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.

***

Reporters joke the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions and say “No comment’ before heading to Happy Hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information about itself. They meanwhile choose to profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.

Leon Panetta, the Director CIA from 2009 to 2011 explained bluntly his CIA did influence foreign media outlets ahead of elections in order to “change attitudes within the country.” The method, Panetta said, was to “acquire media within a country or within a region that could very well be used for being able to deliver a specific message or work to influence those that may own elements of the media to be able to cooperate, work with you in delivering that message.”

The CIA has been running such information ops to influence foreign elections since the end of WWII. Richard Bissell, who ran the agency’s operations during the Cold War, wrote of “exercising control over a newspaper or broadcasting station, or of securing the desired outcome in an election.” A report on the CIA in Chile boasts the Agency portrayed its favored candidate in one election as a “wise, sincere and high-minded statesman” while painting his leftist opponent as a “calculating schemer.” At one point in the 1980s foreign media insertions ran 80 a day.

The goal is to control information as a tool of influence. Sometimes the control is very direct, simply paying a reporter to run a story, or, as was done in Iraq, simply operating the media outlet yourself (known as the Orwellian Indigenous Media Project.) The problem is such direct action is easily exposed, destroying credibility.

A more effective strategy is to become a source for legitimate media such that your (dis)information inherits their credibility. The most effective is an operation so complex one CIA plant is the initial information source while a second CIA plant acts seemingly independently as a confirming source. At that point you can push information to the mainstream media, who can then “independently” confirm it, sometimes unknowingly, through your secondary agents. You can basically write tomorrow’s headlines.

Other techniques include exclusive true information mixed with disinformation to establish credibility, using official sources like Embassy spokesmen to appear to inadvertently confirm sub details, and covert funding of research and side gigs to promote academics and experts who discredit counter-narratives. The academics may never know where their money comes from, adding to their credibility.

From the end of WWII to the Church Committee in 1976, this was all just a conspiracy theory. Of course the US would not use the CIA to influence elections, especially in fellow democracies. Except it did. By its nature reporting on intelligence always requires one to work with limited information. Always give time a chance to explain.

Through Operation Mockingbird the CIA ran over 400 American journalists as direct assets. Almost none have ever discussed their work publically. CIA documents show journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.

The New York Times alone willingly provided cover for about ten CIA officers over decades and kept quiet about it.

Such long term relationships are a powerful tool, so feeding a true big story to a young reporter to get him promoted is part of the game. Don’t forget the anonymous source who drove the Watergate story was an FBI official who through his actions made the careers of  cub reporters Woodward and Bernstein. Bernstein went on to champion the Russiagate story. Woodward became a Washington hagiographer. Ken Dilanian, formerly with the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and now working for NBC, maintains a “collaborative relationship” with the CIA.

That’s the tradecraft and the history. The problem for America is once again the tools of war abroad have come home. The intelligence community is currently operating against the American people using established media.

Some of it can’t be more obvious. The CIA always planted stories in foreign media for American outlets to pick up. The Agency works directly with Hollywood to control movies about itself. Turn on any of the advocacy media outlets and you see panels of former CIA officials. Journalist Matt Taibbi even created a list (and since ex-‘s need agency clearance to speak, all are of the officially approved class.) None is more egregious than John Brennan, former Director CIA, who for years touted Russiagate when he knew from information gathered while he was still in office it was all a lie.  The uber-lie that Trump was dirty with Russia was leaked to the press most likely by Brennan in January 2017 as the kick off event to the info op still running today.

Brennan’s role is more than speculation. John Durham, the US attorney leading the ongoing “how it happened” Russiagate investigation into the intelligence community, has requested Brennan’s emails and call logs from CIA. Durham is also examining whether Brennan changed his story between his public comments (not under oath, say anything) and his May 2017 testimony to Congress (under oath, watch out for perjury) about the dossier. Reporter Aaron Mate is less delicate, laying out the evidence Brennan was “a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy theory from its inception.” Even blunter is Senator Rand Paul, who directly accuses Brennan of trying “to bring down a sitting president.”

It was all based on nothing but disinformation and the American press swallowed every bit of it, turning the op into a three year tantrum falsely convincing a vast number of citizens their nation was run by a Russian asset. Robert Mueller, whose investigation was supposed to propel all this nothing into impeachment hearings, ended up exercising one of the last bits of political courage Americans will ever see in walking right to the edge of essentially a coup and refusing to step off into the abyss.

The CIA is a learning institution, and recovered well from Russiagate. Details can be investigated. That’s where the old story fell apart. The dossier wasn’t true. But the a-ha discovery was since you’ll never formally prosecute anyone, why bother with evidence. Just throw out accusations and let the media fill it all in for you. The new paradigm included let the nature of the source — the brave lads of the intelligence agencies — legitimize the accusations this time, not facts. Go overt and use the new, unexpected prestige of the CIA as progressive heros to substantiate things.

So in December 2017 CNN reported Donald Trump, Jr. had advance access to the WikiLeaks archive. Within an hour, NBC’s Ken Dilanian and CBS both claimed independent confirmation. It was a complete lie, based on fabricated documents. How do you confirm a lie? Ask another liar.

In February 2020, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) briefed the House Intelligence Committee the Russians were election meddling again to favor Trump. A few weeks earlier, the ODNI briefed Bernie Sanders the Russians were also meddling in the Democratic primaries in his favor. Both briefings were leaked, the former to the New York Times to smear Trump for replacing his DNI, the latter to the Washington Postahead of the Nevada caucuses to damage Sanders.

In June 2020 The New York Times stated CIA officials concluded the Russians “secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops.”  The story ran near another claiming Trump had spoken disrespectfully about fallen soldiers. Neither story was true. But they broke around the same time Trump announced his plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, aimed at discouraging pro-military voters.

Earlier this month The Washington Post, citing anonymous sources, claimed the FBI gave a defensive briefing to Rudy Giuliani in 2019, before he traveled to Ukraine. Giuliani supposedly ignored the warning. The story was “independently confirmed” by both NBC and The New York Times. It was totally false.

The American system always envisioned an adversarial role for the media. One of the earliest challenges to freedom of the press was the Colonial-era Peter Zenger case, which established the right of the press to criticize politicians free from libel charges. At times when things really mattered and even as other journalists hid under their beds, men like Edward R. Murrow worked their craft to preserve democracy. Same for Walter Cronkite finally reaching his opposition to the Vietnam War, and the New York Times reporters weighing imprisonment to publish the Pentagon Papers.

In each of those instances the handful of reporters who risked everything to tell the truth were held up as heroes. Seeing the Times fighting for its life, the Washington Post co-published the Pentagon Papers to force the government to make its case not just against a rival newspaper, but the 1A itself.

Not today. Journalism is today devoted to eliminating practitioners unwilling to play the game. Few have been targeted more than Glenn Greenwald (with Matt Taibbi as runner up.) Greenwald exploded into a journalistic superhero for his reporting on Edward Snowden’s NSA archive, founding The Intercept to serve as a platform for that work (Greenwald’s downfall parallels Julian Assange, who went from liberal hero for exposing the foundational lies of the Iraq War to zero when his Wikileaks was demonized for supposedly helping Donald Trump.)

Greenwald’s criticism of the media for accepting Deep State lies as truth, particularly concerning Russiagate, turned him into a villain for progressives. MSNBC banned him, and other media outlets ran stories critical of him. Then something very, very odd happened to make it appear The Intercept outed one of its own whistleblower sources. Evidence suggests the source was a patsy, set up by the intel community, and exposed via Matt Cole, one of The Intercept journalists on this story.

Cole was also involved in the outing of source CIA officer John Kiriakou in connection with torture claims. Either way new whistleblowers will think twice before turning to The Intercept. Greenwald recently quit the site after it refused to publish his article on Hunter Biden’s ties to China unless he deleted portions critical of Joe Biden.

Greenwald seems to have figured out the intel community’s game, writing

“the most significant Trump-era alliance is between corporate outlets and security state agencies, whose evidence-free claims they unquestioningly disseminate… Every journalist, even the most honest and careful, will get things wrong sometimes, and trustworthy journalists issue prompt corrections when they do. That behavior should be trust-building. But when media outlets continue to use the same reckless and deceitful tactics — such as claiming to have ‘independently confirmed‘ one another’s false stories when they have merely served as stenographers for the same anonymous security state agents while ‘confirming’ nothing — that strongly suggests a complete indifference to the truth and, even more so, a willingness to serve as disinformation agents.”

Democracy has no meaning if people simply vote uninformed, as they are propagandized. It will be sport for future historians to mark the thing that most pushed America into decline. Seeing decades of success abroad in using info ops, the CIA and others turned those weapons inward. So seeing her Deep State meddle in presidential politics, simultaneously destroying (albeit mostly with their cooperation) the adversarial media, while crushing faith in both our leaders and in the process of electing them, will certainly be a top qualifier.

*

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.

***

Important article first published in June 2020

The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC) was launched [in June 2020] by legislators of eight parliaments. In the meantime, it includes politicians of twelve parliaments – eleven national [1] and the EU parliament. States, which recently have shown a particularly aggressive attitude toward China, are also involved: the USA, Australia and Japan. US Senators Marco Rubio (Republican) and Bob Menendez (Democrat), who, since some time, have distinguished themselves as anti-China hardliners, are playing a leading role in IPAC. Two politicians from the German Green Party, Margarete Bause, as member of the German Bundestag and Reinhard Bütikofer, as member of the EU parliament are among the Alliance’s Co-Chairs. Likewise, Michael Brand, Spokesperson for Human Rights in the CDU/CSU Bundestag group is also involved.

Typical Western Double Standards (I)

IPAC explicitly aims at promoting a “coherent response” to China’s rise.[2] The new alliance – comprising transatlantic states and close allies, Japan and Australia – is demanding that China abide by standards that western powers have repeatedly violated: The People’s Republic of China must be held to the “standards of the international legal order.”

There is no mention of the wars against Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (2003) or Libya (2011), which western powers have waged in various constellations in violation of international law. IPAC founding member Bütikofer, for example, supported the war against Yugoslavia in 1999 as the political administrator of the then coalition governing Green Party. IPAC also declared that China be held to the standards of the rules-based order of the WTO. The Trump administration’s practices violating those rules are not mentioned. Beijing should also not be permitted to compromise the sovereignty of recipient countries for example through credits. IPAC does not mention the practice of the western dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) imposing draconian austerity programs against the will of credit recipients.

“At Last a Sanctions Mechanism”

It is particularly becoming apparent that the IPAC seeks to have Europe enforce the US sanctions policy. US Senators Rubio and Menendez are the main forces behind the introduction of the relevant US laws, which, using the excuse of seeking to take action against Beijing’s measures in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang, open the door to punitive actions against the People’s Republic of China. US President Donald Trump should soon be signing the Xinjiang bill into law [June 2020]. The bill pertaining to Hong Kong has already been in effect since last November. Bütikofer recently spoke in favor of “at last installing a concerted pan-EU global sanctions mechanism,” to eventually “be able to “impose sanctions for human rights violations on Chinese officials.”[3] IPAC has chosen this means of having influence through parliaments, where the US government has yet to be successful in forcing other governments through direct pressure to adopt its sanctions policy. One example is Great Britain, where, since some time, particularly pro-USA Tory backbenchers are adamantly insisting that their government’s decision to a limited Huawei participation in setting up the British 5G network be revised. IPAC now permits such practices to be expanded.

The ex-Colonial Governor and the Greens

In Germany, the Greens constitute the backbone of this policy. This could be observed recently, when the last British colonial governor of Hong Kong, the former EU External Relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, launched an appeal – based on China’s new security law for Hong Kong – calling for joint action to be taken by the western countries and their allies against the People’s Republic of China. This appeal also sought to mobilize the largest possible number of parliamentarians to adopt an aggressive confrontational policy toward Beijing – circumventing their national governments. It has already garnered the signatures of 853 politicians from Europe, North America, Australia, and Japan, most being legislators of national parliaments and the EU Parliament.

The former colonial governor’s appeal has received particularly strong support from the German Greens, whose names are listed alongside right-wing hardliners such as Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.[4] The Green politician Bütikofer plays a leading role also in IPAC. In the wings of the Munich Security Conference (MSC), the head of the EU Parliament’s China delegation made a plea for forming a transatlantic China caucus, with the objective of bringing US Congressional representatives in close contact with members of the EU Parliament.[5] IPAC now gets various additional national parliaments onboard.

Typical Western Double Standards (II)

The, at first sight, astonishing, cooperation German Greens have with hardliners from the right-wing of the US Republicans, has a long tradition in the fight against China. For many years, German Greens, like US Republicans, have been supporting Tibetan circles linked to the Dalai Lama, who occasionally have resorted to violence in their opposition to Beijing – even demanding that Tibet secede from the People’s Republic of China.[6] Protesting Beijing’s measures in Xinjiang, US Republicans and German Greens are standing shoulder to shoulder – another example of typical western double standards: Whereas China’s fight against the Uighur jihad in Xinjiang (german-foreign-policy.com reported [7]) is being sharply attacked, massive crimes committed since September 11, 2001, during the West’s “War on Terror” – abduction and torture of terrorist suspects – are passed over in silence. Germany’s SPD/Greens coalition government at the time had been involved.[8] Bütikofer was then the political administrator of the Green Party.

Advisory Board Member with CIA Career

The composition of IPAC’s Advisory Board corresponds to its above-mentioned agenda. Among its members are activists from Hong Kong, including a British surgeon with experience in war and violent conflict zones,[9] as well as the Vice President of the Munich-based World Uighur Congress (WUC, german-foreign-policy.com reported [10]). IPAC Advisory Board member Robert L. Suettinger, on the other hand, was a long-time employee in the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence.[11]

“Security Strategies”

IPAC’s declared objectives do not ultimately indicate its long-term orientation. “Democracies,” the organization declares, must develop complementary “security strategies” to address “challenges” presented by the PRC.[12] This falls in line with considerations being made in transatlantic circles, to position NATO against China – also explicitly militarily. german-foreign-policy.com will soon report.

*

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

Notes

[1] The national parliaments of Australia, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Canada, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Czech Republic and the USA.

[2] About. ipac.global.

[3] Christoph B. Schiltz: Augenblick der Wahrheit für die EU. welt.de 26.05.2020. See also Die Meister der doppelten Standards.

[4] See also Auf breiter Front gegen Beijing.

[5] China eint Amerikaner und Europäer. tagesspiegel.de 15.02.2020. See also Streit um die Chinapolitik.

[6] See also The Olympic Torch Relay Campaign and Operations against China.

[7] See also Setting the Sights on East Turkestan (I).

[8] See also 17 Years “War on Terror”.

[9] Team: Dr Darren Mann. ipac.global.

[10] See also Setting the Sights on East Turkestan (II) and The Chinese Opposition’s Foreign Hub.

[11] Team: Robert L. Suettinger. ipac.global.

[12] About. ipac.global.

Featured image is from German-foreign-policy.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Sold under the pretence of a quest for optimising well-being and ‘happiness’, capitalism thrives on the exploitation of peoples and the environment. What really matters is the strive to maintain viable profit margins. The prevailing economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption and needs a certain level of annual GDP growth for large firms to make sufficient profit.

But at some point, markets become saturated, demand rates fall and overproduction and overaccumulation of capital becomes a problem. In response, we have seen credit markets expand and personal debt increase to maintain consumer demand as workers’ wages have been squeezed, financial and real estate speculation rise (new investment markets), stock buy backs and massive bail outs and subsidies (public money to maintain the viability of private capital) and an expansion of militarism (a major driving force for many sectors of the economy).

We have also witnessed systems of production abroad being displaced for global corporations to then capture and expand markets in foreign countries.

The old normal

Much of what is outlined above is inherent to capitalism. But the 1980s was a crucial period that helped set the framework for where we find ourselves today.

Remember when the cult of the individual was centre stage? It formed part of the Reagan-Thatcher rhetoric of the ‘new normal’ of 1980s neoliberalism.

In the UK, the running down of welfare provision was justified by government-media rhetoric about ‘individual responsibility’, reducing the role of the state and the need to ‘stand on your own two feet’. The selling off of public assets to profiteering corporations was sold to the masses on the basis of market efficiency and ‘freedom of choice’.

The state provision of welfare, education, health services and the role of the public sector was relentlessly undermined by neoliberal dogma and the creed that the market (global corporations) constituted the best method for supplying human needs.

Thatcher’s stated mission was to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit by rolling back the ‘nanny state’. She wasted little time in crushing the power of the trade unions and privatising key state assets.

Despite her rhetoric, she did not actually reduce the role of the state. She used its machinery differently, on behalf of business. Neither did she unleash the ‘spirit of entrepreneurialism’. Economic growth rates under her were similar as in the 1970s, but a concentration of ownership occurred and levels of inequality rocketed.

Margaret Thatcher was well trained in perception management, manipulating certain strands of latent populist sentiment and prejudice. Her free market, anti-big-government platitudes were passed off to a section of the public that was all too eager to embrace them as a proxy for remedying all that was wrong with Britain. For many, what were once regarded as the extreme social and economic policies of the right became entrenched as the common sense of the age.

Thatcher’s policies destroyed a fifth of Britain’s industrial base in just two years alone. The service sector, finance and banking were heralded as the new drivers of the economy, as much of Britain’s manufacturing sector was out-sourced to cheap labour economies.

Under Thatcher, employees’ share of national income was slashed from 65% to 53%. Long gone are many of the relatively well-paid manufacturing jobs that helped build and sustain the economy. In their place, the country has witnessed the imposition of a low taxation regime and low-paid and insecure ‘service sector’ jobs (no-contract work, macjobs, call centre jobs – many of which soon went abroad) as well as a real estate bubble, credit card debt and student debt, which helped to keep the economy afloat.

However, ultimately, what Thatcher did was – despite her rhetoric of helping small-scale businesses and wrapping herself in the national flag – facilitate the globalisation process by opening the British economy to international capital flows and allowing free rein for global finance and transnational corporations.

Referring back to the beginning of this article, it is clear whose happiness and well-being counts most and whose does not matter at all as detailed by David Rothkopf in his 2008 book ‘Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making‘. Members of the superclass belong to the megacorporation-interlocked, policy-building elites of the world and come from the highest echelons of finance, industry, the military, government and other shadow elites. These are the people whose interests Margaret Thatcher was serving.

These people set the agendas at the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, G-7, G-20, NATO, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.

And let us not forget the various key think tanks and policy making arenas like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institute and Chatham House as well as the World Economic Forum (WEF), where sections of the global elite forge policies and strategies and pass them to their political handmaidens.

Driven by the vision of its influential executive chairman Klaus Schwab, the WEF is a major driving force for the dystopian ‘great reset’, a tectonic shift that intends to change how we live, work and interact with each other.

The new normal

The great reset envisages a transformation of capitalism, resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance as livelihoods and entire sectors are sacrificed to boost the monopoly and hegemony of pharmaceutical corporations, high-tech/big data giants, Amazon, Google, major global chains, the digital payments sector, biotech concerns, etc.

Under the cover of COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions, the great reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which smaller enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or bought up by monopolies. Economies are being ‘restructured’ and many jobs and roles will be carried out by AI-driven technology.

The WEF says the public will ‘rent’ everything they require: stripping the right of ownership under the guise of a ‘green economy’ underpinned by the rhetoric of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’.

At the same time new (‘green product’) markets are being created and, on the back of COVID, fresh opportunities for profit extraction are opening up abroad. For instance, World Bank Group President David Malpass has stated that poorer countries will be ‘helped’ to get back on their feet after the various lockdowns that have been implemented in response to the Covid-19 crisis. This ‘help’ will be on condition that neoliberal reforms and the undermining of public services are implemented and become further embedded.

Just a month into the COVID crisis, the IMF and World Bank were already facing a deluge of aid requests from developing countries. Scores of countries were asking for bailouts and loans. Ideal cover for rebooting the global economy via a debt crisis and the subsequent privatisation of national assets and the further ‘structural adjustment’ of economies.

Many people waste no time in referring to this as  some kind of ‘Marxist’ or ‘communist’ takeover of the planet because a tiny elite will be dictating policies. This has nothing to do with Marxism. An authoritarian capitalist elite – supported by their political technocrats – aims to secure even greater control of the global economy. It will no longer be a (loosely labelled) ‘capitalism’ based on ‘free’ markets and competition (not that those concepts ever really withstood proper scrutiny). Economies will be monopolised by global players, not least e-commerce platforms run by the likes of Amazon, Walmart, Facebook and Google and their multi-billionaire owners.

Essential (for capitalism) new markets will also be created through the ‘financialisation’ and ownership of all aspects of nature, which is to be colonised, commodified and traded under the fraudulent notion of protecting the environment.

The so-called ‘green economy’ will fit in with the notion of ‘sustainable consumption’ and ‘climate emergency’. A bunch of billionaires and their platforms will control every aspect of the value chain. Of course, they themselves will not reduce their own consumption or get rid of their personal jets, expensive vehicles, numerous exclusive homes or ditch their resource gobbling lifestyles. Reduced consumption is meant only for the masses.

They will not only control and own data about consumption but also control and own data on production, logistics, who needs what, when they need it, who should produce it, who should move it and when it should be moved. Independent enterprises will disappear or become incorporated into the platforms acting as subservient cogs. Elected representatives will be mere technocratic overseers of these platforms and the artificial intelligence tools that plan and determine all of the above.

The lockdowns and restrictions we have seen since March 2020 have helped boost the bottom line of global chains and the e-commerce giants and have cemented their dominance. Many small and medium-size independent enterprises have been pushed towards bankruptcy. At the same time, fundamental rights have been eradicated under COVID19 government measures.

Politicians in countries throughout the world have been using the rhetoric of the WEF’s great reset, talking of the need to ‘build back better’ for the ‘new normal’. They are all on point. Hardly a coincidence. Essential to this ‘new normal’ is the compulsion to remove individual liberties and personal freedoms given that, in the ‘green new normal’, unfettered consumption will no longer be an option for the bulk of the population.

It has long been the case that a significant part of the working class has been deemed ‘surplus to requirements’ – three decades ago, such people were sacrificed on the altar of neo-liberalism. They lost their jobs due to automation and offshoring. They have had to rely on meagre state welfare and run-down public services.

But what we are now seeing is the possibility of hundreds of millions around the world being robbed of their livelihoods. Forget about the benign sounding ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ and its promised techno-utopia. What we are witnessing right now seems to be a major restructuring of capitalist economies.

With AI and advanced automation of production, distribution and service provision (3D printing/manufacturing, drone technology, driverless vehicles, lab grown food, farmerless farms, robotics, etc), a mass labour force – and therefore mass education, mass welfare, mass healthcare provision and entire systems that were in place to reproduce labour for capitalist economic activity – will no longer be required. As economic activity is restructured, labour’s relationship to capital is being transformed.

In a reorganised system that no longer needs to sell the virtues of excessive individualism (consumerism), the levels of political and civil rights and freedoms we have been used to will not be tolerated.

Neoliberalism might have reached its logical conclusion (for now). Making trade unions toothless, beating down wages to create unimaginable levels of inequality and (via the dismantling of Bretton Woods) affording private capital so much freedom to secure profit and political clout under the guise of ‘globalisation’ would inevitably lead to one outcome.

A concentration of wealth, power, ownership and control at the top with large sections of the population on state-controlled universal basic income and everyone subjected to the discipline of an emerging biosecurity surveillance state designed to curtail liberties ranging from freedom of movement and assembly to political protest and free speech.

Perception management is of course vital for pushing through all of this. Rhetoric about ‘liberty’ and ‘individual responsibility’ worked a treat in the 1980s to help bring about a massive heist of wealth. This time, it is a public health scare and ‘collective responsibility’ as part of a strategy to help move towards near-monopolistic control over economies by a handful of global players.  

And the perception of freedom is also being managed. Once vaccinated many will begin to feel free. Freer than under lockdown. But not really free at all.

*

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

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

*

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

Michael Whitney, renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is from the author

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 has been 58 years since the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) the forerunner to today’s African Union (AU) which was inaugurated in 2002.

Since 1963, Africa has undergone tremendous social change and political re-awakenings where in 2021 there are 55 member-states within the AU with only one, the Western Sahara, lacking national independence.

Africa Day for this year was called under the theme “Arts, Culture and Heritage: Levers for Building the Africa We Want.” The resurrection and enhancement of the African Personality is essential in the efforts to realize a better standard of living based upon the interests of the majority of workers, farmers, women and youth within the AU region.

Yet the AU region is by no means free of the clutches of imperialism. The current COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of the 1.3 billion people on a continent which remains dependent upon former colonial and present neo-colonial powers that drain the economic resources found in such abundance.

Similar to the situations in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and large areas of the Asia-Pacific geo-political regions, the AU member-states along with Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), the provisional government of the Western Sahara which is recognized also by the United Nations, continues to struggle for genuine liberation and sovereignty. The Western Sahara was conceded to the Kingdom of Morocco in 1975 after the departure of colonial Spain.

In an article written about the stance of the SADR and its politico-military wing, the Polisario Front, in relationship to Africa liberation, it says:

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) affirmed today that the ‘declaration of the leaders of independent African countries at the beginning of the sixties of the last century on the constitution of a continental organization has the objective of promoting and supporting the peoples of the continent who fight against colonialism and Apartheid ‘. In a statement made public on the occasion of the celebration of Africa Day, the Saharawi MF highlighted that ‘today we celebrate, like the other African peoples, the day on which Africa commemorates the 58th Anniversary of the founding of the Organization for African Unity, on May 25, 1963. The founding of this continental organization represented a strong reason that contributed to accelerating the independence processes in African countries and highlighted its unique character that framed its objectives and priorities in the fight for human rights, self-determination and independence’”.

Morocco and Spain are now involved in a diplomatic dispute due to the medical treatment of Polisario Front leader and President of the SADR, Brahim Ghali, for Covid-19 in a Spanish hospital. Morocco has expressed its opposition through official diplomatic channels with Spain.

In response to the anger of Rabat, the government has allowed the outmigration of thousands of people seeking entry into the Spanish controlled territories off the coast of Morocco. Most of the migrants, who come from Africa and West Asia, have been returned to Morocco soon after arriving in Spanish controlled territory.

The problem of migration is not exclusively centered in Morocco. Other North African states such as Libya and Tunisia have the same difficulties of being largely forced to detain migrants fleeing from the horrendous conditions which have their origins in imperialist militarism.

Large scale migration has been utilized by right-wing politicians in Europe to form parties which call for a total ban on those in need of asylum. This same atmosphere prevails as well in the U.S. when the political landscape became even more polarized with the advent of the previous administration of President Donald Trump and the failure of the current presidency of Joe Biden to take bold initiatives aimed at lessening racial oppression.

Imperialism and Militarism in 21st Century Africa

The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was operationalized in February 2008 with its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. During 2007 and 2008, no African government was willing to accept offers by the then President George W. Bush to host the primary base of AFRICOM.

However, with the advent of Bush’s successor, President Barack Obama, AFRICOM was strengthened and enhanced. There is currently an operational base of AFRICOM in the strategically located Horn of Africa state of Djibouti which houses over 3,000 Pentagon troops.

An investigative report done by the South African-based Mail & Guardian in 2020 stated that:

“Although U.S. commandos operate on the African continent with the agreement of host governments, ordinary Africans are rarely told about the full extent of U.S. activities — nor offered a say in how and why Americans operate in their countries. Even basic information, like the sweep and scope of deployments by elite U.S. troops and clandestine combat by American commandos on the continent, is mostly unreported across Africa…. In 2019, U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed in 22 African countries: Algeria, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Côte D’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania and Tunisia.

This accounts for a significant proportion of U.S. Special Operations forces’ global activity: more than 14% of US commandos deployed overseas in 2019 were sent to Africa, the largest percentage of any region in the world except for the greater Middle East.”

Despite the interventions of AFRICOM for more than a decade, the security situation in many African states is far worse than in 2008. In Nigeria, an insurgency which began in 2009 in the northeast of Africa’s most populous state on the continent, has not been defeated. The current President Muhammadu Buhari, a former military general with ties to the U.S. Pentagon, has asked for the construction of an AFRICOM base in Nigeria.

Although Buhari declared while running for the presidency in 2015 that he would eliminate the threat of Boko Haram within six months, there are today other criminal groupings which have emerged causing instability through theft, murder, kidnappings for ransom and recruitment. During April, Buhari said he had requested from the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a virtual meeting that:

“I asked the U.S. to consider re-locating the AFRICOM HQ from Germany to Africa — near the Theatre of Operation; against the backdrop of growing security challenges in West & Central Africa, Gulf of Guinea, Lake Chad region & the Sahel,” Buhari said in a Twitter post after the meeting.” (See this)

Such a controversial request by a former military general now heading a government with, in excess, of 200 million residents, illustrates the degree to which neo-colonialism has penetrated the African continent. Nigeria due to police misconduct faced a national rebellion late last year where scores were killed and billions in property damages occurred. There was sharp criticism levelled against Buhari inside of Nigeria while many military experts in the U.S. believe that the relocation of AFRICOM headquarters to West Africa would be highly unlikely. Nonetheless, the desperation of U.S. imperialism in its competition with China and other rivals, cannot be ignored in its efforts to remain dominant militarily in Africa and internationally.

African Unification and Socialism Provides the Only Real Alternative to Neo-Colonialism

The present role of the national military structures in Africa has proved incapable of guaranteeing the material interests of the majority of working people, farmers, youth and women. These mass elements within African societies must be empowered before genuine development can be realized.

Development and regional security are inextricably linked. In Chad, Mali, Libya and other states, the military forces have been trained by the Pentagon, France, Great Britain and other NATO countries. Until there is a categorical break with these imperialist governments and their military institutions, genuine independence and sovereignty will remain elusive.

A continental-wide military high command is called for within the charter of the AU. However, the mandate for taking responsibility for the internal security of Africa is in essence a political question. This necessity will be achieved by a revolutionary movement that is region-wide and committed to the abolition of capitalism and imperialism along with the construction of socialism.

Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the founder of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) and the architect of the modern state in Africa, spoke and wrote extensively against foreign economic and military intervention on the continent. One analyst of African affairs and the role of AFRICOM said of the Nkrumah legacy:

“Nkrumah addresses foreign military intervention directly and warns that ‘military aid … marks the last stage of neo-colonialism and its effect is self-destructive.’ Moreover, he argued that African unity would not be possible until the ‘defeat of neo-colonialism,’ and argued for an African High Command. While Nkrumah envisioned the African High Command to be led by Africans and directly oppose foreign meddling, at its core AFRICOM is American-devised and managed, leading us to believe that Nkrumah would in fact be vehemently opposed to the establishment of an AFRICOM headquarters in Accra, or anywhere on the continent.” (See this)

These ideas are just as relevant if not more so in the 21st century as when Nkrumah articulated them during the period from the conclusion of World War II up until the time of his death in 1972. The AU member-states are at a critical juncture and the decisions made in the current period will determine the outcome of the struggle for the control of Africa, its people and resources.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

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. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has defended the natural-origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

In his biggest about-face to date, Fauci is now saying he’s “not convinced” the virus had a natural origin after all, and that we must continue to investigate “what went on in China until we find out, to the best of our ability, what happened”

Considering Fauci’s opinion has been used by mainstream media and fact checkers to censor any and all other experts, this very public 180 is no doubt causing embarrassment among mainstream reporters

Fauci is now also denying ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did. It seems he’s trying to redefine “gain-of-function,” such that none of the research he paid for will fall under that definition

National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins is backing Fauci’s denials in what appears to be a preemptive attempt to distance the NIAID/NIH from future blame, should the lab leak theory be determined to have caused the COVID-19 pandemic

*

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has been a staunch defender of the natural-origin theory for SARS-CoV-2 since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Back in May 2020, CNN used Fauci’s statements on the issue as proof that then-President Donald Trump was spouting a ridiculous conspiracy theory:¹

“For weeks now, President Donald Trump has been making the case that the coronavirus originated not in nature but in a lab in Wuhan, China,” CNN wrote.²

“Enter Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and perhaps the single most prominent doctor in the world at the moment. In an interview with National Geographic … Fauci was definitive about the origins of the virus …

‘If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species,’ [Fauci said].

Now, before we play the game of ‘he said, he said’ remember this: Only one of these two people is a world-renowned infectious disease expert. And it’s not Donald Trump.”

Oh, the difference a year can make. Mainstream media is finally forced to face the fact that Fauci and a number of other so-called “experts” they’ve paraded before their viewers and readers have been no more reliable than your average armchair scientist.

Fauci Pulls Biggest 180 Yet

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci has been front and center, spouting recommendations, over time changing his mind again and again.

A virtuoso of contradiction, he’s flip-flopped on the usefulness and need for masks multiple times, from “Americans shouldn’t be wearing masks because they don’t work,” to masks definitely work and should be worn by everyone, to you should wear not just one but two, for safe measure.

He’s gone from promising a mask-free existence once the vaccine rolls out, to insisting mask-wearing is still necessary after vaccination because vaccine-resistant variants might pop up, to proposing we might need to wear masks every flu season in perpetuity.

His biggest flip-flop to date, however, has to be his stance on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. As reported by Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti in a May 24, 2021 “Rising with Krystal & Saagar” episode (see video above), Fauci is now claiming he’s “not convinced” the virus had a natural origin after all, and that we must continue to investigate “what went on in China until we find out, to the best of our ability, what happened.”

Considering Fauci’s opinion has been used by mainstream media pundits and fact checkers to censor any and all other experts — including people with far more impressive credentials than Fauci, who at the end of the day is an administrator, a paper-pusher, not a working scientist — this very public 180-degree turn is no doubt causing embarrassment among many mainstream reporters.

Krystal and Saagar both look uncomfortable having to explain how the media, en masse, ended up being so wrong for so long.

Mainstream Media Scramble to Justify Their Errors

According to Krystal and Saagar, new information indicating workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) fell ill with COVID-like symptoms in November 2019 now make the lab leak theory the most plausible.

What’s so ironic about that statement is that this isn’t new information that would definitively tip the scale. It’s just that now, all of a sudden, it’s not being dismissed off-hand. The weight of the evidence has, for over a year now, strongly leaned in the direction of SARS-CoV-2 being a lab creation that somehow escaped.

Now, mainstream media are scrambling to save face, and it’s rather hilarious to watch them trying to justify their previous refusal to do what journalists and reporters are expected to do: Report the facts without interjecting their own personal opinions and biases.

Of course, you’d be hard-pressed to find an unbiased news outlet these days — it’s all tightly and centrally controlled, as detailed in “Reuters and BBC Caught Taking Money for Propaganda Campaign” — so in all likelihood, the only reason mainstream media are now starting to report on the lab leak theory is because of the success of alternative media.

Their viewers simply aren’t buying what they’re selling anymore, so they have no choice but to acknowledge what a majority of people already know, or lose what little credibility they have left.

The Case for the Lab-Leak Theory

In the video above, Freddie Sayers interviews³ Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, about the two primary origin theories. Wade recently published a widely-read article⁴detailing the evidence supporting the lab-leak and natural-origin theories.

As reported by Wade in “Origin of COVID — Following the Clues: Did People or Nature Open Pandora’s Box at Wuhan?”⁵ if we are ever to solve the mystery of where this novel virus came from, we must be willing to actually follow the science, as “it offers the only sure thread through the maze.”

“It’s important to note that so far there is no direct evidence for either theory,” Wade writes.⁶“Each depends on a set of reasonable conjectures but so far lacks proof. So I have only clues, not conclusions, to offer. But those clues point in a specific direction.”

In summary, the preponderance of clues leans toward SARS-CoV-2 originating in a lab, most likely the WIV, and having undergone some sort of manipulation to encourage infectiousness and pathology in humans.

As just one example, there’s research dating as far back as 1992 detailing how inserting a furin cleavage site right where we find it in SARS-CoV-2 is a “sure way to make a virus deadlier.” One of 11 such studies was written by Dr. Zhengli Shi, head of coronavirus research at the WIV.

The arguments laid out in support of natural origin theories, meanwhile, are grounded in inconclusive speculations that require you to throw out scientifically possible scenarios. From a scientific standpoint, doing so is ill advised.

“It seems to me that proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence,” Wade writes.⁷

Fauci Pulls 180 Turnabout on Gain-of-Function Backing Too

Getting back to Fauci, he’s also now denying ever having funded gain-of-function research, even though there’s irrefutable evidence that he did. As reported by the National Review:⁸

“Dr. Roger Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University and biosafety expert, is contesting … Fauci’s testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on [May 11, 2021].

Dr. Fauci’s claim — made during an exchange with Senator Rand Paul⁹ — that ‘the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’ is ‘demonstrably false,’ according to Ebright …

A research article written by WIV scientists, ‘Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus,’¹⁰ for example, qualifies as gain-of-function and was clearly a product of NIH-funding.

Ebright insists that the research can be classified as gain-of-function under a number of different definitions, including those found in two pieces of Department of Health and Human Services guidance on the subject.

The first details the Obama administration’s 2014 decision to halt domestic gain-of-function research, which it defines as that which ‘may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route.’¹¹

The second — drafted in 2017 as Fauci was pushing to renew government funding for gain-of-function research — provides a definition of what are called ‘enhanced potential pandemic pathogen (PPP)’ or those pathogens ‘resulting from the enhancement of the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen.’¹²

Ebright claims that the work being conducted at the WIV, using NIH funds originally granted to Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, ‘epitomizes’ gain-of-function research under the definition HHS provided in its guidance, and is the exact kind of research that led the Obama administration to conclude that gain-of-function was too dangerous to continue domestically.”

Fauci and NIH Try to Redefine ‘Gain-of-Function’

Essentially, Fauci is now trying to redefine what “gain-of-function” actually is. However, as explained above, the type of research Fauci has been funding at the WIV has always and repeatedly been referred to as gain-of-function.

It appears as though Fauci and National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins are preemptively trying to position themselves in such a way as to distance themselves from future blame, should the lab leak theory be proven true. In a May 19, 2021, statement, Collins backed Fauci’s convoluted word-wrangling and attempts at rewriting the definition of gain-of-function research, stating:¹³

“Based on outbreaks of coronaviruses caused by animal to human transmissions such as … SARS and … MERS, NIH and the NIAID have for many years supported grants to learn more about viruses lurking in bats and other mammals that have the potential to spill over to humans and cause widespread disease.

However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”

In other words, both admit they funded research at the WIV and other places, but they insist none of it was gain-of-function specifically, so even if the COVID-19 pandemic turns out to have been the result of a lab leak at the WIV, Fauci and Collins had no part in the creation of that particular virus — or any other virus capable of causing a deadly pandemic — and should not be on the list of people to be held accountable.

Wordplay Won’t Save Fauci

Considering what the NIH has stated previously, and what we already know about the coronavirus research the NIAID/NIH funded, Collins’ statement appears to be a desperate lie, issued to prop up Fauci’s indefensible stance that no gain-of-function research was ever funded.

For example, as reported by the National Review,¹⁴ we know that the WIV received NIAID/NIH funding to create novel chimeric SARS-related coronaviruses capable of infecting both human cells and lab animals. “Chimeric viruses” refers to artificial man-made viruses, hybrid organisms created through the joining of two or more different organisms. This is precisely what gain-of-function research is all about. So, as noted by the National Review:¹⁵

“Fauci appears to have been, at best, mistaken while sparring with Senator Paul … At worst, he was playing tenuous word games meant to deceive.”

Of course, Fauci and Collins have good reason to develop sudden amnesia when it comes to the definition of complicated words like “gain-of-function.” While statistics have been massively manipulated to overcount COVID-19 deaths, there’s no doubt that this pandemic has been one of the most destructive in modern history.

Sure, we can blame global and regional leaders for playing along with the globalist game to use a hyped-up pandemic to justify a Great Reset of our global economic and societal systems, but without doubt, the creators of this virus will not get off scot-free, and neither will those who enabled its creation. And those people may well include Fauci and Collins at the NIAID and NIH.

At the end of it all, should SARS-CoV-2 be deemed a man-made bioweapon, even if its release was a total accident, which appears to be the case, a number of individuals stand to lose their careers, and perhaps their freedom, as the punishment for having anything to do with the creation of biological weapons includes both potentially hefty fines and lengthy jail sentences. The Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 states:¹⁶

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.”

Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat

I believe research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research — based on the conventionally accepted definition — to continue?

I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more dangerous to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious and dangerous variants is also busy creating them.

World leaders need to realize that funding gain-of-function research is the real threat here, and take action accordingly to forestall another pandemic. As long as researchers are allowed to mutate and create synthetic pathogens, they’re creating the very risk they claim they’re trying to prevent. We got off easy this time, all things considered. The next time, we may not be as lucky.

*

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

Notes

^1, 2 CNN May 5, 2020

³ Unherd.com May 20, 2021

⁴ Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May 5, 2021

^5, 6, 7 Medium, Nicholas Wade May 2, 2021

^8, 14, 15 National Review May 13, 2021

⁹ National Review May 11, 2021

¹⁰ PLOS Pathogens November 30, 2017 DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698

¹¹ PHE.gov US Government Gain of Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause October 17, 2014

¹² US DHHS Framework for Guiding Funding Decisions about Proposed Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic

Pathogens 2017

¹³ NIH.gov May 19, 2021

¹⁶ S.993 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989

Featured image is from Flickr

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

U.S. Army Europe and Africa announced today that during the Swift Response 21 airborne military exercise last month along what is now called NATO’s Eastern Flank – from the Baltic to the Black Sea – troops with the 173rd Airborne Brigade ran a training exercise to practice seizing a decommissioned air base in Bulgaria that went terribly awry. In landing and attacking bunkers and other structures at the site in Cheshnegirovo the American paratroopers also assaulted a building that housed a private business with employees on site.

Nothing daunted, the Pentagon issued a release that stated “We always learn from these exercises and are fully investigating the cause of this mistake.” During the Clinton administration’s and NATO’s 78-day air and missile war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 a comparable “mistake” was made when a NATO warplane fired a missile into a house in a suburb of the Bulgarian capital of Sofia.It’s not certain what lesson the military bloc learned from that attack. But when there are no repercussions for random armed assaults and missile attacks then there is little enough incentive to rectify such errors or to prevent their recurrence. NATO’s cause is always noble, we’ve been assured – jus ad bellum – so all its actions are necessarily justified – jus in bello.

Last month’s Swift Response war games included the participation of 7,000 airborne troops from the U.S. and ten of its NATO allies. It concentrated on “joint forcible entry exercises” in Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania. It began with 800 82nd Airborne paratroopers engaging in a large-scale, night-time jump over central Estonia, linking up with other American paratroopers already in Lithuania, and from there moved to the Black Sea. The entire purpose of the drills was to confront Russia and its allies (e.g, Belarus and Abkhazia) in the Baltic and Black Sea regions.

On May 10 hundreds of paratroopers from the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania parachuted into Romania. The nation’s Mihail Kogalniceanu Airbase was the headquarters for the entire Swift Response exercise this year. The base was employed by the U.S. for the 2003 war against Iraq even before Romania joined NATO in 2004. Since then it has been used for the U.S.’s and NATO’s war in Afghanistan. In 2009 the Pentagon established a Permanent Forward Operating Site there. Since 2018 the British Royal Air Force has based four Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft at the air base as part of NATO’s Enhanced Air Policing mission targeting Russia in the Black Sea.

In all fairness, Bulgarians should have been warned in 2004 what NATO membership would entail for them and their nation. But then again, NATO provided them an object lesson five years earlier.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The fear of killer robots is as old as robots themselves — thinkers like Elon Musk and Sam Harris have long argued that AI poses a serious threat to human civilization. But if you’re at all panicked about AI or robots, a new UN report may add to your anxiety, as it explains that a drone attacked (and possibly killed) soldiers all on its own. 

It’s thought to be the first recorded case of an autonomous drone attack.

The incident occurred in March 2020 in Libya, a country that was in the midst of a civil war. Turkey, a key combatant in the war, deployed the STM Kargu-2 drone, according to the UN Security Council’s Panel of Experts on Libya report. The drone, which the report refers to as a “lethal autonomous weapon,” then found and attacked Libya’s Haftar Armed Forces.

Logistics convoys and retreating forces were “hunted down and remotely engaged by lethal autonomous weapons systems such as the STM Kargu-2,” the report reads. “The lethal autonomous weapons systems were programmed to attack targets without requiring data connectivity between the operator and the munition: in effect, a true ‘fire, forget and find’ capability.”

The creator of the Kargu drone, STM, says the device “can be effectively used against static or moving targets through its indigenous and real-time image processing capabilities and machine learning algorithms embedded on the platform.”

The UN in 2018 attempted to begin working on a treaty that would ban autonomous weapons, but the move was blocked by both the US and Russia, Politico reported at the time. Human Rights Watch has been campaigning against such weapons since 2013, and has backed a campaign to stop their spread.

“Killer robot proliferation has begun,” tweeted Max Tegman, a machine learning researcher at MIT. “It’s not in humanity’s best interest that cheap slaughterbots are mass-produced and widely available to anyone with an axe to grind. It’s high time for world leaders to step up and take a stand.”

*

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

Featured image: The STM Kargu-2, which its manufacturer describes as a “rotary wing attack drone loitering munition system.” (Source: STM)

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 April 20, The Lancet published an analysis on the efficacy of the Covid injections. This analysis supports conclusions made in my earlier analysis. That being: the Covid injections are NOT “95% efficacious”.

Beyond the analysts’ tepid language couched in scientific jargon, the graphic that appears is quite startling.  As is often true, the devil lies in the details, in this case, the difference between relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction. (For elaboration on these metrics, please see my article linked above).

Relative risk reduction (RRR) and Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) for leading Covid “vaccines” (Source: The Lancet)

From the “absolute risk reduction” you can calculate the “Number Needed to Vaccinate” which signifies approximately how many people must be injected to hypothetically benefit just one person. It is a metric every person needs to understand before taking the Covid injection.

Below are the Numbers Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) metrics for Covid “vaccines”:

Number Needed to Vaccinate (NNV) = 1/Absolute Risk Reduction

For Pfizer, this number is estimated at 119. This means 119 people must be injected for it to reduce a “Covid” case in one person. Therefore, 118 of those people incurred (potential) risk with no benefit whatsoever.

Some estimates are even higher, according to The Lancet, data from the Pfizer rollout in Israel suggests an NNV of 217!

These NNV figures are likely underestimates, as there is significant obfuscation with trial data. The actual efficacy is likely even less than 1% as some of the injected groups who became ill with “Covid like symptoms” were fallaciously labelled as side effects, rather than potential breakthrough infections.

Also unaccounted for, in the lucky 0.84% of people who hypothetically benefitted from the “vaccine”, are the side effects. Efficacy metrics do not include adverse events from the injections. In other words, safety and efficacy are entirely different considerations. For example, even an efficacious intervention may not be safe if the risk of harm is high.

This “vaccine” experiment is only a few months old, yet the passive VAERS reporting system in the USA has accounted for deaths following Covid injections as already being greater than the previous 21 years of deaths from all other vaccines combined, as well as over 227,000 other non-fatal adverse events. What’s more, it is reported that the VAERS system records only approximately 1% of actual adverse events.

Many alarmed researchers and doctors around the world have called to halt this experiment, citing a growing body of unusual side effects and associated deaths. For Covid injections, it must be clear that the complete safety profile is unknown.

Furthermore, the “reduction” is not a decrease in deaths and hospitalizations, rather a reduction of symptoms. The majority of these supposedly alleviated symptoms being of a generic cold and flu variety. To quote the Lancet study:

These considerations on efficacy and effectiveness are based on studies measuring prevention of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection; they were not designed to conclude on prevention of hospitalization, severe disease, or death, or on prevention of infection and transmission potential.”

On top of that, these mild “cases” which are being “prevented” are determined by the unvalidated PCR assays.

As mentioned, the efficacy is based on reduction in symptoms, and even then possibly only for a limited period of time. Already it has been announced that boosters are necessary, perhaps annually or twice a year.

This paltry efficacy is not unusual for the vaccine regime that is justified on the basis of benefitting the overall population. However, in this case, the argument for benefitting the overall population cannot apply, as no definite evidence for a reduction in transmission has been povided.

In addition, these injections are still experimental. Phase 3 trials are ongoing and this synthetic gene “therapy” technology has never been dispensed before. Every day, new information is coming to the fore, such as this animal pharmacokinetic study which shows that the injected vectors ended up in different organs, especially ovaries and spleen. Canadian researcher, Dr. Bridle, shared his concerns on recent findings of biodistribution of lipid nano-particles and the spike proteins in injected people.

Tragically, panic-stricken masses are deluded with the propaganda that these injections are 95% efficacious. This is a useless metric based on relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction is around 1%. Millions are unwittingly participating in an unprecedented experiment.  The Nuremberg Code and principles of Informed Consent are violated daily.

It is advisable to print out the above table and request one’s vaccinator to explain this metric. To properly exercise ethical and legal informed consent, every trial participant must understand the potential benefits and risks from the injections, the potential risks from Covid (based on age and health status) as well as the efficacious treatment alternatives for those who may need them.

Would you feel comfortable suited up with a parachute that worked about 1% of the time?  Would you then say that it is 95% effective because that particular parachute worked 95% better than the competition?

A product with very questionable, miniscule efficacy and many concerns regarding potential severe short and long-term side effects (including deaths), might be more accurately classified as a poison.

A poison can be described as ‘any substance which when introduced into or absorbed by a living organism, destroys life or injures health’. The adverse effects may take many forms from immediate death to subtle changes not realized until months or years later.” Definition of “poison”, according the Royal Society of Chemistry

One can hope that as this nefarious experiment unfolds, data and rationality will trump fear, hysteria, and the etiolated minds of the masses.  May Justice prevail and these crimes against humanity be brought to account.

*

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.

Sadaf Gilani MD is a Canadian entrepreneur and activist.

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since Joe Biden’s ascendency into the White House on January 20, he has emphasised that the U.S.’ foreign policy will be guided by human rights, even if it means calling out traditional allies. However, Washington is completely silent about the repression of anti-government demonstrations in Colombia, its closest ally in Latin America.

At the end of the May 28 meeting with his Colombian counterpart Marta Lucía Ramírez, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken even expressed “his concern and condolences for the loss of life during recent protests in Colombia and reiterated the unquestionable right of citizens to protest peacefully.” However, on the same day as Blinken’s statement, 13 deaths and hundreds of injuries were reported in Cali, the third city of Colombia. This occurred following demonstrations which degenerated into clashes between protestors and security forces.

People with bulletproof vests and guns shot at demonstrators in front of the police. The situation degenerated so badly that the military arrived to aid police to suppress protests against a new tax reform which will send many in the Middle Class into poverty. According to an official count, there are at least 59 deaths, including two police officers. There are also at least 2,300 injuries and 123 missing since protests began at the end of April. Human Rights Watch reported there were a total of 63 deaths as of May 27.

Yet, the U.S. is highly unlikely to denounce Colombia for this gross treatment of civilian protestors.

Colombia is Washington’s main ally in Latin America. For this reason, it is unsurprising that Colombia is one of the countries with the most security and military cooperation agreements with the U.S. These agreements mostly revolve around drug trafficking, civil conflict and destabilising neighbouring Venezuela.

In addition, Colombia is the only Latin American country to gain recognition as a global partner of NATO. This was achieved in 2018 only because of Washington’s insistence. This agreement allows Colombia to associate with the activities of the Atlanticist alliance, including maritime security and countering terrorism and organized crime. In exchange, Colombia receives military material and equipment from the U.S.

This agreement does not constitute a blank check for decisionmakers in the Colombian capital of Bogota. The bilateral relationship between Washington and Bogota proved to be more fluid under the aegis of Donald Trump, who at the time was being influenced by warhawk John Bolton, his National Security Adviser. However, as Colombia’s right-wing President Iván Duque is not completely ideologically aligned with Biden, many speculate that Washington wants to maintain some distance with the current administration in Bogota.

In order to take the opposite view of his predecessor Trump, who successfully used conservative and quasi-patriotic rhetoric to ascend to power, Biden wants to restore the image of American leadership internationally that was destroyed over the past two decades, particularly following the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, through terrorizing journalists and whistleblowers like Julian Assange. Such an approach involves the promotion of human rights and reviving the idea of ​​ Western-styled democracy against so-called authoritarianism – hence Biden’s willingness to take any opportunity to demonize Russia and China as they do not conform to Western liberal standards.

Under this banner of human rights, the Biden administration raised its tone vis-à-vis China, with Blinken accusing the Asian Giant of genocide against the Muslim Uighur minority in Xinjiang province. In addition, Blinken also attempts to incriminate Moscow over the Navalny affair. The American President even promised to discuss human rights issues during his scheduled June 16 meeting in Geneva with his Russian counterpart Putin.

The unrest and fierce crackdown that ensued in Colombia came at the worse time for U.S. diplomacy as it does not correspond to the global image that Biden is attempting to project. The U.S. is faced with a dilemma as it appears that the fundamentals of bilateral relations in Biden’s view, based around human rights, is overlooked in the case of Colombia.

It is likely that Washington is discreetly encouraging Duque to settle the crisis without additional repressive excess. That being said, even if Colombia is to continue its violent repression against protestors, it is unlikely to deeply affect its relationship with the U.S. as the South American country is now an indispensable ally and enacts all of Washington’s demands, even to the detriment of its relations with its neighbours, like Venezuela.

*

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

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A year ago, the idea that Covid-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan – a short distance from the wet market that is usually claimed to be the source of the virus – was dismissed as a crackpot theory, supported only by Donald Trump, QAnon and hawks on the right looking to escalate tensions dangerously with China. 

Now, after what has been effectively a year-long blackout of the lab-leak theory by the corporate media and the scientific establishment, President Joe Biden has announced an investigation to assess its credibility. And as a consequence, what was treated until a few weeks ago as an unhinged, rightwing conspiracy is suddenly being widely aired and seriously considered by liberals.

Every media outlet is running prominent stories wondering whether a pandemic that has killed so many people and destroyed the lives of so many more can be blamed on human hubris and meddling rather than on a natural cause.

For many years, scientists at labs like Wuhan’s have conducted Frankenstein-type experiments on viruses. They have modified naturally occurring infective agents – often found in animals such as bats – to try to predict the worst-case scenarios for how viruses, especially coronaviruses, might evolve. The claimed purpose has been to ensure humankind gets a head start on any new pandemic, preparing strategies and vaccines in advance to cope.

Viruses are known to have escaped from labs like Wuhan’s many times before. And there are now reports, rejected by China, that several staff at Wuhan got sick in late 2019, shortly before Covid-19 exploded on to the world stage. Did a human-manipulated novel coronavirus escape from the lab and spread around the world?

No interest in truth

Here we get to the tricky bit. Because nobody in a position to answer that question appears to have any interest in finding out the truth – or at least, they have no interest in the rest of us learning the truth. Not China. Not US policy-makers. Not the World Health Organisation. And not the corporate media.

The only thing we can state with certainty is this: our understanding of the origins of Covid has been narratively managed over the past 15 months and is still being narratively managed. We are being told only what suits powerful political, scientific and commercial interests.

We now know that we were misdirected a year ago into believing that a lab leak was either fanciful nonsense or evidence of Sinophobia – when it was very obviously neither. And we should understand now, even though the story has switched 180 degrees, that we are still being misdirected. Nothing that the US administration or the corporate media have told us, or are now telling us, about the origins of the virus can be trusted.

No one in power truly wants to get to the bottom of this story. In fact, quite the reverse. Were we to truly understand its implications, this story might have the potential not only to hugely discredit western political, media and scientific elites but even to challenge the whole ideological basis on which their power rests.

Which is why what we are seeing is not an effort to grapple with the truth of the past year, but a desperate bid by those same elites to continue controlling our understanding of it. Western publics are being subjected to a continuous psy-op by their own officials.

Virus experiments 

Last year, the safest story for the western political and scientific establishments to promote was the idea that a wild animal like a bat introduced Covid-19 to the human population. In other words, no one was to blame. The alternative was to hold China responsible for a lab leak, as Trump tried to do.

But there was a very good reason why most US policy-makers did not want to go down that latter path. And it had little to do with a concern either to refrain from conspiracy theories or to avoid provoking unnecessary tension with a nuclear-armed China.

Nicholas Wade, a former New York Times science writer, set out in May, in an in-depth investigation, why the case for a lab leak was scientifically strong, citing some of the world’s leading virologists.

But Wade also highlighted a much deeper problem for US elites: just before the first outbreak of Covid, the Wuhan lab was, it seems, cooperating with the US scientific establishment and WHO officials on its virus experiments – what is known, in scientific parlance, as “gain-of-function” research.

Gain-of-function experiments had been paused during the second Obama administration, precisely because of concerns about the danger of a human-engineered virus mutation escaping and creating a pandemic. But under Trump, US officials restarted the programme and were reportedly funding work at the Wuhan lab through a US-based medical organisation called the EcoHealth Alliance.

The US official who pushed this agenda hardest is reported to have been Dr Anthony Fauci – yes, the US President’s chief medical adviser and the official widely credited with curbing Trump’s reckless approach to the pandemic. If the lab leak theory is right, the pandemic’s saviour in the US might actually have been one of its chief instigators.

And to top it off, senior officials at the WHO have been implicated too, for being closely involved with gain-of-function research through groups like EcoHealth.

Colluding in deceit 

This seems to be the real reason why the lab-leak theory was quashed so aggressively last year by western political, medical and media establishments without any effort to seriously assess the claims or investigate them. Not out of any sense of obligation towards the truth or concern about racist incitement against the Chinese. It was done out of naked self-interest.

If anyone doubts that, consider this: the WHO appointed Peter Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, the very group that reportedly funded gain-of-function research at Wuhan on behalf of the US, to investigate the lab-leak theory and effectively become the WHO’s spokesman on the matter. To say that Daszak had a conflict of interest is to massively understate the problem.

He, of course, has loudly discounted any possibility of a leak and, perhaps not surprisingly, continues to direct the media’s attention to Wuhan’s wet market.

The extent to which major media are not only negligently failing to cover the story with any seriousness but are also actively continuing to collude in deceiving their audiences – and sweeping these egregious conflicts of interest under the carpet – is illustrated by this article published by the BBC at the weekend.

The BBC ostensibly weighs the two possible narratives about Covid’s origins. But it mentions none of Wade’s explosive findings, including the potential US role in funding gain-of-function research at Wuhan. Both Fauci and Daszak are cited as trusted and dispassionate commentators rather than as figures who have the most to lose from a serious investigation into what happened at the Wuhan lab. 

Given this context, the events of the past 15 months look much more like a pre-emptive cover-up: a desire to stop the truth from ever emerging because, if a lab leak did occur, it would threaten the credibility of the very structures of authority on which the power of western elites rests.

Media blackout 

So why, after the strenuously enforced blackout of the past year, are Biden, the corporate media and the scientific establishment suddenly going public with the possibility of a China lab leak?

The answer to that seems clear: because Nicholas Wade’s article, in particular, blew open the doors that had been kept tightly shut on the lab-leak hypothesis. Scientists who had formerly feared being associated with Trump or a “conspiracy theory” have belatedly spoken up. The cat is out of the bag.

Or as the Financial Times reported of the new official narrative, “the driving factor was a shift among scientists who had been wary of helping Trump before the election or angering influential scientists who had dismissed the theory”.

The journal Science recently upped the stakes by publishing a letter from 18 prominent scientists stating that the lab-leak and animal-origin theories were equally “viable” and that the WHO’s earlier investigation had not given “balanced consideration” to both – a polite way of suggesting that the WHO investigation was a fix.

And so we are now being subjected by the Biden administration to Plan B: damage limitation. The US President, the medical establishment and the corporate media are raising the possibility of a Wuhan lab leak, but are excluding all the evidence unearthed by Wade and others that would implicate Fauci and the US policy elite in such a leak, if it occurred. (Meanwhile, Fauci and his supporters have been preemptively muddying the waters by trying to redefine what constitutes gain-of-function.)

The growing clamour on social media, much of it provoked by Wade’s research, is one of the main reasons Biden and the media are being forced to address the lab-leak theory, having previously discounted it. And yet Wade’s revelations of US and WHO involvement in gain-of-function research, and of potential complicity in a lab leak and a subsequent cover-up are missing from almost all corporate media reporting.

Evasion tactic 

Biden’s so-called investigation is intended to be cynically evasive. It makes the administration look serious about getting to the truth when it is nothing of the sort. It eases pressure on the corporate media that might otherwise be expected to dig out the truth themselves. The narrow focus on the lab leak theory displaces the wider story of potential US and WHO complicity in such a leak and overshadows efforts by outside critics to highlight that very point. And the inevitable delay while the investigation is carried out readily exploits Covid news fatigue as western publics start to emerge from under the pandemic’s shadow.

The Biden administration will hope the public’s interest rapidly wanes on this story so that the corporate media can let it drop off their radar. In any case, the investigation’s findings will most likely be inconclusive, to avoid a war of duelling narratives with China.

But even if the investigation is forced to point the finger at the Chinese, the Biden administration knows that the western corporate media will loyally report its accusations against China as fact – just as they loyally blacked out any consideration of a lab leak until they were forced to do so over the past few days.

Illusion of truth 

The Wuhan story provides a chance to understand more deeply how elites wield their narrative power over us – to control what we think, or are even capable of thinking. They can twist any narrative to their advantage.

In the calculations of western elites, the truth is largely irrelevant. What is of utmost importance is maintaining the illusion of truth. It is vital to keep us believing that our leaders rule in our best interests; that the western system – despite all its flaws – is the best possible one for arranging our political and economic lives; and that we are on a steady, if sometimes rocky, path towards progress.

The job of sustaining the illusion of truth falls to the corporate media. It will be their role now to expose us to a potentially lengthy, certainly lively – but carefully ring-fenced and ultimately inconclusive – debate about whether Covid emerged naturally or leaked from the Wuhan lab.

The media’s task is to manage smoothly the transition from last year’s unquestionable certainty – that the pandemic had an animal origin – to a more hesitant, confusing picture that includes the possibility of a human, but very much Chinese, role in the virus’ emergence. It is to ensure we do not feel any cognitive dissonance as a theory we were assured was impossible by the experts only weeks ago suddenly becomes only too possible, even though nothing has materially changed in the meantime.

What is essential for the political, media and scientific establishments is that we do not ponder deeper questions:

• How is it that the supposedly sceptical, disputatious, raucous media once again spoke mostly with a single and uncritical voice on such a vitally important matter – in this case, for more than a year on the origins of Covid?
• Why was that media consensus broken not by a large, well-resourced media organisation, but by a lone, former science writer  working independently and publishing in a relatively obscure science magazine? 
• Why did the many leading scientists who are now ready to question the imposed narrative of Covid’s animal origin remain silent for so long about the apparently equally credible hypothesis of a lab leak? 
• And most importantly, why should we believe that the political, media and scientific establishments have on this occasion any interest in telling us the truth, or in ensuring our welfare, after they have been shown to have repeatedly lied or stayed silent on even graver matters and over much longer periods, such as about the various ecological catastrophes that have been looming since the 1950s? 

Class interests

Those questions, let alone the answers, will be avoided by anyone who needs to believe that our rulers are competent and moral and that they pursue the public good rather than their own individual, narrow, selfish interests – or those of their class or professional group.

Scientists defer slavishly to the scientific establishment because that same establishment oversees a system in which scientists are rewarded with research funding, employment opportunities and promotions. And because scientists have little incentive to question or expose their own professional community’s failings, or increase public scepticism towards science and scientists.

Similarly, journalists work for a handful of billionaire-owned media corporations that want to maintain the public’s faith in the “benevolence” of the power structures that reward billionaires for their supposed genius and ability to improve the lives of the rest of us. The corporate media has no interest in encouraging the public to question whether it can really operate as a neutral conduit that channels information to ordinary people rather than preserves a status quo that benefits a tiny wealth-elite.

And politicians have every reason to continue to persuade us that they represent our interests rather than the billionaire donors whose corporations and media outlets can so easily destroy their careers.

What we are dealing with here is a set of professional classes doing everything in their power to preserve their own interests and the interests of the system that rewards them. And that requires strenuous efforts on their part to make sure we do not understand that policy is driven chiefly by greed and a craving for status, not by the common good or by a concern for truth and transparency.

Which is why no meaningful lessons will be learnt about what really happened in Wuhan. Maintaining the illusion of truth will continue to take precedence over uncovering the truth. And for that reason we are doomed to keep making the same screw-ups. As the next pandemic will doubtless attest.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog. 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

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.

***

A Johns Hopkins School of Medicine professor blasted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for ignoring crucial data on natural immunity from COVID-19, saying that “probably half the country has natural immunity from prior infection. This is the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history.”

Dr. Marty Makary, also a professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, made the remarks during an interview on the Vince Coglianese Show, where he excoriated public health officials for denying the reality of a natural immunity to COVID-19, acquired through natural infection.

Makary explained that the CDC’s numbers on those who have contracted a COVID-19 infection are artificially low, giving a false impression of the spread of the virus and the herd immunity that has already arisen therefrom.

Referencing the roughly 30 million COVID infections cited on the CDC’s dedicated COVID-tracker webpage, Makary said “those are just the people who are confirmed to have had the infection. It’s probably five times higher, about 150 million people.”

Makary spoke positively of the broad spread of the virus in relation to immunity: “When you get natural immunity from a severe COVID infection, you have natural immunity that’s probably lifelong.”

Various studies have shown this to be the case, Makary noted, paying attention to data from Denmark, where only “six-tenths of one percent of people who had COVID ever get the infection a second time.” “And that’s when they’re around it (COVID) all the time, that’s in healthcare workers,” he added.

“Studies out of California prove that and show 38 percent of Californians had antibodies back in March before the vaccine was really kicking off. About half the country has natural immunity.”

And this “natural immunity works,” Makary continued, adding that “there is more data on natural immunity than there is on vaccinated immunity, because natural immunity has been around longer.”

Though the virus has been around “for 15 months,” Makary explained that “in the U.S. we’re not seeing re-infections.” Additionally, he recognized that Italy too, once the epicenter of the crisis, is “not seeing re-infections.”

“When they do happen, they’re rare and their symptoms are mild or they’re asymptomatic. You get breakthrough infections with natural immunity, and you get breakthrough infections with vaccine immunity. They’re mild and often asymptomatic,” he explained.

Makary voiced dismay at CDC and White House officials who routinely push for near-universal vaccination in spite of the data on natural immunity. In fact, governing bodies are guilty of “demonizing” people who decide not to get vaccinated, even when they have recovered from a COVID infection and have the antibodies, forming a natural immunity.

So incensed was the professor by the intellectual negligence displayed by public health officials that he actively discouraged recourse to their advice on COVID-related matters: “I never thought I’d say this, but please ignore the CDC guidance.”

“One of the biggest failures of our current medical leadership is ignoring natural immunity,” he said. “They’ve given out no guidance to those who’ve had the infection, they just tell them to get the vaccine as if they don’t already have antibodies and they demonize them when they’re hesitant.”

He added that the medical establishment “don’t know what to do with those who already had the infection,” leading them to simply suggest taking one of the experimental vaccines.

But the vaccines themselves are no guarantee of protection against the very virus they were created to shield from. In addition to myriad health problems arising from the currently experimental COVID vaccines, including life-threatening blood clots, the jabs have not proved adequate in preventing infection after being “fully vaccinated.”

Reports in April confirmed almost 6,000 so-called “breakthrough cases” of COVID-19 in the United States – that is, contraction of the virus two weeks after receiving a full vaccine regimen – 74 of whom died.

In fact, as more breakthrough cases were beginning to be reported, the CDC made the decision to alter how it tests and records COVID infection in vaccinated individuals, raising the COVID test-positive bar higher than that of tests from unvaccinated individuals. The CDC also announced that it would stop reporting weekly COVID breakthrough infections unless they result in hospitalization or death, subsequently suppressing the figures.

Although breakthrough cases continue to rise, Makary suggested that taking just one shot of a two-shot-recommended vaccine is sufficient for protection against COVID-19. He did note, however, that “when you get the second dose it can knock you down,” and that “getting the infection is like getting a dose.”

The medical doctor soon turned his attention to destigmatizing the decision not to vaccinate, saying that such a choice should be considered “reasonable too,” especially given that “we have fewer daily COVID cases now than we have daily flu cases in a mild flu year.”

“We’ve got to start respecting people who choose not to get the vaccine instead of demonizing them,” he said.

Makary blamed the Biden administration, as well as the CDC, for misleading the nation regarding the need for high vaccine uptake, thus hindering the perceived progress toward herd immunity. “They ignore natural immunity which changes the path to herd immunity,” he said.

“When you ignore the fact that half of the unvaccinated have natural immunity, the path to get to 85 percent immunity in the population is much more difficult, it’s much more dire. If you ignore natural immunity, the only way to get to 85 percent population immunity is to have mandates for the vaccine, and require kids to get them, and convert those who are hesitant, and demonize them. That is why you are hearing a totally different story from public health officials who ignore natural immunity.”

“Right now in America, 62 percent of all adults have been vaccinated and half of the unvaccinated have natural immunity. That means 80 to 85 percent of adults in America today have immunity. The virus can’t jump around … when 8.5 out of 10 people are protected, they’re barriered.”

“That’s called herd immunity and we are there.”

“This is the most slow, reactionary, political CDC in American history. They’re taking talking points from the WH and it’s a disgrace,” he said.

On account of the neglect of natural immunity, Makary said the government has effectively “prolonged the pandemic,” prompting him to encourage Americans who are “unvaccinated and have not had the infection … to be careful and evaluate your own individual risk.” Otherwise, “please ignore the CDC. Live a normal life.”

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Poland’s counterproductive foreign policy of depending so much on former US President Trump’s re-election, ruining relations with Russia, and openly opposing Moscow’s Nord Stream II gas pipeline with Germany are responsible for its present predicament wherein the leading Central European country now finds itself in an extremely disadvantageous geopolitical position.

No country is more upset than Poland is at US President Biden for passively allowing the Nord Stream II gas pipeline to finish construction with only the most superficial of sanctions. Its representatives have described the project as both a threat to energy security and also most recently “a gas bomb placed under European integration” due to Warsaw’s belief that Moscow will capriciously cut off the tap to its Western customers. The Eurasian Great Power would never do such a thing since it’s arguably just as dependent on its customers as they are on Russia, if not more considering its disproportionate budgetary dependence on such energy sales, which Poland is well aware of.

What worries Warsaw the most, however, is that Moscow and Berlin might “collude” with one another to jointly “manage” the geostrategic Central & Eastern European (CEE) space across which Poland envisions itself becoming the regional leader through the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) that it leads as well as that structure’s “Lublin Triangle” core. Poland had hitherto based almost the entirety of its recent foreign policy on former US President Trump’s re-election due to his desire to stop Nord Stream II in order to compel Europe to purchase more expensive US LNG. It also appreciated his support of the 3SI, which irked Germany because Berlin is adamantly against Poland flexing its geopolitical muscles in CEE.

In pursuit of its goal to stop Poland from regaining its historical regional hegemonic status and perhaps even expanding it beyond its prior “sphere of influence”, Germany has been waging an ongoing Hybrid War on Poland intended to overthrow its conservative-nationalist government. The Biden Administration also seems unsupportive of Poland’s current authorities at the very least, if not silently hostile even if only for simple ideological reasons. Nevertheless, both Germany and the US appreciate Poland for playing a leading role in the West’s Hybrid War on neighboring Belarus, which advances very important anti-Russian foreign policy goals. Warsaw isn’t just doing this to please them, but as part of its hegemonic ambitions through the 3SI.

The problem for Poland is that it already burned all of its bridges with Russia so it’s incapable of realistically balancing with Moscow against an increasingly hostile Berlin and perhaps soon even an equally hostile Washington, the latter two of which behave as “frenemies” by being “cordial” for the most part in public but extremely pernicious behind the scenes. Germany’s Hybrid War on Poland through its support of the liberal-globalist Color Revolution opposition pairs perfectly with what Poland regards as the US’ so-called “betrayal” through Nord Stream II and Warsaw’s suspicions of Washington’s grand strategic motives ahead of the upcoming Putin-Biden Summit to put Poland in a very disadvantageous position.

The country’s “negative nationalism”, which builds a large part of its contemporary nationalism solely around its differences (whether real, imagined, or exaggerated) with Russia, blinded it to the strategic shortcomings of its prior policies and resulted in Poland counterproductively burning its bridges with Moscow with passion. Poland recently enhanced its military cooperation with Turkey through a combat drone deal which might in the future provide some pragmatic balancing options considering Ankara’s problems with both Berlin and Washington, but the West Asian country could never repair Warsaw’s balancing act like a rapprochement with Moscow could. That latter option is unlikely though for the earlier mentioned reasons, but it remains the most optimal.

Should Poland ever be able to muster up the political will to stop meddling in Russia’s “Near Abroad” (Belarus & Ukraine), then a breakthrough might in theory be achieved, but this is regrettably unrealistic to expect from the country since it’s convinced itself that its national security is dependent on countering Russian-friendly forces in those two neighboring nations between them. Poland as a state is simply too psychologically traumatized by its history with Russia to ever trust Moscow’s strategic intentions, which was exploited by Germany and the US in order to take advantage of this leading CEE country without its leaders even realizing it until it was too late. This leads to the worst-case scenario from its perspective.

Poland now might have to confront the prospect of being compelled by circumstances to pragmatically deal with Russia if Biden makes progress on advancing a so-called “New Detente” during his upcoming summit with President Putin. Moscow would hold more cards in this case than Warsaw could since the latter couldn’t rely as much on Berlin or Washington to support its regionally destabilizing Russophobic foreign policy to the same extent as before considering the perceived consequences of Nord Stream II’s impending completion. At the same time though, Germany and the US might continue pushing Poland to meddle in Russia’s “Near Abroad”, hoping that if anything goes wrong, then Warsaw can just take the fall for it instead of them.

To put it bluntly, Poland is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t, and this dilemma vexes its strategists. They riskily bet everything on former US President Trump’s re-election, only to have their entire grand strategy suddenly sabotaged by Biden. They’re too deep into their regional Russophobic destabilization operations in Belarus and Ukraine to pull back now, at least without “losing face” among their people, yet even a pragmatic recalibration of their politics could be seen by their citizens as having been done under so-called “geopolitical duress”, which might reduce the ruling party’s domestic support among certain nationalist forces. Although the ruling party is still pretty popular, its coalition might crack in the future under such foreign pressures.

These considerations make it very difficult to suggest the optimal course of action for Poland since there might be some heavy costs for it either way. All told, though, it would objectively be best if Poland began exploring the options for an incipient rapprochement with Russia even if only for pragmatism’s sake, perhaps seeking solely to agree to so-called “rules of engagement” for “managing” their competition in Belarus and Ukraine. In any case, Poland should seriously consider taking the initiative in independently engaging Russia without Germany or the US’ approval since neither of those two sought Poland’s in doing what they recently did. If Poland aspires for regional leadership, then it’s about time that it starts acting more like a leader and less like a follower.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The left has said it for a year and last week Cummings confirmed it: the government’s handling of the pandemic has consistently prioritised private profit over public health. Now we must hold them to account for their crimes against us, writes CLAUDIA WEBBE MP

Last week’s explosive testimony by Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the Prime Minister, revealed, if true, the extent of the government’s deadly handling of the pandemic.

The most shocking admission was that, due to government negligence, unpreparedness and sheer arrogance, many thousands of people died unnecessarily because of decisions made in Number 10.

Cummings was frank in his assessment: “Tens of thousands of people died who didn’t need to die.” If we trust a word of it, there is no need to wait for an independent inquiry, the Prime Minister must urgently apologise for this deadly dereliction of duty to everyone who lost a loved one due to his government’s carelessness. Then he must resign.

It was also unearthed that, contrary to government mistruths at the time, there were significant PPE shortages with British stocks continually being sent abroad even as the pandemic accelerated.

Cummings said that Health and Social Care Secretary Matt Hancock “should’ve been fired for at least 15-20 things, including lying to everybody on multiple occasions.”

Perhaps the most severe and deadly of these “lies” was that, despite persistent government promises, there was no protective ring around care homes in the early stages of the pandemic.

As Cummings put it, “infected people went back to care homes and then infected people and it spread like wildfire inside the care homes. Also the care homes didn’t have the PPE to deal with it and they didn’t have the testing for the staff, so you had this cascading series of crises — like a domino effect, rippling through the system.”

It would be easy to write Cummings off as a self-confessed liar giving evidence to Parliament about a Prime Minister whom he branded a liar and further whom Cummings indicates was surrounded by liars in Parliament. Or perhaps the Conservatives in power have run out of opposition or people to fight with so they are eating themselves.

However, we know the government’s lack of preparedness meant that NHS staff were fatally exposed. Tragically, more than 500 NHS and care workers have died after exposure to Covid-19, amid a shameful failure to provide them with suitable PPE.

This underlines the selflessness of those who dedicate their lives and even put themselves at risk to help others.

Any reasonable government would ensure that those who have contributed most to our national effort receive a fair compensation for their heroic efforts, including a 15 per cent pay rise. Yet sadly, we do not have a reasonable government.

The details of Boris Johnson’s negligence and sheer carelessness are sickening.

Cummings confirmed that herd immunity was the initial policy of the government, which they knew would have cost at least 220,000 lives. Yet, the government denied that this was ever the policy, despite being on record saying exactly that, and got away with it due to our compliant media class.

Indeed, it should not have taken a disgruntled government employee to expose this government’s deadly handling of the coronavirus. This was a damning indictment of our media ecosystem and reveals the cosy relationship between government and client journalists, which Cummings himself exposed.

Johnson’s personal culpability and ineptitude was laid bare in the testimony. Johnson was said to regard Covid as “the new swine flu” at the start of 2020 and held a complete disregard for widespread loss of life — keen as he was to prioritise the economy over public health.

In a clear bid to grab our attention and headlines, Cummings described how officials had talked of getting the chief medical officer for England, Chris Whitty, to inject Johnson live on TV with the coronavirus “so everyone realises it’s nothing to be frightened of.”

This graphic description is only a few steps removed from Donald Trump’s encouraging people to inject bleach to combat the virus and reveals how utterly unfit for office our Prime Minister is.

What this tells us is that the government’s mishandling throughout the Covid pandemic amounts to what Friedrich Engels termed “social murder.”

Engels used this to describe conditions in Manchester in 1845, in which the ruling class places masses of workers “in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and unnatural death.”

There is no other way to describe the government’s handling of the pandemic. It follows that everyone at the top of government associated with this utter calamity must resign.

Every community has been hit by this crisis, but it has especially impacted the poor, vulnerable and the oppressed including those in lower-paid work and who cannot work from home. African, Asian and minority ethnic communities, the disabled and those in poorer housing are among those hit hardest by this crisis.

My own community of Leicester East has been under lockdown or enhanced restrictions longer than virtually any other area. As one of the most diverse areas of Britain, Leicester is more deeply affected by the disproportionate impact of the virus.

A leaked government report found that “existing socioeconomic inequality” had left African, Asian and minority ethnic communities at greater exposure to Covid-19 as they were more likely to live in cramped and multigenerational housing in deprived areas and hold public-facing jobs.

Workers were denied proper sick pay and were forced to work, even whilst ill, in conditions which were not Covid-secure otherwise, they would suffer a loss of pay. Such were the conditions of wage exploitation in Leicester’s garment Industry.

The disproportionate suffering of areas like Leicester is a damning indictment of the government’s failure to prioritise public health and implement a Zero-Covid strategy to suppress the virus. Yet the government continues to make the same mistakes over and over again.

It should have been made simple: if you get contacted by test and trace, you must be provided with the material means to isolate. It was estimated that, at the peak of the virus, at least 20,000 people a day were not complying fully with isolation orders, allowing the virus to spread.

This is not due to moral failures on behalf of the public — but because it is impossible for people living on poverty wages to comply with guidance on self-isolation and social distancing.

Yet the government failed to ensure this for working-class people in Leicester and across Britain. They were happy to squander billions to enrich private companies but flinched at ensuring that people were not faced with a choice between destitution or infection.

A Zero-Covid approach was necessary, to suppress the virus and prioritise public health over private profit. This would have avoided a cycle of confusing and ineffective local lockdowns. Even today with the concerning rise of the B.1.617 variant, it would protect both lives and livelihoods by driving down the virus so that the economy can properly restart when it is safe to do so.

The government’s handling of the pandemic has been defined by a belief that there is a trade-off between health and the economy. It is clear which side they are on, as they have consistently prioritised private profit over public health.

Yet this is a false dichotomy. Partly due to the government’s many attempts to prioritise the economy, from the initial herd immunity strategy, the Eat out to Help Out scheme and the rush to allow people into high-streets to do their Christmas shopping, we have the highest number of excess deaths in Europe, one of the worst death rates in the world and are also facing our worst recession for over 300 years.

Across the world, countries that have pursued a zero-Covid strategy are returning to normality, with all the economic benefits that brings. The government must follow the best examples set by countries across the world, especially across East Asia and the Pacific and adopt a zero-Covid strategy. This is the only way to prioritise the protection of everyone in Britain and especially those whom the virus has disproportionately affected.

This episode must be a wake-up call. We have a government responsible for “social murder,” yet they are still running high in the polls — it us up to us on the left to tell the truth in our neighbourhoods, communities and workplaces and continue to fight for a society which is built around people’s needs, health and wellbeing.

*

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.

Claudia Webbe MP is the Member of Parliament for Leicester East You can follow her at www.facebook.com/claudiaforLE and www.twitter.com/ClaudiaWebbe.

Featured image is from Morning Star

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.

***

Before we give in to hopes that the Biden/Putin Summit will result in better relations between the US and Russia, we should remember the Trump/Putin Summit in Helsinki in July 2018.  The US media and the Democrat Party used the Trump/Putin Summit to blacken the event as where Putin “cemented his status and the status of Russia as US public enemy #1.”

The American Establishment made certain the summit would fail. Three days prior to the summit the Department of Justice indicted 12 Russian GRU officers.  Two days prior to the summit Senate Democrats urged Trump to cancel the summit meeting.

CIA Director John Brennan said that the press conference following the summit showed that Trump exceeded “the threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecile, Trump is wholly in the pocket of Putin.”

In other words, the Democrat Party, the US military/security complex, and the American media considered Trump’s meeting with Putin an act of treason.  Regardless of whether anything good happened at the Trump/Putin Summit, the media presstitutes, Democrats, and CIA controlled the narrative.

The question before us is:  If it was treason for Trump to meet with Putin, why is it permissible for Biden to meet with Putin?

The answer perhaps is that the Biden/Putin Summit is a propaganda trap for the Kremlin.  Just as the Kremlin walked into a propaganda trap when it allowed Navalny to take his poison complaint to Germany, the Kremlin might be repeating the folly by agreeing to the meeting with Biden.

We know from reports of the pre-summit meeting of Lavrov and the US Secretary of State that Biden’s agenda is a list of accusations against Russia.  In other words, Biden’s intent is to hold Putin accountable.  Obviously, no improved relations can come from such a meeting unless Putin confesses to the accusations and promises to behave better in the future.  Otherwise Washington’s narrative will be that the summit was a failure due to Putin’s unreasonableness.  Putin wouldn’t agree to stop poisoning people. Putin wouldn’t agree to stop invading countries. Putin would not agree to stop interfering in elections.  Putin would not agree to stop cyber attacks.

In other words, Washington will use the summit to reiterate the status of Putin’s Russia as “US public enemy #1.”  This is almost certain to be the outcome. Washington is using the Russian desire to be accepted by the West to draw an incautious Kremlin into a propaganda trap.

The Biden regime consists of ideologues and is probably the least professional government in US history.  But professionalism has nothing to do with it.  Biden has many of the same people—Victoria Nuland for example—who organized the “Maidan Revolution” and installed in Ukraine a government hostile to Moscow.  Despite Kremlin diplomatic efforts in the European Union, recently the European Parliament voted to support regime change in Russia.  With such a high degree of Western hostility toward Russia, how can the Kremlin expect any positive result from a summit?

The Kremlin has not understood that Russia is worth far more to Washington as an enemy than as a friend.  The “Russian threat” is the basis for the one thousand-billion-dollar annual budget of the US military/security complex and the power that goes with this enormous sum.  Without the “Russia threat,” what is the justification for the budget.

The “Russian threat” also keeps Western Europe and NATO in line with US policy.  If there is no Russian threat, what is the point of NATO?  What would prevent European countries from having independent foreign policies, thus contributing to a multi-polar world?  Biden’s interest is to heighten, not reduce, tensions with Russia. We should remember that the CIA, FBI, Democrats, and the US media orchestrated “Russiagate” in order to prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Russia.  There is no basis for believing that Biden will be permitted to do what Trump was prohibited from doing.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy.

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

Featured image: Russian President Vladimir Putin By Harold Escalona/shutterstock And President Trump By Drop of Light/Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Abstract

Background

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 is just when people are all engaged in snooping on themselves and one another that they become anesthetized to the whole process. As information itself becomes the largest business in the world, data banks know more about individual people than the people do themselves. The more the data banks record about each one of us, the less we exist.”—Marshall McLuhan, From Cliche To Archetype

We’re being spied on by a domestic army of government snitches, spies and techno-warriors.

This government of Peeping Toms is watching everything we do, reading everything we write, listening to everything we say, and monitoring everything we spend.

Beware of what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, and with whom you communicate, because it is all being recorded, stored, and catalogued, and will be used against you eventually, at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

This far-reaching surveillance has paved the way for an omnipresent, militarized fourth branch of government—the Surveillance State—that came into being without any electoral mandate or constitutional referendum.

Indeed, long before the National Security Agency (NSA) became the agency we loved to hate, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration were carrying out their own secret mass surveillance on an unsuspecting populace.

Even agencies not traditionally associated with the intelligence community are part of the government’s growing network of snitches and spies.

Just about every branch of the government—from the Postal Service to the Treasury Department and every agency in between—now has its own surveillance sector, authorized to spy on the American people. For instance, the U.S. Postal Service, which has been photographing the exterior of every piece of paper mail for the past 20 years, is also spying on Americans’ texts, emails and social media posts. Headed up by the Postal Service’s law enforcement division, the Internet Covert Operations Program (iCOP) is reportedly using facial recognition technology, combined with fake online identities, to ferret out potential troublemakers with “inflammatory” posts. The agency claims the online surveillance, which falls outside its conventional job scope of processing and delivering paper mail, is necessary to help postal workers avoid “potentially volatile situations.”

Then there are the fusion and counterterrorism centers that gather all of the data from the smaller government spies—the police, public health officials, transportation, etc.—and make it accessible for all those in power. And that doesn’t even begin to touch on the complicity of the corporate sector, which buys and sells us from cradle to grave, until we have no more data left to mine.

It’s not just what we say, where we go and what we buy that is being tracked.

We’re being surveilled right down to our genes, thanks to a potent combination of hardware, software and data collection that scans our biometrics—our faces, irises, voices, genetics, even our gait—runs them through computer programs that can break the data down into unique “identifiers,” and then offers them up to the government and its corporate allies for their respective uses.

All of those internet-connected gadgets we just have to have (Forbes refers to them as “(data) pipelines to our intimate bodily processes”)—the smart watches that can monitor our blood pressure and the smart phones that let us pay for purchases with our fingerprints and iris scans—are setting us up for a brave new world where there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

For instance, imagine what the government could do (and is likely already doing) with voiceprint technology, which has been likened to a fingerprint. Described as “the next frontline in the battle against overweening public surveillance,” the collection of voiceprints is a booming industry for governments and businesses alike. As The Guardian reports, “voice biometrics could be used to pinpoint the location of individuals.”

We are now the unwitting victims of an interconnected, tightly woven, technologically evolving web of real-time, warrantless, wall-to-wall mass surveillance that makes the spy programs spawned by the USA Patriot Act look like child’s play.

Fusion centers. See Something, Say Something. Red flag laws. Behavioral threat assessments. Terror watch lists. Facial recognition. Snitch tip lines. Biometric scanners. Pre-crime. DNA databases. Data mining. Precognitive technology. Contact tracing apps.

These are all part and parcel of the widening surveillance dragnet that the government has used and abused in order to extend its reach and its power.

The COVID-19 pandemic has succeeded in acclimating us even further to being monitored, tracked and reported for so-called deviant or undesirable behavior.

Consequently, we now live in a society in which a person can be accused of any number of crimes without knowing what exactly he has done. He might be apprehended in the middle of the night by a roving band of SWAT police. He might find himself on a no-fly list, unable to travel for reasons undisclosed. He might have his phones or internet tapped based upon a secret order handed down by a secret court, with no recourse to discover why he was targeted.

This Kafkaesque nightmare has become America’s reality.

Despite the fact that its data snooping has been shown to be ineffective at detecting, let alone stopping, any actual terror attacks, the government continues to operate its domestic spying programs largely in secret, carrying out warrantless mass surveillance on hundreds of millions of Americans’ phone calls, emails, text messages and the like.

The question of how to deal with government agencies and programs that operate outside of the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution forces us to contend with a deeply unsatisfactory and dubious political “solution” to a problem that operates beyond the reach of voters and politicians: how do you hold accountable a government that lies, cheats, steals, sidesteps the law, and then absolves itself of wrongdoing?

Certainly, the history and growth of the NSA tracks with the government’s insatiable hunger for ever-great powers.

Since its official start in 1952, when President Harry S. Truman issued a secret executive order establishing the NSA as the hub of the government’s foreign intelligence activities, the agency—nicknamed “No Such Agency”—has operated covertly, unaccountable to Congress all the while using taxpayer dollars to fund its secret operations. It was only when the agency ballooned to 90,000 employees in 1969, making it the largest intelligence agency in the world with a significant footprint outside Washington, DC, that it became more difficult to deny its existence.

In the aftermath of Watergate in 1975, the Senate held meetings under the Church Committee in order to determine exactly what sorts of illicit activities the American intelligence apparatus was engaged in under the direction of President Nixon, and how future violations of the law could be stopped. It was the first time the NSA was exposed to public scrutiny since its creation.

The investigation revealed a sophisticated operation whose surveillance programs paid little heed to such things as the Constitution. For instance, under Project SHAMROCK, the NSA spied on telegrams to and from the U.S., as well as the correspondence of American citizens. Moreover, as the Saturday Evening Post reports, “Under Project MINARET, the NSA monitored the communications of civil rights leaders and opponents of the Vietnam War, including targets such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohammed Ali, Jane Fonda, and two active U.S. Senators. The NSA had launched this program in 1967 to monitor suspected terrorists and drug traffickers, but successive presidents used it to track all manner of political dissidents.”

Senator Frank Church (D-Ida.), who served as the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence that investigated the NSA, understood only too well the dangers inherent in allowing the government to overstep its authority in the name of national security. Church recognized that such surveillance powers “at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.”

Noting that the NSA could enable a dictator “to impose total tyranny” upon an utterly defenseless American public, Church declared that he did not “want to see this country ever go across the bridge” of constitutional protection, congressional oversight and popular demand for privacy. He avowed that “we,” implicating both Congress and its constituency in this duty, “must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.

The result was the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the creation of the FISA Court, which was supposed to oversee and correct how intelligence information is collected and collated. The law requires that the NSA get clearance from the FISA Court, a secret surveillance court, before it can carry out surveillance on American citizens. Fast forward to the present day, and the so-called solution to the problem of government entities engaging in unjustified and illegal surveillance—the FISA Court—has unwittingly become the enabler of such activities, rubberstamping almost every warrant request submitted to it.

The 9/11 attacks served as a watershed moment in our nation’s history, ushering in an era in which immoral and/or illegal government activities such as surveillance, torture, strip searches, SWAT team raids are sanctioned as part of the quest to keep us “safe.”

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush secretly authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans’ phone calls and emails. That wireless wiretap program was reportedly ended in 2007 after the New York Times reported on it, to mass indignation.

Nothing changed under Barack Obama. In fact, the violations worsened, with the NSA authorized to secretly collect internet and telephone data on millions of Americans, as well as on foreign governments.

It was only after whistleblower Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 that the American people fully understood the extent to which they had been betrayed once again.

Even so, nothing really changed.

Since then, presidents, politicians, and court rulings have come and gone, but none of them have done much to put an end to the government’s “technotyranny.”

At every turn, we have been handicapped in our quest for transparency, accountability and a representative democracy by an establishment culture of secrecy: secret agencies, secret experiments, secret military bases, secret surveillance, secret budgets, and secret court rulings, all of which exist beyond our reach, operate outside our knowledge, and do not answer to “we the people.”

Yet the surveillance sector is merely one small part of a shadowy permanent government comprised of unelected bureaucrats who march in lockstep with profit-driven corporations that actually runs Washington, DC, and works to keep us under close watch and, thus, under control. For example, Google openly works with the NSA, Amazon has built a massive $600 million intelligence database for the CIA, and the telecommunications industry is making a fat profit by spying on us for the government.

Most recently, the Biden Administration indicated it may be open to working with non-governmental firms in order to warrantlessly monitor citizens online.

This would be nothing new, however. Vast quantities of the government’s digital surveillance is already being outsourced to private companies, who are far less restrained in how they harvest and share our personal data.

In this way, Corporate America is making a hefty profit by aiding and abetting the government in its militarized domestic surveillance efforts.

Cue the dawning of what The Nation refers to as “the rise of a new class in America: the cyberintelligence ruling class. These are the people—often referred to as ‘intelligence professionals’—who do the actual analytical and targeting work of the NSA and other agencies in America’s secret government. Over the last [20] years, thousands of former high-ranking intelligence officials and operatives have left their government posts and taken up senior positions at military contractors, consultancies, law firms, and private-equity firms. In their new jobs, they replicate what they did in government—often for the same agencies they left. But this time, their mission is strictly for-profit.”

The snitch culture has further empowered the Surveillance State.

As Ezra Marcus writes for the New York Times, “Throughout the past year, American society responded to political upheaval and biological peril by turning to an age-old tactic for keeping rule breakers in check: tattling.”

This new era of snitch surveillance is the lovechild of the government’s post-9/11 “See Something, Say Something” programs combined with the self-righteousness of a politically correct, technologically-wired age.

Marcus continues:

“Technology, and our abiding love of it, is crucial to our current moment of social surveillance. Snitching isn’t just a byproduct of nosiness or fear; it’s a technological feature built into the digital architecture of the pandemic era — specifically when it comes to software designed for remote work and Covid-tracing… Contact tracing apps … have started to be adapted for other uses, including criminal probes by the Singaporean government. If that seems distinctly worrying, it might be useful to remember that the world’s most powerful technology companies, whose products you are likely using to read this story, already use a business model of mass surveillance, collecting and selling user information to advertisers at an unfathomable scale. Our cellphones track us everywhere, and our locations are bought and sold by data brokers at incredible, intimate detail. Facial recognition software used by law enforcement trawls Instagram selfies. Facebook harvests the biometric data of its users. The whole ecosystem, more or less, runs on snitching.”

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are dealing with today is not just a beast that has outgrown its chains but a beast that will not be restrained.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Featured image is from Global Look Press / Jaap Arriens

Russia to Form 20 New Military Units in West to Counter NATO Threat

By Rick Rozoff, June 01, 2021

Today Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu chaired and addressed a Defence Ministry Board Session at the National Centre for State Defence Control in Moscow. The second half of his comments dwelt on plans for upgrading capabilities in the Western Military District.

Vaccine Researcher Admits ‘Big Mistake,’ Says Spike Protein Is Dangerous ‘Toxin’

By Celeste McGovern, June 01, 2021

‘Terrifying’ new research finds vaccine spike protein unexpectedly in bloodstream. The protein is linked to blood clots, heart and brain damage, and potential risks to nursing babies and fertility.

Canadian Doctor Removed from Hospital Duty after Speaking Out About COVID Vaccine Side Effects

By Anthony Murdoch, June 01, 2021

A Canadian family doctor says he has been punished by his local health authority because he raised concerns about side effects he observed in some of those who had received the Moderna COVID-19 jab within his community.

Jovita Moore: Atlanta News Anchor Develops Two Brain Tumors 12 Days after Second Experimental Pfizer mRNA Injection, Still Recovering from Surgery

By TheCOVIDBlog.com, June 01, 2021

Ms. Jovita Moore is the evening news anchor for WSB-TV Channel 2 News in Atlanta. She’s work at the station since 1998 and has held the evening anchor position since 2012. Ms. Moore received the second dose of experimental Pfizer mRNA on April 2, according to her Facebook page. Her Facebook post that day is full of sad, dramatic irony.

Israel, Don’t Raise the Roof Beams High As You “Resettle” Lifta; Its Owners Will Return

By Rima Najjar, June 01, 2021

We are now witnessing shocks within Israel behind the Green Line, something that Israel had hitherto been able to contain. In the process, it pretended, along with much of the western world, that it is the “longest-lived democracy in the Middle East” and that only its continued occupation of the West Bank and its harsh blockade of Gaza undermine its “constitutional ideals”- ideals now exposed for what they’ve always been: Jewish supremacist in nature.

The Farmers’ Protests and the Looting of India

By Asad Ismi, June 01, 2021

One month prior, in Canada, labour and community organizations took out a full-page advertisement in the Toronto Star voicing their support of the farmers. Despite only recently gaining attention in the West, the farmers’ protests in India have been ongoing for over half a year, making them, by Time magazine’s estimate, “the world’s largest ongoing demon- stration and perhaps the biggest in human history.”

Afghan Nationalism Faces Existential Challenge

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, June 01, 2021

The Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on May 13, “We will not allow boots on the ground or military bases on our territory.” He was referring to the future US security operations in the region.

COVID Deaths Plunge after Major World City Introduces Ivermectin

By Art Moore, June 01, 2021

A citywide initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients resulted in a plunge in hospitalizations and deaths, two studies found. Hospitalizations were down by as much as 76%, according to research by the Mexican Digital Agency for Public Innovation, Mexico’s Ministry of Health and the Mexican Social Security Institute, according to a TrialSiteNews report highlighted by LifeSiteNews.

Recantations Are All the Rage. Israel Has Lost the Public Relations War

By Philip Giraldi, June 01, 2021

Several things are happening simultaneously. Most important, Israel has lost the public opinion war in much of the world through its brutality during the recent attack on Gaza and it continues to lose ground even in the wake of a cease fire due to mass arrests of Palestinians and armed police intrusions in and around the al-Aqsa mosque.

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.

***

Fearing a new conflict over Taiwan, Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg has released a shocking account showing how the Joint Chiefs pressed Eisenhower to launch a nuclear war on China.

A previously censored account of the 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis that was sponsored by the Pentagon has been published in full by the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. The report provides a hair-raising portrait of a reckless US military leadership relentlessly pressing President Dwight Eisenhower for the authority to carry out nuclear attacks on communist China.

After holding the still-classified version of the account in his possession for fifty years, Ellsberg said he decided to release it because of the growing threat of US war with China over Taiwan, and the danger that such a conflict could escalate into a nuclear exchange.

A May 22 New York Times report on the account offered only general details of the role the US Joint Chiefs of Staff played in the run-up to the 1958 Taiwan crisis. However, it is now clear from the original highly classified documents as well as other evidence now available that from the beginning, the Joint Chiefs aimed first and foremost to exploit the tensions to carry out nuclear strikes against Chinese nuclear military targets deep in highly-populated areas.

Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalist Kuomintang regime and the Joint Chiefs were allies in wanting to embroil the United States in a war with China.

Deputy Secretary of State Christian Herter feared that the Nationalist regime was determined to drag the US into conflict, according to the Pentagon-sponsored account. The reason, according to the author of the account, Morton Halperin, was that involving the United States in a war with the Chinese Communists “was clearly their only hope for a return to the mainland.”

Quemoy and Matsu, the two main offshore islands occupied by Nationalist troops, were less than five miles from the mainland and had been used by Chiang’s forces as bases to mount unsuccessful commando raids inside the mainland. And Chiang, who was still committed to reconquering the mainland China with the ostensible support of the United States, had stationed a third of his 350,000-man army on those two islands.

In May 1958, the Joint Chiefs adopted a new plan (OPS PLAN 25-58), ostensibly for the defense of the offshore islands. In fact, the plan provided a basis for attacking China with atomic weapons.

It was to begin with a brief preliminary “Phase I”, which it called “patrol and reconnaissance” and was said to be already underway. “Phase II”, which would have been triggered by a Chinese attack on the offshore islands, would involve US air forces wiping out the attacking forces.

But the new plan envisioned a possible third phase, in which the Strategic Air Command and forces under the command of the US Pacific Command would carry out strategic attacks with 10 to 15 kiloton tactical nuclear weapons “to destroy the war-making capability” of China.

According to the account authored by Halperin, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Air Force Gen. Nathan Twining, told State Department officials in an August meeting that the third phase would require nuclear strikes on Chinese bases as far north as Shanghai.

The Joint Chiefs played down the threat to civilian casualties from such tactical atomic weapons, emphasizing that an airburst of tactical atomic explosions would generate little radioactive fallout. But the account indicates that they provided no concrete information on expected civilian casualties.

Given the fact that both the Chinese gun emplacements across the Taiwan Strait and a key airbase serving the Chinese military forces in any conflict over the offshore islands would have been located close to significant population centers, such atomic explosions would have certainly caused civilian casualties on a massive scale.

The Joint Chiefs did not acknowledge that the bombs they planned to detonate with airbursts would have had the same potential lethality as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Nor would they concede that the targets of such bombings were located in the immediate vicinity of Chinese cities that were roughly the same population as Hiroshima.

The city of Xiamen, for example, was close to military targets in the Amoy area, while Ningbo was close to the main Chinese airbase in Zhejiang province that would have been attacked by US forces. Like the Hiroshima bomb, the nuclear explosions would have been triggered in the air, where blast damage is greatest, destroying or damaging nearly everything within a radius of three miles from the blast, killing much of the population.

The Joint Chiefs also assumed that China would respond to the US use of atomic weapons by retaliating with atomic weapons, which the Joint Chiefs presumed would be made available to the Chinese government by the Soviet Union.

The Halperin report recounts that Twining told State Department officials that the bombing of the intended targets with tactical nuclear weapons “almost certainly would involve nuclear retaliation against Taiwan and possibly against Okinawa….” That assumption was based on a Special National Intelligence Estimate that had been issued on July 22, 1958. The estimate had concluded that, if the U.S. “launched nuclear strikes deep into Communist China,” the Chinese would “almost certainly” respond with nuclear weapons.

Despite the acceptance of the likelihood that it would lead to nuclear retaliation by China, JCS Chairman Twining expressed no hesitation about the plan, asserting that in order to defend the offshore islands, “the consequences had to be accepted”.

The Joint Chiefs seek to appropriate war powers

The Joint Chiefs’ plan betrayed the military chiefs’ hope of removing the power of decision over nuclear war from the hands of the president. It said the plan would be put into operation when “dictated by appropriate U.S. authority” – implying that it would not necessarily be decided by the president. 

In his own memoirs, Eisenhower recalled with some bitterness how, during the 1958 crisis, he was “continuously pressured — almost hounded — by Chiang [Chinese nationalist Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek] on one side and by our own military on other requesting delegation of authority for immediate action on Formosa [Taiwan] or the offshore islands….” He did not refer, however, to the efforts by the Joint Chiefs efforts to gain advance authorization for the use nuclear weapons on the Chinese mainland.

The wording of the JCS plan was changed to read “when authorized by the President” at Eisenhower’s insistence to provide that only conventional means could be used at least initially for defense of the islands, while leaving open the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons if that failed.

But the Joint Chiefs were not finished. In a paper presented to Eisenhower on September 6, the chiefs proposed that they be authorized to “oppose any major attack on Taiwan and attack mainland bases with all CINPAC force that can be brought to bear” in the event of “an emergency arising from an attack on Taiwan and the offshore islands moving so rapidly that it would not permit consultations with the President…”

Further, they asked for the authority to respond to a “major landing attack on offshore islands,” by “[u]se of atomic weapons and U.S. air attack in support of [Chinese Nationalist] Air Force…as necessary, only as approved by the President.” Eisenhower approved the paper with those qualifiers.

When Secretary of State John Foster Dulles warned that Japan would object strongly to using nuclear weapons against the Chinese mainland, and forbid the launching of nuclear weapons from their territory, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke suggested that the opposition to nuclear weapons in Japan was “inspired by the Communists,” and that foreign leaders would soon recognize that the use of nuclear weapons by the US “was in their interests”.

Burke closed his argument by claiming that if the US did not maintain the threat of tactical nuclear weapons in conflicts,  it would “lose the entire world within three years.” That obviously absurd argument suggests that the intense desire among the Joint Chiefs to use nuclear weapons against China was less motivated by any threat from Communist Chinese than by their own institutional interests.

In pre-Cold War Washington, the US Navy served as the primary bureaucratic ally of the Kuomintang regime. The relationship was forged when Chiang provided the Navy with the home base for its 7th Fleet at Tsingtao in Northern China.

Navy brass in the Pacific had urged unconditional support for Chiang’s regime during the civil war with the Communists and derided as “pinkies” those State Department officials – beginning with Secretary George C. Marshall – who entertained any doubts about the Kuomintang leader.

By 1958, the Air Force was so strongly committed to its role as an exclusively nuclear-weapons delivery organization that it insisted on being able to able to using nuclear weapons in any war it fought in the Pacific region.

The account of the crisis reveals that, when the Air Force Commander in the Pacific, Gen. Lawrence S. Kuter, learned of Eisenhower’s decision to defend the offshore islands with conventional weapons, he relayed the message to Gen. John Gerhart, the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff. Shockingly, Gerhart responded that the Air Force “could not agree in principle” to the use of SAC forces for such non-nuclear operations.

Beyond the desire of the Navy and Air Force chiefs to ensure their long-term presence and reinforce the importance of their respective roles in the Pacific, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have always aspired to maximize their influence over US policy in any conflict where U.S might use military force.

It turned out that the Chinese never intended full-scale war over the offshore islands. Instead they sought to mount a blockade of resupply to the islands through artillery barrages, and when the US military provided armed escorts for the ships carrying out the resupply, they were careful to avoid hitting American ships.

As the Halperin report observed, once the Chinese recognized that a blockade could not prevent the resupply, they settled for symbolic artillery attacks on Quemoy, which were limited to every other day.

It was the eagerness of the Joint Chiefs for a nuclear war against China, rather than the policy of communist China, that presented the most serious threat to American security.

Although the circumstances surrounding the U.S.-China conflict over Taiwan have changed dramatically since that stage of the Cold War, the 1958 Taiwan crisis provides a sobering lesson as the US military gears up for a new military confrontation with China.

*

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.

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist who has covered national security policy since 2005 and was the recipient of Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2012.  His most recent book is The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis co-authored with John Kiriakou, just published in February.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

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.

***

Several things are happening simultaneously. Most important, Israel has lost the public opinion war in much of the world through its brutality during the recent attack on Gaza and it continues to lose ground even in the wake of a cease fire due to mass arrests of Palestinians and armed police intrusions in and around the al-Aqsa mosque. The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is by its actions making clear that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine will continue at a time that he chooses. This in turn has produced a storm of criticism, including from Jewish groups and individuals, that is condemning the bloodshed and also sometimes explicitly seeking to distance Judaism the religion from Zionism, the political movement.

Some have suggested that we have finally reached a tipping point in which Israel has gone too far, evident in the Irish Government’s condemnation of Israeli “de facto annexation” of Palestinian land. Foreign Minister Simon Coveney told the Dial that

“The scale, pace and strategic nature of Israel’s actions on settlement expansion and the intent behind it have brought us to a point where we need to be honest about what is actually happening on the ground …”

The Jewish state has even succeeded in alienating many who are normally supporters in countries like the United States, quite possibly leading to an eventual shift in policy in Congress and at the White House. That view might be exaggerated given the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to make past atrocities go away, but it might obtain some back-handed credibility from the ferocity of the counter-attack being waged by Israel and its friends against the celebrities and politicians who have finally developed backbones and have spoken out in defense of Palestinian rights.

The Jewish state’s reaction to criticism is being fueled by repeated assertions that anti-Semitism is surging in the United States and Europe. The media has become relentless on the issue, which is in any even irrelevant even if it were true. Last Saturday, internet news site Yahoo featured links to no less than three articles on increasing attacks on Jews, two coming from NBC and one from BBC.

Despite the recent one sided slaughter in Gaza, American Jewish organizations even had the hubris to declare last Thursday “In light of the surging wave of antisemitic violence, “A Day of Action Against Antisemitism.” Frustration of many people with Israeli behavior is indeed increasing, but the assumption that any shouted insult or organized protest directed at Netanyahu and/or his gang of cutthroats at a time when they are mass-killing Arabs represents pure hatred of Jews is quite frankly unsustainable. It is hatred not of religion but of what Israel is doing, supported by Washington and Israel’s powerful domestic lobby, and most people understand clearly that distinction.

The underlying narrative being offered is that Jews are always the victims, even when they initiate violence, because, they would argue, they are only acting of necessity and preemptively as self-defense. That argument means that they are never guilty of what many might call war crimes, and they are adept at fabricating stories about their opponents labeling them as both terrorists and cowards willing to use civilians as human shields to protect themselves. This effort to burnish the apartheid regime’s record also means in practice that there have to be regular invocations of the tale of increasing anti-Semitism as well as direct attacks on anyone who dares to appropriate or in any way diminish the so-called holocaust.

Numerous critics of the Israeli bombing of Gaza have been attacked by the Israel Lobby and its allies in the media. The idea is to humiliate the critic and put so much pressure on him or her that he or she will actually apologize for what was either said or written. Even better, the Israeli partisans often push far beyond that point to obtain a complete recantation of what appeared in the first place. In the case of actors or entertainers, for example, the weapon used is obvious. If one wants to continue to be gainfully employed in an industry that is dominated by Zionist Jews it is necessary to either keep one’s mouth shut or quickly apologize claiming that one was “misinformed” or “misspoke.”

Several recent mea culpa’s for criticizing Israel have made the news as has also the virtual crucifixion of a congresswoman for her citation of the holocaust. Actor Mark Ruffalo may have believed that he was doing the “right thing” by speaking out on Palestinian suffering. He tweeted

“Over 30 children killed. Mothers dead. Hundreds injured. We are on the brink of a full-scale war. Sanctions on South Africa helped free its Black people – it’s time for sanctions on Israel to free Palestinians. Join the call” and also in another tweet referred to the killing as “genocide.”

He came under intense pressure and soon apologized, tweeting

“I have reflected & wanted to apologize for posts during the recent Israel/Hamas fighting that suggested Israel is committing ‘genocide’. It’s not accurate, it’s inflammatory, disrespectful & is being used to justify antisemitism here & abroad. Now is the time to avoid hyperbole.”

Source

Ruffalo did not quite crawl on his belly to preserve his career, but the metaphor certainly comes to mind. And what Ruffalo experienced was a walk in the park compared to what was dished out to British pop singer Dua Lipa who was subjected to a full-page New York Times ad paid for by no less than “America’s rabbi” Shmuley Boteach’s World Values Network. The singer Dua Lipa as well as Palestinian-descended models Gigi Hadid and Bella Hadid were accused of “anti-Semitism” after they expressed public support of the pro-Palestine cause. The Boteach ad claimed that the three women were “ignorant” and spreading “disgusting libel,” calling on them to instead “condemn [Hamas] now” arguing that “the three mega-influencers have vilified the Jewish state in a manner that is deeply troubling… Hamas calls for a second Holocaust.”

Dua Lipa did not however recant when confronted by the hideous Boteach’s rant. She responded in part

“This is the price you pay for defending Palestinian human rights against an Israeli government whose actions in Palestine [include both] persecution and discrimination.”

A number of other celebrity-critics of the Israeli slaughter in Gaza also stood firm, including comedian John Oliver and Susan Sarandon, but there were also more victims of the wrath of Zion. The Associated Press, itself having been on the receiving end of the Israeli bombing of Gaza, fired a reporter Emily Wilder for what were alleged to be pro-Palestinian views while an undergraduate at Stanford several years before. Wilder, who is Jewish, recently also posted a question which was used against her, asking why the US media regularly uses the word Israel but avoids referring to Palestine, legitimizing the statehood of the former at the expense of the latter.

In Fairfax County Virginia there were demands to remove a school board member Abrar Omeish who, during the attack on Gaza, had tweeted

“Hurts my heart to celebrate while Israel kills Palestinians & desecrates the Holy Land right now. Apartheid & colonization were wrong yesterday and will be today, here and there.”

She soon came under pressure and quickly recanted with

“War is terrible for everyone. I hear those hurting. I’m here for each of you. People of all faiths deserve Holy Land peace. Ensuring justice & honoring humanity of all remain urgent. I look ahead to robust & empathetic engagement with Jewish leaders. Let’s build together.”

Local resident Jennifer Katz was not satisfied, however, telling the board that the tweet “could be reasonably interpreted as a microaggression” against Jewish students.

But perhaps the most bizarre nonsense to surface from the knee-jerk defense of Israel effort played out, perhaps not surprisingly, on Capitol Hill where Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, to put it mildly, got in trouble. The first-term Republican Representative from Georgia had already attracted widespread criticism from both Democratic and Republican colleagues for her alleged trafficking in conspiracy theories but she unleashed the hounds of hell when she made an observation regarding the government’s compelling people working in grocery stores to submit to the COVID vaccines. She said

“You know, we can look back in a time and history where people were told to wear a gold star. And they were definitely treated like second-class citizens, so much so that they were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”

Congresswoman Greene is not renowned for her brain power and it was the sort of comment that is so stupid that it is best handled by ignoring it, but as it concerned the so-called holocaust that was not the end of it. She has been shredded by the leadership of both parties and also by individual legislators as well as the usual suspects in the media. She had previously been stripped of some of her committee assignments over other misdemeanors, but this time around her “colleagues” have been calling for her censure at a minimum and even possible expulsion from the House of Representatives. The lesson learned is that you trifle with the sanctity of the holocaust at your peril. It belongs to Jews and is a vital component of the uniqueness of Jewish suffering narrative.

Over the next few weeks there will no doubt be a flood of stories and commentary reminding everyone in America about just how much the Israelis were victims of a premeditated Hamas attack and what wonderful people they really are. It will be an attempt to regain the propaganda advantage for the Israel Lobby. And yes, more heads of critics will be rolling in the dust, with recantations by celebrities adding sparkle to the event. But even at the end of that process the true horror that modern day Israel represents will be remembered by many and as the game goes on there will hopefully be many more American voices raised in protest.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Another attack on Gaza: Israel squeezing the life of Gaza – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A citywide initiative in Mexico City to prescribe ivermectin to COVID-19 patients resulted in a plunge in hospitalizations and deaths, two studies found.

Hospitalizations were down by as much as 76%, according to research by the Mexican Digital Agency for Public Innovation, Mexico’s Ministry of Health and the Mexican Social Security Institute, according to a TrialSiteNews report highlighted by LifeSiteNews.

Earlier this month, as WND reported, a significant decrease in cases in India coincided with the national health ministry’s promotion of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine treatments.

In Mexico City, after a spike in cases in December, the city’s Ministry of Health created a home-treatment kit for residents. The city’s metro population is 22 million.

At the time, the head of the Mexico City Ministry of Health, Oliva López, said told reporters her agency had determined “that there is enough evidence to use in people positive for SARS-CoV-2, even without symptoms, some drugs such as ivermectin and azithromycin.”

Beginning Dec. 29, people who tested positive for COVID from an antigen test and who were experiencing at least mild symptoms began receiving one of the government’s ivermectin-based treatment kits, TrialSiteNews reported.

The Mexican government then began a study to track the impact of the early treatment of COVID with ivermectin on the city’s population.

The study tracked 200,000 people, dividing in two cohorts — those who received ivermectin and those who did not.

Through a phone-call-based monitoring system and hospital data on admissions for COVID-19, the researchers found a reduction of between 52% and 76% in hospitalizations for those who took ivermectin compared to those who did not.

The government’s findings were corroborated by Dr. Juan J. Chamie-Quintero, a senior data analyst at private Colombian university EAFIT.

He found that excess deaths in the city dropped sharply only a few weeks after the ivermectin treatments began.

Chamie-Quintero also conducted a study in Peru, where the government approved ivermectin as a treatment for the virus in May 2020.

In the 24 Peruvian states that adopted early use of ivermectin treatment, excess deaths plummeted on average by 59% just 30 days after the peak death rate. And it had dropped 75% after 45 days in those over 60 years old.

‘Large, statistically significant reductions in mortality’

Worldwide, more than 50 peer-reviewed studies have shown the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment and prophylaxis against COVID-19.

A study by the American Journal of Therapeutics that analyzed 18 randomized controlled treatment trials found ivermectin elicited “large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance” in COVID patients.

The study concluded that “the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.”

In February, a peer-reviewed study found that invermectin reduces coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths by about 75%.

Ivermectin, in more than 30 trials around the world, causes “repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease,” according to the study, which was published in the U.S. journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.

The evidence is so strong, the researchers believe, the anti-parasitic drug should become a standard therapy everywhere, hastening global recovery.

“The data is overwhelming – we are in a pandemic, and this is an incredibly effective way to combat it. If we use ivermectin widely, our societies can open up,” said study co-author Professor Paul Marik, director of emergency and pulmonary care at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

A previous study by Professor Andrew Hill of Liverpool University also found ivermectin cuts death rates by about 75%.

‘Inaction in front of mounting evidence’

Dr. Pierre Kory, the chief medical officer of the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, is known for his congressional testimony about the effectiveness of ivermectin. In a live Zoom conference May 13, he showed the promising data from various states in India in the two weeks after ivermectin was promoted.

See Kory’s presentation: https://youtu.be/byFEU1A5MRY (note: youtube has already removed this video)

In a Senate hearing in December, Kory presented evidence that ivermectin prevents infection and saves lives.

“Although we, like many, are extremely encouraged by the apparent successes in developing effective vaccines, we also are dismayed at the near complete absence of guidance and research on effective early, at-home, or preventative treatment options apart from vaccines, a reality we find unconscionable,” he said in his statement.

Kory said he and his colleagues are “worried that if our call to action is not followed through, confidence in our health care leaders and agencies will be irreparably tarnished.”

“Inaction in front of mounting evidence of safety and effectiveness during a catastrophic pandemic may also compromise widespread vaccination support,” he warned.

“We will look back to the impact that actions versus inaction had on the U.S. and the globe two months from now,” Kory said. “If we do nothing, the present trend will continue. History will judge.”

See testimony of a life saved by ivermectin:

Politicization of treatments

Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine, is one of many health experts who decry the politicization of COVID-19 treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

“You can hardly believe what anybody says anymore,” Risch said in an interview in December with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “We’ve lost 300,000 lives in the United States because our government has basic told everyone to go home, stay home, and if you can’t breathe, go to the hospital.”

That’s not a form of treatment, he said, “it’s what we call therapeutic nihilism.”

He said the federal government, through the FDA, CDC and National Institutes of Health, have misrepresented the benefits of the drugs.

“These are drugs that everywhere else in the world they are being used very effectively,” he said.

Risch contends the COVID-19 mortality rate is five times lower in the Third World “because that’s all they can afford to do.”

“And we’re here twiddling our thumbs and telling everyone to stay home. It’s absurd,” he said.

*

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

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 western analysts feel agitated about Iran’s refusal to play by the rule book of liberal democracy. They feel indignant even as Tehran released on Tuesday the final list of candidates found qualified by the Constitutional Council to run for president in the June 18 election. 

A consensus is forming that the election is gerrymandered by the powers that be. In reality, they are applying western norms of democracy, although the 1979 Iranian revolution created a unique political system in Iran devolving upon the unassailable supremacy of the concept of velayit-e-faqih, (guardianship of the jurists in power) but renewable through free elections on the basis of universal suffrage. 

Such a political system based on Islamic principles with popular support was conceived as the best means to preserve the revolutionary ideals and ensure stability as well as create a firewall against predatory strikes by inimical foreign powers. Iran’s modern history is replete with brazen foreign interventions and it is no secret that the Iranian revolution is today at a crossroads. 

A transition is looming large for the position of the Supreme Leader, which Ali Khamenei has been occupying since 1989 at the age of 50. The position carries immense responsibilities as the spiritual head of the system as well as being the most powerful political authority with either direct or indirect control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as the military and media. 

Interestingly, Khamenei had served as the third President of Iran from 1981 to 1989 before being elected as the Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts. 

With the lifting of the US sanctions, which is in the cards, Iran’s integration into the world economy is expected to enter a new phase, and foreign influences and pressure on the country’s decision making are bound to intensify as never before. Iran is a potentially very rich country in resources and there is going to be a scramble for its minerals, in particular. 

There is a wonderful 2006 book Overthrow authored by veteran New York Times foreign correspondent and author Stephen Kinzer about the US’ involvement in the overthrow of foreign governments from the late 19th century to the present.

Kinzer contends that “establishing military bases around the world and bringing foreign governments under American control were never ends in themselves” but were “ways for the United States to assure itself access to the markets, resources and investment potential of distant lands.” He adds to it as a supplementary factor that US intervention came also from humanitarian hubris as well — “the power of the noble idea of American exceptionalism.” 

Both greed and hubris are present in the US’ fraught relationship with Iran, which will remain in adversarial terms for a foreseeable future even if diplomatic ties are established. The US fancies that there is a huge pro-American sentiment in Iran and it is far from a situation of every Iranian being militantly anti-Israel, anti-American, or in favour of the system of velayit-e-faqih. 

Again, there is a notion that Iran’s support the resistance movement is in reality skin deep only and people don’t want to see the country’s resources being squandered to support militant groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas at a time when the economy ought to be the priority.

These self-serving notions, with no empirical data to back up, have led to the USG appropriating $75 million to go to the promotion of democracy and a more “open” society in Iran.

Kinzer writes in his book,

“The United States uses a variety of means to persuade other countries to do its bidding… By the end of the twentieth century, it had become more difficult for Americans to stage coups because foreign leaders had learned how to resist them. Coups had also become unnecessary.” 

When it comes to Iran, the system is based on checks and balances that prevents concentration of political power. But dispersal of power also has a flip side — it can not only create a dysfunctional system but is also vulnerable to foreign penetration.

It is critically important that the three main pillars of the political system — the presidency, the Majlis and the judiciary — are broadly in harmony with each other despite whatever differences on specific issues. Factionalism has been the Achilles heel of Shia politics historically. 

All these considerations prevail when the list of approved presidential candidates is announced. The Guardian Council, which vets candidates for the presidential election, is appointed by the Supreme Leader and is a constitutionally mandated 12-member body of six Islamic jurists (faqihs, or, experts in Islamic Law) and six jurists specialising in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Chief Justice. In principle, the Supreme Leader can demand a revision of the recommended panel of presidential candidates and once, in the presidential election in 2005, it did happen. 

Now, this may not conform to the practice of democracy in America. But then, as in America, it is any country’s choice in terms of its history and culture and exigencies of politics to adopt the most suitable electoral system. When it comes to this year’s election, the so-called reformist wing could not agree on a consensus figure while the conservative faction (Principalists) has several candidates in the fray. 

Chief justice Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi, who is being mentioned as front runner, and apparently enjoys broad support in the conservative camp, had opposed the candidacy of incumbent president Hassan Rouhani in the last election in 2017 but polled only 15.8 million votes as against the latter’s 23 million votes. Clearly, being the favourite of the conservative faction alone does not necessarily assure election victory. Surprises are galore when the voters make their choice. 

There are other formidable candidates in the fray beyond Raeisi — notably, Mohsen Rezai, former IRGC commander; Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator from 2007-2013 (presently a member of the a Expediency Council which arbitrates between parliament and the Guardian Council in any dispute); Abdolnasser Hemmati, the central bank governor (a “moderate” technocrat) who has worked under two presidents from the opposing wings of Iran’s political factions. By the way, all three candidates are PhD holders.  

All in all, from the western perspective, the real problem with the current election in Iran is that the outlook for a moderate candidate is bleak. And this has profound implications at a juncture when the sanctions are likely to be lifted on Iran and the country will be embarking on a new journey to realise its full potential for growth and development for the first time after the Islamic Revolution in 1979.  

A joint survey of the Iranian public conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and IranPoll in April provides fascinating insights into how Iranians view this pivotal moment for their country. The US think tank estimated that “Iranians view Rouhani’s policies quite negatively, especially his economic policies… As the election nears, nearly two-thirds of Iranians say they would prefer a critic of Rouhani to be the next president of Iran.”

That is to say, if no credible reformist candidate has not appeared in the electoral arena, it is not because any superior power ordained so but simply because the reformist platform stands discredited today in the eyes of the electorate.   

The top contenders in the electorate arena are mostly conservative candidates. Raeisi scored 27%, but then, a plurality of Iranians also say they are undecided (35%). The undecided portion may swing the election in either direction. Clearly, no decisive favourite has volunteered in the upcoming election.

Interestingly, while half of Iranians think it is likely that sanctions would be loosened during the Biden presidency, there is little expectation of improvement for the US-Iran relations over the next four to eight years. 

The crux of the matter is that elections in Iran are never about foreign policy. Iran has a very animated political culture. Both in its symbolism and its pragmatism, it stood out that Presidential candidate Raeisi began his election campaign on Wednesday with two events: a meeting with businessmen and a visit to Tehran Grand Bazar.

The election will not produce the results that the western world would hope for. The compass for Iran’s foreign policy is not going to be reset. It is anchored on strategic autonomy. Therein probably lies the West’s disappointment.

*

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: Iran’s presidential candidate Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi began his election campaign with two events: a meeting with businessmen and a visit to Tehran Grand Bazar, May 26, 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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A bipartisan vote closed debate on the omnibus US Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), which many argue includes provisions that could escalate trade disputes between the US and China and could further rising anti-Asian racism 

The United States Senate has advanced sweeping trade and technology bills targeted at China, opening up yet another front in the trade wars. On Thursday, May 27, the Senate voted for closure on debate to the United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA), with a vote of 68-30. The bipartisan support will overturn any attempt at filibuster against the bill, having crossed the 60-vote threshold.

The more than 800-page draft bill, which would approve a funding of USD 250 billion, has a plethora of provisions originally proposed by senators from the right-wing Republican Party which have been added as amendments to the larger bill. 18 of the 50 Republican senators supported the closure of debate on the bill, in addition to the 50 votes from Democratic senators.

Republican senator Mike Crapo, a co-sponsor of one of the bills added as an amendment with an overwhelming 94-1 vote split, has called the omnibus bill “the intersection between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on trade policy.”

Certain parts of the omnibus bill seek to address a recent shortage in semiconductors, microchips and telecommunications technologies, for which the US relies heavily on China, and boosting technological innovation in the country, dedicating close to USD 54 billion towards for the purpose.

But, large parts of the bill are dedicated to putting up an aggressive policy in dealing with China, with the inclusion of bills like the Endless Frontier Act, the Strategic Competition Act, and the Meeting the China Challenge Act, as amendments. Several of these bills include provisions to sanction entities or businesses in China against supposed anti-competitive activities.

The Strategic Competition Act has come under major criticism from social movements as it includes provisions for US entities to “remain vigilant to the risks posed by undue influence of the CCP [Chinese Communist Party],” pour millions of dollars in a “Countering Chinese Influence Fund,” and also dictates foreign relations with nations having extensive trade with China.

Social movements and anti-imperialists have argued that the bill could aggravate anti-Asian racism in the US, which has been on the rise since former president Donald Trump’s aggression towards China.

“This reinvigorated wave of McCarthyism, Yellow Peril rhetoric, and military funding focused solely on “containing” and destabilizing an emerging China will only escalate tensions and increase the potential for war, while further emboldening Sinophobic violence against Asians and Asian Americans within the US,” stated Madison Tang, coordinator of the China Is Not Our Enemy campaign.

Anti-imperialist and anti-war group, CODEPINK, has launched a national campaign calling for people to pressure their respective senators to reject the Strategic Competition Act. In the campaign, the group argued that it “would increase military funding to escalate U.S. aggression towards China and endanger Asians and Asian Americans at home.”

Similarly, earlier this month, a group of 65 civil society organizations, including CODEPINK, Union of Concerned Scientists, People’s Action, Quincy Institute and Working Families Party, among others, released a joint letter expressing their opposition to the “growing Cold War mentality” in how the US approaches China.

Calling out the “worryingly… short-sighted worldview” of presenting China as the existential threat to the US that “both political parties are increasingly latching onto,” the letter argued that the anti-China narrative for initiatives in industrial and technological advancement is “not only politically unnecessary; it is harmful, as it inevitably feeds racism, violence, xenophobia, and white nationalism.”

The letter added that

“the prosperity of working people in the United States and China alike demands building a more equitable global economy that maximizes human well-being overall rather than corporate profits. Wasting more money on the Pentagon and inflaming ethnonationalism and racism will not serve these goals.”

Apart from civil society groups, even progressive lawmakers and political figures like Ilhan Omar, Jamaal Bowman and Mark Pocan, have also spoken out against the recent push to paint China as the enemy and the threats to Asian-American communities it poses in the US.

Nevertheless, the US government under the Joe Biden administration and most of the federal lawmakers in the Congress have expressed their inclination to favor policies to escalate tensions with China.

This was best expressed in House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi calling for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics, scheduled to be held in Beijing, and also president Biden’s order to intelligence agencies to investigate and submit a report on COVID-19 origins, which many argued builds on Trump’s and US right-wing’s unsubstantiated accusations of man-made origins of the virus in China.

*

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

Featured image is from Peoples Dispatch

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.

***

Today Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu chaired and addressed a Defence Ministry Board Session at the National Centre for State Defence Control in Moscow. The second half of his comments dwelt on plans for upgrading capabilities in the Western Military District.

Shoigu warned of mounting military threats on his nation’s Western border posed by NATO, threats increasing almost daily, and revealed his ministry’s intended response to that endangerment of Russia’s national security.

He did not provide an historical overview of NATO’s encroachment along his country’s Western border; did not, for example, describe NATO’s induction of former Warsaw Pact members the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999 and Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia five years later, which began the process of NATO moving into and effectively taking control of the Baltic and Black Seas. Nor did he itemize the Pentagon’s and NATO’s flooding those regions with fighter jets, nuclear-capable bombers, anti-ballistic missiles, training centers, cyber warfare centers, radar installations, battle groups, special forces operations and other military assets and personnel.

Instead he cited the recent escalation of NATO activities along Russia’s western frontier. Among other developments he mentioned:

• U.S. Air Force strategic bomber flights in Europe have increased fourteen times in the last seven years
• NATO guided-missile warships are deployed with increased incidence in the Baltic Sea, with such warships exercising off the coast of Russia’s Kaliningrad territory three times in the past year
• Since 2016 Russia has recorded eighteen similar deployments “to the alleged launch areas of cruise missiles”
• The Pentagon and NATO have continued to expand the scale of operational and combat training and drills near Russia’s borders
• The number of such exercises has increased by a time and a half in recent years
• The U.S. and NATO are currently conducting the largest war games since the end of the Cold War, Defender Europe – 21, with 40,000 troops participating (Shoigu’s estimate)
• That exercise has as its main objective “to practice the transfer of a full-fledged division from the United States to Europe.”

The defense chief provided diagnosis and prescription:

“The actions of our Western counterparts are destroying the security system in the world and forcing us to take adequate countermeasures. We are constantly improving the combat composition of the troops. By the end of the year, about 20 formations and military units will be formed in the Western Military District.”

Try finding mention of any of the above outside the Russian news media. One fears the results of NATO’s military encirclement of Russia will only garner headlines when an irreversible catastrophe occurs.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko met with his country’s members of parliament, members of the Constitutional Commission and other representatives of his government last week amidst the current crisis with the West that has been escalating since last summer and has intensified since the Ryanair incident of May 23.

His comments included this somber assessment:

“The time has chosen us. We have found ourselves on the frontline of a new cold, even freezing cold war. Only countries that will be able to resist this hybrid pressure will hold out.”

Belarus has been under Western scrutiny and criticism and has been the victim of Western subversion since last August’s presidential election, with the U.S. and the European Union supporting opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya against the incumbent Lukashenko. The nation will soon face American sanctions as well.

Lukashenko’s address focused on patriotic values and activities as would be expected under the circumstances, situating the crisis within the current global context:

“Everyone is trying to tear us apart or to drag us to their side. But we should stay strong. I have said several times: the price for sovereignty and independence is high. Every Belarusian may be directly affected by this amid the increased competition in the world.”

He referred to a multi-dimensional, multi-level hybrid war being conducted against his government and his nation, stating:

“The goal is clear. We also know who would benefit from demonizing Belarus. We are a small country, but we will respond appropriately. The world knows examples of similar situations. Before making any rushed moves, remember, that Belarus is in the center of Europe, and if things spin out of control here – it will be another world war.”

World war or not, Northeastern Europe is as likely a location for triggering a nuclear war as any on the planet.

By way of disclaimer, there are different ways of interpreting his ordering the diversion of a passenger airline en route to Lithuania and the subsequent detention of a person described as an opposition activist: Roman Protasevich. It can be asserted that, the West looking for any pretext to further discredit, isolate and undermine his government, such an action was feeding into its plans. On the other hand the adage may as well be hung [for stealing] a sheep as a lamb comes to mind.

Similarly, the use of the words world war can be seen as political rhetoric, as hyperbole, as an attempt to scare off would-be aggressors. The same language has been used of late on the other side, if you will, by Ukrainian officials like former president Leonid Kravchuk. The very fact that those words are used in Europe thirty years after the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is itself alarming. But, regrettably, the latter fact is ignored by the world press.

Lukashenko also sounded this emotional appeal:

“Sensible people understand what is happening. I would like to ask those who are behind the provocation: don’t you realize what catastrophic consequences it may bring? Do you understand what you are doing? You know that we are in the right and that you will have to answer anyway. Please, stop!”

Sounding defiant (or bluffing, as you will), he added:

“We will respond to all sanctions, attacks, and provocations accordingly. We do not want to start a fight in the center of the continent. We do not want this, we have had enough. But the West does not leave us other options.”

Belarus is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) with Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, and as such could appeal to its fellow members for assistance in the event of military aggression by NATO from neighboring Lithuania and Poland. However, after Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008 and the resultant war with Russia, the CSTO did not support Russia. Lukashenko embraced Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, the aggressor in the conflict, immediately afterwards, as he’s recently done with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev following the latter’s invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh and armed conflict with Armenia (a CSTO member) last year.

In language bold (and rather grand) for a small and besieged nation, Lukashenko also stated:

“If the West does not want to be our friendly neighbor – so be it. We will compensate for the sanctions by stepping up our activities and presence in other markets. We will turn away from the ageing Europe to rapidly growing Asia. Belarus is ready to become a part, an outpost of new Eurasia.”

On May 26 the nation’s foreign minister, Vladimir Makei, sounded a comparable note in quoting a recent comment by former U.S. national security adviser John Bolton, one ominous in its implications:

“Ukraine and Belarus should be admitted to NATO in order to eliminate the ‘gray zone’ that has arisen between Russia and the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance. Belarus is the hardest challenge of all, with alliance membership inconceivable for quite some time. Yet however difficult it may be, the U.S. cannot leave Belarus to Moscow uncontested.”

He also noted that, as always, under the guise of human rights the West is undermining the sovereignty of a non-aligned nation and in doing so is launching a direct attack on its independence.

Today Foreign Minister Makei is cited, in what one hopes is not mere wishful thinking, contending that Russia has at long last dropped its blinders, abandoned its prostrate position and recognized what the West – the U.S., NATO and the European Union – is up to. A consummation devoutly to be wished – if true.

In a statement that may be nine-tenths bravado but is interesting nonetheless, he claimed the West is “very nervous about the fact that the world is becoming multipolar, that there have emerged many major geopolitical players, the opinion of which should be taken into account.”

The Belarusian foreign minister elaborated as follows:

“I agree with my colleague Sergey Lavrov, who said that the world has ceased to be Western-centric. For the five hundred years, the West dictated to us the conditions of how to live, what to do, what rules to live by. Today there are major geopolitical players: China is one of the largest economies in the world, India has been growing rapidly, Russia has taken off rose-colored glasses that it had in the 1990s and early 2000s, got up from its knees and now sees what the West is like.”

Such a realization, and actions commensurate with it, had they occurred decades ago may have saved humanity almost incalculable suffering from the Middle East to South Asia, from North and Northeast Africa to Eastern Europe. Pray it’s not too late to reverse the course of the past thirty years, the era of global NATO and its wars against defenseless nations on three continents.

*

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.

Featured image is from en.kremlin.ru

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A Canadian family doctor says he has been punished by his local health authority because he raised concerns about side effects he observed in some of those who had received the Moderna COVID-19 jab within his community.

“I am no longer allowed to work in the ER,” British Columbia Dr. Charles Hoffe said, according to a True North News report.

Hoffe added that his suspension from the ER came at the end of April, after his local health authority “suspended” his clinical privileges “for the crime of causing ‘vaccine hesitancy,’ for speaking out about my vaccine injured patients.”

In an April 5 letter, Hoffe had written to British Columbia Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry that he was “quite alarmed at the high rate of serious side effects from this novel treatment,” in reference to Moderna COVID-19 injections given to 900 mostly Indigenous people in Lytton, British Columbia.

Hoffe said he had observed one patient death, “numerous” allergic reactions, along with three individuals who had “disabling” neurological deficits completed with chronic pain, which persisted “for more than 10 weeks after their first vaccine.”

“So in short, in our small community of Lytton, BC, we have one person dead, and three people who look as though they will be permanently disabled, following their first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The age of those affected ranges from 38 to 82 years of age,” wrote Hoffe.

Following his letter, Hoffe said, he is no longer allowed to work in the ER department of St. Bartholomew’s Health Centre due to his views on the COVID injection. He still can work in his private practice.

“I am still permitted to see patients in my private practice, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Interior Health authority,” Hoffe said. Losing the ability to work in the ER has resulted in his income being slashed by half, which he explained is “the price of advocating for the safety of my patients.”

A community note which was posted on the Lytton Medical clinic door states that Hoffe’s “suspension” by the local health authority will “likely” mean that the “emergency room in Lytton will be closed for at least two weeks out of every month.”

In a recent statement, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) and the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) said they were aware of “public statements from physicians that contradict public health orders and guidance [being] confusing and potentially harmful to patients.”

CPSBC registrar and CEO Dr. Heidi Oetter threatened to take action against doctors who speak out against the government narrative, saying in the statement that those who “put the public at risk with misinformation may face an investigation by the College, and if warranted, regulatory action.”

Just recently, Hoffe was one of ten doctors who spoke in a video calling for an end to “ethically unjustifiable” COVID-19 lockdowns. The video was published by Professionals Against Lockdowns, which was created by Liberty Coalition Canada.

The physicians in the video said parents need to “demand” change from those in charge so that kids can live their lives again without masks or “social distancing.”

In the video, Hoffe stated that “children are not the main spreaders of this disease,” and urged people to not “risk ruining their life with this experimental vaccine in order to protect them from a disease that really poses no risk to them at all.”

“So if anyone tells you that your child needs to be vaccinated against COVID to protect you or their teacher or their grandparents or anyone else, it makes absolutely no sense at all,” said Hoffe.

He also mentioned other side effects his patients sufferend following vaccination with the COVID jab, including “constant pain, headaches, muscle weakness, and dizziness.”

“These were three previously healthy people whose lives have now been ruined by this experiment,” Hoffe emphasized.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

*

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.

***

Author John Leake recently interviewed Dr. Peter McCullough in Dallas. YouTube phenom Austen Fletcher, known online as “Fleccas Talks,” has done a masterful job in post-production by summarizing the 1 hour and 45 minutes interview down to less than 17 minutes.

You won’t find this on his YouTube channel, for obvious reasons, but he also publishes on Rumble now, and you can find both the edited summary version and the full version on his Rumble channel.

Dr. Peter McCullough is already well-known to Health Impact News readers. Here is a list of his credentials again.

Dr. McCullough is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist.  Since the outset of the pandemic, Dr. McCullough has been a leader in the medical response to the COVID-19 disaster and has published “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” the first synthesis of sequenced multidrug treatment of ambulatory patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the American Journal of Medicine and subsequently updated in Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine.

He has 40 peer-reviewed publications on the infection and has commented extensively on the medical response to the COVID-19 crisis in TheHill and on FOX NEWS Channel.

On November 19, 2020, Dr. McCullough testified in the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and throughout 2021 in the Texas Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, Colorado General Assembly, and New Hampshire Senate concerning many aspects of the pandemic response.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

For more information about Dr. McCullough, please visit: heartplace.com/dr-peter-a-mccullough (Source.)

Dr. McCullough is pro-vaccine, and in the beginning he did administer the COVID-19 shots to some of his patients.

But now he states:

“Based on the safety data now, I can no longer recommend it.”

If you have watched any of the previous interviews we have published with Dr. McCullough, you will see that this man appears to be an honest physician who truly wants to help his patients, and therefore has apparently not bought into the whole spirit behind the implementation of the New World Order by the Luciferians who have no regard for human life at all.

Dr. McCullough was a leader among the physicians who developed early treatments for whatever COVID-19 is, using simple, older drugs with a long history of safety, and as a result he saved many lives.

He was the lead author on a major published study on the use of these older drugs, and when he put up a YouTube video about the study to help people, he was shocked that it was removed. He knew then that something nefarious was happening worldwide.

In this most recent interview, one can observe that he is doing his own research now, and he even quotes some people in the alternative media, which shows he is making the effort to get around censorship in the corporate media and Big Tech to learn the truth.

This is the first time, to my knowledge, that he referred to the COVID-19 shots as “bioweapons.”

He also uses the term “Globalists”:

This is what Globalists have been waiting for. They’ve been waiting for a way of marking people. That if you get the vaccine, you’re marked in a database.

And this can be used for trade, for commerce, for behavior modification – all different purposes.

He also states:

“Here, in the United States, we have 100 million people vaccinated (with the COVID-19 bioweapon shots so far). This is far and away the most lethal, toxic, biologic agent ever injected into a human body in American history.”

For Health Impact News readers who have been following the vaccine topic for years, and following the holistic doctors who have been warning about the dangers of vaccines in general, and the eugenic plans of the Globalists in the roll out of the COVID-19 bioweapons in particular, there probably is no new information in this interview with Dr. McCullough.

So why are we publishing it?

Because as a pro-vaccine world leader in his medical field, he takes much more risk to bring this information to the public, putting his own life and career on the line.

And that’s big news!

At the end of this short clip he is asked if any agency or individual has tried to silence him through threats or intimidation, to which he replied:

My personal situation, professional situation, is a position of strength.

And those who have attempted, in any way, to pressure, coerce, or threaten me with reprisal, have paid an extraordinary price.

And I think that’s an important message to get out there.

There is a position of strength based on principles of compassionate care, and of the Hippocratic oath, and of the fiduciary relationship that a doctor has to a patient, and a prominent doctor has to a population, that supersedes all of those other ill intents.

And what I say is, bring them on.

So what do you think Health Impact News readers? I know that there are literally hundreds of doctors who subscribe to Health Impact News. What advice would you give to Peter McCullough?

Do you think he has any idea what is awaiting him, even though he has apparently already weathered some storms by the opposition?

This man needs our prayers! Because I suspect that not only is his career in danger, but his very life. He may be grossly underestimating the enemy.

Watch this short clip from Fleccas Talks’ Rumble channel. (Thank you Austen!!!) It is currently approaching a half million views, and I know that Health Impact News readers can easily add a few hundred thousand more. The full interview is here.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A 52-year-old new anchor is still recovering from a condition that mainstream media and her fans are dismissing as pure coincidence.

Ms. Jovita Moore is the evening news anchor for WSB-TV Channel 2 News in Atlanta. She’s work at the station since 1998 and has held the evening anchor position since 2012. Ms. Moore received the second dose of experimental Pfizer mRNA on April 2, according to her Facebook page. Her Facebook post that day is full of sad, dramatic irony.

She said that she wants to lead by example and help those who are undecided make their decisions about the shots. Ms. Moore also said she will be outside again in 10 days when she’s “fully vaxxed.” She also said she is excited about hanging out with fellow “vaxxed” friends, but will still wear masks out on public.

Left is the second shot from April 2. Right is the first shot in March.

Less than two weeks later

Things quickly spiraled downward from there. Ms. Moore told her Channel 2 co-anchor Justin Farmer that she was suffering from headaches on Monday, April 12. She told the news station that she was suddenly “forgetful, disoriented and just not feeling like myself.” She reported almost losing consciousness and passing out at a grocery store later that evening.

Doctor performed an MRI on Tuesday, April 13 and found two tumors in her brain. She described them as “masses.”

She underwent brain surgery on Friday, April 15. Ms. Moore was discharged from the hospital on or around April 30. Doctors gave her a recovery time of eight to ten weeks after surgery. If that’s the case, she should return to work at the beginning of July.

Ms. Moore posted a family photo to Instagram on Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 9 and thanked everyone for their well wishes. All of her social media accounts have been silent since that time. There have been no further updates from Channel 2 either.

None of the mainstream media outlets that have covered this story mention the experimental mRNA shots at all.

Brain tumors or blood clots?

Ms. Moore has worked in mainstream media for more than two decades. She knows her role not only at Channel 2, but also as an ally of big pharma. She mentioned nearly every symptom that screams blood clots in her brain as a result of mRNA shots. Granted mainstream media focus on AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson viral vector DNA when they speak of “rare blood clots.” But Pfizer causes blood clotswith about the same frequency.

Ms. Moore made certain not to say the word “blood clots” as likely instructed by her employer. She also has not said the word “cancer,” or at least said that her tumors were benign. But let’s, for the sake of argument, say she did in fact develop brain tumors just two weeks after the second experimental Pfizer mRNA shot. The American Cancer Society says exactly this:

Brain and spinal cord tumors, like other tumors, are caused by changes in the DNA inside cells. Cancers can be caused by DNA changes that turn on oncogenes or turn off tumor suppressor genes. These gene changes can be inherited from a parent, but more often they happen during a person’s lifetime.

It’s usually not known why people without inherited syndromes develop brain or spinal cord tumors. Most exposures that cause cancer, such as chemicals in tobacco smoke, somehow damage DNA. But the brain is relatively protected from most cancer-causing chemicals that we might breathe in or eat, so these factors are not likely to play a major role in these cancers.

The Mayo Clinic also says brain tumors form “when normal cells acquire errors (mutations) in their DNA. These mutations allow cells to grow and divide at increased rates and to continue living when healthy cells would die. The result is a mass of abnormal cells, which forms a tumor.”

Real-life clinical trials continue

Obviously synthetic mRNA and DNA viral vectors are gene therapy, no matter how many times Fauci and mainstream media shamelessly deny it. If Ms. Moore did in fact develop brain tumors as a result of the experimental gene injections, it is a first, at least as far as our coverage.

The clinical trials for all these experimental shots are ongoing through 2023 and longer. We’re all learning in real-time as millions of human guinea pigs proudly volunteer as test subjects, and virtue signal their ways to a little social media clout.

It’s up to all of us to keep our feet on the gas pedal. This entire COVID-19 agenda is crumbling as the truth continues overtaking mass manipulation. Do your part by continuing to share and discuss this blog. Stay vigilant and protect your friends and loved ones.

*

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

Featured image is from TheCOVIDBlog.com

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The latest crisis in Palestine cannot be set aside as another passing episode in Israel’s forever war against the Palestinian people.

We are now witnessing shocks within Israel behind the Green Line, something that Israel had hitherto been able to contain. In the process, it pretended, along with much of the western world, that it is the “longest-lived democracy in the Middle East” and that only its continued occupation of the West Bank and its harsh blockade of Gaza undermine its “constitutional ideals”- ideals now exposed for what they’ve always been: Jewish supremacist in nature. 

We know, as CJ Werleman wrote in Inside Arabia on May 14, 2021,

“Israel is a country built on racism, dispossession, and genocide. The recent rise in attacks by Israeli settlers, vigilante groups, and lynch mobs targeting Palestinians are a continuation of that history and must be addressed.”

There is an unbreakable thread between the Palestinian man lynched by Israeli Jews on the pavement after being pulled from his car in Jaffa and then beaten unconscious recently and the killings and massacres at the hands of Zionist militia in Jaffa and elsewhere in 1948 that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians, as recounted by Israeli historian Benny Morris.

The myth, amplified by Wikipedia, is that historians [presumably Israeli] disagree “concerning the effect these killings and massacres had on the Palestinian refugee flight and whether or not these killings and massacres were carried out with the intent of hastening it.”

Palestinian historians have absolutely no doubt about what happened then and why, just as we Palestinians have no doubt about what is happening now in occupied Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, in Gaza and in several towns and cities behind the Green Line where Israel has imposed states of emergency — and why.

Take, for example, my own father’s village of Lifta on the northwestern edge of Jerusalem. It is the last remaining Palestinian village that was ethnically cleansed of its population in the 1948 Nakba. Now, Israel is set to destroy what remains of it.

The Jerusalem Post (JP), an Israeli English newspaper where facts are shaped by a narrative driven by Zionist values instead of knowledge, reported on this deeply disturbing piece of news this month by denying, like those Israeli historians who are still disputing historical facts, that any ethnic cleansing took place in Lifta — apparently, my grandfather just up and put his eight children and wife in a truck and abandoned his home so that, 73 years later, his village would be “resettled” by Israeli Jews and a luxury hotel built there.

The Israeli newspaper published the following shameful headline:

“Arab village of Lifta, abandoned in ’48, to house new Israeli neighborhood: The western neighborhood in Jerusalem which was abandoned in ’48 will be resettled with 259 housing units, including a luxury hotel.”

A report by Hidden Palestine: a News & Media Website, which, unlike JP, is a site driven by a narrative that values freedom from oppression, provides us with the following facts:

The Israeli land authority announced this month that it is taking bids from construction companies to take charge of the real estate development of Lifta, with the contract set to last 98 years.

The agreement includes the construction of 259 buildings, as well as commercial and business units, in addition to a hotel. If it moves forward, the deal would also see the majority of the Palestinian village’s remaining buildings razed to the ground.

Thanks to petitions by its past Palestinian residents, Lifta was declared as one of 25 endangered sites on the 2018 World Monuments Watch list. It also appears on UNESCO’s tentative list of World Heritage Sites, which has led to threats from Netanyahu that Israel would withdraw from UNESCO.

Lifta has few parallels anywhere in the world. The Palestinian village, lying on a slope at the entrance to Jerusalem, is the last ethnically cleansed Palestinian village to be frozen in time. Here, hundreds of beautiful Palestinian stone houses have continued to stand the test of time, empty and neglected for the past 73 years.

With a history dating back at least 700 years as a Palestinian Arab village, Lifta was among the wealthiest communities in the Jerusalem area, and the women were known for their fine embroiders. Thob Ghabani bridal dresses were sewn in Lifta, which were made of ghabani, a natural cotton covered with gold color silk floral embroidery produced in Aleppo. The village’s clothing stores attracted Palestinians and Arabs from across the Levant.

The entire population was forced out following brutal attacks by the invading Hagannah militias in early 1948. It is an incredible but depressing place to visit, and its destruction would contribute to the continued erasure of Palestinian culture and heritage.

The Jerusalem Post’s story made it sound as though the “resettling” of Lifta was a preservation and development project. What it is, in fact, is a rewriting of history.

Destroying Lifta destroys opportunities for Palestinians to uncover the past of both Palestinians and Israelis: “Lifta has a lasting value in its own right, as it can link restitution to the right of return. Moreover, its preservation will be an opportunity to assert the restoration of dignity in the Palestinian as well as the Jewish community. Finally, by halting the new development in Lifta, UNESCO will affirm its global credibility in response to cultural cleansing.” [See LIFTA AFTER ZIONIST PLANNING and PLANNING AS A CRIMINAL ACT]

Israel’s expulsions of Palestinian families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, Jerusalem neighborhoods just outside the Green Line, are motivated by the same Zionist objective that resulted in the expulsion, also known as ethnic cleansing, of Palestinians like my family from Lifta, which is just inside the Green line. (See Israeli 2019 map of so-called “Greater Israel” below with Lifta, Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan circled). That objective is Israel’s desire to Zionize/Judaize all of Jerusalem and all of Palestine.

Israeli 2019 map of so-called “Greater Israel” below with (left to right) Lifta, Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan circled

I hope the ongoing worldwide protests on social media against Israel’s crimes will now add the rallying cry of #SaveLifta, in addition to #SaveSheikhJarrah and #SaveSilwan.

If you are still in doubt about Israel’s intention, listen to two Palestinian citizens of Israel reacting to the message they have heard loud and clear all their lives from successive Israeli governments:

Eva Najjar, Haifa-based lead designer and developer at Just Vision, writes:

“I knew I was bringing my children into an ethnic-supremacist state when they were born. But after these past weeks, I don’t know how I can continue to raise them here.” (In The Washington Post: Palestinian citizens of Israel like me are facing terrifying new attacks)

Diana Buttu wonders:

“How do I explain to my 7-year-old son what being a Palestinian citizen of Israel means? What future can he look toward, when the leaders of the government incite hatred against him? What audacious hope can he have when he is bound to face racism and discrimination in education, employment and housing? For now, I try to shield him from the images on television and on our phones, but there will soon come a time when I cannot shield him from the reality that he is surrounded by people who consider him a second-class citizen.” (In The New York Times: The Myth of Coexistence in Israel)

I am heartened by the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Special Session held on May 27, which for the first time has included a geographic scope encompassing Israeli violations targeting the Palestinian people on both sides of the Green Line.

Israel’s institutionalized regime of racial domination and oppression targets the Palestinian people as a whole, including those no longer in Lifta through no fault of their own, who have more right by far to reconstruct their homes in Lifta than Israeli Jews have in constructing housing and luxury hotels to “resettle” the village. We will return, so don’t raise the roof beams high, Israel.

*

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: Taken from slides in “Reconstruction of Memory — Lifta — 2007” by Malkit Shoshan

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A Turkish operation in northeastern Syria may be brewing, if recent developments are an indication.

On May 28th, the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) announced that it had eliminated the mastermind behind ISIS assassinations in the region, in a joint operation with the “Free Syrian Police.”

The SNA said that a joint force had raided a hideout in the town of al-Bab where the ISIS assassination commander was taking shelter.

There were heavy clashes.

In a typical Turkish-esque reporting manner, the pro-Ankara forces achieved victory, despite the odds.

Two days later, ISIS’ response came, when al-Bab was subjected to two attacks.

On May 30th, in the morning, an improvised explosive device blew up the SUV of Tala ‘Abu, the General Judge of al-Bab, who survived the attack.

Later on the same day, unidentified gunmen on a motorcycle shot and killed two personnel of the Free Syrian Police, a law reinforcement body backed by Turkey, in al-Bab.

Eyewitnesses who were at the scene of the second attack said that the gunmen shouted “the Islamic State is remaining”.

ISIS remains as a strong presence in Turkish-occupied areas in northern and northeastern Syria.

Some of the Turkish-backed militants present there are former fighters and commanders of the terrorist group.

Furthermore, Turkey’s forces and the factions it backs fight against the Kurdish groups in northeastern Syria.

On May 30th, Turkish forces shelled the town of Maraanaz which is located in northern Aleppo and is jointly held by Kurdish forces and the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

The Turkish shelling appears to be a response to a recent infiltration attempt by the Afrin Liberation Forces (ALF) on Maraanaz front.

On May 28th, a group of ALF fighters attempted to infiltrate the defenses of Turkish forces to the north of the town.

The attempt failed because the fighters came across a minefield and two of them died.

In Greater Idlib and northeastern Syria, Ankara fights against ISIS, also against every Kurdish faction.

It’s only “allies” appear to be the factions it backs, and mostly the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front (Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham).

On May 30th, Turkish mob boss Sedat Peker has opened up in a new video explaining the Turkish government involvement in illicit trade with Syria and the transfer of weapons to the al-Nusra Front.

Peker was considered an ultra-nationalist and an ally to the ruling AK Party of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

He began revealing information about the corruption of senior Turkish officials and their involvement in illicit activities after a fallout with the authorities.

As a result of these revelations, Turkey’s leadership is feeling a sense of urgency.

There were allegations of high-level phone tapping and more, alongside the illicit weapon and drug trade.

As such, the focus needs to be shifted quickly outside of Turkey and what better way than to organize a sort of crisis in the north of Syria?!

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Apocalyptic scenario is unwarranted 

The Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on May 13, “We will not allow boots on the ground or military bases on our territory.” He was referring to the future US security operations in the region. The Pentagon’s stated position is also not about establishing any new bases in the region but merely that “we (Pentagon) are working all the different options that we have in concert with our State Department intelligence community colleagues to establish the types of arrangements that give us the access basic and over flight necessary to — address the terrorism threats.” 

Within these parameters, Qureshi’s recent visit to the US assumed significance. Qureshi undertook the visit ostensibly to take part in the UN discussions on Palestine, but it coincided with an extraordinary hearing at the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs in Washington on May 18 — titled The U.S.-Afghanistan Relationship Following the Military Withdrawal. 

The hearing took place at the initiative of  Zalmay Khalilzad, US Special Representative on Afghanistan Reconciliation. And this also happened to be Khalilzad’s first-ever congressional hearing in his capacity as special representative! 

Listening closely to the three and a half hour long congressional hearing is an absolute must for anyone seriously interested in tracking the diplomatic peregrinations over the Afghan question. The salience lies in the renewed acceptance today by the US political elite that Pakistan’s role will remain crucial for a peaceful mainstreaming of the Taliban and for ensuring peace and stability in Afghanistan as well as for preventing terrorist threats. 

Khalilzad did not share the apocalyptic predictions of an imminent Afghan civil war and chaos. Khalilzad insisted that the “story of abandonment of Afghanistan” is unwarranted and what is happening is only that the “form of engagement will shift” post-September. In his words, “The combat forces will not be part of future engagement but substantial amount of assistance will be provided.”  

What takes the breath away is Khalilzad’s estimation that it is possible to “incentivise” the Taliban as well as to “confront them with costs” if they do not keep their word. Khalilzad was not explicit but clearly, the massive US aid to Afghanistan gives it much leverage and creates “soft power” — not only over the Taliban but across the political spectrum and governmental and non-governmental institutions. 

Crucially, Khalilzad disclosed that the Taliban admitted to him that they didn’t “rule well” as they rode to power “unexpectedly” in 1996, and have since “learned lessons” from past mistakes. He added that the Taliban are conscious of the heavy “costs” they incurred on account of the 9/11 attacks, especially, Guantanamo Bay detention camp, UN blacklisting, sanctions, and the nineteen years of war. 

The three things that emerged out of the House hearings are: first, Khalilzad sounded reasonably confident of navigating the post-September phase; two, he got lawmakers on board the Biden administration’s policy trajectory to remain engaged in Afghanistan without undertaking combat operations; and, three, he sensitised the lawmakers about the imperative need to work closely with Pakistan. 

Pakistan’s image on the Hill had taken a heavy beating in the recent years. Therefore, the general acceptance in the Beltway today on the importance of partnership with Pakistan will be the key to the door opening into the pathway for peace in Afghanistan. This has profound implications for regional security.   

Qureshi has lost no time to build on the favourable outcome of Khalilzad’s initiative to arrange a special congressional hearing that creates a level playing field for future cooperation with Pakistan. Qureshi has a challenging mission, nonetheless — to realise Pakistan’s desire for “a broad-based and comprehensive” partnership with the US which should go beyond cooperation on Afghanistan, as he conveyed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a recent phone call just before embarking on the visit to the US. 

Kabul will probably see these trends with a sense of deja vu. Some bitterness will remain that the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is continuing scepticism about the US intentions. Having said that, any pooling of the US-Pakistan efforts may ultimately prove overpowering in the present regional environment where there is general acceptance of the mainstreaming of the Taliban as part of a broad-based power sharing arrangement. 

The current proposal to create in Kabul a so-called Supreme State Council (a format that will work for building a consensus around peace and on other peace-related affairs at higher level), which Khalilzad supported, hopes to bring the warlords and other stakeholders on board and to create the platform to settle differences without recourse to force. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it remains to be seen whether the proposed council would have decision-making authority.

Equally, a compromise on the Durand Line question will help matters a great deal. However, when asked about it in an interview with Spiegel, former president Hamid Karzai responded cautiously: 

“If we could have a relationship with Pakistan similar to the model of the European Union, perhaps a solution could be found. The Durand Line would then be a zone rather than a fixed border, and would formally continue to exist. We want an open exchange between people on both sides, without border controls, and with freedom of movement, similar to what Europeans have achieved today between Germany and France.”

Read the full transcript of Karzai’s interview with Spiegel titled We Afghans Are Just Being Used  Against Each Other. The point is, there is deep anguish among the Afghan elite that once again a “settlement” is being imposed on their nation by outside powers.  

Nonetheless, Qureshi has made a good beginning to rebuild bridges in the Beltway. A Voice of America commentary says, “US efforts to solidify plans for what comes next appear to have taken on renewed urgency in recent days, leaning on outreach from the White House and the Pentagon to overcome a decade of strained ties and start to win over Pakistani officials.

“Already, US officials have voiced some optimism that an initial meeting between US national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his Pakistani counterpart, Moeed Yusuf, on Sunday in Geneva, went well…

“The Pentagon, likewise, expressed confidence following a call early Monday between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa. The Pentagon readout said,“The secretary reiterated his appreciation for Pakistan’s support for the Afghanistan peace negotiations and expressed his desire to continue to build on the United States-Pakistan bilateral relationship.”

But then, just as Qureshi concluded his visit, External Affairs Minister J. Jaishankar landed in the US. And, India-Pakistan diplomatic ties continue to deteriorate. New Delhi is deeply sceptical about the growing consensus internationally that Pakistani policy in Afghanistan shows signs of strategic shift — that Islamabad no longer wants a Taliban-dominated future Afghanistan as its next-door neighbour. Indians insist that it is all smoke and mirrors. 

However, India is hardly in a position to assert on the Afghan chessboard. The government is entrapped in a pandemic with no end in sight. Jaishankar’s agenda is heavily dominated by discussions with the American side relating to vaccines. Again, India has a tense border situation with China and the Sino-Indian relations are in a state of free fall, as New Delhi selectively intensifies its engagement with those world capitals that share its concerns over China’s rise and are willing to push back — the US, the UK, EU, QUAD, etc. — at the centerstage of its foreign policy. 

The bottom line is that New Delhi is highly unlikely to do anything that may undermine the US strategy in Afghanistan, which, incidentally, also has an “Indo-Pacific” dimension to it. Incidentally, with a twinkle in his eye, Khalilzad expressed total confidence during the House hearing last week that the US has the capacity to return to the Bagram base “very quickly”, when lawmakers reminded him that Bagram is the “only base the US has on the borders of China”. He advised the lawmakers to consult the Pentagon.  

*

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: Afghan children walk past a Taliban Red Unit, an elite force, Alingar district, Laghman province in eastern Afghanistan (File photo) 

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.

***

Depopulation and the mRNA Vaccine

By Peter Koenig, May 31, 2021

At no time does the article mention the eugenist nature of deliberate population reduction, in connection with the covid plandemic, the coerced and by many accounts poisonous – vaccination campaign, with a non-vaccine, but instead a novel, totally untested mRNA-type “gene therapy” which the US CDC has allowed to be applied as an “emergency measure” in these dire circumstances of a pandemic, that actually lacks all characteristics of a pandemic, but has to be pumped up to make it appear as a pandemic – with literally almost all deaths appearing from whatever causes – even car accidents – can be – and “must” be categorized as covid deaths.

Murder by Decree: The Crime of Genocide in Canada. “The Indian Residential Schools”

By The International Tribunal for the Disappeared of Canada, May 31, 2021

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.

Video: “All Roads Lead to the Vaccine”: Full Interview with Dr. Peter McCullough

By Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake, May 31, 2021

On May 19, 2021, Dr. Peter McCullough was interview by author John Leake in Dallas, Texas on the subject of Dr. McCullough’s treatment and research of COVID-19.

“Clarify the Confusion” regarding the Covid Vaccine and the “Green Passport”: Open Letter to Israel’s Prime Minister

By Sarah Feld, May 31, 2021

On December 11, 2020, the FDA offered an ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ for a Pfizer vaccine. On December 9, 2020 thousands of doses arrived at Ben Gurion airport. Did you officially order and receive incompletely tested drugs, even before they received the EUA? Is that even legal?

Why We Must Prevent the U.S. from Launching a Hybrid War Against China

By Madison Tang and Jodie Evans, May 31, 2021

U.S. President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year was recently announced, and it requests $715 billion for his first Pentagon budget, 1.6 percent more than the $704 billion enacted under Trump’s administration. The outline states that the primary justification for this increase in military spending is to counter the threat of China, and identifies China as the U.S.’s “top challenge.”

German Judge Investigated by Police after Ruling Compulsory Mask-wearing in Schools Unconstitutional

By Rosalind English, May 31, 2021

On 8 April 2021, the Weimar District Family Court ruled in Amtsgericht Weimar, Beschluss vom 08.04.2021, Az.: 9 F 148/21) that two Weimar schools were prohibited with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially qualified masks such as FFP2 masks), to comply with AHA minimum distances and/or to take part in SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the court ruled that classroom instruction must be maintained.

Nicaragua – A Revolution Worth Defending

By Jorge Capelan and Stephen Sefton, May 31, 2021

In a recent article “Washington: new attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government” Pablo Jofre Leal recognizes that Nicaragua, is the target of imperialist aggression by the U.S. and its regional pawns, more than ever now in this election year.

The Horrible History of Big Pharma

By Dr. James Angel and Nick Dearden, May 31, 2021

Any long-term solution to the deadly Covid-19 pandemic involves the discovery and equitable distribution of an effective vaccine and treatment options. Yet, across the world, governments are handing responsibility for Covid-19 solutions over to big pharmaceutical firms, who have a long track record of prioritising corporate profit over people’s health.

Number of COVID Cases in Delhi Crashes after Mass Distribution of Ivermectin

By Thomas Lifson, May 31, 2021

India has been suffering horrendously from COVID of late, and the complete death toll may never be known. But in the capital city of Delhi, mass distribution of ivermectin began and the results have been stunning.

U.S. Unions Are Voicing Unprecedented Support for Palestine

By Jeff Schuhrke, May 31, 2021

While a ceasefire announced on May 20 has helped stem some of the deadliest attacks by Israel in the latest round of aggression, Palestinians are still enduring state violence at the hands of the right-wing Israeli government. In response, Palestinian trade unions have been repeating longstanding calls for the international labor movement to join them in their struggle for freedom — including by supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which aims to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Israel to end the occupation.

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.

***

.

Question for written answer  E-005963/2020 to the Commission

Rule 138 

Jérôme Rivière (ID)

Subject: Funding of the Wuhan laboratory by the European Union

A whole range of projects have been carried out under the Horizon 2020 research programme managed by the European Commission. The European Virus Archive (EVA) project was set up in 2008 in response to the need for a coordinated and easily accessible collection of viruses, which could be made available to universities, public health bodies and industry.

In three years, the project has grown from a consortium of nine European laboratories to include associated partners in Africa, Russia, China, Turkey, Germany and Italy, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

According to the European Commission’s website, between 2015 and 2019 the European Union paid EUR 130 576.80 to the Wuhan Institute, with nearly EUR 90 000 being earmarked for the period until 2023.

1. Can the Commission confirm the exact amounts already paid and the amounts planned?

2. In view of the health crisis originating in Wuhan, does the Commission intend to ask China for explanations regarding the use of this money?

Screenshot from the European Parliament website

Jérôme Rivière is French politician who has served as a Member of the European Parliament since 2019. 

*

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.

***

On May 19, 2021, Dr. Peter McCullough was interviewed by author John Leake in Dallas, Texas on the subject of Dr. McCullough’s treatment and research of COVID-19.

*

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: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Graphic. (U.S. Air Force Graphic by Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Abstract

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), drafted in 1950 and entered into force on 3 September 1953, is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe.

Given issues, like the absence of trust in geopolitics and international relations, ruthless competition between states and civilizations and the abuse of power to name a few and which surround the topic, this paper will argue that the key characteristics of HR stand for a fundamental human rights whose protection cannot be absolute.

The protection of HR cannot be absolute for a number of reasons. Following are 4 of many which the paper would consider in short and complement with a few references: 1) The historical background. 2) The language aspect and the fact of formulation in broad terms. 3) The fact of non resolvable contradictions. 4) The non scientific origins of HR concepts.

The judgments of ECHR as living instrument not formally bound by precedents, the position, trying to establish a legal certainty and foreseeability of rulings by not changing its jurisdiction without compelling reasons, a number of reasons of conflict with rights entrenched in other provisions of the Convention and last but not least the ECHR autonomous interpretation allowing a protection much wider in scope than the protection offered under national law lead practically to limitations of national sovereignty.

Considering the fact, that current geopolitical and geoeconomical environment is charaterized by the absence of trust, dialog, absence of commonly accepted values and national interests and the concept of HR lacks scientific base[1], any comparison of HR between the East and the West can only have a limited and theroretical value. In best case a comparison could be used in the future, should a science dealing with the conduct of peace – The paxology would be established and included into educational programs.

A Contextual View at Human Rights

Given issues like the absence of trust in geopolitics and international relations, ruthless competition between states and civilizations and which surround the topic, this paper will argue that the protection of HR concept cannot be absolute.

The protection of HR cannot be absolute for a number of reasons. Following are 4 of many, which would be considered briefly and enhanced with a few references: 1) the historical background of ECHR. 2) the language and the fact of formulation in broad terms. 3) the fact of non – resolvable contradictions and 4) the non – scientific origins of concepts of HR.

In general we can use for general description of the state of ECHR a play with words one can find on Chinese internet: meizhong buzu. It means in my own interpretation something like – in the beauty there is a deficit. Deficit in understanding the fundamentals in relations between the East and the West seems to grow by day. Even before the entry of PRC into the WTO in 2001 the discussions about preferences were governed by HR on behalf of USA.

The historical background of concepts

If you ask when rights discourse began in Europe, you can receive many answers. They would differ not only by centuries, depending on which stage of the ongoing evolution of concepts and practices related to rights, and to its correlates and predecessors in a half-dozen languages one counts as the beginning, but also by understanding of what does really HR mean and why HR became an international topic of a great concern in everyday life politics.

If you ask when rights discourse began in the East, including Russia and China, you would receive not many answers. Why? Many of us think that the beginning of rights discourse in the East, Russia and China included would be easier to locate as there was no concept of rights in traditional thought. Unfortunately, this is only partially true. Why? Let´s look at China.

Firstly, we need to look at the moment when the idea of rights was introduced to China from Europe and ask: Can we in fact find in China today a distinctive conception of rights? Secondly, we need to look into the recent history, for instance the last century. It includes the period before and after the establishment of People´s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Those wishing to find more about the rights discourse in China may turn into the old history of China and consider for instance Confucius teachings as one of a few other teachings.

Unfortunately, also the moment when the idea of rights was introduced to China from Europe is rather difficult to identify precisely. Similar applies to other countries of the East and therefore alsofor the question related to the existence of conceptions of rights. Nevertheless, we can come closer to the answer when we look carefully at early translations of European texts concerning rights into eastern languages including Chinese, and consider historical facts. The following brief introduction indicates where to go for a help and what has to be considered.

Chinese discussions of rights emerged and developed in a distinctive way, sharing some but not all features with developments outside China. Concerns over the satisfaction of legitimate desires, the construction of a nation, the protection of individuals’ abilities to develop their personalities, to mention a few all played important roles in the Chinese rights discourse.

In the West, the ECHR was drafted in the aftermath of the 2nd WW under the auspices of the Council of Europe with two purposes: 1) to ensure the protection of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and 2) to contribute to the establishment of stable democracies governed by the rule of law across Europe). ECHR therefore relates explicitly to politics, effective political democracy and the belief, that the rule of law stands for a pre-condition for peaceful cohabitation of peoples and states. Ideas of ECHR were developed and based on the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the Council of Europe.

The Eastern and Chinese concepts differ from corresponding Western concepts. From this follows that we needed to understand what it means for concepts to differ from one another. Concepts are usually emerging from relatively stable agreements in a community’s norms, rather than as single, unchanging things that people had to share for communication to succeed. Concepts are more messy and complex than one may imagine. It should be enough for one to begin understand the complexity of the question – What makes the difference between concepts – by analysing what His Excellency Mr. Liu Huaqiu, head of the Chinese delegation to Vienna had written about quanli – his term for rights – in June 1993, 26 years ago.[2] I decided to use his statement as a reference and for reason of respect.

The statement made by His Excellency includes two important claims supported by the history of Mankind: 1) Countries can have different concepts of human rights. 2) We ought not to demand that countries comply with human rights concepts different from their own. Both claims form a part of current policy of PRC and the arguments made by Chinese.

Over the time and since the claims were made 26 years ago in Vienna quanli discourse underwent important changes. The Confucian source of quanli discourse and the Western stimulus to that discourse were of approximately equal importance during the dynamic changes in the 1910s. From the mid-1910s to the mid-1930s we can identify some progress and much frustration toward the realization of a stable, empowered state and society in China. China was wracked by invasion and civil war. Despite this, the period 1915 through 1935 were years of enormous intellectual vitality in which theories that could help people to understand and improve their world were subjected to serious debate and rigorous analysis. Western philosophies were interpreted and adopted with increasing sophistication, many young people studied in and then returned home, and American and European thinkers visited and lectured in China.

HR in Russian Empire, USSR and current RF will not be considered in this paper for reasons of time, although their consideration could enhance the conference and the subsequent dialog.

Since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949 the rights discourse has continued. It was influenced by the ambivalent attitude that Marxism has in general toward rights. Although the developments have been neither simple nor continuous the human rights issue in PRC enjoys a serious attention by the Government, specialised local NGOs, like Charhar Institute and by a variety of academic and student´s institutions. In general it could be said, that most participants in Chinese rights discourse continue to perceive rights in ways familiar from earlier in the century.[3] This is in contradiction to the current trends and state of affairs which seems to be very different. How different?

Quanli lost most of its explicit connections to the Confucian tradition. This increased distance from Confucian vocabulary and sources of authority. These days visa to USA have been cancelled in hundreds, even in thousands by US authorities. The potential for international cooperation vanish, the potential for regional and even global confrontation grows. All this happens despite the fact that there has been increasingly direct and complete engagement of Chinese, for instance writers, with themes from contemporary western rights discourse. Hundreds of thousands students from PRC studied in the West and became influenced not only by the discourse of HR in their host countries. Many of them went back to PRC and represent today a multi-use potential at the same time also complex risk to be managed by themselves and politicians in times of sophisticated manipulation, fake news and ruthless competition between individuals, states and civilizations.

It seems to me important to remind that we all need to know better what to make of these two main claims. They without doubt influence politicians, activists and international lawyers outside and within China today. They would influence them tomorrow and also in the future. Therefore there is a need for complementary arguments. They may allow get more complete picture of immediate, practical and broadly theoretical HR issue.

Exactly 30 years ago (1989), the journal National Interest published well known essay written by Francise Fukuyama – The End of History?[4] In it Fukuyama argues that following the ascendency of Western-style liberal democracy, following the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, humanity was reaching not just … the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.

There is no need for a deep analysis of the language, content and philosophy of the essay to state convincingly in context of the developments during the period of the last 30 years, that the essay is essentially a Christian eschatology and of restricted reference value.

The main events of the period which represent attacks on September 11, 2001, the global financial and economic crisis in 2008, the appearance on world stage of countries like Russia and China as serious competitors to the West (jointly strong in economic, political and military terms), the Brexit and last but not least the actions of president Trump cannot be put out of consideration of HR issues now and also in the foreseeable future.

Beside this the Fukuyama´s essay does not sufficiently take into account the power of ethnic loyalties, religious and Islamic fundamentalism and radical Islam. Fukuyama´s  idea and ideals, as the concept of HR, both are not demonstrated by empirical evidence. Why? They can never be demonstrated as they belong to the realm of philosophy or religion, owing their birth to the Gospels of Philosophy of Hegel, thus belonging to the category of not traditional sciences.

It is therefore obvious that there is moral pluralism in our world. It is there because the concepts with which different groups make moral judgments are different from one another. It does not matter whether they are radical or simply different in more mundane ways. In this sense and context the claims like those of His Excellency are valid, even after critical analysis of what moral pluralism is, and what its implications might be. The other aspect to be considered represents the history and archetypes of language, psychology, behaviour and a few important questions. Like: What does exactly mean to say that speakers of one language having different mother tongues[5] have different concepts of rights than speakers of another?  If speaker´s concepts are different, can they still communicate with one another?[6] Is it even true that all speakers of a given language share the same concepts, especially of terms like rights, love, sins?

From simple answers to these questions follow that: 1) conceptual content depends on the inferential commitments we take on when we use language, 2) the norms governing these inferences are instituted by the practices of the groups to which we belong and 3) as our commitments and we change, so too can change the meanings of our words, or even the words we use themselves. Therefore the implicitness, explicitness and specificity of a language and their influence on thinking, believing and behaving cannot be ignored in the rights discourse.

The broad term formulation of ECHR

The ECHR is drafted in broad terms in a more modern manner to the English Bill of Rights, the U.S. Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the first part of the German Basic law. Therefore the formulations of statements of principle are, from a legal point of view not determinative, require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations, and therefore they are different and far distant not only to Eastern and China history, traditions and values, but also to all archetypes of eastern and other languages and formulations.

Considering the historical background of concept of HR in East and West, the fact of broad term formulation of ECHR, reasoning of judgments and their implications, all became more important as they were in the past. In context of developments and trends in the world in which the absence of trust and dialogue and the need for communication and security of information form a very complex contradictions and paradoxes the language and formulation aspect became a priority. It transformed the idea, ideals and Western concepts of HR into a multi-use tool. It can be seen daily how this tool has been used in manipulation of public, the production of fake news and also within the concept of abuse of power in political, economic, military and technical sense. There is no doubt that it would be more ecological, efficient and economical if we had accepted that there are always conceptual differences not only intern between us, but also between the East and the West, and even if we speak the same language. This does not mean that differences stand in the way of successful communication and quality relation between individuals, communities, states and civilizations.

There is no doubt, that the knowledge and characteristics of Chinese language[7] and literature stand for a serious challenge to everyone dealing with Chinese text, documents, people and organizations. Similar applies to other Eastern countries. And as the globalization is undergoing a complex transformation process with a new multilateral world at its end, we all are facing not only a serious linguistic challenge with all its consequences, but much more also in regard to HR, politics and cooperation. 

The non – resolvable contradictions within the ECHR

The contradictions[8] indicated in this paper have been mainly created by the variety of formulations of HR, judgments produced by ECHR as living instrument not formally bound by precedents, and ECHR position trying to establish a legal certainty and foreseeability of rulings by not changing its jurisdiction without compelling reasons.

In addition there is a number of contradictions resulting from the pluralism in the world with its variety of moral, ethics and other standards, reasons of conflict with rights entrenched in other provisions of the Convention (the right to freedom of expression frequently collides with the right to private life a. o) and paradoxes resulting from double standards and hypocrisy applied in politics, the deficit of new markets for an economic system based on expansion and the ECHR autonomous interpretation.

The autonomous interpretation which stands for a non – resolvable contradiction and paradox at the same time allows a protection much wider in scope than the protection offered under national laws. The ECHR imposes positive obligations. This means that states can be obliged to act and to take active steps to ensure an effective enjoyment of the rights protected by the Convention. The concept of protection and positive obligations, both deliver a result representing limitations or restrictions of national sovereignty. Already for this reason the current concept of HR can never enjoy an absolute protection. Sovereignty is not negotiable for states like USA, PRC, RF and a few more like Israel. Therefore the ECHR as an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe can only function and be considered as a guide, never as the last instance, equal to Good.

The fact that traditions divide communities into We and They, the ECHR tends to be inclusive and equalizing. Europe as a part of the West wears more US accessories and follows the way to unipolar world made in USA (America First is more brutal that the ex – bipolar world and it does not allow tuning of economic and political realities). All this and much more support the argument to consider ECHR as a guide.

No scientific origin

Considering all said previously and including the current geo-political and geo-economic environment with its absence of commonly accepted values and national interests, one cannot ignore the fact that the concept of HR lacks a scientific base. What does it mean? The concept of HR which has been based on politics, effective democracy and beliefs and promoted controversially over decades belongs to the category of pathological science.[9]

This term defined Nobel Prize laureate Irving Langmuir (1881-1957) as follows: Scientists risk stumbling into a pаrticular kind of pitfall when they encounter „the science if things that aren´t so.

Conclusions

Any comparison of HR values between the East and the West can only have a limited and theoretical value. In best case it could be used in the future, for instance in educational programs and science called the Paxology.[10]

My answers to H.E. Liu Huaqiu claims are affirmative. There have been continuities and changes in the ways that rights have been conceptualized in China with its rich and distinctive rights discourse over the course of time and exposed to a lot of positive and less positive developments and trends in both the West and East.

The concepts in West are West´s own. In East are East´s own. Therefore concepts in China are China’s own. All concepts in contexts within which they have emerged and been contested, have in common central episodes in history of the East and the West. In addition China’s cultural and political history have always drawn on pre-existing concepts and concerns – even when they criticized some of the commitments central to those existing values promoted by the West. As a result the only way a state or community can unilaterally declare its values and practices immune to the scrutiny of others is through victory in war or parochialism.[11]  Both are these days non-starters should we really need and want to build and enjoy a common house in which the peace would be the master and the war just an episode.

The activities and expectations of West and the East governments, to say nothing of other actors, would therefore need to be modified and trimmed for a lasting dialogue. A discussion about HR would not very much help as there is a qualitative difference between both: the time aspect, the way of thinking and arguing are different. Under the assumption that all involved in the rights discourse do not think of HR values as parochial, and no one wishes a global war, no one can be immune from criticism, though there is no guarantee that any accommodation, much less constructive engagement, will be forthcoming from one or more parties involved in the rights discourse in the near future. Consent not needed.

*

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

Notes

[1] HR concepts belong in the understanding of the author of this paper to the category of pathological science as defined by Nobel Price laureate (1932) Irving Langmuir (1881-1957).

[2] In June of 1993, His Excellency Mr. Liu Huaqiu, made the following statement in the course of his remarks to the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna: The concept of human rights is a product of historical development. It is closely associated with specific social, political, and economic conditions and the specific history, culture, and values of a particular country. Different historical development stages have different human rights requirements. Countries at different development stages or with different historical traditions and cultural back-grounds also have different understanding and practice of human rights. Thus, one should not and cannot think of the human rights standard and model of certain countries as the only proper ones and demand all countries to comply with them. [Liu Huaqiu 1995, p. 214]

[3]Angle Stephen,  Human Rights and Chinese Thought: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry, Cambridge University Press, Print publication year: 2002, Online publication date: August 2009, Online ISBN: 9780511499227, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499227

[4] Fukuyama, Francis (1989). “The End of History?”. The National Interest (16): 3–18. ISSN 0884-9382

[5] The term mother tongue should not be interpreted to mean that it is the language of one’s mother. In some paternal societies, the wife moves in with the husband and thus may have a different first language than the husband. Mother in this context originated from the use of “mother” to mean “origin” as in motherland. Also in Malaysia and Singapore “mother tongue” refers to the language of one’s ethnic group regardless of actual proficiency, while the “first language” refers to the English language that was established through British colonoization. The first language of a child is part of their personal, social and cultural identity. Another impact of the first language is that it brings about the reflection and learning of successful social patterns of acting and speaking. It is basically responsible for differentiating the linguistic competence of acting.  One can have two or more native languages.The order in which these languages are learned is not necessarily the order of proficiency.

[6] Margaret Thatcher once stated, that there is no need to agree with the other party in order to find a common language.

[7] One of the major literary heritages in the world with an uninterrupted history of more than 3,000 years. The main characteristics of the Chinese language are: linguistically analytic and isolating, word units do not change because of inflection, idioms and allusions from traditional Chinese culture.

[8] Campbell J., Consent Not Needed (Zustimmung nicht noetig, Souhlasu netřeba, Согласие не требуется), 2016, ISBN 978-3-00-052470-7

[9] Langmuir Irving (1881-1957), Nobel Price laureate (1932): There are cases where there is no dishonesty involved but where people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about what human beings can do to themselves in the way of being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. These are things that attracted a great deal of attention.

[10] Černoch Felix: Theory of Peace as a Contradiction to War Science, Czech Military Review, volume 2014, issue 4. The peace is a state of affairs among states, nations and mankind, characterized by a friendly coexistence, solving matters in dispute by means of negotiations and accords, without use of armed and physical forces or psychological coercion. For preserving peace it is important to respect state sovereignty, independence, the right of nations to define their own courses. The theory of peace, dealing with those items is called paxology.

[11] Parochialism is the state of mind, whereby one focuses on small sections of an issue rather than considering its wider context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope, like a synonym of “provincialism.”

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

.

To Prime Minister Binyamin Natanyahu,

There has been great confusion regarding treatment of the coronavirus. I am hoping you can help clear it up.

On December 11, 2020, the FDA offered an ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ for a Pfizer vaccine. On December 9, 2020 thousands of doses arrived at Ben Gurion airport. Did you officially order and receive incompletely tested drugs, even before they received the EUA? Is that even legal?

You proudly lauded the vaccine that would save us from lockdowns, distancing, and masks. But that word, ‘vaccine’, has confused us. Until February 5, 2021, the Merriam Webster dictionary defined it: A preparation of killed microorganisms, living attenuated organisms, or living fully virulent organisms that is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to a particular disease. This was indeed the basis of all commonly known vaccines. In December, when they were introduced into Israel, it was still correct.  Remarkably, on February 6, a new definition appeared: a preparation of genetic material (such as a stand of synthesized mRNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein). Of course most of us were unaware of that significant modification. When the word ‘vaccine’ was heard, it was understood as the familiar, widely accepted treatment they and their children were familiar with.  Mr. Prime Minister, don’t you think we deserved to be informed from the start that the injection was of a genetic modifying agent, and not a weakened virus?

When you declared these ‘vaccines’ were safe, and rolled up your own sleeve to prove it, how could you know? The WHO didn’t know. Pfizer didn’t know. The FDA didn’t know. After all, although they were still in the process of trial drug studies, they were rolled out at ‘Warp Speed’. They say they won’t know until at least 2023, if then. There is no proof these shots stop transmission, or prevent illness. They list 22 known side effects on their drug insert. Sadly we have learned of more.

Surely you knew that under EUA, unapproved medical products may be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. How grateful we would have been had your minister of health recommended Ivermectin, HCQ, Vitamins D and C, zinc or Querticin. Doctors who used them saved many lives. Some suggest at least 85% of those who died might have been saved. These safe, FDA- approved drugs could have provided the alternative. To add to the confusion, you actually used the phrase ‘FDA-approved’, as opposed to EUA, a number of times in describing the ‘vaccine’, including in that cute little video you posted on Purim 2021.

How much testing has actually been done on this ‘vaccine’ is another vague point. They’ve been working on it for decades, we’re told, yet it was never approved. We know the animals in the drug trials became very sick, and most died. Their auto-immune systems were destroyed, and they did not survive the next virus or flu season (ADE). In these past few years, no animal studies were done. Pfizer trials were done exclusively on humans. Whereas most new drugs or vaccines require 7-15 years or more, this brand new mRNA concept was rushed out to hundreds of millions in less than a year – for a virus with a remarkably high recovery rate.

You now proclaim the Green Passport is no more. Perhaps you are trying ease the stress by telling us we can again move freely, eat out, and work out.

If so, why are you forging ahead to jab our kids with an experimental drug that has not been tested for more than a few months on young children, who have not been nearly as badly affected at all by the virus – less than the seasonal flu.

Mr. Prime Minister, it’s time to end the confusion.

Why do children with 99.997% recovery rate need this shot at all?

Show us long-term studies.

Show us studies of how their immune systems will be affected in two years, in five.

Show us studies on the effect on future fertility.

Show us long-term neurological studies.

Show us what happened to the kids in the trial studies, including the paralyzed, the immune suppressed, and those who sadly died.

Explain how 14-year-olds, who need parental permission to go on a school trip, and who cannot legally buy cigarettes, can make an independent choice to take a drug that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Stop the confusion. There is no pandemic. The virus is gone. Like the yearly flu, it comes and leaves. Now leave our children and us to go back to our lives.

One thing is clear. There are many trials taking place globally, including Nuremberg 2. Those who knowingly coerced, manipulated, lied to, or otherwise forced citizens to take this drug against their will, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, will be brought to justice.

Your clarifying response would be greatly appreciated.

*

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

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

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.

***

German Green Party: Climate protection is “historic opportunity” for the business location Germany. Retired general: Green foreign policy lowers “threshold” for military interventions.

Because of their high ratings in the polls, even placing them, at times, ahead of the CDU, the Green Party is seen as a likely governing party following federal elections in September. Its popularity boost is already prompting business associations and business-related institutes and the media to discuss the option of a federal government headed by the Greens – and to put pressure on the Party’s leadership through criticism and demands. Referring to statements by the Federation of German Industries (BDI), leading conservative media write that the Green Party’s election program still shows a “basic distrust” toward “market forces.”[1] The BDI warns against a “green planned economy” resulting from the ecological restructuring of society intended to combat the climate crisis and describes the “numerous bans, quotas and technology requirements” in the Green party program as “building blocks of a different social order” and an indication of a “pronounced dirigiste concept of government.” The lobby association is thus particularly criticizing the demand for higher CO2 prices and for climate impact assessments for companies. Business-related research institutes also criticize the call for a faster phase-out of coal-based power generation (2030 instead of 2038); the abolition of the internal combustion engine as of 2030; for a higher CO2 price of 60 euros per ton by 2023; and the intended reduction of CO2 emissions by 70 percent by 2030, compared to its 1990 levels.[2] Other points in the program coming under criticism include a higher hourly minimum wage of 12 euros, the equal treatment of temporary workers, the right to home office and the scrapping of Hartz IV sanctions (“Hartz IV has basically proven itself”). The announced promotion of innovations in the industry within the framework of the “Green New Deal,” however, has met with approval.

“Farewell to Social Market Economy”

Economists occasionally warn that once the Greens are in government, they could actually bid “farewell to the social market economy.”[3] They deplore the planned promotion of local public transportation, expected to double the number of passengers by 2030 and the proposed conversion of the “transportation infrastructure in favor of rail and bicycle” at the “expense of the car” and air traffic. They also criticize the “complete shift to electric vehicles” pursued by the Greens, which ignores the development of alternative “fuels for the internal combustion engine.” The party, they note, is increasingly striving to reshape Germany’s entire economic policy,[4] by investing “considerable sums in the transformation of the business location Germany” – financed by a wealth tax and abolishing the debt brake. (Top representatives of the Greens have, in fact, advocated supplementing the debt brake with an “investment rule” to finance the modernization of infrastructure.[5]). This would appeal only to “some companies,” it was noted. Skepticism prevails within the business community in regards to the promotion of government sponsored innovation, because it “has repeatedly gone wrong in the past.” One should ask the question, who is going to determine the allocation of billions and decide “which innovation is particularly worthy of promotion.”

Tame, Affable, Friendly

The leadership of the German Green Party, on the other hand, depicts climate protection as the German economy’s “historic opportunity,” whose realization would even enhance the competitiveness of “business location Germany.”[6] The German industry now has the opportunity to “develop into one of the future global players in the areas of energy, mobility and infrastructure,” chancellor candidate Annalena Baerbock had declared during a meeting with business representatives back in 2019. This narrative now meets with the approval of sectors of Germany’s business community. The Greens’ strategic objective – which is encountering resistance in the old fossil-fuel based industrial sector – to confront the climate crisis with a boost in capitalist modernization in the ecological sectors, is consequently reflected in the “ecological party’s” increasingly closer ties to business-related lobbying associations.[7] The road to power in Berlin passes “through these lobbies,” wherein party members are, in the meantime, “holding important positions at points of contact between business and politics,” and therefore improve “prerequisite conditions for entering a government coalition,” it was noted. The “will to shape things” is characteristic of the party. The Greens have become “tamer, more affable, and friendlier.” Former Green functionaries have long since taken on posts at Daimler or Germany’s Federal Association of Energy and Water Industry (BDEW). Even their “relationship to the chemical and steel industries” – which, only a few years ago, was characterized by mutual aversion – is today “constructive.” Representatives of the Cologne Institute for Economic Research (IW) insinuated that, should the party participate in government, the intertwining of “Green” politics and business would create “clear advantages for the companies.” It would be very helpful “to have stakeholders” with “high credibility” in questions of ecology and climate protection, while also having an “understanding of economic relations.”

The EU – a Global Power Factor

In their foreign policy, the Greens are clearly committed to developing the EU into an independent power factor at the center of the capitalist world system. Top representatives of the party have emphasized that the EU must “conduct itself with much more self-confidence” – especially in “defense of free and fair competition.”[8] At the same time, a rapprochement to the USA under the Biden administration should be sought. This is accompanied by an aggressive confrontation course toward the “Eurasian” great powers – Russia and China. The Greens unambiguously opposes the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, also opposed by the Biden administration.[9] The Green parliamentary group sees Biden’s taking office as an opportunity for a new “transatlantic climate policy.”[10] However, the party leadership couples the option of a “reset” with Washington to the demand for “more strategic sovereignty” for the EU.[11] The Greens are now not even shying away from making a plea in favor of the “nuclear sharing,” as indicates an initiative taken in early 2021 by the Green-affiliated Heinrich Böll Foundation.[12]

“Burden Sharing within NATO”

Besides climate policy, the Greens see a potential for cooperation with the Biden administration in digitization, in the struggle against the US internet monopolies, in the promotion of “democracy and rule of law,” in foreign and military policies and in questions of trade. For example, a concerted “strategy with the USA for dealing with China” is under consideration. The party criticizes the investment agreement concluded between the EU and the People’s Republic of China, which the current German government had “expeditiously pushed through.”[13] Given the fact that “the focus of US security policy” will be oriented on East Asia rather than Europe, the EU must itself “assume the responsibility for foreign and security policy.” This particularly applies to its eastern and southeastern neighborhood, where “Russia, Turkey or China are expanding their influence.” In this context, the EU’s eastern periphery should be given additional geostrategic significance within the framework of the “Eastern Partnership Security Compact” program. Here also interests overlap with those of Washington. A “strategic orientation” and a “new, broader concept of burden sharing within NATO” could be discussed with the USA. Green foreign policy experts also see a potential for cooperation between Berlin and Washington on questions of reforming the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as on “salvaging” the nuclear deal with Iran.[14]

Arming against Russia

In the meantime, approval of NATO membership – in addition to the preservation of the “industrial core of the republic” – has become Green preconditions for any coalition negotiations with the Left Party.[15] This geostrategic commitment will, in fact, lead to sharper confrontation with Russia, as recent initiatives taken by the Green Party leadership demonstrate.[16] The Chair of the Greens, Robert Habeck, declared that delivering weapons to Ukraine is conceivable. Since the 2014 putsch by nationalist and fascist forces – actively flanked by the West [17] – that country has been pursuing a virulently anti-Russian course, which due to its “stalemated” civil war with the Russian-oriented eastern part of the country, could suddenly escalate into a hot armed conflict. Following his consultations with Ukraine’s President Volodimir Zelensky in Kiev, Habeck now alleges that Ukraine could hardly be refused “so-called defensive weapons.” Only on the NATO membership question, will this civil war country have to exercise “patience” awhile longer.

Low Political Threshold for Interventions

A retired German general considers that the Greens’ plans in foreign and military policies can be achieved only with increased financial expenditure for the Bundeswehr, in other words, a higher military budget.[18] With its demand to abolish veto power in the UN Security Council and its approbation of global interventions to “defend human rights,” the former peace party has significantly lowered the “political threshold for the engagement of the armed forces in international interventions,” warned Erich Vad, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s former military policy advisor. Military interventions would therefore become more probable – not least of all, because even rescuing refugees will have to “serve to legitimize global military missions.” The Greens’ party program still contains demands for stricter arms export controls, as well as for banning “autonomous lethal weapons systems.” However, their decisive course resides in their demands for the “modernization of the Bundeswehr” and for a “strategic realignment of NATO.”

*

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

Notes

[1] Die Industrie warnt vor grüner Planwirtschaft. faz.net 07.04.2021.

[2] Teils konstruktiv, teils nichtssagend. iwkoeln.de 19.03.2021.

[3] Die mutlosen Grünen. wiwo.de 19.04.2021.

[4] Die Grünen drängen ins Wirtschaftsministerium. wiwo.de 19.03.2021.

[5] “Wir wollen die Schuldenbremse durch eine Investitionsregel ergänzen”. gruene.de 23.05.2021.

[6] “Der Klimaschutz ist eine historische Chance für unsere Wirtschaftspolitik”. gruene.de 13.06.2019.

[7] Die Grünen und die Wirtschaft – Der Weg zur Macht führt über die Lobbys. handelsblatt.com 10.01.2021.

[8] “Der Klimaschutz ist eine historische Chance für unsere Wirtschaftspolitik”. gruene.de 13.06.2019.

[9] Nord Stream 2 stoppen! gruene.de.

[10] Chance für Neustart in der transatlantischen Klimapolitik. gruene-bundestag.de 22.01.2021.

[11] Blick nach vorn – Europas Angebot für eine neue transatlantische Agenda. gruene.de 25.01.2021.

[12] Grüne verärgert über Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. sueddeutsche.de 22.01.2021. See also Der Kern des Westens.

[13] See also “Ein Sturm zieht auf”.

[14] USA/Europa: Neustart in den transatlantischen Beziehungen. gruene-bundestag.de/ 19.02.2021.

[15] Grünen-Chef Robert Habeck schließt Koalition mit den Linken nicht mehr aus. fr.de 08.05.2021.

[16] Grünen-Chef Habeck spricht sich für Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine aus. deutschlandfunk.de 25.05.2021.

[17] See also Vom Stigma befreit and Testfeld Ukraine.

[18] Erich Vad: Wer soll das bezahlen? cicero.de 28.04.2021.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

U.S. President Joe Biden’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year was recently announced, and it requests $715 billion for his first Pentagon budget, 1.6 percent more than the $704 billion enacted under Trump’s administration. The outline states that the primary justification for this increase in military spending is to counter the threat of China, and identifies China as the U.S.’s “top challenge.”

Within the proposal is an endorsement of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command head Admiral Philip Davidson’s request for $4.7 billion for the “Pacific Deterrence Initiative,” which will increase U.S. military capabilities in Guam and the surrounding region. The Indo-Pacific Command is also requesting $27 billion in additional spending between 2022 and 2027 to build a network of precision-strike missiles along the islands surrounding Beijing.

The U.S.’s unilateral aggression toward China—in the hybrid form of economic, legal, information, and military warfare—is particularly dangerous today because there is bipartisan consensus in Washington on these policies. And while the anti-China stance may seem like a recent phenomenon to some, the consolidation of a U.S. national security policy that singles out a rising China as a target for “containment” in order to maintain U.S. dominance abroad has been long in the making.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the U.S. had no further political need to cooperate or engage with China to counterbalance the Soviet Union. Led by Andrew Marshall, a member of RAND and the top adviser to 12 secretaries of defense, the Pentagon’s military supremacy policy (or “full-spectrum dominance,” as the Department of Defense calls it) since then has gradually shifted focus from deterring the Soviet Union to containing an emerging China. In 1992, neoconservatives drafted the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) document, or the “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” which announced the U.S. as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union and proclaimed the prevention of “the re-emergence of a new rival” as its main objective. While this document was dismissed for its hubris upon leaking, scholar and journalist K.J. Noh explains that its ideas were not discarded and were later converted into the 2000 “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” document by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Along with its focus on stated enemy nations like Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Iraq, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” explicitly stated that, “with Europe now generally at peace, the new strategic center of concern appears to be shifting to East Asia. The missions for America’s armed forces have not diminished so much as shifted,” and that “raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status.”

So when Hillary Clinton announced the U.S.’s “Pivot to Asia” in Foreign Policy magazine in 2011, although she emphasized the positive rebalance and opportunity the Asia-Pacific region presented for the U.S. economy, behind the scenes she was adhering to PNAC’s defense strategy as the intellectual justification for the transference of 60 percent of U.S. naval capacity to the Asia-Pacific region, including the encircling of China with 400 U.S. military bases with invasive radar and missile systems.

The U.S.’s New Cold War on China Today: Defensive or Pre-Emptive?

Today the U.S. is launching a full-scale multi-pronged new Cold War on China and is relying on the same threat inflation strategies that foreign policy architect Andrew Marshall and his hawkish neoconservative protégés began nearly three decades ago. From this progression, it is clear that the Biden administration’s stated reasons for escalating war and hostility with China—that the Chinese government is a dangerous aggressor and that the U.S. must maintain a robust defensive posture in response—belie the U.S.’s historical and ongoing imperialist motivations in its involvement in the Asia-Pacific region. Just as the 1992 “Wolfowitz Doctrine” explicitly defined itself as a “blueprint for maintaining global U.S. pre-eminence,” President Biden vowed in his first formal press conference on March 25 that he would not let China surpass the U.S. as a global leader. “China has an overall goal… to become the leading country in the world, the wealthiest country in the world, and the most powerful country in the world,” he told reporters at the White House. “That’s not going to happen on my watch because the United States is going to continue to grow.”

Upon closer examination, the notion that China is the aggressor and the U.S. is maintaining a purely defensive military posture does not align with the facts.

For example, the U.S. spends about three times more on its military than China does. The U.S. has more than 800 overseas bases compared with China’s three; 400 of these 800 U.S. military bases are encircling China’s borders. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command has been conducting extensive military exercises, including missile test flights, with regularity. As Fareed Zakaria recently described for the Washington Post, the U.S. has nearly 20 times the number of nuclear warheads as China, has twice the tonnage of warships at sea, and has over 130,000 troopsstationed in the Indo-Pacific. The People’s Liberation Army of China has also not waged a full-scale war outside its borders in more than 40 years since the Vietnam War, while the U.S. has engaged in combat in over 66 other nations since 1979.

Importantly, China maintains a no-first-use policy on the use of nuclear weapons, and has even publicly called on nuclear weapon states to create and join a multilateral Treaty on Mutual No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons; the U.S. does not maintain a no-first-use policy. In fact, since the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. has explicitly prepared for nuclear war with China, threatening “intolerable damage” in response to “non-nuclear or nuclear aggression.”

The U.S. is continuing its attempts to maintain its status as a global power at all costs, rather than accepting the development of other nations as a positive form of progress for the international community. Instead of provoking a new Cold War, the U.S. should be cooperating with China, whose administration has reiterated its willingness to maintain bilateral respect and non-confrontational relations, on pressing crises and humanitarian concerns like climate change mitigation, global poverty, and equitable worldwide vaccine distribution.

*

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.

Madison Tang is the campaign manager of China Is Not Our Enemy at CODEPINK.

Jodie Evans is the co-founder of CODEPINK and 826LA.

Featured image is from Pressenza

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 8 April 2021, the Weimar District Family Court ruled in Amtsgericht Weimar, Beschluss vom 08.04.2021, Az.: 9 F 148/21) that two Weimar schools were prohibited with immediate effect from requiring pupils to wear mouth-nose coverings of any kind (especially qualified masks such as FFP2 masks), to comply with AHA minimum distances and/or to take part in SARS-CoV-2 rapid tests. At the same time, the court ruled that classroom instruction must be maintained.

This is the first time that expert evidence has now been presented before a German court regarding the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the prescribed anti-Corona measures.The expert witnesses were the hygienist Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer were heard. 2020NewsDe has published a summary of the judgment, the salient parts of which are set out in full below (translation by DeepL).

The reason for highlighting this judgment in such detail is because of the consequences reported by the news website to the judge of his decision. According to 2020NewsDe, “the judge at the Weimar District Court, Christiaan Dettmar, had his house searched today [26 April 2021]. His office, private premises and car were searched. The judge’s mobile phone was confiscated by the police. The judge had made a sensational decision on 8 April 2021, which was very inconvenient for the government’s policy on the measures.” In a side note on the fringes of proceedings with other parties, continues 2020NewsDe, “the decision in question has been described as unlawful by the Weimar Administrative Court without comprehensible justification.”

A cautionary note:  I have been informed by Holger Hestermeyer, Professor of International and EU Law at King’s Law School (@hhesterm), that cases quashing administrative acts (like the one at issue in the AG Weimar case) go to administrative courts in Germany. The case, says Professor Hestermeyer

had, indeed, been brought to the administrative court, but the court had not quashed the administrative act. The attorney then (according to Spiegel reports) was looking for plaintiffs to bring the case before this particular judge via telegram (competence is based on first letters of surnames, so the attorney was looking for plaintiffs with the right surname). The judge then assumed his competence (unprecedented), ruled not just for the plaintiffs but all kids at the school (peculiar), excluded an oral hearing (hmmm), rejected all mainstream scientific advise to base the judgment exclusively on the minority of experts rejecting all such measures (again hmmm) and excluded an appeal.

So there are important procedural problems with this judgment which must be borne in mind when reading my summary with excepts both from the original judgment and the report by 2020De below.

The court case was a child protection case under to § 1666 paragraph 1 and 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB), which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the local Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, she claimed this constituted a violation of a range of rights of the children and their parents under the law, the German constitution (Grundgesetz or Basic Law) and international conventions.

Proceedings under section 1666 of the Civil Code can be initiated ex officio both at the suggestion of any person or without such a suggestion if the court considers intervention to be necessary for reasons of the best interests of the child (section 1697a of the Civil Code).

After examining the factual and legal situation and evaluating the expert opinions, the Weimar Family Court concluded that the prohibitive measures represented a present danger to the child’s mental, physical or psychological well-being to such an extent that substantial harm could be foreseen with a high degree of certainty.

The judge stated:

These are the risks. The children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being by the obligation to wear face masks during school hours and to keep their distance from each other and from other persons, but they are also already being harmed. At the same time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies in particular to the right to free development of the personality and to physical integrity under Article 2 of the Basic Law as well as to the upbringing and care by the parents under Article 6 of the Basic Law ….

With his judgement, the judge confirmed the mother’s assessment:

The children are physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged and their rights are violated without any benefit for the children themselves or third parties.

According to the court, the school administrators, teachers and others could not invoke the state law regulations on which the measures are based, because they are unconstitutional and thus null and void, since they violated the principle of proportionality rooted in the rule of law (Articles 20, 28 of the Basic Law).

According to this principle, also referred to as the prohibition of excess, the measures intended to achieve a legitimate purpose must be suitable, necessary and proportionate in the narrower sense – that is to say, when weighing up the advantages against their disadvantages. The measures that are not evidence-based, contrary to Section 1(2) IfSG, are already unsuitable to achieve the fundamentally legitimate purpose pursued with them, to avoid overloading the health system or to reduce the incidence of infection with the SARS-CoV- 2 virus. In any case, however, they are disproportionate in the narrower sense, because the considerable disadvantages/collateral damage caused by them are not offset by any recognisable benefit for the children themselves or third parties

The judge clarified that it had to be pointed out that it was not for the parties involved to justify the unconstitutionality of the encroachments on their rights, but conversely for the Free State of Thuringia to prove the necessary scientific evidence that the measures it prescribes are suitable to achieve the intended purposes and that they are proportionate, if necessary. So far, this has not been done to any degree.

The judge heard expert evidence from Prof Kappstein on the lack of benefit of wearing masks and observing distance rules for the children themselves and third parties

Prof. Kappstein, after evaluating all the international data on the subject of masks, stated that the effectiveness of masks for healthy people in public is not supported by scientific evidence.

The ruling states:

Plausibility, mathematical estimates and subjective assessments in opinion pieces cannot replace population-based clinical-epidemiological studies. Experimental studies on the filtering performance of masks and mathematical estimates are not suitable to prove effectiveness in real life. While international health authorities advocate the wearing of masks in public spaces, they also say that there is no evidence for this from scientific studies. On the contrary, all currently available scientific evidence suggests that masks have no effect on the incidence of infection. All publications that are cited as evidence for the effectiveness of masks in public spaces do not allow this conclusion. This also applies to the so-called “Jena Study”- like the vast majority of other studies a purely mathematical estimation or modelling study based on theoretical assumptions without real contact tracing with authors from the field of macroeconomics without epidemiological knowledge …the decisive epidemiological circumstance remains unconsidered that the infection values already decreased significantly before the introduction of the mask obligation in Jena on 6 April 2020 (about three weeks later in the whole of Germany) and that there was no longer any relevant infection occurrence in Jena already at the end of March 2020.

The masks are not only useless, they are also dangerous, the judge concluded.

Every mask, as the expert further states, must be worn correctly in order to be effective in principle. Masks can become a contamination risk if they are touched. However, on the one hand they are not worn properly by the population and on the other hand they are very often touched with the hands. This can also be observed with politicians who are seen on television. The population was not taught how to use masks properly, it was not explained how to wash their hands on the way or how to carry out effective hand disinfection. It was also not explained why hand hygiene is important and that one must be careful not to touch one’s eyes, nose and mouth with one’s hands. The population was virtually left alone with the masks. The risk of infection is not only not reduced by wearing the masks, but increased by the incorrect handling of the mask. [The expert sets this out in detail] as well as the fact that it is “unrealistic” to achieve the appropriate handling of masks by the population.

The judgement goes on to say: “The transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through ‘aerosols’, i.e. through the air, is not medically plausible and scientifically unproven. It is a hypothesis that is mainly based on aerosol physicists who, according to the expert, are understandably unable to assess medical correlations from their field of expertise. The ‘aerosol’ theory is extremely harmful for human coexistence and leads to the fact that people can no longer feel safe in any indoor space, and some even fear infection by ‘aerosols’ outside buildings. Together with ‘unnoticed’ transmission, the ‘aerosol’ theory leads to seeing an infection risk in every fellow human being.

The changes in the policy on masks, first fabric masks in 2020, then since the beginning of 2021 either OP masks or FFP2 masks, lack any clear line. Even though OP masks [the standard blue masks with filter cloth and three layers of purifying dust] and FFP masks are both medical masks, they have different functions and are therefore not interchangeable. Either the politicians who made these decisions themselves did not understand what which type of mask is basically suitable for, or they do not care about that, but only about the symbolic value of the mask. From the expert’s point of view, the policy-makers’ mask decisions are not comprehensible and, to put it mildly, can be described as implausible.

The expert further points out that there are no scientific studies on spacing outside of medical patient care. In summary, in her opinion and to the conviction of the court, only the following rules can be established:

1. “keeping a distance of about 1.5 m (1 – 2 m) during vis-à-vis contacts when one of the two persons has symptoms of a cold can be described as a sensible measure. However, it is not scientifically proven; it can only be said to be plausible that it is an effective measure to protect against contact with pathogens through droplets of respiratory secretion if the person in contact has signs of a cold. In contrast, an all-round distance is not an effective way to protect oneself if the contact has a cold.
2. keeping an all-round distance or even just a vis-à-vis distance of about 1.5 m (1 – 2 m) if none of the people present has signs of a cold is not supported by scientific data. However, this greatly impairs people living together and especially carefree contact among children, without any recognisable benefit in terms of protection against infection.
3. close contacts, i.e. under 1.5 m (1 – 2 m), among pupils or between teachers and pupils or among colleagues at work etc., however, do not pose a risk even if one of the two contacts has signs of a cold, because the duration of such contacts at school or even among adults somewhere in public is far too short for droplet transmission to occur. This is also shown by studies from households where, despite living in close quarters with numerous skin and mucous membrane contacts, few members of the household become ill when one has a respiratory infection.”

The court also followed Prof Kappstein’s assessment regarding the transmission rates of symptomatic, pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic people.

Pre-symptomatic transmissions are possible, but not inevitable. In any case they are significantly lower when real contact scenarios are evaluated than when mathematical modelling is used.

From a systematic review with meta-analysis on Corona transmission in households published in December 2020, she contrasts a higher, but still not excessive, transmission rate of 18% for symptomatic index cases with an extremely low transmission of only 0.7% for asymptomatic cases. The possibility that asymptomatic people, formerly known as healthy people, transmit the virus is therefore meaningless.

In summary, the court stated:

There is no evidence that face masks of various types can reduce the risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 at all, or even appreciably. This statement applies to people of all ages, including children and adolescents, as well as asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic and symptomatic individuals.

On the contrary, there is the possibility that the even more frequent hand-face contact when wearing masks increases the risk of coming into contact with the pathogen oneself or bringing fellow humans into contact with it. For the normal population, there is no risk of infection in either the public or private sphere that could be reduced by wearing face masks (or other measures). There is no evidence that compliance with distance requirements can reduce the risk of infection. This applies to people of all ages, including children and adolescents.”

The court relied on the extensive findings of another expert, Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner, in its conclusions that there was “no high-quality scientific evidence to date that the risk of infection can be significantly reduced by wearing face masks.”

The judge continued

In addition, the achievable extent of the reduction in the risk of infection through mask-wearing at schools is in itself very low, because infections occur very rarely at schools even without masks. Accordingly, the absolute risk reduction is so small that a pandemic cannot be combated in a relevant way… According to the expert’s explanations, the currently allegedly rising infection figures among children are very likely to be due to the fact that the number of tests among children has increased significantly in the preceding weeks. Since the risk of infection at schools is very low, even a possible increase in the infection rate of the new virus variant B.1.1.7 in the order of magnitude assumed in studies is not expected to significantly increase the spread of the virus at schools. This small benefit is countered by numerous possible side effects with regard to the physical, psychological and social well-being of children, from which numerous children would have to suffer in order to prevent a single infection. The expert presents these in detail, among other things, on the basis of the side-effect register published in the scientific journal Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde.

The Court also relied on the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. med. Kappstein on the unsuitability of PCR tests and rapid tests for measuring the incidence of infection

Regarding the PCR test, the Court quoted Dr Kappstein to the effect that the PCR test used can only detect genetic material, but not whether the RNA originates from viruses that are capable of infection and thus capable of replication.

The expert Prof. Dr. Kämmerer also confirmed in her expert opinion on molecular biology that a PCR test – even if it is carried out correctly – cannot provide any information on whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. This is because the test cannot distinguish between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the body’s own immune system’s fight against a cold or flu (such genome fragments can still be found many months after the immune system has “dealt with” the problem) and “living” matter, i.e. a “fresh” virus capable of reproducing.

There is a great deal more of interest on the PCR test from page 120 of the 176 page judgment. According to Prof. Dr. Kämmerer, in order to determine an active infection with SARS-CoV-2, further, and specifically diagnostic methods such as the isolation of replicable viruses must be used.

According to the expert report, the rapid antigen tests used for mass testing cannot provide any information on infectivity, as they can only detect protein components without any connection to an intact, reproducible virus.

Finally, the expert points out that the low specificity of the tests causes a high rate of false positive results, which leads to unnecessary personnel (quarantine) and social consequences (e.g. schools closed, “outbreak reports”)until they turn out to be false alarms. The error effect, i.e. a high number of false positives, is particularly strong in tests on symptomless people.

The judge then turned to the right to informational self-determination, which forms part of the general right of personality in Article 2(1) of the Basic Law. This is the right of individuals to determine for themselves in principle the disclosure and use of their personal data. Such personal data also includes a test result. Furthermore, such a result is a personal health “data” in the sense of the Data Protection Regulation (DSGVO), which in principle is nobody’s business.

This encroachment on fundamental rights is also unconstitutional. This is because, given the concrete procedures of the testing process in schools, it seems unavoidable that numerous other people (fellow pupils, teachers, other parents) would become aware of a “positive” test result, for example.

The judge observed that any compulsory testing of schoolchildren under Land law was not covered by Germany’s Infection Protection Act – irrespective of the fact that this itself is subject to considerable constitutional concerns.

According to § 28 of the Act, the competent authorities can take the necessary protective measures in the manner specified therein if “sick persons, persons suspected of being sick, persons suspected of being infected or excretors” are detected. According to § 29 IfSG, these persons can be subjected to observation and must then also tolerate the necessary examinations.

In its decision of 02.03.2021, ref.: 20 NE 21.353, the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal refused to consider employees in nursing homes as sick, suspected of being sick or excretors from the outset. This should also apply to pupils. However, a classification as suspected of being infected is also out of the question.

According to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, anyone who has had contact with an infected person with sufficient probability is considered to be suspected of being infected within the meaning of § 2 No. 7 IfSG; mere remote probability is not sufficient. It is necessary that the assumption that the person concerned has ingested pathogens is more probable than the opposite. The decisive factor for a suspicion of infection is exclusively the probability of a past infection process, cf. judgement of 22.03.2012 – 3 C 16/11 – juris marginal no. 31 et seq. The Bavarian Constitutional Court has rejected this for employees in nursing professions. The Weimar judge observed that “Nothing else applies to schoolchildren.”

Regarding the children’s right to education, the judge stated:

Schoolchildren are not only subject to compulsory schooling under Land law, but also have a legal right to education and schooling. This also follows from Articles 28 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is applicable law in Germany.

According to this, all contracting states must not only make attendance at primary school compulsory and free of charge for all, but must also promote the development of various forms of secondary education of a general and vocational nature, make them available and accessible to all children and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and the provision of financial support in cases of need. The educational goals from Article 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are to be adhered to.

The judge summarised his decision as follows:

The compulsion imposed on school children to wear masks and to keep their distance from each other and from third persons harms the children physically, psychologically, educationally and in their psychosocial development, without being counterbalanced by more than at best marginal benefit to the children themselves or to third persons. Schools do not play a significant role in the “pandemic”.

The PCR tests and rapid tests used are in principle not suitable on their own to detect an “infection” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This is already clear from the Robert Koch Institute’s own calculations, as explained in the expert reports. According to RKI calculations, as expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner explains, the probability of actually being infected when receiving a positive result in mass testing with rapid tests, regardless of symptoms, is only two per cent at an incidence of 50 (test specificity 80%, test sensitivity 98%). This would mean that for every two true-positive rapid test results, there would be 98 false-positive rapid test results, all of which would then have to be retested with a PCR test.

A (regular) compulsion to mass-test asymptomatic people, i.e. healthy people, for which there is no medical indication, cannot be imposed because it is disproportionate to the effect that can be achieved. At the same time, the regular compulsion to take the test puts the children under psychological pressure, because in this way their ability to attend school is constantly put to the test.

Finally, the judge notes:

Based on surveys in Austria, where no masks are worn in primary schools, but rapid tests are carried out three times a week throughout the country, the following results according to the explanations of the expert Prof. Dr. Kuhbandner:

100,000 primary school pupils would have to put up with all the side effects of wearing masks for a week in order to prevent just one infection per week.

To call this result merely disproportionate would be a completely inadequate description. Rather, it shows that the state legislature regulating this area has become distant from the facts to an extent that seems historic.

*

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

Featured image is from Pinterest

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In a recent article “Washington: new attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government” Pablo Jofre Leal recognizes that Nicaragua, is the target of imperialist aggression by the U.S. and its regional pawns, more than ever now in this election year. He also notes the absurdity of the US authorities’ declaration that Nicaragua is a danger to US national security and observes how the media routinely falsely portrays Nicaragua as a dictatorship, focusing its hate campaign mostly on President Comandante Daniel Ortega. Jofre Leal accurately and correctly summarizes that Nicaragua, like Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela is the object of a conspiracy between the U.S. and its European allies to destabilize the country through economic warfare, psychological warfare, and the financing of opposition organizations and politicians.

His article then goes on to enunciate a series of problems that in his opinion the government of President Daniel Ortega has to overcome, but he does so on the basis of a completely false account of Nicaraguan reality. Jofre Leal documents his reservations in relation to the government of the Sandinista National Liberation Front and President Ortega by means of a reference to this article by Tomás Andino Mencia in which the author demonstrates his total ignorance about the reality of Nicaragua. Anyone who wants to get an idea of Andino Mencia’s fallacies can follow this link.

That intelligent people accept this kind of falsehood promoted by the Nicaraguan opposition and its regional supporters indicates a lack of intellectual rigor in sectors of the Latin American left in relation to Nicaragua. Almost all of these falsehoods originate from individuals and organizations financed by imperialist governments, primarily though non-governmental proxies in Nicaragua. That fact alone is sufficient to indicate the falsity of these sources of information. It is worth noting that, as a rule, both official Sandinista government sources, as well as associated media and even independent media supporting the Sandinista revolution, are de facto routinely ignored and made invisible.

To be sure, both Nicaraguan revolutionaries themselves and international solidarity comrades inside and outside Nicaragua have, over the years, produced a considerable amount of material on the reality of the country from every conceivable angle. For example, the books “Live from Nicaragua – Uprising or Coup?” and” “The Revolution Will Not Be Stopped” or writings by international anti-imperialist authors such as Fabrizio Casari, Dick Emanuelsson, Brian Willson, Giorgio Trucchi, Max Blumenthal, Rick Sterling, John Perry, Alex Anfruns, Steve Sweeney or Dan Kovalik. It is striking that most leftist analysts generally prefer to ignore this intellectual production in solidarity with the Sandinista revolution in favor of material of highly dubious origin and veracity.

On the subject of solidarity with Nicaragua in the face of aggression by the United States and its allies, Jofre Leal cites the solidarity of governments in the region and movements such as the Sao Paulo Forum. This solidarity emphasizes the defense of fundamental concepts of international law such as non-intervention and self-determination. But we should clarify that Nicaragua is not simply an object of the Sao Paulo Forum’s solidarity, but in fact a leading actor in this continental coordinating body of the Latin American Left. Together with Brazil, Nicaragua is the country that has most often organized the Forum’s meetings and had it not been for the Covid-19 pandemic, this year’s meeting would have been held in Managua for the fourth time.

Jofre Leal states that the hysterical obsession of the U.S. government against Nicaragua indicates the failure of imperial policy in the region but, after mentioning the words of President Ortega denouncing the constant meddling of the U.S. Ambassador in Nicaragua, he concludes by arguing:

“The government and the people of Nicaragua can independently find the peaceful solution to their difficulties that have arisen in the interest of guaranteeing the sustainable socio-economic development of society, respecting constitutional norms and principles, with respect for human rights and civil liberties but also with all-out combat against the threat of a coup. For this, the Ortega government must also deepen social reforms that allow satisfying social needs and this implies following a path, which avoids maintaining a model whose shortcomings have been demonstrated by other countries in Our America.”

It is good that Jofre Leal cares enough about Nicaragua and its people to offer well-intentioned advice to President Ortega. However, he ignores the tremendous efforts the Nicaraguan government has made to foster a national dialogue, efforts which continue to date with no serious response from the country’s political opposition. Instead, Nicaragua’s opposition calls for economic aggression against their own nation by the imperialist powers and seeks the intervention of Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the OAS. On the other hand, some sectors of private enterprise that never allied themselves with the coup perpetrators maintain excellent relations with the government. So, it is not for lack of willingness to dialogue that the Sandinista government has not been able to reach a new consensus after the pre-2018 consensus broke down.

It is also difficult to understand what Jofre Leal means when he suggests that Nicaragua should “move along a path, which is not just to maintain a model whose shortcomings other countries in our America have demonstrated.” In relation to that, one could say that South American intellectuals have a very superficial idea of what is happening here in Nicaragua. In fact, it is clear that if one takes as a reference the fantasies of writers like Tomas Andino Mencia one cannot have the faintest idea that here in Nicaragua the government and people are developing a truly revolutionary model.

One of the reasons comrades elsewhere have difficulty perceiving this revolutionary model of Sandinista Nicaragua in its true dimensions is because for the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua the development of the productive economy is a central task. Unfortunately, the Latin America and Caribbean Left generally and in rest of the world, have trouble visualizing what that means. In the worst case, they tend not to see beyond mere income redistribution or, at best, they tend to support some version of State capitalism.

But socialism is more than that, it means direct producers’ control over the means of production. That is what we are building in Nicaragua, where associative, cooperative and family enterprises today are responsible for a decisive part of the economy. The country’s former ruling oligarchy still exists, but they no longer control society’s strategic heights of society and no matter how hard they try, they cannot destroy the economic and political power Nicaragua’s people have now made their own.

Pablo Jofre Leal’s article shows there are comrades with the best intentions who want to support us, since it is indeed true that we are the under imperialist attack. For the Sandinista Front, being attacked by the empire in some shape or form has always been a permanent reality, it has not started just now and we must point out that sometimes not even our friends understand what our true situation really is.

We are not merely victims. Within the precarious Central American and Caribbean reality, we do have the means to defend ourselves and we have accumulated a wealth of experience. One might argue that at this moment the Sandinista Revolution and the FSLN are stronger than ever before in the last 17 years. And that is true despite the destruction the economy suffered as a consequence of the “soft coup” of April 2018, followed by the tremendous effects of the pandemic and the two strongest hurricanes of the last 20 years.

How is it possible to have achieved that level of resilience? Quite simply, because Nicaragua is guided by a Sandinista Revolution. Neoliberalism has no place in Nicaragua, because if it did:

• There would be no public education or health, which is now not only free, but of a quality previously unthinkable in the country.
• There would be no heavily subsidized and quality basic services (electricity, water and transport) for the majority of low income people.
• There would be no constant improvement in the infrastructure of a country which, despite being one of the poorest in Latin America, is among the countries with the best roads in the region.
• Food production would not be at a level where the country is almost 90% self-sufficient in terms of national consumption
• Nicaragua would not prohibit the planting of genetically manipulated crops.
• The country would not be a world leader in gender equality with majority participation of women in government posts and one of the countries with the highest number of women in parliament.
• Nicaragua would not be among the countries that have most empowered women economically at every level.
• Small and medium-sized landowners would not control 80% of the country’s land.
• Nor would Nicaragua be a country whose small and medium-sized producers are the bulwark defending and making possible the country’s economy development.

An underlying problem preventing many people from understanding the Nicaraguan “miracle” is that they believe the 1979 revolution ended in 1990. This is not true. What has happened in Nicaragua from 1979 to date is part of a single process, one that had to overcome the extremely adverse conditions after the war imposed by the United States as well as resisting 16 years of constant attack by neoliberal governments on the achievements of the first period of revolutionary government of the Sandinista National Liberation Front. The lessons of the 1980s were assimilated, and what is being done today derives from those lessons, now in the context not of a war but of a regional economy still being strangled by the dead hand of Western capitalism.

The Sandinista Front, with Comandante Daniel Ortega at its head, understood very deeply that the development of the real economy should be and is the fundamental task of contemporary revolutionaries. In a world in which capital controlled by the Western financial monopolies does not want to produce, it is necessary that workers become economic subjects, prioritizing and developing their productive capacity. To achieve this emancipation of the productive capacity of the Nicaraguan people, the Sandinista government is implementing a true democratization of all aspects of national life.

The government of President Ortega has promoted an economy with infrastructure policies, with a health system, with an education system, all working in an integrated way in favor of small and medium producers, both rural and urban, in favor of women, in favor of indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, in favor of youth. Latin American and Caribbean opinion does not perceive this reality because, often unconsciously, it tends to accept uncritically the lies produced on an industrial scale by a Nicaraguan opposition managed and financed by its North American and European owners. If anyone really wants to offer a rigorous, serious opinion on the Nicaraguan reality, the best way to do so is to visit the country and see for oneself.

*

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

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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.

***

Total spending on the Pentagon and related work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy will top $750 billion, one of the highest levels ever – substantially higher than the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam wars or the Reagan buildup of the 1980s.

The full details of the Biden administration’s Fiscal Year 2022 Pentagon budget proposal were set for May 28 – the Friday of Memorial Day weekend.  While the choice of release date suggests a desire to bury the document, thereby reducing detailed news coverage and analysis, this public relations gambit is unlikely to work. There’s too much at stake.

We already know one thing. Total spending on the Pentagon and related work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy will top $750 billion, one of the highest levels ever – substantially higher than the peaks of the Korean or Vietnam wars or the Reagan buildup of the 1980s.  This is far more than is needed to provide a robust defense of the United States and its allies, especially at a time when other security challenges – from pandemics to climate change to white supremacy – are the greatest threats to human lives and livelihoods.

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.

***

COVID-19 vaccines are capable of causing damage in a number of different ways. Disturbingly, all these different mechanisms of harm have synergistic effects when it comes to dysregulating your innate and adaptive immune systems and activating latent viruses

The worst symptoms of COVID-19 are created by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that is the very thing gene-based COVID vaccines are instructing your body to make

While the natural spike protein is bad, the spike protein your body produces in response to the vaccine is even worse, as the synthetic RNA has been manipulated in such a way as to create a very robust and unnatural spike protein

The spike protein is toxic in and of itself, and has the ability to induce vascular, heart and neurological damage

The COVID-19 vaccine disables the Type I interferon pathway, which explains why vaccinated patients are reporting herpes and shingles infection following COVID-19 vaccination

*

In this interview, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a dream-team in terms of deep insights into the scientific details, explain the problems they see with gene-based COVID-19 vaccines. There is a load of highly useful technical information that you can use to defend your opposition to these dangerous vaccines.

However, unless you have deeply studied molecular biology and genetics, it would be wise to view the video two or three times, as with each review, you will learn more and understand just how dangerous these vaccines are. I recently interviewed Seneff about the excellent paper¹ she published on this topic. That interview was featured in “COVID Vaccines May Bring Avalanche of Neurological Disease.”

In May 2020, I also interviewed Mikovits about the possibility of these vaccines causing reproductive harm and other health problems. At the time, Mikovits warned that fertility rates may drop thanks to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein creating antibodies that attack syncytium, and indeed, we’re now starting to see that.

Still, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are recommending pregnant women get these vaccines, as well as children as young as 12, which is unconscionable, considering the potential lifelong risks and impairment of fertility.

The Spike Protein Is the Bioweapon

As noted by Mikovits, we now know that the worst symptoms of COVID-19 are created by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that is the very thing these gene-based vaccines are instructing your body to make. But it’s far worse, as the vaccines do not cause your body to make the same spike protein as SARS-CoV-2 but one that has been genetically modified, making it far more toxic. So, it’s no wonder things are going wrong.

“The SARS-CoV-2 infection never was what they said it was,” Mikovits says. “There was no infection asymptomatically. It’s a monkey virus coming out of a monkey cell line and that’s the problem, but the spike protein is clearly [causing] the disease.

So, you just injected the envelope of HIV … a syncytin gammaretrovirus envelope, and a SARS S2 receptor binding domain. That’s not a vaccine. It is the disease-causing agent. It’s a bioweapon. So now your cells are all producing that bioweapon and you’re going to take out the innate immunity, NK [natural killer] cells and dendritic cells …

You’re going to disrupt your white blood cells, your immune response. You’re going to turn on an anti-inflammatory cytokine signature in every cell of your body. It exhausts your NK cells’ ability to determine infected cells. It’s the nightmare we predicted.”

The Spike Protein Produced in Your Body Is Highly Unnatural

In her paper, “Worse Than The Disease: Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh,² Seneff explains that a significant part of the problem is that while the natural spike protein is bad, the spike protein your body produces in response to the vaccine is even worse.

The reason for this is because the synthetic RNA has been manipulated in such a way as to create a very unnatural spike protein that result in it not collapsing on itself into the cell once it attaches to the ACE2 receptor, as it normally does. Instead it stays open and attached to the ACE2 receptor, disabling it and causing a host of problems leading to heart, lung, and immune impairment. As explained by Seneff:

“They modified the RNA to make it really sturdy so the enzymes can’t break it down … Normally, enzymes that are in your system would just break down that RNA. RNA is very fragile, but they’ve made it sturdy by putting in PEG [polyethylene glycol], by adding this lipid membrane, and the lipid is positively charged, which causes the cell to be very upset when that goes into the membrane of the cell.

But I think maybe the most disturbing thing is they actually modified the [RNA] code so that it doesn’t produce a normal version of the spike protein. It produces a version that has a couple of prolines in it, side by side at the critical place where this spike protein normally would fuse with the cell that it’s infecting.

So, the spike protein binds to the ACE2 receptor once it’s produced by the human cell … but it’s a modified version of the spike protein. It has these two prolines that make it very stiff so that it can’t reshape. Normally it would bind to the ACE2 receptor and then it would reshape and go straight into the membrane like a spear.

Because of this redesign, it can’t do that, so it sits there on the ACE receptor, exposed … That allows the immune cells to produce antibodies specific to that place where it should be fusing with the cell, the fusion domain. It messes up the fusion domain, keeps the protein open, and prevents the protein from getting in, which means the protein will just stick there on the ACE2 receptor, disabling it.

When you disable ACE2 receptors in the heart, you get heart failure. When you disable them in the lungs, you get pulmonary hypertension. When you do it in the brain, you get stroke. Lots of nasty things happen when you disable ACE2 receptors …

The other thing they’ve done with the RNA is they’ve stuck in a lot of extra Gs (guanine) and Cs (cytosine), which makes it much better at making proteins. It’s turned up the gain on the natural virus 1,000-fold, making the RNA much more willing to make a protein. So, it’ll make a lot more spike protein than you would’ve had from a natural RNA virus.”

Reality Is Exponentially Worse Than Predicted

With the added information provided by Seneff, Mikovits now believes the reality of these vaccines may be exponentially worse than she initially predicted a year ago. Not only is the lipid nanoparticle a serious hazard, as we’ve seen with Gardasil and some of the newer hepatitis B vaccines, but we now also have the added issue of unnatural mRNA, made more robust so as to evade its natural breakdown.

As explained by Mikovits, free RNA acts as a danger signal inside your body, so now your system is on red alert for however long the RNA remains viable. Now, by manipulating the RNA code to be enriched in G and C, and configured as if it’s a human messenger RNA molecule ready to make protein by adding a polyA tail, the spike protein’s RNA sequence in the vaccine looks as if it is part bacteria,³ part human⁴ and part viral at the same time.

“We use poly(I:C) [a toll-like receptor 3 agonist] to signal the cell to turn on the type I interferon pathway,” Mikovits explains, “and because this is an unnatural synthetic envelope, you’re not seeing poly(I:C), and you’re not [activating] the Type I interferon pathway.

You’ve bypassed the plasmacytoid dendritic cell, which combined with IL-10, by talking to the regulatory B cells, decides what subclasses of antibodies to put out. So, you’ve bypassed the communication between the innate and adaptive immune response. You now miss the signaling of the endocannabinoid receptors …

A large part of Dr. [Francis] Ruscetti’s and my work over the last 30 years has been to show you don’t need an infectious transmissible virus — just pieces and parts of these viruses are worse, because they also turn on danger signals. They act like danger signals and pathogen-associated molecular patterns.

So, it synergistically leaves that inflammatory cytokine signature on that spins your innate immune response out of control. It just cannot keep up with the myelopoiesis [the production of cells in your bone marrow]. Hence you see a skew-away from the mesenchymal stem cell towards TGF-beta regulated hematopoietic stem cells.

This means you could see bleeding disorders on both ends. You can’t make enough firetrucks to send to the fire. Your innate immune response can’t get there, and then you’ve just got a total train wreck of your immune system.”

With respect to Mikovits’ comment that pieces and parts of the virus are actually worse than the whole virus, that is precisely what we have with the COVID vaccines. In last week’s interview with Seneff, she explained how the manufacturing process leaves fragmented genetically modified RNA in the vaccine. They are not filtered out and assumed to be harmless, but as Mikovits states, this is not the case. This is being completely missed as one reason why this vaccine is so dangerous.

Latent Viruses May Flare if You Receive the COVID Vaccine

As noted by Seneff, her and Mikovits’ findings mesh well to explain many of the problems we’re now seeing from these gene-therapies. For example, vaccinated patients are reporting herpes and shingles infection following COVID-19 vaccination, which you’d expect if your Type I interferon pathway is disabled.

“Basically, you’ve got these latent viruses that are not bothering you at all until your immune system gets completely distracted by this crazy thing going on in the spleen with all this messenger RNA and all these spike proteins,” Seneff says.

“Immune cells are distracted from their other job of keeping these viruses in check. So, you get these other conditions showing up, and there are several. There’s Bell’s palsy (facial palsy), for example. There are over 1,200 cases of Bell’s palsy reported after the vaccine in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

And when you look at the research of what causes that, they really point to the herpes virus and the varicella virus as being the source of Bell’s palsy. The Type I interferon system is what you need to keep these guys in check, and so those viruses are getting enabled and they’re causing symptoms.

That is actually a very bad sign. If a woman who’s pregnant has a herpes flare-up during pregnancy, she has a twofold increased risk of producing an autistic son.

Also, in a study on 200 Parkinson’s patients, compared to 200 age- and gender-matched controls, six of those Parkinson’s patients had at least one episode of Bell’s palsy in the past, whereas none of the controls had. So, it looks to me like the Bell’s palsy is an indicator of a future risk of Parkinson’s disease.”

To summarize, it looks as though pregnant women who are getting the COVID-19 vaccine are at increased risk not only for miscarriage but also for future infertility and having an autistic child. So, please, be careful out there and spread the word.

The best way to treat any disease is to prevent it. These vaccines simply are not decreasing COVID-19 but radically decreasing the health of those who receive it, especially pregnant women that the CDC merely a month ago encouraged to get vaccinated without a shred of safety evidence.

The Importance of Type I Interferon

Mikovits has done a great deal of research on interferon for the last 40 years. Innate immune interferon makes up your entire frontline defense. People with HIV/AIDS have dysregulated Type I interferon, which allows parasites to gain a solid foothold. Interestingly enough, antiparasitic drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have been shown to be effective against COVID-19, both prophylactically and in treatment.

Mikovits cites a research paper⁵ titled “War and Peace Between Microbes,” which details how HIV-1 interacts with coinfecting viruses, thereby accelerating the disease. Herpes viruses in particular have been implicated as a cause of AIDS. Human herpesvirus 6 (HHVS-6) has also been implicated in myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME-CFS).

In short, these diseases, AIDS and ME-CFS, don’t appear until viruses from different families partner up and retroviruses take out the Type 1 interferon pathway.

In short, the COVID-19 vaccines are capable of causing damage in a number of different ways. Disturbingly, all these different mechanisms of harm have synergistic effects when it comes to dysregulating your innate and adaptive immune systems and activating latent viruses. “It’s just an explosion of a nightmare of crippling every area of your immune response,” Mikovits says.

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Engineered With HIV

According to Mikovits, there’s evidence showing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was engineered by integrating HIV and XMRV proteins. XMRV stands for xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, a human retrovirus that is very similar to endogenous retroviruses also found in other mammals.

XMRV has been linked to ME-CFS. HIV, which can cause AIDS, is another human retrovirus (although as mentioned earlier, HIV does not appear to trigger AIDS all by itself. It needs a coinfection.)

“Our endogenous gammaretrovirus is called human endogenous retrovirus-W (HERV-W). HERVW is all the way back in genesis in our original endogenous genome. It’s a gammaretrovirus that expresses only the envelope, because in retroviruses, the envelope alone is enough to cause the disease. That envelope protein is called syncytin. They’re [now] calling it ‘spike protein’ just to throw us all off,” Mikovits says.

According to Mikovits, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was created by introducing a mutation into a molecular clone. Vero E6 monkey tissues are known to be infected with SIV and other gammaretroviruses, and the SARS-CoV-2 virus has markers suggesting it was grown in a Vero E6 cell line, she says.

“So syncytin is the gammaretrovirus; it cross-reacts with the mouse and monkey gammaretroviruses. Monkeys, mice all have syncytin. Endogenous viruses express, especially during hormonal cycles. When it’s expressed in the wrong place, like in the brain or the spinal cord, it’s long been associated with the inflammatory disease and the destruction of the myelin sheet in multiple sclerosis (MS).

So, syncytin expressed it in the wrong place gives you the paralytics diseases. We know Parkinson’s is associated with Type I interferon responses. We’re now starting to appreciate that there is low-level expression of our endogenous virome all the time, and that in our innate immune response it’s trying to shape and educate our Type I interferon pathways …

The final and biggest problem is these exosomes, because your body’s exosomes are like your cells’ response to express its regulatory RNAs, small inhibitory RNAs, long-chain non-coding RNA — which Ritchie Shoemaker has long associated with chronic Lyme and ME/CFS — and the TGF-beta I pathway.

TGF-beta I, that’s the master switch to turn on which Type I interferon, which [is needed for] myelopoiesis. But these exosomes are packaging not only RNA that you’re making, but now you’ve dysregulated the methylation so you’ve woken up your endogenous virome, and then syncytin is going to be expressed.”

How mRNA Can Alter Your DNA

In her paper, Seneff also describes how mRNA can, in fact, alter your DNA, essentially integrating the instructions to make spike proteins into your genome. Typically, mRNA cannot be integrated directly into your genes because you need reverse transcriptase.

Reverse transcriptase converts RNA back into DNA (reverse transcription). However, there’s a wide variety of reverse transcriptase systems already embedded in our DNA, which makes this possible. This is an area that Mikovits has studied for decades, so, commenting on Seneff’s findings, she says:

“When you activate latent and defective viruses, you turn on reverse transcriptase; you turn on the virome. But you also need an integrase gene. So how are retroviruses silenced? [Through] DNA methylation. [When] you throw in a lot of GC-rich regions — you’ve got that synthetic viral particle [i.e., the vaccine-induced spike protein RNA] — now you’ve woken up your herpes viruses.

[Latent viruses] are silenced [through] DNA methylation, but as our soil is depleted in minerals, we have people with methylation defects. This is why I said the first people who are going to die are people with inflammatory conditions and cancer.”

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein May Be a Prion

In her paper, Seneff also discusses evidence suggesting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may be a prion, which is yet another piece of really bad news. “It’s absolutely terrifying to me,” she says, adding:

“I’m now thinking that may be the worst aspect of these mRNA vaccines, because they’re producing this abnormal spike protein that doesn’t want to go into the membrane. Prion proteins are known to be membrane proteins. They’re alpha-helices in the membrane and then they misfold, becoming beta-sheets in the cytoplasm, and that’s what leads to the prion problem.

They form a crystal that draws in other proteins and makes this big mess and builds fibrils and Alzheimer’s plaque. The main prion protein is PrP, which is in Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of mad cow disease. It’s a sort of protein-source infection. It’s quite wild because there’s no DNA involved, no RNA involved, just protein.

But the thing is, when you have produced a version of mRNA that knows how to spew out tons of a prion protein, the prion proteins become problematic when there’s too many of them and the concentration is too high in the cytoplasm.

And the spike proteins that these mRNA vaccines are producing … isn’t able to go into the membrane, which I think is going to encourage it to become a problematic prion protein. Then, when you have inflammation, it upregulates alpha-synuclein [a neuronal protein that regulates synaptic traffic and neurotransmitter release].

So, you’re going to get alpha-synuclein drawn into misfolded spike proteins, turning into a mess inside the dendritic cells in the germinal centers in the spleen. And they’re going to package up all this crud into exosomes and release them. They’re then going to travel along the vagus nerve to the brainstem and cause things like Parkinson’s disease.

So, I think this is a complete setup for Parkinson’s disease. What may happen is that because they got this vaccine, they get Parkinson’s disease five years earlier than they would have gotten it otherwise. It’s going to push forward the date at which someone who has a propensity towards Parkinson’s is going to get it.

And it’s probably going to cause people to get Parkinson’s who never would have gotten it in the first place — especially if they keep getting the vaccine every year. Every year you do a booster, you bring the date that you’re going to get Parkinson’s ever closer.”

Are Viral Vector Vaccines Better or Worse?

Two of the four COVID-19 vaccines on the market in Europe and the U.S., AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, are using viral vectors and DNA rather than using nanolipid-coated mRNA. Unfortunately, while potentially slightly less dangerous than Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA versions, they can still cause significant problems through mechanisms of their own. As explained by Mikovits:

“As mentioned, it’s an adenovirus vector expressing the protein. So, the HIV, the XMRV envelope, the syncytin, the HERV-W envelope and the ACE2 are already being expressed in the vector.

With respect to the RNA component, it’s less dangerous because you’re not going to see much of the mechanisms we’ve been talking about. But these adenovirus vector protein-producing vaccines are grown in an aborted fetal tissue cell line, so now you’ve got human syncytin [in there]. You’ve got 8% of the human genome of another human.

So, again, looking at the communication that has to regulate your Type I interferon response, it’s going to give you autoimmunity. In immunocompromised people, it’s going to continue to express and that will give you a live infection, and you already have your firetrucks fighting another [infection]. You can’t fight a war on three fronts.

I say, ‘You only need one shot because it’s the most toxic.’ It’s the most toxic in that sense. We have many mechanisms to degrade RNA, and we can restore methylation machinery. It’s a nightmare, but I believe our immune system can break it [the synthetic vaccine mRNA) down.”

Can COVID Vaccines ‘Shed’ or Transmit Infection?

Disturbingly, it appears the COVID-19 vaccines may also cause trouble for those who decide not to get the shots but spend time in close proximity to people who did. While it cannot be viral shedding, as none of the vaccines use live or even attenuated virus, there appears to be some sort of spike protein transmission going on.

While the spike protein cannot replicate or multiply like a virus, it is toxic in and of itself. In her paper, Seneff details how the spike protein acts as a metabolic poison, capable of triggering pathological damage leading to lung damage and heart and brain diseases:⁶

“In a series of papers, Yuichiro Suzuki in collaboration with other authors presented a strong argument that the spike protein by itself can cause a signaling response in the vasculature with potentially widespread consequences.

These authors observed that, in severe cases of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 causes significant morphological changes to the pulmonary vasculature … Furthermore, they showed that exposure of cultured human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit was sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the virus components.

Follow-up papers showed that the spike protein S1 subunit suppresses ACE2, causing a condition resembling pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), a severe lung disease with very high mortality …

Suzuki et al. (2021) went on to demonstrate experimentally that the S1 component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, at a low concentration … activated the MEK/ERK/MAPK signaling pathway to promote cell growth. They speculated that these effects would not be restricted to the lung vasculature.

The signaling cascade triggered in the heart vasculature would cause coronary artery disease, and activation in the brain could lead to stroke. Systemic hypertension would also be predicted. They hypothesized that this ability of the spike protein to promote pulmonary arterial hypertension could predispose patients who recover from SARS-CoV-2 to later develop right ventricular heart failure.

Furthermore, they suggested that a similar effect could happen in response to the mRNA vaccines, and they warned of potential long-term consequences to both children and adults who received COVID-19 vaccines based on the spike protein.

An interesting study by Lei et. al. (2021) found that pseudovirus — spheres decorated with the SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein but lacking any viral DNA in their core — caused inflammation and damage in both the arteries and lungs of mice exposed intratracheally.

They then exposed healthy human endothelial cells to the same pseudovirus particles. Binding of these particles to endothelial ACE2 receptors led to mitochondrial damage and fragmentation in those endothelial cells, leading to the characteristic pathological changes in the associated tissue.

This study makes it clear that spike protein alone, unassociated with the rest of the viral genome, is sufficient to cause the endothelial damage associated with COVID-19. The implications for vaccines intended to cause cells to manufacture the spike protein are clear and are an obvious cause for concern.”

As explained by Mikovits, the transmission that appears to be occurring from vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated ones is the transmission of exosomes, basically, the spike protein. The problem is these exosomes look like a virus to your immune system, and “If that synthetic nanoparticle is a virus-like particle and they’re literally self-assembling, then you’ve got yourself a synthetic nightmare,” she says.

Which Vaccine Is Most Dangerous?

As for which vaccine might be the most dangerous, Mikovits believes the vector-based DNA vaccines (AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) are the most dangerous for those with chronic Lyme disease or any inflammatory disease associated with an abnormal host immune response, such as shingles, viral infections or cancer, women who have already received the Gardasil vaccine (as this may predispose them to problems with the lipid nanoparticle), and those with Parkinson’s or Huntington-like diseases.

Seneff, meanwhile, worries that children may be susceptible to either type of COVID vaccine, simply because they’ve already received so many different vaccines. Mikovits agrees, but believes the mRNA vaccines may be more harmful in this age group:

“The most dangerous to the children are the mRNA vaccines because their immune systems are growing, growing, growing, growing. You introduce or you turn on a fire, what happens? All the stem cells that are important for growing that say, ‘OK, all is calm in the immune system, go build bone, go build brain cells, go do the pruning with the macrophages.’ You can’t have your macrophages clearing all the viruses.

And yes, reverse transcriptase is ‘on,’ it’s expressed in telomeres. You’re growing. That’s the whole idea of everything. All the brakes are off. Same thing in pregnancy. That’s why we don’t do anything in pregnancy because you’ve got to stay unmethylated in order to respond to your environment, that endogenous genome of the virome. That’s your Type I interferon responses.

You don’t want myelopoiesis, you want embryonic development. We’re going to see things like Down syndrome … Rett syndrome. Rett syndrome, that’s inappropriate DNA methylation in little girls. So, for the kids, the worst thing in the world is the RNA vaccines.”

While the variety of diseases we may see a rise in as a result of this vaccination campaign are myriad, some general predictions can be made. Seneff believes we’ll see a significant rise in cancer, accelerated Parkinson’s-like diseases, Huntington’s disease, and all types of autoimmune diseases and neurodegenerative disorders.

Mikovits suspects many will die rather rapidly. “We have evidence in the HTLV-1 associated myelopathy that these things go from long latency periods to [putting] you in a wheelchair in six months,” she says. “So, with all these other toxins combined hitting you, it’s not going to be ‘live and suffer forever.’ It’s going to be suffer five years and die.”

She likens the COVID-19 vaccines to a “kill switch” for all who have been previously injured by vaccines, whether they actually realize it or not. As noted by Mikovits, it’s been shown that 6% of the American population are asymptomatically infected with XMRVs and gammaretroviruses from contaminated vaccines. The COVID shot will effectively accelerate their death by crippling their immune function. “The kids that are highly vaccinated, they’re ticking time bombs,” she says.

What Are the Solutions?

While all of this is highly problematic, there is help. As noted by Mikovits, remedies to the maladies that might develop post-vaccination include:

• Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin treatments
• Low-dose antiretroviral therapy to reeducate your immune system
• Low-dose interferons such as Paximune, developed by interferon researcher Dr. Joe Cummins, to stimulate your immune system
• Peptide T (an HIV entry inhibitor derived from the HIV envelope protein gp120; it blocks binding and infection of viruses that use the CCR5 receptor to infect cells)
• Cannabis, to strengthen Type I interferon pathways
• Dimethylglycine or betaine (trimethylglycine) to enhance methylation, thereby suppressing latent viruses
• Silymarin or milk thistle to help cleanse your liver

From my perspective, I believe the best thing you can do is to build your innate immune system. To do that, you need to become metabolically flexible and optimize your diet. You’ll also want to make sure your vitamin D level is optimized to between 60 ng/mL and 80 ng/mL (100 nmol/L to 150 nmol/L), ideally through sensible sun exposure. Sunlight also has other benefits besides making vitamin D.

Use time-restricted eating and eat all your meals for the day within a six- to eight-hour window. Avoid all vegetable oils and processed foods. Focus on certified-organic foods to minimize your glyphosate exposure, and include plenty of sulfur-rich foods to keep your mitochondria and lysosomes healthy. Both are important for the clearing of cellular debris, including these spike proteins. You can also boost your sulfate by taking Epsom salt baths.

To combat the toxicity of the spike protein, Seneff suggests optimizing autophagy, which may help digest and remove the spike proteins. Time-restricted eating will upregulate autophagy, while sauna therapy, which upregulates heat shock proteins, will help refold misfolded proteins. They also tag damaged proteins and target them for removal.

It is important that your sauna is hot enough (around 170 degrees Fahrenheit) and does not have high magnetic or electric fields. Last but not least, Mikovits recommends never getting another vaccination.

“We knew the flu shot would drive the disease,” she says. “It’s the combinations. That’s a ticking time bomb sitting there in every cell. So never get another vaccine and be very careful about drugs that compromise your immune system.

The answer is, don’t hyper-immune activate. Don’t eat GMO. Don’t ingest it and don’t inject it. And don’t put it on your skin. Don’t use toxins on your hair. Use essential oils, use antimicrobials … ozonated balms and creams break apart the lipid particles, cannabis balms and creams normalize skin, [which is part of] your immune system …

Remember, immune dysfunction accelerates every time you add an immune activation event. So, if the entire world never again took another shot, even the most susceptible populations, they could stay well … We really have to say no more shots because they’re the single biggest toxin to anyone, and an immune dysregulator.”

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

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

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

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

*

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

Notes

^1, 2, 6 International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research May 10, 2021; 2(1): 38-79

³ Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 May;76(9):2846-55

⁴ Trends Cell Biol. 2019 Mar; 29(3): 191–200

⁵ Cell Host & Microbe November 19, 2009; 6(5): 403-408

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The CDC released the latest death figures last week following the experimental COVID injections this week, and that death toll now stands at 4,863 people, adults and children, that have been recorded as dying after receiving one of the experimental COVID injections.

Source

To put this number in perspective, since the CDC continues to claim that these deaths do “not establish a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines,” these deaths now exceed the total number of deaths reported to VAERS following vaccination for the past 23 years!

From 1/1/1998 through 11/30/2020 (the last month before COVID shots were given emergency use) there were 4,758 deaths recorded for a span of 23 years.

Source

Please take note that for that 23-year period, over 50% of the recorded deaths following vaccination were infants and toddlers under the age of 3, because this is the next targeted demographic to receive the experimental COVID shots: young children.

The Friday 5/28/21 data dump by the CDC into VAERS lists 4,406 of the reported deaths, along with 262,521 injuries including 3,299 Permanent Disabilities, 34,475 Emergency Room visits, and 14,986 Hospitalizations.

Source

It is common knowledge now that reports submitted to VAERS for vaccine injuries and deaths historically are less than 1% of actual deaths and injuries. Most go unreported.

But what if the data for the new experimental COVID bioweapon shots that is reported to the CDC is not even being entirely published and shown to the public?

How many actual deaths could actually be happening shortly after receiving one of these experimental shots? Tens of thousands, one hundred thousand?

Albert Benavides has a Bitchute channel called WelcomeTheEagle88. Each week he does a deep dive into the data released by the CDC into VAERS. He records and stores everything, and has even found that the CDC removes records of deaths some weeks that were there in previous weeks.

Over 59% of the deaths VAERS is releasing to the public happened in February or earlier. So these numbers are severely under-reported.

Here is his latest analysis from last Friday.

Watch the video here.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

While a ceasefire announced on May 20 has helped stem some of the deadliest attacks by Israel in the latest round of aggression, Palestinians are still enduring state violence at the hands of the right-wing Israeli government. In response, Palestinian trade unions have been repeating longstanding calls for the international labor movement to join them in their struggle for freedom — including by supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, which aims to put economic and diplomatic pressure on Israel to end the occupation. 

Over the past two weeks, several unions in the United States have responded to these calls with an unprecedented outpouring of support for Palestinians.

On May 13, Roofers Local 36 in Los Angeles issued a statement that condemns ​“human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli state against the people of Palestine” and calls on President Biden to ​“immediately halt all economic and military assistance to Israel.”

“Imperialist aggression, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the enemy of all working people and organized labor must step forward to defend the democratic rights of oppressed peoples everywhere,” the statement says.

“Many of our members are migrants from oppressed nations, often without documentation. We’re a multinational and multicultural workforce who bond together to improve our conditions,” Cliff Smith, business manager for Roofers Local 36, told In These Times. ​“It’s natural for us to identify with the struggles of oppressed and working people in Palestine or anywhere else.”

After the Israel Defense Forces intentionally bombed a Gaza tower housing the offices of the Associated Press and Al Jazeera on May 15, the NewsGuild-CWA — the union of 24,000 journalists across North America—called the bombing ​“a blatant attack on press freedom that was clearly intended to prevent independent reporting on the [Israeli] government’s actions.”

“Israel’s attacks on Palestine need to stop now,” said NewsGuild president Jon Schleuss.

UNITE HERE Local 23, which represents 25,000 hospitality workers in cities across the South and Southwest, tweeted out a message of solidarity with ​“the Palestinians in their struggle against oppression and injustice,” while UNITE HERE Local 17, which represents 6,000 hospitality workers in Minnesota, expressed support for ​“all oppressed people” and made specific reference to Palestinians.

The 8,000-member Teamsters Local 804 in New York City, comprised primarily of UPS drivers, tweeted the hashtags #SaveSheikhJarrah and #FreePalestine along with the message: ​“Solidarity with oppressed people across the world.”

At Google, members of the recently formed Alphabet Workers Union-CWA were involved in drafting a petition circulated by Jewish employees last week calling on the company to support Palestine and reject equating opposition to Zionism with antisemitism.

AFL-CIO silence

Although many U.S. unions have enthusiastically answered the call for Palestinian solidarity, the national leadership of the AFL-CIO has remained silent.

Alongside the U.S. government, the AFL-CIO has for decades been one of Israel’s staunchest defenders and a generous financial supporter. Many U.S. labor leaders — including AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union president Stuart Appelbaum, and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Randi Weingarten— openly oppose BDS, even as a growing chorus of human rights groups brands Israel as an ​“apartheid state.”

“The U.S. labor movement must answer the call of our brothers and sisters in Palestinian unions — and join the rest of the international community — in refusing to give cover to Israeli apartheid,” said Yasemin Zahra, chair of Labor Against Racism and War (LARW), a network of unions and other labor organizations that builds international working-class solidarity to oppose U.S. militarism both at home and abroad.

Last week, LARW called an emergency meeting to discuss labor solidarity with Palestine, receiving over 350 RSVPs from union members across the United States in only 24 hours, Zahra said. In the past week, the group has mobilized hundreds of unionists to send a letter to Trumka and the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council demanding they break their silence and stand with the Palestinian people.

The AFL-CIO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, on May 15, the national officers of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers (UE) — which is not an AFL-CIO affiliate — released a statement of solidarity with Palestine. The union endorsed BDS in 2015.

“If U.S. unions are seen as tools of the U.S. government when U.S. foreign policy hurts working people abroad,” the UE leaders wrote, ​“how can we expect workers and unions in other parts of the world to stand in solidarity with our struggles?”

Many of the AFL-CIO’s closest international allies have expressed sympathy and support for Palestinians in recent weeks, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Trades Union Congress (in the UK), the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the International Trade Union Confederation.

Some unions abroad have gone beyond statements and taken bold action. A dockworkers union in the Italian port city of Livorno refused to load weapons bound for Israel, while a South African dockworkers union similarlyboycotted an Israeli cargo ship in the port of Durban.

In the English city of Leicester, firefighters refused calls to help remove pro-Palestine activists protesting on the roof of a drone factory, while their union said they ​“stand in support of Palestinian solidarity and the right to protest.”

The most powerful collective labor action came from Palestinians themselves when they staged a massive general strike on May 18 across all of historic Palestine. The daylong work stoppage illustrated Israel’s dependence on Palestinian workers, as construction, public transport and municipal garbage collection around the country were brought to a halt.

Challenging union ​“gatekeepers”

One of the most significant displays of U.S. labor solidarity with Palestine in recent weeks came on May 19, when the general assembly of United Educators of San Francisco, Local 61 of the AFT, voted to approve a resolution endorsing BDS — making it the first K‑12 teacher union in the United States to do so.

A similar BDS resolution is advancing through the elected leadership of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), the second largest AFT local in the nation. According to UTLA organizer Jollene Levid, the elected representatives of over 100 East Los Angeles schools approved the resolution last Wednesday. The resolution still must be approved by two more bodies of UTLA leadership before the local formally adopts it.

At the same time, multiple AFT-affiliated graduate worker unions — including the Graduate Labor Organization at Brown University and the Georgetown Alliance of Graduate Employees (GAGE) — put out statements of solidarity with Palestine over the past two weeks. GAGE members also joined a protest outside the Israeli embassy on May 18.

These developments within the AFT are especially significant because the union’s national president, Randi Weingarten, is one of the most pro-Israel, anti-BDS figures in the U.S. labor movement. Under her leadership, the AFT’s national headquarters has invested $200,000 in State of Israel bonds.

Recently, members of the AFT-affiliated Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reiterated their 2018 call for top officials of both the AFT and Illinois Federation of Teachers to ​“condemn Israel’s murderous aggression and blatant human rights abuses against Palestinians.”

“We are saddened and disappointed in the hostility that AFT leaders such as Randi Weingarten have expressed to the internationally-respected and non-violent tactic of BDS. Such leaders are out of touch and out of step with the rank and file of our union,” the GEO said. ​“A labor movement that does not fight for justice against the bullies of the world is no labor movement at all.”

Late last week, community college instructors with AFT Local 1789 in Seattle began circulating a petition—which can be signed by all rank-and-file AFT members — demanding the union’s national leadership ​“issue a public statement condemning the continued oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli state.”

In a May 26 statement on her Facebook page, Weingarten expressed support for ​“those in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza who are dedicated to secure self determination, coexistence, shared society, safety and human rights.”

“I condemn Hamas in the strongest terms,” she added. ​“I mourn the civilians killed on both sides. We can and must do better.”

Education International — the global union federation representing teacher unions around the world—issued a statement Wednesday calling on both Israel and Hamas to renounce violence and engage in direct negotiations. The statement was introduced by Weingarten, AFT press secretary Andrew Crook said.

“U.S. labor institutions traditionally and currently have played a role in legitimizing Israel. We need to hold those U.S. labor institutions accountable for that because Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity,” said Suzanne Adely, co-director of the Food Chain Workers Alliance and president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild.

Adely, who previously worked for the UAW, is an organizer with Labor for Palestine, Al-Awda New York and the US Palestinian Community Network. She told In These Times that she has personally seen incidents of union ​“gatekeepers” actively trying to ​“keep the Palestinian question outside of labor spaces,” pointing to the example of UAW members in multiple locals voting to endorse BDS between 2014 and 2016, only to have the union’s International Executive Board undemocratically ​“nullify” those measures.

“It’s been my experience that when we actually can bring conversations about Palestine into spaces where workers are, the workers are very sympathetic. But the problem is the gatekeepers have worked to keep those conversations out,” Adely explained.

“I always tell workers, whatever issues they care about are union issues,” Zahra said. ​“The members are the union. The union can be a machine to serve humanity, an instrument for building an equal society for all workers.”

“We must clearly connect the dots with our members about why the Palestinian struggle for freedom is also our own,” Zahra continued, noting that while millions of working-class people in the United States lack decent housing, healthcare and education, half of the U.S. federal discretionary budget goes to the Pentagon each year — with an annual $3.8 billion in military aid going to Israel.

She added that passing resolutions and issuing solidarity statements with Palestine ​“are great first steps,” but unions should ultimately aim to divest from Israeli bonds and help end U.S. military assistance to Israel.

“For Palestine and for other causes, labor has a lot of power,” said Adely. ​“We need to learn to utilize it — particularly to hold labor leaders accountable.”

*

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.

Jeff Schuhrke has been a Working In These Times contributor since 2013. He has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Master’s in Labor Studies from UMass Amherst. Follow him on Twitter: @JeffSchuhrke

Featured image: Photo via @hodakatebi who writes: Organizers are blocking the road to the international headquarters of Boeing here in Chicago, demanding to #Blockthebombs after Biden approved a $735 MILLION sale of Boeing weapons to Apartheid Israel. (Source: adalahjusticeproject)

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.

***

There are strong indications now that the 12-long years of Benjamin Netanyahu’s, what his opponents call, corrupt rule in Israel will come to an end.

The development came after former defense minister of Israel and leader of Yamina party Naftali Bennett, late in the evening Sunday announced joining Yair Lapid’s coalition to form a new government in Israel.

Lapid, 57, is seeking a diverse alliance the Israeli media has dubbed a bloc for “change”, which would include Bennett as well as Arab-Israeli lawmakers.

In his determination to bring down the hawkish prime minister, Lapid has offered to share power and let Bennett, 49, serve the first term in a rotating premiership.

“Bennett, Lapid deal”

Under the deal between Bennett and Lapid, the two would share the office of Prime Minister, with Bennett initially to take the role for two years, and then to be replaced by Lapid for the remaining.

Lapid is trying to ensure the support of several small parties that are far apart on the political spectrum, in order to form a minority government that would be acceptable to Arab deputies.

Lapid has already reached agreements with the left-liberal Meretz Party, the Labour Party and former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party besides Bennett who joined the coalition yesterday.

A Lapid government would also include the centrist Blue and White party of Netanyahu’s rival Benny Gantz and the hawkish New Hope party of his former ally Gideon Saar.

Avigdor Lieberman’s pro-settlement Yisrael Beitenu party as well as historically powerful Labour and the dovish Meretz party would also join.

“Shaky Arrangement”

The shaky arrangement would need the backing of some Arab-Israeli lawmakers of Palestinian descent in order to pass a confirmation vote in parliament.

Netanyahu’s Likud party won 30 seats in the March elections but failed to form a governing coalition after his far-right partners refused to sit with Arab factions or receive their support.

Lapid, whose party won 17 seats, was then given four weeks to form a government. If Lapid succeeds, it would end bring an end to the era of Netanyahu, in office since 2009, as well as from 1996 to 1999.

“Netanyahu desperate”

On Sunday Netanyahu offered his own proposal of a rotation agreement with Bennett and Saar. But Saar on Twitter said he remained committed to “replacing the Netanyahu regime”.

Netanyahu in a video then called on Saar and Bennett to “come now, immediately” to meet him and join a three-way rotation government, warning they were “in crucial moment for the security, character and future of the state of Israel”.

*

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: Yair Lapid (R) with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who recently visited the Middle East. (Image tweeted by Yair Lapid)

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 attacks in the Palestinian land have been criticised globally and while tension continues to mount in the region, it is the innocent lives that have been at stake, especially the lives of the children living there.

While various humanitarian aids have been reaching various areas of Palestine, artists from Cairo, Egypt have come forward to contribute to the Palestinian children through an art exhibition.

Art Talks Egypt (Source: Mashable)

Art Talks Egypt Gallery in Cairo is hosting an art exhibition featuring various artists in support of the children of Palestine. The charity exhibition has over 60 established and emerging artists who are taking part in the show, the proceeds of which are going to the Ghassan Kanafani Cultural Foundation.

Founder of the art gallery Fatenn Mostafa-Kanafani whose husband is the nephew of the Palestinian activist who shared that she and her team put up the exhibition in just a couple of days, in view of the Gaza violence.

Meet the 60 Egyptian artists donating their work for the children of Palestine in collective exhibition "Doko al-Jidran" opening at ArtTalks Gallery Tuesday May 25 from 1 to 8pm. Daily. Ask for a PDF! Support #Palestine #PalestiniansLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/TJ7rw33WVN

— Fatenn Kanafani (@FatennMostafa) May 23, 2021

She contacted many established and emerging artists in Egypt and got an overwhelming response as the artists were quick to be a part of the cause. Artists from different genres are donating their work, prices of which range from 4,500 Egyptian pounds ($290) to €22,000 ($26,950).

Finally, artists came on board for the exhibition of which every piece from the show is on sale. All the proceeds, 50 per cent from the artists and 50 per cent matched by an anonymous donor will be donated to Ghassan Kanafani Cultural Foundation, a non-profit organisation established in 1974 to support Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.

Titled –Doko al Jidran (Knock on the Walls), refers to a powerful scene in Kanafani’s 1962 novel ‘Men in the Sun’, is taking place Art Talks Egypt and runs until June 25 or until all pieces are sold.

*

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

Featured image is from Mashable

South Africa: The Fall and Rise (and Fall?) of Apartheid

By Jinan Bastaki, May 30, 2021

Apartheid in South Africa ended in part due to sanctions and pressure from the international community. It is once again on the international community to ensure that international law is upheld and apartheid sees its demise, this time in Palestine.

NPR’s Dishonest Coverage of Nicaragua and COVID-19

By Stephen Sefton, May 30, 2021

NPR’s coverage of Nicaragua repeatedly bears out the fact that mainstream communications media in the US and Europe make little or no effort to give a true and fair account of the country’s reality. Their reports consistently omit facts that might invalidate their coverage and they also fail to corroborate much of the information they do include.

State of the World – Poverty Is Widespread

By Rod Driver, May 30, 2021

The world’s population was about 7.8 billion people in 2020. About 2.2 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and over 4 billion do not have safe sanitation. About 800 million suffer from chronic undernourishment. A fifth of all children under 5 suffer from stunted growth.

Video: Petition to Revoke the Covid-19 Vaccines: Dr. Meryl Nass

By Dr. Meryl Nass and Kristina Borjesson, May 30, 2021

Dr. Nass provides a plethora of shocking details showing massive malfeasance by the CDC and FDA that cost lives, prolonged the pandemic and protected the continued use of unprecedentedly dangerous covid vaccines.

Our Covert Regime Change Wars

By Daniel Larison, May 30, 2021

The U.S. presents itself as the builder and enforcer of an international order defined by the rules and institutions created in the wake of WWII. While the U.S. frequently violates those rules, international law still constrains how the U.S. has operated in the world. Even when pursuing regime change, the U.S. has felt constrained by the principle of nonintervention to conceal its role in toppling foreign governments when there is no legal excuse readily available.

Loophole Lets Soya Farmers Tear Down the Amazon

By Andrew Wasley, Alexandra Heal, and et al., May 30, 2021

The Amazon rainforest is still being burnt to make way for soya to feed the world’s livestock, despite supposedly tough rules designed to prevent precisely this deforestation. An investigation has uncovered how three of the world’s biggest food businesses have purchased soya from companies whose supply chains have been the subject of concerns over links to illegal deforestation and forest fires in the Brazilian Amazon.

Palestinian Patients in Jerusalem Face Loss of Gaza Homes from Hospital

By Aseel Jundi, May 30, 2021

Long stays in Jerusalem’s hospitals have always been difficult on families caring for their sick children. This time, the strain has been magnified by Israel’s military campaign, which lasted for 11 days and left behind it widespread destruction, death and heartbreak. Families from Gaza have no immediate option to join their loved ones back home.

Nuclear War and the Future of Humanity. Conversations with Fidel Castro

By Fidel Castro Ruz and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 30, 2021

From October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order. These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview. The first part of this interview published by Global Research and Cuba Debate focuses on the dangers of nuclear war.

Israel Post Ceasefire: When the Dreams of Israelis Collide with the Hopes of Palestinians

By Michael Welch, Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Robert Inlakesh, and Mike Prysner, May 29, 2021

Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that her office verified the deaths of 270 Palestinians including 68 children in this month’s violent attacks mostly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

How Severe are the Side Effects of the Pseudo-anticovid Vaccines?

By Dr. Nicole Delépine, May 29, 2021

This is a difficult question, because it is certain that as always, many side effects are not reported by doctors, families or patients. We will content ourselves with summarizing here the effects recognized by the official American (Vaers for the USA) and European (Eudravigilance of the European Medicines Agency) institutions.

Actions for Peace by Canadians: In Support of the People of Palestine

By Ed Lehman, May 28, 2021

The Regina Peace Council condemns Israel’s attacks on Palestinians in the territories of Gaza and Sheikh Jarrah. We demand the Trudeau government stop supporting Israeli aggression and lend its support to a real ceasefire and peace negotiations.

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi Interview: COVID Vaccine Blood Clot Risk Was Known, Ignored & Buried

By Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi and Taylor Hudak, May 28, 2021

Joining us today is Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, here to discuss the ‘dangerous mRNA vaccines’ and how he and his organization warned about the blood clots (and much else now coming to pass) that we are now seeing from the COVID-19 injections, months before they began.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

While state and local governments, schools, businesses, and various venues have lately been removing mask and social distancing requirements for adults and children, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) this week laid out its recommendation that all children and adolescents, ages two and older, who have not been “fully vaccinated” for coronavirus wear masks and “socially distance” in a wide variety of circumstances when they are outside their homes. The AAP’s mask wearing recommendation even extends to at home “in households that include medically fragile, immunocompromised, or at-risk adults and children.”

The absurdity of the AAP’s recommendation is evident when you consider that, first, children and adolescents have a very low probability of becoming seriously sick or dying from coronavirus and, second, it has not been established that mask wearing and “social distancing” provide any net protection from infection. While absurd, the recommendation is also dangerous given that there are known harms, both physical and mental, to young people from their being required to wear masks and distance themselves from other people while going about their daily activities.

Regarding children’s risks from coronavirus, the AAP relates that from state reports it appears that coronavirus in children leads to hospitalization between just 0.1 percent to 1.9 percent of the time and death between 0.00 percent and 0.03 percent of the time. Further, a study published last week in AAP’s journal Hospital Pediatrics suggest even the low hospitalization numbers for children are much overstated, with review of a hospital’s records indicating that nearly 40 percent of children identified as being hospitalized for coronavirus were instead just patients without any coronavirus symptoms who were hospitalized for other reasons but happened to test positive under the hospital’s universal coronavirus testing policy.

The AAP recommendation may also put young people in greater danger by providing an incentive for them to take shots of experimental coronavirus vaccines, including ones that are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of the term. These experimental coronavirus vaccine shots may carry much greater side-effect risks than any coronavirus risks they reduce, especially the younger people taking the shots are.

Promoted up top on the front page of the AAP website home page is a link to the organization’s “resources” for “Preparing your practice for the COVID-19 vaccine for children.” Included is a policy statement titled “COVID-19 Vaccines in Children and Adolescents” from the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases that generally favors giving children 12 and older experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. The policy statement even says that it is fine to give these shots along with “routine” vaccine shots.

Plans are in the works for giving experimental coronavirus vaccines shots to younger children as well.

The AAP describes itself as “an organization of 67,000 pediatricians committed to the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults.” The organization’s recommendations should be expected to have some influence on the crafting of government policy regarding mask and “social distancing” mandates, as well as government policy related to coronavirus vaccines. Also, next time parents take their children to the pediatrician, they should be prepared that the pediatrician’s views regarding mask wearing, “social distancing,” and experimental coronavirus vaccines may be the same as those of the AAP.

*

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In the run-up to a June 13 referendum in which voters will decide whether to support two measures that crack down on pesticide use in Switzerland, leading supporters of the two proposals have been on the receiving end of not just an avalanche of abuse, but even death threats.

As a result, Céline Vara, a lawyer and Green Party politician who helped initiate the proposal for a ban on synthetic pesticides, is now under police protection. Franziska Herren, who initiated a clean drinking water initiative, which, if passed, would stop farmers who use pesticides from claiming state subsidies, has also received death threats.

So too has organic farmer and Green politician Kilian Baumann, who backs both initiatives. Baumann has cancelled all his public appearances until after the referendum because he says the threats against him and his family have reached such frightening proportions that he has “a bad feeling when I leave my family and farm behind in the evening”.

This prompted Fabien Fivaz, a member of the Swiss Parliament, to warn that what was happening was “serious for our democracy”.

Edward Mitchell, a professor in the Laboratory of Soil Biodiversity at the University of Neuchâtel, added that he knew of two other opponents of pesticides that had also received death threats, bringing the total to five.

Climate of fear

The death threats form part of a wider campaign of intimidation by opponents of the citizens’ initiatives. Farmers and beekeepers who support a yes vote have complained of a climate of fear, aimed at stopping them expressing their views for fear of retaliation.

The pro-pesticides lobby has flooded the country with posters attacking the measures and there are multiple complaints of banners and posters put up in response being torn down. A number of beekeepers also say they have been threatened with expulsion from farms and even with harm to their bees if they try to display their preference for a yes vote.

Small farmers are facing a similar campaign of coercion with few daring to speak out, according to Edward Mitchell, “Peasants supporting our initiative face pressure, threats, verbal and physical attacks, destruction etc. It hurts to see these brave people attacked to the point of not daring to speak out. We are close to omertà!”

An organic farmer who works in a small French-speaking village on the Swiss Plateau did have the courage to speak to the news agency SwissInfo about what was going on, but he insisted on remaining anonymous:

“My children live in fear because they have suffered attacks and insults on social media for weeks. They have forbidden me to put up a banner in favour of the anti-pesticide initiatives on my farm out of fear of reprisals. Personally, I don’t mind being insulted all day by my colleagues – I have thick skin. But I want to protect my family.”

David versus Goliath

All this might come as a shock to anyone familiar with Orson Welles’ portrayal of Switzerland as a country devoted to democracy, peace and brotherly love, or Robert de Niro’s complaint that it’s a country without drama, conflict or jeopardy.

After all, Switzerland already has a moratorium on GMOs in farming that has been in place since Swiss voters first opted for it back in 2005. It was accepted by every single Swiss state (canton), even the most conservative ones. And although the original ban was set only to last five years, the Swiss parliament has since extended it repeatedly by popular demand, with neither farmers or consumers showing any interest in lifting it.

But the proposals to crackdown on pesticides faced serious pushback right from when they were first mooted in 2016. Although one in six Swiss farms already has organic certification and the number is growing, Switzerland is also home to the Basel-based mega corporation Syngenta, now owned by ChemChina. In fact, Swiss agrochemical businesses generate nearly $50 billion in annual sales worldwide. And global agrochemical firms are understandably keen not just to keep Switzerland as a market for their products but to avoid it setting an example to the rest of the world by becoming the first country to ban ALL pesticides.

The opposition of these corporate giants, together with Switzerland’s biggest farmers’ association, has meant the citizen committees that back the proposals have found themselves up against far larger forces.

Disinformation campaign

Supporters of the anti-pesticide proposals accuse the agrichemical lobby of stirring up hostility via a deliberate disinformation campaign. This, they say, has misled many farmers into believing the measures are a direct threat to their existence.

In reality, the two proposals allow for an eight- and a ten-year transition period respectively, as well as a series of other measures aimed at supporting farmers in the changeover to synthetic pesticide-free farming, including financial assistance and a reorientation of agricultural research, extension and training. There are also plans for import controls to stop Swiss farmers being undercut by lower-standard farm produce.

If PR manipulation of farmers is occurring, then there is ample evidence from across Europe and beyond of the dark arts the pesticide industry and its PR operatives have employed to generate “grassroots” farmers’ campaigns in defence of the industry’s products.

Bullying, menace and deceit  

Twisting the truth and using devious tactics to protect its profits has long been a hallmark of the agrichemical lobby, just like the tobacco industry before it.

For instance, US litigation has recently resulted in the release of hundreds of secret Syngenta documents – the so-called Paraquat Papers – that show how the Swiss agrochemical giant used manipulated data, and “safety” measures it knew were ineffective, to keep its highly toxic weedkiller on the market – despite thousands of deaths.

The Basel-based giant is also at the centre of a just-published paper about the blowback it orchestrated against critics of another of its herbicides – atrazine. Syngenta’s principal target for bullying was UC Berkeley’s Tyrone Hayes, whose research showed atrazine caused male frogs to become hermaphrodites. The African American endocrinologist says a Syngenta scientist even threatened to “have me lynched” and “threatened my wife and my daughter with sexual violence”. And this was just one part of a systematic company campaign aimed at intimidating and discrediting Hayes for highlighting concerns about Syngenta’s popular weedkiller.

But even these attacks pale beside the 2018 verdict of a Brazilian court that Syngenta was liable for the murder of a landless workers’ leader, Valmir “Keno” Mota de Oliveira, and the attempted murder of a small farmer, Isabel Nascimento de Souza, who were protesting against Syngenta’s involvement in illegal research.

Organic farmers strike back

Against such an ominous backdrop, a group of organic farmers in the Swiss canton of Jura staged a striking show of defiance. To show they wouldn’t be silenced or inhibited by those spreading fear and disinformation, they got naked against pesticides.

The dozen or so men and women farmers released a carefully staged photo, taken on an idyllic-looking Jura farm and emblazoned with the “Oui” banner of the campaign for a Switzerland free of synthetic pesticides, that they titled “Naked peasants defend their point of view”.

In an accompanying statement, the small farmers denounced what they called “the steamroller of disinformation” coming from those claiming to represent them, and the bullying that it deliberately “triggered and encouraged”. They declared, “There are organic farmers who think differently and who have the right to give their opinion.”

Allowing free debate

Sadly, to date there’s no sign that this witty attempt to encourage their opponents to lighten up and allow free debate is bearing fruit.

Indeed, after the latest death threats, Edward Mitchell was left pondering whether at this rate a winning “yes” vote on June 13 wouldn’t prompt the kind of attempted insurrection staged by Trump supporters – this time under the federal dome of the Swiss parliament.

The biologist and beekeeper, Francis Saucy, has called “for calm and dialogue”, warning that the tactics of the “no” campaign recall “the most sinister hours of the 20th century” and could leave deep wounds between beekeeping and the agribusiness sector.

Such tactics, Saucy says, “are not worthy of the democratic society of which we are so proud” – “everyone must be free to express their point of view without constraint”.

*

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

All images in this article are from GMWatch

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

You’ve just watched a video of a high-profile, Covid-sceptic speaker saying that shedding of the spike protein from vaccinated people endangers those they come in close contact with. You want to find out more, so you look at one or two of the links under the video that provide source material for what the speaker said. (Great those links are there; most videos don’t have them.)

Or a friend who is a believer in the official narrative about Covid has sent you a news item with a scary headline about the Indian ‘triple-mutation new variant.’ You’re pretty sure the article is very misleading, so you want to check out the study it’s based on.

How can you find source material and — if and when you find it – try to quickly figure out whether it’s legit?

Because there’s a huge, hot complicated mess of claims and counter-claims out there. And unfortunately there’s misleading information coming from ‘experts’ on both sides of the Covid divide.

And this isn’t unique to Covid. As Scott Adams — who created the Dilbert cartoon strip and now is a pundit — points out in page 14 of his book Loserthink:

“One thing I can say with complete certainty is that it is a bad idea to trust the majority of experts in any domain in which both complexity and large amounts of money are involved.”

So I’ve put together three tips to help you quickly discern whether a medical paper is meaningful or meaningless. I’ve distilled the tips from my decades of reading, writing and editing scientific and medical papers.

Tip One: Is key information left out or hidden?

Tip Two: If the source material is a study about the effect of an intervention, does the study measure serious illness or death in humans, or is it on animals or theoretical, test-tube models?

Tip Three: Does the study contain the information that the article or video referring to it says it contains?

To Read Complete Article by Rosemary Frei click here

**

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Rosemary Frei.

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 May 18, 2021

Under the banner of fighting COVID-19 children all over the world are being abused and exploited in ways that would have been unthinkable over a year ago. The title of this article is part of a powerful speech condemning this abuse at the Gwinnett County School Board in Georgia by Courtney Ann Taylor, a mother of three small children. Here is part of her stinging rebuke:

“Every month I come here, and I hear the same thing: ‘social emotional health.’ If you truly mean that, you would end the mask requirement tonight…My six year old looks at me every month before I come here and she says ‘are you gonna tell them tonight. Tell them I don’t want to wear this anymore’…forcing five, six, seven, eight, and nine year old little children to cover their noses and their mouths where they breathe for seven hours a day every day for the last nine months…that is not in their best interest and this has to stop…Every one of us knows that young children are not affected by this virus…And that’s a blessing…But as the adults what have we done with that blessing? We’ve shoved it to the side and we’ve said, ‘we don’t care. You’re still going to have to wear a mask on your face every day…You still can’t play together on the playground like normal children…We don’t care. We’re still going to force you to carry a burden that was never yours to carry.’ Shame on us.”

Truer words were never spoken. Unfortunately, most people tend to blindly trust government officials and other so-called experts instead of their own common sense.

The History of  “Eugenics”

Nazi Germany was obsessed with racial purity partly due to the pseudoscience of eugenics which was a popular ideology throughout the world at the time. Shortly after Hitler took power in 1933, the Nazis began to purge Germany of what they considered undesirables via sterilization and euthanasia programs. The victims of these horrible and inhumane programs included the mentally ill, the disabled,epileptics, the deformed, those with genetic diseases, alcoholics—anyone considered to be a burden on society, “life unworthy of life,” “useless feeders.”

The Euthanasia program was known as “Aktion T4,” code name for Tiergartenstrasse 4, (the street address of the coordinating office in Berlin). Its first victims were infants and toddlers. But soon older children were included as well as teenagers.

Starting in 1939, hospitals and homes for the disabled began the systematic killing of infants and small children. While doctors decided who would live or die, it was the nurses, usually women, there were some male nurses, who carried out those orders. The children were either killed by lethal injection, starvation or hypothermia from exposure, and in some cases, medical experimentation, and physical abuse. Imagine killing an infant by one these methods. We’re not talking about aborting fetuses within the first three months of conception here, but fully formed out-of-the-womb already born babies. I can’t comprehend how anyone could be so heartless and so cruel that they could do something so monstrously evil.

Many nurses did refuse to participate in this kind of genocide, but many didn’t. But those who refused weren’t punished in any way—they were simply transferred to another hospital or ward. So, the nurses who killed children and later adults in these institutions were doing so of their own free will.

Another method of execution was to tell children they were going on a picnic. A picnic lunch was provided and a nurse would help them onto a bus. But they didn’t know that it was a sealed bus that had been converted into a mobile gas chamber. The exhaust pipes were placed inside. The bus drove off, the exhaust fumes filled the bus, and by the time it got back to the hospital the children were dead. ABC News pointed out that this was the prototype for the gas chambers that would later be used to murder millions of Jews, gypsies, Poles, and others deemed undesirables in infamous concentration camps like Auschwitz and Buchenwald—the “Final Solution”—the Holocaust.

Naturally, parents wouldn’t take kindly to their children being executed so the government did what governments do best—they lied to them. Parents were encouraged to put their sick and disabled children into institutions that would supposedly provide them with the best medical care. The children would then be moved to another institution much farther away and contact between parent and child would cease. A few months later the parents would receive a letter saying that the child died of pneumonia or some other illness and that they could come and collect their ashes and pay for the funeral. The ashes weren’t even the ashes of their children, but were from multiple bodies that were cremated together. However, the brains of the dead children were removed prior to cremation for further study. Some these preserved brains remained in private collections into the 21^st Century.

An estimated 275,000-300,000 innocent men, women, and children were killed under the Aktion T4 program. And although the euthanasia program was suspended in 1941 due to public pressure, it was impossible to keep such a program totally secret forever, German medical professionals and healthcare workers secretly resumed the killings the following year and continued them until the end of the war with the help of local authorities.

But that was the Nazis, some will argue–we Americans would never do that. The US is the land of the free and home of the brave–the leader of the free world—a Christian nation. Oh, really?

The Role of Big Pharma

Medicine is a healing art and a profession. But it is also a business—the biggest business in the US at just under four trillion dollars which makes up 18% of our 22.2 trillion dollar 2020 GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Medicine is also part of the government. As such, the CDC, FDA, NIH, and state health departments are just as corrupt and subject to influence peddling as the rest of the government. Because of this, the treatment modalities for various diseases and conditions usually aren’t what’s best for the patient, but what is most profitable for pharmaceutical companies and other for-profit corporate interests. This corruption has been reported numerous times in the scientific literature.

Example: Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2013, Abstract: “The pharmaceutical Industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs.”

The fact that doctors and public health bureaucrats wield enormous power adds to their corruption and arrogance. British historian and Politician Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton 1834-1902) summed it up best:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority…Official truth is not actual truth..It is easier to find people fit to govern themselves than people fit to govern others…Men cannot be made good by the state, but they can easily be made bad. Morality depends on liberty.”

Child Abuse In The Name of Public Health

A lot of people like to think that doctors and nurses are noble people who have our best interests at heart. This simply isn’t true in most cases. In fact, Nazi doctors and nurses at the Nuremberg Trials tried to defend their gruesome practices by pointing out the inhumane experiments doctors in the US carried out, and continued to carry out long after WWII. This is in spite of the fact that The Nuremberg Code which came about as a result of Nazi genocide, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Federal policies and state laws prohibit experimenting on people without their knowledge or consent. Granted, the Nazis took things to a much higher level. But what we did wasn’t anything to brag about. Here are but a few examples:

St. Vincent’s Home for Orphans, Philadelphia, PA 1908: researchers studying tuberculosis conducted a series on diagnostic tests on over a 100 children under 8 years old by placing a tuberculin formula in their eyes. Some children were blinded for life as a result of this unethical, immoral experiment.

Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Manhattan, New York City 1911: Dr. Hideyo Noguchi (1876-1928) injected 146 children with luetin, an extract of Treponema Pallidum, the causative agent of syphilis in order to develop a skin test for the disease. The kids and other adult subjects didn’t know that they were being used in an experiment. The parents of some of the children sued Noguchi alleging that their children had contracted syphilis.

Tuskegee Institute, Macon County, Alabama 1932-1972: on May 16, 1997, President Bill Clinton apologized to the victims of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. The government lied to hundreds of poor Black men infected with syphilis who thought they were getting free medical care. In reality, their syphilis went untreated so medical researchers could study how the disease progressed. Why didn’t they already know? Syphilis had been around for centuries. By 1947 penicillin was known to cure syphilis, but the men in the study didn’t get it. The result: 28 men died of syphilis, 100 others were dead from related complications, at least 40 wives were infected, and passed the disease on to 19 children at birth.

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 1946: 829 pregnant women were given “vitamin drinks” that researchers told them would improve the health of their unborn babies. But unknown to them the concoctions contained radioactive iron. The purpose of the research was to find out how fast the radioisotope crossed into the placenta. In the women, this resulted in rashes, bruises, anemia, hair loss, tooth loss, and cancer. At least 7 of their babies died from cancers and leukemia. These kind of perverse radiation experiments (from 1944-1974 there were over 4,000 of them) were driven by the US government’s obsession with chemical warfare, and atomic weapons due to the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Bellevue Hospital, New York City 1940-1953: Dr. Lauretta Bender (1897-1987), a child psychiatrist experimented on anywhere from 100 to 500 children (reports vary) between 3 and 12 years of age using electroshock therapy after diagnosing them with “autistic schizophrenia.” She would sit a child in front of a large group and apply gentle pressure to their head. If the kid moved Bender claimed that this was an early sign of schizophrenia. A 1954 study of 50 of bender’s child subjects showed that nearly all were worse off and that some had become suicidal. Bender continued her experiments on children at Creedmoor Hospital, also in New York City, from 1956-1969 which included using LSD on them.

Willowbrook State School, Staten Island, N.Y. 1955-1970: Dr. Saul Krugman (1911-1995) deliberately infected over 700 mentally disabled, but healthy children ages 3-10 with hepatitis which was rampant at the institution due to poor sanitation and overcrowding. He infected the children by spiking their food and chocolate milk with strains of the disease synthesized from the poop of patients who had it.Yuck! The purpose of this unethical research, approved by the state and federal government, was to develop a vaccine. The children became sick, but fortunately none of them died. Reporter Geraldo Rivera did an expose on the horrible conditions at this school in 1972 by sneaking onto the grounds. He saw children neglected, naked, smeared in their own feces, and banging their heads against the wall. Rivera said he still cries when he thinks about what he saw. The school was shut down in 1987.

Edmonston-Zagreb high-titre (EZ-HT) measles vaccine 1989-1991: the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) injected thousands of babies in Third World countries with experimental EZ-HT vaccines. Clinical trials conducted in Africa and Haiti like the Senegal study published in the Lancet showed that child mortality was much higher in babies who received the EZ-HT vaccines. In spite of this, the CDC irresponsibly gave EZ-HT vaccines to over 1,500 minority babies in Los Angeles, California without telling the parents it was experimental, unlicensed for use in the US, and potentially dangerous. The CDC admitted that “A mistake was made,” but claimed “there was no ill intent.” Fortunately, none of the babies suffered any immediate ill-effects from the EZ-HT vaccines. But the Senegal study states that “little is known about the long-term effects of high-titre live measles vaccines given early in life.” How lovely.

All of the aforementioned atrocities and irresponsible experiments happened many years ago. But to this day children are still being used as guinea pigs by the government and Big Pharma. For example, millions of children are on psychiatric medication. The majority of kids who went on a shooting rampage between 1988 and 2013 were taking psychiatric medication. That’s not counting kids who had been on these medications in that past and the cases where the medical records had been sealed.

Numerous studies have been done on how harmful psychiatric drugs can be. Ten of them can be accessed here. Of course, it’s more fashionable to blame guns, video games, and porn for mixed up, violent kids. And now that the COVID-19 vaccines have been rolled out they want to use all of us as lab rats.

Child Abuse In The COVID Era

UNICEF, April 2020:

“Unless we act now to address the pandemic’s impacts on children, the echoes of COVID-19 will permanently damage our shared future… COVID-19 has the potential to overwhelm fragile health systems in low and middle-income countries and undermine many of the gains made in child survival, health, nutrition and development over the last several decades.”

Human Rights Watch, April, 2020:

“For many children, the COVID-19 crisis will mean limited or no education..More than 91 percent of the world’s students are out of school, due to school closures in at least 188 countries…Added family stresses related to the COVID-19 crisis—including job loss, isolation, excessive confinement, and anxieties over health and finances—heighten the risk of violence in the home…Child abuse is less likely to be detected during the COVID-19 crisis, as child protection agencies have reduced monitoring to avoid spreading the virus, and teachers are less likely to detect signs of ill treatment with schools closed.”

Bloomberg, September, 2020:

“Increasing numbers of American children and young adults died by suicide in recent years, and the Covid-19 pandemic threatens to continue the trend…Rates more than doubled in New Hampshire, and the majority of states showed an increase between 30% and 60%… Recent research has documented increases in serious psychological distress, major depression, and suicidal thoughts and attempts among youth. A survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that more than one-quarter of young adults reported having seriously considered suicide in the 30 days before completing the June 24-30 questionnaire.”

Save the Children, September, 2020:

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a deep impact on children, families, communities, and societies the world over. The coronavirus is tearing children’s lives apart…”

Again, keep in mind, it’s not any pandemic or virus that’s causing the crisis our world is facing—it’s the oppressive and stupid actions of governments. Even if COVID-19 were a real pandemic, it isn’t, none of this authoritarian nonsense would do a damn bit of good. The very policies that governments have enacted to protect children not to mention adults have done nothing but harm them.

Here are some examples:

School children are being forced to exercise and play sports in masks—something professional athletes aren’t required to do. It’s bad enough they have to wear masks for hours at a time in class, but while engaging in athletic activities is sheer lunacy.

Parents, coaches, and the kids themselves in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, and other parts of the country have reported that being forced to wear masks while engaging in strenuous physical activities has resulted in difficulty breathing, exhaustion, poor vision, injuries, and passing out. The parents of kids who play hockey said they are being put at a greater risk for concussions because the masks force them to look down and restrict their peripheral vision and that some “are hitting the ice without their mouth guards in because the mask blocks the strap that attaches it to helmets.” In Minnesota, parents even brought videos to state legislative committees of kids in sporting events running into each other and collapsing.

And what do government officials do when they hear this stuff and see it on video with their own eyes? They deny reality and keep repeating insane talking points from the CDC. They just don’t give a tinker’s damn. For example, a public health official in Minnesota asserted that there is no evidence that wearing masks while engaging in athletic activity is harmful to children or causes sports injuries. Apparently, this idiot never read what the WHO (World Health Organization) has to say here and here. Adults and children should not exercise or engage in sports with a mask on—it is unhealthy and dangerous.

COVID19 restrictions on school children in this country and in many places throughout the world are a draconian nightmare. In addition to being forced to wear masks, children in many cases, depending on the school, are not allowed to hug or touch each other, can’t play together, must stay away from each other, and be surrounded by plexiglass barriers. Talking might not be allowed and they might have to keep their masks on while eating—lowering it to put food in their mouth and then raising it back up while they chew and swallow.

Numerous studies in the scientific literature show how important play and peer interaction is for children and adolescents.

Porto Biomedical Journal, September-October 2017: Introduction:

“Through play, the child can experiment, solve problems, think creatively, cooperate with others, etc., gaining a deeper knowledge about his/herself and the world. From an early age, the possibility to experience several opportunities for unstructured play, in which the child can decide what to do, with whom and how, promotes positive self-esteem, autonomy, and confidence.”

The Lancet, June 12, 2020: Summary:

“Adolescence (the stage between 10 and 24 years) is a period of life characterised by heightened sensitivity to social stimuli and the increased need for peer interaction. The physical distancing measures mandated globally…are radically reducing adolescents’ opportunities to engage in face-to-face social contact outside their household…social deprivation in adolescence might have far-reaching consequences. Human studies have shown the importance of peer acceptance and peer influence in adolescence.”

In a recent interview on the first segment of The HighWire hosted by Del BigTree, Laura Centner, founder of Centner Academy explained why she flat-out refuses to subject the children in her school to oppressive COVID-19 restrictions which she described as “worse than solitary confinement. They treat prisoners better than they’re treating our children. And the thing that really, really infuriates me and just hurts my heart is that I see schools all over the world that are blindly following the CDC when there isn’t any evidence or any justification to do what they’re doing…all of the reports show the psychological damage that’s being done to children during the lockdowns, during the strict measures are hurting them far greater than COVID will ever hurt them.”

Speaking of harm, how about forcing pregnant woman to give birth with masks on, putting masks and face shields on newborn babies, and not allowing support partners in the delivery room.

October 13, 2020 Daily Mail article: last year, hospitals in France started forcing pregnant women to give birth with masks on. The scientific literature is filled with studies that show proper breathing is vital to reducing anxiety and having an easier time in the delivery room. Not so in the upside down Bizarro world of COVID-19. French mothers reported on the extreme stress and trauma that they experienced giving birth with the masks on leaving them vomiting and unable to breathe. They also said that if they refused to wear masks doctors threatened to leave the delivery room and that they would have to give birth alone. After a flood of complaints, the French Government stepped in and declared that pregnant women cannot be forced to wear masks during childbirth. And in spite of what one of the articles says, some hospitals in the US are forcing women to give birth in masks.

In New York State some hospitals wouldn’t allow women to have visitors during childbirth including their partners until the Governor put a stop to it. The WHO supports allowing women to have support partners in the delivery room. But as reported in Medical Xpress last March, the practice is still going on in many countries. The Medical Xpress article also reported that in a survey that involved 62 countries, two-thirds of health workers wouldn’t support “Kangaroo Mother care” (KMC). This is a life-saving technique involving early, prolonged skin-to-skin contact for preterm babies and exclusive breastfeeding by the mother. But if mothers have a positive or unknown COVID-19 test status they are separated from their mothers which increases their chances of dying.

Is it any wonder that a March 2021 study in the Lancet concluded: Interpretation:

“Global maternal and fetal outcomes have worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in maternal deaths, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression.”

All of these oppressive and idiotic polices are being driven by the idea that COVID-19 is being spread by asymptomatic carriers. This is a myth exposed by COVID czar Anthony Fauci himself at a Health & Human Services press conference back in January 2020 when he said,

“…if there is asymptomatic transmission, it impacts certain policies that you do regarding screening, et cetera. But the one thing historically people need to realize that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.”

And let us not forget that Fauci the flip-flopper was among the so-called experts who climbed all over Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove of the WHO when she echoed his words at a June 2020 press conference that asymptomatic transmission of the COVID-19 virus is “very rare.” As a result, Van Kerkhove quickly walked back on her statement. Can’t disrupt the phony narrative now can we.

At a roundtable discussion on public health in Florida last April chaired by Governor Ron DeSantis that included Dr. Scott Atlas, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School pulled no punches regarding COVID-19 policies: “This is the biggest public health mistake or the biggest public health fiasco in history.”

The roundtable discussion was censored by YouTube. Why?

The Real Agenda

Our world has been conquered by a tiny cabal of perverted psychopaths who control obscene amounts of wealth. Unlike despots of the past who tried to capture the world via military force, these slimy, slithering cowards conquer through bribery and corruption. Their goal: enslavement and control of the entire human race. Make no mistake people, with modern technology at their disposal It isn’t just our freedom that is at stake: our very humanity is on the line like it has never been before.

The encyclopedia Britannica defines brainwashing as a

“systematic effort to persuade nonbelievers to accept a certain allegiance, command, or doctrine…any technique designed to manipulate human thought or action…By controlling the physical and social environment, an attempt is made to destroy loyalties to any unfavorable groups or individuals, to demonstrate to the individual that his attitudes and patterns of thinking are incorrect and must be changed, and to develop loyalty and unquestioning obedience to the ruling party…isolation from former associates and sources of information…strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for non-cooperation.”

Masks, social distancing, sanitizing everything in sight, stay-at-home orders, and travel restrictions are about social control. They have absolutely nothing to do with public health. They are designed to break your spirit, stifle your independence, condition you to obey orders, keep you in a constant state of fear, and make you dependent on government and experts for salvation. They are designed to turn you and your children into slaves.

Two recent articles in Vogue and USA Today explained that once people got used to engaging in COVID-19 rituals like wearing masks they became a habit—a conditioned reflex. They compulsively keep doing the ritual and feel anxiety and discomfort if they don’t.

I’m getting physical therapy for an old shoulder injury. My physical therapist continues to wear a mask even though there are no more mask mandates or ordinances in our area. She told me that she is afraid she will lose customers if she ditches the mask. This is intellectualizing her conditioning. Wearing a mask has become a habit. I never wear a mask in her clinic as well as a number of other people. None of the patients who wear masks cringe in our presence yet she continues to wear the mask.

The architects behind the fake COVID-19 pandemic are the epitome of what psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) called the “emotional plague.” People with this affliction are control freaks. They can’t let people alone. They can’t tolerate anything in their environment that disrupts their unhealthy way of thinking and living because it causes them enormous discomfort and anxiety.

People like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, and Rajiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation are emotional plague characters.They are the puppet masters who pull the strings of governments.Thanks to them the world’s 2,153 billionaires “are wealthier than 60% of the earth’s entire population combined.” They envision a near future when chips will be implanted in our skin or in our brain that will enable us to merge with the digital world without considering what could go wrong. When I look at them I see a black hole of greed and a lust for power that will devour all love, liberty, beauty, and joy if we let them. In my opinion they are the Darth Vaders and Lex Luthors of the real world–they are the dark side.

Over the years, I’ve heard more than a few people say that they would have resisted the Nazis if they had lived in Germany under Hitler. People who say this aren’t displaying any courage because they aren’t risking anything. Talk is cheap. Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and the old Nazi regime are long gone. It’s easy to say what you would have done after the fact. The true test of courage is to resist tyranny when it is happening now, and is popular with the public, and part of your own government.

And don’t buy into the sleazy propaganda ploy that people who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated are selfish. This is an attempt to turn submission to tyranny into a virtue. There is nothing virtuous about obeying unjust laws and edicts folks.

Anyone who has been brainwashed by fear, refuses to educate themselves, and tries to force others to participate in their fear is selfish. If you aren’t willing to get out of your comfort zone and stand up to injustice then you are selfish. If you know that masks are useless and are being used as a political tool but wear them anyway to appease family and friends or to show that you’re a respectful and virtuous person then you are selfish.

From Wilhelm Reich’s book “Listen Little Man” (Source: Michael J. Talmo)

Wilhelm Reich taught us that love flows freely and naturally from every small child. It is we who corrupt and stifle that love. So, to parents everywhere I say: take those stupid masks off of yourselves and your children. Stop allowing schools to indoctrinate and brainwash them even if you have to home school them. Stop participating in this ritualistic COVID death cult. Say “hell no” to the new normal.

*

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

Michael J. Talmo has been a professional writer for over 40 years and is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties. He also did three music videos on COVID-19: The Masker Mash, COVID Vaccine Man, and The Corona Globalists. He can be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from Facebook

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.

***

NPR’s coverage of Nicaragua repeatedly bears out the fact that mainstream communications media in the US and Europe make little or no effort to give a true and fair account of the country’s reality. Their reports consistently omit facts that might invalidate their coverage and they also fail to corroborate much of the information they do include.

Carrie Kahn’s recent NPR report on Nicaragua’s Covid-19 policies is a good example of this dishonest media behavior. In this case, inherent Western media bias against Nicaragua’s government is compounded by mainstream media propaganda justifying severely restrictive policies to control Covid-19. But Nicaragua’s experience has shown that such extreme policies may be neither appropriate nor necessary.

Like most Western media covering Nicaragua, NPR and Carrie Kahn claim to be combating false Nicaraguan government propaganda. But what they in fact do is to recycle false propaganda from Nicaragua’s US government funded opposition, in this case, for example, the small minority of medical professionals in Nicaragua aligned with the country’s political opposition. NPR openly acknowledges that opposition propagandist Wilfredo Miranda of the Nicaraguan internet media outlet Confidencial contributed to Kahn’s article. Confidencial, for which Miranda writes, is directly funded by the US government. The fact that Kahn and her NPR editors describe them as independent is just one more example of the cynical hypocrisy practiced by almost all Western reporting, mainstream or alternative, when it comes to Nicaragua.

Carrie Kahn and her editors deploy two other sly tricks in their article on Nicaragua’s response to Covid-19. They link to an attack piece by Associated Press to reinforce false claims by opposition aligned Nicaraguan doctors describing Nicaragua’s health system as “decrepit”. In fact, overall, Nicaragua has the most comprehensive, well-equipped, up to date public health system in Central America. Presumably NPR wanted to avoid repeating a gross and blatant falsehood, so they just linked to it instead, allowing them to claim they are corroborating their article’s argument. In fact all they are doing is pointing to a media outlet that supports Nicaragua’s political opposition just like they do.

The other sly trick Kahn deploys in her NPR article is to note that when they tried to contact Nicaragua’s Sandinista authorities for comment, they were unable to do so, implying they genuinely sought to obtain an official point of view. The egregious dishonesty of Kahn and her editors on this point is clear from the fact that NPR and Kahn omit referring to the abundant sources available to them offering the government’s version of its policy on Covid-19. NPR and Kahn could have quoted from or cited innumerable declarations by health ministry officials, or excerpts from government policy documents.

They might also have cited or linked to reports from Sandinista communications media like El 19 Digital or Juventud Presidente, among many others. The fact that Kahn’s report neither refers to, nor links to, nor quotes any government aligned sources exposes the bad faith of her article for NPR. The most likely reason they sought to extract a comment from Nicaragua’s government was to lend their attack piece phony legitimacy, claiming at least some attempt at balance. Nicaragua’s government policy is clearly to refrain from legitimizing dishonest reporting from disingenuous media outlets like NPR that have a long track record of misreporting on Nicaragua.

Kahn sets the scene with the usual false claims suggesting that Nicaragua’s government is authoritarian. She notes “much of broadcast and print media in Nicaragua is controlled by the government and members of Ortega’s family”. In fact the only national daily newspaper in Nicaragua “La Prensa” is owned by the opposition. Its coverage is typically virulently critical of the Sandinista government. Likewise television channels like Canal 10, Canal 12 and Canal 23 also broadcast fiercely critical coverage of the government, as well as online outlets like Confidencial, 100% Noticias and many similar outlets. Radio and cable television companies critical of the government, like the extreme right wing Radio Corporación have extensive audiences across the country. So it is ridiculously untrue to suggest, as Kahn clearly does, that President Ortega’s government monopolizes national media.

From that false insinuation, Kahn’s report goes on to make the false claim, “Ortega has long downplayed the coronavirus. From the beginning, he has denounced lockdowns and mask mandates. His wife, Rosario Murillo, who is also vice president, encouraged large gatherings. Early in the pandemic, health care workers said they were even barred from wearing protective gear, so as not to alarm the public.” Every one of those statements is either completely untrue or dishonestly selective. From late January 2020, Nicaragua’s Health Ministry (MINSA) worked closely with the PanAmerican Health Organization to prepare for the pandemic, ensuring from February onwards that all health personnel dealing directly with patients showing symptoms of Covid-19 had the necessary training, protective wear and equipment.

Already by the end of February 2020, Nicaragua was indeed among the best prepared countries anywhere in the world for the Covid-19 outbreak. One very important point Kahn omits is the mass mobilization of Nicaragua’s volunteer network, comprising tens of thousands of community health promoters to educate the public on public health measures and monitor community health. President Ortega’s government took the threat of a dangerous pandemic very seriously, as this May 2020 policy document demonstrates. Even the US dominated International Monetary Fund recognized Nicaragua’s response to Covid-19, noting how the government followed World Health Organization and PHO guidance.

WHO advice at that time recommended neither the use of masks, nor the implementation of long term lockdowns. So it is an absurd falsehood to claim that Daniel Ortega “denounced lockdowns and mask mandates” when the authorities simply followed WHO guidance. Nor is it the case that Vice President Rosario Murillo encouraged large gatherings. The last big pro-government march took place on March 16th 2020, just after the first case of Covid-19 in Nicaragua was discovered Subsequently, there were no large public gatherings and the government strongly encouraged people to maintain distance when in public, as is obvious from television coverage of public events since then. Since April 2020 the government encouraged, in every way possible, distancing, hand-washing and masks.

Kahn and NPR offer no references to justify their claims of government negligence, because they cannot. Likewise, the claim that health workers were denied the use of protective wear is based on a virulent anti-government attack piece by Associated Press, quoting doctors aligned with Nicaragua’s political opposition. Those doctors were dismissed for publishing a scaremongering letter criticizing government policy on Covid-19. No public health authority in the world tolerates their medical staff publicly criticizing official policy, as the treatment of dissident health personnel in North America and Europe over Covid-19 has repeatedly shown. But Kahn and NPR apply a double standard when it comes to Nicaragua because, self-evidently, they support Nicaragua’s political opposition.

Kahn criticizes Nicaragua for having a low vaccination rate but she omits to note the difficulties that impoverished countries have had in obtaining vaccines, when in fact Nicaragua has done better than some of its neighbors in securing and applying vaccines, prioritizing the elderly and people with serious chronic illness. To date just over 237,000 of these especially vulnerable people have received the vaccine, a little over 3% of the population. That compares with 430,000 or 6% of people in El Salvador, 108,000 or 1%·in Honduras, 1 million people or 10% of people in Costa Rica and 320,000 or under 1% in Guatemala.

Costa Rica has been able to buy commercially from Pfizer and Astra Zeneca and El Salvador has bought 2 million vaccines from China. That is the regional context of Nicaragua’s efforts to vaccinate its vulnerable population, while under illegal unilateral coercive measures imposed by the United States like the Nica Act and, soon, the Renacer Act. In that regional context, the issue of debt should also be noted. El Salvador and Costa Rica have taken on significant levels of foreign debt to fund their response to Covid-19, while Nicaragua has avoided doing so by keeping its economy open. Kahn and her editors glibly omit all of these considerations.

Kahn continues her dishonest attack piece against Nicaragua taking up the issue of statistics and how they are reported. She notes that “Late in 2020, the legislature — filled with Ortega loyalists — passed a law criminalizing news not authorized by the government.” In fact, Nicaragua’s legislative assembly is composed of deputies elected by Nicaragua’s people who in 2016 voted in 70 deputies for the Sandinista Front and 22 deputies for Nicaragua’s other national and regional parties.

The cyber crime law to which Kahn refers brought Nicaragua’s criminal law up to date, in line with other countries, like the United States, and addresses mainly issues like on line fraud, illegal hacking, data theft and on line harassment. Only one of the law’s 48 articles addresses false news and that in the context of avoiding provoking fear, panic and disorder among the population, which is also a criminal law provision common to jurisdictions in North America, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Even so NPR and Kahn recycle the false claim by Nicaragua’s opposition supporters that “this has created a hostile environment for critics and independent news outlets.” Whereas one only has to take a brief look at opposition social media or opposition media outlets to see that this claim is ridiculously untrue. Kahn and NPR take at face value both that absurd claim and too the phony data on Covid-19 in Nicaragua, collected by the opposition controlled Citizen’s Observatory group, whose unhindered operation for over a year gives the lie to their claim that they are “taking a big risk publishing such data”.

Even Kahn admits that the data compiled by this group of opposition activists offers a list of cases and deaths the group “says are from COVID-19”, when even the official figures can only be legitimately appraised once the Nicaraguan institute responsible for compiling national statistics (the INIDE) will have produced its report for 2020, due out in the next couple of months. Kahn falsely describes heavily prejudiced research based on data from just the first six months of the Covid-19 outbreak in Nicaragua by the USAID funded opposition online media outlet Confidencial as “independent”,.

But the data derived from the currently available statistics vary hugely depending on their treatment, as one can see from data for the same period presented by the Financial Times when compared with data for that period from the Economist. Kahn cites MINSA’s own data from its health map as if this were definitive statistical data rather than provisional data aimed at giving a reasonable idea of health care trends in different parts of the country. For example, Kahn might have noted the difference between the Health Map’s figure for deaths in 2020 in its table of causes of mortality, 26,183 and the figure for total mortality in the text accompanying that table which is 31,911.

Kahn exhibts zero curiosity about that difference and glibly compares the tabular figure for 2019 of 16,321 with the tabular figure for 2020, claiming the difference of 10,000 proves that the government’s own figures demonstrate a massive number of unreported deaths from Covid-19. But, just as in the case of 2020, the text accompanying the table clearly states that the total number of deaths in 2019 was 25,388. So the difference in the total number of deaths between 2019 and 2020 according to MINSA’s figures is 6,523.

That is still an increase in the mortality rate from 35.6 (2019) to around 43 (2020) per 10,000, but much less than what Kahn suggests in her article and even less than the normal mortality rate assigned to Nicaragua in Wikipedia’s relevant article, for example. Perhaps more importantly is MINSA’s data on the number of cases of people diagnosed with Covid-19 which, like their figures for deaths from Covid-19 are much lower than in the other Central American countries and these too are accepted by the World Health Organization. In any case, until the INIDE figures are published, MINSA’s data for overall mortality in 2020 have to be treated as provisional.

Nor is there any way of knowing how many of those deaths can be directly attributed to Covid-19. The Nicaraguan government has followed the German government’s practice of distinguishing between people who died of Covid-19 and people who died of underlying comorbidities complicated by Covid-19. Likewise, it is legitimate to speculate that a large but unknown number of deaths were caused by the opposition’s vicious campaign of scaremongering in April, May and June of 2020, frightening seriously ill people from seeking hospital treatment and leading them to die as a result. There were periods at that time when the number of patients attending hospital fell well below normal for the time of year.

Nicaragua’s hospitals, even in the capital Managua, were always well able to cope with the number of patients seeking care. At that time, too, in that second quarter of 2020, the same opposition groups associated with the Citizen’s Observatory posted ghoulish propaganda in their social media and news media, odiously distorting the situation in Nicaragua. For example photographs of the disastrous situation in Ecuador falsely claiming they were from Nicaragua. Kahn and the NPR’s article follows the standard anti-Sandinista recipe of uncorroborated hearsay, counterfactual assertions, opposition propaganda, lazy research and incompetent analysis which generally prevails in North American and European media coverage of the country.

What practically all foreign reports on the progress of Covid-19 in Nicaragua omit is the reality of daily life here from the start of the Covid-19 outbreak to date. Public offices have never closed, public schools have remained open, public transport has never stopped. Overall economic activity, especially tourism, declined in the second and third quarters of 2020 but has now recovered to the point where the country can expect around 3% to 4% growth in 2021 as well as record exports, despite the effects not only of the pandemic on trade and services, but also the double blow of Hurricanes Eta and Iota in November last year.

Similarly, the government declined to impose restrictions on economic life and constantly encourages people to wear masks, as well as to maintain safe distancing and other measures like hand washing, contrary to Kahn’s false report on NPR. Daily life in Nicaragua over the last year bears no relation to the false opposition caricature of the country portrayed so dishonestly by Kahn and NPR. No one should find that surprising.

The role of practically all Western mainstream and alternative media is to promote the false beliefs that Western governments mean well and that their profit focused capitalist system promotes optimal outcomes. Conversely, their job entails trashing the government of any country, like Nicaragua, where revolutionary socialist policies focused on the development of the human person produce tangibly better outcomes for their peoples. That explains the abysmal quality of NPR’s reporting on Nicaragua, as demonstrated by Carrie Kahn’s article – lazy, incompetent, dishonest.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

Featured image: Health brigadistas doing house to house visits monitoring Covid-19 (Photo: La Voz del Sandinismo)

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.

***

“Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings” (former South African President, Nelson Mandela) 

The world’s population was about 7.8 billion people in 2020. About 2.2 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, and over 4 billion do not have safe sanitation.(1) About 800 million suffer from chronic undernourishment. A fifth of all children under 5 suffer from stunted growth.(2) Each year approximately 6 million children and many millions of adults die of easily preventable diseases(3) and 9 million people die of hunger.(4) Some progress has been made on some of these issues, particularly in China. However, things have been getting worse in other regions, such as Africa.(5) Since 1960, the income gap between rich countries and poor countries has roughly tripled in size.(6)

Economic Exploitation – Rich Countries Keep The Poor In Poverty

We have seen in earlier posts that rich countries, led by the US, will use extreme violence to get their chosen leaders into power in other countries, in order to control resources and trade. These leaders have little interest in the welfare of their poorest people, and are prepared to use brutal methods to control their citizens. We have also discussed some of the ways in which the economic system transfers immense wealth from poor people to rich. Rich countries, led by the US, reinforce a global financial and trade system that perpetuates inequality. The exploitation of the world’s poorest people is like a modern-day form of slavery. Some of them earn just enough to die very slowly of malnutrition.Rich nations inflict what has been described as “protracted death-by-deprivation”.(7)

When people cannot earn a decent living any other way, they will resort to selling cocaine, heroin, sex, blood and organs. When they are really desperate some will even sell their own children into slavery. It is estimated that there are at least 40 million slaves in the world(8) and there are still 150 million children involved in child labour.(9) The scale of these problems is immense – the number of avoidable deaths each year is similar to a world war. However, dealing with some of the biggest problems, such as diarrhoea, is technically straightforward. A simple combination of salt, sugar and water is all that is required, yet still millions of people die from it. Dealing with starvation is also straightforward. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO) regularly measures food production and every year the total amount of food produced in the world is easily enough to feed everyone on the planet with a considerable amount left over.

Numerous observers have pointed out that poverty and inequality are the real Weapons of Mass Destruction. If we had a global war on under-development, just a small fraction of global military spending would be enough to solve these problems worldwide.(10) Unfortunately, there is currently no serious attempt to do so. Politicians from advanced nations often make statements about dealing with poverty, yet their actions make it clear that this is propaganda. They have no intention of making the changes to the global economic system that would solve these problems, because their focus is on structuring the world’s economy to benefit themselves and their biggest companies.

Measuring Poverty – Lies, Statistics and Propaganda

There is a great deal of propaganda surrounding the economics of poor countries and development. Leaders from rich countries want us to believe that the economic system is working for poor countries, so they try to manipulate the figures to tell us how many people have escaped poverty. However, they focus on a definition of extreme poverty, which refers to people earning under $1.90 per day. This figure is so absurdly low that it is meaningless. Many people earning more than this are unable to meet their basic needs, such as eating enough food. One of the leading researchers on the subject, Jason Hickel, has suggested that a figure of $7.40 per day is a better benchmark for measuring poverty, and other researchers have come up with a similar figure.(11) His data shows that more than 4 billion people – that is over half the world’s population – are below this line, and therefore unable to meet their basic needs. 

Measuring Progress – The Absurdity of GDP 

In order to measure how well a country is doing economists use what is called GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It is supposed to be the total value of all the goods and services that we buy and sell, but it is extremely misleading. The former governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, has noted that decorative diamonds are mostly useless, but we attach a huge price to them, whereas water is the most important substance on Earth (along with air and sunlight) but it has almost no economic value.(12) If a mother looks after her child, this is not measured in GDP as no money changes hands. If a mother pays a nanny, money does change hands, so this increases GDP, yet the same work has been done. The most important source of nutrition for babies, human breast milk, has no value according to economists. As one leading expert pointed out:

“as far as economics is concerned, if you are ironing, shopping or child rearing, you are ‘at leisure’”(13)

Huge swathes of important human activity, such as caring for children, caring for elderly relatives and simply running a household, is not included in economic data. 

GDP measures some activity that is bad for society. Spending large amounts of money solving crimes, mopping up after an oil spill or treating car crash victims all counts as GDP, when it is clear that having fewer crimes, car crashes and oil spills in the first place would be better. Illegal transactions such as drugs are also counted. It is commonly accepted that the fastest way to increase GDP is to go to war.

Natural resources such as trees are only counted in GDP if we are intending to cut them down and use them for timber. They are not counted if we leave them in the ground as part of the natural landscape, yet they play many important roles in relation to climate change, land stability, flooding(14) and air quality.(15) All of the things that are not counted in GDP are actually worth far more than the things that are counted.(16) GDP is clearly not a good way to measure how well a country is doing.

Some groups have been trying to develop indicators that provide a better measure of progress and quality of life, such as the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). This includes things like educational standards and healthcare. Some of these indicators show that since 1970 much of the world has made little progress.(17) If you take a simple measure like how many children die before the age of five, we find that medical care for poor people in the US is far below the standards of most advanced nations and is on a par with many poor countries.

The Distribution of Wealth Matters 

The use of GDP is misleading because it ignores how wealth is distributed. Even the poorest countries have some incredibly rich people and most countries have a group that would be called middle class. If a small number of people get much richer and the rest go backwards, the GDP of a country can increase, and the ‘average’ wealth can increase, creating the illusion of progress, when in fact poverty and inequality can be getting worse. GDP does not tell us how many children receive good education or how many people have access to healthcare.(18) Analyses that look at different sectors of society, such as the richest and poorest parts of the population, are better, but governments do not like these being discussed because it then becomes apparent that many poor people are making little progress, or even going backwards, under the current system. The GDP for India has been rising quite rapidly, but over half of the population still earn below $3 per day.(19)

The economic system has to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. What we should be aiming for is a better quality of life for everyone, and in particular, to improve the standard of living for the poorest people in both rich and poor countries. There is a strong case to suggest that advanced nations do not need any more growth. They simply need better distribution. As one leading expert has noted:

“We could live in a highly educated, technologically advanced society with zero poverty and zero hunger, all with significantly less resources and energy than we presently use.”(20)

Neocolonialism – Some Countries Were Doing Better Before We Interfered

The media tend to blame foreign governments for poverty, but do not mention that the US and Britain regularly overthrow governments that were trying to improve living standards for their poorest people, or that the economic system has been manipulated to exploit poor countries. Journalists often talk about corruption in poor countries, but usually fail to mention that it is companies from advanced nations that pay the biggest bribes. During the 1950s and 1960s, many poor countries progressed quickly, because rich countries did not interfere as much as they do today. Many of those countries went backwards rapidly once the US and other rich nations interfered again, in what is sometimes called neocolonialism.

Providing healthcare and good education to the whole population, and getting people off the lowest rung of poverty is not difficult. Socialist countries such as Cuba, or the Indian state of Kerala, have excellent life expectancy. Iraq and Libya had socialist systems, and were very close to being first world countries before the US and Britain destroyed them. If poor countries are allowed to choose their own leaders, and to determine their own policies, many of them might make a genuine effort to get all of their people out of poverty.

To Understand Poverty, Study The Rich

If we want to understand poverty, we can only learn a limited amount by studying the poor. We really have to study the rich and the powerful, in advanced nations as well as poor countries. They determine relationships between countries, and they determine how the national economy is structured. They determine how industrialised a country is, and they play a major role in determining the distribution of wealth within society.

We saw in earlier posts that international companies obtain huge amounts of ‘free lunches’ (extra profits that they have not earned). We also saw that the total transfer of wealth from poor countries to rich countries each year is over $2 trillion.(21) A large part of that wealth transfer becomes extra profits for the world’s biggest companies. The US government has a range of methods to force countries to participate in this rigged system. These can include bribery, sanctions and war. The single biggest obstacle to the elimination of global poverty is US foreign policy.

*

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 first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. 

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes 

1) WHO/UNICEF JMP, ‘1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water’, WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program, 18 June 2019, at https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-06-2019-1-in-3-people-globally-do-not-have-access-to-safe-drinking-water-unicef-who

2) 2018 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics, at https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/

3) WHO, ‘A child under 15 dies every 5 seconds around the world’, 18 Sep 2018 https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/18-09-2018-a-child-under-15-dies-every-5-seconds-around-the-world-

4) theworldcounts, ‘Around 9 million people die every year of hunger and hunger-related diseases. This is more than from AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined’, updated daily, at https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/people-and-poverty/hunger-and-obesity/how-many-people-die-from-hunger-each-year

5) Roge Karma, ‘5 Myths About Global Poverty’, Current Affairs, 26 July 2019, at https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-poverty

6) Jason Hickel, The Divide: A brief guide to global inequality and its solutions, 2017

7) Nafeez Ahmed, ‘The Hidden Holocaust – Our Civilizational Crisis part 3: The End Of The World As We Know It?’, 1 Jan 2008, at https://www.nafeezahmed.net/thecuttingedge//2008/01/hidden-holocaust-civilizational-crisis.html

8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

9) UNICEF, ‘Child Labour’, 3 Sep 2020, at https://www.unicef.org/protection/child-labour

10) SIPRI, cited in Reuters, ‘Just 10 percent of world military spending could knock off poverty: think tank’, 4 April 2016, at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-military-goals/just-10-percent-of-world-military-spending-could-knock-off-poverty-think-tank-idUSKCN0X12EQ 

11) World Bank, ‘Nearly half the world lives on less than $5.50 a day’, 17 Oct 2018, at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-lives-on-less-than-550-a-day 

12) Mark Carney, ‘From moral to market sentiments’, 2020 Reith lectures, BBC Radio 4, 4 Dec 2020, at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000py8t 

13) Marilyn Waring, ‘The unpaid work that GDP ignores – and why it really counts’, TED talk New Zealand, Aug 2019, at https://www.ted.com/talks/marilyn_waring_the_unpaid_work_that_gdp_ignores_and_why_it_really_counts?language=en#t-329180 

14) Emma Kemp, ‘Planting trees to tackle flooding’, The Ecologist, 14 March 2019, at https://theecologist.org/2019/mar/14/planting-trees-tackle-flooding 

15) Simon Williams, Online calculator shows how trees improve air quality and reduce health costs’, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, 12 July 2019, at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/news-and-media/news/online-calculator-shows-how-trees-can-improve-air-quality-and-cut-health-costs

16) Jason Hickel, ‘Is the world poor or unjust’, 22 Feb 2021, at https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2021/2/21/is-the-world-poor-or-unjust

The absurdity of GDP is illustrated in the following discussio of ‘Leprechaun economis’ when Ireland’s GDP changed 35% due to re-calculation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

17) Genuine Progress Indicator, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genuine_progress_indicator

UNHDI at http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

2020 Human Development Report at http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report

18) Victoria Fan et al, ‘Valuing health as development: going beyond gross domestic product’, British Medical Journal, 23 Oct 2018, at https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4371

19) World Bank, ‘$1Billion from World Bank to protect India’s poorest from Covid-19 (Coronavirus)’, 14 May 2020, at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/05/13/world-bank-covid-coronavirus-india-protect-poor 

20) Jason Hickel, ‘Is the world poor or unjust’, 22 Feb 2021, at https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2021/2/21/is-the-world-poor-or-unjust

21) Dinyar Godrej, ‘A brief history of impoverishment’, New Internationalist, 20 April 2020, at https://newint.org/features/2020/02/10/brief-history-impoverishment 

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Despite its limited material resources, Cuba is responsible for developing two of only 23 coronavirus vaccines to have entered phase III trials anywhere in the world – and it has another three on the way. Helen Yaffe (University of Glasgow) explains how the Soberana, Abdala, and Mambisa vaccines work; how they will roll out at home and abroad; and how Cuba managed to produce them against the clock and against the odds.

When COVID-19 arrived in Cuba, the government immediately mobilised its comprehensive public healthcare system and world-leading biotech sector. This decisive action has allowed Cuba to keep both contagion and fatality rates at very low levels. In 2020, Cuba had a total of 12,225 coronavirus cases and 146 deaths from a population of 11.2 million, which are amongst the lowest rates in the Western Hemisphere. In November 2020, however, the reopening of airports led to a new surge, with more infections in January 2021 than in the whole of the previous year. Yet by 24 March 2021, Cuba had registered fewer than 70,000 cases and 408 deaths. The death rate was 35 per million, as compared to 1,857 per million people in Britain, for example. The fatality rate amongst those infected was just 0.59%, compared to an average of 2.2% worldwide and 2.9% in Britain.

Some 57 brigades of Cuban medical specialists have been sent to treat COVID-19 patients in 40 countries (“Cuban Health Specialists arriving in South Africa to curb the spread of COVID-19” by GCIS/GovernmentZA, CC BY-ND 2.0 licence)

By that point, 57 brigades of medical specialists from Cuba’s Henry Reeve International Contingent had been sent to treat 1.26 million coronavirus patients in 40 countries, adding to the 28,000 Cuban healthcare professionals working in 66 countries around the world. Then, in March 2021, Cuba began phase III clinical trials for two domestically produced COVID-19 vaccines, with three other candidate vaccines also in the pipeline. These accomplishments are all the more extraordinary when we consider that since 2017 the US government has unleashed 240 new sanctions, actions, and measures aimed at tightening the 60-year blockade of Cuba. Some 50 of these measures were introduced during the pandemic itself, costing the health sector alone over $200 million.

The full story of Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccines

Some 200 COVID-19 vaccines are being developed worldwide, and 23 candidates have advanced to phase III clinical trials (as of 25 March 2021). Though no other Latin American country has developed a vaccine of its own, two of the 23 now in phase III trials are Cuban: Soberana 02 and Abdala. And Cuba also has three other vaccine candidates in earlier stage trials: Soberana 01, Soberana Plus, and Mambisa. So how has Cuba managed to develop five COVID-19 vaccines in such a short time?

Cuba’s biotech sector is unique. It is entirely state-owned and free of private interests, with innovation channelled to meet public health needs and no profit-seeking in the domestic market. Dozens of research and development institutions collaborate, sharing resources and knowledge instead of competing, which facilitates a fast track from research and innovation to trials and application. Cuba has the capacity to produce 60-70% of the medicines it consumes domestically, an imperative due to the US blockade and the cost of medicines in the international market. There is also continuous and comprehensive circulation of information and personnel between universities, research centres, and the public health system. These various elements have proven vital in the development of Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccines.

How do Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccines work?

There are five types of COVID-19 vaccines being developed globally:

• Viral vector vaccines that use an unrelated and harmless virus modified to deliver SARS-CoV-2 genetic material (as with the Oxford AstraZeneca and Gamaleya SputnikV vaccines)
• mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines which teach cells to make a protein that triggers an immune response (Pfizer, Moderna)
• Inactivated vaccines containing deactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus (Sinovac/Butantan, SinoPharm, Bharat Biotec)
• Attenuated vaccines containing weakened SARS-CoV-2 virus (Codagenix)
• Protein vaccines containing COVID-derived proteins that trigger an immune response (Novavax, Sanofi/GSK)

The five Cuban vaccines undergoing clinical trials are all protein vaccines. This means that they carry a portion of the spike protein that the virus uses to bind to human cells, which in turn generates neutralising antibodies that block this binding process.

Dr Marlene Ramírez González explained to the British Medical Journal that the Cuban vaccines are subunit vaccines, “one of the most economical approaches, and the type for which Cuba has the greatest know-how and infrastructure … [They are] based only on the part [of the COVID antigen] that is involved in contact with the cell’s receptor [the receptor-binding domain], which is also the one that induces the greatest amount of neutralizing antibodies”. She added that while Cuba’s vaccines are not alone in using this strategy, Soberana 02 is unique amongst COVID vaccines for another reason: it combines the antigen’s receptor-binding domain with a deactivated form of tetanus in order to boost immune response, making it the only existing “conjugate vaccine” for COVID-19.

Over email, Idania Caballero, a pharmaceutical scientist at BioCubaFarma, pointed out that these vaccines build on decades of medical science and work on infectious diseases:

The rate of mortality from infectious diseases in Cuba, even during COVID, is less than 1%. Cuba today vaccinates against 13 diseases with 11 vaccines, eight of which are produced in Cuba. Six diseases have been eliminated as a result of vaccination schedules. Vaccines produced with these technologies have been administered even to children in the first months of life.

The Soberana vaccines are produced by the Finlay Institute in partnership with the Centre for Molecular Immunology and the National Biopreparations Centre. The name Soberana means “sovereign”, reflecting their economic and political importance for the island – without this domestic production, Cuba would struggle to access foreign vaccines either because of their cost in international markets or because of the longstanding US embargo. These vaccines work by inserting genetic information into superior mammalian cells. Soberana Plus is the first vaccine for convalescent COVID-19 patients to reach the clinical trial stage.

The other vaccines, Abdala and Mambisa (an intranasal, needle-free vaccine), are produced by the Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB). Abdala is named for a poem by the national hero José Martí, and Mambisa is named for soldiers who fought against Spanish rule in the mid- to late 19th century. These vaccines insert genetic information into a less evolved, unicellular microorganism (the yeast Pichia pastoris). They build on the long experience and impressive record of the CIGB, whose hepatitis B vaccines have been in use in Cuba for 25 years.

Cuba’s COVID-19 vaccines build on decades of experience and expertise in medicine and biomedical science (“Cuban-Haitian medical brigade treats patients in Port-au-Prince“, by Pasqual Gorriz/UN Photo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

By focusing on development of different vaccine platforms, the institutions involved have avoided competing for resources. Caballero explains that “Cuba has the capacity to produce two independent vaccine chains, with over 90 million vaccines annually, while also maintaining production of other products for the domestic market and for export”. Cuba’s vaccines require three doses, but because they are stable at temperatures of 2-8 degrees (Celsius), they do not require extra expenditure on specialist refrigeration equipment.

How do Cuba’s phase III vaccine trials work?

By late March, phase III trials were underway for both Soberana 02 and Abdala, each incorporating tens of thousands of adult volunteers in regions with high a incidence of COVID-19. Soberana 02 is being administered in Havana and Abdala in Santiago de Cuba and Guantánamo. Analysis and follow-up for phase III trial patients will continue until January 2022 to investigate whether the vaccines prevent transmission, how long immunity lasts, and other long-term questions that manufacturers worldwide have been unable to answer due to the urgent need to make working vaccines available.

An additional 150,000 healthcare workers in Havana are receiving Soberana 02 shots as part of an “interventional study”, which is a type of trial that can be authorised after drug safety has been demonstrated in phase II. Intervention studies do not involve double-blind testing or placebos. Another 120,000 healthcare workers in western Cuba will receive Abdala in the next few weeks. Other interventional studies in the capital will see 1.7 million people in Havana, constituting most of the city’s adult population, vaccinated by the end of May 2021, which means that two million Cubans will have been fully vaccinated by that stage.

Assuming these trials prove successful, a national vaccination campaign will begin in June, with priority given according to risk factors and age (initially those aged 60 and over). By the end of August 2021, the government aims to have vaccinated six million Cubans, representing over half of the total population. Before the end of 2021, Cuba hopes to count itself amongst the few countries in the world to have fully vaccinated its entire population.

Cuban medical scientists are also confident that they have the capacity and experience to adapt their vaccine formulations, technologies, and protocols in order to tackle new variants. But for now the next step is to launch a new study involving 5- to 18-year-olds and begin phase II trials for Soberana 01 and Soberana Plus.

Cuba and China’s Pan-Corona vaccine will target multiple strains of COVID-19

Cuba’s CIGB has also teamed up with colleagues in China to work on a new vaccine called Pan-Corona, designed to be effective against different strains of the coronavirus. The idea is that this vaccine will stimulate generation of antibodies by using parts of the virus that are conserved rather than those prone to variation (alongside parts directed at cellular responses). Cuba provides the experience and personnel, while China provides the equipment and resources. The research will take place at the Yongzhou Joint Biotechnology Innovation Center in China’s Hunan Province, which was established last year using equipment and laboratories designed by Cuban specialists. Gerardo Guillén, director of biomedical science at CIGB, believes that this approach “could protect against epidemiological emergencies of new strains of coronavirus that may exist in the future”. The project builds on nearly two decades of medical science collaboration between Cuba and China, including five joint ventures in the biotech sector.

Dr Helen Yaffe has also co-produced a documentary on Cuba’s response to COVID-19 (with Dr Valia Rodríguez, Aston University, UK)

A vaccine for the Global South

Cuban professionals have received ten gold medals from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) over 26 years, and their biotech products were already being exported to 49 countries prior to the pandemic, including vaccines used in childhood immunisation programmes in Latin America. Cuba has stated that its COVID-19 vaccines will also be exported to other countries. This brings hope to low- and middle-income nations that simply cannot afford to vaccinate their populations at the high prices demanded by major pharmaceutical companies (between $10 and $30 per dose). Even worse is the case of the US multinational Pfizer, which was recently accused of “bullying” Latin American countries into putting up sovereign assets – such as embassy buildings and military bases – as guarantees against the cost of any future litigation relating to the company’s vaccines.

Through an agreement with Iran’s Pasteur Institute, 100,000 Iranians will take part in phase III clinical trials for Soberana 02, with another 60,000 to be enrolled in Venezuela. Other countries including Mexico, Jamaica, Vietnam, Pakistan, and India have expressed an interest in the Cuban vaccines, as has the African Union (on behalf of all 55 of the African nations). It is likely that Cuba will apply a sliding scale when pricing its exports of COVID-19 vaccines so as to reflect the importer’s ability to pay, just as it does when charging for the services of overseas medical professionals.

What Cuba has achieved is remarkable, but as Caballero underlined, “without the unjust US blockade, Cuba could have achieved bigger and better results”. Cuba spends a tiny proportion of what Britain and the United States spend on healthcare, but by maximising scarce resources the country has managed to mount a highly effective response to a global pandemic. The key to Cuba’s success has not just been state intervention per se, but rather the nature of that intervention: Cuba’s socialist system is set up to prioritise social welfare over private profit.

It may not be a lesson that other countries are ready to hear, but Cuba’s international assistance during the pandemic shows the benefits of global cooperation and solidarity in addressing global problems.

*

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.