is why the families’ questions were so important and should still be asked of the still-living witnesses and possible conspirators. Bravo to Ray for organizing this complicated story so cogently.
– Lisa Pease, author of A Lie Too Big To Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
The book is available in Hardcover for $29.95 USD, Paperback for $22.95 USD, and eBook for $6.99 USD. Pre-sales of the book start mid-July 2021, shipping starts mid-August 2021. Official book launch September 11, 2021.
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.
***
Southern African Development Community (SADC), an organization made up of 16 member states, was established in 1980. It has as its mission to promote sustainable and equitable economic growth and socio-economic development through efficient, productive systems, deeper cooperation and integration, good governance and durable peace and security, so that the region emerges as a competitive and an effective player in international relations and the world economy.
Lawrence Stargomena Tax began as the fourth Executive Secretary in September 2013. According to the official information, her second term of office ends in August 2021. As Executive Secretary, her key responsibilities include engaging all the members as an economic bloc, overseeing and implementing various programmes and projects in the Southern African region.
She has a diverse employment career, including holding a top position as the Permanent Secretary at the Tanzanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and East African Cooperation from 2008 to 2013, thereafter appointed as the Executive Secretary of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) at the 33rd Summit of the Heads of State and Government held in Lilongwe, Malawi.
In this insightful and wide-ranging farewell interview with Kester Kenn Klomegah in May, Executive Secretary Lawrence Stargomena Tax discusses the most significant achievements and challenges in deepening cooperation and promoting socio-economic development as well as peace and security, and further makes suggestions for the future of Southern Africa. Here are the interview excerpts.
*: The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Secretariat is the Principal Executive Institution of SADC, and the SADC Executive Secretary leads the SADC Secretariat as mandated by Articles 14 and 15 of the Treaty establishing SADC. Functions of the SADC Executive Secretary include overseeing: strategic planning for the Organisation; management, coordination and monitoring of SADC programmes; coordination and harmonization of policies and strategies; mobilization of resources; representation and promotion of SADC; and promotion of SADC regional integration and cooperation.
Achievements: SADC has recorded numerous achievements since its establishment, some of which were recorded during my term of office, from September 2013 to-date 2021. The functions of the Executive Secretary notwithstanding, the recorded milestones are a result of collective efforts by Member States, the Secretariat, and other Stakeholders, as well as team-work by staff of the Secretariat. Eight (8) years is quite a long time, as such several achievements and milestones were recorded during the eight years of my tenure in office, allow me to highlight some of the key ones as follows:
Consolidation of democracy, and sustenance of peace and security in the region. The SADC region remains stable and peaceful, notwithstanding, isolated challenges. This is attributed to solid systems and measures in place, such as our regional early warning, preventive and mediation mechanisms, which facilitate timely detection and re-dress of threats and challenges, and effective deployments of SADC electoral observation missions. Examples during my tenure of office, include SADC preventive mission to the Kingdom of Lesotho, SADC peace and political support to the Democratic Republic of Congo, SADC mediation in Madagascar, SADC facilitation in Lesotho, and effective deployment of electoral observation Missions to SADC Member States. To mitigate and address threats posed by cybercrime and terrorism, a cybercrime and anti-terrorism strategy was adopted in 2016. The strategy is being implemented at regional and national levels.
In the historical-political space, the Southern African Liberation struggles were documented through the Hashim Mbita Publication, a publication that comprehensively and authentically documents the struggles in the three SADC languages, English, French and Portuguese. The Publication enables all, especially the youth to understand and appreciate the history and the Southern African Liberation.
Forging a long-term direction of SADC through the adoption of the SADC Vision 2050, that is transposed on the Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) 2020-2030. Vision 2050 sets out the long-term aspirations of SADC over the next thirty (30) years, while the RISDP 2020-30 outlines a development trajectory for the Region for ten (10) years to 2030. Vision 2050 is based on a firm foundation of Peace, Security and Democratic Governance, and 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. This also goes hand in hand with frontloading of Industrialization that aims at transforming SADC economies technologically and economically. Industrialization remains SADC main economic integration agenda since April 2015, when the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap 2015-2063 was approved.
By addressing the supply side constraints as part of the implementation of the SADC industrialization strategy, cross border trade continues to grow, and business environment has been improving, where cost of doing business has been declining steadily and gradually. In addition, values chains were profiled, specifically in three priority sectors, namely mineral beneficiation, pharmaceutical and agro-processing, and a number of value chains have been developed and are being implemented. The Industrialization Strategy has also recognized the private sector as a major player to SADC industrialization and regional integration as a whole.
The adoption of the SADC Simplified Trade Regime Framework in 2019, which has contributed to the enhancement of trade facilitation, and adoption of the SADC Financial Inclusion and Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Strategy that has enhanced financial inclusion in Member States. Ten Member States have so far developed financial inclusion strategies, and there has been an 8 percent improvement in financial inclusion to a tune of 68 percent.
Introduction and operationalization of the SADC Real Time Gross Settlement System (RTGS), a multi-currency platform, which went live in October 2018. All Member States except Comoros are participating in the SADC-RTGS and a total of 85 banks are participating in the system. The SADC-RTGS has enabled Member States to settle payments among themselves in real time compared to previously when it used to take several days for banks to process cross border transactions. As of December 2020, 1,995,355 transactions were settled in the System, representing the value of South African Rands (ZAR) 7.81 Trillion.
Approval of the establishment of the SADC Regional Development Fund in 2015 which aims at mobilizing funds for key infrastructure and industrialization projects.
Realization of targets set in the SADC Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan (RIDMP) that was approved in 2012, including the establishment of One-Stop Border Posts which entails joint control and management of border crossing activities by agents of the adjoining countries, using shared facilities, systems and streamlined procedure. These include:
One-Stop Border Posts at Chirundu Border between Zambia and Zimbabwe, and Nakonde -Tunduma Border between Tanzania and Zambia; a third One-Stop Border Post, about to be operationalised is at Kazungula Border between Botswana and Zambia, where the road-rail bridge has been completed.
Cross-border infrastructure projects, both hard and soft, that have facilitated assimilated, cost-effective, unified and efficient trans-national infrastructure networks and services were developed and are being implemented. These projects include cross-border transmission links in several Member States using optical fibre technology, thereby, allowing landlocked Member States such as Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe to connect to the submarine cables on either or both the east and west coast of Africa. Five (5) Member States (Botswana, Eswatini, Namibia, South Africa and Tanzania) have achieved the 2025 SADC Broadband Target to cover 80% of their population, and eight (8) Member States, namely Angola, Botswana, Eswatini, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, have put in place National Broadband Plans or Strategies.
The installation and commissioning of more than 18300 Megawatts (MW) between 2014 and 2020 to meet the increasing power demand in the Region has been recorded. Connecting the remaining three (3) mainland Member States namely Angola, Malawi and United Republic of Tanzania to the Southern African Power Pool remains a priority, and to this effect the Zambia-Tanzania Interconnector is at construction phase.
The adoption of the Regional Water Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Flood Early Warning System in 2015. This has contributed to improvements in climate and weather forecasting, whereby a Southern African Regional Climate Outlook Forum has been established. The forum provides a platform for Member States to review and discuss the socio-economic impacts and potential impacts of the climate outlook, including on food security, health, water and hydropower management, and disaster risk management.
The adoption of the SADC Disaster Preparedness and Response Strategy and Fund (2016-2030), which has contributed to the enhancement of regional disaster management and responses capacity.
A number of administrative milestones were also recorded during my tenure of office, including, institutional reforms, policy reviews, change management towards enhanced cooperate governance and effective delivery. Among others, the SADC Organization Structure was reviewed and streamlined in 2016 to deliver on the technological and economic transformation of the region, in line with the SADC Industrialization Strategy 2015-2063; and a number of policies and strategies, and guidelines were developed to enhance cooperate governance and change management.
As the first female Executive Secretary, since I joined the SADC Secretariat, Gender mainstreaming and Women empowerment were among the areas that I paid dedicated attention to. In this regard, all policies that were developed during my tenure mainstreamed gender and engendered women empowerment. A SADC Framework for Achieving Gender Parity in Political and Decision-Making positions was developed, and provides strategies, and guidelines for strengthening the implementation of the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development in order to ensure that at least 50 percent of all decision-making positions at all levels would be held by women by 2030, and progress is encouraging.
The Region also continued to intensify the fight against HIV and AIDS, TB and Malaria. To this effect, harmonized minimum standards for the prevention, treatment and management of the diseases were developed to promote health, through support for the control of communicable diseases; and preparedness, surveillance and responses during emergencies.
Here are the challenges: Challenges are expected in any organization, the most important thing is to address them timely and effectively. Challenges that I encouraged included:
A multi-cultural operating environment. This needed high level of patience, and approaches that will facilitate inclusiveness and ownership. The challenges sometimes affected speed in terms of delivery, as one had to get a clear understanding of issues at hand, and devise appropriate problem solving approaches.
Another problem is balancing diverse interests by Member States. Sixteen (16) Member States is not a small number, each will have her own priorities and interests, which sometimes are not necessarily the same across the region, or regional priorities. This needs one to be analytical and a quick thinker, applying negotiation and convincing skills.
The Region has also experienced a multiplicity of natural disasters with varying frequency and magnitude of impact, which sometimes occurred at unprecedented scale, for example, Tropical Cyclone Idai with its devastating impacts, including loss of lives, displacement of people, and massive destruction to properties. In response, SADC strengthened the regional disaster preparedness and response coordination and resilience building mechanisms, and more efforts are ongoing in this area.
The tail-end of my term of office encountered challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, which still remains a major concern and a challenge globally, and in almost all SADC Member States. On the response side, SADC has exhibited determination, solidarity and has undertaken several coordinated regional responses and put in place various harmonized measures to fight the pandemic and to mitigate its socio -economic impacts. These include regulations for facilitation of cross border movement of essential goods, services and transport, which were speedily developed and adopted, and were also harmonized at Tripartite level bringing on board the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East African Community (EAC).
These measures contributed to the containment of the spread of COVID-19, and facilitated continuity of socio-economic activities and livelihood of SADC citizens. The SADC Secretariat also carried out an in-depth assessment of the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 on SADC economies. The assessment revealed a number of sectoral impacts. Based on the assessment, measures to address the challenges have been put in place at national and regional levels, and at the SADC Secretariat.
Whereas, the region has progressed in terms of its objectives, it is yet to achieve its ultimate goal of ensuring economic well-being, improvement of the standards of living and quality of life for the people of Southern Africa. Achieving this aspiration, remains a challenge to be progressively tackled to the end.
KKK: Southern African region is unique in terms of stability and investment climate, but there are also differences in political culture, policies and approach toward development issues. How did you find “a common language” for all the 16 SADC leaders?
LST: The common language of SADC revolves around basic tenets which include history, values and common agenda. Historically, the region has common principles and values. Dating back to migration era, you will note that some of the parts of the SADC region are inhabited by the Bantu people who share some cultural similarities. Politically, the region united and stood in solidarity against colonialism a resolve that led to the liberation struggle that brought Member States together (resulting in the formation of the Front Line States, then the Southern Africa Development Coordination Conference) to fight and break from colonialism.
In terms of values, SADC believes in mutual respect and equality. Although Member States differ in size, wealth or development, they treat each other as equal sovereign states. Secondly, Member States make decisions through consensus, without anyone imposing on the other.
Lastly, SADC, like any other organization has a common agenda as spelt out in its Treaty, Article 5, which, among others, aims at “promoting sustainable and equitable economic growth and social economic development that will ensure poverty alleviation with the ultimate objective of its eradication, enhance the standard and quality of life of the people of Southern Africa and support the socially disadvantaged through regional integration.” Based on the common agenda, a vision, and policies and strategies have been developed to guide implementation and realization of the common agenda.
Therefore, notwithstanding some differences in political culture, national policies and approaches towards development issues, the history of the region, the shared principles and values embraced by the organization, and its common agenda have always enabled the Region and Member States to find a common ground, language and interest as a region, that is for all the 16 SADC Member States and SADC Leaders.
KKK: You have always advocated for an increased economic partnership and for sustainable development in the region. Do you agree that there is still insufficiently developed infrastructure in the industrial sector and other sectors in the region? How can the situation, most probably, be improved in the long term?
LST: SADC recognises that a seamless and robust infrastructural network will create the requisite capacity for sustained economic growth, industrialisation and development. Measures to enhance infrastructure in the industrial sector and other sectors are in place and being implemented as part of the SADC industrialization Strategy 2015-2063, and the SADC Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan of 2012. It should however be noted that while steady progress is being recorded, investments in these areas require substantial resources and partnership between Public and Private Sectors. Estimates by the African Development Bank (AfDB), published in its African Economic Outlook of 2018, reveal that Africa’s annual infrastructure requirements amount to $130bn – $170bn, with a financing gap in the range of $68bn–$108bn. SADC therefore, invites investors from within and outside the region to partner in this strategic areas for mutual benefits.
SADC has also established the Project Preparation and Development Facility (PPDF). The purpose of the PPDF funding is to enhance delivery on infrastructure development in the SADC Region, by bringing projects to bankability and as such facilitate investments by private sector and/or cooperating partners.
SADC is also in a process of operationalizing the SADC Regional Development Fund that will, among others, mobilize funds for key infrastructure and industrialization projects.
KKK: How do you assess the economic potential in the region? What foreign players have shown keen interest and/or already playing significant roles in SADC? Within the context of AfCFTA, what may further attract them?
LST: The SADC region is endowed with diverse natural resources, including almost all of the key minerals for feed-stocks into regional manufacturing, agriculture, construction, power and other sectors.
The Region has been cooperating with both the private sector and international cooperation partners to implement its various policies and strategies to ensure that the region benefits from its own economic potential. Entering into force of the AfCFTA, provides an opportunity to SADC in collaboration with the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East African Community (EAC) to expedite the operationalization of the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Area as a necessary pillar for the AfCFTA, and thus expanded cross-border and international investments and trade.
KKK: In spite the degree of development complexities, you have SADC in your heart. Do you feel you have left something undone for the region? What are your last words, expert views and suggestions for ensuring sustainable social and economic growth in the region and for the future of SADC?
LST: SADC is about cooperation and regional integration, and this is a continuous process not an event. With the progress made, the gains need to be sustained, while at the same time accelerating and deepening integration progressively in areas that are either ongoing, or yet to be embarked upon, including taking a bold decision and establishing the long overdue SADC Customs Union, and to expeditiously operationalize the SADC Development Fund.
Here are my last words. I call upon SADC to remain focused and bring about the envisaged sustainable social and economic growth for the benefit of SADC citizens, in line with the trajectory set by SADC Vision 2050 and Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan 2020-30, as supported by the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap 2015 – 2063, and the SADC Regional Infrastructure Development Master Plan 2012. Member States should continue implementing these initiatives.
*
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).
The so-called Covid variants, officially designated as mutations, are being used to extend the British lockdown. However, Dr. Luc Montagnier, a Nobel laureate and former director of the Retrovirology Lab at the Pasteur Institute reports that in fact it is the vaccinations that are producing the variants.
Dr. Montagnier says that an enormous mistake, an unacceptable mistake, a scientific and medical error has been made. The Covid vaccines are causing new variants that perpetuate the problem.
Dr. Montagnier said that epidemiologists know but are silent about the phenomenon, known as “Antibody-Dependent Enhancement” (ADE). Prof. Montagnier explained that the trend is happening in each country where “the curve of vaccination is followed by the curve of deaths.”
Montagnier’s point is supported by information in an open letter from a long list of medical doctors to the European Medicines Agency. The letter stated that “there have been numerous media reports from around the world of care homes being struck by COVID-19 within days of vaccination of residents.”
In a recent statement French Virologist Christine Rouzioux said: “the rise in new cases is occurring in vaccinated patients in nursing homes in ‘Montpellier, in the Sarte, in Rheims, in the Moselle.”
I am concerned that the mistakes made by public health bureaucrats, or the deceptions in which they have engaged, have become too serious to be acknowledged and that the dangerous vaccines will continue to be administered.
*
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).
After months of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg mercilessly – tediously – denouncing Russia and China ahead of yesterday’s summit, the communiqué issued after it finally raised China’s ire. Two of the document’s 79 points addressed China. The second was conciliatory; the first was confrontational. It was the first time the 30-nation military bloc so overtly directed harsh language of that nature at China in an official publication.
The opening sentence of section 55 contends that “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.” A threat to an individual member of NATO can result in the activation of its Article 5 war clause. China was accused of endangering the security of the entire alliance.
Specifically, China was charged with:
“coercive policies” that are the antithesis of “the fundamental values enshrined in the Washington Treaty” (NATO’s founding document)
expanding its stock of nuclear weapons and more sophisticated delivery systems “to establish a nuclear triad” [such as the U.S. and Russia have]
being “opaque” in modernizing its military
being equally opaque in relation to what is called its military-civil fusion strategy
lack of transparency
use of disinformation
engaging in military cooperation with Russia
The last point is worth examining. Although the communiqué specifies concern about that cooperation including “exercises in the Euro-Atlantic area,” in general no distinction is made between a military exercise in, say, the Pacific Ocean and the so-called Euro-Atlantic area. To lecture a nation in regard to who it can engage in military cooperation with is overt diktat; is an insult to its sovereignty. The U.S. and its NATO allies regularly conduct military exercises in nations bordering China, the Khaan Quest exercise in Mongolia and the Steppe Eagle exercise in Kazakhstan, and in nearby Cambodia (Angkor Sentinel), as well as naval exercises with several neighboring nations off China’s coast. China has not threatened local nations for participating in those. The NATO summit communiqué mentioned, for example, strengthening military ties with its Partners Across the Globe members Japan, South Korea and Australia: while attacking China for engaging in military exercises with its neighbor Russia.
Neither has it threatened other Asia-Pacific nations for joining NATO military partnership programs, several of which nations border China: Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan and Tajikistan.
China responded accordingly, and quickly, to the above writ of indictment. The spokesman of the nation’s mission to the European Union (China doesn’t have a mission to NATO as many of its Asia-Pacific neighbors do) denied that China presents “systemic challenges” to other nations, much less to all of Europe and North America.
NATO was accused of slander and of misjudging the current international political climate; in fact of mixing Cold War thinking and bloc mentality with normal state-to-state relations. The statement also ascribed the motivation for the attack to the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden.
And it has come in for an unrelenting barrage of insult and vilification from NATO in the months leading up to the summit: see here and here and here and here and here.
In response to the above charges against China, The Global Timessaid this:
“This NATO summit can be seen as a key point in the US and Europe’s attitude toward China in the security arena. Washington has raised the curtain for a political mobilization campaign to use the NATO bloc to carry out strategic competition with China.”
The EU mission spokesperson’s comment also included a reminder that China’s defense budget for this year is $209 billion (1.35 trillion yuan), which is 1.3% of the Chinese gross domestic product, less even than the 2% demanded of NATO member states. “In contrast, the 30-member NATO alliance has a total military spending as high as $1.17 trillion, making up over half of the global sum and 5.6 times that of China.”
It also recalled that the U.S. alone has almost 20 times the amount of nuclear as weapons as China does, and invited NATO to match China’s commitment to the no-first-use of nuclear weapons and “unconditionally not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or zones.” One knows what the answer to that offer will be.
The Chinese official said: “I would like to ask whether NATO and its member states, which are striving for ‘peace, security and stability,’ can make the same commitment as China?” One knows what the answer to that question would be.
“China has been committed to peaceful development, but will never forget the tragedy of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, nor the sacrifices of our compatriots’ homes and lives,. We will unswervingly defend our sovereignty and development interests, and keep a close eye on NATO’s strategic adjustments and policies toward China.”
Not content to have dragooned almost the entire European continent into its ranks, to have waged wars of aggression against countries in three continents (none of them remotely near the “Euro-Atlantic” area) and recruited forty partners to add to its thirty members, NATO is now challenging and confronting China.
An opinion piece in China Daily (No enemy? NATO will create one) had this to say about NATO’s throwing down the gauntlet to China, of moving from one adversary to another, from the Soviet Union to Yugoslavia to Libya to China: “By imposing their role of imaginary enemy upon China, NATO is hurting the interests of the whole world, its own members included. And the only side that benefits is NATO itself, because it finds an excuse to continue existing and spending the $2.5 billion collected from Western taxpayers’ pockets.”
The loss in treasure is great; the loss of blood may be far greater.
*
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).
Simone Scott, a 19-year-old freshman at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill., died June 11 of complications from a heart transplant she underwent after developing what her doctors believe was myocarditis following her second dose of the Moderna COVID vaccine.
Scott received her second dose of Moderna on May 1, WLWT 5 reported. When the 2020 Mason High School graduate and senior class vice president paid a surprise visit to her parents for Mother’s Day, May 9, her mother said she noticed Scott wasn’t feeling well.
“I did notice she was kind of stuffy so her voice wasn’t exactly the same,” Valerie Kraimer said.
Scott returned to campus on May 11, where even after a visit to the doctor, her condition worsened. Kraimer said multiple tests came back negative including a COVID-19 test.
“On Sunday morning [May 16], she texted her father and said, ‘Dad, I feel so dizzy. I cannot get out of bed’ and that’s when everything really started from there,” Kraimer said.
Scott’s parents were hundreds of miles away so her father called campus police to have someone check in on her.
“We learned that a doctor had to jump on her chest and give her CPR because she was that bad, and then the whole cascade of events happened, Kraimer said. “They had to intubate her and realized she was in heart failure.”
After multiple interventions, including hooking Scott to an ECMO machine that mirrors the function of the heart so her own heart could rest, doctors determined she needed a heart replacement. Her doctors have not fully confirmed the cause of her death, but they said it appears Scott suffered from myocarditis.
Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to researchers at the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”
The university told students Scott died from complications after undergoing a heart transplant. “Scott’s death came weeks after a heart complication in May, which led to a heart transplant,” The Daily Northwestern reported.
Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson said in a thread posted June 14, the Northwestern journalism student “suffered a case of apparent myocarditis-induced heart failure on Sunday, May 16. Despite extraordinary measures to save her, including a heart transplant, she died Friday morning at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago.”
THREAD
19-year-old Simone Scott was excited to get her second dose of @moderna_tx’s #Covid vaccine on May 1.
“Doctors appear to have repeatedly missed signals as Scott’s condition worsened in the two weeks following her second shot — before she abruptly crashed,” Berenson said.
Scott received the COVID vaccine on her own accord, but her university now mandates students be fully vaccinated before returning to campus, The College Fix reported.
“I still feel like she’s here, even though I know that she’s not and it just feels like such a waste,” Kraimer said.
Scott’s parents are still waiting on multiple tests on her heart to come back in the hope they will learn why they lost their daughter so suddenly.
As The Defender reported June 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will convene an emergency meeting of its advisers on June 18 to discuss higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines.
The CDC said during a June 10 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee the agency had identified 226 reports of heart inflammation that might meet its “working case definition” of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, The Defender reported last week.
According to the CDC, a total of 475 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were recorded in patients 30 and younger who received an mRNA vaccine. The median age of people with myocarditis or pericarditis following the first dose was 30, and after the second-dose, 24.
The CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) revealed 900 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, among all age groups reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and June 4, 2021. Of the 900 cases reported, 533 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 331 cases to Moderna and 32 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.
Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, deputy director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office said during the June 10 FDA hearing there had been a higher-than-expected number of cases of heart inflammation among young people recently vaccinated with their second doses of mRNA vaccine.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: 21-year-old NJ student suffered severe heart inflammation after receiving second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Justin Harrington, whose school required him to get the vaccine…
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 15, 2021
CDC data showed 196 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis among 18- to 24-year-olds through May 31, compared with an expected rate of between eight and 83 cases.
Among 16- to 17-year-olds, 79 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were reported through May 31. The expected rate among people in this age group is between two and 19 cases, Shimabukuro said during his presentation.
Shimabukuro said the CDC’s findings were “mostly consistent” with reports of rare cases of heart inflammation that had been studied in Israel and reported by the U.S. Department of Defense earlier this year.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
French novelist George Sand once said: “Life resembles a novel more often than novels resemble life.”
According to poet/playwright Oscar Wilde, “(l)ife imitates art far more than art imitates life.”
In the Hollywood film Dave, after fictional US president Bill Mitchell is incapacitated by a severe stroke, look-alike temp employment agency manager Dave Kovic (played by Kevin Kline) is enlisted to impersonate him.
In real life USA, a double represents cognitively impaired Biden in public — especially for addresses and currently in Europe at meetings with G7 leaders, NATO allies, and at an upcoming so-called summit with Vladimir Putin.
His role involves little more reciting or paraphrasing pre-scripted remarks.
Aware of the charade, congressional members, key foreign leaders, and establishment media suppress what’s going on — while the real Biden is hidden at the White House or who knows where.
At a Sunday press conference in Britain after meeting with G7 leaders, Biden’s impersonator recited or paraphrased the following pre-scripted remarks:
A dubious — unlikely to be approved by Congress — “commitment (was) made (for a so-called) “Build Back Better World Partnership” that involves spending “more than $40 trillion (to compete with China’s) Belt and Road Initiative.”
Agreement on addressing environmental issues and corruption was more rhetorical posturing than reality.
Working on “cyber (and related) threats” begins at where they emanate from in the West.
So-called G7 “democratic values” are more illusion than reality under police state enforced totalitarian rule on a fast-track toward full-blown tyranny in the West.
Saying “America is back in the business of leading the world alongside (likeminded) nations” left their permanent war on humanity unexplained.
Quoting NATO’s collective defense principle under the alliance’s founding treaty Article 5, Biden’s double said “(an) attack on one is an attack on all” — at a time when no foreign threats exist to its members
Discussing his June 16 meeting with Vladimir Putin in Geneva, he belligerently said he’ll “make (himself) very clear what the conditions are to get a better relationship…with Russia (sic).”
Left unexplained is that they require Moscow to subordinate the country’s sovereign rights to US/Western interests.
What clearly won’t happen assures worsening bilateral relations ahead with no prospect of improving them.
When Biden’s double meets with Putin, he’ll “be very straightforward with him about our concerns (sic).”
“And I will make clear my view of how that meeting turned out.”
“There’s no guarantee you can change a person’s behavior or the behavior of his country.”
“Autocrats (sic) have enormous power and they don’t have to answer to a public.”
“And the fact is that it may very well be, if I respond in kind — which I will — that it doesn’t dissuade him and he wants to keep going.”
“(W)e’re going to be moving in a direction where Russia has its own dilemmas.”
Its activities “are contrary to international norms (sic).”
“(T)hey have also bitten off some real problems they’re going to have trouble chewing on (sic).”
Calling relations “at a low point” ignored full US-led Western responsibility for what’s gone on since usurping power by Biden regime hardliners.
Falsely accusing Russia of “interfer(ing) in our elections (sic),” cyber-attacking the US (sic), he vowed further toughness ahead than already.
Saying “(w)e’re not looking for conflict (sic) ignored Washington’s forever war on humanity at home and abroad.
Claiming the US seeks “to resolve those actions which we think are inconsistent with international norms” begins at home and in complicit Western capitals.
Shifting attention to China, Biden’s double repeated Big Lies about human rights abuses in Jinjiang and Hong Kong.
He ignored real ones committed worldwide by the world’s leading human rights abuser USA — at home and abroad.
He falsely implied that China’s Belt and Road Initiative is undemocratic.
Washington’s geopolitical agenda aims for dominating nations free from its control, looting their resources, and subjugating their people.
Russia, China, and other nations — free from US control — operate by higher standards, according to international law the US-dominated West long ago abandoned.
There’s no chance whatever for improved bilateral relations from talks between Putin and Biden’s double.
At best, they’ll be another exercise in futility, accomplishing nothing positive.
At worst, bilateral relations may sink to a new low in their aftermath.
The latter is most likely.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image: The President of the United States, Joe Biden stands next to the The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson giving a thumbs up in front of the G7 sign while at the G7 Leaders’ Summit. Carbis Bay, Cornwall. Picture by Andrew Parsons / No 10 Downing Street (Flickr)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
In April, I wrote a column outlining the constitutional violations of mask mandates and asking why the courts have failed to abide by the line of Supreme Court cases protecting the right to bodily integrity. Well, on Friday a Florida appeals court did exactly that, perhaps in more emphatic language than a Kentucky judge last week.
Although Florida has been largely free of state-based COVID restrictions and never had a mask mandate, several counties, such as Alachua, zealously instituted unconstitutional regulations until fairly recently. In a landmark ruling on Friday, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court had erred in tossing out the lawsuit against Alachua County’s mask mandate because it should be held as presumptively unconstitutional.
“Based on what the supreme court has told us about the scope of article I, section 23, Green (and anyone else in Alachua County) reasonably could expect autonomy over his body, including his face, which means that he was correct to claim an entitlement to be let alone and free from intrusion by Alachua County’s commission chairman,” Judge Adam Scott Tanenbaum, an appointee of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), wrote. “The mask mandate, then, implicated the right of privacy. According to Gainesville Woman Care, the mask mandate was presumptively unconstitutional as a result.”
This language is very significant because it’s the first time a judge is using the principle of bodily autonomy to affirm a constitutional right not to have one’s breathing restricted. The lawsuit was originally brought last May by Justin Green, a Gainesville business owner, but he was denied an injunction against the mandate by Eighth Judicial Circuit Judge Donna Keim.
There are several very striking elements about this ruling, which will reverberate throughout the country even as the mask mandates officially expire. Defendants had argued that the mandate is now moot given the orders of the governor requiring all counties to end their mandates. However, the judge noted in a footnote, “Because of the nature of the various emergency orders that we have seen and the county’s continued commitment to public mask wearing, we are not convinced that this is the last that we will see of this issue.”
In other words, you can’t have a gross violation of the most fundamental rights hanging over our heads at any time and somehow suggest that we have no recourse to eliminate it. “We conclude, then, that this case fits within the exception to the mootness doctrine, which is for controversies that are capable of repetition, yet evading review,” presciently observed Judge Tanenbaum.
The judge also recognized that the pretext for these “fiats” and “diktats” is rooted in abuse of emergency powers, which can be repeated at any moment:
It would behoove the trial court also to consider that while article I, section 23 “was not intended to provide an absolute guarantee against all governmental intrusion into the private life of an individual,” Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs re Applicant, 443 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 1983), “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020). And there is this warning from William Pitt the Younger, roughly paraphrasing a similar sentiment in John Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.”
Drawing on precedent from the state’s supreme court, the judge ruled that bodily autonomy is a fundamental right. What this means is that the starting point for any mask mandate must begin with the government proving that masks absolutely work and are necessary to achieve a vital state interest. “The supreme court in Gainesville Woman Care told us multiple times what this special approach means for the evidentiary burden at a temporary injunction hearing: A plaintiff does not bear a threshold evidentiary burden to establish that a law intrudes on his privacy right, and have it subjected to strict scrutiny, ‘if it is evident on the face of the law that it implicates this right.'”
Also notable in this opinion is how the judge believes that the harm to plaintiffs is not just the threat of fines or denial of service.
Another consequence was being subjected to whispering informants, impelled by county-designed publicity like the following proposed signage encouraging citizens to inform on their disobedient neighbors.
The judge warned, “The threat of government-sponsored shaming was not an idle one. The chairman who issued the original mask mandate stated publicly that ‘masks are the only outwardly visible signal that you are contributing to the solution.'”
In other words, this line of reasoning will give plaintiffs throughout the country a continued cause of action to fight both the mask mandate and the vaccine mandate. Both of them violate bodily autonomy and use public shaming to coerce people to violate their autonomy. According to this ruling, any edict requiring masking for those not vaccinated would also violate the Constitution.
The next step for those seeking judicial relief would be a victory in federal court. It happens that the only lawsuit against the CDC mask mandate on public transportation, including airplanes, is in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Lucas Wall, a plaintiff from D.C., is suingthe TSA, the CDC, and other federal agencies in federal court because he was prevented from traveling without a mask and is now stuck in Florida. The well-written and researched complaint accuses the government of violating fundamental rights, usurping legislative power, and providing no data that any of the policies are effective.
It’s also possible that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ lawsuit (also brought in the Middle District of Florida) against the CDC’s mandates on cruise liners could result in the collapse of the entire federal mandate, including on airplanes. During oral arguments last Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Steven Merryday observed that the CDC’s own study showed that masks were “barely statistically significant” in stopping the spread of COVID-19. “Where does this mask efficacy theory come from?” Merryday said. “We’ve had masking and social distancing for a long time and we had a pandemic in the middle of it.”
Throughout the hearing, the judge seemed to oppose the entire premise that non-pharmaceutical interventions work against the virus, possibly opening the door for a very broad ruling against mask mandates, a ruling he promised “soon.”
At this pace, perhaps it’s a good thing for some of the mandates to remain in place just long enough to get standing to sue against them. For if we fail to destroy this ill-gotten government power while it’s unpopular, it will surely rear its ugly head next flu season.
*
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).
Joe Biden travelled to Brussels riding the wave of his “America is back” mantra. Far from rebuilding the US-NATO relationship, he used NATO as a prop to help set the stage for his upcoming meeting with Vladimir Putin.
The United States is facing a perfect storm of crises of its own making. On the domestic front, the American democratic institution is collapsing under the weight of centuries of unresolved societal inequities that threaten to divide the country into two irreconcilable factions. In the Pacific, decades of geopolitical neglect fundamentally ceded the strategic advantage to a surging China, allowing the momentum of that country’s economic and military expansion to challenge and, in some areas, surpass what had previously been a region of uncontested American influence and control. In Europe, the post-9/11 focus on the Middle East and South Asia left a once dominant American military posture in ruins, and with it the influence 300,000 troops once forward-deployed on European soil used to bring. Lacking an American military spine, the NATO alliance withered into virtual irrelevance, unable to meaningfully project power or mount a credible defensive deterrence.
This storm is still raging, and despite all the rhetoric and flexing being done by the administration of President Joe Biden, will continue to do so, unabated, for the foreseeable future. One of the root causes of this storm is the disconnect between policy and action on the part of the US over the course of the past 30-odd years. In 1991, the US had the world’s most powerful economy backed by the world’s most powerful military, sustained by the world’s most vibrant democracy. The deterioration of these three pillars of US credibility and strength was gradual yet steady, unnoticed by most outside (and internal) observers who opted to dig no deeper than the gilded façade offered up by the American establishment, rather than examine the deteriorating framework that held the American behemoth together.
Military power inherited and squandered
Joe Biden is a veteran American politician who was part of the establishment which squandered the inheritance of wealth, prestige and power America had accumulated in the aftermath of the Second World War. He is the living embodiment of American political hubris, where words speak louder than results. As the senior Democrat in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he helped oversee the post-Cold War physical expansion of NATO void of any existential reason for doing so. In this way he helped create the bloated edifice that exists today, 30 nations united in everything except a viable military alliance. He also helped frame the current poisonous situation with Russia, denigrating post-Soviet Russia by supporting and sustaining the political career of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, and then expressing resentment when Vladimir Putin took over in the wake of Yeltsin’s physical, mental and moral collapse and refused to continue the Yeltsin policy of lying prostrate before the US and Europe.
The rise of Putin coincided with America’s strategic shift from a Euro-centric power focus to pursuing regional transformation fantasies in the Middle East and South Asia, seeking to use the US military as a vehicle for nation building in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. This 20-year experiment has failed, leaving the US fiscally and morally bankrupt, and its military in Europe a mere shadow of its former self in terms of capability and reach – where in 1990 we could deploy four divisions to Europe in 10 days, today it takes us four months to deploy one brigade. The administration of George W. Bush initiated this process (with a substantial assist from the Clinton administration), and the Obama-Biden administration sustained it. While tactless and inept in his execution, Donald Trump was realistic regarding the situation he had inherited, seeking to repair relations with Russia while approaching the issue of NATO with a more realistic perspective born of fiscal and geopolitical reality. This approach incurred the wrath of the American establishment, resulting in a single term presidency and the ascension of Joe Biden to his status as American commander in chief.
Biden has shown no real appreciation for the state of affairs he has inherited, formulating a foreign policy premised on the mantra of “America is back” without having an appreciation of what “back” means. His rhetoric and posturing suggest that he believes the dominance and prestige America enjoyed in 1991 can be replicated today simply by willing it to be so. This is irresponsible fantasy, something even Biden seems to realize in the aftermath of his “Putin is a killer” comments to the US media. The reality check that followed Biden’s impolitic chest thumping, manifested in the withdrawal of Russia’s ambassador and the snap mobilization of 100,000 Russian troops on Russia’s border with Ukraine, drove home the reality that the US and its NATO allies were not in any position to confront Russia militarily. Moreover, more sober assessments coming out of both Europe and the US held that the rise of an expansionist China represented a greater threat to the geopolitical positioning of the transatlantic partnership than Russia.
Projecting weakness
The problem confronting Biden was that the issue of NATO expansion had left the alliance held hostage by both the anti-Russian posturing of its relatively new Polish and Baltic members and notions of a potential NATO membership on the part of post-Maidan Ukraine. One of the goals of the recently completed NATO summit was to create a framework of action which would provide political cover for both issues, while allowing for enough latitude to realistically apportion the political and economic resources necessary to pivot to China. This is the heart of the NATO joint statement – a commitment to a new military posture which seeks to rebuild NATO’s crumbling military component while expanding the reach of NATO’s Article 5 defensive umbrella to include space, cyber and so-called “hybrid” activities.
The notion of NATO building a 30-battalion combat force capable of full mobilization in 30 days is an indication of a reality that NATO knows it cannot, and will not, be fighting a ground war in Europe against a Russian foe. The 30-battalion figure is a goal, not a reality, one that will be impacted by fiscal realities driven by the domestic imperatives of 30 separate nations, some more committed to the concept than others. And the 30-day mobilization figure is likewise purely political, given that Russian can mobilize many times that number in half the time, and that most scenarios involving Russia-NATO combat have the Russians prevailing in a period of one week or less. The 30-battlaion concept is a political fig leaf designed to demonstrate resolve without really having to do so.
The same can be said about expanding the scope of NATO’s Article 5 commitment to self-defense. The old formula had NATO automatically coming to the defense of a member state if it were attacked by a hostile power. The purpose of this clause was to confront any potential threat – namely the Soviet Union and, later, its Warsaw Pact allies – with the reality that any attack against one NATO member would be treated as an attack against all. The deterrence value of this posture was significantly enhanced by the presence of a combined NATO air-sea-ground force possessing unified command, communications, logistics and operational structures, so that any attack would be met immediately with the full weight of NATO’s military capability – there was no “30-day” period of mobilization involved.
By expanding Article 5 protection guarantees into the fields of space, cyber and “hybrid”, NATO is projecting the sad state of its current deterrence posture. The feeling in Brussels is that Russia could degrade NATO communications and interoperability capabilities by shutting down satellites in space, degrade and disrupt critical infrastructure using cyber-attacks, and exploit internal political and ethnic unrest through so-called “hybrid” fifth columnists. The fact that these concerns are self-created, formed by either mirror-imaging NATO intent onto Russian capability or, in the case of the “hybrid” concerns, manufacturing a doctrine where no such doctrine exists, is beside the point. Perception creates its own reality, and currently NATO is in the grips of a panic driven by the perception of a Russian threat where none exists.
No détente expected – only more posturing
From the perspective of Joe Biden, the NATO Summit was not so much about fixing the myriad of problems facing NATO, but rather creating the impression that NATO was united in the face of Russian aggression. The perception of strength, from the perspective of the Biden administration, is more important than reality, because the long-term focus of NATO cannot be on Russia if it ever hopes to muster the political and economic resources necessary to confront China. Joe Biden simply needs to take this perception of NATO unity and strength with him to Geneva, where he will use it as a prop in the political theater that will transpire when he sits down with Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 16.
In Geneva, Joe Biden will not try to reset relations with Russia, or repair relations with Putin. There will be no détente. Instead, the goal is to prevent the continued worsening of relations between the two nations, to create a sense of stability and predictability that will maintain the present chill in relations without continuing to a deep freeze or, worse, a hot war. To accomplish this, certain perceptions must be maintained, most important of which is that NATO is ready, willing, and able to stand up to any military threat posed by Russia. This is the real purpose behind the NATO Summit – to construct a fiction capable of bolstering Biden’s posturing during his meeting with Putin. The fact that Russia is fully aware of this reality only underscores the theatrics of the entire affair. That, more than anything, defines the current situation between the US and Russia – theater posing as reality, to cover for weakness in order to project strength, all in an effort to avoid a conflict no one wants.
*
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.
Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Data clearly show ivermectin can prevent COVID-19 and when used early can keep patients from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease. It can even help critically ill patients recover
Ivermectin has a long history of use as an antiparasitic, but its antiviral properties have been under investigation since 2012
Studies have shown ivermectin inhibits replication of SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses, inhibits inflammation through several pathways, lowers viral load, protects against organ damage, prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure, speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients
Doctors have been told not to use ivermectin as large controlled trials are still lacking. However, once you can see from clinical evidence that something is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups and giving everyone the vaccine
The Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance recommends widespread use of ivermectin for all stages of COVID-19, including prevention
In the video above, DarkHorse podcast host Bret Weinstein Ph.D., interviews Dr. Pierre Kory about the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 and the shameful censoring of information about ivermectin, which has been shown to be very useful against this infection.
It’s no small irony then that YouTube deleted this interview, which is why I embedded a Bitchute version. How this interview could possibly be labeled as misinformation is a mystery, considering all they do is discuss published research. Not to mention, they’re both credentialed medical science experts.
Kory, a lung and ICU specialist and former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is the president and chief medical officer1 of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). Another founding member of FLCCC is Dr. Paul Marik2 who, as noted by Kory, is the most-published intensive care specialist who is still practicing medicine and seeing patients.
Marik, known for having created an effective sepsis treatment protocol, was asked by a group of peers early on in the pandemic to help create a treatment protocol for COVID-19. The resulting collaboration led to the creation of the FLCCC. Each of the five founding members has treated critical illnesses for decades and, as Weinstein says, they are “unimpeachable. You couldn’t ask for better credentials. You couldn’t ask for a better publication record.”
Yet, despite stellar credentials and being on the frontlines treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients, they have been dismissed as “kooks on the fringe, making wild-eyed claims,” Weinstein says. How can that be? Initially, the FLCCC insisted, based on the evidence, that COVID-19 was a corticosteroid-dependent disease and that corticosteroids were a crucial part of effective treatment.
“I was actually invited to give Senate testimony back in May [2020] where I testified that it was critical to use corticosteroids; that lives are being lost [because we weren’t using it],”Kory says.
“As you might know, I got killed for that. We got killed for that. We were totally criticized for not having an evidence-base. [Yet] our reading of the evidence was that you had to use it. So that basically that’s how we came together, and that was the first components of our protocol.”
Ivermectin Suitable for All Treatment Stages
The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+3 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,4 due to the addition of ivermectin.
The two protocols — I-MASK+5 and I-MATH+6 — are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages. The clinical and scientific rationale for the I-MATH+ hospital protocol has also been peer-reviewed and was published in the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine7in mid-December 2020.
Since those early days, the FLCCC has been vindicated and corticosteroids, as well as blood thinners, are now part of the standard of care for COVID-19 in many places. The same cannot be said for the remainder of the protocols, however, including the use of ivermectin, which continues to be suppressed, despite robust clinical evidence supporting its use in all phases of COVID-19.8,9As noted by the FLCCC:10
“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.”
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 202011 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel in January 2021.12
A Disease of Phases
As noted by Kory, they rather quickly realized that COVID-19 was a disease with very specific phases, and that successful treatment depended on the phase the patient was currently in. It starts out as a general viral syndrome, much like a cold or flu. Most patients recover without incidence. However, in a subset of patients, things take a turn for the worse after Day 5. Their oxygen level starts dropping and lung inflammation sets in.
“We now know that it’s a cell called a macrophage that gets activated and attacks the lungs,” Kory explains. “So, you have this sort of immune response that is attacking the lungs and the lungs start to fail … So, it’s predominantly a severe lung disease …
We knew relatively early on that by the time they get to the ICU … there’s not a lot of viral replication on going on. In fact, you can’t culture a virus after about Day 7 or 8. So, it’s actually a disease of inflammation, not viral invasion …
So, you didn’t have to go after the virus at that point, you had to actually check the inflammation … What we think triggers [the] inflammation is actually the viral debris. It’s the RNA that triggers this massive response. It’s not the virus. It’s actually the debris of the dead virus that does it.”
Kory notes that after having treated the first handful of patients, he realized that anticoagulants, blood thinners, were needed, as there was abnormal blood clotting going on in all of them. Yet for some reason the medical community was, again, told not to do it because there were no clinical trials supporting the use of anticoagulants for a viral illness.
“It was bizarre,” Kory says. “They were like, you can’t observe, you can’t make clinical reasoning, you can’t deduce, you need a trial before you do [anything] … Everyone talks about evidence-based. I’m like, what about experience-based medicine? I’ve been doing this for 30 years. Why can’t I do what my experience tells me to do? …
You couldn’t actually doctor. I felt like I was being handcuffed. I I’ve never seen that in my life before … I have the sense that doctors have been forcibly demoted from the position of scientific clinician to technician …
I’ve never been asked before to get advice from … desk jockeys. I mean, they’re not on the front lines … I’ve never been asked to do that before. I’ve always been asked to use the best extent of my experience and judgment and insight to best help the patient. That’s the oath I took …
Instead we’re in this situation where if we open our mouth and say the wrong word, suddenly there are warnings appended to what we’ve said. It’s insane. It’s limiting discussion, limiting choices, limiting approaches.”
Overwhelming Evidence for Ivermectin
Kory spends a significant portion of the 2 1/2-hour interview reviewing the evidence for using ivermectin. This drug has a long history of use as an antiparasitic. It’s been credited with virtually eradicating onchocerciasis (river blindness), a condition caused by a parasitic worm. The drug was originally made from a soil organism found in Japan. However, as early as 2012, researchers started looking at ivermectin’s antiviral properties.
In April 2020, an Australian group showed ivermectin eradicated all viruses studied in as little as 48 hours, at least in the petri dish. Due to the state of emergency the world was in, some countries, including Peru, decided to recommend ivermectin to their population. It was well-known that the medication was safe, so the risk of doing so was very low.
As was the trend, Peruvian officials were roundly criticized for using an “unproven” remedy, and shortly thereafter, they removed it from the national guidelines. Some states continued to give it out, however, and according to Kory, each ivermectin campaign resulted in a precipitous decline in cases and deaths.
Marik was the first in the group to really take notice of the remarkable consistency in the studies using ivermectin. Kory dove into the research right behind him, and came to the conclusion that there indeed was something special about this drug. The population-based evidence was also very strong.
With regard to calls for randomized controlled trials, Kory points out that once you can see from clinical evidence that something really is working, then conducting controlled trials becomes more or less unethical, as you know you’re condemning the control group to poor outcomes or death. In fact, this is the exact same argument vaccine makers now use to justify the elimination of control groups by giving everyone the vaccine.
“When I posted our preprint November 13 [2020], I literally thought the pandemic was over,”Kory says. “We showed the basic science level. We showed multiple clinical trials. We showed the epidemiologic effects.
Everything was there to show that this is an intervention on the par of vaccines that could literally extinguish the pandemic, and quickly. I thought at the beginning that it was as simple as putting the evidence out there … and what happened? Crickets! Nothing happened …
I cannot believe that this is occurring. Literally, people are dying because they don’t know about this medicine. Providers are being told not to use the medicine … And I’ve never studied a medicine which has more evidence than this …
You have dozens of randomized controlled trials conducted by interested and committed clinicians from oftentimes low and middle income countries around the world. And there’s no conflicts of interest. None of them is going to make a million dollars by finding out that ivermectin works in COVID. None of them have a conflict of interest.”
For example, studies have shown ivermectin:13
Inhibits replication of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and seasonal influenza viruses — In “COVID-19: Antiparasitic Offers Treatment Hope,” I review data showing a single dose of ivermectin killed 99.8% of SARS-CoV-2 in 48 hours.
An observational study14 from Bangladesh, which looked at ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 among health care workers, found only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once per month for four months developed mild COVID-19 symptoms between May and August 2020, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication
Inhibits inflammation through several pathways
Lowers viral load
Protects against organ damage
Prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure; speeds recovery and lowers risk of hospitalization and death in COVID-19 patients — The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75%.15 A WHO-sponsored review16 suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83%
Ivermectin Has Been Intentionally Suppressed
As noted by Weinstein, ivermectin appears to be intentionally suppressed. It’s simply not allowed to be a go-to remedy. The obvious question is why? Don’t they want to save lives? Isn’t that why we shut down the world?
“I would have these data arguments,” Kory says. “But it’s not about the data. There’s something else. There’s [something] out there that is just squashing, distorting, suppressing the efficacy of ivermectin, and its egregious.”
Indeed, as noted by Weinstein, it’s not even difficult to prove that ivermectin is being suppressed and censored. Censorship of certain COVID-related information, such as ivermectin, is written into the community guidelines. You’re not allowed to talk about it. If you do, your post will be censored, shadow-banned or taken down. If you persist, your entire account will be taken down.
Mexico’s Experience With Ivermectin
Another population-based experiment that demonstrates ivermectin’s real-world usefulness occurred in Mexico. Kory explains:
“Mexico did something which I think is the model for the world. I think, on a public health level, it’s what every country in the world should adopt, at a minimum. They [had a] clinicians committee.
They actually got expert clinicians [and] they gave them a seat at the table at the public health level. It’s called IMSS, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. That’s the agency which controls a good portion of their healthcare infrastructure, mostly outpatient, I think …
In December, hospitals were filling. It was a crisis almost like in India. They decided to deploy ivermectin using a test and treat strategy. Basically, anyone who appeared at the testing booths, if you tested positive, you were given ivermectin at a reasonably low dose … 12 milligrams … and only two days’ worth. They got four pills [at 3 mg each].
And when they did that, you saw across Mexico this precipitous decline in deaths and hospitalizations. And, if you look a few months later, right now — and this is publicly available data — look at the occupancy of beds in hospitals in Mexico, throughout the entire country, we’re talking about 25% to 30% occupancy.
There’s nobody in the hospitals in Mexico. They’ve basically decimated COVID in that country by using a test and treat strategy … Those were real public health leaders. They made a risk-benefit decision. They used their clinical judgment and expertise to have the right people at the table.”
As noted by Kory, the IMSS was attacked by the federal health minister, but they fought back, and laid out the evidence supporting their decision. This included studies showing a 50% to 75% reduction in hospitalizations using just that four-pill regimen.
As for the FLCCC, they recommend dosages between 0.2 mg and 0.4 mg per kilogram when taken at first signs of mild symptoms. For mild disease, they recommend continuing the drug for five days. For moderate disease, of if you start taking it late, they recommend continuing until you’re recovered.
The in-hospital protocol involves higher doses. Keep in mind, however, that the FLCCC protocols include several other remedies, not just ivermectin, so be sure to review the latest guidance.17,18
Some regions in India have also used ivermectin. Kory believes the minister of Goa made some of the boldest moves in the world with regard to ivermectin, recommending all adults over the age of 18 to take ivermectin for five days, as a preventive. Uttar Pradesh also gave it out, while other states, such as Tamil Nadu, outlawed it. Here too, population-based data suggest ivermectin is tightly correlated with a decline in hospitalizations and deaths.
Where You Can Learn More
While ivermectin certainly appears to be a useful strategy, which is why I am covering it, it is not among my primary recommendations. In terms of prevention, I believe your best bet is to optimize your vitamin D level, as your body needs vitamin D for a wide variety of functions, including a healthy immune response.
What’s more, although ivermectin is a relatively safe drug, it can still have side effects. Vitamin D, on the other hand, is something your body absolutely requires for optimal health, which is why I would encourage you to focus on vitamin D first.
As for early treatment, I recommend nebulized hydrogen peroxide treatment,19,20 which is inexpensive, highly effective and completely harmless when you’re using the low (0.04% to 0.1%) peroxide concentration recommended.
All of that said, ivermectin and several other remedies certainly have a place, and it’s good to know they exist and work well. On the whole, there’s really no reason to remain panicked about COVID-19. If you want to learn more about ivermectin, there are several places where you can do that, including the following:
Twelve medical experts23 from around the world — including Kory — shared their knowledge, 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.org24
An easy-to-read and print one-page summary of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website25
A more comprehensive, 31-page review of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology26
The FLCCC website also has a helpful FAQ section where Kory and Marik answer common questions about the drug and its recommended use27
A listing of all ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com28
As noted by Lawrie during her closing address at the 2021 International Ivermectin for COVID Conference:29
“The story of Ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed.
The story of Ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.
Had Ivermectin being employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end …
With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors, have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.
At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose, will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care?
The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.”
*
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).
On June 16, 2021, the late rap icon Tupac Shakur would have turned 50 had he survived a still unsolved drive-by shooting in Las Vegas 25 years ago. Few knew that behind his “gangsta rap” façade, Tupac was an activist leader who worked to counter CIA drug trafficking through street gangs.
Tupac did this with his Black Panther-extended family and others. Evidence supports that this and Tupac’s accumulating influence contributed to U.S. intelligence’s murderous targeting of him, his Panther family, and activist-converted gang leaders.
Panther Leader Tupac, Belafonte, and Black Panthers Politicize Gangs
By the time Tupac was 18 years old in 1989, the New Afrikan Panthers, a group active in at least eight cities and trying to replicate the Black Panthers, had elected Tupac as their national chairman.
Tupac only left that leadership position in 1990 to eventually produce five full CDs and hundreds of unreleased rap songs before his death in September 1996. He also acted in over six films, befriending his co-stars Janet Jackson, Mickey Rourke, Tim Roth, and Jim Belushi.
In the early 1990s, former Black Panthers and other activists successfully developed a gang truce between several sections of the Bloods and the Crips, who vowed to fight police racism instead of each other.[1] Former Panthers and civil rights activists such as singer Harry Belafonte helped the peace truce, and activist conversions spread to Oakland, which worried the intelligence community.[2]
Tupac worked on this movement with his imprisoned radical stepfather Mutulu Shakur and they came up with Tupac’s Thug Life Movement as part of the gang peace truce movement. Mutulu had been a member of the Republic of New Afrika in the 1960s. Mutulu organized the gang peace truce movement in the federal prison system.[5]
Tupac’s manager and longtime political mentor, Watani Tyehimba, confirmed that Tupac had decided to pretend to be a “gangsta” in order to appeal to gangs and then politicize them,[6] as part of what he wrote out as a “Code of Thug Life.” This plan also had Tupac hosting gang leaders meeting for truce summits. Tyehimba had been a Revolutionary Action Movement-based Black Panther in Los Angeles and was the co-founding Security Director of the New Afrikan People’s Organization (NAPO).[7]
As the movement spread nationwide, it further included Latino gangs, while activists such as comedian Dick Gregory, NFL legendary running back Jim Brown, and others also got involved.[8]
In Los Angeles, gang leader-turned socialist writer “Monster” Kody Scott and Congresswoman Maxine Waters helped the movement. Scott changed his name to Sanyika Shakur in deference to Tupac and Mutulu.[9]
Gang-Activist Conversions Counter CIA Drug Trafficking, Death Row Link
Whistleblowers such as CIA agent John Stockwell have discussed CIA heroin trafficking during the Vietnam War, while Drug Enforcement Agency Director Robert Bonner detailed CIA cocaine trafficking in the 1980s and early 1990s, as reported by 60 Minutes.[10] Mutulu Shakur had founded Lincoln Detox in the Bronx in the early 1970s, with Black Panthers and the Young Lords backing him. Lincoln was the first to use acupuncture to counter drug addiction.[11]
New York City first de-funded Lincoln Detox, reportedly due to its radical political education work. It then used dozens of armed police to shut its doors completely for a time, and its director received death threats, just before his bizarre death.[12]
In California, the late investigative journalist Gary Webb had researched and written extensively on the CIA’s work with the Nicaraguan Contras supplying cheap cocaine to the Los Angeles-based Freeway Ricky Ross. Ross then trafficked cocaine nationwide.[13]Webb wrote that Michael “Harry-O” Harris worked as one of Ross’s two key buyers and understudies in trafficking crack cocaine.[14]
Harris’s attorney, David Kenner, helped Harris start Death Row Records (Tupac’s last record label), while making himself owner of a parallel parent company, Godfather Productions.[15]
Harris then went to jail for the next 30 years [he was pardoned in 2021 by Donald Trump], and Kenner continued operations. Investigating Los Angeles police detective Russell Poole found much support for the reports that Death Row was trafficking drugs and guns.[16]
New York saw the conversion of thestate chapter of the Latin Kings into the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation(ALKQN). In The Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation: Street Politics and the Transformation of a New York City Gang, published by Columbia University Press, it was reported that the 3, 000-strong group stopped drug dealing and started to get involved in activism.[17] Former Young Lords activist Vicente “Panama” Alba influenced Latin Kings leader,Antonio “King Tone” Fernandez to make this conversion.[18]
Vicente “Panama” Alba of the Young Lords on our left walking away in 1996. Antonio “King Tone” Fernandez on the far right. [Source: photo courtesy of author John Potash]
Furthermore, former top-level Wall Street insider and U.S. Deputy Housing Commissioner Catherine Austin Fitts explained how cash can increase stock values by twenty times, and this is why banks and other corporations that launder this money support the CIA drug trafficking.[19] It is also why the Latin Kings’ conversion, alone, cost the CIA traffickers millions of dollars a year and the money launderers billions of dollars a year.
Law Enforcement’s Iron Fist Response
After King Tone converted the Latin Kings into the activist Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation, the NYPD arrested King Tone on many charges, but courts failed to convict him. Prosecutors finally sent King Tone to prison long-term for “conspiracy to sell and distribute heroin” in 1998. Panama Alba and other prominent leaders have said on film they believe it was a frame-up in line with other police machinations against ALKQN.[20]
It came after the FBI and New York police spent a million dollars on Operation Crown that year. In a single raid during that operation, they used 1,000 federal, state and local police to kick down doors just before dawn but failed to find evidence against King Tone and 91 other ALKQN leaders in what was reportedly the largest raid in New York City since alcohol prohibition.[21]
The law enforcement branch also responded fiercely in California, from the Los Angeles Police Department starting special gang units to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, saying gangs replaced Communism as the major domestic subversive threat. The FBI deployed a 100-agent unit to investigate the Bloods and the Crips.[22]
Police raided activists’ gang-truce meetings, gunmen murdered gang-truce leaders, and the government framed gang-truce leaders. For example, the government quickly freed a gunman accused of murdering gang-truce leader Tony Bogard in 1994.[23]
Police also arrested gang-truce leader Dewayne Holmes at a gang-unity dance. Trial appearances on his behalf by California Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Governor Jerry Brown could not free him.[24]
Los Angeles Bloods and Crips agree to a truce in 1993 but gang-truce leaders were afterwards arrested. [Source: finalcall.com]
The Shakur Extended Family’s Leftist Leadership and the Murderous Targeting of Tupac
One-time Harlem Black Panther leader Afeni Shakur named Los Angeles Black Panther leader Geronimo Pratt (later Geronimo Ji Jaga), Tupac’s godfather, and Bronx Black Panther Assata Shakur, Tupac’s godmother. Afeni Shakur lived with Mutulu Shakur, Tupac’s stepfather, who was a member of the Republic of New Afrika. In 1984, Mutulu was arrested on charges of helping break Assata Shakur from jail in the 1970s and “conspiring” to rob a Brinks armored truck in 1981.[25]
Afeni had worked with Watani Tyehimba on trying to free Geronimo Pratt and Watani introduced Tupac to New Afrikan People’s Organization national chairman Chokwe Lumumba. Tupac made Lumumba his national lawyer.[26]
The author’s book that exposes the FBIs war on Tupac and other Black leaders. [Courtesy of John Potash]
Evidence supports at least four U.S. Intelligence attempts to murder Tupac before their successful fifth attempt. The FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (Cointelpro) had targeted Tupac’s Black Panther family before it officially ended in 1971.
FBI Cointelpro agent Wes Swearingen said in a memoir that Cointelpro actually continued into the 1990s under different names.[27]
As a 2017 biopic on Tupac stated, evidence supports a Justice Department admission of more than 4,000 pages in Tupac’s FBI file.[28]
Regarding Tupac, in 1991, just days after his first MTV video release, Oakland police stopped Tupac for jaywalking, choked him unconscious, and repeatedly banged his head against the curb. Both police actions had previously led to victims’ deaths. In 1992, police also passively watched as strangers punched and then shot at Tupac for no reason in Marin City, California.[29]
At ten cents per page, the author had to pay over $400 to receive the FBI’s 4,000+ page file on Tupac. [Courtesy of John Potash]
In 1993, witnesses described how two purportedly off-duty police officers ran over to Tupac’s car, smashed his car window and shot at him using a gun stolen from an evidence locker. In 1994, a doctor’s affidavit confirmed how alleged muggers shot Tupac twice in the skull as he lay on the lobby floor of a Times Square recording studio. Tupac miraculously survived, but police refused to review lobby surveillance video of the incident and simply closed the investigation.[30]
Tupac after being assaulted by police. [Source: 2paclegacy.net]
And finally, by September 1996, Tupac had completed his short three-CD recording contract with Death Row Records. Los Angeles Police Detective Russell Poole reported finding dozens of his fellow police officers at all levels of Death Row Records. In his book LAbyrinth, veteran reporter Randall Sullivan quoted Poole as saying his supervisors told him these Death Row cops could be considered “troubleshooters or covert agents.”[31] Filmmaker Nick Broomfield said Poole stated that he believed his fellow cops were involved in Tupac’s murder.[32]
Kevin Hackie, who was one of Tupac’s top bodyguards, said he was on the FBI’s payroll while working for Death Row.[33] Hackie actually defied the FBI in telling Tupac not to go to Las Vegas the night of his murder. Death Row then fired Hackie, before the FBI then framed and jailed him. Hackie reported to Detective Poole that Santa Monica police had confiscated a gun that they gave to him. The FBI then told him to give that gun to police working for Death Row, and that was the gun that killed Tupac.[34]
Tupac’s murder temporarily ended the gang truce as Death Row spread the word that the Crips gang killed Tupac, before activists quelled the week-long reignited gang war.[35]
Continued Attacks and Coverup around the Shakurs?
In one of the few definitive media investigations of Tupac’s murder, A&E’s Who Killed Tupac?documentary series (2017), attorney Benjamin Crump and others provided some answers. For one, they showed the ridiculous weakness of Los Angeles police disinformation agent Greg Kading’s evidence that Sean “P Diddy” Combs paid Crips gang members to kill Tupac. Secondly, they stated that 28 people associated with Tupac and the investigation suffered early deaths since his murder.
One of the first two examples came when Watani Tyehimba’s son, Yakhisizwe Tyehimba, who acted as a Tupac bodyguard, died mysteriously soon after Tupac.[36]
Then, Tupac’s backup singer, Yafeu “Kadafi” Fula, the son of Bronx Black Panther Sekou Odinga and Panther Yaasmyn Fula, was shot in the head a few months after Tupac was shot.[37] Fula was the top forthcoming witness to Tupac’s murder but police never detained him for a statement.[38]
In 2015, Afeni Shakur separated from her husband, and then filed for divorce in 2016. She died suddenly in 2016, at the age of 69, while in the middle of a court battle over Tupac’s $50 million estate. Afeni’s body was bizarrely given to that estranged husband instead of her adult daughter Sekyiwa Shakur.[39] Authorities also denied Mutulu Shakur parole in 2016, as well as compassionate parole in 2020 when he was diagnosed with cancer.[40]
While such attacks continue on Tupac’s Shakur family, his legacy as a rap icon, film star, and particularly his important activism deserves more widespread attention.
*
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.
Joe Garofoli, “Singer Belafonte feels the beat of antiwar sentiment/Keynote speaker at Oakland rally hears international criticism,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 5, 2003, p. A15.
Mitchell Landsberg and John Mutchell, “In Gang’s Territory, a Weary Hope,” Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2002, p. A1.
Reuters, “Gangs Found in Military, Magazine Says,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 17, 1995, p. A4.
Bruck, “The Takedown of Tupac,” The New Yorker, July 7, 1997, p. 53. He reportedly started organizing the truce in the Lompoc federal prison, http://www.hitemup.com/tupac/family.html
Tupac’s national lawyer, Chokwe Lumumba May 6, 2000. See John Potash, Drugs as Weapons Against Us (Walterville, Oregon: Trine Day, 2015), p. 337. Also see John Potash, The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders (Baltimore, MD: Progressive Left Press, 2007).
See “Code of Thug Life” reprinted in Jamal Joseph, Tupac Shakur: Legacy (New York: Atria, 2006), pp. 37-38. See also Bruck, New Yorker, http://www.hitemup.com/tupac/family.html . [NOTE: Why space below?]
Plain Dealer Staff, “‘Stop the Killing’ Gang Summit: How it began and who was involved (with photo gallery),” The Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 24, 2013.
Mike Davis, “Who Killed LA: Part Two: The Verdict is Given,” New Left Review 198, pp. 34-35; Kody Scott (aka Sanyika Shakur), Monster: The Autobiography of an L.A. Gang Member (New York: Penguin, 1994), pp. vii-viii, 347-49.
Dr. Mutulu Shakur, A Life of Struggle, October 16, 1992, Chicago Full Interview; Ellinor R. Mitchell, “The Lincoln Story,” National Acupuncture Detoxification Association.
Gary Webb and Rick Ross, as well as DEA agent whistleblower Michael Levine, on The Montel Williams Show, [NOTE: Is something missing here? If not, change comma to period.}
Gary Webb, Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion (New York: Seven Stories Press, 1998).
Ronin Ro, Have Gun Will Travel: The Spectacular Rise and Violent Fall of Death Row Records (New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 76-80.
Police Detective Russell Poole said this on film in Nick Broomfield, Biggie and Tupac (2002). Poole names many of the cops working in Death Row throughout this book. Randall Sullivan, LAbyrinth, (New York: Grove/Atlantic, 2018) pp. 40, 124, 166, 169-70, 191. Also, www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lapd/interviews/poole.html
David Brotherton and Luis Barrios, The Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation: Street Politics and the Transformation of a New York City Gang (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004). On membership, p. 199. Further see video, Black and Gold: The Latin King and Queen Nation, a documentary (Big Noise Films, 1999).
“Seize the Hospital to Serve the People: An Interview with Activist Cleo Silvers, 2009,” www.socialmedicine.org/media/. Personal interviews with Vicente “Panama” Alba October 25, 1996 and May 1, 1998; also, personal interview with Antonio “King Tone” Fernandez and Hector Torres, April 25, 1997. [NOTE: Why space below?]
Catherine Austin Fitts, “Narco Dollars for Beginners; How the Money Works in the Illicit Drug Trade; Part II: The Narco Money Map,” Narco News Bulletin, October 31, 2001; also, Michael Smith, “Banks Financing Mexico Drug Gangs Admitted in Wells Fargo Deal,” Bloomberg News, September 29, 2010. http://www.narconews.com/narcodollars2.html
Big Noise Tactical Media and PM Press, Black and Gold: The Story of the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation (2008).
“Operation Crown: The Political Persecution of the Latin Kings,” Revolutionary Worker#959, May 31, 1998.
Mike Davis, “Who Killed LA? A Political Autopsy,” New Left Review 197, 1993, p. 7; Megan Garvey and Rich Winton, “City Declares War on Gangs,” Los Angeles Times, December 4, 2002.
Jesse Katz, “Man Freed in Death of Gang Leader, Courts: Rodney Compton is to get one year probation in the slaying of Tony Bogard, who helped reach a truce between the Crips and Bloods,” Los Angeles Times, June 1, 1994, p. 3; activist witness broadcast on 99.1, WBAI radio in New York City, April 29, 2001.
Mike Davis, “Who Killed Los Angeles? Part Two,” New Left Review 198, 1993, p. 35.
Connie Bruck, “The Takedown of Tupac,” The New Yorker, July 7, 1997, p. 47. On Assata Shakur, see editorial, “Thoughts and Notes on Tupac,” The Amsterdam News (New York), December 17, 1994, p. 24.
Personal interview, Watani Tyehimba, May 2, 2000; personal interview with Chokwe Lumumba, May 10, 2000; Michael Eric Dyson, Holler If You Hear Me, p. 84.
This writer filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 1999. A Justice Department worker inadvertently admitted over 4,000 pages in Tupac’s FBI file, explaining it’s 10 cents a page so over $400 would be needed. See letter requesting that from this writer. Also, Benny Boom, All Eyez On Me (2017) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1666185/
“Claim Against the City of Oakland, California, Claimant: Tupac Shakur” by John Burris, Esq., photocopied for Jacob Hoye and Karolyn Ali, eds., Tupac: Resurrection (New York: Atria Books, 2003), pp. 78-79; Danyel Smith “Introduction,” Vibe editors, Tupac Shakur (New York: Crown Publishing, 1997), p. 17; Robert McFadden, “At Two Rallies, Protesters Accuse Police in Killings,” New York Times, August 3, 2003, p. 32; Barry Paddock, Rocco Parascandola and Corky Siemaszko, “Homicide: Medical Examiner Says NYPD Chokehold Killed Staten Island Dad Eric Garner,” New York Daily News, August 21, 2014; Marku Reynolds, Thug Immortal (Documentary, Xenon Entertainment, 1997) starting at 51:30 minutes; Veronica Chambers, “Ain’t Nothing Changed but the Weather,” Premiere, August 1993.
Personal interviews with Tupac’s Atlanta trial lawyer, Ken Ellis, May 12, 2000; eyewitness Watani Tyehimba, November 5, 2003, and eyewitness Billy Lesane, April 10, 1999; and Tupac’s national lawyer, Chokwe Lumumba May 6, 2000. Personal interview with Tupac’s Atlanta trial lawyer, Ken Ellis, May 12, 2000. Also see Danzy Senna, “Violence is Golden,” Spin Magazine, April 1994, pp. 43-47, and, Scruggs and Marshall, “Witness says off-duty cops fired first shot,” Atlanta Journal Constitution, p. D12, November 3, 1993. On bullets through head while on ground, see Deposition of Barbara Justice, MD, New York v. Tupac Shakur, December 21, 1994.
Originally in Nick Broomfied, Biggie and Tupac (2002), excerpted for John Potash, Drugs as Weapons Against Us: The CIA War on Musicians and Activists (2019) trailer (long form).
Billboard staff, “FBI Informant Testifies in B.I.G. Case,” Billboard, June 23, 2005.
Former Detective Russell Poole and Michael Douglas Carlin, “The Facts Behind the Murder of Tupac Shakur,” Century City News, March 12, 2019.
Nick Broomfield quoting police officer and FBI informant Kevin Hackie in documentary, Biggie and Tupac, starting at 1:08:44. Sullivan, LAbyrinth, pp. 141-43, 145
Tupac’s national lawyer, Chokwe Lumumba May 6, 2000. Printed in John Potash, Drugs as Weapons Against Us (Walterville, Oregon: Trine Day, 2015), p. 337. Also printed in John Potash, The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders (Baltimore, MD: Progressive Left Press, 2007).
Cathy Scott, “Shakur Shooting Witness Found Dead in New Jersey,” The Las Vegas Sun, November 13, 1996.
On Las Vegas police ignoring Fula, see Cathy Scott, The Killing of Tupac Shakur (Las Vegas, Nevada, Huntington Press, 2nd ed. 2002), pp. 111-12.
Nancy Dillon, et al, “Gust Davis, estranged husband of Tupac Shakur’s mother, claims her body to be cremated,” New York Daily News, May 9, 2016.
My Religion Is Rap Admin, “Tupac’s Stepfather Mutulu Shakur Denied Early Release from Federal Prison Even Though He’s Dying From Cancer,” My Religion Is Rap, November 6, 2020.
Comments Off on Tupac Shakur Would Have Turned 50 Today–If He Hadn’t Threatened Deal Between Drug Traffickers and U.S. Banks Making Billions Laundering CIA Drug Money
All Global Research articles 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 situation in Nagorno-Karabakh is nearing another round of escalation with regular reports about new casualties in border regions. Some believe that the resumption of military hostilities could become a chance for Baku to take control of more territories in Nagorno-Karabakh but it would also be a possibility for external forces to strengthen their influence in the region through various public and clandestine measures.
In particular, the recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh unveiled a large involvement of Syrian mercenaries in military activities. Dozens of them were killed while fighting along the Azerbaijani forces in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, while thousands of militants were deployed there.
Turkey was the main partner of Baku during the last war, having sent its military equipment, military, as well as Syrian proxies.
The al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front (now known as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) is among the main Turkish suppliers of cannon fodder ready to take part in military conflicts all over the world in return for money, supplies and support.
However, Turkey is not the only supporter of the Syrian terrorist group. In the course of the conflict in Syria, the al-Nusra Front has established fruitful contacts with various actors, mostly NATO member states and Gulf monarchies, that funded and supported it to achieve own goals in the region. Diplomats and media outlets of these states tried to brand the terrorist organization as a “moderate opposition”. Furthermore, a new round of attempts to whitewash the al-Qaeda-linked terrorists has been picking up momentum in the West.
On May 31, Russian TASS news agency reported that the British MI6 intelligence agency’s representative met with the leader of the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front. According to the reports, the meeting took place near the Bab al-Hawa Border crossing on the Syrian-Turkish border.
A day later, former HTS commander Saleh al-Hamwi, commonly known as “As al-Seera fi al-Sham,” confirmed that the group leader Abu Mohamad al-Julani met with Jonathan Powell. He stressed out that the meeting was held four years ago, but this event still provides a useful insight at the core of relations between the al-Nusra Front and its Western partners.
The meeting established a close contact with international terrorist groups active in Syria. An agreement was reportedly reached on maintaining a permanent communication with international terrorists designated as such by the United Nations Security Council. The UK’s allies, primarily the US, were supposed to take part in rebranding of the al-Nusra group.
It is easy to notice that the media and diplomatic campaign to whitewash HTS, al-Qaeda’s main branch in Syria, is still going in full force.
On April 2, the American Public Broadcasting Service published a part of an interview with the terrorist group’s leader Abu Mohamad al-Julani. The leader was interviewed by PBS journalist Martin Smith on February 1 and 14. The rare interview will be part of an upcoming FRONTLINE documentary examining al-Julani’s emergence.
The al-Nusra whitewashing serves the greater purpose of more freely funding of its activities aimed at combating government forces in Syria together with their Russian allies, as well as facilitating the deployment of Syrian mercenaries in other regions of the world, such as Nagorno-Karabakh.
Meanwhile, ties between London and Ankara have gained a new momentum amid tensions between Turkey and the United States. Thus, the UK finally gained the role of a good partner in crime for Erdogan.
A new escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh would serve interests of the whole ‘alliance’ of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Britain.
A crushing advance of Azerbaijan and its allies on Armenian forces in Karabakh would allow to destabilize once again the situation near the southern borders of Russia, which is London’s main interest. This will also trigger important military and diplomatic developments in the region.
Thanks to efforts of the anti-Armenian Pashinyan clique in Yerevan the Armenians already lost large territories and undermined relations with the only real ally of Armenia – Russia. Attempts of Pashinyan and his masters to hide the reality behind the defeat of the Armenians in Karabakh also had a negative impact on Moscow’s reputation in Armenia as their propaganda tried to paint Russia as the side responsible for the negative outcome of the recent Karabakh war for Armenia. Meantime, chances that Russia will intervene militarily in the escalation on the territory of the contested region in case of the resumption of large-scale clashes between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces still remain low. The potential Russian participation in the conflict will become possible only in case of a direct intervention of Azerbaijan into the internationally recognized territory of Armenia.
Thus, a further escalation of the military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan could be expected in the coming weeks. The UK-Turkish-Azerbaijani coalition will not waste time as long as the Western puppet Pashinyan still keeps in hands his crumbling power.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
It’s amazing how often Sweden still crops up in conversations. It didn’t impose tough lockdown, kept primary schools and core economic activities functioning, issued clear guidelines and relied on voluntary social distancing and personal hygiene practices to manage the crisis. For harsh lockdowns to be justified elsewhere, Sweden had to be discredited. Hence the harsh criticisms of Sweden’s approach last year by the New York Times, Newsweek, USA Today, CBS News and others.
But with Sweden’s demonstrable success, goalposts have shifted. Every time it’s mentioned as a counter to Europe’s high Covid-toll lockdown countries, the response now is: ‘But their Nordic neighbours did much better. Look at Denmark’. Let’s ‘interrogate’ this argument.
First off, the situation in any other country is irrelevant to assessing the utility of modelled projections on which the lockdowns were based. The 16 March 2020 Neil Ferguson model from Imperial College London (ICL), by now deservedly infamous, precipitated lockdowns with grim predictions of 510,00 British and 1.2 million American dead in an unmitigated spread of the virus.
The second sentence of the summary boasted its epidemiological modelling ‘has informed policymaking in the UK and other countries’. In an article in Nature last June, the team claimed lockdowns had ‘averted 3.1 million deaths’ in eleven European countries as of 4 May 2020.
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).
Today, June 15, 2021, Israeli Jewish supremacists are marching in East Jerusalem as Palestinians call for a ‘Day of Rage’ in response.
“We call on all free people everywhere to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people and its just cause and end the Israeli aggression on our people and holy places,” The Committee of Islamic and National Groups stated. “Let the world know that the continuous Israeli violations in Jerusalem will remain to be the trigger, which sparks the fight.”
Palestinians see the Israeli annual raid of the Old City (including the Haram al-Sharif complex, where al-Aqsa mosque is housed) in celebration of the occupation, annexation and Judaization of Jerusalem under the flag of the Zionist Jewish state as an abomination.
In previous years, Palestinian Jerusalemites mostly cowered and shuttered their businesses and homes in the face of the rampage and hate-filled slogans of the Israeli Jewish marchers. They too took to describing the event as instigated by “far-right and anti-Palestinian activists,” rather than by the very apartheid and systemic structure of the Jewish supremacist state itself.
But this time, as Ahmed Abu Artema wrote in The Electronic Intifada on 14 May 2021, this time, it’s different:
The current escalation is distinguished by the fact that the Palestinian people demanded a response to the practices of the Israeli occupation. Hamas, in responding, is being considered heroic.
There is no public judgment or denunciation of Hamas’ decision to act, even when citizens are paying the harshest price of Israeli aggression, losing their loved ones and their homes.
It is clear in Gaza that Palestinians remain firm in their belief in resistance as the pathway to liberation from occupation.
This round of fighting is also significant because it came as a response to continuous violations in Jerusalem.
All previous rounds of Hamas escalation have been provoked by Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip. Thus, when Jerusalem called for Gaza’s aid, and Gaza rose to defend Jerusalem, this amplified the burgeoning sense of Palestinian national unity and liberated the Palestinian resistance from its isolation in Gaza.
In effect, this time, Hamas is saying to Israeli Jews in occupied Jerusalem: If you want to worship in the Old City, leave your occupation flags at home and leave al-Aqsa alone.
Wikipedia informs us about Jerusalem Day in the following harmless Israeli PR narrative as: “an Israeli national holiday commemorating the reunification of Jerusalem and the establishment of Israeli control over the Old City in the aftermath of the June 1967 Six-Day War.” All kosher and above board.
That PR is in keeping with today’s rhetoric by Internal Security Minister Omer Bar-Lev, who issued a statement justifying the provocation of the Flag Day March through Jerusalem as, of all things, a democratic act!
“In a democracy it is allowed and important to demonstrate for all types of causes as long as it is within the confines of the law. We will hold a police assessment about the events and we will operate according to the recommendations of the police.”
For Palestinians, the rampaging herds of Jewish youth annually coursing through their streets shouting “Death to Arabs” are a far cry from what Bar-Lev is suggesting — that they represent a far-right racist group, like the KKK in the US, who have the right to freedom of speech in a democracy. What he is obscuring is the fact that Israel, as a state from top to bottom, is a Jewish supremacist colonial-settler state whose reason and strategy for existing is exactly that of these rampaging hoards.
To Palestinians, this march through Jerusalem means that “opportunities” continue to open up in Israel for “a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state” — the Palestinian population.
Consider this:
On this day in 1948, future Israeli Prime Minister Sharett exulted to World Zionist Organization head Goldman on Israel’s successful ethnic cleansing: “the most spectacular event in the contemporary history of Palestine…is the wholesale evacuation of its Arab population…The opportunities opened up by the present reality for a lasting and radical solution of the most vexing problem of the Jewish state, are so far-reaching, as to take one’s breath away. The reversion to the status quo ante is unthinkable”, i.e. the refugees would not be allowed to return.
What we’re seeing here is the rise of a nakedly genocidal regime in Israel, one that is identical and faithful to its fundamental Zionist roots. And as a friend commented on Facebook: “This is going to go from horrible to a level of atrocious we can’t imagine. And thus makes stepping up the resistance even more imperative.”
Palestinian rage is righteous. It ought to be clear to the world now what and who “the obstacle to peace” is and has always been. This remarkable Palestinian uprising may have been sparked by the Sheikh Jarrah expulsions, but it has radiated across all of Palestine and beyond.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.
She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: A sign stating ‘Danger, demolition. Entry is prohibited’ was placed by Israeli authorities on top of the rubble of the Khalialehs’ houses (MEE\Sondus Ewies)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Since the Sandinistas won the 2006 election their anti-poverty policies have had enormous success.
The country is 90% self-sufficient in food. 99% of the population have electricity in their homes that is now generated with 70+% green energy; International financial Institutions including the World Bank, the International Development Bank and The Central American Bank for Economic Integration praise Nicaragua for its excellent, efficient project execution. it has one of the best health systems in Latin America praised by the International Monetary Fund, with 20 new state of the art hospitals since 2007 achieving one of the lowest Covid mortality rates in the world. Poverty, extreme poverty, maternal, child and infant mortality have all been cut at least in half. Nicaragua is number one in the world in both women in politics and women in ministerial positions and it is fifth in gender equity behind the Nordic nations.
Many more advances for the majority of the population in education, housing and infrastructure have resulted in huge wins for the FSLN in the last two elections (2011 and 2016) and polls indicate that in the Nov. 7 presidential elections they will garner at least 60% of the vote with at least 70% voter turn-out. Some 95% of the adult population have identity cards needed for voting. If the US public knew what this nation, impoverished by nearly 200 years of US war and aggression, has been able to achieve in fourteen years it would surely encourage them to demand better education, infrastructure and universal health care in the United States.
To prevent similar acts of sovereignty by small nations still considered colonies by the United States, the CIA prepared the way for the 2018 coup attempt and has never stopped trying to overthrow the Sandinista government since. The CIA uses US agents, many who pass themselves off as journalists or activists, as well as those eternally stationed at the US embassy; it has provided millions of dollars to hundreds of Nicaraguans acting as foreign agents as well as their nonprofit organizations that conspire against the Sandinista government like those recently arrested for money laundering, fraud and requesting foreign intervention.
The US helped grow the pro-US anti-Sandinista media in Nicaragua
Much of the US-directed propaganda apparatus was designed and funded by the US after the FSLN won the 2006 elections ending 17 years of three US-directed governments. A subversive front of newspapers, magazines, television stations, radio stations, websites, news agencies, and social media pages was formed. Journalists and media outlets were paid by the US (millions through the USAID, NED, IRI and US foundations) and much of it was administered by the Chamorro family media cartel, specializing in fake media campaigns to try to promote anti-Sandinista hatred and mistrust of the government.
Part of this has been known for some time. For example, in May, 2018 during the coup, Tom Ricker of the Quixote Institute described 55 NED grants awarded between 2014 and 2017 for US$4.2 million “as part of a U.S. government-funded campaign to provide a coordinated strategy and media voice for opposition groups in Nicaragua. NED grants fund media (radio, social media and other web-based news outlets) and opposition research. In addition, strategies targeting youth get substantial funding, along with programs seeking to mobilize women’s and indigenous organizations. Though the language is of support for “civil society” and “pro-democracy” groups, the focus on funding is specifically to build coordinated opposition to the government.”
US propaganda funds for 2018 coup channeled through Chamorro family media dynasty
On June 2, Journalist William Grigsby on his news analysis program, Sin Fronteras, revealed (see below) US documents which show that the CIA openly channeled US$16.7 million for the coup attempt, between February 2017 and July 2018, through the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation whose director Cristiana Chamorro is part of a famous family of oligarchs that count eight members as previous presidents; she is also the daughter of former president Violeta Barrios de Chamorro. She and her uncle are owners of the only daily, La Prensa, funded by the US for pro-Contra lies since the 1980s. Her brother Carlos Fernando has his own media dynasty. US funds to the VBCHF support these family businesses. Her now-deceased husband, Antonio Lacayo is widely considered to have exercised great power during her mother’s presidency from 1990 to 1997 overseeing some 7 billion dollars in privatization of state property, as well as privatization of education and health care. During the early 90s you couldn’t get so much as an aspirin at a government hospital without paying for it.
Chamorro Family, 1990s, Cristiana is second from the right, Antonio Lacayo on far right, laprensa.com.ni
The US$16.7 million was given by US agencies and foundations specifically to finance media terrorism [lies, fake news and distortion to foment assassinations and hate, destabilize and create chaos] to incite and maintain the coup attempt. The Chamorro Foundation also received €679,530 from European government-financed organizations during this period. The attempted coup left more than 200 families in mourning, thousands of people traumatized as well as much destruction and severe damage to the economy resulting in the loss of at least 130,000 jobs.
The Foundation’s Director, Cristiana Chamorro, was accused by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of money laundering, and given house arrest on June 2, 2021. She closed the Foundation in February of this year saying she didn’t want to comply with the “Foreign Agents” law passed in October 2020, similar to but not as strict as the 1938 US Foreign Agents Act. Under the Nicaraguan law, organizations receiving foreign funding must report that funding and how it is used – thousands of nonprofits are doing this with no problem.
According to Grigsby and Liberal Party news analyst, Enrique Quiñones, there was still at least US$7 million in the Foundation account when she closed it and this money appeared soon afterward in three of her personal banks accounts.
The US$16.7 million given by the CIA during that short time-span was just the money given for fake news – to fund every kind of news media, programs, social media and to directly fund individuals. Many millions more were provided to other nonprofits and “Human Rights” organizations. It is telling that in a country of 6.3 million people there are four human rights organizations – all funded by the US government and one was even founded by the US government in the 80s to cover up for the Contra.
Within that US$16.7 million, US$9,409,853 was provided by USAID for individuals, projects and media. The National Endowment for Democracy gave the Foundation US$564,134 for a project “promoting independent journalism and freedom of expression” in November 2017.
US Financing of Propaganda for Coup Attempt
The Soros Foundations – owned by New York-based tycoon George Soros – also financed fake news in Nicaragua through several of his organizations that are known to fund destabilization efforts around the world: US$6,722,325 was given by two of the Soros Foundations: US$6,148,325 by the Soros Foundation for the project, “independent and transparent journalism” given in March 2018 a month before the coup began, and $574,000 in July 2018, the month the coup was defeated, by the Open Society Foundation for the “independent journalism and citizenship” project.
The 2017-2018 funding of opposition media and journalists through the Chamorro Foundation by USAID, NED and Soros Foundations – US$16,696,312 million provided just before and during the attempted coup is a small part of funding provided by agencies like USAID, NED, IRI, Freedom House and foundations, like those of Soros with close ties to the Council on Foreign Relations.
USAID spent US$160 million on agents and agent organizations to try to topple the Sandinistas
The bigger picture on USAID financing for destabilization in recent years is that it gave US$160 million to opposition organizations and individuals between 2015 and early 2021, information still available by year on the internet; however much information about recipient organizations has been removed. Most information about NED money and the recipients has also been removed.
Official US documents presented by Grigsby in July 2020 provide more detailed evidence of which nonprofits and individuals benefitted from US$30 million right before the 2018 coup.
Breaking the Yankee Propaganda Apparatus
The USAID says this about their role in Nicaragua, “USAID/OTI partnered with independent media to operate and produce more targeted digital content during the political crisis. The program enabled independent media to preserve and promote democratic discourse, absent further economic destabilization or dramatic state intervention.”
In a recent article Rita Jill Clark-Gollub writes:
“Anyone who has been watching Nicaragua knows that these supposedly “independent” media inNicaragua have been the main source of Nicaragua news reported here in the United States. In otherwords, in my country most people get information about Nicaragua from the CIA!”
New laws passed in 2020 (a Foreign Agents Law and a law against terrorism, coups and inciting foreign intervention, which the US is screaming about even though they are less punitive than those of the US and Europe), and the recent arrests of US Foreign Agents are actions to try to limit US intervention and prevent coup attempts. The US will still get money to their agents, but it won’t be nearly as easy as before and this will limit their ability to carry out the kind of terrorist actions they did in 2018.
William Grigsby on June 2 described what is happening right now in Nicaragua: “[We are] breaking the heart of the Yankee propaganda apparatus in Nicaragua, which was their main way of intervening, now, for the elections – influencing public opinion with lies, instilling fear, instilling hatred in order to try to defeat the Sandinistas. This whole operation that is being carried out from the prosecutor’s office as a spearhead is just that, to destroy the propaganda apparatus of US imperialism.” He asked what all the journalist agents in Nicaragua will do without the salaries they were getting. “Are they committed enough to actually do independent journalist?”
RAIN: the CIA destabilization plan in progress now
Nevertheless, Uncle Sam will still continue efforts to destabilize the country. US ambassador Sullivan is constantly seen meeting with the agents, even denounced by President Daniel Ortega:
“This goes for the Yankee ambassador (U.S.) and other ambassadors; they like to meddle everywhere and want to make decisions for us; the Yankee ambassador (Sullivan) parades his candidates, promoting them as if he were Nicaraguan.”
In August 2020 William Grigsby received a USAID document leaked from the embassy. It details in couched terms US destabilization plans for “transition” in Nicaragua and even the contracting of a US company to head it all up. They call it RAIN – Responsive Action in Nicaragua. The document has since been deleted, but not before it was archived. RAIN is a blatant plan for destabilization and overthrow of the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. It is likely that much of what the US has financed in the last year is part of the RAIN plan.
“RAIN will pursue these activities against a variety of scenarios generally falling under three categories: 1. Free, fair and transparent elections lead to an orderly transition [the US candidate wins] 2. A sudden political transition occurs following a crisis [a coup leads to a US backed government] 3. Transition does not happen in an orderly and timely manner. The regime remains resilient in the face of domestic and international pressure. It is also possible that the regime may remain in power following electoral reforms and a fair election, but without changes to the rule of law or democratic governance [i.e. without changes that benefit US corporations].”
It is clear from the RAIN document that the U.S. government realizes that the Sandinistas will win the 2021 election by a large margin: that is another reason they have provided millions to agents, organizations and fake news media, hoping that they can put a dent in the 60% Sandinista win predicted in the polls, or to dis or undermine the elections altogether.
The long-time US agents under investigation for very serious crimes are not leaders: there has not been even one small protest since the arrests began June 2 because those arrested have no “pueblo.” People know that the US funded the very violent coup attempt through them – and hold them accountable. The foreign media tout them as presidential candidates, which they are not. When some of them saw that they might be arrested they ran to try to inscribe with the CXL (Citizens for Freedom) party as pre-candidates thinking this might protect them from detention. They all had the opportunity to form new political parties, but they didn’t even try because they don’t have enough members to fulfill minimal requirements. And more importantly, 19 legitimate parties are participating in the November 7 elections that don’t receive foreign funding.
And while the United States wastes millions of tax-payer dollars destabilizing the country, Nicaragua effectively and efficiently makes social and economic advances lauded by international organizations and banks, like universal health care, education, affordable housing, social infrastructure, gender equity, conversion to green energy, natural disaster and climate change mitigation, free recreation, and job creation with the creative and popular economy. The majority of the safest population in Central America with the lowest Covid mortality rate, who are healthier, better educated and housed, with electricity and potable water, whose food is locally grown and available at a decent price, with parks, fairs, pools and sports stadiums to enjoy their free time, are unlikely to let Uncle Sam influence their vote in November.
***
Nan McCurdy is a United Methodist missionary with the General Board of Global Ministries. She and her missionary husband, Miguel Mairena, begin service with Give Ye Them to Eat in Puebla, Mexico.
Nan served the people of Nicaragua from 1985 to 2014. She and Miguel worked for 20 years with women and youth through the Women and Community Association in San Francisco Libre.
During the war in Nicaragua in the 1980s, Nan and her late husband, Philip Mitchell, worked in a pastoral ministry of accompaniment with people in the war zone. After the war, she assisted in the creation of the Foundation for Nicaraguan War Victims.
Nan holds degrees in biology, ecology, and pharmacy, and has done extensive non-degree studies in gender in the fields of development and community development. Nan and Miguel are members of the Baltimore-Washington Annual Conference.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Comments Off on The CIA Attempts Coups in Nicaragua with Tax Dollars Through US Agencies and Corporate Foundations: USAID Does Not Provide Aid – It Carries Out Coups
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The United States and its NATO allies bid a symbolic farewell to Afghanistan and the war that’s still going on there.
On June 14th, at the NATO summit, a goodbye was said to the efforts in Afghanistan.
The 18-year effort cost the United States alone $2.26 trillion, and the price in lives includes 2,442 American troops and 1,144 personnel among U.S. allies.
Afghan losses were a bit more substantial, including more than 47,000 civilians, up to 69,000 members of the national armed forces and police, and over 51,000 Taliban killed.
NATO itself doesn’t release information about how many troops it had lost.
The military effort followed the 2001 arrival of a U.S.-led coalition that ousted the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
NATO plans to leave civilian advisers to help build up government institutions. The 30-nation alliance is also weighing whether to train Afghan special forces outside the country.
These advisors will not receive any protection, as well as those who fought alongside the NATO forces from the Afghan side, in case if the Taliban targets them.
This withdrawal gave the Taliban an impetus, and several districts have been captured between June 12th and 14th.
On June 12, Taliban fighters imposed control over two districts located in the central and northern regions of Afghanistan. The group announced its fighters had captured the district of Zare in the northern province of Balkh.
Later on the same day, the group imposed control over the district of Tolak in the central province of Ghor following a heated battle with government forces.
On June 14th, things ramped up as Taliban captured four new districts in four separate provinces.
The Taliban stepped up its operations against government forces across Afghanistan following the US announcement of a plan to pull all troops from the country by September 11. In the last two months, the group’s fighters took over the centers of at least 17 districts.
The situation is such that even before the withdrawal is complete, the Taliban may capture the majority of the country’s provinces and their districts.
Seeing this reality develop, and looking to further increase its influence, Turkey is attempting to make moves.
On June 13th, a day before he could meet US President Joe Biden, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said Turkey will be the ‘only reliable’ country left to stabilize Afghanistan.
As relations between the US and Turkey have been tense in recent years, Erdogan said he wanted to turn a new page with the Biden administration.
Seeing as to what a stabilization force Ankara has been in northern Syria, Iraq, Libya and even Nagorno-Karabakh, there is ample room for skepticism.
*
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).
Travellers entering UK are being forced to quarantine at Heathrow Airport.
They are being treated like prisoners with only a couple of exercise breaks a day, 24hr security guards to ensure they do not leave and at a personal cost to themselves of £1,750!
*
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).
Today’s Alternative Visions radio show analyzes the just released Consumer Price Index inflation for May and reports on the latest developments in the ‘Infrastructure Follies’ phony negotiations going on in Congress and the Biden administration. How ‘smoke & mirror’ offers and counter-offers are steadily reducing the level of infrastructure spending and, in turn, how Biden is cutting out his tax hike proposals in turn (and what tax items are likely next).
At the conclusion of the show Dr. Rasmus begins a series of shows on what did 3 noted economists (Keynes, Marx and Adam Smith) actually say—not what the media, critics, and mainstream economists claim they’ve said. What is science and what is ideology in economics, in other words.
Continuing next week, Dr. Rasmus explains how Keynes’ economics is quite different from what is called ‘Keynesian Economics’. Why has much of what Keynes actually said been purged from economics, academic and public, and replaced with what he himself, Keynes, critiqued back in the 1930s? (Subsequent weeks and shows will do the same analysis and commentary on Marx’s economics and Smith’s. Be surprised as to what they all actually 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.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
On 28 July 2021, Peru, with her 33 million inhabitants, celebrates 200 years of Independence. The People of Peru may have chosen this Bicentennial celebration, to bring about a drastic change to their foreign and national oligarchy-run country. In a neck-on-neck national election run-off on 6 June 2021, the socialist Pedro Castillo, a humble primary school professor from rural Cajamarca, a Northern Peruvian Province, rich in mining resources, but also in agricultural land, seems to be winning by a razor thin margin of less than 100,000 votes against the oligarch-supported Keiko Fujimori, daughter of former President Alberto Fujimori, currently in prison – or rather house arrest for “ill-health” – for corruption and crimes against humanity during his presidency 1990-2000.
Election results have been considered as fair by the pro-US, pro-capitalist Organization of American States (OAS). The same organization that supported the post-election US-instigated coup against Evo Morales in November 2019. Either they have learned a lesson of ethics, or there were too many international observers watching over OAS’s election observations. Or, as a third option, Washington may have yet a different agenda for this part of their “backyard”.
Keiko Fujimori, before becoming a Presidential candidate she was in prison under preventive arrest, while under investigation into corruption and human rights abuse. She is currently collecting millions from her ruling-class elite supporters and spending her own ill-begotten money to turn the election result around. Ten days after the elections, there has no definite result been published yet. For Keiko becoming President is not only a question of power, it is also a question of freedom under government immunity, or back to prison, at least until the investigation into her alleged crimes is completed.
All is possible in a country where money buys everything, and may convert clearly and visibly intended cast votes either as invalid or as a vote for the opponent. This is Peru, but to be sure, election fraud happens even in the most sophisticated countries, including in Peru’s North American neighbor, who pretends to run the world.
However, should this turn-around happen, Keiko Fujimori and her capitalist supporters are working so hard to achieve, the country risks a civil war. Because this is the moment for the vast majority of Peruvians that they have been waiting for; those Peruvians that have always been considered as “non-people” by the oligarchy. They should now finally get their justice, get their piece of the very rich pie that is Peru. After two hundred years of an oligarchy-ruled nation, this mostly silent majority truly deserves a break. They were good enough to work, to rake in the millions from low paid, health-risky mining jobs, from low-paid agriculture work, from living lives at the margin by discrimination from their white capitalist rulers. No more. “Pedro Castillo is one of us.”
Looking back in history just blending in a few landmark moments. The 1989 Washington Consensus that not only “coincidentally” preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union, but more importantly perhaps for the Global South, it meant the rolling out in “warp speed” of neoliberal politics and economics, the enslavement of the Global South into poverty – many of them into extreme poverty. There was no escaping. The IMF, World Bank FED and all related so-called regional development banks played along.
Why is it that Peru is so different in how they treat their natives, the so-called indigenous people, the original landowners of their country, if you will, so different from, for example, neighboring Bolivia, Ecuador and even Colombia? And why do these discriminated “lesser” people react so different in Peru than they do in neighboring countries?
It is my guess that it has a lot to do with the Kingdom of Spain officially creating on 18 August 1521 (500 years ago – by coincidence?) the Kingdom of “New Spain” in what today is Peru. It later became the first one of four Viceroyalties Spain created in the Americas. Ever since Peru became the first Spanish Viceroyalty, the white descendants of Spain, later extended to the immigrants from the “Old Continent”, had the audacity to oppress and discriminate the natives.
Vote strength results of the second round of the 2021 Peruvian presidential election. (CC BY-SA 4.0)
As of this day, this is the impression I get as a foreigner having been partially working and living in Peru for almost the last four decades. Especially the Lima elite they treat the indigenous as lesser people, even though they invaded their territory, but they feel and many of them still pretend being descendants of the Royal Court of Spain. That gives them a superiority which is hard to ignore. It is also reflected in the still largely centralized education system, where Lima decides what the pluri- and multi-ethnicities cultural nation of Peru should be taught in uniformity.
Aside from the different ethnicities, Peru is divided economically and culturally into three distinct geographic areas: The Coastal Region, mostly desertic, but very fertile when irrigated, where 70% of Peru’s agricultural produce is grown; the Highlands of the Andes, also called the Sierra, where people survive on patch-work agriculture on small pieces of land; and then there is the Amazon area that covers about 70% of Peru’s landmass, with only about 5% of the country’s population. They are the most independent people, with a culture close to Mother Earth. Their lives are still largely tied to traditional shamanism, starkly different from western values.
Education, basic infrastructure but foremost exploitation of Peru’s enormously rich natural resources is all decided by Lima, by the oligarchs, the self-styled descendant of the Spanish Royals – not in spoken words, of course, but in deeds and behavior. Lima has a population of 11 million, i.e., a third of the country’s populations, of which about two thirds live at the edge of poverty or below. This situation may have become worse during covid-times. The lack of proper and appropriately decentralized education, has left the original owners of Peru, the indigenous people, including a high proportion of ethnic mixtures, at a stark and decisive disadvantage.
This is the ethnic composition of Peru: Amerindians (or purely indigenous people) account for 45 % of the population; 37 % is mestizo (mixed Amerindian and white), 15 percent is white, and 3 percent is black, Japanese, Chinese and other. See this.
In other words, 85% of the population is ruled by a white immigrant minority. It is high time that Peru gets an indigenous president who pays attention to the real needs and interests of the majority of the Peruvian population. This time, it seems, after more than 500 hundred years of a lopsided rule, the 85% of the population will demand a government of more equilibrium. Pedro Castillo may be their man.
Here some history to connect the dots up to June 2021and to help understand what is happening now in Peru. Extreme social injustice and differences between the majority peasant society and a small ruling elite, brought about the revolutionary ”Shining Path” in 1980, led by Abimael Guzmán, or by his “nom de guerre”, Chairman Gonzalo. He was a professor of philosophy strongly influenced by the teachings of Marxism and Maoism. He developed an armed struggle, what became to be known as the “Shining Path” – Spanish, “Sendero Luminoso” – for the empowerment of the neglected and disadvantaged indigenous people. Acts of terrorism abounded throughout the 1980’s, also and largely to the detriment to the peasant population.
The Shining Path emerged as the country had just held its first free elections after a 12-year military dictatorship, first by Juan Francisco Velasco Alvarado (1968 – 1975), pursuing what the Peruvians called a Maoist socialism. Velasco organized a disastrous totally unprepared land reform, and nationalized most foreign investments, creating massive unemployment and perpetuating poverty. Towards the mid-1970s, Velasco was very sick with cancer and appointed on 29 August 1975 his Prime Minister, Francisco Morales Bermúdez, as his successor. Bermúdez began the second phase of the Peruvian armed Revolution, promising a transit to a civilian government.
However, Bermudez soon became an extreme right-wing military dictator, pursuing a policy of leftist cleansing. He kept his promise, though, and led Peru to democratic elections in 1980, when Fernando Belaúnde Terry was elected, the very Belaúnde, who was deposed as president in the 1968 Velasco military coup.
There was no doubt, that a clear pattern of US-influenced brutal right-wing military dictatorships became omnipresent throughout Latin America, with General Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina (1976-1981); General Augusto Pinochet in Chile (1973 to 1981); Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay (1954 – 1989); General Juan María Bordaberry of Uruguay (1973 – 1985); the Brazilian military dictatorship of various successive military leaders (1964 – 1985). The Bolivian history of successive military dictatorships (1964 – 1982), also fit the pattern of the epoch.
The South American US-supported military dictatorships, prompted the creation of the Shining Path in Peru, loosely following the objectives of the Uruguayan Tupamaro guerilla organization, named for Túpac Amaru II, the leader of an 18th-century revolt against Spanish rule in Peru.
The Shining Path was open and transparent about its willingness to inflict death and the most extreme forms of cruelty as tools to achieve its goal, the total annihilation of existing political structures.
“We ae a rising torrent at which they will launch fire, stones and mud; but our power is great. We turn everything into our fire, the black fire will become red, and red is the light.” Abimael Guzmán
Guzman was caught in 1992 and convicted to life imprisonment.
In 1990, Alberto Fujimori, a little-known Rector of and professor at the Agrarian State University of Lima, with the support of Washington, became President, defeating Nobel Prize-winner adversary Mario Vargas Llosa, in a landslide victory of 62.4% against 37.6%. Fujimori imposed neoliberalism in Peru from the get-go of his presidency in 1990. He followed closely the mandates of the IMF and the World Bank. His other main objective was to finish with the Shining Path.
Other than stopping terrorism for humanitarian reasons, there were a myriad of commercial and economic interests at stake. For example, the entire mining industry was largely in control of foreign corporations. As soon as elected, Fujimori was “given” a top CIA „advisor“, Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos. The CIA agent soon called the shots for all affairs of international importance. There was little left for Fujimori to decide, let alone for the Peruvian Parliament.
In 1992 Fujimori instigated an auto-coup, with Washington’s tacit consent, dissolving Parliament and becoming the sole ruler, who also changed the Constitution allowing him to be “reelected” for another 5 years, until 2000, when he fled the country returning to his “native” Japan. Many analysts say he was actually born in Japan and was lying having been born in Peru, so he could ascend to the presidency. Just for the record, his registered birthday 28 July – Peru’s Independent Day – is kind of suspicious. Fujimori was accused of corruption, abuse of power and human rights violations.
During a visit to Chile in 2005, Fujimori was arrested and eventually extradited to Peru where he was convicted in 2009 to 25 years in prison for corruption, human right abuses and for his role in killings and kidnappings by the Grupo Colian Death Squad during his government’s battle against the Senderos Lumiosos in the 1990s.
During the two decades of Shining Path, some 69,000 people, mostly Peruvian peasants died or disappeared. According to the Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission (PTRC), at last as many people died at the hands of the Fujimory military commandos, as were killed by the Shining Path. The PTRC is also called Hatun Willakuy, a Quechuan expression meaning the great story, signifying the enormity of the events recounted. Before the commission, Peru had never conducted such a comprehensive examination of violence, abuse of power, or injustice. See this.
To this day father Fujimori is in prison – or under house arrest for his alleged ill-health – while his daughter Keiko Fujimori was largely running Congress with a majority of her Party “Popular Force” – Fuerza Popular. It is not exaggerated to claim that during the past three decades Fujimorismo and the APRA (American Popular Revolutionary Alliance – a left-turned-right party) largely ran the country with crime and corruption, selling off the country’s riches to international corporatism, mainly in the US – and for the benefit of Peruvian oligarchs, but leaving the large majority of Peruvians behind.
Peru has a wealth of mineral resources. Copper, iron, lead, zinc, bismuth, phosphates, and manganese exist in great quantities of high-yield ores. Gold and silver are found extensively, as are other rare metals, and petroleum fields are located along the far north coast and the northeastern part of Amazonia.
Peru’s GDP of US$ 270 billion (World Bank – 2019) is misleading, as a great proportion is generated by mostly foreign majority holding extractive industries, manufacturing and ever-increasingly also agriculture, leaving little in the country which is why the poverty level has hardly changed over the last 30 years. While in the first decade of 2000 Peru had a phenomenal GDP growth, between 5% and 7% annually – about two thirds went to 20% of the population and the rest was trickling down to the other 80%, with the bottom 10% to 20% getting next to nothing.
The poverty rate after covid encompasses at least two thirds of the Peruvian population, with up to 50% under extreme poverty. Exact figures are not available. Those listed by the World Bank indicating a 27% poverty rate are simply fake. In addition, the informal sector in Peru amounts to at least 70%. While it is informality that keeps Peru somewhat going, it is also the informal sector that has plunged masses of people into poverty.
Candidate Pedro Castillo, if finally declared the winner, has a challenging job ahead. He is aligned with a seasoned and well-experienced and nationally respected politician, socialist Veronica Mendoza from Cusco. She also identified the current economic advisor for Mr. Castillo, Pedro Francke, who has a center-left reputation.
Mr. Francke served as director of the Cooperation Fund for Social Development (FONCODES), a Peruvian government -controlled social services and small investments institution, promoting small and medium size enterprises and creating jobs. He also had several roles at the Peruvian Central Bank and worked as an economist at the World Bank.
In a political statement, Francke separated a potential Castillo presidency from what he called Chavez socialism of currency control, nationalizations and price controls. In fact, this is an easy and purely partisan statement, because the two economies are so fundamentally different that there is simply no comparison. But the intent is to tranquilize a worried and right-wing media indoctrinated populace. The right-wing, mostly El Comercio and affiliated media dominated news outlets, control about 90% of Peruvian media.
Mr. Francke told Reuters, “Our idea is not to have massive interventionism in the economy”, indicating that Castillo would respect market economy. Francke also said that a Castillo Government would not proceed with nationalization and expropriation at all. They may, however, renegotiate some of the corporate profit-sharing. Having experienced the Velasco Government in the 1970s, this is one of the major worries of more senior Peruvians, who lived through the Velasco years.
Pedro Francke also repeated what Castillo said in his campaign speeches, that he would encourage local over foreign investments, a valid assertion, because at present the Peruvian economy is to about 70% dollarized, meaning that local banks finance themselves largely by Wall Street, while locally earned money is invested abroad rather than at home. Hopefully Castillo will be able to muster the necessary trust to bring about local investments with local money. If so, this would be among the healthiest economic moves for Peru – moves towards fiscal autonomy and monetary sovereignty.
At the time of this writing, 10 days after the ballot, the vote recounts and quarrels over voter fraud is growing, creating a chaotic ambiance, one that becomes increasingly volatile. We can just hope that the Peruvian Election Commission applies fair rules and is able to avoid civil unrest.
*
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.
We say: STOP to all crazy and disproportionate measures that have been taken since the beginning to fight SARS-CoV-2 (lockdown, blocking the economy and education, social distancing, wearing of masks for all, etc.) because they are totally unjustified, are not based on any scientific evidence and violate the basic principles of evidence-based medicine.
This report was prompted by the enormous miscarriage of justice engineered by the government and churches of Canada known as the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” (TRC). It is written as a corrective response to that Commission’s unlawful and deceptive efforts to conceal the extent and nature of deliberate Genocide in Canada by church and state over nearly two centuries.
There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about four entries into the covid mass-jabbing sweepstakes. When taken as directed, they risk irreversible harm, shortened lifespans, and death near-or-longer-term. They increase the likelihood of contracting the viral illness they’re supposed to protect against, but don’t — because they’re not designed for this purpose, just the opposite.
Joe Biden’s Executive Order Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Certain Persons Contributing to the Destabilizing Situation in the Western Balkans accompanied by Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Western Balkans was issued on 8 June 2021.
The NATO Summit took place yesterday at the headquarters in Brussels: the North Atlantic Council at the highest level of State and Government Leaders. It was formally chaired by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, de facto by the President of the United States Joseph Biden, who came to Europe to call to arms his Allies in the global conflict against Russia and China.
What does The New York Times and a majority of other legacy media have in common with Big Pharma? Answer: They’re largely owned by BlackRock and the Vanguard Group, the two largest asset management firms in the world. Moreover, it turns out these two companies form a secret monopoly that own just about everything else you can think of too.
On Sunday, widespread criticism of Microsoft founder Bill Gates began on Twitter in India with the #ArrestBillGates. Gates is being accused of funding a programme in 2009 of testing and sterilizing indigenous vaccines on tribal children via his NGO Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
Turkey has not said its last in northern Syria, as the situation appears to be escalating. On June 12th, at least 22 people, mostly civilians, were killed in heavy shelling in the Turkish-occupied city of Afrin. At least 35 were injured in the attack. The bombing of the city of Afrin also caused huge material damage to civilian property, including homes, cars and shops.
Say NO to the machinations of the new dictators and their accomplices. These have already begun to “thin out” humanity with their Corona emergency measures and killer vaccines and plunge it into economic and social chaos. Educate yourself in the alternative media so that you know about the gigantic deception of humanity regarding the Covid-19 virus.
Eight people in Maine have died with COVID after being fully vaccinated, according to the latest numbers from Maine’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which confirmed a total of 457 breakthrough cases in the state. Initial data suggest breakthrough cases in Maine are more common in older individuals and people with underlying health conditions — the same populations that, among the unvaccinated, are most at risk of hospitalization or death from the virus.
With the exception of his perseverance in a long overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden has been assiduously pursuing policies that make the world a more dangerous place for Americans, up to and including opening up the country’s southern border to waves of illegal immigration.
Have Polish politicians come from imposing on the World a vision of Poland as a relentless victim of “Russian aggression” – into a phase of despair and desperation? This is how Polish statements on eastern matters are starting to look like, in particular as far are the issue of Nord Stream 2 and the Joe Biden-Vladimir Putin summit concerned.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
Dr. Robert Malone (father of mRNA vaccines) and Steve Kirsch, wunderkind inventor, all of whom have dived very deeply into the weeds.
All extremely bright. The debate and discussion should be compelling for anyone who listens.
Malone has a long history of research and consulting and knows a tremendous amount regarding FDA regulation, as well as knowing the federal regulatory players. Such as “I discussed this issue with Peter Marks,” who is head of vaccines at FDA.
.
Dr. Meryll Lynch, June 15, 2021
***
Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of mRNA Vaccine technology.
Mr. Steve Kirsch is a serial entrepreneur who has been researching adverse reactions to COVID vaccines.
Dr. Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist.
Bret talks to Robert and Steve about the pandemic, treatment and the COVID vaccines.
*
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.
Si è svolto il 14 giugno, al quartier generale di Bruxelles, il Summit Nato: il Consiglio Nord Atlantico al massimo livello dei capi di stato e di governo. Esso è stato presieduto formalmente dal segretario generale Jens Stoltenberg, di fatto dal presidente degli Stati uniti Joseph Biden, venuto in Europa per chiamare alle armi gli Alleati nel conflitto globale contro Russia e Cina.
Il Summit Nato è stato preceduto e preparato da due iniziative politiche che hanno visto Biden protagonista – la firma della Nuova Carta Atlantica e il G7 – e sarà seguito dal vertice del presidente Biden col presidente della Federazione Russa Vladimir Putin, il 16 a Ginevra, il cui esito è preannunciato dal rifiuto di Biden di tenere, come di prassi, una conferenza stampa finale con Putin.
La Nuova Carta Atlantica, firmata il 10 giugno a Londra dal Presidente degli Stati uniti e dal Primo ministro britannico Boris Johnson, è un significativo documento politico al quale i media nostrani hanno dato scarso rilievo.
La Carta Atlantica storica – firmata dal presidente Usa Roosevelt e dal primo ministro britannico Churchill nell’agosto 1941, due mesi dopo che la Germania nazista aveva invaso l’Unione Sovietica –enunciava i valori su cui si sarebbe basato il futuro ordine mondiale, garantito dalle «grandi democrazie», anzitutto la rinuncia all’uso della forza, l’autodeterminazione dei popoli e i loro uguali diritti nell’accesso alle risorse.
Dopo che la Storia ha dimostrato come siano stati applicati tali valori, ora la Carta Atlantica «rivitalizzata» ribadisce l’impegno a «difendere i nostri valori democratici contro coloro che cercano di minarli». A tal fine Usa e Gran Bretagna assicurano gli Alleati che potranno sempre contare sui «nostri deterrenti nucleari» e che «la Nato resterà una alleanza nucleare».
Il Summit G7, svoltosi in Cornovaglia l’11-13 giugno, intima alla Russia di «porre fine al suo comportamento destabilizzante e alle sue attività maligne, compresa la sua interferenza nei sistemi democratici di altri paesi», e accusa la Cina di «pratiche non di mercato che minano il funzionamento equo e trasparente dell’economia globale».
Con queste e altre accuse (formulate con le stesse parole di Washington), le potenze europee del G7 – Gran Bretagna, Germania, Francia e Italia, che sono allo stesso tempo le maggiori potenze europee della Nato – si sono allineate con gli Stati uniti prima dello stesso Summit Nato.
Esso si è aperto con la dichiarazione che «la nostra relazione con la Russia è al punto più basso dalla fine della guerra fredda: ciò è dovuto alle azioni aggressive della Russia» e che «il rafforzamento militare della Cina, la sua crescente influenza e il suo comportamento coercitivo pongono sfide alla nostra sicurezza». Una vera e propria dichiarazione di guerra che, capovolgendo la realtà, non lascia spazio a trattative che allentino la tensione. Il Summit ha dichiarato aperto un «nuovo capitolo» nella storia della Alleanza, basato sull’agenda «Nato 2030».
Viene rafforzato il «legame transatlantico» tra Stati uniti ed Europa su tutti i piani – politico, militare, economico, tecnologico, spaziale ed altri – con una strategia che spazia su scala globale, dal Nord America all’Europa, dall’Asia all’Africa In tale quadro gli Usa schiereranno tra non molto in Europa contro la Russia e in Asia contro la Cina nuove bombe nucleari e nuovi missili nucleari a medio raggio.
Da qui la decisione del Summit di accrescere ulteriormente la spesa militare: gli Stati uniti, la cui spesa ammonta a quasi il 70% di quella complessiva dei 30 paesi della Nato, spingono gli Alleati europei ad accrescerla.
L’Italia, dal 2015, ha aumentato la sua spesa annua di 10 miliardi, portandola nel 2021 (secondo i dati Nato) a circa 30 miliardi di dollari, la quinta in ordine di grandezza fra i 30 paesi Nato, ma il livello che deve raggiungere supera i 40 miliardi di dollari annui.
Viene allo stesso tempo rafforzato il ruolo del Consiglio Nord Atlantico, l’organo politico dell’Alleanza che, secondo le norme Nato, decide non a maggioranza ma sempre «all’unanimità e di comune accordo», ossia d’accordo con quanto deciso a Washington.
Ciò comporta un ulteriore indebolimento dei parlamenti europei, in particolare di quello italiano, già oggi privati di reali poteri decisionali su politica estera e militare dato che 21 dei 27 paesi della Ue appartengono alla Nato.
Non tutti i paesi europei sono però sullo stesso piano: Gran Bretagna, Francia e Germania trattano con gli Stati uniti in base ai propri interessi, mentre l’Italia si accoda alle decisioni di Washington contro i suoi stessi interessi.
I contrasti economici (ad esempio quello tra Germania e Usa sul North Stream) passano però in secondo piano di fronte al superiore comune interesse: far sì che l’Occidente mantenga il suo predominio in un mondo in cui emergono, o riemergono, nuovi soggetti statuali e sociali.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
The world has been treated to successive spectacles of national leaders gathering at a G7 Summit in Cornwall and a NATO Summit in Brussels.
The U.S. corporate media have portrayed these summits as chances for President Biden to rally the leaders of the world’s democratic nations in a coordinated response to the most serious problems facing the world, from the COVID pandemic, climate change and global inequality to ill-defined “threats to democracy” from Russia and China.
But there’s something seriously wrong with this picture. Democracy means “rule by the people.” While that can take different forms in different countries and cultures, there is a growing consensus in the United States that the exceptional power of wealthy Americans and corporations to influence election results and government policies has led to a de facto system of government that fails to reflect the will of the American people on many critical issues.
So when President Biden meets with the leaders of democratic countries, he represents a country that is, in many ways, an undemocratic outlier rather than a leader among democratic nations. This is evident in:
the “legalized bribery” of 2020’s $14.4 billion federal election, compared with recent elections in Canada and the U.K. that cost less than 1% of that, under strict rules that ensure more democratic results;
a defeated President proclaiming baseless accusations of fraud and inciting a mob to invade the U.S. Congress on January 6 2021;
news media that have been commercialized, consolidated, gutted and dumbed down by their corporate owners, making Americans easy prey for misinformation by unscrupulous interest groups, and leaving the U.S. in 44th place on Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index;
the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, with over two million people behind bars, and systemic police violence on a scale never seen in other wealthy nations;
the injustice of extreme inequality, poverty and cradle-to-grave debt for millions in an otherwise wealthy nation;
an exceptional lack of economic and social mobility compared to other wealthy countries that is the antithesis of the mythical “American Dream”;
a recent history of illegal invasions, massacres of civilians, torture, drone assassinations, extraordinary renditions and indefinite detention at Guantanamo—with no accountability;
Fortunately though, Americans are not the only ones asking what is wrong with American democracy. The Alliance of Democracies Foundation (ADF), founded by former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, conducted a poll of 50,000 people in 53 countries between February and April 2021, and found that people around the world share our concerns about America’s dystopian political system and imperial outrages.
Probably the most startling result of the poll to Americans would be its finding that more people around the world (44%) see the United States as a threat to democracy in their countries than China (38%) or Russia (28%), which makes nonsense of U.S. efforts to justify its revived Cold War on Russia and China in the name of democracy.
In a larger poll of 124,000 people that ADF conducted in 2020, countries where large majorities saw the United States as a danger to democracy included China, but also Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, France, Greece, Belgium, Sweden and Canada.
After tea with the Queen at Windsor Castle, Biden swooped into Brussels on Air Force One for a NATO summit to advance its new “Strategic Concept,” which is nothing more than a war plan for World War III against both Russia and China.
But we take solace from evidence that the people of Europe, whom the NATO war plan counts on as front-line troops and mass casualty victims, are not ready to follow President Biden to war. A January 2021 survey by the European Council on Foreign Affairs found that large majorities of Europeans want to remain neutral in any U.S. war on Russia or China. Only 22% would want their country to take the U.S. side in a war on China, and 23% in a war on Russia.
Few Americans realize that Biden already came close to war with Russia in March and April, when the United States and NATO supported a new Ukrainian offensive in its civil war against Russian-allied separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. Russia moved tens of thousands of heavily-armed troops to its borders with Ukraine, to make it clear that it was ready to defend its Ukrainian allies and was quite capable of doing so. On April 13th, Biden blinked, turned round two U.S. destroyers that were steaming into the Black Sea and called Putin to request the summit that is now taking place.
The antipathy of ordinary people everywhere toward the U.S. determination to provoke military confrontation with Russia and China begs serious questions about the complicity of their leaders in these incredibly dangerous, possibly suicidal, U.S. policies. When ordinary people all over the world can see the dangers and pitfalls of following the United States as a model and a leader, why do their neoliberal leaders keep showing up to lend credibility to the posturing of U.S. leaders at summits like the G7 and NATO?
Maybe it is precisely because the United States has succeeded in what the corporate ruling classes of other nations also aspire to, namely greater concentrations of wealth and power and less public interference in their “freedom” to accumulate and control them.
Maybe the leaders of other wealthy countries and military powers are genuinely awed by the dystopian American Dream as the example par excellence of how to sell inequality, injustice and war to the public in the name of freedom and democracy.
In that case, the fact that people in other wealthy countries are not so easily led to war or lured into political passivity and impotence would only increase the awe of their leaders for their American counterparts, who literally laugh all the way to the bank as they pay lip service to the sanctity of the American Dream and the American People.
Ordinary people in other countries are right to be wary of the Pied Piper of American “leadership,” but their rulers should be too. The fracturing and disintegration of American society should stand as a warning to neoliberal governments and ruling classes everywhere to be more careful what they wish for.
Instead of a world in which other countries emulate or fall victim to America’s failed experiment in extreme neoliberalism, the key to a peaceful, sustainable and prosperous future for all the world’s people, including Americans, lies in working together, learning from each other and adopting policies that serve the public good and improve the lives of all, especially those most in need. There’s a name for that. It’s called democracy.
*
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).
There’s nothing remotely safe and effective about four entries into the covid mass-jabbing sweepstakes.
When taken as directed, they risk irreversible harm, shortened lifespans, and death near-or-longer-term.
They increase the likelihood of contracting the viral illness they’re supposed to protect against, but don’t — because they’re not designed for this purpose, just the opposite.
They also greatly increase the risk of contracting any or a combination of other serious diseases — another one of its diabolical aims.
All covid vaccines are designed to harm health, not protect and preserve it.
We’ve been lied to and mass deceived by US/Western dark forces, their public health handmaidens — like charlatan Fauci — Pharma profiteers, and their press agent media.
Novavax is the latest toxic covid vaccine that’s heading for availability ahead, a company press release on Monday, saying the following:
Its “recombinant nanoparticle protein-based (covid) vaccine…is one step closer to” becoming available in the West and elsewhere, adding:
“The company intends to file for regulatory authorizations in the third quarter.”
US emergency use authorization — when no emergency exists — may not be sought until September.
According to its CEO Stanley Erck, the company may seek authorization in Britain, the EU, India and South Korea before the US.
The company’s press release said nothing about the vaccine’s hazardous recombinant nanoparticle protein-based delivery system.
A previous article cited Professor of Viral Immunology Byram Bridle.
He explained that the spike protein in covid jabs spreads throughout the body.
It harms the spleen, liver, bone marrow, adrenal glands, ovaries and other organs.
It adversely affects the platelets, risking blood clots, brain bleeding, heart and neurological problems.
According to Bridle, covid jabs are bioweaponized delivery systems.
“We have known for a long time that the spike protein is a pathogenic protein,” he said, adding:
“It is a toxin (that can) cause damage in our body if it gets into circulation.”
On Monday, Joseph Mercola discussed major problems Bridle learned about hazardous covid jabs, saying:
Spike proteins in Pfizer/Modern jabs “cause cardiovascular and neurological damage…also reproductive toxicity (by) bind(ing) to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels.”
“When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding.”
Novavx is a two-dose jab that contains a proprietary Matrix-M adjuvant, according to the company.
Pharmaceutical-Technology.com explained that Novavax’s entry into the covid-jabbing sweepstakes “is a subunit (covid) vaccine.”
Like others in use, it’s just as toxic and deadly.
Like Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, and AstraZeneca entries, it was rushed to market in months — failing to follow vaccine development protocol.
Requiring about 6 -12 years of testing, only around 2% of vaccines are approved for human use.
Mercola explained that Bridle received a “$230,000 government grant for research on (covid) vaccine development,” adding:
“As part of that research, he and a team of international scientists requested a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency.”
“(P)reviously unseen, (it) demonstrates a huge problem with all” drugs for covid jabbing, Bridle stressing:
“We made a big mistake.”
“We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen…”
“(W)e never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein.”
“So, by (jabbing) people, we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.”
Other noted medical and scientific experts agree.
One point of disagreement with Bridle.
Covid jabs were designed to harm, not protect, as part of a US/Western depopulation scheme to mass-infect maximum numbers of people worldwide.
Its aim is wanting potentially billions of unwitting people eliminated.
That’s what seasonal flu-renamed covid mass-jabbing is all about.
As long as the mother of all diabolical scams continues unchecked, the human toll will be catastrophic.
If unjabbed, don’t sign your premature death warrant by self-inflicting harm.
If already jabbed, take no more when so-called booster jabs begin to be heavily promoted — likely during the upcoming 2021-22 flu season.
Mass casualties already occurred in the West and elsewhere.
The worst lies ahead as long as mass-jabbing with deadly toxins 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.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
The Macedonian public (or I should say, a vast majority of it) is troubled and upset by the news from the White House.
Joe Biden’s Executive Order Blocking Property and Suspending Entry Into the United States of Certain Persons Contributing to the Destabilizing Situation in the Western Balkans accompanied by Notice on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to the Western Balkans was issued on 8 June 2021.
At this moment I am not aware of the reactions in the other Western Balkan countries, but the bottom line is that this is much ado about nothing (new)!
The key point is that the pawn states get occasionally surprised by something that is far from being unimportant but has been present all along; actually, occasionally they awake from the delusion of national independence and popular sovereignty.
For a short while – and then get back to sleepwalking.
The bare fact is that the executive order has been updated in the last 20 years. There is nothing novel, except that the new agreements, the brainchildren of the US corridors of powers, get listed along with the Dayton Agreement, the Kumanovo Agreement, and the Ohrid Framework Agreement. These are the agreements mediated by Washington D.C. with more or less assistance by Brussels, which allegedly ‘resolved’ the bloody conflicts on the territory of former Yugoslavia and ‘stabilized the region’, which is of national interest and even important for the national security of the USA.
The Macedonian public (still traumatized by the forceful name change of 2018/2019 due to the agreement concluded between Skopje and Athens) reacts to the implicit threat that any dissent against the Prespa Agreement (as well as the 2001 Ohrid Framework agreement) would be seen as a hostile act against the US and would be treated accordingly.
The Executive Order states that inter alia it targets
“actors engaged in a violation of, or an act that has obstructed or threatened the implementation of, any regional security, peace, cooperation, or mutual recognition agreement or framework or accountability mechanism related to the Western Balkans beyond previous E.O.s, to include the Prespa Agreement…”
In short, the USA is ‘concerned’ about the possible destabilization of the region.
In one of my recent scholarly articles, I explained the geopolitics of the Prespa Agreement (PA), and why it destabilizes the country and the region rather than promotes peaceful coexistence and cooperation.
The PA served the US (and NATO) interests in the context of the multipolar micro-system in the Balkan region but has severely harmed the national (and even vital) interests of the small Macedonian state. Who cares about the academic views, after all? However, many of my colleagues and friends got concerned that from now on they will not be allowed to criticize the PA and the Ohrid Framework Agreement (that introduced a power-sharing system between the ethnic Macedonians and ethnic Albanians and thus turned the country into a consociational political arrangement that is as ineffective and corrupted as the Dayton Bosnia still is). It struck me at a moment that this interpretation of an old and revamp Executive order may serve as an excuse for further self-censorship and silence in academia. My response to them is the following:
Not that those in the fortress Kale (i.e. the US Embassy in Skopje) and their servants have not taken notice of my public dissent since long ago and are aware of exactly who I am and what (I) cannot do – but still, there is an urge to tell them publicly that I do not care about the executive orders of their president (I don’t give a damn) but I do care about their deeds.
My very existence, my voice, the constant use of the words Macedonia&Macedonians (never Northern) is (for now) my only way of resisting against the neo-colonial master.
By the way, this text was originally written in Macedonian and is going to be published as my regular newspaper column (as long as there is no censorship or pressure on the editor) but I thought it was not enough. So here it is in English too, to make myself even clearer to the thought police. My criticism is also neither a new one nor concerns only the US policy towards my country. I have been outspoken against Pax Americana both at home and abroad for years, but since 2018 I am especially proud of myself whenever I manage to publish or speak about Macedonia, stubbornly repeating the (old) constitutional name to the awe of the Greek and Western public.
All the fuss over Biden’s supposedly ‘new order’, which would punish anyone who directly or indirectly opposed the Ohrid and Prespa Accords, is not only exaggerated but it benefits the establishment and its media and civilian satellites, who get the wind at their backs boasting that Washington stands by them and that they are on the right side of history. Prime Minister Zaev even put it explicitly:
“The US – the most perfect democracy in the world sent a most serious message to all defectors and faultfinders.”
It’s indeed hard to understand the short memory syndrome even with smart people: this executive order is 20 years old! It’s only being renewed (updated) along with the new American successes that need to be protected. It’s both deplorable and ridiculous to consider the Dayton, Kumanovo, Ohrid, and now Prespa agreements as issues of US national security – but it’s nothing new. I would not be surprised if the next executive order include the so-called Bulgarian agreement that is currently re-negotiated between Skopje and Sofia in a way to completely de-Macedonianize anything that has been missed in the other two agreements. (It would not be a surprise if the annex is renamed into Dojran Agreement, thus all natural lakes’ names will be well-used for labeling the international arrangements of the Macedonian protectorate.
The Executive Order’s references to anti-corruption is a circus is to die of laughter: one would think they got really concerned at the White House for crime and corruption in the region (since, there is no political and other corruption in the US House of Cards at all, trust me). Without the so-called ‘Balkan methods’ (as the then EU Enlargement Commissioner Hahn called them in October 2018) there would not have been a constitutional change in Macedonia at all! The entire endeavor of crisis management, state building and ‘therapeutic governance’ introduced by Washington (with the help of Brussels) is based exactly on selection and bringing on power suitable ‘Balkan princes’ (who have no clue who was Machiavelli). All they need is to be cooperative and obedient to Western interests. In their free time, they can run various dirty businesses, marijuana and hard drugs, sell out all natural resources, make deals with the urban mafia, etc. – as long as they guarantee stabilitocracy in the state and the region, i.e. in the Western sphere of interest.
Stabilitocracy is just a new academic expression of an old phenomenon – of vassalage for the sake of the status quo that is in favor of the colonial master. Apart from the political establishment composed of mainly injudicious and greedy characters, the operation has already yielded results where mind, reason, academic freedom and/or intellectual dissent are expected. A brilliant columnist (Igor Radev) described extremely well the phenomenon of our ‘brown sahibs’, and their mission to establish and cultivate Western cultural hegemony, which is more powerful than overt physical/military occupation. This is a direct attack on the collective mind of a nation and on individuals: the ultimate result is the ‘captive mind’, usually linked known to the communist dictatorships. To be a ‘dangerous element’ or a black sheep on a blacklist of dictatorships, Eastern or Western, is an honor for anyone who sticks to himself/herself and his/her integrity, whom power neither can blind nor corrupt.
Some of us have been talking for a long time about the neocolonial vise we are stuck in, which we are often not even aware of because it is vailed in a package of wishful thinking of progress, Western values, integration etc. Here one will hardly find at least ten prominent people who will dare say they are against Macedonia’s membership in NATO and the EU. Even if among them there is someone who is against the military alliance (for various reasons), the criticism against the corporate and imperial EU will stand in his/her throat.
Until we admit that we are slaves, we will not even know how to start fighting for freedom – or what to do with it! Biden’s order (previously enacted and changed by each of his predecessors) is merely the example of the ‘cowboy way’ of dealing with potential adversaries. Of course, we who only write and speak are insignificant and unimportant for the power corners: they know that our influence is still limited or timid. If by any chance our voice is heard wider or articulated politically, other disciplinary measures will follow, for which not issuing a US visa will be a joke. We are dealing here with a ruthless Lord of the Rings: Assange, Manning and Snowden are the best illustrations of what is happening to those who speak the truth to power.
What should we learn from such a powerful and continuous insistence on the implementation of the Ohrid and Prespa Agreements, raised to the level of the Holy Scriptures, by the White House? First of all, it means that there is nothing left of our national sovereignty!
We are an empty shell, nominally a state, and de facto a protectorate. The key of the ‘eternal clause’ for non-change of the Constitution (i.e. the basic social contract) is in their hands and a single letter cannot be altered without their blessing.
The experience teaches us that they give amen only when it is in their own interest, even if it assumes paying dearly with further de-Macedonianization. Let me remind that the Ohrid Agreement was originally drafted in English by American experts, it was never ratified by the parliament or supported on a referendum. It was cast into constitutional amendments in November 2001 under duress from within and from abroad. It can hardly be named a constitution – it’s a manifest of a continuous capitulation and self-denial).
The inclusion of the Ohrid Agreement into the preamble in 2019 was just a ‘cherry on the top of the American pie.’ The annual reports or executive orders that come from the West are meant to guarantee the existence of the deeply divided binational state – as long as it suits the colonial master. Actually, the previous US Ambassador had already prepared the ground for an alleged dialogue over the possible federalization of the country, which is a step short of its final separation along ethnic lines. All proposals for a new Constituent Assembly that would draft a normal, civic constitutional text, are just cries of some courageous people who have probably decided that traveling to the West is not a priority in their lives.
The Prespa Agreement is a bit of a tragicomic story bearing in mind its content. It seems as if the US national interest was to resolve the dispute over who Alexander the Great belonged to and who are ‘real’ Macedonians.
The deal was allegedly concluded between representatives of two sovereign states in a form of a bilateral treaty in which the United States allegedly had no influence (I discussed the matter with my Greek colleague Alexis Heraclides, who recently published a book on the Macedonian issue, but he remained convinced there was no American interference or arm-twisting). The executive orders speak differently.
Furthermore, neither the document was written by the representatives of the Macedonian and Greek sides, nor was it agreed through direct negotiations as the official narrative goes. It was an enforced document, the brainchild of the Western corridors of power, and this is still is a project that must not fail. We still remember how the agreement was introduced in the Constitution: against the will of the people expressed on the 2018 referendum, against the constitutional procedure, by bribing and intimidating MPs, etc.
Any intellectual flashes that come from some of our most brilliant people who have preserved the power to imagine a better Macedonia, and to suggest visions and strategies, and even call us that it is time to wake up – are encouraging individual acts. In an atmosphere where Biden’s ‘order’ is the wind at the back to the duplicitous and inept government, the loyal civil sector, and even the academic credentials that come from my colleagues, any such public appearance is and will be tantamount to personal heroism. But the question is, can we change something collectively, together? This is a rhetorical question, of course.
Even these we are symbolically rebelling against will not mind if we stand for democratic processes, human rights, non-discrimination, international integration, the fight against corruption (which must not take its toll when it comes to ruling elites and the pandemic of inequality) – as long as our plans are not too radical (i.e. do not get to the root of things). The root of the problem is not only in our incompetence but also in the fact that we are an occupied territory with a people that are not yet ready for self-sacrifice, powerless and stripped out of its identity, humiliated and frightened.
Fear, conformism and opportunism are dangerous matters – a cancerous wound for every libertarian mind. I see it in my immediate environment when in a closed meeting among a dozen colleagues, the head of the department persistently talks about North Macedonia (I do not know if she is afraid of being betrayed by someone that she is politically incorrect or because she benefits from cooperation). It is reminiscent of scenes familiar with Stalinism, Orwell’s 1984, the 1948 Informbureau aftermath – afraid of each other, people chose self-censorship. Nothing new, right? The only novelty is that this pressure now comes from the West.
How to move on from here? Only by keeping the embers smoldering and not letting them completely extinguish. By adding fuel, protecting them from strong winds, and nurturing a rebellious spirit, even in small circles. Things need to be seen in a perspective, not from today to tomorrow. I may not experience change, but I believe it’s inevitable.
One of my most brilliant and bravest friends, Jan Oberg recently told me:
“Whatever we do, Biljana, we are wasting time trying to save the US/NATO/EU (from themselves) and our role in it. TFF and I are independent to do what is exciting, gives hope and where mutual listening and learning is possible. It is no longer within the West. Therefore, there is also no alternative future for the West but decline and then fall. Tragic!! A slow suicide – where co-existence, win-win with China and everybody else would be perfectly possible.”
I agree with him – Macedonia is just one pawn on the table of ‘saving the West’.
The West has lost its way the moment it trampled on the postulates of the Enlightenment and everything in which it allegedly represents.
Is there anything progressive and benevolent in a power that amputates parts of a small nation and does not allow it to cry?
This treatment is not exclusive for Macedonia, of course. If the West does not bomb you, then it silences you and scares/cancels you with executive orders.
In the meantime, the world still has four sides and is rapidly changing. We in the Balkans remain blind staring at the setting sun while the East rises, in every way – from cultural to political and economic.
*
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).
The NATO Summit took place yesterday at the headquarters in Brussels: the North Atlantic Council at the highest level of State and Government Leaders. It was formally chaired by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, de facto by the President of the United States Joseph Biden, who came to Europe to call to arms his Allies in the global conflict against Russia and China. The NATO Summit was preceded and prepared by two political initiatives that saw Biden as the protagonist – the signing of the New Atlantic Charter, and the G7 – and they will be followed by President Biden’s meeting with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on June 16 in Geneva. The meeting outcome is heralded by Biden’s refusal to hold the usual final press conference with Putin.
The New Atlantic Charter was signed on June 10 in London by the President of the United States and the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It is a significant political document to which our media have given little importance. The historic Atlantic Charter – signed by the US President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill in August 1941, two months after Nazi Germany had invaded the Soviet Union – enunciated the values on which the future world order would be based with “Great democracies” warranty: above all the renunciation of the use of force, the self-determination of peoples, and their equal rights in access to resources. Later history has shown how these values have been applied. Now the “revitalized” Atlantic Charter reaffirms its commitment to “defend our democratic values against those who try to undermine them“. To this end, the US and Great Britain assure their Allies that they will always be able to count on “our nuclear deterrents” and that “NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”.
The G7 Summit, held in Cornwall from June 11 to June 13, ordered Russia to “stop its destabilising behaviour and malign activities, including its interference in other countries’ democratic systems“, and it accused China of “non-market policies and practices which undermine the fair and transparent operation of the global economy“. With these and other accusations (formulated in Washington’s own words), the European powers of the G7 – Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy, which are at the same time the major European NATO powers – aligned with the United States before the NATO Summit.
The NATO Summit opened with the statement that “our relationship with Russia is at its lowest point since the end of the Cold War. This is due to Russia’s aggressive actions” and that “China’s military build-up, growing influence and coercive behaviour also poses some challenges to our security”. A veritable declaration of war that, by turning reality upside down, leaves no room for negotiations to ease the tension.
The Summit opened a “new chapter” in the history of the Alliance, based on the “NATO 2030” Agenda. The “Transatlantic link” between the United States and Europe is strengthened on all levels – political, military, economic, technological, space, and others – with a strategy that spans on a global scale from North and South America to Europe, from Asia to Africa. In this context, the US will soon deploy new nuclear bombs and new medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe against Russia and in Asia against China. Hence the decision of the Summit to further increase military spending: the United States, whose expenditure amounts to almost 70% of the 30 NATO countries’ total, is pushing the European Allies to increase it. Since 2015, Italy has increased its annual spending by 10 billion, bringing it to about 30 billion dollars in 2021 (according to NATO data), the fifth nation in order of magnitude among the 30 NATO countries, but the level to reach is more than 40 billion dollars annually.
At the same time, the role of the North Atlantic Council is strengthened. It is the political body of the Alliance, which decides not by the majority but always “unanimously and by mutualagreement” according to NATO rules, that is, in agreement with what is decided in Washington. The strengthened role of the North Atlantic Council entails a further weakening of the European Parliaments, in particular the Italian Parliament that is already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy, given that 21 out of the 27 EU Countries belong to NATO.
However, not all European countries are on the same level: Great Britain, France and Germany negotiate with the United States on the basis of their own interests, while Italy agrees to Washington’s decisions against its own interests. The economic contrasts (for example the contrast on the North Stream pipeline between Germany and the USA) take a back seat to the superior common interest: to ensure that the West maintains its dominance in a world where new State and social subjects emerge or re-emerge.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
Have Polish politicians come from imposing on the World a vision of Poland as a relentless victim of “Russian aggression” – into a phase of despair and desperation? This is how Polish statements on eastern matters are starting to look like, in particular as far are the issue of Nord Stream 2 and the Joe Biden-Vladimir Putin summit concerned.
Shere Khan abandoned Tabaqui?
By linking all their geopolitical hopes only with Donald Trump’s victory – even the leaders of Polish ruling party, the Law and Justice (PiS) are probably already aware that they have put Poland in a situation with no way out. Our state is not only waging an incessant propaganda war against Russia, not only has it been involved in a pitifully unsuccessful coup attempt in Belarus – but has also been in conflicts with practically all neighbours, even those described as “strategic allies”. So, the last chance for political Warsaw was the American Democratic War Hawks, usually no less anti-Russian than the Republican right. And again, however, the disastrous Polish understanding of American politics made itself felt. Poland played blindly to continue or even tighten sanctions on Nord Stream2, to increase NATO’s presence in Ukraine, and to complete the coup in Belarus. Meanwhile, none of these scenarios is currently being implemented, and Poland, with its anti-Russian campaign, has been left alone, like a… still inciting jackal, surprised by the escape of its tiger boss.
Forgotten word normalization
Of course, any independent state, even the worst governed – would have understood long ago that such a policy leads nowhere, only increasing the costs and losses on the Polish side. We are not even talking about any great geopolitical change, there is no statesman of the appropriate format for such a manoeuvre among the Polish political elite. Self-imposing, however, would be at least to calm down the atmosphere, mute the anti-Belarusian campaign and withdraw from the most absurd anti-Russian declarations and actions. Even if the Polish Government did it insincerely and against itself – it could at least be a signal that at least some of the reasons for Poland’s disastrous international position were understood. And although Minsk and Moscow have no reasons for treating such a hypothetical change other than with distrust, it would be a first, completely basic step to normalization.
And if no one in Warsaw can think in such strategic terms, they could at least understand the tactical idea: the shadow of suggesting to Western capitals that Poles can also figure out something and are not prisoners of their own phobias and imposed propaganda. Sure – in the West hardly anyone would believe that Poles are smart enough to do it, but again, a seed of doubt could grow over time. And it would be all the easier to do, and also to sell it to the Polish public, as our compatriots, if they remembered anything more or less correctly from recent history – this is the slogan of “the West Betrayal”.
This concept has a long tradition in Polish consciousness. That is how was called the indifference of Western capitals to the partitions of Poland in the 18th century and the 123-year occupation of our country by Germany, Russia and Austria. For Poles classical example of the West Betrayal was especially the Phoney War in 1939, when for several weeks we stood alone against Hitler. And finally, leaving post-war Poland in the Soviet bloc is considered an allied betrayal as well. That is why Poland loves the West with a hopeless love, but at the same time full of regret and distrust. We are a nation of mental children and ruling women, who take offense when someone chooses their own interests instead of giving Poland gifts.
And this motive should be played now, explaining the change of accents. The more so as Law and Justice does everything it does, also in international politics – only in terms of being attractive in the eyes of its own electorate. And the Polish Government is pretty sure that cannot change anything in Polish diplomacy, because voters will never buy it. But Polish leader Jarosław Kaczyński can be absolutely wrong with that if only he plays smart with the complexes and resentments still alive among Poles. Instead of hating Russia, he should recall Poland’s distrust of the West, all unfulfilled Polish hopes and dreams related to the desire for Western acceptance of Poland and turning it all into a noticeable improvement in the international situation of Poland, now strongly resents the West again. Unfortunately, nor Jarosław Kaczynski, neither any other Polish mainstream politician is independently thinking and acting enough to do this.
Resistant to the hate campaign?
And we should be sorry of that, because maybe Polish nation ready for such a change. After all, according to the March WCIOM poll, the majority of surveyed Poles and Russians believe that both countries should treat each other as an ally (42 percent of Poles, 40 percent of Russians) or even a friend (22 and 28 percent respectively). Moreover, the results of similar surveys have remained at this surprisingly high level for years – despite the invariably (for a decade) intensity of the aggressive Russophobic campaign in Poland. Meanwhile, a large part of Polish society, even repeating the same political or historical clichés, reluctant to Russia, sees no reasons why relations with the contemporary Russian state should not be simply NORMAL.
Of course, every statistic Pole is bombarded every day with hundreds of news about further examples of “Russian aggression”, about the “terrible possessiveness of the Kremlin”, about dozens of Moscow spies on every corner etc. But it can also be assumed that there is an effect of tiredness, and also negative verification of this propaganda. The anti-Russian campaign in Poland was intensified together with the coup in Ukraine in 2014 with the goal to increase Polish support for the Westernization processes in Kiev. That was the moment when the hunt for the Russian spies began, with intention to silent all circles supporting simply normal Polish-Russian relations, as well as those demanding a more decisive attitude towards the revival of banderites Nazism in Ukraine. But even blind people can see now that seven years have passed, and this terrible Putin still has not attacked us!
Sure, Poles are told that it is thanks to our great governments and even better alliances that terrify the Moscow satrap so terribly. But even dumbfounded a typical Pole he has his own Slavic cleverness, saying him: Well, if the Russians are not THAT scary after all – why not make a deal with them on our own, discretionally? And if they really are SO terrible – it is an even better argument for agreement!
However, we should not fall into false optimism – these positive instincts of Poles have no relations to any election decisions so far. Poles generally have a problem with articulating and expressing their political or even socio-economic expectations with the help of ballot papers. On the contrary, they expect ready-made recipes served by the chosen ones, and then take them as they are, without paying attention to details. And foreign policy, despite its fundamental economic implications, remains a detail for the majority of Polish voters, not to mention an even more negative attitude to international affairs on the part of the non-voting majority. It does not differ from the typical attitude also in other media-democratic countries.
The principle of Polish geopolitics
Therefore, Polish leaders do not have to worry about the opinions of voters, focusing on carrying out previously received, even no longer valid orders. So, when we hear and read the official expectations of the government or the so-called opposition in Poland about the Geneva meeting of World leaders will not be met if Joe Biden does not at least shoot, beat, or severely insult and spit on Vladimir Putin, taking away Crimea, Belarus and whatever else he would dream about. The level of media-propaganda aberration in Poland is so high that everything below will be considered capitulation and another Western betrayal. And in parallel – of course, self-control mechanisms will work. Whatever happens, whatever the leaders decide – it will be presented in the Polish media as a Russian defeat,proof of Russia’s weakness and of course Putin’s collapse. It simply cannot be otherwise.
The Poles will not find out what the two presidents really agreed or what the consequences for Poland will be. Only after some time, when the subordinate colonies will receive clear guidelines from the relevant embassies – some changes of accents will be expected, maybe attacking some other enemies as well, maybe some new argues with the neighbours, just to distract Polish attention.
And yet it is also a fundamental principle of Polish geopolitics that as for centuries our relations with all other countries and nations could only be a function of our relations with Russia and Germany and their references to other areas of the world – this is by analogy how Poland’s situation between America and Russia looks today. And even known German economic domination over Poland does not change it, as it is being carried out (still) thanks to the American mandate and acceptance. Therefore, Poland cannot have a foreign policy other than policy towards the USA and policy towards the Russian Federation. And other external (?) economic policy, except the policy towards Germany. Everything else is secondary. And Poland does not have any of these three.
*
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: Russian President Vladimir Putin (ID1974/Shutterstock) and President Joe Biden (Stratos Brilakis/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).
Liebe Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger, marschieren Sie nicht wieder mit, wie die Bürger in Deutschland in den 1930er- und 1940er Jahren mit Hitler mitmarschierten. Sagen Sie NEIN zu den Machenschaften der neuen Diktatoren und ihren Helfershelfern. Diese haben bereits begonnen, die Menschheit mit ihren Corona-Notfall-Maßnahmen und Killer-Impfstoffen „auszudünnen“ und ins wirtschaftliche und soziale Chaos zu stürzen. Informieren Sie sich in den alternativen Medien, damit Sie über den gigantischen Betrug an der Menschheit bezüglich des Covid-19-Virus Bescheid wissen. Obwohl immer mehr davon ans Licht der Öffentlichkeit dringt, werden diese Psychopathen nicht lockerlassen und versuchen, Ihre Pläne weiter durchzusetzen. Die gegenwärtige psychologische Kriegsführung ist nur das Vorspiel für den nächsten teuflischen Schachzug, die „alternativlose“ Dezimierung und absolute Kontrolle der Menschheit aufgrund einer herbeigeredeten Klimakrise. Lesen Sie hierzu die fundierten Artikel der Experten-Kollegen.
Der manipulierte Mensch marschiert mit den Diktatoren mit
Die Menschheit hat lange Zeit im Glauben gelebt, was der Pfarrer und die Kirche gesagt haben. Neue Gedanken waren nicht erlaubt, sie sind geahndet worden. Seit einigen Jahrhunderten haben wir die Zeit der Vernunft. Doch wie schaut diese Zeit der Vernunft aus? Nach wie vor gibt es Mord, Gewalt, Totschlag und Diktaturen. Und wie haben die Menschen reagiert auf diese Diktaturen? Waren in Hitler-Deutschland – ebenso wie in anderen Diktaturen – nicht alle mit dabei: die Arbeiter, die Angestellten, die Roten, die Schwarzen, die Psychologen, die Philosophen, die Kirchenmänner? Alle sind mit Hitler mitmarschiert – bis auf einige Persönlichkeiten, die nicht mitmachen wollten. In der Gesellschaft lebte die Gewalt – und sie lebt auch heute noch. Wir atmen die Gewalt. Und wieder marschiert die überwältigende Mehrheit mit.
In der Psychologie weiß man, dass wir Menschen schon in unserer Kindheit durch die Erziehung unserer Eltern manipuliert werden, so dass wir dann auf alles eingehen. Und anschließend werden wir durch den Staat und die verschiedenen Institutionen manipuliert. Der Katholik von seiner Kirche. Der Mensch ist schlussendlich zu allem fähig. Es gibt kaum einen Menschen, der heil davongekommen ist. Der Mensch wird so manipuliert, dass er nicht fähig ist, sich klare Gedanken zu machen, sondern er fällt um. Alle fallen um. Auch die Linken versagen immer wieder.
Ohne Psychologie wird die Menschheit nicht weiterkommen
Dieses Phänomen können wir uns nur erklären mit den Erkenntnissen der Tiefenpsychologie. Ansonsten werden wir immer wieder in die Irre gehen. Der Staat, die Kirche, alle Institutionen und die ganze Erziehung gehen davon aus, den Menschen in eine bestimmte Form zu pressen. Dadurch ergibt sich eine gewisse Tendenz in unserem Denken, in unserem Fühlen: Wir kennen keine andere Meinung. Wir sind so manipuliert, dass wir immer wieder auf die Lockrufe der Autorität hereinfallen und zum Beispiel in den Krieg ziehen. Der Mensch ist so erzogen, dass er nicht NEIN sagen kann. Die autoritäre Erziehung ergibt solche Gefühlsreaktionen. Und außer dem Gefühlsmäßigen ist auch das Denken verunstaltet. Die Menschen sind nicht fähig, sich vernünftige Gedanken zu machen. Deshalb haben wir diese schöne Welt vor uns.
Dem Menschen, der durch diese traditionelle Erziehung gegangen ist, können wir aber keinen Vorwurf machen: nicht dem Psychologen, nicht dem Philosophen, nicht dem Pfarrer, nicht dem Bischof und auch nicht dem Papst. Wir können nur an sie appellieren: Sagt NEIN!
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.
All Global Research articles 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 Sunday, widespread criticism of Microsoft founder Bill Gates began on Twitter in India with the #ArrestBillGates. Gates is being accused of funding a programme in 2009 of testing and sterilizing indigenous vaccines on tribal children via his NGO Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).
It is being claimed that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation conducted an unlawful clinical trial of a vaccine on tribal children, without the consent of their parents.
As per a GreatGameIndia report, a Seattle-based NGO, Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), with funding by BMGF, conducted trials in Telangana’s Khammam wherein they administered the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to 14,000 tribal girls of 10-14 years of age.
The report suggests that many children fell ill and four girls died after being injected with Gardasil. Their families, however, did not know that their children were being administered with it. It is believed that most of the girls’ parents had no knowledge of the trials as the girls lived in government-run hostels.
Hansraj Meena, Socio-Political Activist and Founder of Tribal Army, took to Twitter today to share this news.
This is a story where a foreign entity uses 14,000 Indian tribal girls as guinea pigs. Several died and many had severe side effects. But the company and its drug prosper and make millions. There was a pact of silence globally. #ArrestBillGateshttps://t.co/7Oo5ds1o7U
Apparently, an article by the Economic Times voiced this news back in 2014.
𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬
Seems like this news got buried in Aug 2014 as there were no outrage at that time but it is covered by prominent news outlets.#ArrestBillGateshttps://t.co/rRRYfR32E2
It's heartbreaking news #ArrestBillGates who killed the humility, but sensitive thing who has permitted him in India for the trial of vaccine on tribal girls? It's indicating so many things including the level of degradation looking the highest level of Dracula.@HansrajMeena
In 2009 Bill & Melinda gate Foundation NGO #PATH conducted unauthorized clinical trials on 14,000 tribal girls of #India as guinea pigs. Several d!ed & had severe side effects. Why pact of silence globally & they r making Billions. #RahulGandhi answer plz #ArrestBillGates#BMGFpic.twitter.com/2tcEdNEv33
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.
