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 woman in Nashville is the second person to describe how she became paralyzed within hours of taking a Pfizer coronavirus vaccine.

“This has been a nightmare,” Brandy McFadden told WSMV-TV’s News 4 Program in Nashville as she fought tears. “I got my shot, just trying to do due diligence. I never expected this to happen, at all.”

The day Brandy McFadden got her second dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine on April 16, she “just started not feeling great,” she told the local news station.

By the following afternoon, McFadden said she couldn’t walk and had excruciating neck pain. “It just started progressively getting worse and I just started screaming in pain at the top of my lungs.”

McFadden’s husband took her to the emergency room at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Six days later, the local news stations interviewed her at the hospital where she had undergone a CT scan, MRI, EMG, and blood work, all of which were unrevealing about what was happening to her. “As far as to answers as to why this happened, they don’t know,” McFadden told News4.

She had regained movement in her arms, and could wiggle her toes one week following her shot.

A similar case in Pittsburgh

McFadden was in touch with a woman in Pittsburgh who had a similar experience. Rachel Cecere, 33, told WPXI-TV news that she woke up paralyzed from the neck down 12 hours after her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.  “It was the scariest thing in the world to go to sleep completely fine, to wake up 1:30 in the morning and not be able to move at all,” the woman told Channel 11.

Cecere was moved from her local hospital to the Cleveland Clinic where tests ruled out Guillain Barré Syndrome, a neurological disease linked to the pandemic 1976 swine flu vaccine, which caused about 450 people to be paralyzed.

“There is just nothing they can find wrong with me. No underlying conditions, I have nothing in my history and they are basically telling me, ‘You’re healthy and we can’t figure out why this is going on,’” the woman told her local news channel.

Nearly three weeks after Cecere was hospitalized she told WPXI that she is doing occupational and physical therapy at Jefferson Hospital but still had no feeling in either leg and can only move the left one. She was given a prosthetic brace and knee support to keep her leg straight. The single mother had regained strength in her upper body, she told the news station, but still felt weakness in her left hand and was unable to lift her daughter.

“It’s discouraging not having the feeling or sensation in my legs. It’s just difficult for me to grasp and understand,” Cecere said.

“I was told multiple times that the diagnosis was an acute distress to the nervous system brought on by the COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer,” Cecere told Channel 11, but her discharge papers did not mention her COVID-19 vaccine.

“It doesn’t sound like they are willing to attribute it to the vaccine or any specific medical diagnosis,” local infectious disease doctor Dave Weber told the news channel.

Reports of paralysis 

However, the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has received 1,619 reports of events following COVID-19 vaccination that include paralysis or paralyzing conditions such as Guillain Barré Syndrome, transverse myelitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, and Bell’s Palsy, a condition that causes face muscles to paralyze, marked frequently by a drooping mouth and inability to close one eye. Of those reports, 794 relate to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, including 131 reports of paralysis among patients aged 30-39 years old as of April 30. The CDC stresses that VAERS reports do not establish a causal link between a vaccine and an adverse event.

Just as public health agencies say that vaccines cannot be counted on to provide full protection within two weeks of shots because the immune system has not fully responded, immune system adverse events can take time to build as the body produces antibodies.

Among the dozens of reports among those aged 18 to 29 was a physician report of a 21-year-old in Michigan who received a first dose of Moderna’s vaccine in March and subsequently began experiencing “ascending paralysis” nine days later.

The young man’s condition “rapidly escalated requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation” according to the VAERS report. He was treated for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, the report stated, and had “flaccid paralysis and lost his ability to protect his airway.” The report stated that he would likely need a tracheostomy – a surgical opening in the neck to allow air to enter the lungs via a tube.

Another physician report to VAERS described a 26-year-old who received her first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine in March and three days later began feeling numbness in her toes that spread to her legs. Five days later she noticed numbness in her fingers and her mouth and weakness in her arms. A few days after that, she noticed that her face was dropping on the right side and she went to the emergency departments where a lumbar puncture (spinal tap) test indicated Guillain-Barré Syndrome and she was started on IV immune globulin treatment.

McFadden had already been infected with the coronavirus, something Pennsylvania immunologist Hooman Noorchashm has warned about as a potential for catastrophic immune events following vaccination. He has advised people to defer vaccination if they have previously been infected or tested positive for the coronavirus.

Pfizer’s response

Pfizer has sent LifeSiteNews the following statement in response to questions about the reported incidents of paralysis following its vaccine:

We closely monitor all such events and collect relevant information to share with global regulatory authorities. At this time, our ongoing review has not identified any safety signals with paralysis and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

To date, more than 200 million people around the world have been vaccinated with our vaccine. It is important to note that serious adverse events that are unrelated to the vaccine are unfortunately likely to occur at a similar rate as they would in the general population.

*

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: Rachel Cecere, 33, told WPXI-TV news that she woke up paralyzed from the neck down 12 hours after her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. (Source: LifeSiteNews)

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 headline of the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan on November 30, 2012, page one above the fold with my photo, read “Terrell: American Drone Strikes Must Stop.”

I was served well by this article explaining my opposition to killing by remotely controlled drones, as that morning I “surrendered” myself to the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, to begin a six-month prison sentence for protesting at a drone base in Missouri earlier that year.

“While many Americans may think drone strikes are a safe way to conduct war and improve the nation’s safety, one man will go to prison in Yankton today because of his belief that they are remotely committing crimes against humanity,” the paper reported.

That first afternoon, when I walked into the prison’s library, one inmate was reading that article aloud to the others, who broke into applause when they recognized me.

It is a rare event for someone to go to prison for a federal misdemeanor like trespass and, in these days of mass incarceration and maximum-minimum sentencing, it is unusual for anyone to be incarcerated for so short a time as six months except in exchange for testifying against other accused defendants.

Having my crime and intention advertised to guards and prisoners alike saved me from the uncomfortable suspicion of being a snitch in prison. It also opened up many great discussions with my fellow inmates over those months.

The sentencing judge in this case had given me six weeks before presenting myself to the prison to put my affairs in order and I used that time traveling through Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, New York and Minnesota, speaking, protesting and organizing with other anti-drone activists.

A reporter from Missouri Public Radio called me during that time and requested an interview. She asked me a question I often hear, if I did not feel that I could do more for the cause by staying out of prison.

I responded by asking her if we would be having this interview if, instead of getting arrested and going to jail for it, I had simply called her station and expressed my concern that the United States was committing war crimes by remote control from Whiteman Air Force Base. This reporter admitted that no, there would not be any interest in talking with me if that were the case.

Terrell (left) protests drones with Colonel Ann Wright (right), at Whiteman Air Force Base in 2012. [Source: flickr.com]

The shift captain who checked me out when my sentence was completed six months later told me that, while he respected the strength of my conviction, he felt I had done my cause a disservice by going to prison.

I had irresponsibly squandered any credibility I might have had, he told me. Who will listen to a convict? Within the following six months, my platform from which to speak out about drone warfare expanded to churches, libraries, schools, universities, Quaker meeting houses and community organizations around the U.S., the United Kingdom and Germany, including Yale Divinity School, Harvard Law School and Queen’s College in Birmingham, UK.

This was not the first time I had gone to jail protesting drones. In April 2009, about the time that President Obama made the Predator Drone the key to his “war on terror,” I took part in the first protest of drone warfare anywhere, at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. Creech was where the drone wars began and where the CIA runs its clandestine program of extrajudicial executions.

Peace Groups Blockade Creech Air Force Base to Protest 'Illegal and Inhumane Remote Killing' by US Drones | Common Dreams News

Protesters temporarily block traffic outside Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. [Source: commondreams.org]

Louie Vitale, a Franciscan priest and activist with the Nevada Desert Experience, first noticed mysterious pilotless/windowless planes circling the desert while he was protesting at the Nevada nuclear test site nearby.

As a U.S. Air Force veteran of the Cold War, Louie first understood and alerted us to their grim significance. From that beginning, I have been arrested at Creech at least nine times, each time spending anywhere from a few hours to four days in the Clark County Jail in Las Vegas, one of the most squalid and cruel lockups in the country.

David Krieger, Rev. Louis Vitale, Danel Ellsberg following 2012 arrest at Vandenberg Air Force Base (Photo Credit: Jim Haber)

Louis Vitale (center), with legendary whistleblower Dan Ellsberg (right), and David Krieger, after arrest in 2012 at Vandenberg Air Force Base. [Source: oaklandvoices.us]

In February 2012, I was sentenced to ten days in the Jamestown Penitentiary for my part as one of the “Hancock 38.” The previous April we were arrested at the Syracuse, NY, civilian airport from where the New York Air National Guard flies weaponized drone missions.

Twice I joined the regular actions of the “Occupy Beale” group in California, resisting the Global Hawk surveillance drones flown from Beale Air Force Base. Each of those times, federal prosecutors dropped the charges.

I have also been arrested twice at Wisconsin’s Volk Field, where the National Guard trains soldiers to pilot the Shadow, a surveillance drone that is used for “target acquisition” for armed drones and attack helicopters and, in 2017, I was lodged quite comfortably in the Juneau County Jail for five days after refusing to pay a fine on a trespass charge.

Acts of civil resistance such as these are responses to grave crimes of the state and not crimes in themselves, even when arrest and prosecution seem the immediate outcomes. Such actions are often required, but are not the whole of a campaign for change, either. In resistance to killer drones, such tactics as petitions, billboards, teach-ins, marches, pickets have also been effectively used and more will be needed as we go forward.

Martin Luther King, Jr., explained the necessity of direct action in his 1963 Letter from the Birmingham Jail: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.”

I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.”

Nonviolent direct action is not the whole of a campaign for social betterment, but it is a necessary and indispensable component of any successful one.

These actions in Nevada, California, Missouri, New York and Wisconsin and their ensuing courtroom dramas have raised the “constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth” in their communities at least to the extent that drone violence cannot be so easily ignored. We are responsible to build on these beginnings.

At the Syracuse trial of the “Hancock 38,” former United States Attorney General Ramsey Clark was permitted to testify on our behalf on the subject of international law.

Judge Gideon, after listening to Mr. Clark speak of the Nuremberg Principles and other laws as they apply to drone warfare at length, leaned over the bench and asked him, “This is all interesting, but what is the enforcement mechanism? Who is responsible for enforcing international law?” “They are,” responded Mr. Clark, pointing to the 31 defendants, “and so,” he said to Judge Gideon, “are you!”

A person speaking into a microphone Description automatically generated with medium confidence

The Late Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark addresses a gathering of about 50 defendants and supporters in front of the DeWitt Court House where the 38 Hancock drone protesters were on trial. [Source: mediasyracuse.com]

As a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, a 25-year campaign that ended in December 2020, I was privileged to have the community support, the time and the means to join with these local cells of drone resistance around the U.S. and abroad.

A picture containing person, outdoor, people, posing Description automatically generated

Activists Brian Terrell and Ghulam Hussein Ahmadi at the Border Free Center in Kabul, Afghanistan. [Graffiti by Kabul Knight; photo by Hakim]

Voices had also raised drone awareness by organizing several “peace walks” to drone bases, hundreds of miles on foot—from Chicago to a Michigan National Guard base in Kalamazoo; from Madison, Wisconsin, to Volk Field; from Rock Island, Illinois, to the Iowa Air National Guard drone command center in Des Moines—each time meeting with community groups and talking to hundreds of people along the way.

We itinerant Voices activists had a role in informing local anti-drone groups, in part because many of us have traveled to places under attack by armed drones, including Gaza, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. I have visited Afghanistan, the nation most subjected to U.S. drone attacks and with the most drone casualties, five times between 2010 and 2018 and, with my colleagues, we have met with and often been befriended by Afghans who have lost limbs and loved ones in drone strikes.

We know many others who, fearing drone violence, have fled their village homes with their families to live in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps.

Activists from Voices in the United Kingdom have been resisting the use of armed drones by the Royal Air Force, including nonviolent resistance at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire and at factories there producing drones for Israel’s military.

CODEPINK Women for Peace anti-drone activists likewise have traveled to and established friendships in Pakistan, Palestine and other places targeted by weaponized drones.

A group of people holding signs Description automatically generated with medium confidence

CodePink founder Medea Benjamin protests drone war. [Source: codepink.org]

Banning weaponized drones is not an abstract “cause” but a real human obligation. Addressing resistance to the Vietnam War in 1966, Thomas Merton wrote, “It is the reality of personal relationships that saves everything.”

Not every anti-drone activist needs to visit war zones, just as not all of us need to go to prison, but some of us need to do both of these and it is the reality of those personal relationships that keeps our resistance from the abstractions that would otherwise suffocate it.

To learn more about the international campaign to ban killer drones, see bankillerdrones.org.

*

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

Brian Terrell is a peace activist. He can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: Brian Terrell (right), with Father Louie Vitale, at a 2009 anti-drone war protest at Creech Air Force Base, outside of Las Vegas, NV. [Source: Jeff Leys]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ban Killer Drones: International Campaign of Civil Disobedience Necessary
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since the summer of 2020 there have been consistent calls for the resignation of Detroit police chief James Craig.

Craig announced on May 10 that he was retiring from the Detroit Police Department (DPD) and would possibly seek the office of governor as a Republican candidate during 2022.

In the aftermath of the brutal police execution of George Floyd in Minneapolis, demonstrations erupted across the United States and the world.

Detroit was no exception to this phenomenon when thousands gathered outside the police headquarters downtown on a daily basis to denounce the murder of Floyd and other atrocities committed against African Americans and other oppressed peoples. After rallies featuring militant speeches, people would march through the downtown area and other neighborhoods in the majority African American municipality.

Although the movement in Detroit was highly politicized and disciplined, local law-enforcement officials at the aegis of the federal government under the leadership of former President Donald Trump, launched repeated attacks on antiracist demonstrators. In a matter of days, Detroit Will Breathe (DWB) was formed bringing together a wide spectrum of seasoned and new activists committed to fighting racism and police brutality.

Detroit police during late May and June of 2020 utilized an unwarranted curfew along with crowd control weapons such as mace, pepper spray, rubber bullets, clubs, concussion grenades and mass arrests in a failed attempt to halt the daily protests. DWB organizers and other were subjected to arbitrary arrests, beatings and the gross vilification of the movement by the administration of corporate Mayor Mike Duggan and police chief Craig.

Within a matter of weeks, a coalition of more than 40 organizations purchased a full-page ad in the Sunday Free Press denouncing the targeted brutality against DWB and other activists. Although the corporate media attempted to convince the public that the Duggan administration was supported by the people of Detroit, the demonstrations continued and were warmly welcomed by communities throughout the city where they marched on a daily basis.

DWB took a strong position against the deployment of federal forces into the city under the guise of “Operation Legend”, a law-enforcement project ostensibly designed to reduce crime and provide assistance to the police department. A U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan openly stated on a local news program that the federal government was paying the salaries of more than 30 local police officers as part of the project.

Chief Craig became a darling of FOX News while former President Trump described him as “terrific.” Meanwhile, as part of Trump’s plans to crush the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) and its counterparts around the U.S., former Attorney General William G. Barr visited Detroit during August and was given a helicopter tour by Craig.

Several days later, police viciously attacked hundreds of DWB demonstrators and spectators on Woodward avenue in the heart of downtown. People were beaten severely and arrested on spurious charges. Videotaped accounts of this incident on August 22-23, was widely circulated on social media and through various corporate entities.

A group of progressive civil rights lawyers formed a committee along with DWB activists taking their claims of brutality into federal court. Within a matter of day, the federal court had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the DPD. In addition, the suit demanded compensation for the damages incurred through illegal arrests, beatings and falsification of evidence.

A History of Racist Policing

The finding of a recent study conducted by the University of Michigan further reiterated what has been common knowledge for many years that the DPD was firmly rooted in racism and unjustifiable use of lethal force. The research report was based upon archived police and court records along with media accounts of killings by law-enforcement between 1957-1973. (See this)

During this time period, Detroit was in demographic transition where hundreds of thousands of whites were relocating to suburban areas as well as leaving the city and state altogether. The policy of successive mayoral administrations in the post-World War II period were openly designed to contain the African American population in Detroit in a manner in which their political representation and economic growth would be ruthlessly suppressed.

After the 1943 racial unrest and the conclusion of the War, a Detroit urban renewal plan took effect extending from the late 1940s to the 1960s. Entire neighborhoods and small commercial districts were destroyed forcing hundreds of thousands to relocate while abolishing jobs and social institutions which would never be fully recovered.

Nonetheless, the consistent racist municipal governance strategies prompted outrage which exploded during the early morning hours of July 23, 1967. The following week represented the largest and most violent urban rebellion in the history of the U.S. which was led by African Americans. By 1973, the city would elect its first African American Mayor Coleman Young, a veteran labor organizer and communist who instituted affirmative action within the civil service and the police while attempting to recorrect decades of discrimination and exploitation.

The police in Detroit were a key element in enforcing the racist divisions related to unequal job opportunities, city services and access to public offices. Black people were routinely stopped, frisked, beaten, jailed, framed and murdered by the police. By 1972-73, the city was on the verge of another rebellion, perhaps even more violent, when the Young administration took power after the November 1973 municipal elections.

An article published by the Boston Review discusses the U-M Study entitled “Detroit Under Fire: Police Violence, Crime Politics, and the Struggle for Racial Justice in the Civil Rights Era.” The research report includes the mapping of police violence in Detroit during the time period in question.

The Boston Review analysis by Matthew D. Lassiter says:

“Anyone seeking to give a complete accounting of the history of Detroit police violence faces significant hurdles. We know that DPD officers killed at least 219 civilians between 1957 and 1973, but this is definitely an undercount. The real number is unknown and ultimately unknowable. There is not even an official public tally of killings by on-duty officers, and the identities of their victims can only be uncovered through fortunate discoveries in non-police archives, including newspapers…. Revisiting the civil rights era in the urban North is a good place to start because activists went to extraordinary lengths to document police violence and to demand community control over the systems designed to disguise and justify it.”

Defunding and the Abolition of Policing: A Foundational Component of African American Liberation

Although Craig’s resignation is a manifestation of the movement which has gained momentum over the last year, it will by no means end police misconduct and brutality in Detroit. Craig’s announcement of his allegiance to the Republican Party does not surprise activists. His close affinity with the Trump administration and the corporate rulers of Detroit such as Dan Gilbert’s Quicken Loans and Illitch Holdings, is also shared by Duggan, who self-identifies as a Democrat.

Both Duggan and Craig are functionaries of the racist capitalist system which is committed to the continuing national oppression and super exploitation of African Americans and other people of color communities. Duggan’s installation as mayor during the illegal emergency management and bankruptcy of Detroit in 2013-2014 was an integral part of the ruling class aims of maintaining the control of the banks and multinational corporations over the city.

With the municipal elections of 2021 taking place in August and November, Duggan is seeking to put distance between himself and Craig. However, his class bias in favor of the ruling interests can never be doubted.

Just days prior to the departure of Craig, the Moratorium NOW! Coalition (MNC) issued a statement demanding his resignation. This effort came in the aftermath of Craig’s attacks on U.S. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of the 13th District, demanding her resignation for stating that policing, as has been historically known in the U.S., should be abolished.

The MNC statement said:

“Craig betrays our trust; and his actions, his comments, and in particular his police department’s policies and practices, harm the residents of Detroit. As an employee of the City of Detroit, Craig is using public resources to attack our elected official. This is unethical. Where is the Mayor of Detroit?  Why is Mayor Duggan allowing his appointee to go rogue? Is Craig speaking for the Mayor? We join the many community groups who last year called for Chief Craig’s resignation. We, the residents of Detroit, call for Chief Craig’s resignation today! Chief Craig has taken positions against the people of Detroit. Report after report cites Detroit Police Department’s harmful treatment of Black Lives Matter protesters. The City even took protesters to court in a failed attempt to intimidate the movement. The City and Chief Craig did not prevail in court.”

Progressive forces in Detroit have welcomed Craig’s resignation. However, the struggle to end racist policing will continue in the city and around the U.S.

*

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: Detroit May Day 2021 march with Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Detroit Will Breathe, among others (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

First published on July 14, 2012.

What Prof. James Petras described nine years ago as a “highly intrusive and deeply entrenched police state” is unfolding (at a global level) under the corona crisis with the lockdown policies, the digital vaccine passport coupled with the militarization of law enforcement and the repeal of civil liberties. 

***

Introduction

The United States has experienced the biggest political upheaval in its recent history: the transformation of a burgeoning welfare state into a rapidly expanding, highly intrusive and deeply entrenched police state, linked to the most developed technological innovations.

The ‘Great Transformation’ occurred exclusively from above, organized by the upper echelons of the civil and military bureaucracy under the direction of the Executive and his National Security Council. The ‘Great Transformation’ was not a single event but a process of the accumulation of powers, via executive fiats, supported and approved by compliant Congressional leaders. At no time in the recent and distant past has this nation witnessed the growth of such repressive powers and the proliferation of so many policing agencies engaged in so many areas of life over such a prolonged period of time (a time of virtually no internal mass dissent). Never has the executive branch of government secured so many powers to detain, interrogate, kidnap and assassinate its own citizens without judicial restraint.

Police state dominance is evident in the enormous growth of the domestic security and military budget, the vast recruitment of security and military personnel, the accumulation of authoritarian powers curtailing individual and collective freedoms and the permeation of national cultural and civic life with the almost religious glorification of the agents and agencies of militarism and the police state as evidenced at mass sporting and entertainment events.

The drying up of resources for public welfare and services is a direct result of the dynamic growth of the police state apparatus and military empire. This could only take place through a sustained direct attack against the welfare state – in particular against public funding for programs and agencies promoting the health, education, pensions, income and housing for the middle and working class.

The Ascendancy of the Police State

Central to the rise of the police state and the consequent decline of the welfare state have been the series of imperial wars, especially in the Middle East , launched by every President from Bush (father), Clinton, Bush (son) and Obama. These wars, aimed exclusively against Muslim countries, were accompanied by a wave of repressive ‘anti-terrorist’ laws and implemented through the rapid build-up of the massive police state apparatus, known as ‘Homeland Security’.

The leading advocates and propagandists of overseas militarism against countries with large Muslim populations and the imposition of a domestic police-state have been dedicated Zionists promoting wars designed to enhance Israel ’s overwhelming power in the Middle East . These American Zionists (including dual US-Israeli citizens) secured strategic positions within the US police state apparatus in order to terrify and repress activists, especially American Muslims and immigrants critical of the state of Israel .

The events of 9/11//01 served as the detonator for the biggest global military launch since WWII, and the most pervasive expansion of police state powers in the history of the United States . The bloody terror of 9/11/2001 was manipulated to institute a pre-planned agenda – transforming the US into a police state while launching a decade- long series of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and, now, Syria as well as covert proxy wars against Iran and Lebanon. The military budget exploded and government deficits ballooned while social programs and welfare were denigrated and dismantled as the ‘Global War on Terror’ swung into full gear. Programs, designed to maintain or raise living standards for millions and increase access to services for the poor and working class, fell victim to ‘9/11’.

As the wars in the Middle East took center-stage, the US economy tanked. On the domestic front vital public investment in education, infrastructure, industry and civilian innovations were slashed. Hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars flowed into the war zones, paying mercenaries (private contractors), buying off corrupt puppet regimes and providing a golden opportunity for military procurement officers and their private contractor-cronies to run up (and pocket) huge billion dollar cost overruns.

As a result, US military policy vis a vis the Middle East, military policy, which at one time had been designed to promote American imperial economic interests, now took on a life of its own: wars and sanctions against Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya had undermined profitable oil contracts negotiated by US multi-nationals while enhancing militarism. Indeed, the Zionist-Israeli power configuration in the United States has become far more influential in directing US Middle East military policy than any combination of Big Oil – and all to the benefit of Israeli regional power.

Imperial Wars and the Demise of the Welfare State

From the end of World War II to the end of the 1970’s, the US managed to successfully combine overseas imperial wars with an expanding welfare state at home. In fact, the last major pieces of welfare legislation took place during the bloody, costly US-Indo-Chinese war, under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. The economic basis of welfare-militarism was the powerful industrial-technological foundations of the US war-machine and its dominance over world markets. Subsequently, the declining competitive position of the US in the world-economy and the massive relocation of US-MNC (and their jobs) overseas strained the ‘marriage’ of domestic welfare and militarism to the breaking point. Fiscal and trade deficits loomed even as the demands for welfare and unemployment payments grew in part because of the shift from stable well-paid manufacturing jobs to low paid-service work. While the global US economic position declined, its global military expansion accelerated as a result of the demise of the Communist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe and the incorporation of the new regimes of the former Eastern bloc into the US-dominated NATO military alliance.

The demise of the Communist states led to the end of competing global welfare systems and allowed capitalists and the imperial state to slash welfare to fund their massive global military expansion. There was virtually no opposition from labor: the gradual conversion of Western trade unions into highly authoritarian organizations run by self-perpetuating millionaire ‘leaders’ and the reduction of trade union membership from 30% of the work force in 1950 to less than 11% by 2012 (with over 91% of private sector workers without any representation) meant that American workers have been powerless to organize strikes to protect their jobs, let alone apply political pressure in defense of public programs and welfare.

Militarism was on the ascendency when President Jimmy Carter launched his multi-billion dollar ‘secret war’ against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan and President Ronald Reagan initiated a series of ‘proxy wars’ throughout Central America and Southern Africa and sent the US Marines into the tiny island of Grenada. Reagan oversaw the escalation of military spending boasting that he would ‘bankrupt’ the Soviet Union with a new ‘arms race’. President George Bush, Sr. invaded Panama and then Iraq , the first of many US invasions in the Middle East . President Bill Clinton accelerated the military thrust, along the way slashing public welfare in favor of ‘private workfare’, bombing and destroying Yugoslavia, bombing and starving Iraq while establishing colonial enclaves in Northern Iraq and expanding the US military presence in Somalia and the Persian Gulf.

The constraints on US militarism imposed by the massive popular anti-Vietnam War movement and the US military defeat by the Vietnamese Communists, were gradually eroded, as successful short term wars (like Grenada and Panama ) undermined the Vietnam Syndrome –public opposition to militarism. This prepared the American public for incremental militarism while chipping away at the welfare system.

If Reagan and Bush built the foundation for the new militarism, Bill Clinton provided three decisive elements: together with Vice-President Al Gore, Clinton legitimized the war on welfarism, stigmatizing public assistance and mobilized support from religious and political leaders in the black community and the AFL-CIO. Secondly, Clinton was key to the ‘financialization’ of the US economy, by de-regulating the financial system (repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933) and appointing Wall Street financiers at the helm of national economic policy. Thirdly, Clinton appointed leading Zionists to the key foreign policy positions related to the Middle East, allowing them to insert Israel ’s military view of reality into strategic decision-making in Washington . Clinton put in place the first series of repressive police state ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation and expanded the national prison system. In sum, Bill Clinton’s Middle East war policies, his ‘financialization’ of the US economy, his ‘war on terror’, his Zionist orientation towards the Arab world and, above all, his own ideological anti-welfarism led directly to Bush Junior’s full scale conversion of the welfare state into the police state .

Exploiting the trauma of 9/11, the Bush and later the Obama regimes nearly tripled the military budget and launched serial wars against Arab states. The military budget rose from $359 billion in 2000, to $544 billion in 2004 and escalated to $903 billion in 2012. Military expenditures financed major foreign military occupations and colonial administrations in Iraq and Afghanistan , border wars in Pakistan and US Special Forces covert operations (including kidnappings and assassinations) in Yemen , Somalia , Iran and seventy-five other countries world-wide.

Meanwhile financial speculation ran rampant, budget deficits ballooned, living standards plunged, international trade deficits reached record levels and public debt doubled in fewer than eight years. Multiple imperial wars dragged on without end; the costs of these wars multiplied while the financial bubble burst. The contradiction between domestic welfare and militarism exploded. Finally, the massive roll back of basic social programs for all American topped the Presidential and legislative agenda.

Previous ‘untouchable programs’ like Social Security, Medicare, the US Post Office, public sector employment, services to the poor, elderly and handicapped and food stamps were all put on the butcher’s block. At the same time the federal government increased its funding of private military and police contractors (mercenaries) overseas and extended the scope and depth of US Special Forces clandestine operations. Bush-Obama vastly increased spending for the military and espionage agents in support of wildly unpopular, brutal collaborator regimes in Pakistan and Yemen . They funded and armed foreign mercenaries in Libya , Syria , Iran , and Somalia . By the first decade of the new century it had become clear that imperial militarism and domestic welfarism were in a zero sum game: as imperial wars multiplied, domestic programs were slashed.

The severity and depth of the cuts to popular domestic welfare programs were only in part the result of imperial wars; equally important was the huge increase in the funding for personnel and surveillance technology for the burgeoning police state at home.

The Origins of the Conversion of the Welfare State to the Police State

The precipitous decline of the welfare state and the dismantling of social services, public education and access to affordable health care for the working and middle classes cannot be explained by the demise of organized labor, nor is it due to the ‘right-turn’ of the Democratic Party. Two other deep structural changes loom large as fundamental to the proces: the transformation of the US economy from a competitive manufacturing economy into a ‘FIRE’ (finance, insurance and real estate) economy; and secondly, the rise of a vast police legal-political-administrative state apparatus engaged in permanent ‘internal warfare’ at home, designed to sustain and complement permanent imperial warfare abroad.

Agencies and personnel of the police state expanded dramatically during the first decade of the new century. The police state penetrated telecommunications systems, patrolled and controlled transport outlets; dominated judicial procedures and oversaw the major ‘news outlets’, academic and professional associations. The expanded police state covertly and overtly entered the private lives of tens of millions of Americans.

The loss to taxpayers in terms of citizen rights and the welfare state has been staggering.

As the biggest and most intrusive component of the police state apparatus, christened ‘Homeland Security’, grew exponentially, the budget and agencies providing welfare and public services, health, education and unemployment shrank. Tens of thousands of domestic spies have been hired and costly intrusive spyware has been purchased with tax-payer money, while hundreds of thousands of teachers and public health and social welfare professionals have lost their jobs.

The Department of Homeland Security (as of the end of 2011) is composed of approximately 388,000 employees, including both federal and contracted agents. Between 2011-2013 the DHS budget of $173 billion has faced no serious cuts. Homeland Security’s rapid expansion occurred at the expense of Health and Human Services, education and the Social Security Administration, which currently face large scale ‘retrenchment’.

Among the top officials, appointed by the Bush, Jr. Administration to key positions in the police state apparatus, there are two who have been the most influential in setting policy: Michael Chertoff and Michael Mukasey.

Michael Chertoff headed the Criminal Division of the Justice Department (from 2001 – 2003). During that time he was responsible for the arbitrary arrest of thousands of US citizens and immigrants of Muslim and South Asian heritage, who were held incommunicado without charge and subject to physical and psychological abuse – without a single resident alien or Muslim US citizen linked to 9/11. In contrast, Chertoff quickly intervened to free scores of Israeli spy suspects and 5 Israeli Mossad agents who had been witnessed filming and celebrating the destruction of the World Trade Center and were under active investigation by the FBI. More than any other official, Michael Chertoff has been the chief architect of the ‘Global War on Terror’ – co-author of the notorious ‘Patriot Act’ which trashed habeas corpus and other essential components of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. As Secretary of Homeland Security from 2005-2009, Chertoff promoted ‘military tribunals’ and organized the vast internal spy network, which now preys on private US citizens.

Michael Mukasey, the Bush-appointed US Attorney General, was an enthusiastic defender of the Patriot Act, supporting military tribunals, torture and overseas assassinations of individual suspected of what he called ‘Islamic terrorism’ without trial.

Both Chertoff and Mukasey are zealous Zionists with longstanding ties to Israel . Michael Chertoff was believed to hold dual US-Israeli citizenship as he launched the Administration domestic war on US citizens.

A cursory review of the origins and direction of the police-state apparatus and the top echelons of the global war on ‘Islamic terrorism’ – code languages for military imperialism – reveals a disproportionate number of Israel-Firsters, who placed greater importance on persecuting potential US critics of the Middle East wars for Israel than in upholding Constitutional guarantees and the Bill of Rights.

Back in ‘civilian’ life, Michael Chertoff profited greatly from the bogus ‘War on Terror’ promoting radioactive and degrading body scanning technology in airports throughout the US and Europe.He established his own security consulting firm Chertoff Groups (2009) to represent the manufacturers of surveillance body scanners. Americans can thank Michael Chertoff every time they pass through the humiliation of an airport body scan.

The fusion of the police state apparatus with the industrial-security complex and its prominent overseas links with its corporate security counterparts in the state of Israel , underscores the imperial state’s ties to the Israeli military establishment.

As the police state has grown it has created a powerful lobby of high tech surveillance industry backers and beneficiaries who push federal and state ‘security’ spending at the expense welfare programs.

The police state’s squeeze on social programs, education and welfare has a powerful ally on Wall Street, which emerged as the dominant sector of US capital in terms of access to and influence over US Treasury and its budgetary allocations.

Unlike the manufacturing sector, financial capital does not need a population of educated, healthy and productive workers. Its own ‘labor force’ is composed of a small educated elite of speculators, analysts, traders and brokers at the top and middle levels and a small army of ‘contract’ office sweepers, secretaries and menial workers at the bottom. They have their own ‘invisible’ army of domestic servants, cooks, caterers, gardeners and nannies devoid of any ‘Social Security’, health coverage and pension plans. And the financial sector has its own private networks of doctors and clinics, schools, communications systems and messengers, estates and clubs, and security agencies and body guards; it needs not an educated, skilled public sector; and it certainly does not want national wealth to support high quality public health and educational systems. It has no interest in supporting this mass of public institutions which it views as an obstacle to ‘freeing up’ vast amounts of public wealth for speculation. In other words, the dominant sector of capital has no objection to ‘Homeland Security’; indeed it shares many sentiments with the proponents of the police state and supports the shrinking the welfare state. It is concerned about lowering taxes on finance capital and increasing Federal bail-out funds for Wall Street while controlling the impoverished citizenry.

Conclusion

The conversion of a welfare state to a police state is the result of militarized imperialism abroad and the ascendancy of finance capital at home, as well as the proliferation of security state agencies and related private industries and the strategic role of rightwing Zionists in top positions of the police state apparatus.

This convergence of international and domestic structural changes took hold during the 1980’s and 1990’s and then accelerated during the first decade of the 21st century. The downgrading of the vast public services of the welfare state was covered up by a massive government propaganda campaign to promote the ‘global war on terror’ together with a fabricated widespread domestic ‘terrorist threat’ involving the most hapless of suspects (including oddball Haitian millenarianists entrapped by FBI agents). The supporters and beneficiaries of the welfare state found themselves on the margins of any national debate. The mass media/regime propaganda campaign demanded and successfully secured massive increases in centralized powers of domestic policing, surveillance, provocations, disappearances and arrests. Throughout the past decade what the welfare state lost in support and funding, the police state gained. The rise of financial capital and the deregulation of the financial system crowded out any public subsidies to promote and sustain the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector. This has led to a major break in the links between industry, labor and the welfare state. Huge tax write-offs to big business, combined with the growth in expenditures for a non-productive police state bureaucracy and the series of costly overseas wars, has caused unsustainable budget and trade deficits, which then became the pretext to further savage the welfare state.

Significant political, cultural and ideological shifts have aided the rise of the police state over the public welfare state. The success of prominent American Zionists in securing power within key media propaganda mills and obtaining appointments to critical position in the top echelons of the police state apparatus, judiciary and in the imperial state bureaucracy (Treasury and State Department) has put Israel’s colonial interests and its own police-state apparatus at the center of US politics. The US police state has adopted Israeli-styled repression targeting US citizens and residents.

US society is now split into two sectors: the ‘winners’ linked to the expanding and lucrative financial – security complex embedded in the police state while the ‘losers’, tied to the manufacturing – welfare sector, are relegated to an increasingly marginalized ‘civil society’. The police state purges dissidents who question the ‘Israel-First doctrine’ of the US security-military apparatus. The financial sector, embedded in its own luxurious ‘cocoon’ of private services, demands the total gutting of public services directed toward the poor, working and middle classes. The public treasury has been taken over in order to finance bank bailouts, imperial wars and police state agencies while paying the bondholders of US debt.

Social Security is on target to be privatized. Pensions are to be reduced, delayed and self-financed. Food stamps, access to affordable health care and unemployment support will be slashed. The police state cannot pay for glitzy new repressive technologies, greater policing, more intrusive surveillance, arrests and prisons while financing the existing welfare state with its vast educational, health and human services and pension benefits.

In sum, there is no future for social welfare in the United States within its powerful financial-imperial-police state system. Both major political parties nurture this system, support serial wars, appeal to the financial elites and debate over the size, scope and timing for further cuts in social welfare.

The American social welfare system was a product of an earlier phase of US capitalism where US global industrial supremacy allowed for both military spending and welfare support and where US military spending was constrained by the demands of the domestic socio-economic sectors of manufacturing capital and ‘labor’. In an earlier phase Zionist influence was based on wealthy individuals and their congressional ‘lobby’ — they did not occupy key Federal policymaking positions setting the agendas for war in the Middle East and domestic police state.

Times have changed for the worse: a police state, linked to militarism and perpetual imperial wars in the Middle East has gained ascendancy and now impacts our everyday life. Underlying both the growth of the police state and the erosion of the welfare state is the rise of an inter-locking ‘financial-security power elite’, held together by a common ideology, unprecedented private wealth and the relentless drive to monopolize the public treasury to the detriment of the vast majority of Americans. A confrontation and full exposure of all the self-serving propaganda, which undergirds the power elite is an essential first step. The enormous budgets for imperial wars are the greatest threat to US welfare. The police state erodes real public services and undermines social movements. Finance capital pillages the public treasury demanding bailouts and subsidies for the banks. Israeli Firsters, in key decision-making positions, serve the interests of a foreign police state against the interests of the American people. The state of Israel is the mirror opposite of what we Americans want for ourselves and our children: a free and independent secular republic without colonial settlements, clerical racism, and destructive self-serving militarism.

Today the fight to restore the advances in citizens’ welfare established through public programs of the recent past requires that we transform an entire structure of power: true welfare reform requires a revolutionary strategy and, above all, a grass-roots mass movement breaking with the entrenched ‘two party’ regime tied to the financial- imperial- internal security system.

Inflation Myths and the US Economic Rebound 2021

May 13th, 2021 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

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, May 12, 2021 the US Labor Department released its report on businesses now raising prices, as the US economy reopens in the wake of Covid vaccinations and moderating Covid infections. The CPI, or Consumer Price Index, rose 0.8% in April, after a 0.6% in March, and 4.2% for the twelve months ending last month, April 2021, which was the largest increase since 2008.

Republicans, conservatives, and business interests are using the fact of recent rising prices to attack legislative proposals to increase government spending. They argue the recently passed $1.8 trillion ‘American Rescue Plan’ (Covid Relief Plan) by the Biden administration was too generous. And proposals to spend on Infrastructure ($2.2T) and American Families ($1.5T) will only stoke consumer spending and boost inflation further.

They and their mainstream media friends are arguing that fiscal stimulus putting money in the hands of households is driving up prices. In other words, consumer DEMAND is now causing prices to rise sharply, they argue.

But is it? Or is the problem of rising inflation a business SUPPLY problem?

Inflation Not Due to Fiscal Spending & Household Demand

There is little evidence that fiscal stimulus spending is responsible for recent price hikes. The fiscal stimulus spending for 2021 is far less than reported, so its effect on household Demand spending—and therefore Inflation—is thus far minimal. The recently passed American Rescue Plan is not actually $1.9T, as media reports.  The Congressional Budget Office, the research arm of Congress, reports that only $1 trillion in spending is even authorized for 2021. And of that, at least $200 billion or more won’t be spent in fact: it will be hoarded and unspent by households and local governments or used to pay down debt and won’t get into the US economy in 2021. The majority of the remaining $800 billion hasn’t even hit the US economy yet and won’t until late 2021. And what about the Infrastructure and Family Assistance subsequent proposals?

They’re just on paper. And won’t get passed until sometime in 2022, if then, and certainly reduced in authorized spending by large amounts. In short, the Republican-Business hype about $6 trillion going to households and consumers is just another ‘big lie’. It’s no more than $800 billion—that is, just about the amount of similar fiscal spending in 2020 that dissipated in just two to three months. Put another way, the fiscal ‘stimulus’ is not really a stimulus—just a ‘mitigation’ spending measure designed to put a floor under the economy while waiting (and hoping) for the reopening of the economy to generate a sustained recovery.

A fiscal spending of at most $800 billion this year—which has hardly even hit the US economy yet—is not sufficient to generate excess demand by households to cause inflation. So much, therefore, for the argument that government fiscal spending is causing excess household DEMAND spending that is resulting in current inflation!

Inflation Due to Business Supply Problems

A closer look at the CPI shows that the problem of recent rising prices is a SUPPLY problem in business, not a DEMAND problem due to households’ excess income.

Much of the recent CPI increase, when broken down, is due to sharp increases in auto prices, especially used cars. That is a supply problem: auto companies are experiencing a crisis in obtaining semiconductor chips for production. New car production has fallen. That’s created a shortage that allows the companies to jack up prices on their new cars. In turn, it has resulted in used car prices rising even further and faster than new cars. New car prices have surged 9.6% and used cars even more, by 16.7%, according to the Wall St. Journal.  Auto prices have surged 21% of the past year. April’s car and truck double digit price hikes—the highest since 1953—thus account for more than a third of the overall 4.2% April CPI increase!

The 2020 economic contraction resulted in businesses reducing their inventories of unsold goods deeply. They now have shortages. Recent US GDP numbers show inventories collapsed last year and continued to contract in the first quarter of 2021 as well. This has created a condition that now allows businesses to sharply raise prices due to the shortages of supply. This is a condition and problem across many industries and companies today.

Businesses in 2020 were not able to raise prices due to the massive unemployment and inability of consumers to spend as the economy was largely shut down.  Service industries like airlines, travel, lodging, entertainment, restaurants & bars, and retail were especially hard hit. In response, many of the companies in these industries cut prices in order to try to capture what little household demand there was.  Now, as the US economy reopens, they are trying to recoup those losses by sharply raising prices, trying to test what the market will bear in terms of inflation.

Looking at the recent CPI numbers once again, apart from auto prices new and used, the sharpest increases in the CPI index are occurring in airline prices, other travel related prices, hotels and lodging, and similar services—all rising recently at more than 10%!  At the same time, auto insurance companies and utility companies are raising prices by double digits as they price gouge consumer in the recovery. Consumers aren’t buying more utilities. That demand remains stable. Nevertheless, the big utility companies are using the opportunity to boost prices. The auto insurance companies experienced a big windfall in profits in 2020, as households drove less and their insurance premiums remained at pre-pandemic levels. But now they too are raising prices by double digits to ‘game’ the system. Then there’s the oil companies sharply boosting prices at the pump to recoup their losses in 2020.

Not to be left out, in addition to these supply driven causes, new housing prices are surging as well as shortages in lumber and other materials, and due to the low availability of housing stock. In other words, a SUPPLY problem, causing inflation!

Global Markets As Cause of Inflation

Wholesale prices for commodities like aluminum, copper, and crude oil are all rising sharply as well, as investor speculators buy up futures contracts to resell later at a big profit. These now rising wholesale prices will soon penetrate consumer prices, causing retail price inflation. But that means the problem once again is not the household consumer and demand; it is the professional financial speculator causing most of the current rising world commodity price inflation.

And then there’s the problem of the falling US dollar, which drives up imported goods prices (in the CPI), which has nothing to do with household demand either.  The Federal Reserve US central bank has a policy of keeping interest rates at near zero.  It has pumped more than $4 trillion into banks the past 18 months; and continues to provide $120 billion every month to ensure rates stay low. This policy and subsidization of low interest rates has resulted in less foreign investor demand for US dollars to buy US Treasury bonds that pay little interest. That reduced demand for dollars drives down the value of the US dollar. And that lower valued dollar in turn, raises the cost and price of imported goods coming to the US. Import prices of goods in the CPI therefore rise in turn and contribute to the general increase in the CPI. In short, the falling dollar is a cause of inflation that has nothing at all to do with excess household demand for goods due to fiscal spending.

Problems with the CPI as Indicator of Inflation

How reliable is the CPI, in general, and especially as a measure of economy-wide inflation?

The answer is not very.  There are major problems with the CPI as an accurate indicator of the price level—i.e. of inflation. Here’s just some of them:

First, the CPI is not even an indicator of the general price level and inflation, as economists well know. It is an indicator of the cost of living for urban households only.  Cost of living and inflation/price level are not the same thing,  contrary to the general public’s understanding of the two concepts.

The CPI measures only around 450 different ‘goods and services’ in the economy—i.e. the most purchased by urban households. There are millions of different goods and services in the US economy with prices, none of which are included in the CPI but are part of the general price level.

Second, unknown by the general public, the US government keeps secret how it calculates most of the CPI. Why so? It says it does that in order not to reveal how businesses raise prices because it would reduce competition among businesses. But that’s nonsense. Most businesses, especially the larger corporations, know full well how their competitors raise prices.

The US government reveals more detail about how it calculates employment and unemployment, but keeps secret most of its methods secret how it manipulates CPI raw data. It does that, in my opinion, in order to ‘low-ball’ inflation. It has an incentive to under-estimate the CPI. The higher the inflation, the more the government must spend in cost of living for social security, food stamps, school lunches, government pensions, and so forth. So it prefers to low ball inflation and does so in a number of way. Unlike employment stats, it also avoids segmenting inflation by race, age, gender, and income levels. That would show how CPI inflation more seriously impacts minority and low income households.

Third, the CPI measures the increase in inflation compared to a similar month or quarter in the previous year. So if prices were falling last spring 2020 due to the severe economic contraction, prices this spring 2021 appear especially high.  Businesses are recouping price cuts (deflation) last year, so price increases appear even higher this year. In other words, it matters what ‘base year’ is used to estimate the CPI (or any inflation index for that matter). The CPI can be either higher or lower depending on what base year is used. And if the base year was deflationary, with falling prices as was 2020, then the subsequent year, 2021, inflation and CPI appear exceptionally higher than otherwise.

Apart from the CPI not being an actual measure of the general price level and its methods for estimating inflation kept a secret, there are further problems with the CPI itself. Here’s just a few:

1. The CPI’s basket of 450 or so goods and services have weights assigned for the various goods and services. In other words, the cost of lodging weighs more in the final CPI calculation than does, for example, the cost of smart phones. But the weights are changed only every 4 or 5 years. The cost of food, autos or housing may surge significantly in any given year (now occurring) but their weights are not changed to reflect the increase. The CPI is thus under-estimated for that year. Moreover, the weights are not segmented by household income levels. So for the median or even more for the working poor households, the cost of rents result in an even greater inflation effect than for, say, wealthier households. The poor are impacted by inflation more as a result. Their CPI cost of living is thus much higher than the general CPI number

2. The CPI makes adjustments for rising quality of goods. For example, even though the cost of a new iphone may be higher this year for the buyer, because the new iphone has more features and functions, the government calculates a zero rise in price or even a price deduction for smartphones in its overall CPI calculation. The buyer-consumer may experience an actual price hike, but it doesn’t show up in the CPI as such.

3. There’s also what’s called the ‘substitution bias’ problem in the CPI.  This happens when prices rise for a product in the CPI basket and the consumer responds by not buying that higher priced good and buys instead a lower cost substitute. There’s an actual increase in the price level for that original good that isn’t captured in the CPI because it isn’t purchased.

4. New goods and services that are created in the economy and their inflation are not captured because they may be not yet included in the 450 basket of goods and services of the CPI. Their prices and inflation are for certain part of the general price level rise, but aren’t reflected in the CPI. And remember, there are millions of goods and services not included in the CPI.

Add to these issues and problems, there is no adjustment for the value of the dollar falling, or for the fact the CPI measures only urban cost of living, or there is no segmentation that would show lower income households’ CPI are higher, the CPI excludes altogether certain important items that account for inflation: there’s no mortgage rates estimated in the CPI or rising income taxes. And many economists argue the CPI still significantly underestimates price increases for online shopping.

Summary

All the hype from Republicans and mainstream media that the recent, and pending, fiscal stimulus spending is driving up inflation has no basis in fact. It is an argument designed to be used to block and roll back the spending that would benefit households and consumption. That argument assumes the emerging inflation is a household DEMAND driven problem. On the contrary, rising prices are far more a business SUPPLY problem. Businesses are using the supply shortages as an excuse to boost prices, and to test how much the markets will allow, to generate and recoup 2020 losses and price cuts during the pandemic.  A detailed look at recent CPI numbers shows the biggest increases in prices are due to shortages in supply and those business sectors trying to recoup losses. Other businesses without losses in 2020 are going along and doing the same, using the rising prices as a cover to raise their prices as well.

The Biden fiscal spending is a small fraction of what the opponents claim. Only $800 billion will be spent in 2021 (and likely less as more workers leave unemployment benefits for jobs). It’s not $6 trillion as the business media in particular likes to tout. $5 trillion of that claim is just talk of legislation that won’t hit the economy until 2022 or after, or not at all, and the remainder of the Biden American Rescue Plan of $1.8T is spread out over 10 years!

Finally, the CPI is not an indicator of inflation and has a number of serious limits when it comes even to estimating the cost of living for US households. In general, moreover, it grossly under-estimates even the cost of living and is not a reflection of rising general prices and inflation.

Inflation will rise in 2021, for certain. But it will be more due to business practices and SUPPLY problems as well as other global conditions—and all that has little to do with consumer demand and government fiscal spending programs or legislation.

Nonetheless the US economic ideology machine, and its mainstream media conduit, will continue to pump out the fiction and myth that it’s government spending and excess US middle class and working class household demand that is the problem behind inflation.

*

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

Dr. Rasmus blogs at http://jackrasmus.com.

He hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio network. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus. His various books and articles are available for download at his website, http://kyklosproductions.com including his most recent book, The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump, Clarity Press, 2020.

Featured image is from Pixabay

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We repost this article first published in 2014 to commemorate the 73rd anniversary of the Nakba.

***

For 66 years Israel’s founding generation has lived with a guilty secret, one it successfully concealed from the generations that followed. Forests were planted to hide war crimes. School textbooks mythologised the events surrounding Israel’s creation. The army was blindly venerated as the most moral in the world.

Once, “Nakba” – Arabic for “Catastrophe”, referring to the dispossession of the Palestinian homeland in 1948 – would have failed to register with any but a small number of Israeli Jews. Today, only those who never watch television or read a newspaper can plead ignorance.

As marches and festivals are held today by Palestinians across the region to mark Nakba Day – commemorating the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and the erasure of more than 500 villages – Israelis will be watching.

In fact, the Israeli media have been filled with references to the Nakba for the past 10 days, since Israel celebrated its Independence Day last week. The two anniversaries do not quite coincide because Israel marks its founding according to the Hebrew calendar.

While Israeli Jews were trying to enjoy guilt-free street parties last week, news reports focused on the activities of their compatriots – the Palestinians who remained inside the new state of Israel and now comprise a fifth of the population. Estimates are that one in four of these 1.5 million Palestinian citizens is from a family internally displaced by the 1948 war.

More than 20,000 staged a “March of Return” to one destroyed village, Lubya, buried under a forest near Tiberias and close to a major Israeli highway. Long tailbacks forced thousands of Israeli Jews to get a close-up view as they crawled past the biggest nakba procession in Israel’s history.

For others, images of the marchers waving Palestinian flags and massively outnumbering Israeli police and a counter-demonstration by Jewish nationalists were seen on TV news, websites and social media.

The assault on Israel’s much cherished national mythology is undoubted. And it reflects the rise of a new generation of Palestinians no longer willing to defer to their more cautious, and traumatised, elders, those who directly experienced the events of 1948.

These youth see themselves as representing not only their immediate relatives but Palestinians in exile who have no chance to march back to their village. Many of Lubya’s refugees ended up in Yarmouk camp in Damascus, where they are suffering new horrors, caught in the midst of Syria’s civil war.

Palestinians in Israel are also being galvanised into action by initiatives like prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to legislate Israel as a Jewish state. They see this as the latest phase of an ongoing nakba – an attempt to erase their nativeness, just as the villages were once disappeared.

Palestinians are making a noise about the Nakba on every possible front – and not just on Nakba Day. Last week media around the world reported on one such venture: a phone app called iNakba that maps the hundreds of destroyed villages across Israel. Briefly it became one of the most popular iPhone downloads, connecting refugees through new technology. iNakba visibly restores a Palestine that Israel hoped literally to have wiped off the map.

The app is the initiative of Zochrot, an Israeli organisation that is jointly run by Jews and Palestinians. They have been finding ever more creative and provocative ways to grab headlines.

They arrange regular visits to destroyed villages that a growing number of curious Israeli Jews are participating in, often in the face of vehement opposition from the communities built on the rubble of Palestinian homes.

Zochrot has created a Hebrew information pack on the Nakba for teachers, though education officials ban it. Last year it staged the first Nakba film festival in Tel Aviv. It is also creating an archive of filmed interviews with Israeli veteran fighters prepared to admit their part in expulsions.

Zochrot also held last year the first-ever conference in Israel discussing not just the principle but how to put into practice a right of return for the millions of Palestinian refugees across the region.

Palestinian youth are taking up the idea enthusiastically. Architects are designing plans for new communities that would house the refugees on or near their old lands.

Refugee families are trying to reclaim mosques and churches, usually the only buildings still standing. Israeli media reported last month that internal refugees had been attacked as they held a baptism in their former church at al-Bassa, now swamped by the Jewish town of Shlomi.

Workshops have been arranged among refugee groups to imagine what a right of return might look like. Youth from two Christian villages, Iqrit and Biram, have already set up camps at their old churches, daring Israel to hound them out like their grandparents. Another group, I Won’t Remain a Refugee, is looking to export this example to other villages.

The size of the march to Lubya and the proliferation of these initiatives are a gauge of how Palestinians are no longer prepared to defer to the Palestinian leadership on the refugee issue or wait for an interminable peace process to make meaningful progress.

“The people are sending a message to the leadership in Ramallah that it cannot forget or sideline the right of return,” says Abir Kopty, an activist with the Lubya march. “Otherwise we will take the issue into our own hands.”

Meanwhile, progress of a kind is being made with Israeli Jews. Some have come to recognise, however reluctantly, that a tragedy befell the Palestinians with Israel’s creation. But, as another march organiser notes, the struggle is far from over. “That is a first step. But now they must take responsibility for our suffering and make amends.”

*

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.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “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.

***

This article was first published in 2020, on the 72nd anniversary of the Nakba.

Anniversaries commemorate past events. And you could be forgiven for thinking that an event which happened 72 years ago is indeed in the past.

This is true of most anniversaries, except when it comes to the Nakba, the “disaster, catastrophe or cataclysm” that marks the partition of Mandatory Palestine in 1948 and the creation of Israel.

The Nakba is not a past event. The dispossession of lands, homes and the creation of refugees have continued almost without pause since. It is not something that happened to your great grandparents.

It happens or could happen to you any time in your life.

A recurring disaster

To Palestinians, the Nakba is a recurring disaster. At least 750,000 Palestinians were displaced from their homes in 1948. A further 280,000 to 325,000 fled their homes in territories captured by Israel in 1967.

Since then, Israel has devised subtler means of trying to force the Palestinians from their homes. One such tool was residency revocations. Between the start of Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967 and the end of 2016, Israel revoked the status of at least 14,595 Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem.

A further 140,000 residents of East Jerusalem have been “silently transferred” from the city, when the construction of the separation wall started in 2002, blocking access to the rest of the city. Almost 300,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem hold permanent residence issued by the Israeli interior ministry.

bbb

Two areas were cut off from the city although they lie within its municipal boundaries: Kafr ‘Aqab to the north and Shu’fat Refugee Camp to the northeast.

The residents of neighbourhoods in these areas pay municipal and other taxes, but neither the Jerusalem municipality nor government agencies enter this territory or consider it their responsibility.

Consequently, these parts of East Jerusalem have become a no man’s land: the city fails to provide basic municipal services such as waste removal, road maintenance and education, and there is a shortage of classrooms and daycare facilities.

The water and sewage systems fail to meet the population’s needs, yet the authorities do nothing to repair them. To get to the rest of the city, residents have to run the daily gauntlet of the checkpoints.

Another tool of expropriation is the application of the Absentee Property Law, which, when passed in 1950, was intended as the basis for the transfer of Palestinian property to the State of Israel.

Its use was generally avoided in East Jerusalem until the construction of the wall. Six years later, it was used to expropriate “absentee land” from the Palestinian residents of Beit Sahour for the construction of 1,000 housing units in Har Homa, in South Jerusalem. But generally its purpose is to provide a mechanism for “creeping expropriation”.

A Nakba in real time 

The centrepiece of Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu’s election campaign and the central legislative purpose of the current Israeli unity government would constitute another chapter of dispossession for Palestinians in 2020. Those are the plans to annex one third – or at worst two thirds – of the West Bank.

Three scenarios are currently under consideration: the maximalist plan to annex the Jordan Valley and all of what the Oslo Accords referred to as Area C. This is about 61 percent of the territory of the West Bank which is administered directly by Israel and is home to 300,000 Palestinians.

The second scenario is to annex the Jordan Valley alone. According to Israeli and Palestinian surveys conducted in 2017 and 2018, there were 8,100 settlers and 53,000 Palestinians living on this land. Israel split this land into two entities: the Jordan Valley and the Megillot-Dead Sea regional council.

The third scenario is to annex the settlements around Jerusalem, the so-called E1 area, which includes Gush Etsion and Maale Adumin. In both cases Palestinians who live in the villages around these settlements are threatened with expulsion or transfer. There are 2,600 Palestinians who live in the village of Walaja and parts of Beit Jala who would be affected by the annexation of Gush Etsion, as well as 2,000-3,000 Bedouins living in 11 communities around Maale Adumin, such as Khan al-Ahmar.

What would happen to Palestinians who live on land that Israel has annexed?

In theory they could be offered residency, as was the case when East Jerusalem was annexed. In practice, residency will only be offered to a very select few. Israel will not want to solve one problem by creating another.

Most of the Palestinian population of the areas annexed would be transferred to the nearest big city, as happened with the Bedouins in the Negev and East Jerusalemites who find themselves in areas cut off from the rest of the city.

The generals’ warning

These plans have generated expressions of horror amongst Israel’s security establishment, which has grown used to being listened to, but which now wields less influence over policymaking than it once did.

This is not because the former generals hold any moral objection to expropriation of Palestinian land or because they think Palestinians have a legal right to it. No, their objections are based on how annexation could imperil Israel’s security.

A fascinating resume of their thinking is provided by an open-source document published anonymously by the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) in Herzliya. They state that annexation would destabilise the eastern border of Israel, which is “characterised by great stability, a quiet and a very low level of terror,” and that it would cause a “deep jolt” to Israel’s relationship with Jordan.

“To the Hashemite regime, annexation is synonymous with the idea of the alternative Palestinian homeland, namely, the destruction of the Hashemite kingdom in favor of a Palestinian state.

“For Jordan, such a move is a material breach of the peace agreement between the two countries. Under these circumstances, Jordan could violate the peace agreement. Alongside this, there may be a strategic threat to its internal stability, due to possible unrest among the Palestinians in combination with the severe economic hardship Jordan is facing,” the IPS document says.

That would only be the start of Jordan’s problems with annexation. Even a minimalist option of annexing E1 – the area around Jerusalem – would sever East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank, endangering Jordan’s custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.

Annexation would also lead to the “gradual disintegration” of the Palestinian Authority, the IPS claims.

Again, there is no love lost here. What concerns the Israeli analysts is the burden that would be placed on the army. “The effectiveness of security cooperation with Israel will deteriorate and weaken, and who will replace it? IDF! Forcing many forces to deal with riots and order violations and the maintenance of the Palestinian system.”

bbb

The security establishment goes on to say that annexation could trigger another intifada, strengthening the idea of a one-state solution “which is already acquiring a growing grip in the Palestinian arena”.

The Saudi factor

In the wider Arab world, the paper notes that Israel would forfeit many of the allies it believes it has made in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman and intensify the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign internationally.

Saudi Arabia’s role in dousing the flames of Arab reaction to Netanyahu’s annexation plan was specifically mentioned in Israeli security circles recently. The Saudi support for any form of annexation was deemed crucial.

True to form, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s regime has been trying to soften Saudi hostility to Israel in the media and particularly television drama. A drama called Exit 7 produced by Saudi Arabia’s MBC TV recently contained a scene of two actors arguing about normalisation with Israel.

“Saudi Arabia did not gain anything when it supported Palestinians, and must now establish relations with Israel… The real enemy is the one who curses you, denies your sacrifices and support, and curses you day and night more than the Israelis,” one character says.

The scene produced a backlash on social media and eventually a fulsome statement of support for the Palestinian cause by the Emirati foreign minister.

Translation: This oppression taking place in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] muzzling any opinion against normalisation with the Zionist enemy can only reap a bitter harvest. They cannot tolerate debate (even if it is online), by God, this is more dangerous than coronavirus.

The attempt demonstrated the limits of Saudi state mind control, which will be weakened still further by the drop in the price of oil and the advent of austerity across the Arab world.

The future Saudi king will no longer be able to buy his way out of trouble.

The Committee

It is worth repeating again that the motive for enumerating the destabilising effects of annexation is not some inherent disquiet at the loss of property or rights. The security establishment’s central concern stems from the possibility that Israel’s existing borders could be imperilled by overreach.

For similar reasons, a number of Israeli journalists have forecast that annexation will never happen.

They could be right. Pragmatism could win the day. Or they could be underestimating the part that nationalist religious fundamentalism plays in the calculations of Netanyahu, David Friedman, the US ambassador, and the US billionaire Sheldon Adelson, the three engineers of the current policy.

While the US role as “an honest broker” in the conflict has long been exposed as a sham, this is the first time I can remember that a US ambassador and a major US financier make more zealous settlers than a Likud prime minister himself.

Friedman is chairman of the joint US-Israel committee on settlement annexation, which will determine the borders of post-annexation Israel. This committee is meaningless in international terms, as it has no representation of any other party to the conflict, let alone the Palestinians whose leaders have boycotted the process.

Two separate sources from the joint committee have told Middle East Eye that it is leaning towards a once and for all expansion of Israel in the West Bank, and not an incremental one. One source said that it will go for the whole of Area C – in other words the maximalist option.

Again they could be wrong. Both say the annexation that is chosen will tailor itself to the contours of Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” which reduces the current 22 percent of historic Palestine down to a group of bantustans scattered around Greater Israel.

The climax

The Nakba, 72 years old today, continues to live and breathe venom. The Nakba is not just about original refugees but their descendants – today some five million of them qualify for the services of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA).

Trump’s decision to stop funding UNWRA, and Israel’s insistence that only the original survivors of 1948 should be recognised, has sparked an international campaign in which Palestinians sign a declaration refusing to relinquish their right of return.

“My right of return to my homeland is an inalienable, individual and collective right guaranteed by international law. Palestinian refugees will never yield to the ‘alternative homeland’ projects. Any initiative that strikes at the intrinsic foundations of the right of return and negates it is illegitimate and null, and does not represent me in any possible manner,” the declaration says.

Significantly it was launched in Jordan, another sign that feelings are running high there.

The Israeli security assessment that a two-state solution is dead in the minds of the majority of Palestinians is surely correct. Most Palestinians see annexation as the climax of the Zionist project to establish a Jewish majority state, and confirmation of their belief that the only way this conflict will end is in its dissolution.

But by the same token, the annexation plans under discussion should be proof to the international community, if one were needed, that far from being a country living in fear, and under permanent attack from irrational and violent rejectionists, Israel is a state which cannot share the land with Palestinians, let alone tolerate Palestinian self-determination in an independent state.

In its current formulation, Israel knows only one direction: to deepen its domination over a people whose land it has stolen and continues to steal.

*

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.

David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.

Featured image is from IMEMC

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 light of the 73rd anniversary of the Nakba, we repost this article first published in 2019.

Recent news reports have shed light on the lengths to which Israel’s security establishment is going in order to cover-up the history of the country’s war crimes against Palestinians. A long piece in Haaretz earlier this month [2019] explained that for the best part of two decades, Israel has had a special military department dedicated to removing certain kinds of documents from publicly accessible archives. The department’s name is Malmab, a Hebrew acronym for “Director of Security for the Defence Establishment”.

The documents targeted for the official cover-up seem to include anything related to the Nakba —Catastrophe — of the creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian territory, which saw the forced expulsion by Zionist militias of some 800,000 Palestinians from 1947 onwards. Ever since then, Palestinian refugees have been telling their stories to anyone who will listen.

However, due in large part to typically colonial attitudes towards indigenous peoples, Palestinian refugees’ stories were and remain all-too-often unbelieved in the West. Part of the typical racist stereotype imposed upon Palestinians – and indeed Arabs in general – is that they are almost genetically predisposed towards telling lies. One common racial slur is to accuse someone of being a “lying Arab”.

Israel, a settler-colonial nation seeking to endear itself to the West (and indeed to portray itself as a “Western” nation) has always done its best to propagate this smear. Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak (who’s currently seeking a return to politics) once claimed that lying was a cultural trait of Arabs.

They “don’t suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judaeo-Christian culture,” he claimed.

Such dehumanising myths about Arab people have consequences. Palestinians were for decades usually not believed in the West when they told of being subjected to ethnic cleansing in 1948, despite the overwhelming, documented evidence there was of the Nakba, including the work of pioneering Palestinian and other Arab historians such as Walid Khalidi, Constantin Zureiq and Nur Masalha.

The Israeli propaganda lie that the Palestinians left their own country voluntarily in the late forties, often at the behest of Arab leaders, was predominant in many Western histories for decades. Then, in the late 1980s when Israeli historians began to look into newly-opened official Israeli archives, what they found essentially confirmed the Palestinian and Arab narrative. The expulsions did happen; the Palestinians did not leave by choice.

While some of these “New Historians”, such as Benny Morris, for example, claimed that the expulsions were almost an accident of war, others like Ilan Pappé pointed to official documents covering “Plan Dalet” and the “Village Files” to prove that there was a more systemic, intentional operation to remove as many Palestinians as possible from Palestine.

Whatever the full reasons, no one disputes the fact that Israel has always made it a primary aim to prevent the refugees and their offspring from returning. In the words of Israel’s first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion,

“We must do everything to ensure that they never do return.”

Morris – a proud racist – approves of this goal, while Pappé – an anti-Zionist – does not. It was only after these Israeli historians began to write their histories, that the facts about the Palestinian Nakba started to become more widely accepted in the West.

Al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza is home to scores of Palestinians who owned acres before they were forced out of their homes in the Nakba of 1948

Al-Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza is home to scores of Palestinians who owned acres before they were forced out of their homes in the Nakba of 1948 [Mohammed Asad/Middle East Monitor]

The lesson that should be learned from this is that indigenous peoples should be believed when they are trying to narrate the facts of their own dispossession. We should not wait for the oppressor societies to admit, even partially, to their own guilt.

Now, though, even that always partial and conditional admission is being systematically covered up by Israel. As Ilan Pappé himself explained last week, the Malmab military archives cover-up unit is removing many of the documents that he and the other “New Historians” relied on to reveal the secrets of how Israel perpetrated the Nakba, including the massacres of children, the mass graves and the rapes.

The content of these documents has almost all been reported in books and articles already, and in many cases they have been copied, scanned or preserved digitally. However, as Haaretz noted after interviewing the former head of the cover-up unit, the aim is to “undermine the credibility of studies about the history of the refugee problem. In [the unit’s] view, an allegation made by a researcher that’s backed up by an original document is not the same as an allegation that cannot be proved or refuted.”

Although the Haaretz investigation has brought Malmab’s efforts to hide the truth to our attention, this has in fact been going on for the best part of two decades.

“Those of us working with Nakba documents,” Pappé pointed out, “… were already aware of the removal of these documents. For many years, for instance, historians were unable to revisit ‘the village files’, which formed an important proof in my argument that the 1948 war was an act of ethnic cleansing.”

In attempting to hide the truth, Israel must know that it is too late. The truth is out about its cover-up of Nakba facts, and it’s not going back into the shadows anytime soon, no matter what the Zionist state and its dirty tricks departments get up to.

*

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

The Corona Crisis: Has “Depopulation” Already Begun?

By Peter Koenig, May 12, 2021

Remember Bill Gates’ infamously saying with his seductive smile, something to the extent, even if I’m no longer around, the system has been set up and will continue without me. This is not a verbatim but a contextual quote. Unfortunately, any reference to this and other similar anti-current narrative references were deleted from internet.

Bill Gates, Vaccinations, Microchips, and Patent 060606

By Leonid Savin, May 12, 2021

Often, the prophecies of Scripture are interpreted as a commentary on some technological discovery or event. But there are also rational facts that it doesn’t make sense to deny because they are documented. These include the existence of the Bilderberg club, the CIA’s MK-Ultra project, and George Soros’ funding of dubious political activities in a number of countries.

China on the Horizon as ‘World’s Pharmacy’. Sinopharm’s Covid Vaccine

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, May 12, 2021

The World Health Organisation’s approval Friday for China’s Covid-19 vaccine known as Sinopharm dramatically transforms the ecosystem of the pandemic. In immediate terms, this has potential to boost global vaccine supply, as China’s overall yearly production capacity is approaching five billion doses. 

Video: Israel’s Savage Response to Gaza’s Rockets

By South Front, May 12, 2021

The mighty Iron Dome intercepted most of missiles launched from Gaza towards Israeli Ashkelon and other areas, but its coverage is strained. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have recently deployed several more batteries in the south and bolstered it with more radars and launchers. There is ample footage showing rockets targeting civilian, and not open, areas.

Unanswered Questions Regarding Covid Vaccine Injuries and Reported Deaths

By Megan Redshaw, May 12, 2021

Since Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), The Defender has tracked post-vaccine injuries reported by healthcare workers and vaccine recipients to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Second Stage Terror Wars

By Edward Curtin, May 12, 2021

It is well known that the endless U.S. war on terror was overtly launched following the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the linked anthrax attacks.   The invasion of Afghanistan and the Patriot Actwere immediately justified by those insider murders, and subsequently the wars against Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.  So too the terrorizing of the American people with constant fear-mongering about imminent Islamic terrorist attacks from abroad that never came.

History: Napoleon Between War and Revolution

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels, May 12, 2021

The French Revolution was not a simple historic event but a long and complex process in which a number of different stadia may be identified. Some of these stadia were even counterrevolutionary in nature, for example the “aristocratic revolt” at the very start. Two phases, however, were unquestionably revolutionary.

Pictures of a Ukrainian Dream

By Pepe Escobar, May 12, 2021

The great Andrei Martyanov has remarked that Blinken “told Kiev behind the scenes to ‘dial it down’, amidst the fluffy tropes about US concern for Ukraine’s ‘sovereignty’ and ‘security’”. Well, looks like there was way more than fluffy tropes.

Why Are Gates and Pentagon Releasing “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

By F. William Engdahl, May 12, 2021

Despite strong resident protests, the US Environmental Protection Agency and Florida agencies have approved controversial release of millions of genetically-modified or “gene edited” killer mosquitoes into the Florida Keys.

Fauci: “Possible” Mask Mandates Could Last Indefinitely to Fight Flu

By Paul Joseph Watson, May 12, 2021

Anthony Fauci told NBC’s Chuck Todd that it’s “possible” mask mandates could continue indefinitely in order to reduce seasonal flu infections. During his appearance on Meet The Press, Fauci was asked when Americans could take the masks off given that the CDC is now advising vaccinated Americans that they can remove the face coverings when outside.

NATO Enters New Warfighting Domain in Space

By Rick Rozoff, May 12, 2021

NATO officially declared space its newest operational domain in 2019, adding to its other four battlefields: air, land, sea and cyberspace. It is currently setting up a NATO Space Centre at its Allied Air Command headquarters in Ramstein, Germany.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Corona Crisis: Has “Depopulation” Already Begun?

Rick Rozoff on US-NATO Warfare

May 13th, 2021 by Global Research

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rick Rozoff on US-NATO Warfare

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.

***

Remember Bill Gates’ infamously saying with his seductive smile, something to the extent, even if I’m no longer around, the system has been set up and will continue without me. This is not a verbatim but a contextual quote. Unfortunately, any reference to this and other similar anti-current narrative references were deleted from internet.

It’s part of a massive censuring effort. Of course, without censuring the alternative media – the plan falls flat. The mainstream media, as well as the social platforms, are bought with hundreds of millions of dollars to keep propagating the fake and criminal corona narrative.

The plan is horrifying. It is a public relation distortion of the truth, of what’s behind the enormous, coercive “vaccination”. “The everybody -must be vaxxed drive” is so enormous, for a disease that has a 99.9% survival rate – and is about as deadly as a common flu (0.3% – 0.8%) – so, that anybody who still can think straight must wonder what’s behind it. What’s the real agenda?

The British Government has invested in excess of £184m on communications, read propaganda, relating to Covid-19 in 2020, figures from the Cabinet Office show. It is said to plan another at least £320m (about US$ 380 m equivalent) through 2022. See here.

So, how believable is then Boris Johnson, who said on several occasions that by the end of 2021 all will be over? Though, he also warned, we will never return to the old normal, that a New or One World Order (OWO) will emerge from this unique covid-opportunity.

Same words as uttered by Klaus Schwab, the “father” of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the alleged author of The Great Reset which  – fair enough – presents us with all the horrendously inhuman plans they have for us, so horrendous, nobody really listens.

But listen we should, because these plans have already begun being implemented – and we are in the midst of them, still closing our eyes to what they tell us will come – and is coming simultaneously with their warnings. So, we better wake up, with eyes wide open, and our spirits and consciousness ready to act.

This unique “covid opportunity”, as the WEF’s guru, Klaus Schwab, calls it, has started with an equally unique death toll from this mRNA-type covid injections, falsely labeled as vaccines.

This is where one of the most severe crimes of our governments around the world begins, selling us the experimental injections – with basically no testing – as vaccines. It’s a BIG lie. They all lie to us. All of the 193 UN member governments and, of course, the UN political body, led by Secretary General, António Guterres, go along with this monster lie, with the coerced deadly “vaccination”, a fraud of epic proportions never experienced in what we know as our current civilization.

The EMA (European Medicines Agency), reports 5,993 (May 3, 2021) deaths from corona jabs. That’s a 50-fold increase over the death rate of traditional vaccines; see this. In fact, the covid injections, falsely called vaccines, administered in Europe and the US, are mRNA-type inoculations, that were never to be called “vaccines”. They were allowed (not approved) by CDC as “emergency gene-therapy” treatments.

All governments and institutions calling them “vaccines” are lying to you. They are committing a fraud, a Crime Against Humanity.

Criminals should be and shall be prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity under Nuremberg 2.0, a criminal prosecution patterned according to the Nuremberg Trials after WWII and following the Nuremberg Code. The leading architect and lawyer for this endeavor towards global justice is Dr. Reiner Füllmich, co-founder of the World’s Doctor Alliance; watch the video below.

Dr. Füllmich said without a shadow of a doubt, “this has never been about the virus. This has never been about health. See this.

These are criminal acts out of proportions with any known attacks on humanity in our civilization’s history.

The adverse effects of these injections, as recorded by United States CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), counting since 14 December 2020 until the end of Aril 2021, were a total of 4,178 deaths following Experimental Covid Injections. Deaths from covid jabs now equal 20 years of recorded deaths following vaccines since 2001. See this.

On 6 May Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, reported this corresponds to about 30 people a day, dying from the false Covid vaccine, between December 2020 and end of April 2021. Carlson adds,

“More people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half.”

Carlson stated, the number of deaths is likely much higher than what VAERS is reporting, citing reports submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 that found “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported by the VAERS system.” This statement matches CDC’s own assessment, that only a fraction of the real figure of covid-jabs’ injuries and deaths are reported by VAERS, estimating that the real figures may be at least up to 10 times or more higher than reported.

Depopulation Strategy?

Dr. Joseph Mercola makes bombshell Covid-19 shot prediction, namely that the “vaccines”, i.e., the experimental injections, will likely kill more people than covid itself.

Dr. Mercola also refers unmistakenly to a severe depopulation strategy. He reminds his listeners that unbelievably and ludicrously, CDC recommends that mRNA-inoculation be given to pregnant women. Never before, Dr Mercola affirms, have pregnant women been exposed to experimental drugs which this is, according to CDC and FDA.

This is a crime of epic proportions committed by research as well as watchdog agencies, CDC and FDA. Dr. Mercola estimates that at least 30% of pregnant women who received the covid-shot had miscarriages. He also referred to infertility and sterilization properties of these mRNA-type injections and predicts massive death rates down the road from the injection. See this.

According to LifeSiteNews:

“Thousands of women around the world are reporting disrupted menstrual cycles after receiving injections of COVID-19 vaccines.

The U.K.’s government vaccine adverse event system has collected more 2,200 reports of reproductive disorders after coronavirus injections, including excessive or absent menstrual bleeding, delayed menstruation, vaginal hemorrhaging, miscarriages, and stillbirths.”

Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay of CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made a public comment on how the covid “vaccine”, alias experimental gene therapy, may be affecting the Human Reproductive system and causing abortions – watch below.

Famine and Extreme Poverty 

The World Food Program (WFP), the UN anti-hunger agency, states that the plandemic

“has contributed to soaring hunger and acute declines in maternal health care that threatens tens of millions of people, underscoring the disproportionate spillover effects on the world’s poor.”

The number of people worldwide requiring urgent food aid hit a five-year high in 2020 — reaching at least 155 million. The JN expresses concern over the risk of maternal and newborn deaths surging, because of a covid-related shortage of at least 900,000 midwives, or one-third of the required global midwifery work force. The WFP says that “we are watching the worst-case scenario unfold before our very eyes.”

The Global Report on Food Crisis – 2021 covers 55 countries and territories, including three — Burkina Faso, South Sudan and Yemen — where it said that at least 133,000 people were suffering [covid-related] famine, the most severe phase of a hunger crisis. The resulting death rate can only be estimated at this time. – See this.

Full Digitization of Life

Is Depopulation, shoveling resources from the bottom and center to the top, and full digitization of life itself,  the larger agenda of this man-made covid crisis? It’s also the key strategy enshrined in the WEF’s (Klaus Schwab’s) Great Reset.

It presents a multi-faceted approach to reaching within the span of a decade – the so-called UN Agenda 2030 – a One World Order, dictated by a small ultra-wealthy and powerful financial group, and run most likely by today’s obedient “world government” bought top politicians and science advisers. They were probably promised not to be vaccinated, or at worst, just by an innocuous placebo, for show and public relations propaganda.

The UN 2030 cum Great Reset agenda plays out on many fronts and holds the entire world – at least the 193 UN members – hostage, comparable to a stranglehold by an octopus with its many tentacles. When one is defeated, the others work mercilessly on, until the defeated ones grow back – with different strategies. This is well thought out, has been planned for decades. As Bill Gates insinuates, if I’m gone, “the project”, ingrained in the system, continues.

The “Project” (Great Reset / UN Agenda 2030) means, the implementation of a three-objectives-plan:

  • i) massive depopulation;
  • ii) transferring public assets and other resources from the bottom and the center to the top (making of the multi-billionaires, multi-trillionaires), and
  • iii) digitization of everything, including the human brain.

Sounds crazy? – Yes, it is crazy, but coming from the Deep State and powerful financial interests, it is all the more plausible.

Here is proof; see this explosive interview Dr. Carrie Madej on covid shots DNA Modification – Injection of Nano-Technology through Hydrogel in Covid “vaccines” towards total Control – Transhumanism.

Click screen to view

 

The nano-technology, applied via a sort of a tattoo-stamp, injecting hydrogel under the skin with nano-chips, or microscopic bots (robots, responding to Artificial Intelligence – AI), a Bill Gates patent # 2020606060 – is currently being tested in West Africa on “lesser people”. (For further details Bill Gates, Vaccinations, Microchips, and Patent 060606).  

When it is ready, maybe already before, it will be applied to the western “better people”, what used to be the “White Supremacists”. To operate this nano-robots, the 5G-technology will come in handy. In fact, this is one of the key purposes of 5G. See this.

The Last American Vagabond (and several other online media) reports about self-spreading, self-amplifying vaccines, see this.  Yet to be fully verified, a single vaccinated person could spread the vaccine to several other people in his / her environment. That would take care of the non-vaxxers.

According to an incisive article in Nature (July 27, 2020) a single vaccinated person could spread the vaccine to several other people in his / her environment:

“We are now poised to begin developing self-disseminating vaccines targeting a wide range of human pathogens, but important decisions remain about how they can be most effectively designed and used to target pathogens with a high risk of spillover and/or emergence.” 

And “Transmissible vaccines capable of infectious spread through a reservoir population reduce the vaccination effort required to suppress a target pathogen. With high enough transmission, a transmissible vaccine allows for autonomous pathogen eradication.” (emphasis added)

A min.-podcast report suggests that according to Johns Hopkins University self-spreading vaccines are real 

And it may have already happened, as there are several reports of especially non-vaccinated women, who had been in close contact with vaccinated people, and suffered symptoms of menstrual disorders, abortions – and, what it might amount to – infertility. Is that the purpose of “vaccine spreaders”? – “Implanted infertility, as one “branch” of the eugenics agenda?

Again, while we are still arguing about the validity and intricacies of the Great Reset – The Great Reset – or the Restructuring of the World Economy (IMF equivalent of the Great Reset), is already in full swing.

The America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) interviewed former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said

“I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the world’s population.” He continued, “I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.” And, “I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.” See full interview here.

Gene Edited Mosquitos

On a related subject, RT reports on 28 April 2021 that Florida is set to release swarms of GMO mosquitoes.  See also the incisive report by F. William Engdahl  entitled Why Are Gates and Pentagon Releasing “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

Residents decry it as a ‘criminal experiment’ by Bill Gates-backed biotechnology, see this.

The official purpose behind this plan is to release thousands of genetically modified mosquitoes in an effort to combat disease in the Florida Keys. The project has triggered dire concerns among locals, referring to a “criminal” experiment that will turn them into guinea pigs.

Spearheaded by the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District (FKMCD) and Oxitec, a British biotech firm that received backing from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the project aims to turn the first swarms of gene-edited bugs loose into the Keys starting sometime in early May 2021, as was announced in a joint statement.

For the first leg of the plan, set to be expanded later, mosquito boxes will be placed at six locations, which over 12 weeks will release around 144,000 Aedes aegypti mosquitoes, a species most closely linked with transmitting illnesses such as dengue, Zika and yellow fever. If all goes according to plan, the male, non-biting bugs will mate with local biting females, whose female offspring are programmed to die off, helping to control the Aedes aegypti population and reduce the spread of disease.

Here is what the people said:

“We may not be scientists, but we read. And what Oxitec says and what we’re reading from other sources are two completely different things,”

one concerned resident said at a village council meeting, “I beg you, I implore you, to take immediate action [and] consider a resolution against this technology.”

And further “I find it criminal that we are being bullied into this experiment – criminal that we are being subjected to this terrorism by our own Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board.” Even some elected officials expressed trepidation, calling the GMO mosquitoes “Frankenstein bugs.”

Similar exercises were carried out in Brazil with the Zika baring mosquito in 2016, also by Oxitec, also supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The result was disastrous, as many of you may recall – knowingly or by accident?  (RT, op cit)

Here is what RT has to say about the dubious background to the mosquito project. See also related RT related  article 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in short called DARPA, a semi-secretive Pentagon military think tank cum Research Institute, wants to spread genetically modified viruses… to ‘save crops’, of rather a “defensive bioweapon”?

A group of European scientists warns, that a US military program dubbed ‘Insect Allies’ could be used as a biological weapon. The Pentagon’s research arm claims they are intended to defend crops, but doesn’t deny ‘dual-use’ potential. Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology and the University of Freiburg in Germany, as well as the University of Montpellier, France, have published a critique of the program, dubbed “Insect Allies,” in the October 5 edition of Science.

They argue that

“the knowledge to be gained from this program appears very limited in its capacity to enhance US agriculture or respond to national emergencies” and therefore the program “may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for hostile purposes and their means of delivery,”

which would mean a breach of the Biological Weapons Convention.

The people from the Florida Keys may have smelled a rat – and protested against these trials. Maybe what triggered their strong response was the fact that Bill Gates, a known eugenist, sponsored this “trial”.

Only the future will tell whether they were right.

In the meantime, we are still living in a world, where money buys everything, without regard of public interest. A system that definitely needs to be changed – but not with the likes of “The Great Reset” – which would put us right at the mercy of an ultra-capitalist directed global-control tyranny. NO WAY! NEVER!

All these octopus-like exercises around the globe, but particularly in the western world, point to a massive depopulation program, which should not surprise anyone.

Depopulation was in the Bilderberger’s Agenda already in the 1950’s – and was openly promoted by Henry Kissinger, a Rockefeller protégé, who in turn, is one of the “fathers” of the eugenics agenda.

Conclusion – A Way Out

We, The People, must not despair.

As Dr. Carrie Madej says, we are very powerful beings, with an enormous potential to overcome the “dark forces” that resonate on a low level, but want to dominate us by instilling fear – fear is their most powerful weapon.

Under fear, we shed all our spiritual and heart-power; the power of LIFE. With fear we submit to their “power of darkness”, resonating on low levels.

Dr. Madej calls the worldwide catastrophe we are in, WWIII, without bombs, without bloodshed, but a war of the minds. A human energy war.

Take this – our heart is about 100,000 times stronger electrically and up to 5,000 times stronger magnetically than the brain. They can manipulate our brain, but not our heart. This enormous power comes in a high frequency – a frequency way higher than that of nano-chips or artificial bots and AI.

These “tools” only work because our brains have been conditioned by an endless rain of fear propaganda.

If we step outside this nefarious matrix, our heart can and will give us rebirth.

You may call it following a higher consciousness. We have an enormous spiritual power, an aura with an electric field that resonates on a high level, if we unite in solidarity.

In a strong person, this aura can be measured as high as 80 km (video at about 47:00 min.). We can beat this system – and we will, as both confidentially express in their video’s, Dr. Carrie Madej, as well as Dr. Joseph Mercola. We shall overcome, and move from this “age of darkness” into a new age of light – into a new cycle, into a conscious civilization.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from 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.

***

The World Health Organisation’s approval Friday for China’s Covid-19 vaccine known as Sinopharm dramatically transforms the ecosystem of the pandemic. In immediate terms, this has potential to boost global vaccine supply, as China’s overall yearly production capacity is approaching five billion doses. 

The western pharmaceutical industry’s monopoly has been breached, as Sinopharm’s is the first COVID-19 vaccine developed by a developing country to be validated by the WHO and only the sixth approved for emergency use globally — in fact, the only non-western vaccine so far. 

Literally, China has gatecrashed the aggressively-guarded orchard of powerful western pharmaceutical companies. In practical terms, the WHO approval allows China to enter the portals of the COVAX as a qualified supplier. The COVAX platform aims to provide two billion doses to developing countries and regions by the end of 2021. But as of Friday, only 54 million doses had been delivered to 121 participants of the program.

That is because, as New York Times wrote in the weekend, “Despite early vows, the developed world has done little to promote global vaccination, in what analysts call both a moral and epidemiological failure.” The anomaly creates a bizarre situation whereby in the western world, “vaccine orders are soaring into the billions of doses, Covid-19 cases are easing, economies are poised to roar to life, and people are busy lining up summer vacations,” while in the poor countries, the virus is raging on and vaccinations are happening far too slowly. 

This wasn’t how COVAX was supposed to pan put when 192 countries joined hands and all agreed that vaccination is a universal human right. Plainly put, vaccine nationalism is as much a moral issue as of predatory capitalism. 

The western pharmaceutical industry is prospering off sales to the world’s rich. Pfizer made $3.5 billion out of the vaccine in the first quarter of 2021. Moderna expects to make over $19 billion this year. The French President Emmanuel Macron lost patience, saying, “Today the Anglo-Saxons (read the US and the UK) are blocking many of these ingredients and these vaccines. Today 100% of the vaccines produced in the U.S. go to the American market.” 

Jospeh Stiglitz — the Nobel laureate in economics at Columbia University, former chief economist of World Bank and chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers — co-authored an essay last week with a startling title Will Corporate Greed Prolong the Pandemic? He wrote: 

“The scarcity of COVID-19 vaccines across the developing world is largely the result of efforts by vaccine manufacturers to maintain their monopoly control and profits. Pfizer and Moderna, the makers of the extremely effective mRNA vaccines, have refused or failed to respond to numerous requests by qualified pharmaceutical manufacturers seeking to produce their vaccines.

“Their goal is simple: to maintain as much market power as they can for as long as possible in order to maximise profits… The argument that developing countries lack the skills to manufacture COVID vaccines based on new technologies is bogus. When US and European vaccine makers have agreed to partnerships with foreign producers, like the Serum Institute of India (the world’s largest vaccine producer) and Aspen Pharmacare in South Africa, these organisations have had no notable manufacturing problems. There are many more firms and organisations around the world with the same potential to help boost the vaccine supply; they just need access to the technology and know-how.” 

The western nations are inoculating their own citizens as priority and also keeping stockpiles and vaccine-making capacity as reserves to provide for booster doses that may be required against some new variants of the virus in future. 

In effect, China’s Sinopharm is entering the COVAX platform just as it seemed to be floundering. The WHO said in a statement that the approval given to Sinopharm (which took over 5 months, actually) is a “milestone achievement” that will create an opening to significantly increase the global supply of vaccines. 

The WHO is reportedly granting approval to a second Chinese vaccine, Sinovac, in the coming days. Last October, when China joined the COVAX global vaccine distribution campaign, it had made a modest commitment to provide 10 million vaccines. Now, the WHO approval to Sinopharm will speed up China’s supplies to COVAX, which aims to send vaccines for free to 92 lower-income countries and to help another 99 countries and territories procure them. 

Indeed, the WHO approval is a defining moment for the Chinese vaccine. Many countries were hitherto hesitating to use the Chinese the vaccine as it did not have recognition from the WHO. Sri Lanka began using Sinopharm last weekend itself! 

China has curbed the epidemic without the help of vaccines, while it has secured a place right at the forefront of vaccine research and development and has the capabilities today to expand vaccine production capacity explosively. To be sure, China is at the horizon as the ‘world’s pharmacy’. 

The copyright for that compelling coinage belongs of course to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi who had patented it as far back October last year.  

Modi was flaunting his government’s achievements in the rather surrealistic setting of an investment conference in New Delhi in the middle of a pandemic that was yet to rear its head in India. But, seriously, India’s ambitions to cater to the vaccine needs of world community lie in ruins today. And, with the virus mutating, new unforeseeable crisis situations of graver proportions still lie ahead for India. 

Where China is scoring is on account of its high degree of national mobilisation. In comparison, the US trails far behind. Its public health system is badly in need of revamp and is fragile. The Biden Administration is conscious of the vulnerabilities and deficiencies, which explains its refusal to export vaccines and raw materials. 

The WHO statement added, “One vaccine (Sinopharm) has received EUL (Emergency Use Listing), but we know that there are over fifteen additional COVID-19 vaccines in advanced development in China. Today’s milestone achievement should spur other manufacturers to pursue this route and add to the global vaccine arsenal. It should also encourage an even greater contribution from China to global supply and vaccine equity.” 

Additionally, three Chinese biopharmaceutical companies have reportedly signed deals with Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) in recent weeks for the production of over 260 million doses of Sputnik V vaccine that could fully vaccinate over 130 million people worldwide. The RDIF said, “China is one of the major production hubs for Sputnik V and we are ready for increasing the scope of partnership with local producers to meet the rising demand for the Russian vaccine.”

China’s vaccine diplomacy has far-reaching consequences. Not only will China earn goodwill, but Sinopharm, Sinovac and the fifteen other vaccines rolling out in a near future (plus China-Russia cooperation in vaccine) bear testimony to the superiority of the Chinese model of development. 

For the western world, this will be an intolerably rude reminder of the Asian Century. There are incipient western attempts already to resuscitate the moribund conspiracy theory over the ‘Wuhan virus’ — that the pandemic is a grand export project of the Chinese Communist Party! Sour grapes? 

*

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 Indian Punchline

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China on the Horizon as ‘World’s Pharmacy’. Sinopharm’s Covid Vaccine
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Chaos is returning to the West Bank, as rockets are raining down on both sides of the Gaza fence.

On the afternoon of May 10th, after days of violent protests in Jerusalem’s Mount Temple, Hamas’ military wing gave Israeli authorities a deadline to withdraw the police and release the detained Palestinians. As it was expected, Tel Aviv did not respect the ultimatum.

As soon as it passed, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group reportedly launched about 30 rockets from the Gaza Strip towards Israel. An ATGM also targeted a vehicle, injuring one civilian.

The Palestinians called their operation the “Al Quds Sword”, while the Israeli response is titled “Guardian of the Walls”.

The mighty Iron Dome intercepted most of missiles launched from Gaza towards Israeli Ashkelon and other areas, but its coverage is strained. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have recently deployed several more batteries in the south and bolstered it with more radars and launchers. There is ample footage showing rockets targeting civilian, and not open, areas.

In a swift response, an Israeli UAV was launched towards Gaza. The strike reportedly resulted in the death of at least 9 civilians, 3 of which were children.

This was not the “crushing blow” Tel Aviv expected it to be, as rockets continued raining down from Gaza towards Israeli territory. During this night only, over 200 rockets have been reportedly launched from Gaza.

In response, the IDF claim they have killed 15 Hamas members and have struck 130 Hamas and Islamic Jihad targets. The IDF reportedly destroyed several rocket launchers, at least 2 military posts, 2 tunnels, a Hamas military intel facility and alleged weapon manufacturing and storage sites. The IDF did not mention that the strikes have resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians.

The numbers of casualties, as well as material damage caused by the hostilities from both sides, are not comparable.

The rocket exchange has already been marked as the biggest escalation in the West Bank in recent years.

It comes down to speculation how likely a further deterioration into chaos is. Tel Aviv appears to be dead set on indiscriminately targeting alleged Hamas targets, regardless of civilian collateral damage. The Palestinian groups in Gaza could potentially hope that the “international community” will not sit idly by and watch as Israel’s incredibly severe response takes place, and so far it appears they are hoping in vain.

*

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.

***

The Defender first reached out to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on March 8 with a list of questions about COVID vaccine injury reports in VAERS, including ongoing investigations into reported deaths. Our questions remain unanswered.

Since Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccines received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), The Defender has tracked post-vaccine injuries reported by healthcare workers and vaccine recipients to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

We’ve also covered media reports of deaths and injuries among people recently vaccinated for COVID.

The latest VAERS data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and April 30, a total of 157,277 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 3,837 deaths and 16,014 serious injuries following vaccination with Pfizer, Moderna and J&J vaccines.

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

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. We requested information about how the CDC conducts investigations into reported deaths, the status of ongoing investigations into deaths and injuries reported by the media, if autopsies were being conducted, the standard for determining whether an injury is causally connected to a vaccine, and education initiatives to encourage and facilitate proper and accurate reporting.

After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.

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

The Defender also followed up with the CDC’s media department, which told us  the COVID response unit would be informed that the health communications specialist never responded. No explanation was given as to why our inquiries were ignored. We were told to call back, which we did numerous times.

We asked why the taxpayer-funded CDC seemed to respond to other news media outlets in a timely manner, but hasn’t responded to The Defender. No answer was provided. We were told someone would get back to us.

It has been 64 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports, but still no response.

CDC investigations into reported deaths

Since EUA was granted for experimental COVID vaccines, the mainstream media has reported on many deaths following vaccines, and in those reports, stated the deaths were under investigation by the CDC.

We questioned the CDC about several of these investigations, whether autopsies were performed, what determines whether a vaccine causes or contributes to a death and where the public could access findings of investigations.

On Jan. 3, the Florida Health Department and CDC announced it was conducting an investigation into the death of Dr. Gregory Michael who died shortly after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, told the New York Times he believed it was a “medical certainty” Pfizer’s vaccine caused Michael’s death.

On April 8, medical examiners established that Michael died of complications from ITP, but officially categorized the death as natural because, according to Darren Caprara, director of operations for the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department, there was “no medical certainty” the vaccine caused Michael’s death.

On Feb. 4, the media reported state and federal officials were investigating the death of a 58-year-old woman, Drene Keyes, in Virginia, who died from anaphylactic shock hours after receiving the first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine. An article published March 7 disclosed health officials had not conducted an autopsy on Keyes, leaving the family to procure an autopsy on their own.

Virginia State Health Commissioner Norman Oliver told public information officers in an email Feb. 5 that if reporters asked whether an autopsy was done, they should say “a full autopsy was not needed in order to ascertain whether the death was related to the vaccination.”

Oliver’s email was part of a public records request which revealed officials inside and outside the health department were concerned the death of Keyes, who is Black, could worsen vaccine hesitancy among minorities.

On Feb. 5, a 39-year-old woman from Ogden, Utah, died four days after receiving a second dose of Moderna’s vaccine. Kassidi Kurill died of organ failure after her liver, heart and kidneys shut down. She had no known medical issues or pre-existing conditions, according to her family. News reports noted Kurill’s death had been reported to VAERS.

Under-reporting to VAERS

The Defender asked the CDC if there is any mechanism in place to confirm whether healthcare providers are reporting to VAERS, or if the agency has any education initiatives in place to improve the rate and quality of reporting.

According to the CDC’s website and the U.S Food and Drug Administration’s EUA approval materials, healthcare providers are required by law to report certain adverse events to VAERS.

Yet according to a 2013 survey in “Vaccine,” 37% of healthcare providers had identified an adverse event following immunization, yet only 17% of those indicated they had ever reported to VAERS. Factors associated with healthcare providers not reporting included: unfamiliarity with how to file a paper VAERS report; type of practice; and the provider being unfamiliar versus very familiar with the requirements for filing a VAERS report.

H1N1 vaccine campaign shut down after fewer than 50 deaths

In March 1976, the federal government rushed the H1N1 vaccine to market, after hundreds of soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, contracted the new virus strain. Of the 45 million people who received the vaccine, 450 developed Guillain-Barré syndrome and of those, more than 30 died.

Months later — in December 1976 — the government suspended the H1N1 mass vaccination campaign, after the National Academy of Medicine concluded people who received the vaccine had an increased risk for developing Guillain-Barré.

The Defender asked the CDC how many deaths, as a percentage of the total number of administrations of a vaccine, it would take for the FDA to remove that vaccine from the market.

CDC says VAERS indicates no safety concerns with vaccines

The CDC’s website states: “To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.”

Yet, on its website, the agency acknowledges 4,178 reported deaths among people who received a COVID vaccine between Dec. 14, 2020, and May 3, and determined that “a review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.”

We asked how the CDC arrived at this conclusion, where the public could access information regarding autopsies, what would be required to confirm a vaccine was the cause of death and whether there is an option to list the vaccine as a cause of death on an autopsy form.

Reports of blood clots with mRNA vaccines

We recently supplemented our questions with the most recent VAERS numbers on vaccine injury as evidence increases that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines cause similar rare blood clotting disorders as those reported after AstraZeneca and J&J vaccines.

As The Defender reported April 30, VAERS yielded a total of 2,808 reports associated with the formation of clotting disorders for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020 through April 30.

Of the 2,808 cases reported, there were 1,043 reports attributed to Pfizer, 893 reports to Moderna and 860 reports to J&J. U.S. health officials only acknowledged 15 blood clot cases associated with the J&J vaccine at the April 16 meeting where a vote was taken to lift the pause on the shot and resume use without restrictions.

CDC reduces Ct threshold for COVID testing

As of April 26, 2021 more than 9,245 COVID cases had been reported in the fully vaccinated, known as “breakthrough cases.” The CDC recently recommended reducing the RT-PCR Ct value to 28 cycles when testing fully vaccinated people for COVID.

The lower threshold would result in a decrease in positive breakthrough cases, calling into question COVID vaccine efficacy data.

Dr. Fauci recommends a Ct value of 35. Globally, the accepted cut-off for Ct value for COVID ranges between 35 and 40, depending on instructions from manufacturers of testing equipment.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), a patient is considered positive for COVID if the Ct value is below 35. In other words, if the virus is detectable after 35 cycles or earlier, then the patient is considered positive.

“If the benchmark were to be lowered to 24 it would mean that Ct values in the range 25-34 would not be considered positive. A benchmark of 35, therefore, means that more patients would be considered positive than we would get if the benchmark were 24.”

We asked the CDC to explain why it changed the recommendations for COVID testing in vaccinated patients, the impact this will have on reports of breakthrough COVID cases and why the agency does not apply one RT-PCR testing standard for testing, regardless of vaccination status.

CDC stops counting all breakthrough cases

Federal health officials this month decided to limit how they monitor vaccinated people infected with COVID, drawing concern from some scientists who said the missing data could hinder scientists’ ability to investigate why and how breakthrough cases happen, Bloomberg reported.

Every Friday, the CDC posts the number of breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals on its website. On May 7, the CDC announced it will transition to reporting only patients with COVID breakthrough infection who were hospitalized or died to “help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.”

The change in reporting, which takes effect May 14, will reduce the number of breakthrough cases reported.

According to Bloomberg, tracking and sequencing cases helps determine who may be more at risk, whether new variants evade vaccines and when protection from shots begins to wane. Those infected — some of whom are suffering widespread medical issues, even if they’re not hospitalized — say they feel lost as a result of the lack of information.

“We shouldn’t be narrowing the focus, we should be broadening and develop a systematic plan,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California.

Tom Clark, head of the vaccine evaluation unit for the CDC’s vaccine task force, said the CDC is maximizing the quality of data collected on cases, and the agency shifted its strategy because there are few worrying patterns in the data collected so far, suggesting the focus should be on the most severe cases.

However, Michael Kinch, associate vice chancellor at Washington University in St. Louis, said as much information as possible should be recorded on breakthroughs. Cases that don’t rise to hospitalization are still important to track, Kinch said, since symptoms that aren’t as severe for someone could eventually lead to hospitalizations. Non-life-threatening symptoms can impact someone’s life greatly, and evolve over time, he added.

We asked the CDC to explain why the agency altered the way it counts COVID breakthrough cases, to explain the effect this will have on breakthrough numbers and how the CDC can monitor vaccine efficacy if it excludes breakthrough cases of COVID that do not result in hospitalization or death.

To date, we have yet to receive a response, but will continue to press the CDC for answers to our inquiries.

Here are our questions:

CDC Questions for Congressional Inquiry

1. According to your website, the CDC follows up on every reported death following vaccination to request additional information and learn more about “what occurred to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

As of April 30, there had been 157,277 adverse events reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination, including 3,837 deaths and 16,014 serious injuries. The CDC’s website acknowledges 4,178 reported deaths among people who had received a COVID vaccine between December 14, 2020 and May 3, 2021.

  • How many of these reports has the CDC followed up on so far?
  • What criteria determines whether there should be further investigation?
  • What does an investigation entail?
  • How long does a single investigation take, on average?
  • Where can the public access the findings of the investigations conducted into the reported deaths?

2. The CDC’s website states, “To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.” However, a search of reports filed as of April 30 shows what appear to be a number of patterns.

Please explain why the CDC does not acknowledge these:

3. In reference to the 4,178 reported deaths, the CDC’s website states, “A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.”

  • What are the criteria for determining whether the vaccine caused and/or contributed to the reported death?
  • Where can the public access the CDC’s review of reported deaths?

4. On Jan 3, the Florida Health Department and CDC announced it was conducting an investigation into the death of Dr. Gregory Michael who died shortly after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Dr. Jerry L. Spivak, an expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins University, told the New York Times that he believed it was a “medical certainty” that Pfizer’s COVID vaccine caused Michael’s death.

On April 8, medical examiners established that Michael died of complications from ITP, but officially categorized the death as natural because, according to Darren Caprara, director of operations for the Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner Department, there was “no medical certainty” the vaccine caused Michael’s death.

On Feb. 4, the media reported that state and federal officials were investigating the death of a 58-year-old woman, Drene Keyes, in Virginia, who died hours after receiving the first dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine from an anaphylaxis. An article published March 7 disclosed that no autopsy was conducted into Keyes cause of death and the family had to procure their own.

State Health Commissioner Norman Oliver told public information officers in an email Feb. 5 if reporters asked whether an autopsy was done, they should say “a full autopsy was not needed in order to ascertain whether the death was related to the vaccination.”

Oliver’s email was part of a public records request that revealed officials inside and outside the health department were concerned the death of Keyes, who is Black, could worsen vaccine hesitancy among minorities.

On Feb. 5, a 39-year-old woman from Ogden, Utah, died four days after receiving a second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Kassidi Kurill died of organ failure after her liver, heart and kidneys shut down. She had no known medical issues or pre-existing conditions, according to her family.

  • Where can the public access the findings of the investigations for Michaels, Keyes and Ogden?
  • Does the CDC have any mechanisms in place to ensure that local public health officials properly investigate reported deaths?
  • Why did the CDC not request an autopsy be performed on Keyes? 
  • Are autopsies considered essential to prove that a vaccine caused a death, or is an autopsy not an effective tool for determining causation and if not, why not? Can a causal relationship be established without an autopsy? 
  • If no, what happens in those cases where a report is filed but no autopsy was done — are those reports thrown out? Or is the vaccine ruled out as causing or contributing to the death?

5. Numerous medical examiners and pathologists have stated there is not an option to select a vaccine as a cause of death on their reports. This has obvious implications for determining whether a vaccine is an underlying cause or contributing factor to a reported death.

  • Can you verify that both medical examiners and pathologists have the option on their forms to indicate that a vaccine caused and/or contributed to a death?
  • Does the CDC differentiate between a vaccine “contributing to a death” and “causing” a death? If yes, what are the criteria for differentiating between “contributing” and “causing?” And are both reported to the public?

6. According to the CDC website and FDA’s EUA approval materials, healthcare providers are required to report certain adverse events to VAERS by law. Yet, according to the CDC, which references a study published by “Vaccine,” only 17% of physicians reported to VAERS despite more than 31% having witnessed a reaction they believed to have been caused by the vaccine.

Multiple reports have determined that as few as 1% of adverse reactions post-vaccine are ever reported to VAERS. Physicians receive little or no training in how to recognize a vaccine adverse reaction, nor are they trained in medical school on how to file a report in VAERS.

  • Is there any mechanism in place by which the CDC can confirm whether healthcare providers are reporting to VAERS?
  • What, if any, measures is the CDC taking to improve VAERS, including ensuring that all healthcare providers fully report on all adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, which were developed in record time and are still, by definition, experimental products?

7. On the CDC website it states: “To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.”

  • Can you explain how the CDC arrived at this conclusion considering there have been 3,544 reported deaths (with 25% having occurred within 48 hours of vaccination), 12,619 serious injuries and more than 118,902 adverse reactions –– many of which were reported by healthcare providers?

8. As of April 30, there were 2,808 reports of blood clot disorders for all three vaccines in the VAERS system. Of the 2,808 cases reported, there were 1,043 reports attributed to Pfizer, 893 reports to Moderna and 860 reports to J&J.

A Utah teen was hospitalized with three blood clots in and near his brain that developed after he received the first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. Everest Romney, 17, received the vaccine April 21 and began experiencing neck pain, fever and severe headaches one day later. The teen was diagnosed with two blood clots inside his brain, and one on the outside.

  • Is the CDC investigating reports of clotting disorders with mRNA vaccines?

9. In March 1976, the federal government rushed the H1N1 vaccine to market after hundreds of soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, contracted the new virus strain. Of the 45 million people who received the vaccine, 450 developed Guillain-Barré syndrome and of those, more than 30 died.

Months later — in December 1976 — the government suspended the H1N1 mass vaccination campaign, after the National Academy of Medicine concluded people who received the vaccine had an increased risk for developing Guillain-Barré.

  • How many deaths, as a percentage of the total number of administrations of a vaccine, would it take for the FDA to remove a vaccine from the market? And how do the criteria for removing vaccines from the market compare with criteria for removing other types of drugs?

10. As of April 26 more than 9,245 COVID cases had been reported in the fully vaccinated. These are referred to as “breakthrough cases.”

In early May, the CDC recommended reducing the RT-PCR Ct value to 28 cycles for those being tested for COVID after having been fully vaccinated. A lower Ct value indicates a higher viral load in the sample, and vice versa. A PCR test commonly uses 40 cycles of amplification, Dr. Fauci recommends 35 and the global standard is 35.

Lowering the Ct values to 28 (excluding Ct values between 29 and 35) for vaccinated individuals will reduce the number of positive COVID breakthrough cases, calling into question COVID vaccine efficacy data.

  • Can you explain why the CDC recommends a lower Ct value for those having been vaccinated for COVID?
  • Can you explain the impact of reducing the RT-PCR threshold to 28 on breakthrough COVID cases?
  • Can you explain why the CDC does not require one RT-PCR testing standard?
  • Why did the CDC change their reporting on breakthrough cases May 7 to exclude cases of COVID in the fully vaccinated unless they result in hospitalization or death?
  • The vaccine is designed to prevent COVID and/or moderate to severe COVID. How can the CDC monitor vaccine efficacy if it excludes COVID cases that do not result in hospitalization or death?

11. In December 2020, the CDC launched taxpayer-funded V-safe, a smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to provide personalized health check-ins after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. According to the CDC’s website, you can quickly tell the CDC via this app if you have any side effects after getting vaccinated.

  • Where can the public access the information from V-safe? And if this information isn’t being made available to the public, why isn’t it and who is privy to the data?

*

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

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

Featured image is from 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.

***

Children’s Health Defense and Parental Rights Foundation are preparing to jointly file a lawsuit challenging the D.C. Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 as unconstitutional.

The recently enacted law allows children 11 and older to receive vaccinations at school without the knowledge or consent of a parent. Under the new law, even if the parent has previously submitted a written religious exemption statement, school officials may secretly administer vaccines to the child against the parents’ written directive.

Immediate legal action is necessary to protect children and parental rights, especially now that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in children ages 12 and older.

On May 12, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the CDC recommended childhood vaccine schedule. Once this occurs, D.C. public health officials will be able to immediately vaccinate children with the COVID-19 vaccine and other vaccines against their parents’ wishes.

If a child is injured by a vaccine, the pharmaceutical industry and the school system will be shielded from liability.

In order for Children’s Health Defense and Parental Rights Foundation to file a lawsuit to stop the administration of vaccinations to children without the parents’ knowledge or informed consent, we must find plaintiffs with legal standing now.

To be a plaintiff in a case challenging the new law, the parent and child must meet the following requirements:

  1. The parent and child must be residents of the District of Columbia.
  2. The child must be between the ages of 11 and 18.
  3. The child must be eligible for enrollment in school in the District of Columbia.
  4. The child’s school may be public or private.

If you and your child meet these requirements and you wish to stand up for your constitutional rights and liberty, please use the form here to contact Children’s Health Defense.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Urgent: D.C. Parents, Take Action to Protect Children from Being Vaccinated Without Parental Consent
  • Tags:

Second Stage Terror Wars

May 12th, 2021 by Edward Curtin

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – William Casey, CIA Director, Feb. 1981

It is well known that the endless U.S. war on terror was overtly launched following the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the linked anthrax attacks.   The invasion of Afghanistan and the Patriot Act were immediately justified by those insider murders, and subsequently the wars against Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.  So too the terrorizing of the American people with constant fear-mongering about imminent Islamic terrorist attacks from abroad that never came.

It is less well known that the executive director of the U.S. cover story – the fictional 9/11 Commission Report – was Philip Zelikow, who controlled and shaped the report from start to finish.

It is even less well known that Zelikow, a professor at the University of Virginia, was closely associated with Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, Dickey Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Brent Scowcroft, et al. and had served in various key intelligence positions in both the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations. In 2011 President Obama named him to his President’s Intelligence Advisory Board as befits bi-partisan elite rule and coverup compensation across political parties.

Perhaps it’s unknown or just forgotten that The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission repeatedly called for Zelikow’s removal, claiming that his appointment made a farce of the claim that the Commission was independent.

Zelikow said that for the Commission to consider alternative theories to the government’s claims about Osama bin Laden was akin to whacking moles.  This is the man, who at the request of his colleague Condoleezza Rice, became the primary author of (NSS 2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, that declared that the U.S. would no longer abide by international law but was adopting a policy of preemptive war, as declared by George W. Bush at West Point in June 2002.  This was used as justification for the attack on Iraq in 2003 and was a rejection of the charter of the United Nations.

So, based on Zelikow’s work creating a magic mountain of deception while disregarding so-called molehills, we have had twenty years of American terror wars around the world in which U.S. forces have murdered millions of innocent people.  Wars that will be continuing for years to come despite rhetoric to the contrary.  The rhetoric is simply propaganda to cover up the increasingly technological and space-based nature of these wars and the use of mercenaries and special forces.

Simultaneously, in a quasi-volte-face, the Biden administration has directed its resources inward toward domestic “terrorists”: that is, anyone who disagrees with its policies.  This is especially aimed at those who question the COVID-19 story.

Now Zelikow has been named to head a COVID Commission Planning Group based at the University of Virginia that is said to prepare the way for a National COVID Commission.  The group is funded by the Schmidt Futures, the Skoll Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and Stand Together, with more expected to join in.  Zelikow, a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Development Program Advisory Panel, will lead the group that will work in conjunction with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.  Stand together indeed: Charles Koch, Bill Gates, Eric Schmidt, the Rockefellers, et al. funders of disinterested truth.

So once again the fox is in the hen house.

If you wistfully think the corona crisis will soon come to an end, I suggest you alter your perspective.  Zelikow’s involvement, among other things, suggests we are in the second phase of a long war of terror waged with two weapons – military and medical – whose propaganda messaging is carried out by the corporate mainstream media in the pursuit of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. Part one has so far lasted twenty years; part two may last longer. You can be certain it won’t end soon and that the new terrorists are domestic dissidents.

Did anyone think the freedoms lost with The Patriot Act were coming back some day?  Does anyone think the freedoms lost with the corona virus propaganda are coming back?  Many people probably have no idea what freedoms they lost with the Patriot Act, and many don’t even care.

And today?  Lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, travel restrictions, requirements to be guinea pigs for vaccines that are not vaccines, etc.?

Who remembers the Nuremberg Codes?

And they thought they were free, as Milton Mayer wrote about the Germans under Hitler.  Like frogs in a pot of cold water, we need to feel the temperature rising before it’s too late.  The dial is turned to high heat now.

But that was so long ago and far away, right?  Don’t exaggerate, you say.  Hitler and all that crap.

Are you thankful now that government spokespeople are blatantly saying that they will so kindly give us back some freedoms if we only do what they’re told and get “vaccinated” with an experimental biological agent, wear our masks, etc.? Hoi polloi are supposed to be grateful to their masters, who will grant some summer fun until they slam the door shut again.

Pfizer raked in $3.5 billion from vaccine sales in the first quarter of 2021, the first three months of the vaccine rollouts, and the company projects $26 billion for the year.  That’s one vaccine manufacturer.  Chump change?  Only a chump would not realize that Pfizer is the company that paid $2.3 billion in Federal criminal fines in 2009 – the largest ever paid by a drug company – for being a repeat offender in the marketing of 13 different drugs.

Meanwhile, the commission justifying the government’s claims about COVID-19 and injections (aka “vaccines”) will be hard at work writing their fictive report that will justify ex post facto the terrible damage that has occurred and that will continue to occur for many years.  Censorship and threats against dissidents will increase.  The disinformation that dominates the corporate mainstream media will of course continue, but this will be supplemented by alternative media that are already buckling under the pressure to conform.

The fact that there has been massive censorship of dissenting voices by Google/ YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, etc., and equally massive disinformation by commission and omission across media platforms, should make everyone ask why.  Why repress dissent?  The answer should be obvious but is not.

The fact that so many refuse to see the significance of this censorship clearly shows the hypnotic effects of a massive mind control operation.

Name calling and censorship are sufficient.  Perfectly healthy people have now become a danger to others.  So mask up, get your experimental shot, and shut up!

Your body is no longer inviolable.  You must submit to medical procedures on your body whether you want them or not.  Do not object or question. If you do, you will be punished and will become a pariah.  The authorities will call you crazy, deviant, selfish. They will take away your rights to travel and engage in normal activities, such as attend college, etc.

Please do not recall The Nuremberg Code.  Especially number 7: “Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.” (my emphasis)

“Now is the time to just do what you are told,” as Anthony Fauci so benevolently declared.

I am not making a prediction.  The authorities have told us what’s coming. Pay attention.  Don’t be fooled.  It’s a game they have devised.  Keep people guessing.  On edge.  Relieved.  Tense.  Relaxed.  Shocked.  Confused.  That’s the game.  One day this, the next that.  You’re on, you’re off.  You’re in, you’re out.  We are allowing you this freedom, but be good children or we will have to retract it.  If you misbehave, you will get a time out.  Time to contemplate your sins.

If you once thought that COVID-19 would be a thing of the past by now, or ever, think again.  On May 3, 2021 The New York Times reported that the virus is here to stay.  This was again reported on May 10.  Hopes Fade for Global Herd Immunity.  You may recall that we were told such immunity would be achieved once enough people got the “vaccine” or enough people contracted the virus and developed antibodies.

On May 9, on ABC News, Dr. Fauci, when asked about indoor mask requirements being relaxed, said, “I think so, and I think you’re going to probably be seeing that as we go along, and as more people get vaccinated.”  Then he added: “We do need to start being more liberal, as we get more people vaccinated.”

But then, in what CNN reported as a Mother’s Day prediction, he pushed the date for “normality” out another year, saying, “I hope that [by] next Mother’s Day, we’re going to see a dramatic difference than what we’re seeing right now. I believe that we will be about as close to back to normal as we can.  We’ve got to make sure that we get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated. When that happens, the virus doesn’t really have any place to go. You’re not going to see a surge. You’re not going to see the kinds of numbers we see now.”

He said this with a straight face even though the experimental “vaccines,” by their makers own admissions, do not prevent the vaccinated from getting the virus or passing it on.  They allege it only mitigates the severity of the virus if you contract it.

Notice the language and the vaccination meme repeated three times: “We get more people vaccinated.” (my emphasis) Not that more people choose to get vaccinated, but “we get” them vaccinated.  Thank you, Big Daddy. And now we have another year to go until “we will be about as close to back to normal as we can.”  Interesting phrase: as we can.  It other words: we will never return to normality but will have to settle for the new normal that will involve fewer freedoms.  Life will be reset, a great reset.  Great for the few and terrible for the many.

Once two vaccines were enough; then, no, maybe one is sufficient; no, you will need annual or semi-annual booster shots to counteract the new strains that they say are coming.  It’s a never-ending story with never-ending new strains in a massive never-ending medical experiment.  The virus is changing so quickly and herd immunity is now a mystical idea, we are told, that it will never be achieved.  We will have to be eternally vigilant.

But wait.  Don’t despair.  It looks like restrictions are easing up for the coming summer in the northern hemisphere. Lockdowns will be loosened.  If you felt like a prisoner for the past year plus, now you will be paroled for a while. But don’t dispose of those masks just yet.  Fauci says that wearing masks could become seasonal following the pandemic because people have become accustomed to wearing them and that’s why the flu has disappeared. The masks didn’t prevent COVID-19 but eliminated the flu.  Are you laughing yet?

Censorship and lockdowns and masks and mandatory injections are like padded cells in a madhouse and hospital world where free-association doesn’t lead to repressed truths because free association isn’t allowed, neither in word nor deed.  Speaking freely and associating with others are too democratic. Yes, we thought we were free.  False consciousness is pandemic.  Exploitation is seen as benevolence. Silence reigns.  And the veiled glances signify the ongoing terror that has spread like a virus.

We are now in a long war with two faces.  As with the one justified by the mass murders of September 11, 2001, this viral one isn’t going away.

The question is: Do we have to wait twenty years to grasp the obvious and fight for our freedoms?

We can be assured that Zelikow and his many associates at Covid Collaborative, including General Stanley McChrystal, Robert Gates, Arnie Duncan, Deval Patrick, Tom Ridge, et al. – a whole host of Republicans and Democrats backed by great wealth and institutional support, will not be “whacking moles” in their search for truth.  Their agenda is quite different.

But then again, you may recall where they stood on the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the endless wars that have followed.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. 

He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/

Featured image is from the author

History: Napoleon Between War and Revolution

May 12th, 2021 by Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The French Revolution was not a simple historic event but a long and complex process in which a number of different stadia may be identified. Some of these stadia were even counterrevolutionary in nature, for example the “aristocratic revolt” at the very start. Two phases, however, were unquestionably revolutionary.  

The first stage was “1789”, the moderate revolution. It put an end to the “Ancien Régime” with its royal absolutism and feudalism, the power monopoly of the monarch and privileges of the nobility and the Church. The important achievements of “1789” also included the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the equality of all Frenchmen before the law, the separation of Church and state, a parliamentary system based on a limited franchise, and, last but not least, the creation of an “indivisible”, centralized, and modern French state. These achievements, amounting to a major step forward in the history of France, were enshrined in a new constitution that was officially promulgated in 1791.

France’s pre-1789 Ancien Régime had been intimately associated with the absolute monarchy. Under the revolutionary system of “1789”, on the other hand, the king was supposed to find a comfortable role within a constitutional and parliamentary monarchy. But that did not work out because of intrigues by Louis XVI, and thus arose a radically new type of French state in 1792, a republic. “1789” was made possible by the violent interventions of the Parisian “mob”, the so-called “sans-culottes”, but its outcome was essentially the handiwork of a moderate class of people, virtually exclusively members of the haute bourgeoisie, the upper-middle class. On the ruins of the Ancien Régime, which had served the interests of the nobility and the Church, these gentlemen erected a state that was supposed to be in the service of the well-to-do burghers.

Politically, these solid gentlemen initially found a home in the “club” or embryonic political party of the Feuillants, subsequently in that of the Girondins. The latter name reflected the place of origin of its leading element, a contingent of members of the bourgeoisie of Bordeaux, the great harbour on the banks of the Gironde estuary, whose wealth was based not only on trade in wine but also, and primarily, in slaves. In Paris, the den of the revolutionary lions, the sans-culottes, and more respectable but still radical revolutionaries known as the Jacobins, these provincial gentlemen never felt at home.

The second revolutionary stage was “1793”. That was the “popular”, radical, egalitarian revolution, with social rights (including the right to work) and relatively thorough social-economic reforms, reflected in a constitution promulgated in the revolutionary year I (1793), which never went into effect. In that stage, incorporated by the famous Maximilien Robespierre, the revolution was socially oriented and prepared to regulate the national economy, thus limiting individual freedom to some extent, “pour le bonheur commun”, that is, for the benefit of the entire nation. Since the right to own property was rmaintained, one can describe “1793” in contemporary terminology as “social democratic”, rather than truly “socialist”.

“1793” was the work of Robespierre and the Jacobins, especially the most ardent Jacobins, a group known as the Montagne, the “mountain”, because they occupied the highest rows of seats in the legislature. They were radical revolutionaries, predominantly of petit-bourgeois or lower-middle class background, whose principles were just as liberal as those of the haute bourgeoisie. But they also sought to satisfy the elementary needs of the Parisian plebeians, especially the artisans who constituted a majority among the sans-culottes. The sans-culottes were ordinary folks who wore long pants instead of the knickers (culottes) complemented by silk stockings typical of aristocrats and prosperous burghers. They were the storm troops of the revolution: the storming of the Bastille was one of their achievements. Robespierre and his radical Jacobins needed them as allies in their struggle against the Girondins, the bourgeoisie’s moderate revolutionaries, but also against the aristocratic and ecclesiastical counterrevolutionaries.

The radical revolution was in many ways a Parisian phenomenon, a revolution made in, by, and for Paris. Unsurprisingly, the opposition emanated mainly from outside of Paris, more specifically, from the bourgeoisie in Bordeaux and other provincial cities, exemplified by the Girondins, and from the peasants in the countryside. With “1793”, the revolution became a kind of conflict between Paris and the rest of France.

The counterrevolution – embodied by the aristocrats who had fled the country, the émigrés, priests, and seditious peasants in the Vendée and elsewhere in the provinces – was hostile to “1789” as well as “1793” and wanted nothing less than a return to the Ancien Régime; in the Vendée, the rebels fought for king and Church. As for the wealthy bourgeoisie, it was against “1793” but in favour of “1789”. In contrast to the Parisian sans-culottes, that class had nothing to gain but a lot to lose from radical revolutionary progress in the direction indicated by the Montagnards and their constitution of 1793, promoting egalitarianism and statism, that is, state intervention in the economy. But the bourgeoisie also opposed a return to the Ancien Régime, which would have put the state back in the service of the nobility and the Church. “1789”, on the other hand, resulted in a French state in the service of the bourgeoisie.

A retour en arrière to the moderate bourgeois revolution of 1789 – but with a republic instead of a constitutional monarchy – was the objective and in many ways also the result of the “Thermidor”, the 1794 coup d’état that put an end to the revolutionary government – and the life – of Robespierre. The “Thermidorian reaction” produced the constitution of the year III which,.as the French historian Charles Morazé has written, “secured private property and liberal thought and abolished anything that seemed to push the bourgeois revolution in the direction of socialism”. The Thermidorian updating of “1789” produced a state that has correctly been described as a “bourgeois republic” (république bourgeoise) or a “republic of the property owners” (république des propriétaires).

Thus originated the Directoire, an extremely authoritarian regime, camouflaged by a thin layer of democratic varnish in the shape of legislatures whose members were elected on the basis of a very limited franchise.The Directoire found it excruciatingly difficult to survive while steering between, on the right, a royalist Scylla yearning for a return to the Ancien Régime and, on the left, a Charybdis of Jacobins and sans-culottes eager to re-radicalize the revolution. Various royalist and (neo-)Jacobin rebellions erupted, and each time the Directoire had to be saved by the intervention of the army. One of these uprisings was smothered in blood by an ambitious and popular general called Napoleon Bonaparte.

The problems were finally solved by means of a coup d’état that took place on 18 Brumaire of the year VIII, November 9, 1799. To avoid losing its power to the royalists or the Jacobins, France’s well-to-do bourgeoisie turned its power over to Napoleon, a military dictator who was both reliable and popular. The Corsican was expected to put the French state at the disposal of the haute bourgeoisie, and that is exactly what he did. His primordial task was the elimination of the twin threat that had bedeviled the bourgeoisie. The royalist and therefore counterrevolutionary danger was neutralized by means of the “stick” of repression but even more so by the “carrot” of reconciliation. Napoleon allowed the emigrated aristocrats to return to France, to recuperate their property, and to enjoy the privileges showered by his regime not only on the wealthy burghers but on all property owners. He also reconciled France with the Church by signing a concordat with the Pope.

To get rid of the (neo-)Jacobin threat and to prevent a new radicalization of the revolution, Napoleon relied mostly on an instrument which had already been used by the Girondins and the Directoire, namely warfare. Indeed, when we recall Napoleon’s dictatorship, we do not think so much of revolutionary events in the capital, as in the years 1789 to 1794, but of an endless series of wars fought far from Paris and in many cases far beyond the borders of France. That is not a coincidence, because the so-called “revolutionary wars” were functional for the primordial objective of the champions of the moderate revolution, including Bonaparte and his sponsors: consolidating the achievements of “1789” and preventing both a return to the Ancien Régime and a repeat of “1793”.

With their policy of terror, known as la Terreur – the Terror -, Robespierre and the Montagnards had sought not only to protect but also to radicalize the revolution. That meant that they “internalized” the revolution within France, first and foremost in the heart of France, the capital, Paris. It is not a coincidence that the guillotine, the “revolutionary razor”, symbol of the radical revolution, was set up in the middle of Place de la Concorde, that is, in the middle of the square in the middle of the city in the middle of the country. To concentrate their own energy and the energy of the sans-culottes on the internalization of the revolution, Robespierre and his Jacobin comrades – in contrast to the Girondins – opposed international wars, which they considered to be a waste of revolutionary energy and a threat to the revolution. Conversely, the endless series of wars that were fought afterwards, first under the auspices of the Directoire and then Bonaparte, amounted to an externalization of the revolution, an exportation of the bourgeois revolution of 1789. Domestically, they simultaneously served to prevent a further internalization or radicalization of the revolution à la 1793.

War, international conflict, served to liquidate the revolution, domestic conflict, class conflict. This was done in two ways. First, war caused the most ardent revolutionaries to disappear from the cradle of the revolution, Paris. Initially as volunteers, but all too soon as draftees, countless young sans-culottes vanished from the capital to fight in foreign lands, all too often never to return. As a result, in Paris only a comparative handful of male fighters remained to carry out major revolutionary actions such as the storming of the Bastille, too few to repeat the successes of the sans-culottes between 1789 and 1793; this was clearly demonstrated by the failure of the Jacobin insurrections under the Directoire. Bonaparte perpetuated the system of compulsory military service and perpetual war. “It was he”, wrote the historian Henri Guillemin, “who shipped the potentially dangerous young plebeians far away from Paris and even all the way to Moscow – to the great relief of the well-to-do burghers [gens de bien]”.

Second, the news of great victories generated patriotic pride among the sans-culottes who had stayed at home, a pride that was to compensate for the dwindling revolutionary enthusiasm. With a little help form the god of war, Mars, therevolutionary energy of the sans-culottes and the French people in general could thus be directed into other channels, less radical in revolutionary terms. This reflected a displacement process whereby the French people, including the Parisian sans-culottes, gradually lost its enthusiasm for the revolution and the ideals of liberty, equality, and solidarity not only among Frenchmen but with other nations; instead, the French increasingly worshipped the golden calf of French chauvinism, territorial expansion to their country’s supposedly “natural” borders such as the Rhine, and the international glory of the “great nation” and – after 18 Brumaire – of its great leader, soon to be emperor: Bonaparte.

Thus we can also understand the ambivalent reaction of foreigners to the French wars and conquests of that era. While some – e.g. the Ancien Régime elites and the peasants – rejected the French Revolution in toto and others – above all local Jacobins such as the Dutch “patriots” – warmly welcomed it, many people wavered between admiration for the ideas and achievements of the French Revolution and revulsion for the militarism, the boundless chauvinism, and the ruthless imperialism of France after Thermidor, during the Directoire, and under Napoleon.

Many non-French struggled with simultaneous admiration and aversion for the French Revolution. In others, initial enthusiasm gave way sooner or later to disillusion. The British, for example, welcomed “1789” because they interpreted the moderate revolution as the importation into France of the kind of constitutional and parliamentary monarchy they themselves had adopted a century earlier at the time of their so-called Glorious Revolution. William Wordsworth evoked that feeling with the following lines:

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,

But to be young was very heaven!

 

After “1793” and the Terror associated with it, however, most British observed the events on the other side of the Channel with revulsion. Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France – published in November 1790 – became the counterrevolutionary Bible not only in England but all over the world. In the mid-20th century, George Orwell was to write that “to the average Englishman, the French Revolution means no more than a pyramid of severed heads”. The same thing could be said about virtually all non-French (and many French) to this day.

It was to put an end to the revolution in France itself, then, that Napoleon abducted it from Paris and exported it to the rest of Europe. In order to prevent the mighty revolutionary current from excavating and deepening its own channel – Paris and the rest of France – first the Thermidorians and later Napoleon caused its troubled waters to overflow the borders of France, inundate all of Europe, thus becoming vast, but shallow and calm.

To take the revolution away from its Parisian cradle, to put an end to what was in many ways a project of the petit-bourgeois Jacobins and sans-culottes of the capital, and conversely, to consolidate the moderate revolution dear to bourgeois hearts, Napoleon Bonaparte was the perfect choice, even symbolically. He was born in Ajaccio, the French provincial city that happened to be the farthest from Paris. Moreover, he was “a child of the Corsican gentry [gentilhommerie corse],  that is, the scion of a family that could be equally described as being haut-bourgeoise but with aristocratic pretensions, or else as lesser nobility but with a bourgeois lifestyle.

In many ways, the Bonapartes belonged to the haute bourgeoisie, the class that, in all of France, had managed to achieve its ambitions thanks to “1789”, and later, in the face of threats from the left as well as the right, attempted to consolidate this triumph via a military dictatorship. Napoleon embodied the provincial haute bourgeoisie which, following the example of the Girondins, wanted a moderate revolution, crystallized in a state, democratic if possible but authoritarian if necessary, that would permit itself to maximize its wealth and power. The experiences of the Directoire had revealed the shortcomings in this respect of a republic with relatively democratic institutions, and it was for that reason that the bourgeoisie finally sought salvation in a dictatorship.

The military dictatorship that replaced the post-Thermidorian “bourgeois republic” appeared on the scene like a deus ex machina in Saint-Cloud, a village just outside Paris, on “18 Brumaire of the year VIII”, that is, 9 November 1799. This decisive political step in the liquidation of the revolution was simultaneously a geographic step away from Paris, away from the hotbed of the revolution, away from the lions’ den of revolutionary Jacobins and sans-culottes. In addition, the transfer to Saint-Cloud was a small but symbolically significant step in the direction of the far less revolutionary, if not counterrevolutionary countryside. Saint-Cloud happens to be on the way from Paris to Versailles, the residence of the absolutist monarchs of the pre-revolutionary era. The fact that a coup d’état yielding an authoritarian regime took place there was the topographic reflection of the historic fact that France, after the democratic experiment of the revolution, found itself back on the road towards a new absolutist system similar to the one of which Versailles had been the “sun”. But this time the destination was an absolutist system presided over by a Bonaparte rather than a Bourbon and – much more importantly – an absolutist system in the service of the bourgeoisie rather than the nobility.

The coup d’état of Saint-Cloud on a British caricature by James Gillray (Public Domain)

With respect to the revolution, Bonaparte’s dictatorship was ambivalent. With his advent to power, the revolution was ended, even liquidated, at least in the sense that there would be nor more egalitarian experiments (as in “1793”) and no more efforts to maintain a republican-democratic façade (as in “1789”). On the other hand, the essential achievements of “1789” were maintained and even enshrined.

So, was Napoleon a revolutionary or not? He was for the revolution in the sense that he was against the royalist counterrevolution, and since two negatives cancel each other, a counter-counterrevolutionary is automatically a revolutionary, n’est-ce pas? But one can also say that Napoleon was simultaneously against the revolution: he favoured the moderate, bourgeois revolution of 1789, associated with the Feuillants, Girondins, and Thermidorians, but was against the radical revolution of 1793, handiwork of the Jacobins and sans-culottes. In her book La Révolution, une exception française?, the French historian Annie Jourdan quotes a contemporary German commentator who realized that Bonaparte “was never anything other than the personification of one of the different stages of the revolution”, as he wrote in 1815. That stage was the bourgeois, moderate revolution, “1789”, the revolution Napoleon was not only to consolidate within France but also to export to the rest of Europe.

Napoleon eliminated the royalist as well as Jacobin threats, but he rendered another important service to the bourgeoisie. He arranged for the right to own property, cornerstone of the liberal ideology so dear to bourgeois hearts, to be legally enshrined. And he showed his devotion to this principle by reintroducing slavery, still widely regarded as a legitimate form of property. France had actually been the first country to abolish slavery, namely at the time of the radical revolution, under Robespierre’s auspices. He had done so despite the opposition of his antagonists, the Girondns, supposedly moderate gentlemen, precursors of Bonaparte as champions of the cause of the bourgeoisie and of its liberal ideology, glorifying liberty – but not for slaves.

“In Napoleon”, wrote the historian Georges Dupeux, “the bourgeoisie found a protector as well as a master”. The Corsican was unquestionably a protector and even a great champion of the cause of the well-to-do burghers, but he was never their master.  In reality, from the beginning to the end of his “dictatorial” career he was a subordinate of the nation’s captains of industry and finance, the same gentlemen who already controlled France at the time of the Directoire, the “république des propriétaires”, and who had entrusted him with the management of the country on their behalf.

Financially, not only Napoleon but the entire French state were made dependent on an institution that was − and has remained until the present time − the property of the country’s elite, even though that reality was obfuscated by the application of a label that created the impression that it was a state enterprise, the Banque de France, the national bank. Its bankers raised money from the moneyed bourgeoisie and made it available, at relatively high interest rates, to Napoleon, who used it to govern and arm France, to wage endless war, and of course to play emperor with lots of pomp and circumstance.

Napoleon was nothing other than the figurehead of a regime, a dictatorship of the haute bourgeoisie, a regime that knew how to dissimulate itself behind a lavish choreography in the style of ancient Rome, conjuring up first, rather modestly, a consulate and subsequently a boastful empire.

Let us return to the role of the endless series of wars waged by Napoleon, military adventures undertaken for the glory of the “grande nation” and its ruler. We already know that these conflicts served first and foremost to liquidate the radical revolution in France itself. But they also enabled the bourgeoisie to accumulate capital as never before. Supplying the army with weapons, uniforms, food, etc., huge profits were realized by industrialists, merchants, and bankers. The wars were great for business, and the victories yielded territories that contained valuable raw materials or could serve as markets for the finished products of France’s industry. This benefited the French economy in general, but primarily its industry, whose development was thus accelerated considerably. Consequently, industrialists (and their partners in banking) were able to play an increasingly important role within the bourgeoisie.

Under Napoleon, industrial capitalism, poised to become typical of the 19th century, started to overtake commercialcapitalism, economic trendsetter during the previous two centuries. It is worth noting that the accumulation of commercial capital in France had been possible above all thanks to the slave trade, while the accumulation of industrial capital had a lot to do with the virtually uninterrupted string of wars fought first by the Directoire and then by Napoleon. In this sense, Balzac was right when he wrote that “behind every great fortune with no apparent source there lies a forgotten crime”.

Napoleon’s wars stimulated the development of the industrial system of production. Simultaneously, they sounded the death knell for the ancient, small-scale, artisanal system in which craftsmen laboured in the traditional, unmechanized manner. Via warfare, the Bonapartist bourgeoisie not only made the sans-culottes – predominantly artisans, shopkeepers, etc. – disappear physically from Paris, it also caused them to vanish from the social-economic landscape. In the drama of the revolution, the sans-culottes had played a major role. Because of the wars that liquidated the (radical) revolution, they, the storm troops of revolutionary radicalism, exited the stage of history.

Thanks to Napoleon, France’s bourgeoisie thus managed to rid itself of its class enemy. But that turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Why? The economic future belonged not to the workshops and the craftsmen who laboured  “independently”, owned some property, if only their tools, and were therefore petit-bourgeois, but to the factories, their owners, the industrialists, but also their labourers, the wage-earning and typically very poorly paid factory workers. This “proletariat” was to reveal itself to the bourgeoisie as a much more dangerous class enemy than the sans-culottes and other craftsmen had ever been. Moreover, the proletarians aimed to bring about a much more radical revolution than Robespierre’s “1793”. But this was to be a concern for the bourgeois regimes that were to succeed that of the supposedly “great” Napoleon, including that of his nephew, Napoleon III, denigrated by Victor Hugo as “Napoleon le Petit”.

There are many people inside and outside of France, including politicians and historians, who despise and denounce Robespierre, the Jacobins, and the sans-culottes because of the bloodshed associated with their radical, “popular” revolution of 1793. The same folks often display a great deal of admiration for Napoleon, restorer of “law and order” and saviour of the moderate, bourgeois revolution of 1789. They condemn the internalization of the French Revolution because it was accompanied by the Terror, which in France, especially in Paris, made many thousands of victims, and for this they blame the Jacobin “ideology” and/or the presumably innate bloodthirstiness of the “populace”. They appear not to realize – or do not want to realize – that the externalization of the revolution by the Thermidorians and by Napoleon, accompanied by international wars that dragged on for almost twenty years, cost the lives of many millions of people throughout Europe, including countless Frenchmen. Those wars amounted to a much greater and bloodier form of terror than the Terreur orchestrated by Robespierre had ever been.

That terror-regime is estimated to have cost the lives of approximately 50,000 people, representing more or less 0.2 percent of France’s population. Is that a lot or a little, asks the historian Michel Vovelle, who cites these figures in one of his books. In comparison with the number of victims of the wars fought for the temporary territorial expansion of the grande nation and for the glory of Bonaparte, it is very little. The Battle of Waterloo alone, the final battle of Napoleon’s presumably glorious career, including its prelude, the mere “skirmishes” of Ligny and Quatre Bras, caused between 80,000 and 90,000 casualties. Worst of all, many hundreds of thousands of men never returned from his disastrous campaigns in Russia. Terrible, n’est-ce pas? But nobody ever seems to talk about a Bonapartist “terror”, and Paris and the rest of France are full of monuments, streets and squares that commemorate the presumably heroic and glorious deeds of the most famous of all Corsicans.

Antoine Wiertz, “Une scène de l’enfer”, Wiertz Museum, Brussels

By substituting permanent warfare for permanent revolution within France, and above all in Paris, noted Marx and Engels, the Thermidorians and their successors “perfected” the strategy of terror, in other words, caused much more blood to flow than at the time of Robespierre’s policy of terror. In any event, the exportation or externalization, by means of war, of the Thermidorian, (haut) bourgeois revolution, update of “1789”, claimed many more victims than the Jacobin attempt to radicalize or internalize the revolution within France by means of la Terreur.

Like our politicians and media, most historians still consider warfare to be a perfectly legitimate state activity anda source of glory and pride for the victors and, even for our inevitably “heroic” losers. Conversely, the  tens or hundreds of thousands, and even millions of victims of warfare – now mainly carried out as bombings from the air and therefore really one-sided massacres, rather than wars – never receive the same attention and sympathy as the far less numerous victims of “terror”, a form of violence that is not sponsored, at least not overtly, by a state and is therefore branded as illegitimate.

The present “war on terror” comes to mind. As far as the never-ceasing-to-wage-war superpower is concerned, this is a form of permanent and ubiquitous warfare that stimulates unthinking, flag-waving chauvinism among ordinary Americans – the American “sans-culottes”! – while providing the poorest among them with jobs in the marines. To the great advantage of American industry, this perpetual warfare gives US corporations access to important raw materials such as petroleum, and for weapons manufacturers and many other firms, especially those with friends in the halls of power in Washington, it functions as a cornucopia of sky-high profits. The similarities to Napoleon’s wars are obvious. How do the French say it again? “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”.

Statue of Napoleon in Waterloo (Photo by J. Pauwels)

With Napoleon Bonaparte, the revolution ended where it was supposed to end, at least as far as the French bourgeoisie was concerned. With his arrival on the scene, the bourgeoisie triumphed. It is not a coincidence that in French cities members of the social elite, known as les notables, meaning businessmen, bankers, lawyers and other representatives of the haute bourgeoisie, like to congregate in cafés and restaurants that are named after Bonaparte, as the brilliant sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has observed.

The haute bourgeoisie has always remained grateful to Napoleon for the eminent services he rendered to their class. The most prominent of these services was the liquidation of the radical revolution, of “1793”, which threatened the considerable advantages the bourgeoisie had acquired, thanks to “1789”, at the expense of the nobility and the Church. Conversely, the bourgeoisie’s hatred of Robespierre, figurehead of “1793”, explains the almost total absence of statues and other monuments, names of streets and squares, that honour his memory – even though his abolition of slavery amounted to one of the greatest achievements in the history of democracy worldwide.

Napoleon is also venerated beyond the borders of France, in Belgium, Italy, Germany, etc., mostly by the well-to-do bourgeoisie. The reason for this is undoubtedly that all those countries were still feudal, quasi-medieval societies, where his conquests made it possible to liquidate their own Ancien Régimes and introduce the moderate revolution, wellspring, as it had already been in France, of considerable improvements for the entire population (except nobility and clergy, of course) but also of special privileges for the bourgeoisie. That probably also explains why, in Waterloo today, not Wellington but Napoleon is the undisputed star of the tourist show, so that tourists who do not know better might get the impression that it was he who won the battle!

Renowned Historian and political scientist Dr. Jacques Pauwels is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG

*

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 Public Domain


Le Paris des sans-culottes: Guide du Paris révolutionnaire 1789-1799

By Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

Tel un guide touristique, Jacques Pauwels emmène le lecteur dans un voyage à travers les années sans doute les plus orageuses de l’histoire de la capitale française. Dans un style alerte et avec le souci du détail, il sait attirer l’attention sur les événements décisifs qui bouleversèrent la France et le monde. Le déroulement historique de la Révolution devient ainsi une promenade à travers le Paris de l’époque comme celui d’aujourd’hui.

JACQUES PAUWELS, né à Gand en 1946, il réside au Canada depuis 1969. Il a enseigné dans différentes universités ontariennes, notamment aux universités de Toronto, de Waterloo et de Guelph. Outre La Grande Guerre des classes (première édition, Aden, 2014, deuxième édition mise à jour Delga 2016), on lui doit également Le Mythe de la bonne guerre (Aden, 2005) et Big Business avec Hitler (Aden, 2013), Les Mythes de l’histoire moderne (Investig’action, 2019).

Click here to order.

Pictures of a Ukrainian Dream

May 12th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Picture yourself about to meet a girl with kaleidoscope eyes… No. Sorry. Actually picture merry lines of code in the R programming language – wallowing in a happy valley of game theory models which would not preclude Goth or New Romantic Walkyrie dancin’ to the 12-inch version of Bauhaus’s Bela Lugosi is Dead.

Imagine this reverie coming about because of a “pin!” in your inbox. After all you have just been presented with an astonishing piece of intel. You scramble to the exit, actually the entrance of the Magic Theater, where you ask, Keats-style, Was it a dream? Do I wake or sleep?

So what was the dream about? Oh, something so prosaic, so down to the nitty gritty geopolitics: what really happened during the visit of US Secretary of State Tony Blinken to Ukraine.

The great Andrei Martyanov has remarked that Blinken “told Kiev behind the scenes to ‘dial it down’, amidst the fluffy tropes about US concern for Ukraine’s ‘sovereignty’ and ‘security’”.

Well, looks like there was way more than fluffy tropes.

Leaked info on the closed-door meeting between Blinken and Comedian-in-Charge Zelensky is no less than incandescent. Blinken seemed to have read a no holds barred riot act.

Here are the guidelines. All Ukrainian state corporations must be controlled by the proverbial “foreign interests”. So board majorities must be either foreign or 5th columnists. The entire anti-corruption vertical drive must also be foreign-controlled. Same for the judicial system.

Andriy Kobolyev – an American asset – must be reinstated as head of Naftogaz. Zelensky moved mountains to get rid of Kobolyev.

Blinken demanded a massive push against every Ukrainian oligarch, so that huge chunks of Ukrainian economy are transferred to – who else – foreigners. Same for land privatization.

Somewhat hilariously, Blinken warned that Russian troops might invade Ukraine. In this case, Zelensky can count only on huge political assistance, not military. So Zelensky in fact was ordered to stop asking to join NATO and cease provoking Russia, as President Putin, who already drew red lines, could make a “drastic decision”.

Blinken demanded that American assets should be untouchable by Ukrainian law, and named honored figures of civil society. Maidan cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, also in the room, drew up a list of The Untouchables, and Blinken met with them separately.

Finally, the giant ghost hanging over the whole trip to Kiev had to make itself known. In practice, Zelensky was invited to turn in everyone in Ukraine who helped bring information about Hunter Biden to the media via Rudolph Giuliani.

According to the source who had access to the leak, Zelensky was left beyond speechless. That’s not exactly what he was expecting. Especially when it comes to transferring valuable assets controlled by Ukrainian oligarchs to “foreign interests”. Someone will inevitably whack him.

No one is touching this leak – as if it was radioactive poison. No one will confirm it. Its plausibility though cannot be denied.

Contradicting these powerful, left unnamed “foreign interests” is simply out of the question. They now seem to be guided by a “take the money and run” logic, as in taking over the looting of Ukraine lock, stock and barrel before the whole thing – actually a failed state – blows up.

Pity those oligarchs who thought they were going to loot the land through privatization. Instead the money is on a one way out journey. Follow the money. Follow the dream.

*

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 Saker.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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.

***

Anthony Fauci told NBC’s Chuck Todd that it’s “possible” mask mandates could continue indefinitely in order to reduce seasonal flu infections.

During his appearance on Meet The Press, Fauci was asked when Americans could take the masks off given that the CDC is now advising vaccinated Americans that they can remove the face coverings when outside.

“At what point, if vaccinated people get together, do you take the mask off? Are masks going to be something we have with us in a seasonal aspect?” Todd asked Fauci.

“You know, that’s quite possible, I think people have gotten used to the fact that wearing masks, clearly if you look at the data, diminished respiratory diseases. We’ve had practically a nonexistent flu season this year, merely because people were doing the kinds of public health things that were directed predominantly against COVID-19,” responded Fauci.

While COVID-19 lockdown advocates have asserted that mask wearing and social distancing made the flu virtually disappear, other health experts have questioned the legitimacy of this claim, suggesting that flu cases were merely being counted as COVID-19 cases to inflate the number.

Back in January, epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski stated,

“There may be quite a number of influenza cases included in the ‘presumed COVID-19’ category of people who have COVID-19 symptoms (which Influenza symptoms can be mistaken for), but are not tested for SARS RNA.”

“People know everybody is wearing masks and distancing, and so people want to come up with things that are good about it,” he added.

Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician who regularly appears on CNN, also previously said that Americans should wear masks and socially distance every winter in order to reduce flu hospitalizations and deaths.

As we previously highlighted, Dr. David Thunder Ph.D warned that governments now have the pretext to suspend liberties on a whim and will abuse that power again “whenever there’s a winter resurgence in respiratory viruses.”

As Tom Pappert points out, Fauci contradicted one of his own claims elsewhere within the same interview.

“The very next question appeared to exemplify an inconsistency, as Chuck Todd proceeded to ask if Americans could finally let their guard down, as he claims they did in May of 2020. Todd’s question would seem to indicate that 2020 saw the spread of COVID-19 because of the lack of adherence to COVID-19 precautions like social distancing, lockdowns, and mask wearing, only seconds after Fauci suggested that the 2020 flu season was greatly diminished because of social distancing, lockdowns, and mask wearing.”

*

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.

NATO Enters New Warfighting Domain in Space

May 12th, 2021 by Rick Rozoff

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 head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s North American command, General André Lanata, recently visited U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The general, as all top commanders of NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (described as NATO’s Warfare Development Command) in Norfolk, Virginia have been since his nation rejoined the NATO Military Command structure in 2009, is French. As the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is always American and the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe is always British when he’s not German.

While there he met with General James Dickinson, Commander of the United States Space Command; General Glen VanHerck, Commander of the United States Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command; and Lieutenant-General Alain Pelletier, Deputy Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command.

NATO officially declared space its newest operational domain in 2019, adding to its other four battlefields: air, land, sea and cyberspace. It is currently setting up a NATO Space Centre at its Allied Air Command headquarters in Ramstein, Germany. The thirty-nation military bloc will soon be conducting missions and operations in space; including but surely not limited to communications, satellite imagery and “protect[ing] Allied space systems.”

It identified among other concerns this seemingly inevitable mention of its two global – and more than global – adversaries:

“Space is becoming more crowded and competitive, satellites are vulnerable to interference. Some countries, including Russia and China, have developed and tested a wide range of counter-space technologies.”

The bloc’s main military body, the Military Committee, appointed its two strategic commands – Allied Command Transformation and Allied Command Operations – to initiate plans to expand military activities into space by creating a NATO Space Working Group. To guarantee “unfettered utilization of Space.” From the North Atlantic to the Northern star.

In 2019 NATO’s top civilian body, the North Atlantic Council (consisting of the ambassadors of all NATO member states), approved the adoption of the NATO Overarching Space Policy. The Space Policy as it’s now called was confirmed at a defense ministers’ meeting in the same year.

Having seventy members and partners on six continents is not enough to satisfy the military alliance. It has now added space to its ever-expanding mission.

*

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 Anti-bellum

Israel’s Aggressive Actions Are Indefensible

May 12th, 2021 by Andrew Korybko

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The ‘Israeli’-provoked violence is deplorable enough as it is since it was started by the Jewish State’s aggressive colonial ambitions against the occupied Palestinian people in complete contradiction of international law but was made even worse by the fact that it’s occurring right before the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr that commemorates the end of Ramadan.

What the three Abrahamic religions regard as the Holy Land is once again beset by violence provoked by “Israel‘s” indefensible actions. The self-proclaimed Jewish State sought to evict Palestinians from the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in East Jerusalem, which has been illegally occupied by “Israel” since 1967, in order to create new colonial settlements there. “Israel” also prohibited the Palestinians from gathering near the Damascus Gate where they often socialize during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Furthermore, “Israel” restricted the number of worshippers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest sites in Islam.

These decisions prompted the Palestinians to protest, which some of them also did from within the Al-Aqsa Mosque by throwing bottles and stones at the “Israeli” security services, which in turn resulted in the latter attacking that place of worship with rubber bullets and stun grenades. The hybrid political-military movement Hamas subsequently issued an ultimatum to “Israel” to withdraw its security forces from Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood as well as release all of the Palestinians who were recently detained. This warning wasn’t heeded, hence why Hamas fired rockets from Gaza into “Israel”, triggering retaliatory airstrikes.

The “Israeli”-provoked violence is deplorable enough as it is since it was started by the Jewish State’s aggressive colonial ambitions against the occupied Palestinian people in complete contradiction of international law but was made even worse by the fact that it’s occurring right before the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr that commemorates the end of Ramadan. Muslims across the world are therefore extra incensed by what’s happening to their fellow believers in the Holy Land right now, which is why so many of their leaders such as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have spoken out really loudly condemning the “Israeli” attacks.

“Israel” presents all of its actions as being within its sovereign rights and claims that the international community is biased against it, sometimes even outright accusing them of anti-Semitism, but such accusations are unsubstantiated. Its post-1967 occupation of former Palestinian-inhabited Jordanian territory is illegal under international law, as is its ever-expanding network of colonial settlements there. “Israel” provoked the Palestinians into resisting the way that they did because their victims felt that they had no other way to attract global attention to their legitimate cause. Alas, “Israel” continues to violate international law with impunity.

Some observers have remarked that it’s extremely suspicious that the violence broke out when it did during the end of Ramadan. A few speculate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intentionally fanned the flames of violence in order to manufacture the violent scenario that’s since transpired so as to appear as the only political figure capable of defending “Israel” from what his government describes as so-called “terrorist attacks” by the Palestinians. This is taking place against the backdrop of his recent failure to form a government despite winning the fourth round of elections in two years. Another party is now tasked with trying to form a coalition.

This theory seems plausible enough since anyone could have predicted that the Palestinians would react the way that they did in the face of such provocations, not to mention the fact that they’re taking place during Ramadan and right before Eid al-Fitr. It certainly seems to be the case that the Palestinians were being manipulated into defending their interests through violent means in order to serve as the pretext for a politically convenient “Israeli” campaign against Hamas that could potentially bolster Netanyahu’s image. The resultant insight adds further credence to the argument that “Israel’s” aggressive actions are indefensible.

Colonialism should have ended during the last century yet it regrettably continues to this day in the Holy Land. Even worse, “Israel’s” crimes are deliberately being intensified during the most important Muslim holiday in order to provoke believers into desperately reacting the only way that some of them know how, which is with violence. Their response served to “justify” Netanyahu’s likely preplanned campaign against Hamas during this politically convenient moment after his coalition-building attempts just failed. The entire world must condemn “Israel”, impose meaningful costs for its violations of international law, and stand in solidarity with Palestine.

*

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

Antony Blinken Continues to Lecture the World on Values His Administration Aggressively Violates

By Glenn Greenwald, May 11, 2021

Continuing his world tour doling out righteous lectures to the world, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday proclaimed — in a sermon you have to hear to believe — that few things are more sacred in a democracy than “independent journalism.”

The CoVaxx-19 Scorecard: Bleeding, Blood-Clots and the Whole Nine Yards

By Mike Whitney, May 11, 2021

Why would anyone allow himself to be injected with a substance for which the long-term adverse effects are completely unknown? It’s extremely dangerous. And, yet, millions of people around the world have already been inoculated with a hybrid concoction that was not approved by the FDA, did not meet the same rigorous standards for safety as previous vaccines, and which is vastly more lethal than any vaccine in modern times.

Why Are Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Being Officially Suppressed?

By Dr. Gary Null and Richard Gale, May 11, 2021

Had the FDA and Anthony Fauci’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID) started approving existing clinically-proven and inexpensive drugs for treating malaria, parasites and other pathogens at the start of the pandemic, millions of people would have been saved from experiencing serious infections or dying from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Why federal health officials never followed this strategy is a question the mainstream media refuses to ask.

Weed Killing Pesticide Paraquat Allegedly Causes Parkinson. Litigation in U.S. Courts

By Carey Gillam, May 11, 2021

Six more lawsuits alleging Syngenta’s weed killing pesticide paraquat causes Parkinson’s Disease were filed last week in Pennsylvania, California and Illinois, adding to more than a dozen similar lawsuits already filed in U.S. courts.

Unregulated Digital Cryptocurrencies Versus Regulated National Currencies: Is There a Danger?

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, May 11, 2021

A few years ago, after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, some clever people, whose identity is hidden behind the appellation of ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’, devised a decentralized electronic system of payments, which is independent of the existing traditional banking system. It is based on a new form of digital ‘currencies’ or ‘electronic currencies’, the ‘cryptocurrencies‘. Some observers have called the cryptocurrency innovation a sort of a new 21st Century digital gold rush.

Estonia Becomes Centre Stage of Anti-Russia Military Exercises

By Paul Antonopoulos, May 11, 2021

800 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army departed from Fort Bragg in North Carolina last Friday morning for a Swift Response exercise. They were dropped into Estonia in a “joint forcible entry” operation in the early hours of Saturday. The airborne exercise is designed to test the fast response capabilities of the U.S. to defend Estonia in case of a hypothetical war with Russia.

COVID Authoritarians Abuse Children

By Rep. Ron Paul, May 11, 2021

Centers for Diseases Control (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky has “recommended” that children wear masks while playing. Her offered reason is to ensure Covid is not spread by “heavy breathing” of children near each other while around a soccer ball.

Video: The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis. “The Worst Crisis in Modern History”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, May 11, 2021

Entire national economies are in jeopardy. In some countries martial law has been declared. Small and medium sized capital are slated to be eliminated. Big capital prevails. A massive concentration of corporate wealth is ongoing. It’s a diabolical “New World Order” in the making. Red Zones, the facemask, social distancing, the closing down of schools, colleges and universities, no more family gatherings, no birthday celebrations, music, the arts: no more cultural events, sport events are suspended, no more funerals, no more weddings, “love and life” is banned outright.

An Army of Big Biotech Companies Is Using Psych Tactics to ‘Create Vaccine Demand’

By Celeste McGovern, May 11, 2021

The U.S. is awash in a surplus of coronavirus vaccines as there has been a sudden drop in demand for them; most Americans who want the shots have had them. Now an army of Big Biotech’s agencies set up to address “vaccine hesitancy” are turning up their mass marketing to “create demand” using surveillance, rapid data analysis, media control, and host of behavior control strategies they’ve outlined in their playbooks.

The Vaccine Passport: An Instrument of Social Control. The Rise of “Utilitarian Extremism”, and How to Recognize It

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 11, 2021

Utilitarianism, which is now being increasingly promoted, is a discredited pseudo-ethic that has repeatedly been used to justify horrific human rights abuses. It is based on a mathematical equation that some individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good of the majority.

Bravery and Risk in the Age of Truth

By Julian Rose, May 11, 2021

Rising-up almost perceptibly now, in an increasing number of individuals, is a powerful urge to give expression to truth at its profoundest level. This is the life-force itself, demanding action and urging all who feel it to step forward into the front lines of a great battle. The battle to overcome the purveyors of gross injustice and stand firm for the global manifestation of truth. 

The Criminalization of Dissent. “Covid Deniers”and “Anti-Vaxxers” under Surveillance

By CJ Hopkins, May 11, 2021

One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Antony Blinken Continues to Lecture the World on Values His Administration Aggressively Violates

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As the evacuation of NATO’s coalition troops, deployed in Afghanistan for the past 20 years, begins, a highly serious and still unresolved issue for the United States is where these armed forces and their weapons and military equipment will be withdrawn to.

Some media outlets have already heard from a senior White House official that some of the troops to be withdrawn are planned to be moved to the Indo-Pacific region. However, it is quite clear that in this case only part of the coalition troops being withdrawn is concerned. But 10,000 US and NATO troops in Afghanistan with all the weapons and military equipment they have amassed during the years of occupation need to be deployed somewhere within the remaining six months before the deadline announced by US President Joe Biden (September 11).

And the scope of this task is getting more and more formidable as the American military take stock of all the military equipment stockpiled by coalition troops. Although it is possible to sell some of it locally or transfer it to the Afghan security forces, the remaining extensive portion will be inherently very difficult and expensive to export to Europe or other US bases, even with the US making dollars from its printing press.

Certainly the United States and its allies would prefer to have military bases in Afghanistan’s neighboring countries rather than moving troops to more remote areas, such as the Middle East. Washington immediately rejects Iran, and Pakistan is a highly unlikely option.

In 2008, as relations between the US and Pakistan became increasingly strained, Washington and its allies created the “Northern Distribution Network” (NDN), through which non-lethal cargoes were delivered from Europe via Russia and Central Asia to coalition forces in Afghanistan. After the West’s critical reaction to the Crimean events, in 2015 Russia cancelled agreements to transit cargo for coalition forces through its territory, but the NDN continues to operate, delivering cargo through Georgia and Azerbaijan, across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan and on to Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. Today this NDN not only delivers supplies to Afghanistan, but also remains the main route for exporting foreign military equipment from Afghanistan.

But it is one thing to move weapons and equipment, and completely another to have military bases in the immediate vicinity of Afghanistan. In the course of its information campaign on alleged future military support for the operations of Afghan government forces against such terrorist groups as Jamaat Ansarullah, Islamic Jihad Union, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and Islamic State of Iraq and Levant-Khorasan (ISIL), which can threaten the stability of Central Asia, Washington looks to strengthen the interest of Central Asian states in the presence of said bases.

Amidst such conditions, the option of redeploying coalition forces from Afghanistan to a Central Asian country is now becoming especially popular in Washington. And some recent media reports suggest that the US military will make a maximum effort to redeploy some of its troops to Central Asia. There is already intensive groundwork underway to prepare for this. So, on April 22, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken already had telephone conversations with the foreign ministers of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and on April 23 his virtual meeting with all the heads of foreign ministries of Central Asian countries in the C5+1 format was held.

Today, not only does Russia have military bases in Central Asia — in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — but even China has a small military base in the remote mountainous regions of far eastern Tajikistan — at the intersection of the Tajik, Chinese and Afghan borders. Both countries work with Tajik forces to conduct counter-narcotics raids in Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan has no Russian or Chinese military bases and is not a member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are. And if Uzbekistan faces a security threat, it can only count on bilateral military agreements, which is why Washington believes the deployment of US troops could provide it with some additional guarantees in deterring militants based in Afghanistan.

In its calculations about the possibility of redeployment of troops to Central Asia, the Pentagon relies on the fact that NATO has been cooperating with the republics of this region for almost twenty years, and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have been members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council since 1997. However, Washington also understands certain difficulties in this matter, since each of the countries has its own characteristics of interaction. In particular, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are members of the CSTO, while Uzbekistan has a negative experience with the “revolutionary” upheaval that took place in Andijan in the 2000s. For parties to the Collective Security Treaty, Article 2 provides for a collective fight against “threats to the security, stability, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or more states”. However, in the official documents of the United States and NATO, Russia is listed as a strategic adversary.

Nevertheless, Washington expects to use the fact that the US and Russian bases were previously deployed simultaneously in Kyrgyzstan, and both Russian and NATO bases were located in Tajikistan. The last time Western troops used bases in Central Asia was from 2001 to 2014, but things didn’t end too smoothly for the US and Western countries then.

However, US and NATO officials make no secret of their desire to try again to place their military bases in Central Asia. Although Tajikistan has the longest border with Afghanistan and the country is very convenient for the Americans because of the short time it takes to get to the sites of air strikes, the appearance of an American military base here, although not impossible, is still unlikely due to the presence of a Russian military unit.

The appearance of a full-fledged US base in Uzbekistan, which under President Karimov already had a Pentagon base, is more likely. That is why the US has recently placed special emphasis on developing military cooperation with the country. In particular, the other day there was an American delegation led by Duke Pirak, deputy head of strategic planning and policy at the Central Command of the US Armed Forces. During this visit, a series of meetings were held, including with the head of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Uzbekistan, Shukhrat Kholmukhamedov, with whom they discussed cooperation in the military sphere. Despite the fact that Uzbekistan is now actively developing military cooperation with Russia, which is a major factor in ensuring regional security and the strength of the Uzbekistani armed forces, the United States has recently been increasingly seeking to “move Russia aside” and take its place, intending to hold the first dialogue on strategic partnership this year.

Despite the importance of continuing international efforts to counter terrorist activity in Afghanistan and intensifying measures to strengthen regional security measures, especially after the withdrawal of US and NATO military units from Afghanistan, the question of even temporary deployment of this military contingent in Central Asia will certainly be decided taking into account the position of Russia as well as China. As for the position of Moscow and Beijing, they will appropriately take into account the latest actions of Washington, which famously does not reduce its anti-Russian and anti-Chinese rhetoric, as well as military preparations with regard to Russia and 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.

Valery Kulikov is a political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

L’Europa terreno di manovra di strategie Usa-Nato

May 11th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

La mobilità terrestre delle persone nell’Unione europea è stata paralizzata nel 2020 dai lockdown, principalmente in seguito al blocco del turismo. Lo stesso è avvenuto nella mobilità aerea: secondo uno studio del Parlamento Europeo (marzo 2021), essa ha subìto una perdita netta di 56 miliardi di euro e di 191.000 posti di lavoro diretti, più oltre un milione nell’indotto. La ripresa, nel 2021, si annuncia molto problematica. Solo un settore, in controtendenza, ha fortemente accresciuto la propria mobilità: quello militare.

In questo momento, in Europa, circa 28.000 militari stanno passando con carrarmati e aerei da un paese all’altro: sono impegnati nella Defender-Europe 21 (Difensore dell’Europa 2021), la grande esercitazione non della Nato ma dell’Esercito Usa in Europa, cui partecipano 25 alleati e partner europei. L’Italia vi partecipa non solo con le proprie forze armate, ma quale paese ospite. Sta per iniziare, contemporaneamente, l’esercitazione Nato Steadfast Defender (Difensore Risoluto), che mobilita oltre 9.000 militari statunitensi ed europei, compresi quelli italiani.

Essa costituisce il primo test su larga scala dei due nuovi comandi Nato: il Comando della Forza Congiunta, con quartier generale a Norfolk negli Usa, e il Comando dell’Appoggio Congiunto con quartier generale a Ulm in Germania. «Missione» del Comando di Norvolk è «proteggere le rotte atlantiche tra Nord America ed Europa», che secondo la Nato sarebbero minacciate dai sottomarini russi; quella del Comando di Ulm è «assicurare la mobilità delle truppe attraverso le frontiere europee per permettere un rapido rafforzamento dell’Alleanza sul fronte orientale», che secondo la Nato sarebbe minacciato dalle forze russe.

Per questa seconda «missione» svolge un ruolo importante l’Unione Europea, alla quale lo US Army Europe ha richiesto l’istituzione di «un’Area Schengen militare». Il Piano d’azione sulla mobilità militare, presentato dalla Commissione europea nel 2018, prevede di modificare «le infrastrutture (ponti, ferrovie e strade) non adatte al peso o alle dimensioni dei mezzi militari». Ad esempio, se un ponte non può reggere il peso di una colonna di carrarmati da 70 tonnellate, deve essere rafforzato o ricostruito.

Dopo aver destinato a tale scopo un primo stanziamento di circa 2 miliardi di euro, in denaro pubblico sottratto alle spese sociali, i ministri Ue della Difesa (per l’Italia Lorenzo Guerini) hanno deciso l’8 maggio di far partecipare gli Stati uniti, il Canada e la Norvegia al piano Ue della mobilità militare. Il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg, presente alla riunione, ha sottolineato che «questi alleati non appartenenti all’Unione europea svolgono un ruolo essenziale nella difesa dell’Europa». In tal modo la Nato (a cui appartengono 21 dei 27 paesi della Ue), dopo aver incaricato la Ue di realizzare e pagare la ristrutturazione delle infrastrutture europee a fini militari, prende di fatto in mano la gestione dell’«Area Schengen militare».

In una Europa trasformata in piazza d’armi, l’adeguamento delle infrastrutture alla mobilità delle forze Usa/Nato viene testata in prove di guerra, che prevedono «lo spiegamento di forze terrestri e navali dal Nord America alla regione del Mar Nero», e servono, secondo le parole di Stoltenberg, a «dimostrare che la Nato ha la capacità e volontà di proteggere tutti gli alleati da qualsiasi minaccia».

Quale sia la «minaccia» lo dichiarano anche i ministri degli esteri del G7 (Stati uniti, Canada, Gran Bretagna, Germania, Francia, Italia e Giappone), riunitisi il 5 maggio a Londra. I sette ministri (per l’Italia Luigi Di Maio), capovolgendo i fatti, accusano la Russia di «comportamento irresponsabile e destabilizzante, annessione illegale della Crimea, ammassamento di forze militari ai confini con l’Ucraina, uso di armi chimiche per avvelenare gli oppositori, maligne attività per minare i sistemi democratici di altri paesi, minaccia all’ordine internazionale basato sulle regole». Il fatto che il G7 formuli tali accuse con le stesse parole usate dal Pentagono e ripetute dalla Nato, conferma l’esistenza di una stessa matrice nella strategia della tensione che spinge l’Europa in una situazione sempre più pericolosa.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’Europa terreno di manovra di strategie Usa-Nato

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The UK Column recently reported a £320 million media buy-in contract awarded to OMD Group, the brief for which was redacted from the publicly available information on the UK government’s Contract Finder website. This represents just 20% of the £1.6 billion in media buy-in contracts the government has awarded to Omnicom since 2018.

Headquartered in Manhattan New York, Omnicom is a global media, marketing and corporate communications holding company. It is currently considered the second largest advertising agency in the world, eclipsed only by WPP.

Omnicom is an advertising giant which specialises in public relations, lobbying, communications strategy, and the planning and purchasing of targeted advertising space. It builds comprehensive media campaigns for its extensive client list. Omnicom heads a North American-based network of prominent advertising and public relations agencies with a world wide collective reach.

Omnicom has been awarded a number of sizeable contracts by the UK government. These have included a December 2018 advertising campaign contract for the Cabinet Office, worth up to £184 million, a £119 million October 2020 media buy-in contract with a £230 million extension clause, and a £112 million media contract for the Ministry of Defence.

According to the Crown Commercial Service (CCS), media buying enables the government to:

buy media channels (for example, advertising space, partnerships, events and sponsorship) regionally, nationally and internationally across off and online channels.

Omnicom is the single supplier for these public relations campaigns and their UK OMD Group operations are run by Manning Gottlieb OMD (MG-OMD).

Manning Gottlieb OMD was dissolved in 2011 and struck off the companies register. It isn’t entirely clear, therefore, what the current legal status of MG-OMD is. Their website appears to be their only visible presence and it does not clarify their status. However the CCS has stated that MG-OMD is a division of OMD Group Ltd.

The CCS claim there are a number of advantages to be gained by having one US multinational corporation overseeing the UK government’s entire communication strategy, including robust pricing, neutrality and transparency. Putting aside Omnicom’s obvious monopoly, as mentioned above, when the UK Column looked at the client brief for the recent £320 million media buy-in, it was entirely redacted. We might question the CCS notion of transparency.

Who is the dominant partner in this arrangement?

Media buying is the process of acquiring space on media platforms (online and offline) to get a PR message out. In this case the UK government is the client and MG-OMD (Omnicom) is the sole supplier, often referred to as the Agent.

The supplier (Agent) is largely responsible for conducting market research and devising campaigns that will delver best value to the client. They are given a brief and then advise the client how they can achieve the client’s PR objectives.

As we have stated, it is not possible to examine the brief for the most recent contract. But the brief is available for the £112 million MoD contract. It raises some concerns.

Omnicom will agree the key performance indicators by which the efficacy of their campaigns are measured; they will evaluate and measure campaign performance and will be proactive and innovative; the Agent has the expertise to advise how to deliver all aspects of the service and it is MG-OMD (Omnicom) who deploy resources, implement the plan and collect and store the data generated by their PR campaigns on the client’s (MoD’s) behalf.

It seems that Omnicom, in the guise of MG-OMD, not only agrees what constitutes campaign efficacy, they plan, resource and operate the UK government’s communications strategy. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Omnicom is leading this process.

In 2018 the UK government awarded a four year £800 million contract to Omnicom’s OMD Group for media buy-ins. The CCS stated that the purpose of the contract was to:

Provide the best possible outcomes for communication campaigns … The successful media buying agency … will work in partnership … to deliver … fully integrated campaigns for government.

This contract is set to expire in May 2022.

Omnicom were running government PR campaigns when the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020.

In an effort to maintain transparency, the signatories to the contract have been redacted as have the pricing criteria, Omnicom protected confidential commercial information and much of the Framework Agreement. However, the contract brief stated:

The Government Communication Plan is updated annually and CCS shall ensure that the Agency is notified when the plan is updated … The Agency will (if required) co-operate and work with agencies on any of the other Crown Commercial Service agreements. This includes other Framework Agencies … provision of specific single services and products including media planning and Campaign Solutions … The Agency shall manage and deliver fully integrated campaigns, either by delivering services in-house or through Sub-Contracts.

Omnicom was in place, ready and able to adapt to the UK government’s communication plans as they emerged.

Providing a “single version of the truth”

Omnicom was awarded the contract on 21st May 2018. On the 9th June (less than three weeks later), then UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced that the G7 had agreed to her Rapid Response Mechanism. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, the US and the EU agreed that they would assert a common narrative.

Omnicom responded almost immediately.

In early 2019 they launched their Learn Fast & Act Fast communications strategy. This was perfect for the Rapid Response Mechanism needs of their clients.

As the Covid-19 pandemic unfolded, Omnicom was able to help the UK government to “navigate the road to a new normal.” They said they had deepened their “rapid response capabilities” which enabled their client, the UK government, to make “more informed decisions while providing a single version of the truth.”

With operations in all of the G7 countries, and in both Russia and China, where they are discovering new opportunities for growth, Omnicom is well placed to deliver fully integrated campaigns.Whenever a rapid response is required to assert the common G7 narrative, Omnicom will provide the approved single version of the truth.

In September 2019, three months after the Rapid Response Mechanism announcement, the BBC convened the Trusted News Summit. To aid transparency, then BBC Director General Tony Hall said that the meeting was held behind closed doors. The BBC effectively formed a global media cartel with the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, the Financial Times, First Draft, Google, The Hindu, The Wall Street Journal, AFP, CBC/Radio-Canada, Microsoft, Reuters and Twitter.

Less than two weeks after the WHO declared the global pandemic, the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group in Emergencies (SAGE) issued some key advice. They outlined how our behaviour could be changed to ensure it was in line with the single version of the truth.

SPI-B (SAGE’s behaviour change experts) stated:

Guidance now needs to be reformulated to be behaviourally specific … A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened. The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging … Messaging needs to emphasise and explain the duty to protect others … Consideration should be given to use of social disapproval.

SPI-B recommended that the UK government should:

  1. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of personal threat.
  2. Use the media (MSM) to increase sense of responsibility to others.
  3. Use social disapproval for failure to comply.

A free, plural and independent media could not be “used” to terrorise the population in this fashion. Only a controlled propaganda machine could possibly be instructed to do so. The Trusted Newscartel was available. Omnicom, in the form of MG-OMD, was tasked with using it to do the hard hitting.

In doing so Omnicom has been supporting the mainstream media to stay afloat by pumping millions into their failed business models. The taxpayer funded government buy-ins directly finance the UK’s so called independent mainstream media. Like the banks, it seems they are too big to fail, and so once again the tax payer is being forced to bail them out.

OmniGOV = Fusion Doctrine

MG-OMD has given their propaganda operation the Orwellian sounding name of OmniGOV. They say they are very proud of it and recognise their responsibility as the “the single cross-HM Government agency partner.”

OmniGov were behind the snappy slogans used to change our behaviour throughout the pandemic. Phrases like “flatten the curve”, “stay home, protect the NHS, save lives” and “rule of six” all rely on a psychological mechanism called the rule of three. The £119 million Omnicom contract to modify our behaviour was in discussion long before the WHO made their pandemic declaration.

The hard hitting media campaigns designed to strike fear into the public imagination were OmniGOV public relations strategies. The now notorious “look into my eyes” campaign being another OmniGOV campaign.

“Look into my eyes” was pure propaganda. The UK government was the client and they wanted to increase the sense of personal threat and use social disapproval to compel compliance. OmniGOV created a campaign which presented a low mortality disease as some sort of plague. Covid-19 risks primarily affect older people and mortality distribution is indistinguishable from normal mortality.

OmniGOV ignored scientific and statistical evidence and presented a population scale threat that did not exist. They claimed, without evidence, that lockdowns, mask wearing and social distancing could stop the spread of a viral respiratory illness. They misled the public and suggested that following the rules would save lives.

The insinuation was clearly that those who did not obey were guilty of killing people and that their behaviour was wrong. While appearing to advocate social conscience and shared community responsibility the product was baseless fear and social division — as requested by OmniGov’s client.

OmniGOV are also proud of the other projects that have been engaged with during the pandemic. For example, they have been working with the NHS and Snapchat to encouraging young people to think differently about donating their organs, introducing them to the concept of body-tracking Augmented Reality.

A Green New Deal

If we ignore the obvious risk of having a single US corporation in apparent control of the UK government’s communication strategy, and if we set aside concerns about the vast sums we have paid them to propagandise us, some may still feel, given the claimed seriousness of Covid-19, that there is nothing to be concerned about and OmniGOV has acted in good faith.

But for that to be the case, they also have to overlook that the OmniGov led response to Covid-19 is transitioning us into a new global financial and economic model which, at the most senior level, Omnicom has being trying to engineer for years.

Omnicom is not a disinterested third party merely seeking to meet their contractual obligations. They have a significant conflict of interest. The post-Covid-19 recovery they are helping to define is in their interest, not ours.

The Chairman and CEO of Omnicom is John D. Wren. His personal Omnicom bio reads:

Mr. Wren was part of the team that created Omnicom Group in 1986. Mr. Wren is a member of the International Business Council of the World Economic Forum and is active in a number of philanthropic endeavors.

In 2012, Wren was a contributor and co-author of the World Economic Forum’s publication More with Less: Scaling Sustainable Consumption and Resource Efficiency. The report stated:

The need for rapid action to shift towards a resource-efficient economy is high … change is now urgently required at scale and greater pace than current initiatives, policies or strategies are likely to achieve … Business can catalyse scale through transforming interactions with citizens.. and playing an active role in shaping the policies and investments that define the rules of the game … The right rules of the game can catalyse citizen behaviour … and create new markets … The private sector needs to be involved in most phases of policy-making … such collaboration should be forged as a productive adjunct to more traditional inter-governmental arrangements.

Omnicom is undoubtedly delighted that the public private partnership they have forged with the UK, and many other governments, has allowed them to help define the rules of the game. Certainly they have been busy catalysing citizen behaviour and seem to be fully involved in most phases of policy making.

In 2020 the WEF’s International Business Council (IBC), with Wren as a member, released their Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism report.

Speaking about the need to shape the recovery, they noted that the global pandemic was a fantastic opportunity. They wrote:

We must mobilize all constituencies of our global society to work together and seize this historic opportunity … The principles of stakeholder capitalism, championed by the World Economic Forum … have never been so important. In 2017, the IBC spearheaded a commitment from more than 140 CEOs to align their corporate values and strategies with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) … The IBC has been leading the way in this initiative to deliver on the promise of stakeholder capitalism.

With the UK contingent of the Trusted News cartel being supported by OmniGOV, tax-avoidant members like Google can look forward to some tax payer subsidised profits. They will be free, alongside Omnicom, to spread the single version of the truth in line with the G7’s wishes.

This is stakeholder capitalism in operation. It has nothing to do with us; we merely pay for it. Nor will we be allowed to object or even question the asserted common narrative.

Dissent will not be tolerated

The UK Digital Secretary, Oliver Dowden, recently convened a meeting of G7 technology ministers who signed a ministerial declaration on “Internet safety principles.” The declaration was based upon the UK’s Online Harms white paper and, as such, there is no specific definition of “harm.” It simply means whatever the G7, the Trusted News cartel and other stakeholders like Omnicom want it to mean.

The G7 commit to “work together towards a trusted, values-driven digital ecosystem.” They declare:

Our collective recovery from COVID-19 must be rooted in a desire to build back better. Leaders … signed a declaration containing a series of shared principles on how to tackle the global challenge of online safety, including that online firms should have systems and processes in place to reduce illegal and harmful activity.

As the UK government is contractually obliged to update Omnicom on their communications strategy, and seeing as OmniGOV are their sole media campaign managers, the 2020/2021 strategy must have been agreed with Omnicom.

Given Omnicom’s long-standing commitment to creating sustainable market opportunities, they presumably welcome the fact that it is entirely based upon the rule of three with the “Build Back Better” slogan at its heart.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office Julie Lopez MP announced that control of government information campaigns will be centralised further. We can only speculate which stakeholder partner will win the 2022 contract bid.

In the meantime, practically everything we are told about Covid-19 and the allegedly inescapable global economic and monetary transformation forced upon us, will be fed to us by the Trusted Newscartel, guided and financed by OmniGOV. Omnicom and their stakeholder partners have a bright future.

*

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

Iain Davis is an author, blogger, researcher and short film maker who rants at in-this-together.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.

***

Continuing his world tour doling out righteous lectures to the world, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Thursday proclaimed — in a sermon you have to hear to believe — that few things are more sacred in a democracy than “independent journalism.” Speaking to Radio Free Europe, Blinken paid homage to “World Press Freedom Day”; claimed that “the United States stands strongly with independent journalism”; explained that “the foundation of any democratic system” entails “holding leaders accountable” and “informing citizens”; and warned that “countries that deny freedom of the press are countries that don’t have a lot of confidence in themselves or in their systems.”

The rhetorical cherry on top of that cake came when he posed this question: “What is to be afraid of in informing the people and holding leaders accountable?” The Secretary of State then issued this vow: “Everywhere journalism and freedom of the press is challenged, we will stand with journalists and with that freedom.” Since I know that I would be extremely skeptical if someone told me that those words had just come out Blinken’s mouth, I present you here with the unedited one-minute-fifty-two-second video clip of him saying exactly this:

That the Biden administration is such a stalwart believer in the sanctity of independent journalism and is devoted to defending it wherever it is threatened would come as a great surprise to many, many people. Among them would be Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks and the person responsible for breaking more major stories about the actions of top U.S. officials than virtually all U.S. journalists employed in the corporate press combined.

Currently, Assange is sitting in a cell in the British high-security Belmarsh prison because the Biden administration is not only trying to extradite him to stand trial on espionage charges for having published documents embarrassing to the U.S. Government and the Democratic Party but also has appealed a British judge’s January ruling rejecting that extradition request. The Biden administration is doing all of this, noted The New York Times, despite the fact that “human rights and civil liberties groups had asked the [administration] to abandon the effort to prosecute Mr. Assange, arguing that the case . . . could establish a precedent posing a grave threat to press freedoms” — press freedoms, exactly the value which Blinken just righteously spent the week celebrating and vowing to uphold.

It was the Trump DOJ which brought those charges against Assange after then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo claimed in a 2017 speech that WikiLeaks has long “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice,” and then warned: “they may have believed that, but they are wrong.” Pomepo added — invoking the mentality of all states that persecute and imprison those who report effectively on them — that “to give [WikiLeaks] the space to crush us with misappropriated secrets is a perversion of what our great Constitution stands for. It ends now.”

But like so many other Trump policies concerning press freedoms — from defending the Trump DOJ’s use of warrants to obtain journalists’ telephone records, to demanding Edward Snowden be kept in exile, to keeping Reality Winner and Daniel Hale imprisoned — top Biden officials have long been fully on board with Assange’s persecution. Indeed, they have been at the forefront of the effort to destroy basic press freedoms not just for WikiLeaks but journalists generally.

It was Joe Biden who called Assange a “high-tech terrorist” in 2010. It was the Obama administration that convened a years-long grand jury to try to prosecute Assange. It was Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who urged Assange’s prosecution under the Espionage Act years before Trump was in office. And it was Blinken’s colleague on the Obama national security team, Hillary Clinton, who praised the DOJ for its prosecution of Assange. All of this was intended as punishment for Assange’s revelations of rampant wrongdoing by the U.S. Government and its allies and adversary governments around the world.

The New York Times, Feb. 21, 2021

How can you run around the world feigning anger over other countries’ persecution of independent journalists when you are a key part of the administration that is doing more than anyone to destroy one of the most consequential independent journalists of the last several decades? Indeed, as numerous journalists warned at the time, there were few, if any, administrations in U.S. history more hostile to basic press freedoms than the Obama administration in which Blinken previously served, including prosecuting double the number of journalistic sources under espionage laws than all previous administrations combined.

In 2013, while Blinken was serving as a high-level official in the State Department, the Committee to Protect Journalists did something very rare — issued a report warning of an epidemic of press freedom attacks by the U.S. Government — and said: “In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press.” The New Yorker‘s Jane Mayer said of the Obama administration’s press freedom attacks: “It’s a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn’t quite strong enough, it’s more like freezing the whole process into a standstill.” James Goodale, the New York Times’ General Counsel during the paper’s battle in the 1970s to publish the Pentagon Papers, warned that “President Obama will surely pass President Richard Nixon as the worst president ever on issues of national security and press freedom.”

Even the specific “press freedom attack” Blinken referenced in that video interview — namely, Russia’s recent demand that media outlets linked to foreign governments such as Radio Free Europe register as “foreign agents” with the Russian government and pay fines for their failure to do so — is one which Blinken and his comrades have wielded against others for years. Indeed, Russia was responding to the U.S. Government’s previous demand that RT and other Russian news agencies register as “foreign agents” in the U.S., as well as the Biden administration’s escalated attacks just last month on news agencies it claims serves as propaganda agents for the Kremlin.

It is hardly new for the U.S. to dole out lectures which the rest of the world recognizes as complete farces. In 2015, then-President Obama was prancing around India giving lectures on the importance of human rights, only to cut short his trip to fly to Saudi Arabia, where he met numerous top officials of the U.S. Government to pay homage to Saudi King Abdullah, their long-time close and highly repressive ally whose totalitarian regime Obama did so much to fortify.

But galavanting around the world masquerading as the champion of press freedoms and the rights of independent journalists, all while working to extend the confinement and detention of one of the people responsible for much of the most important journalistic revelations of this generation beyond the decade he has already endured, is a whole new level of deceit. “Hypocrisy” is insufficient to capture the craven insincerity behind Blinken’s posturing.

It is always easy — and cheap — to condemn the human rights abuses of your enemies. It is much harder — and more meaningful — to uphold those principles for your own dissidents. Blinken, like so many who preceded him in that Foggy Bottom office, theatrically excels at the former while failing miserably at the latter.

*

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: Tony Blinken At His Confirmation Hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 19, 2021. Screenshot via Mondoweiss

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“We have enough evidence now to see a clear correlation with increased Covid deaths and the vaccine campaigns. This is not a coincidence. It is an unfortunate unintended effect of the vaccines. We must not turn a blind eye and pretend this is not occurring. We must halt all Covid vaccine administration immediately, before we create a true pandemic that we cannot reign in…” Dr. Janci Lindsay, Ph.D.

Why would anyone allow himself to be injected with a substance for which the long-term adverse effects are completely unknown?

It’s extremely dangerous. And, yet, millions of people around the world have already been inoculated with a hybrid concoction that was not approved by the FDA, did not meet the same rigorous standards for safety as previous vaccines, and which is vastly more lethal than any vaccine in modern times.

Why? Why are so many people submitting to this experiment?

It’s a mystery, isn’t it?

The current crop of Covid-19 vaccines have not been adequately tested, have not concluded Phase 3 Trials, and are not safe. And we’re not talking about the “short-term” effects here either. As tragic as the recent fatalities and injuries may be, they pale in comparison to the mountain of carnage we could see in the near future when vaccine victims discover that their compromised immune systems are no longer capable of fighting off new infections or wild strains of the virus. This same phenomenon emerged years ago in animal trials in which ferrets were injected with an experimental serum that helped them develop a “durable antibody response” to infection. Unfortunately– when the ferrets were exposed to the wild virus sometime later– they all died. Every one of them died.

Is this our future? Is this what we can expect a few years from now when routine respiratory infections and seasonal flu sweep through the country leaving millions of people severely ill or dead?

True, the vaccines do appear to provide some temporary immunity, but at what cost? Have you scanned the adverse events reports or mulled over the possibility that these injections may wreak long-term havoc on your vascular system, your heart or your cognitive abilities? Critics of the vaccines typically emphasize the bulging list of vaccine-related injuries and fatalities, but this is a mistake. It’s not the deaths and injuries that have already transpired, but the ocean of morbidity we may face in the future when the longer-incubating diseases begin to emerge overwhelming the maxed-out public health system and leaving many to fend for themselves.

Is such a scenario even possible?

Yes, it is possible, maybe, even probable.

Do you have any idea of what these vaccines do once they’re in your body? Do you realize that the substance enters your bloodstream and spreads everywhere including to your brain? Do you realize the dangers this poses to your overall health and survival? Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D. has produced a number of videos that explain the basic biology of inoculation as it relates to these new gene-based injections. Anyone who is thinking about getting vaccinated, should consider what he has to say:

“The vaccine gets into your bloodstream… You are putting a viral gene into your bloodstream and it is going to circulate… Now, your bloodstream is a closed system of pipes. Once those packages are in the bloodstream, those millions of packages of the gene, will never get out, because they are trapped. And the main cells they will enter, will be the cells lining the blood vessels…. These cells line your blood vessels all over your body and all your organs.

Those cells take up the gene and start to produce the spike protein (which will extend its spike into the bloodstream–illustration) At the same time, the protein creates waste.… So there is now the spike protein and there is waste. …The spike protein has the ability to attract platelets which create blood clotting. The moment the platelets comes into contact with the spike protein, the platelets get activated and start clotting the blood….

Regrettably, there is another type of cell that comes around to see the trash. These cells are the killer lymphocytes, and these killer lymphocytes, are programed to see the trash of viruses and then kill the cells that are creating the virus and which line the walls of your blood vessels. This can happen anywhere (in the body.)

… We are going to find out which of your cells lining your blood vessels are going to take up these packages and produce them (spike proteins and trash) so they are going to be attacked by your own immune system and destroyed…

(So) What is the first symptom that people are presenting after vaccination?

Headache, right? Headache, nausea, dizziness, muscle pain, loss of motor control etc…

I asked myself what is the common denominator between all these symptoms?

Well, we predicted that there were going to be very severe thrombotic events …especially the splitting headache which is the typical sign that the blood is clotting in the veins of your brain. …Every clot formation in the brain is potentially lethal. And, if you get clots in the legs, they become pulmonary embolism which can also kill you.

… And when these clotting factors (platelets) get used up, people can bleed. Why don’t people think about this?” (“Interview with Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, M.D on Covid Vaccine”, New American: Start at minute 18)

Let’s summarize: The vaccine is inserted into a muscle in the arm, but the fluid quickly enters the bloodstream where it is trapped. Once in the bloodstream, it is taken up (absorbed) by the thin layer of cells that line the blood vessels. (Endothelial) The cells that have been penetrated by the substance start to produce spike protein and waste. The spike protein activates the platelets which triggers blood clots that can block the flow of blood to vital organs. At the same time, the overuse of platelets–which help to coagulate the blood– can lead to excessive internal bleeding. These seemingly conflicting conditions–clotting and bleeding– have attracted the attention of more and more researchers, like Dr Mike Williams, who had this to say in a recent article titled: “Clotting and Covid Vaccine “Science“. Here’s an excerpt:

“Effectively we have two opposing problems here: thrombosis forming a clot that can block a vessel supplying blood to an organ; and thrombocytopenia reducing the number of platelets that are needed to form a clot, causing bleeding, aka hemorrhage. Either of these problems can be very difficult to manage and extremely dangerous, even lethal for the patient — but to have both at the same time!

The combined thrombosis and thrombocytopenia linked to Covid vaccination is being considered as something new and very rare, and if clotting happens in a vital organ … well, we’re seeing the results: young people that should not be dying, are.” (“Clotting and Covid Vaccine “Science”” UK Column)

Indeed, “young people should not be dying”, but they are dying because they were injected with a substance that likely killed them. Does anyone refute this?

And the hemorrhage-clotting issues are just two of the problems with these injections. There’s also the “waste” to which Bhakdi refers. The waste attracts the killer lymphocytes which are white blood cells that are also one of the body’s main types of immune cells. These lymphocytes attack the cells in the lining of the blood vessels causing damage to the vascular system and to vital organs. By definition, this is a sign of an autoimmune disease in which an over-stimulated, hyper-aggressive immune system attacks your own body. Here’s more from Dr. Williams’s article:

“If we were to rely on mainstream news and government reports, we might be led to believe that clotting problems with Covid vaccines were entirely unexpected and rare. Yet the first warnings about the Astrazeneca clotting disorder came … Well over a decade before, to be precise….. In 2007 a research paper laid it out very clearly:

Thrombocytopenia has been consistently reported following the administration of adenoviral gene transfer vectors….It was known in 2007 that the same vector used for many of the Covid vaccines consistently caused thrombocytopenia. ..In September 2020, another paper was published SARS-CoV-2 binds platelet ACE2 to enhance thrombosis in COVID-19, that outlined a problem with SARS-CoV-2:…(Note: In other words, the drug companies have known about the clotting problems and the bleeding problems since 2007)

SARS-CoV-2 and its Spike protein directly stimulated platelets to facilitate the release of coagulation factors, the secretion of inflammatory factors, and the formation of leukocyte–platelet aggregates.

This paper identified a spike protein as causal factor in clotting. And, of course, a spike protein is what is being produced by most of the Covid vaccines. Alarm bells should have been ringing with regulators, but nothing was done.... They demonstrated brilliantly that in small blood vessels the spike protein, all by itself, can induce clotting by docking in various tissues….

The key point to this paper in relation to Covid vaccines is that the spike protein, devoid of viral RNA travels to the brain and causes clotting. Once again, in case you needed reminding: Covid vaccines produce such a spike protein.

Another paper by Nuovo et al, entitled Endothelial cell damage is the central part of COVID-19…

Simply put, there is overwhelming evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (that is also synthetically produced by the Covid vaccines) is a central part of the mechanisms of morbidity and mortality of SARS-CoV-2, and therefore is also a risk of the vaccine. In regard to clotting, that risk is greater if you receive a vaccine.

The data clearly demonstrate that the last thing you would ever want to do is make a vaccine that produces a spike protein. As the literature clearly showed, it would cause significant damage, including brain clots and death. And that literature, for the most part, was available before the release of Covid vaccines to the public.” (“Clotting and Covid Vaccine “Science”, Dr Mike Williams, UKColumn)

Get the picture?

In other words, researchers have known for a long time that these types of proteins produce clotting, bleeding and autoimmune issues, which are precisely the problems we are currently seeing. And that’s why we think that our main area of concern should not be short-term adverse effects and injuries, but the long-term safety profile. In short, what is the probability that the millions of people who got these injections will be seriously harmed by these conditions sometime in the future? We need to know that.

Now check out this excerpt from an open letter from Doctors for Covid Ethics to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated April 1, 2021:

“Our concerns arise from multiple lines of evidence, including that the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein” is not a passive docking protein, but its production is likely to initiate blood coagulation via multiple mechanisms…..CSVT, cerebral venous thrombosis, is always a life-threatening condition that demands immediate medical attention. The number of cases you conceded had occurred can represent just the tip of a huge iceberg. As you must know, the most common symptoms of CSVT are piercing headache, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting. In severe cases, stroke-like symptoms occur including impairment of speech, vision and hearing, body numbness, weakness , decreased alertness and loss of motoric control. Surely, you are not oblivious to the fact that countless individuals suffered from precisely such symptoms directly following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents.”

Clot formation in deep leg veins can lead to lethal pulmonary embolisms. Surely you must know that peripheral venous thromboses have repeatedly been reported following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents…

Given that there is a mechanistically plausible explanation for these thromboembolic adverse drug reactions, namely that the gene-based products induce human cells to manufacture potentially pro-thrombotic spike protein, the reasoned & responsible assumption must now be that this may be a class effect. In other words, the dangers must be ruled out for all emergency-authorized gene-based vaccines, not merely the AZ product.” (“Open Letter to the EMA from Doctors for Covid Ethics”, Doctors for Covid Ethics”)

Bottom line: The blood clotting, the pulmonary embolisms, the consumption of platelets, the hemorrhagic diathesis and the bleeding are all linked to the production of spike proteins, the same type of proteins the vaccines train your cells to produce. Naturally, the responsible action at this point would be to terminate the mass vaccination campaign immediately until these issues can be resolved and patient safety can be guaranteed. But don’t hold your breath, because it’s not going to happen.

Molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., arrived at the same conclusion in a public comment she directed to the CDC. Here’s an excerpt from her statement:

“In the mid-1990s, I aided the development of a temporary human contraceptive vaccine which ended up causing unintended autoimmune ovarian destruction and sterility in animal test models. Despite efforts against this and sequence analyses that did not predict this. I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts….

First, there is a credible reason to believe that the Covid vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova, and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes. ...

We have seen 100 pregnancy losses reported in VAERS as of April 9th. And there have [also] been reports of impaired spermatogenesis and placental findings from both the natural infection, vaccinated, and syncytin knockout animal models that have similar placental pathology, implicating a syncytin-mediated role in these outcomes…. Additionally, we have heard of multiple reports of menses irregularities in those vaccinated. These must be investigated.

We simply cannot put these [vaccines] in our children who are at .002% risk for Covid mortality, if infected, or any more of the child-bearing age population without thoroughly investigating this matter.

[If we do], we could potentially sterilize an entire generation.Speculation that this will not occur and a few anecdotal reports of pregnancies within the trial are not sufficient proof that this is not impacting on a population-wide scale….

Secondly, all of the gene therapies [Covid vaccines] are causing coagulopathy….(Clotting) This is not isolated to one manufacturer. And this is not isolated to one age group. As we are seeing coagulopathy deaths in healthy young adults with no secondary comorbidities…

There are forward and backward mechanistic principles for why this is happening. The natural infection is known to cause coagulopathy due to the spike protein. All gene therapy vaccines direct the body to make the spike protein….

Spike protein incubated with human blood in vitro also caused blood clot development which was resistant to fibrinolysis. The spike protein is causing thrombocytic events, which cannot be resolved through natural means. And all vaccines must be halted in the hope that they can be reformulated to guard against this adverse effect.

We have enough evidence now to see a clear correlation with increased Covid deaths and the vaccine campaigns. This is not a coincidence. It is an unfortunate unintended effect of the vaccines. We simply must not turn a blind eye and pretend this is not occurring. We must halt all Covid vaccine administration immediately, before we create a true pandemic that we cannot reign in…”(“Halt Covid Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC“, jennifermargulis.ne)

That’s good advice, but is anyone listening?

*

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.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Seeing Through the COVID Spin

May 11th, 2021 by Barbara Loe Fisher

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 COVID-19 spin is reaching dizzying new heights every day, with fundamental facts about the experimental vaccine’s risks and failures getting lost in the hard sell

At dinner time, if you turn on any major television network in the U.S., you will see that the evening news has turned into one long COVID vaccine commercial infused with a heavy dose of fear mongering

On April 1, 2021, the U.S. government announced a $3 billion COVID vaccine ad campaign paid for with taxpayer dollars

COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to, and have not yet been proven to prevent infection and transmission of the new coronavirus in the majority of recipients

There is not one credible scientific study published in the medical literature demonstrating that high fevers, chills, headache, joint and muscle aching, disabling fatigue and other symptoms following vaccination are “good” for the body and indicate the body is successfully producing artificial immunity

There are no long-term studies evaluating the range of effects at the cellular and molecular level on the biological and genetic integrity of humans who receive the COVID vaccine

*

Seeing through the COVID-19 spin is a challenge even for those who have been writing and talking for years about the need to limit Big Pharma’s influence on health policy and law. Perhaps the greatest change I have seen in vaccine regulation, policymaking and law over the past four decades has been the development of public-private business partnerships between Big Pharma and the government.1,2,3,4,5

That seismic change has affected how new vaccines are developed, licensed and regulated and is influencing what we see happening today.6,7 Since the coronavirus pandemic was declared by government officials in early 2020, lawmakers have been persuaded to build the entire global pandemic response around a single experimental biological product.8,9,10

That single product is generating billions of dollars in profits for liability-free drug companies and their partners.11,12 The COVID-19 spin is reaching dizzying new heights every day,13,14 with fundamental facts about the experimental product’s risks and failures getting lost in the hard sell.

Watch the video here.

At dinner time, if you turn on any major television network in the U.S., you will see that the evening news has turned into one long COVID vaccine commercial infused with a heavy dose of fear mongering.

Before the pandemic declaration, we had learned to ignore prescription drug advertising in-between getting news of the day. Now newscasters and TV docs are Pharma’s new COVID “vaccine” sales reps and the only way to get away from the 24/7 sales pitch is to turn off the TV.

Billions of Dollars Paid to TV Networks for DTC Pharma Ads

We should not be surprised. The U.S. and New Zealand are the only two countries in the world that allow direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical product advertising.15,16,17 In this country, Big Pharma pays U.S. television networks $5 billion per year to push use of drugs and vaccines.18

Taking a page out of Big Tobacco’s old book and upping the ante, Big Pharma has become a business partner of government.19 The COVID business deal is perhaps the single biggest one in the history of public health programs.20,21,22

Already wealthy drug companies were given at least $9 billion from the government to develop experimental COVID vaccines in record breaking time,23 shaving five to 10 years off the normal vaccine development, testing and licensing process.24,25 But that wasn’t enough. Congress also handed companies a liability shield from lawsuits whenever the product government paid them to produce fails to work as advertised or a person is hurt by using it.26

If you or a loved one dies or is permanently injured by an experimental or soon-to-be FDA licensed COVID vaccine, you cannot sue the drug company who made it, even if there is evidence the company could have made it less reactive or more effective.

Pharma Pays Big Tech Billions for Ads, Censorship Campaigns

If you are searching for relief from the hype by turning off the TV and turning on your computer, you will be disappointed. The COVID vaccine ad campaign is in high gear online, especially on social media platforms. The Thought Police hired by Big Tech to censor information that does not conform with preapproved pandemic narratives are making sure you do not have an opportunity to carefully weigh the vaccine’s benefits and risks.27,28,29

Rational thinking on the World Wide Web is no longer tolerated and neither is freedom of speech. The internet has become a drug company stockholder’s dream and a consumer’s worst nightmare.

Big Pharma and its business partners have paid a lot of money to Big Tech to eliminate freedom of thought and speech online. Right now the weapon of choice is a social media censorship campaign to de-platform dissenters, including reputable charitable organizations like the National Vaccine Information Center publishing well referenced information.30,31,32

The internet Thought Police are especially upset when anyone talks about reports of serious vaccine complications and deaths, but reports about COVID-19 disease complications and deaths are allowed without restrictions.33 As COVID social distancing regulations have kept more people at home and on their electronic devices, the health care and pharma industries have poured more money into direct-to-consumer digital ads.34

In 2020, drug and vaccine manufacturers funneled about $10 billion into digital advertising that we view on our computers, tablets and cell phones.35,36 How much of Big Tech’s decision to ghost dissenters from search engine results and de-platform social media accounts is influenced by an infusion of direct-to-consumer advertising dollars from Big Pharma?37

American Taxpayer Pays for COVID-19 Vaccine Ads

This year, the American taxpayer is also paying for TV and digital advertising to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine.38 On April 1, 2021, the government announced a $3 billion COVID vaccine ad campaign39 to make sure that every American gets vaccinated, a national ad campaign that is using community and religious leaders, as well as celebrities,40,41 to reach into every community to boost vaccine uptake in stores,42 sports arenas,43 schools44 and churches.45

Right now, Pfizer and Moderna, the two U.S. corporations manufacturing experimental messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines are leading beneficiaries of the free advertising paid for by tax dollars. The first to secure an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA, Moderna counts the federal National Institutes of Health as a business partner,46 while Pfizer partnered with the German company BioNTech.47

Together, Moderna and Pfizer have captured market share and, by the end of 2020, Pfizer had achieved a 180% increase in revenue48,49 and Moderna had scored an eye watering 3,900% increase.50,51

So, what has the COVID vaccine advertising blitz done so far, other than to convince half of all adults to get at least one dose of the vaccine by mid-April 2021?52 The most notable achievement of the COVID vaccine campaign has been to keep everyone in a constant state of fear and confusion about what is true and what is false.53

There are so many misunderstandings and false impressions out there about the biological product manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer, a product that most people call a vaccine and others call a therapeutic drug but I call a cell disrupter biological.

No Long-Term Safety Studies of Experimental mRNA Vaccines

Whatever you want to call it, the experimental mRNA technology that Moderna and Pfizer employed to create the product has not yet been licensed by the FDA to prevent infections in humans.54

It is a genetic engineering technology that radically departs from the production methods used for two centuries to make live attenuated and inactivated viral and bacterial vaccines.55 It is an experimental technology that injects synthetic RNA directly into cells and, in effect, attempts to turn the human body into a vaccine manufacturing machine.56,57

There are no long-term studies58 evaluating the range of effects at the cellular and molecular level on the biological and genetic integrity of humans who receive the product. Nobody knows if it will, over time, negatively affect normal immune function and cause autoimmune and other chronic inflammatory conditions in the body,59,60,61 or provoke enhanced disease in vaccinated persons encountering mutated versions of the coronavirus in the future.62

Myth: mRNA Vaccines Prevent Infection and Transmission

What are the two biggest myths that have been generated by the advertising campaign being conducted with Pharma and taxpayer dollars?

The first big myth is that if you get two doses of the mRNA COVID vaccine, you will get artificial immunity and cannot be asymptomatically or symptomatically infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and you will not be able to infect others who come in physical contact with you: You dutifully got vaccinated and now you are immune.63

That is a normal assumption because that is what vaccines are supposed to do, but it is a false assumption. The Emergency Use Authorization the FDA gave to Pfizer and Moderna was not granted based on scientific evidence that the product prevented infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2.64,65

In fact, the FDA directed manufacturers in the summer of 2020 to make a product that had at least a 50% efficacy rate in either preventing or reducing severity of COVID-19 disease.66

The companies chose to apply for an EUA based on nine months of clinical trial data that the product prevents people from developing severe symptoms of COVID-19 disease67 and reduces the likelihood they will have serious complications leading to hospitalization and death — not that it prevents infection and transmission. There is a difference.

TAKE HOME FACT: COVID-19 vaccines were not designed to, and have not yet been proven to prevent infection and transmission of the new coronavirus in the majority of recipients. Apparently, that is why public health officials are telling vaccinated people they have to continue wearing masks and social distancing just like unvaccinated people.68,69

Myth: It is ‘Good’ to Feel Bad After mRNA COVID-19 Shots

The second big myth being perpetuated by COVID spin is that when you have strong reactions to a COVID-19 shot, it is “good” because it means the vaccine is “working.”70,71

The companies and public health officials admit that the mRNA vaccines are reactive and that the majority of people, especially younger people, who get vaccinated will experience reactions strong enough to require a day or two of recovery and even time off work.72,73

But there is not one credible scientific study published in the medical literature demonstrating that high fevers, chills, headache, joint and muscle aching, disabling fatigue and other symptoms are “good” for the body and indicate the body is successfully producing artificial immunity.

In fact, strong reactions to pharmaceutical products like drugs and vaccines are usually something to be concerned about and a reason to exercise caution, especially with repeat doses.74,75,76

More concerning are the 68,000 adverse event reports following COVID-19 vaccinations, including over 2,600 deaths,77 that have been reported as of April 8, 2021, to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.78,79,80,81

More than 70% of the reaction reports occurred in people between 17 and 65 years old. And that may be just the tip of the iceberg because one government funded study found that less than 1% of vaccine reactions are ever reported to the vaccine reaction reporting system82 created under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Although Pfizer, Moderna and the government admit that messenger RNA COVID vaccines can cause a lot of reaction symptoms like fever, body pain and disabling fatigue,83,84,85 they adamantly deny that the shots cause sudden death86,87,88 or blood clots89,90,91,92 and bleeding disorders like immune thrombocytopenic purpura,93 cardiac and respiratory arrest94,95 and other very serious health problems.96

Where is the biological mechanism science that proves it is only a coincidence when people suddenly die within minutes,97 days or weeks of being given a COVID shot98 and that none of the tens of thousands of bad health outcomes being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is causally related?99

Where is science backing up the claim that feeling so bad you can’t get out of bed or go to work after getting vaccinated is “good” because being in pain is evidence that the product is effective?

TAKE HOME FACT: COVID-19 shots cause reactions in the majority of people.100,101 There is no scientific evidence that having strong reactions to a drug or biological means that the product is effective.102

Government health officials have said that COVID-19 vaccines will be approved for use in children of any age by early 2022.103 With the majority of adults suffering very strong COVID vaccine reactions, especially younger adults,104,105 why are there plans to give the messenger RNA cell disrupter biological to infants and young children when the CDC says the majority of children with COVID-19 disease either have mild symptoms or no symptoms at all?106

The enormous sums of money that Big Pharma and government are spending on television and digital ad campaigns to make sure that every child and adult in America gets a COVID-19 vaccine is creating false impressions and assumptions. When public policy precedes the science and aggressive advertising campaigns blur the lines between facts and myths, truth gets lost in the spin and nobody is safe.

Go to NVIC.org and learn more about SARS-CoV-2 and the biological product being referred to as the COVID-19 vaccine on our new coronavirus information pages.

Go to NVICAdvocacy.org, where you can learn how to help defend informed consent rights in your state so you can make voluntary decisions about vaccination for yourself and your minor children. It’s your health. Your family. Your choice. And our mission continues. No forced vaccination. Not in America.

*

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

Notes

1 Fisher BL. Here Comes the 21st Century Cures Act: Say Goodbye to Vaccine Safety Science. NVIC Newsletter July 21, 2015.

2 Ramsey L, Friedman LF. The government agency in charge of approving drugs gets a surprising amount of money from the companies that make them. Business Insider Aug. 17, 2016.

3 Fisher BL. End Pharma Liability Shield Endangering Public Health and Human Rights. NVIC Newsletter Nov. 8, 2016.

4 The Vaccine Reaction. Drug Companies Pay FDA and NIH to Fast Track and Market Vaccines. Sept 28, 2018.

5 Fisher BL. WHO, Government, Gates & Government: Who’s Calling the Shots? NVIC Newsletter Jan. 27, 2019.

6 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public–private partnership responses to COVID-19 and future pandemics: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2020.

7 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). COVID-19: Federal Efforts to Accelerate Vaccine and Therapeutic Development But More Transparency Needed on Emergency Use Authorization. Nov. 17, 2020.

8 National Institutes of Health. NIH clinical trial of investigational vaccine for COVID- 19 begins. NIH Press Release Mar. 16, 2020.

9 Lurie N, Saville M et al. Developing Covid-19 Vaccines at Pandemic Speed. NEJM Mar. 31, 2020

10 Fisher BL. COVID-19 Meltdown and Pharma’s Big Money Win. NVIC Newsletter Apr. 1, 2020.

11 Kollewe J. From Pfizer to Moderna: Who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? The Guardian Mar. 6, 2021.

12 Egan M. Pfizer and Moderna could score $32 billion in Covid-19 vaccine sales – in 2021 alone. CNN Dec. 11, 2020.

13 Megan Garnett Coyle. Ad Tech Leaders Unite to Measure the Ad Council & COVID Collaborative’s COVID-19 Vaccine Education Initiative – the Largest PSA Campaign in US History. Businesswire Mar. 30. 2021.

History

14 Medical Xpress. US launches major COVI vaccination ad campaign. Apr. 1, 2021.

15 Lee B. How is Consumer Drug Advertising Regulated in the United States? June 17, 2019.

16 Harvard Health Publishing. Do not get sold on drug advertising. February 2017.

17 Rapaport L. U.S. health care industry spends $30 billion a year on marketing. Reuters Jan. 8, 2019.

18 Kanski A. Nielsen: Pfizer tops list of biggest pharma advertisers in 2018. Medical Marketing & Media Apr. 2, 2019.

19 Johnson B. Up in Smoke: Documents from the Annals of Tobacco Marketing. Ad Age Mar. 29, 2010.

20 Meyer R. Profiteering off a Covid vaccine. World of DTC Marketing Mar. 25, 2021.

21 Kollewe J. From Pfizer to Moderna: Who’s making billions from Covid-19 vaccines? The Guardian Mar. 6, 2021.

22 Dunleavy BP. Pfizer CEO says need for third dose of COVID-19 vaccine ‘likely.’ UPI Apr. 16, 2021.

23 Weintraub EW. Federal spending on COVID-19 vaccine candidates tops $9 billion, spread among 7 companies. USA Today Aug. 10, 2020.

24 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Development, Testing and Regulation. The History of Vaccines Jan. 17, 2018.

25 Broom D. 5 charts that tell the story of vaccines today. World Economic Forum June 2, 2020.

26 Fisher BL, Parpia R. 2005 PREP Act and 1986 Act Shield Vaccine Manufacturer’s from Liability. The Vaccine Reaction Aug. 10, 2020.

27 Fisher BL. The New Internet Police Protecting You from Freedom of Thought and Speech. NVIC Newsletter Dec. 3, 2018.

28 Caceres M. When Even the New York Times Doesn’t Pass Facebook Muster. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 28, 2020.

29 Mercola J. New Thought Police NewsGuard Is Owned by Big Pharma. Jan. 24, 2020.

30 Fisher BL. Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free. NVIC Newsletter Jan. 26, 2021.

31 O’Neill J. White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers. New York Post Feb. 19, 2021.

32 Attkisson S. CENSORED: The National Vaccine Information Center. Mar. 8, 2021.

33 Presson J. Questions linger about COVID-19 vaccine. The Mountaineer Feb. 12, 2021.

34 Droesch B. US Healthcare and Pharma Is Among the Fastest-Growing Digital Ad Spenders. EMarketer Oct. 9, 2020.

35 Droesch B. US Healthcare and Pharma Is Among the Fastest-Growing Digital Ad Spenders. EMarketer Oct. 9, 2020.

36 Silk B. Why Digital Is the Future for Pharma Advertising. Ethoseo Oct. 15, 2019.

37 Robbins R. Get ready for more drug ads: Facebook is making a bid for pharma dollars. STAT News Nov. 1, 2016.

38 Holmes K, Kaufman E. HHS begins national vaccine ad campaign with You Tube ads. CNN Dec. 4, 2020.

39 DHHS. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Launches Nationwide Network of Trusted Voices to Encourage Vaccination in Next Phase of Public Education Campaign. HHS Press Office Apr. 1, 2021.

40 Facher L. The White House is set to unveil a wide-reaching billion-dollar campaign aimed at convincing every American to get vaccinated. STAT News Mar. 15, 2021.

41 Associated Press. Celebrities Make a Stand for COVID-19 Vaccines on TV Special. Voice of America Apr. 16, 2021.

42 Walmart. Administering COVID-19 Vaccines. Apr. 21, 2021.

43 Hoffman DC. Mass COVID-19 Vaccination Site Set to Open at PPG Paints Arena. KDKA2 Mar. 15, 2021.

44 Archie A. This Indiana school district is helping high schoolers get a COBID-19 vaccine before prom. Louisville Courier Journal Apr. 13, 2021.

45 AdventHealth News. AdventHealth Partners with Churches to Provide COVID-19 Vaccines. Apr. 20, 2021.

46 Collins FS. Statement from NIH and BARDA on the FDA Emergency Use Authorization of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. NIAID Dec. 18, 2020.

47 Pfizer Inc. Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Further Details on Collaboration to Accelerate Global GOVIC-19 Vaccine Development. Businesswire Apr. 9, 2020.

48 Macrotrends. Pfizer Revenue 2006-2020. January 2021.

49 NASDAQ. Pfizer sees about $15 billion in 2021 sales from COVID-19 vaccine. Feb. 2, 2021.

50 NASDAQ. Moderna Earnings Date, Estimates & History. MarketBeat Apr. 16, 2021.

51 CBS News. Moderna forecasts $18.4 billion in COVID-19 vaccine sales. Feb. 28, 2021.

52 Yen H, Mattise J. Half of US adults have received at least one COVID-19 shot. Associated Press Apr. 18, 2021.

53 Syal A. Is It Safe to Visit Grandparents After Getting COVID Vaccine? NBC Feb. 14, 2021.

54 Pfizer Inc. The Facts About Pfizer and BioNTech’s COVID-19 Vaccine. Jan 6, 2021.

55 Banks MA. What Are mRNA Vaccines, and Could They Work Against COVID-19? Smithsonian Magazine Nov. 16, 2020.

56 Trafton A. Explained: Why RNA vaccines for Covid-19 raced to the front of the pack. MIT News Office Dec. 11, 2020.

57 Langreth R, Krege N. Moderna Wants to Transform the Body Into a Vaccine- Making Machine. Bloomberg News Aug. 11, 2020.

58 Harris R. Long-Term Studies of COVID-19 Vaccines Hurt by Placebo Recipients Getting Immunized. NPR Feb. 19, 2021.

59 Pardi N, Hogan MJ et al. mRNA vaccines – a new era in vaccinology. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2018; 17: 261-279.

60 Jaffe-Hoffman M. Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long- term? Jerusalem Post Nov. 17, 2020.

61 Odell J. Messenger RNA (nRNA) SARS Coronavirus ‘Vaccines’ and their Potential Autoimmunity Part 2. Bioregulatory Medicine Institute Feb. 24, 2021.

62 Arvin AM, Fink K et al. A perspective on potent antibody-dependent enhancement of SARA-Cov-2. Nature 2020; 584: 352-363.

63 Healthline. How Long Does Immunity Last After COVID-19?: How vaccine- induced immunity after receiving immunization works. Feb. 24, 2021.

64 FDA. Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 11, 2020.

65 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020.

66 Heidt A. FDA to Require 50 Percent Efficacy for COVID-19 Vaccines. The Scientist July 1, 2020.

67 Crist C. Early Vaccines Will Prevent Symptoms, Not Virus. WebMD Oct. 28, 2020.

68 Syal A. Is It Safe to Visit Grandparents After Getting COVID Vaccine? NBC Feb. 14, 2021.

69 Rouan R. Fact Check: CDC recommends masks in most cases even after COVID-19 vaccines. USA Today Apr. 22, 2021.

70 Crow S. The CDC Says These 3 Side Effects Mean Your Vaccine Is Working. Yahoo Feb. 15, 2021.

71 Finberg R. No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19. Yahoo News Apr. 19, 2021.

72 Hendler C. Severe Reactions to COVID-19 Vaccine Close Schools in Michigan, Ohio and New York. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 8, 2021.

73 Farber M. Is the COVID-19 vaccine effective if you don’t have a reaction to it? Fox News Feb. 9, 2021.

74 Bircher AJ. Symptoms and danger signs in acute drug hypersensitivity. Toxicology 2005; 209(2): 201-207.

75 Davidovici BB, Wolf R. The challenge of drug-rechallenge: Facts and controversies. Clin Dermatol 2010; 281(3): 249-253.

76 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals. Highlights of Prescribing Information for INFANRIX – diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and acellular pertussis vaccine adsorbed suspension: Contraindications, Warnings and Precautions. Nov. 20, 2019.

77 MedAlerts. Search the VAERS Database.

78 FDA. VAERS Overview. Mar. 29, 2019.

79 CDC. Vaccine Safety: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

80 LaVigne P. The Story Behind MedAlerts. NVIC Newsletter Aug. 20, 2013.

81 The College of Physicians of Philadelphia. Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs: National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)/National Childhood Vaccine Injury Program (NCVIP). The History of Vaccines Jan. 17, 2018.

82 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. Electronic System for Public Health Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. AHRQ 2011.

83 The Vaccine Reaction. Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Provokes COVID-Like Symptoms in Phase 3 Trial. Oct. 19, 2020.

84 Fisher BL. Over 3,000 “Health Impact Events” After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccinations. The Vaccine Reaction Dec. 22, 2020.

85 Gale J. COVID-19 vaccine side effects hit some recipients hard; that’s not all bad. Here’s what to do about them. Seattle Times Mar. 11, 2021.

86 Sforza T. Health care worker dies after second dose of COVID vaccine, investigation underway. Orange County Register Feb. 4, 2021.

87 Percy N. Kaiser says Pfizer vaccine likely not cause of Calfornia woman’s death. Mercury News Feb. 15, 2021

88 Brown E. Fact Check: Have 966 People Died After Receiving the COVID vaccine? Newsweek Mar. 8, 2021.

89 Goldstein S. Blood clots prevalent with Pfizer and Moderna Vaccine as with Astra Zeneca’s study. Dow Jones/Market Watch Apr. 16, 2021.

90 Ma A. Schuster-Bruce C. Johnson & Johnson asked other drugmakers to help it study blood-clot risks, and Moderna and Pfizer decline, report says. Business Insider Apr. 16, 2021.

91 Scribner H. Recent vaccine news should improve further confidence, doctor says. Deseret News Apr. 15, 2021.

92 Beusekom MV. Study: COVID much more likely than vaccines to cause blood clot. CIDRAP Apr. 15, 2021.

93 Fisher BL. Miami Obstetrician Develops Bleeding Disorder, Dies After Getting COVID- 19 Vaccine. The Vaccine Reaction Jan. 11, 2021.

94 Israel National News. Mexican doctor hospitalized after receiving COVID-19 vaccine. Jan. 2, 2021.

95 Microsoft News. 72-year old man sent to ICU following COVID-19 vaccination; MOH confirms cardiac arrest wasn’t caused by vaccine. Feb. 19, 2021.

96 Fisher BL. Healthy Mom, 39, in Utah Dies of Organ Failure Days After Moderna COVID Vaccination. The Vaccine Reaction Mar. 15. 2021.

97 The Vaccine Reaction. Woman Dies Immediately After Getting COVID-9 Vaccine in Virginia. Feb. 21, 2021.

98 Haglage A. No evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause death epidemiologists say: ‘Coincidences are going to happen.’ Yahoo Feb. 4, 2021.

99 Rouan R. Fact check: CDC data on adverse effects of vaccine cannot determine cause. USA Today Apr. 8, 2021.

100 CDC. Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events: Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 13, 2020.

101 FDA. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Dec. 18, 2020.

102 Finberg R. No, vaccine side effects don’t tell you how well your immune system will protect you from COVID-19. Yahoo News Apr. 19, 2021.

103 Thomas N. Fauci expects almost all children to be eligible for Covid-19 vaccines by first quarter 2022 at the latest. CNN Apr 18, 2021.

104 Koweek M. Younger adults are having harsher Covid vaccine side effects. WHIO TV Mar. 5, 2021.

105 Bendix A. Why you can expect more severe vaccine side effects if you’re younger or a woman. Business Insider Apr. 6, 2021.

106 CDC. COVID-19 in Children and Teens: What You Need to Know. Mar. 17, 2021.

All images in this article are screenshots 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.

***

Had the FDA and Anthony Fauci’s National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID) started approving existing clinically-proven and inexpensive drugs for treating malaria, parasites and other pathogens at the start of the pandemic, millions of people would have been saved from experiencing serious infections or dying from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Why federal health officials never followed this strategy is a question the mainstream media refuses to ask.

Another question that the medical establishment, let alone our compliant media, is why have they failed to ask whether there are reliable studies in the peer-reviewed literature and testimonies from thousands of day-to-day clinical physicians worldwide who treat Covid-19 patients with these drugs, in particular hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin. In most nations, there has been enormous success in treating Covid patients at the early and moderate stages of infection. However, in the US, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, the FDA and our institutional medical leaders have categorically denied their use.  In fact they are quick to erect obstacles to prevent them from being prescribed.

When these questions are posited as a general argument for advocating expedient measures to protect public health during this pandemic, would it not have been wise to have prioritized HCQ, Ivermectin, and other remedies with a record of curtailing Covid, such as the antibiotic azithromycin, zinc, selenium, Vitamins C and D, and melatonin as a first line of defense?  There was absolutely no need to have waited for experimental vaccines or experimental drugs such as Remdesivir before the pandemic became uncontrollable.  But this is what Fauci and Trump permitted to happen.

If this strategy of medical intervention had been followed, would it have been successful?  The answer is likely an unequivocal “yes”.  Both HCQ and, even better, Ivermectin have been prophylactically prescribed by physicians working on pandemic’s front lines with enormous success.  Yet those American physicians struggling to get this urgent message out to federal health officials are being marginalized and ridiculed en masse. Only in the US, the UK, France, South Africa and several other developed nations has there been a stubborn hubris to deny their effectiveness, and where there have been concerted efforts to undermine these cheaper alternative remedies. The World Health Organization recommends Ivermectin for Covid-19 so why not the US and these other nations? Under oath, multiple physicians and professors at American medical schools have testified before Congress to present the scientific evidence supporting HCQ and Ivermectin.  These are otherwise medical professionals at the very heart of treating Covid-19 patients.

Today, American journalism is in shambles. In fact, it is a disgrace.  The American public is losing its trust in the media. Whether it is CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NPR or PBS, they each have unlimited resources to properly investigate the federal and institutional machinery behind the government health policies being thrust upon us.  Yet no mainstream journalist has found the moral compass to bring this truth to the public.

In the meantime, we are allowing millions to die, and countless others to be seriously affected from a severe infection because of professional medical neglect and a healthcare system favoring the pharmaceutical industry’s frantic rush to develop expensive novel drugs and experimental vaccines. The incentive by the drug makers is to take every advantage available within the FDA’s emergency use loopholes to get their products approved as quickly as possible.  The primary advantage is that these novel drugs and vaccines can then leap over regulatory hurdles, which otherwise would require them to conduct lengthy and thorough clinical trials to prove their efficacy and safety. The consequence is that none of the new pharmaceutical Covid-19 interventions have been adequately reviewed.

On the other hand, HCQ and Ivermectin have an established legacy of prior research and have been on the market for decades. Worldwide, it is not unreasonable to claim that billions of people have been treated with these drugs.

Below is a breakdown of the studies conducted so far for HCQ, Ivermectin and Vitamin D specifically for combatting the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Hydroxychloroquine

  • 291 studies, 218 peer-reviewed have been conducted specifically for Covid-19
  • 241 have been clinical trials that involved 3,875 scientists and over 366,000 patients
  • 33 were randomize controlled trials
  • 65% improvement in 26 early treatment trials
  • 72% improvement in 11 early stage infection treatment mortality results
  • 22% improvement in 164 late stage infection treatment trials (patients in serious condition)

Full list of HCQ studies and details here.

Ivermectin

  • 92 studies, 52 peer-reviewed have been conducted specifically for Covid-19
  • 54 have been clinical trials that involved 442 scientists and over 17,600 patients
  • 27 were randomized controlled trials
  • 85% improvement in 14 prophylaxis trials
  • 80% improvement in 20 early stage infection treatment trials
  • 47% improvement in 20 late stage infection treatment trials
  • 74% improvement in 20 mortality results

Full list of Ivermectin studies and details here.

Vitamin D

  • 74 studies conducted by over 650 scientists
  • 52 sufficiency studies with 12,000 patients
  • 23 treatment trials with 23,000 patients
  • 53% improvement in 23 treatment trials
  • 53% improvement in 52 sufficiency studies
  • 63% improvement in 14 treatment mortality results

Full list of Vitamin D studies and details here.

Please share this information. The inept policies and measures being taken by our federal health officials and by both the former Trump and present Biden administrations are unparalleled in American healthcare history. And never before has the media been so willing to self-censor and been so grossly irresponsible to hide the published science and the truth.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Plant Codes.

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.

***

Six more lawsuits alleging Syngenta’s weed killing pesticide paraquat causes Parkinson’s Disease were filed last week in Pennsylvania, California and Illinois, adding to more than a dozen similar lawsuits already filed in U.S. courts.

The lawsuits all allege that exposure to paraquat,  which is banned in more than 30 countries though not in the United States, causes the incurable and progressive Parkinson’s disorder that affects nerve cells in the brain, leading in advanced cases to severe physical debilitation and often dementia and death.

Many Parkinson’s experts say the disease can be caused by a range of factors, including exposure to pesticides such as paraquat, as well as other chemicals.

The first trial set to take place in the United States is to begin on May 10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois. Missouri lawyer Steve Tillery  is representing the plaintiffs in Hoffman V. Syngenta and said he plans to introduce evidence that includes internal company records showing Syngenta has known for decades that its product causes Parkinson’s Disease.

The defendants in the Hoffman case, as well as the other cases filed, name the Swiss-based Syngenta and Chevron USA as defendants.

Both Chevron and Syngenta deny there is a connection between the disease and the weed killer.

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

Syngenta says that its paraquat products have been approved as “safe and effective” for more than 50 years and it will “vigorously” defend the lawsuits. Syngenta is owned by China National Chemical Corporation, known as ChemChina.

The complaints were filed on April 30 by a team of law firms: DiCello Levitt Gutzler, Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C. and  Searcy Denney.

Mark DiCello, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys bringing the cases, said Chevron and Syngenta have “long known they were peddling this poison,” and that the science surrounding paraquat “is conclusively on the side of the plaintiffs.”

Jeffrey Goodman, another of the plaintiffs’ attorneys helping bring the litigation said the filings so far are but the “tip of the iceberg” of what he expects to expand into a major mass tort case.

“The manufacturers of paraquat knew for decades that their product was linked to Parkinson’s disease yet chose to hide this information from regulators and the public,” Goodman said.

The newly filed cases are:

The new cases join at least 14 lawsuits filed by eight different law firms in six different federal courts across the country.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Weed Killing Pesticide Paraquat Allegedly Causes Parkinson. Litigation in U.S. Courts
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

800 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army departed from Fort Bragg in North Carolina last Friday morning for a Swift Response exercise. They were dropped into Estonia in a “joint forcible entry” operation in the early hours of Saturday. The airborne exercise is designed to test the fast response capabilities of the U.S. to defend Estonia in case of a hypothetical war with Russia. It is also part of larger NATO exercises that includes the participation of 30,000 troops doing drills with battlegroups led by the UK in Estonia, Canada in Latvia, Germany in Lithuania and the U.S. in Poland.

In effect, NATO has mobilized tens of thousands of troops right onto Russia’s border. Moscow has repeatedly expressed concern about a NATO building up in Europe and Russian Presidential spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated that Russia does not threaten anyone but will not ignore actions that could endanger its interests.

On the Estonian television program Välisilm, Colonel Paul Clayton of the Royal British Armed Forces, unashamedly expressed, in the context of NATO’s military exercises, the types of pressure that NATO is attempting to impose against Russia. He admitted that the Alliance is helping Ukraine train its troops and praised the Estonian government for its readiness to devote more than 2% of its GDP to defense. He also recommended more frequent co-operation with Latvia and Lithuania. In his opinion, this is all the more crucial because NATO’s “Northern Division” is being built in Riga, which consists of military units from the Baltic States under the command of Denmark.

The NATO contingent deployed in the Baltic States is under the pretext of “countering Russian aggression.” Moscow emphasizes, under the pretext of concern for the security of the Baltic States, that NATO has in fact provocatively brought its military bases closer to Russia’s borders. The Kremlin has also repeatedly stated that it has no plans to attack, but NATO continues to grow its potential and Russia has been forced to provide an asymmetric response to its military plans.

It is for this reason at the end of April, by presidential decree, the U.S., UK, Ukraine, Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Czechia, Estonia, Australia and Georgia were put on a list of countries that are “unfriendly” to Russia. Although Germany and France frequently criticize Russia, Moscow recognizes that they are to some extent independent in their decision making and are not as beholden to Washington’s interests like the listed countries are.

Effectively, what Moscow does by establishing such a list is identity countries that enact policies completely aligned with Washington. Unsurprisingly, all the European Union countries to make the list are former Warsaw Pact members, and this points to two observations.

Firstly, Russia is announcing that it does not view the European Union as a single monolith and recognises that it is a fractured organisation with many divisions. One such division is between the majority of the EU who are mostly disinterested in pursuing aggressive anti-Russia policies, and Poland, Czechia and the Baltic States, who as former Warsaw Pact members have the expressed desire to be active participants in Washington’s containment efforts against Russia.

Secondly, Russia is once again demonstrating its flexibility by identifying the likes of Paris and Berlin as having issues with Moscow, but not at the behest of Washington and instead for their own interests. In this way, Moscow believes that it can negotiate with Western Europe, something it has failed to do with Washington and its vassal states in Eastern Europe.

By creating a list of unfriendly states (which nearly perfectly corresponds to the states involved in large scale NATO military drills on Russia’s borders), Moscow has broken Washington’s ultimatum of “us” or “them.” By not including France and Germany on the list, Russia is recognizing that the two leading countries of the European Union have agency that can shape and influence the destiny of Europe independently from Washington.

Although the U.S., UK and its vassals are attempting to intimidate Russia through its enormous military exercises, the show of strength does not reflect the reality that will unfold in a hypothetical war as there are huge divisions within the European Union and NATO. The overwhelming majority of member states are unwilling to go to war with Russia despite enthusiasm from Poland and the Baltics, rendering the joint NATO exercises as not an accurate reflection of a real war scenario.

*

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 InfoBrics

COVID Authoritarians Abuse Children

May 11th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Centers for Diseases Control (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky has “recommended” that children wear masks while playing. Her offered reason is to ensure Covid is not spread by “heavy breathing” of children near each other while around a soccer ball.

Dr. Walensky’s recommendation is one more example of Covid authoritarians’ refusal to “listen to the science.” The science says no to lockdowns and masks. The masks are not blocking the very small viruses in “heavy breathing.” Dr. Walensky also ignores the science showing that wearing a mask while exercising or playing sports has negative health effects.

Dr. Walensky’s most outrageous disregard of science is ignoring the fact that children are statistically unlikely to be at risk of either spreading Covid or becoming very sick from it.

Dr. Walensky’s recommendation is one of many examples of how children are harmed by the overreaction to coronavirus. Many children have had their physical and mental health damaged because they cannot go to school, play with their friends, or even have a birthday party because of the lockdowns.

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, the two major teachers’ unions — the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) — have stood in the way of reopening schools. Teachers’ union leaders have claimed it is too dangerous for teachers to resume in-person instruction, even though adults are at little or no risk of getting Covid from children. Sadly, teachers’ unions are disregarding the interest of children. Recently released emails show the CDC disregarded the science in favor of the AFT’s restrictive guidance when developing recommendations concerning reopening schools.

The negative effects of lockdowns and school closings for children have led many parents to consider alternatives to government schools. Some private schools have not just remained open, they have followed the science and not forced their students to wear masks. Many parents are also considering homeschooling. Homeschooling parents obviously can ensure their children are not forced to obey mask, social distancing, and other unscientific mandates.

Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education that emphasizes the ideas of liberty should consider my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own internet-based businesses.

The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education.

Interactive forums allow students to learn from each other outside of a formal setting. The curriculum’s emphasis on self-directed learning and student interaction makes it ideal for parents who need to work from home but still want to homeschool their children.

I encourage parents looking at alternatives to government schools to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program.

*

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.

***

EU regulators Friday called on Pfizer and Moderna to provide additional data related to the companies’ COVID vaccines and a potential link to heart inflammation, after the agency completed a safety review of all four COVID vaccines authorized for emergency use in the EU.

The European Medicines Agency’s safety committee, (PRAC), also asked AstraZeneca for data related to reports of Guillain–Barré syndrome in people who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, and they recommended Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) update their labels with side effect warnings.

In a report issued May 7, PRAC disclosed its members were aware of cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following Pfizer vaccination. Regulators said they didn’t see an indication the vaccine caused these cases, but as a prevention, PRAC requested Pfizer provide further data, including an analysis of events according to age and gender in its next pandemic summary safety report and will consider if any other regulatory action is needed.

Because Moderna and Pfizer use the same mRNA technology for their vaccines, the committee asked Moderna to monitor for similar cases of heart inflammation.

Myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. Pericarditis is inflammation of the membrane around the heart.

A search in the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) revealed 213 cases of pericarditis and myocarditis reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination. Of the 213 cases reported, 105 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 93 cases to Moderna and 15 cases to Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) COVID vaccine.

On April 27, Reuters reported the U.S. Department of Defense was investigating 14 cases of heart inflammation among people who were vaccinated through the military’s health services.

Of the 14 cases, one patient developed myocarditis after their first dose of vaccine. The remaining 13 patients developed myocarditis after their second vaccine doses. Eleven received the Moderna vaccine and three received Pfizer.

Israel’s Health Ministry is also examining cases of heart inflammation in people who received Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. As The Defender reported April 26, a preliminary report by the committee tasked with monitoring vaccine side effects in Israel identified 62 cases of myocarditis, including two deaths, after recent vaccination with Pfizer. Fifty-five of the cases occurred in men — most between ages 18 and 30.

In the case of AstraZeneca, PRAC said it is examining reports of Guillain–Barré syndrome and asked for more detailed data and an analysis of all reported Guillain–Barré syndrome cases.

Guillain–Barré syndrome is a rare immune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves resulting in paralysis. It had been previously identified by regulators as a potential adverse side effect that required monitoring following AstraZeneca’s shot.

EMA recommends updates to labels, lists of side effects

The EMA’s May 7 report also included the recommendation that Pfizer add a new side effect to its product information for people with dermal fillers — soft, gel-like substances injected under the skin.

After reviewing all available evidence, including cases reported to the European database for suspected side effects and data from scientific literature, PRAC said there is at least a “reasonable possibility of a causal association between the vaccine and the reported cases of facial swelling in people with a history of injections with dermal fillers.”

The safety committee also said it would update its warning for J&J’s COVID vaccine after EU regulators in April identified a link between the shot and blood clots.

Though PRAC said the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, the label will now include advice that patients diagnosed with thrombocytopenia within three weeks of vaccination be actively investigated for signs of thrombosis and that patients who present with thromboembolism within three weeks be evaluated for thrombocytopenia.

Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome will also be added as an “important identified risk” in the risk management plan for J&J’s vaccine. The committee asked the company to provide a plan to further study the possible underlying mechanisms for these events.

Additionally, PRAC looked at clotting risks with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Though several cases of low blood platelets and blood clots were identified, the committee concluded that for the moment there does not seem to be any evidence of a safety signal for the mRNA shots.

Utilizing a search criteria that included reports of blood clots associated with blood clotting disorders, VAERS yielded a total of 2,808 reports in the U.S for all three vaccines from Dec. 14, 2020, through April 30. Of the 2,808 cases reported, there were 1,043 reports of blood clotting disorders attributed to Pfizer.

As The Defender reported Monday, a Utah teen remains hospitalized with three blood clots in and near his brain that developed after he received the first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

On May 7, Pfizer became the first COVID vaccine producer to request full approval by the U.S Food and Drug Administration for ages 16 and up. Pfizer requested priority review, which asks the FDA to take action within six months, compared to 10 months designated under standard review.

The FDA is expected to amend Pfizer’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) this week to authorize use of the vaccine in adolescents aged 12 to 15. The company announced plans to further expand EUA for its vaccine for children ages 2 to 11 in September.

If approved, Pfizer will be the first experimental vaccine to receive full approval by the FDA.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU Regulators Call on Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca for More Data on Heart Inflammation, Guillain–Barré Syndrome
  • Tags:

Halt COVID Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

By Dr. Jennifer Margulis, May 10, 2021

In a public comment to the CDC, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe.

Vaccine Passports Illegal, Infections and Deaths after Vaccines, Government and Media Lies, the “Booster” Myth

By Rodney Atkinson, May 10, 2021

According to all UK COVID vaccine adverse reaction reports 1,086 UK citizens have died following the two COVID vaccinations (Pfizer and Astra Zeneca) up to the reporting date of 29/4/21. COVID infections following the vaccination have risen to 973 for both vaccinations with 62 deaths – a death rate of 6.3% which is nearly twice the rate of deaths in general from COVID. Once again there have been big rises in Lymphadenopathy.

CDC Changes Rules for Counting Breakthrough Cases, as More Fully Vaccinated People Test Positive

By Megan Redshaw, May 10, 2021

According to a statement on the CDC’s website, the agency said to help “maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance” it will stop reporting weekly COVID breakthrough infections unless they result in hospitalization or death.

Pfizer, AstraZeneca COVID Vaccines Probed in Europe after Reports of Heart Inflammation, Rare Nerve Disorder

By Noah Higgins-Dunn, May 10, 2021

Europe’s drug regulator says it’s evaluating an assortment of potential side effects following inoculation with leading COVID-19 vaccines, including heart inflammation, facial swelling and a rare nerve-degenerating disorder. Yet in most circumstances, it’s not clear whether the vaccines are to blame.

Treatment of Covid-19: Dr. Peter McCullough’s Important Statement to the Texas Senate

By Dr. Peter McCullough, May 10, 2021

Scientific information is being taken down by Facebook. There is a total blackout on information to patients regarding treatment.  Patients are led to believe that Covid cannot be treated. Medical doctors are prevented from treating.

The Fateful Choice: Nuclear Arms Race or Nuclear Weapons-Free World

By Lawrence Wittner, May 10, 2021

The recent announcement by the British government that it plans a 40 Percent Increase in the number of nuclear weapons it possesses highlights the escalation of the exceptionally dangerous and costly nuclear arms race.

History: The Kent State May 4, 1970 Shootings. New Documents Surface, Raise Serious Questions

By Taylor Hudak and Alan Frank, May 10, 2021

The Kent State community commemorated the 51st anniversary of the May 4, 1970, shootings outside Taylor Hall on Tuesday. It was a solemn gathering as many former students returned to visit the site of a tragedy where the Ohio National Guard opened fire on anti-Vietnam War protestors. The shootings resulted in the deaths of four students and nine others were wounded.

Covid-19: Fifteen Important Concepts

By Dr. Meryl Nass, May 10, 2021

It appears that the adenovirus vectored DNA vaccines are about to be scuttled, due to high rates of bleeding (3% in Norway) and clotting (rate uncertain). Platelet activation was a known complication of adenovirus vaccines since at least 2007.

Video: Kenyan Physicians Question Gene Therapy Vaccine, Say Powers of the World Are Suppressing Effective Early COVID Treatment

By Uwe Alschner, Dr. Stephen Karanga, Dr. Wahome Ngare, and Kristina Borjesson, May 10, 2021

In an interview with Klartext podcast host, Uwe Alschner, frontline doctors Stephen Karanga and Dr. Wahome Ngare of the Catholic Doctors Association say early COVID treatment is highly effective and question whether vaccines—which they say are misnamed and should be called gene therapy—are necessary or safe.

80 Years Ago: Fall of France, the Wehrmacht’s Advance Through the Ardennes Forest

By Shane Quinn, May 10, 2021

Eight decades ago in the late summer of 1940 the Wehrmacht’s generals, at Adolf Hitler’s behest, were beginning preparations for a massive invasion of the USSR. Morale within the German Army was very good indeed, for obvious reasons. Within six weeks Germany’s traditional nemesis France had been conquered at remarkable ease, along with the Low Countries of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, demonstrating that this second major European war was proving rather different to the bitter toil of its 1914-1918 predecessor.

Covid Lockdown in India: Anthony Fauci ‘Has No Clue and No Authority to Lecture on What Is Good for India’

By Colin Todhunter, May 10, 2021

In light of the current COVID-related situation in India, Dr Anthony Fauci, the top US adviser on COVID, has called for India to implement a hard lockdown and for the mass roll-out of vaccines. However, Fauci has no clue and no authority to lecture on what is good for India.

Victory Day: Ukrainian Officials Imply Conflict with Russia Equivalent to Nazi Invasion

By Rick Rozoff, May 10, 2021

On the occasion of the 76th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of World War Two in Europe (Victory in Europe Day to much of the world), what since the 2014 coup in Ukraine has been celebrated as the Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation, President Volodymyr Zelensky visited a common gravesite where the remains of Ukrainian soldiers killed in that war are buried. He chose a war memorial in Lugansk – where his army is engaged in a seven-year war with the Lugansk People’s Republic.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Halt COVID Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

In Defense of Identity and Freedom

May 11th, 2021 by Slobodan Erić

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 Serbian magazine Geopolitika, specialized in geopolitics. political, scientific, cultural, historical and spiritual issues, celebrates the 20th anniversary of its existence. On that occasion, on Global Research, we are publishing an interview with the founder and editor-in-chief of the magazine Geopolitika, Mr. Slobodan Erić, interviewed by Biljana Đorović, PhD in Media Philosophy from Belgrade.

Dr. Biljana Đorović: Serbian magazine Geopolitika celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. What we have before us is a quality newspaper which has been publishing texts and interviews with some of the most eminent intellectuals from around the world for the past two decades. Mr. Slobodan Erić, what is a basic concept of the magazine Geopolitika?

Slobodan Eric: Geopolitika is an independent analytical magazine which is not only concerned with local issues that are related to Serbia and the Balkan region, but also to the broader global problems and issues which are of essential importance to the world that we live in. Our guiding idea is that we cherish free thought. During the past two decades we have published interviews with some of the most eminent intellectuals from around the world who, in a certain sense, represent the conscience of the world. We will just mention some of the many free-thinking individuals who have spoken for our newspaper: Edward Herman, Robert MacChesney, William Engdahl, Michel Chossudovsky, Aleksandar Dugin, Thierry Meyssan, Michael Parenti, Alexander Solbucci, Jürgen Elsässer, Serge Trifkovic, General Jean-Pierre Gallois, Diana Johnstone… As for the direction of our editorial policy, we can say that Geopolitka takes an anti-globalist stance, while strongly supporting the idea of freedom, for which we have our foundation in the Serbian libertarian tradition.

DBD: How was the idea for establishing Geopolitika born?

SE: The idea to establish a newspaper which would publish the truth and attempt to gather on its pages the most eminent people in the world, not just in terms of their professionalism but also in terms of their ethics, was born during the NATO aggression on Serbia in 1999. That was the apogee of unipolarity in international relations, when Russia was still enchained by the neoliberal economic model and China, despite its strong economic growth, had still not had enough political self-confidence. Serbia was left to fend for itself in these circumstances and it suffered the brunt of NATO alliance’s terrible strike, since it had to be appropriately punished as an exemplar to other countries due to its resistance to the New World Order. Only free-thinking individuals from around the globe remained by Serbia’s side and their support was of immense importance to us. It was a difficult but honorable time for Serbia and I am proud to have a small part of that great resistance.

DBD: The world has, it seems, been occupied by another topic and another issue – namely, the COVID-19 virus. What is your view on the impact of this virus, not only in terms of its impact on healthcare, but on other aspects of life as well?

SE: Of course, those who have fallen sick and those who are helping them convalesce should have the attention and support of not just the healthcare system, but also of the whole of society. Great social traumas are often the result of mass diseases, but there is also a lot of empathy and solidarity amongst people. Even in this obviously estranged and egoistic world of ours there have been examples of laying down yourself for others ever since the outbreak of COVID-19, which should be lauded. However, despite the official narrative that is given to us by the world health establishment, there is a lot of contradictory information and unresolved questions regarding COVID-19 which demand answers that are based on science. It seems that fear has undermined the self-confidence of many people, primarily within Western civilization which has, especially since the second half of the 20th century, had a triumphant stance vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Epidemics are a suitable testing ground for certain social experiments. The World Health Organization has asserted itself as an authority which pretends to be in charge of managing this health crisis. The WHO has, through its incoherent announcements, demonstrated skepticism towards the use of medications in the fight against COVID-19, starting with hydrochloroquine, insisting primarily on isolation measures, i.e. on lockdowns. Locking down a majority of the population has meant that a lot of working positions have been closed down, especially in the sectors of aviation and tourism, but it has affected other sectors as well. Social peace has been paid for by massive state debt. And states which are in debt are not only economically, but also politically dependent.

DBD: What can be done to extricate ourselves from this situation that our world is currently contending with?

SE: The logical answer would be if there was an open and sincere dialogue to resolve this healthcare crisis. However, the impression is that the WHO, which is just a visible part of the global structure of power, will be setting the course with regards to this pandemic. A majority of people still view international relations within the context of opposing or Great Powers, i.e. the United States, Russia, China, the EU countries… For a long time, however, power has been shifting from formal to informal centers, which do not have a clear legal identity nor was their legitimacy confirmed through elections, i.e. they are not subject to parliamentary or legislative oversight. The Soviet dissident Alexander Zinoviev called this phenomenon “super-society”. The contemporary Russian thinker Andrey Fursov called it “supranational groups of global consensus and management”. Even behind the façade of democratic institutions there existed informal centers of power; the problem here is that this global power structure has not only its own political and economic interests, but also its own vision of the world which a majority of the inhabitants of this planet do not share. There is much that is problematic in their vision and their care for other people’s health, which is symbolically best represented by Bill Gates idea to blot out the sun – the star which is the source of life for our planet. According to his statements and of those who share his vision, the world is entering a phase of uncertainty which will be characterized by such challenges as epidemics and climate change. This concept will have its support base in the United States, which is for the first time in its history encountering an internal political crisis. To be more precise, it will receive its support from the new American administration – from president Joe Biden and his associates, who have shown great enthusiasm for these ideas, by signing multiple decrees at the beginning of his mandate which are supposed to contribute to the fight against climate change.

Alastair Crooke wrote that the “myth of democracy” has been spent and that the “climate myth” will follow it. This has to do with the reorganization of the global economy known as the “Great Reset” or “UN Agenda 2030”, as William Engdahl pointed out.

DBD: Will this “green economy”, which will be based on clean renewable sources of energy bring ecological and economic stability to the world or will it cause a new economic and social stratification that will further deepen the gap between the rich and the poor?

SE: In 2010, Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer, chief of Work Group No. 3 of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change of the United Nations said: “We should openly proclaim that we are de facto redistributing global wealth through climate change policy. We should liberate ourselves from this illusion that international climate policy is also an ecological policy…” William Engdahl quoted this in one of his books.

DBD: Does that mean that this prognosis of how the world will develop has no alternative and should we and can we actually discuss this topic? 

SE: I think that alternatives always exist. This epidemic represents a challenge but also an opportunity to seek answers to essential problems with which the modern world is facing. I hope and want to believe that a public discourse about everything with everyone can be held, including with the creators of the aforementioned concept of “green economy”. Our planet is in fact a wondrous place to live in, in which there is enough space for all peoples and their ideas. 

DBD: What should be done to stabilize international relations, especially amongst the Great Powers?

SE: I must confess that I found the idea that Charles A. Kupchan and Richard N. Haass had put forth to be especially intriguing, in which they pointed out the necessity of regulating international relations in the world based on the model of the Concert of European Nations from the 19th century. I think that the revitalization of such a concept in the current milieu of the multipolar world is sensible. I would like to remind our readers that the Concert of European Powers, which came into existence after the victory of the Holy Alliance (consisting of Russia, Prussia, Austria and Great Britain) against Napoléon’s France (which also became a member of the Concert) brought to Europe not only political stability through the balance of power, but also one hundred years of peace and unseen economic, social and cultural progress, not taking into consideration some minor local conflicts. Kupchan and Haass suggest that new actors be included in a Concert of Powers, which would serve as a consultative body, that would consist of the United States, China, the European Union, Russia, Japan, and India, according to the current constellation of international relations. They see this model as the “best means for the promotion of stability in the 21st century.” Every solution that reflects this new reality – the new multipolar world and which offers dialogue instead of conflict, is a good solution. This dialogue should be qualitatively broadened to encompass not only countries with their political and economic relations, but also the cultural milieus in which they exist or towards which they gravitate. The title of the famous and excellent book by Samuel Huntington “The Clash of Civilizations” should be reformulated into “The Cooperation of Civilizations”; this new title should be represented as the political goal in international relations.

DBD: This is a suggestion to regulate the relations amongst states on an external plan; however, on the internal level, political parties are still the main channel through which civil society exerts its influence on the state in all countries. Many deem that modern-day parties have forsaken their original political programs and that the difference between the right and the left is increasingly disappearing.

SE: To a great extent, that is correct, due to how technological development has changed the class and social structure of modern society. However, we still need parties of the classical right and left. The right is there to defend identity and traditional values, which have been under severe assault through the process of globalization, while on the other hand, the left should be there to defend traditional social and workers’ rights. The contemporary “beaubourg” left (a term which originates from France) is increasingly concerning itself with the rights of migrants and sexual minorities, i.e. the imperative demands of the LGBT community, while neglecting the maintenance of workers’ positions, the increase of salaries and everything related to workers’ unions’ rights. As some political commentators have noticed, what we need now is a new alliance – of a right of values and a workers’ left.

DBD: However, these suggestions in the field of international relations will not resolve a series of other urgent questions which face the modern world?

SE: That is correct. These suggestions must go in the direction of securing peace and political stability within a framework that will permit for a dialogue to be established, not just among states, but also within the framework of what we call global society. The world has entered into a phase of, not just fear and uncertainty, but also of a lack of ideas. What we need are fresh, new and creative ideas. Maybe a platform for open public discourse could be established where people could discuss how they see the world in the 21st century, where they could express their opinions and plans on how to resolve global problems, ranging from the aforementioned climate changes, through world poverty, global healthcare, the protection of freedom and human rights, to the new technological revolution and a vision of outer space. Everyone should be invited to this forum, so we could extract quality out of quantity (7 billion inhabitants on Earth). You never know, there just might crop up some good ideas about progress, not from some scientific institute in the United States or Europe, but from some lonely and misunderstood researcher in Russia or a programmer in India… In any case, our civilization has a wealth of experience. When we are talking about democracy, we should return to its place of origin in Ancient Greece, where they postulated some of the essential questions about man and the purpose of his existence. I told some of my German friends that it is good that Germany is producing the best cars, but that it is not good that they are not advancing at all in the field of philosophy. We have new models of Mercedes and BMW but, to my knowledge, we do not have any new Hegels or Kants. Russian industry is not on the same level as that of Germany’s, but modern Russia still maintains a traditional conception of culture. I am absolutely convinced that, even though we live in societies that are becoming increasingly secular (especially in Europe and North America), the solutions to many of our problems cannot be found without God, i.e. it will be much easier to do so with His help. The central idea of Christianity – Christ said “I am the Way, the Truth and Life” – is salvation, i.e. eternal life in the afterlife. But in order to attain that goal, we must work in this world, to take care of others apart from taking care of ourselves. “Ours is only what we can give to others,” said one monk from Mount Athos. If we give ourselves emotionally and materially to others, then we enrich ourselves in the Lord. And if we love God as our Creator then we cannot but love His creature, Man, and nature as God’s creation – plants and animals, which the ecological movement claims to be protecting. Of course, this is much more difficult in practice, since spiritual life, ethics and relations amongst people have become more complex and the temptations have become greater. But as a start we should have healthy thoughts, which will lead to healthy deeds. As one Serbian Orthodox monk, Father Tadej, said: “Your life is as your thoughts are.” God is not in strength but in truth and justice.

DBD: Whenever Serbia is mentioned in the world, it is usually within the context of the Kosovo and Metohija issue. Why is the West persistently asking Serbia to renounce Kosovo, after having bombed it in 1999 under the pretext that it was committing ethnic cleansing there?

SE: This is a good and difficult question, one which cannot be answered just within the domain of geopolitical and economic interests, but within the spiritual realm. Kosovo is the spiritual and historic heart of the Serbian people, which is a region within modern Serbia that has a broad autonomy granted to the Albanians, who have their own provincial government, parliament, as well as their own University, Academy of Sciences and national broadcasting corporation in the Albanian language. However, there does exist an indirect prehistory of conflict between the West and Serbia in modern history.

We should not forget that socialist Yugoslavia (where the Serbs were a majority) was not a member of any of the Cold War coalitions, was one of the founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement, and that it had caused the ire of global capitalists because it had espoused an idea and practice which they considered to be heretical – namely, workers’ self-management in the factories.

We can really wonder as to why the United States and the whole globalist structure is so obsessed with a small piece of land belonging to Serbia in Southeastern Europe, where the famous Battle of Kosovo happened in 1389. What differentiates this battle between the Serbian and Ottoman Turkish armies is that, for the Serbs, the spiritual-moral result of the battle is much more important than the military consequences. On the eve of the battle, Prince Lazar held a feast where he had gathered all of his voivodes, the military and political elite, which was so reminiscent of Christ’s Last Supper; they and the rest of the army received Holy Communion before the battle, where Prince Lazar exhorted them to sacrifice themselves for freedom and to choose the “Heavenly Kingdom”, proclaiming a thought which would become a motto for future generations of Serbs: “The earthly kingdom lasts only for a brief time, but the Heavenly Kingdom always and forever.”

The sacrifice, ethics and mystique of the heroes of Kosovo have had a strong influence on Serbs, by creating a spiritual and heroic vertical axis which helped them to always choose justice and higher spiritual ideals over earthly interests and which gave them the strength to resist much stronger enemies, such as Austria-Hungary and Germany in 1914, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy in 1941, and the NATO alliance in 1999. That is how what the West calls the “Kosovo myth” came into being among the Serbs, but what we call the “Kosovo testament”. Those globalist structures which are both politically and spiritually intent on shaping the world in their image are aware and know that the spiritual DNA of the Serbs lies within the “Kosovo myth”; they think that by taking Kosovo away from Serbia they will be able to destroy this pivotal point of Serbian being and resistance, because this “myth” is one of the rare, living Christian myths in today’s Europe.

DBD: In more recent times, you have been encountering serious threats to your own safety and we would like to inform the international public. What is happening exactly?

SE: It is a great challenge to manage a truly independent newspaper which publishes the opinions of free intellectuals from around the world, especially when it is done in Serbia. Not that long ago, my vehicle was sabotaged by having the bolts on its tires unscrewed which, due to circumstances – I would say through God’s intercession – had been uncovered beforehand and there were no consequences. During the past two months I have been subjected to intense physical stalking by foreign citizens – it is irrelevant whether they are from the Middle East, Central Asia, or the Caucasus region. I have a good reason to suspect that this physical stalking is just a preparation for my physical liquidation which will lead to the shutting down of the informational project Geopolitika. I think that they are just agents while the clients are from abroad. In any case, there are powerful structures behind this. Of course, if the clients are from abroad, they are dependent upon local structures, especially from the criminal milieu. Political assassinations and the murder of journalists are not always committed with firearms, but through kidnappings and burglary, so that the violent death of the victim is then presented as from natural causes or that it happened “under unclear circumstances”. I have already informed the police and attorney-general’s office about these events; I have also informed by letter the President of the Republic Mr. Aleksandar Vučić and the Minister of Internal Affairs Aleksandar Vulin about my suspicions that I am being physically stalked. Even despite this, I am still being followed, whether it is in the center of Belgrade, in front of the offices of Geopolitika on Nikola Pašić Square, by suspicious individuals. I have also informed the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (New York), Reportets Without Borders (Paris) International Press Institute

(Vienna)… I hope for and want to believe that Serbia security will undertake all measures to stop the worst possible outcome, because I have informed them on time about this threat to my security and I have given to them photographic evidence. However, smaller countries such as Serbia are easily subjected to pressure by Great Western Powers and their security services, whom I am purposefully not mentioning here. Since this is an operation which surpasses the boundaries of Serbia and has a deeper, international background, I would like to use the opportunity to call upon all independent and free organizations which are involved in the protection of human rights and freedoms to share any information that they might have with regards to these events by sending an email to us ([email protected]) or, better yet, to publicly publish it, if they are willing to and have the means. If anyone has any doubts or reservations with regards to my statements, I will suggest to them and investigative organs in Serbia that during the past two months the security footage from the area around Nikola Pašić Square and the National Assembly of Serbia has been reviewed and location data has been accessed through mobile base stations. Everything will be crystal clear from this. In the name of the editor’s office of Geopolitika, I would like to thank in advance for any sort of help or solidarity that will be offered.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on In Defense of Identity and Freedom
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The U.S. is awash in a surplus of coronavirus vaccines as there has been a sudden drop in demand for them; most Americans who want the shots have had them. Now an army of Big Biotech’s agencies set up to address “vaccine hesitancy” are turning up their mass marketing to “create demand” using surveillance, rapid data analysis, media control, and host of behavior control strategies they’ve outlined in their playbooks.

Demand plummets

About 40% of the total adult population has been fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Uptake plummeted 25% after a peak in mid-April, and 56.4% of adults have had at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

But five million people – about eight per cent of those who took a first dose of the shot – failed to show up for their second dose appointments, according to the CDC.

As a result, excess vaccine stock has been piling up across the country. Chairs sat empty at a Philadelphia mass vaccination site where 4,000 unused doses of vaccines were due to expire. A million doses, representing one out of every four sent to Louisiana by the federal government, were sitting on shelves. One Wyoming county asked the state to stop shipping vaccines because it had a surplus of 20,000 shots; North Carolina closed its vaccination clinics for lack of demand.

“For the first time ever, we’ve had appointments at many vaccination sites that have not been filled,” said Los Angeles County Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer during a news briefing last Thursday.

“There [are] a lot of people around here who … I don’t think they want to take the vaccine,” chuckled Ralph Merrill, an engineer who sits on an Alabama county board.

Vaccine vs. virus fear

Numerous mainstream media fretted about “vaccine hesitancy,” blaming it on COVID-19 denialism, “conspiracy theories,” and QAnon followers, Trump supporters, and minority mistrust of the government with its brutal history of racist eugenics. No one mentioned that some people just don’t think the vaccine works. The mainstream media simply ignored Yale Professor of Epidemiology Harvey Risch, for example, who revealed that the majority of people now coming down with COVID-19 have been vaccinated against the virus.

Nor did they mention the leading reason for vaccine refusal cited by 45% of those in a March poll conducted by the Delphi Group for Facebook researchers, which is fear of side-effects, however. With reported adverse events at 118,746 total in the U.S. alone, including 3,410 deaths and 1,595 permanent disabilities, it is a legitimate deterrent. So is the abrupt halt of AstraZeneca’s vaccine for its high rate of blood clots, and the pause of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine.

Many people simply fear the novel vaccine more than the novel virus which, according to the CDC, has an overall 99.4% survival rate for those aged 50-65 who get the infection. The odds go up as people get older but decrease if people are younger. For those under 18, the coronavirus fatality rate estimated by the CDC is 0.00002, which translates into a 99.98% COVID survival rate. In fact, for those under 18, the lifetime odds of being struck by lightning are higher than the odds of dying of the virus.

Image

Nevertheless, President Joe Biden said Tuesday that now that the bulk of the vaccinated are seniors  – 85% of whom have gotten at least their first vaccine dose – he wants 70% of all Americans to get their first dose by July 4. He specifically pitched the jab to youths and announced his administration would be sending the vaccines to pediatricians to dole out over the coming weeks.

“Getting vaccinated not only protects you but reduces risk of giving the virus to somebody else,” Biden said, employing a classic line of “social marketing” script from a global industry of behavior change experts compelling people to take the shot.

Vaccination Demand Observatory

“[P]ublic health experts know that the last inch – getting the vaccine from vial to arm – can be the hardest,” according to the Vaccination Demand Observatory

Launched last week, the Observatory runs a “beta dashboard” of data and resources “intended for select global public health professionals.”

The Observatory was established by a group called the Public Good Projects (PGP) which “designs and implements large-scale behavior change programs for the public good,” UNICEF – which has received $86.6 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since 2020 – and the Gates-subsidized Yale Institute for Global Health. .

PGP was founded by Joe Smyser, a public health academic who trained at the CDC and has partnered with Google and Facebook. Its board members include executives from Merck pharmaceuticals, Pepsi, Levi-Strauss, the Advertising Council, Sesame Street, Campbell’s, and TikTok.

PGP’s website says that through “media monitoring and bots, grassroots social media organizing, or thought leadership, we deploy our considerable resources and connections to communication for change.”

Bots – or internet robots, also known as crawlers – can scan content on webpages all over the internet and create automated conversations and comments.

“PGP is monitoring coronavirus-related media conversations 24/7 to provide organizations with real-time public health expertise and messaging guidance.”

The group has promoted vaccines before. It developed the #StopFlu campaign, recruiting 120 “‘micro’ social media influencers” in the “African American and Latinx communities across eight states” and giving them prompts to sell their audiences the ideas that flu is a serious problem and that healthy people need flu shots.

PGP’s Observatory says it aims to “mitigate…mistrust on all vaccines.” Awash in Brave New World speak, the program’s “three pillars” are “social listening analytics,” a training program, and a “Vaccine Acceptance Interventions Lab” (VAIL) to “draw upon behavioral and social research and insights from social listening” and to develop “inoculation messages to vaccinate people against vaccine misinformation.” These would be “rapid field tested for tone, format and behavior change impact before being implemented.”

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) created a new public health field called “infodemiology” – the “science of managing infodemics.” PGP and UNICEF are leading the “Field Infodemiologist Training Program (FITP)” based in UNICEF country offices, government offices, and offices of other “multilateral partners” to train “field infodemic managers” to conduct “public health surveillance for misinformation” and provide “community support in “misinformation outbreaks.

Big Biotech’s global network

Among the huge network of organizations and programs involved in the vast mass marketing of vaccine demand – besides the WHO, CDC, UNICEF, PGP, and Yale – key orchestrators include:

  • Stronger – a new national campaign formed by an “ever-growing number of public and private sector partners” including PGP, Google and BIO. “Whether it’s vaccine misinformation or climate change denial, we’re seeing a dangerous strain of anti-science rhetoric growing online,” its website says. “Our aim is to cut through the noise and normalize the truth.”
  • BIO – Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), the world’s largest biotech advocacy association representing member companies including vaccine manufacturers Pfizer Inc., Moderna Therapeutics Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, and GlaxoSmithKline as well as big agriculture companies like Monsanto along with academic institutions and “related organizations.”
  • Project RCAID – created by PGP for “Rapid Collection Analysis Interpretation and Dissemination” – provides “real-time media monitoring with daily analyses from public health experts.”
  • Zignal Labs – a “media intelligence platform” to “craft messages” and “take control of threatening narratives before they emerge.”
  • Family Health International or FHI 360 – an organization that uses “social psychology, anthropology, behavioral economics, social marketing, and other behavioral sciences” to effect behavior change. It has received tens of millions from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to “create demand for long-acting contraceptives” in poor countries. Its donors also include the CDC, the World Bank, and vaccine-maker Johnson & Johnson. It’s now in the business of creating COVID-19 vaccine demand, too.

Playbook rules

In the world of “infodemic management,” one will inevitably come across the name of Jeff French, Professor at Brighton University and author of Strategic Social Marketing: For Behaviour and Social Change, whose text is referenced in most of the guides to mass marketing vaccines. French published a paper in July 2020 with the pandemic just a few months underway and a vaccine reportedly still unavailable for years to come about “Pre-Emptive COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake Promotion Strategy.” His tips have evidently inspired much of the standard pandemic vaccine sell:

  • “Effective campaigning against vaccine misinformation should focus on the dangers of the disease” and “draw on the powerful motivator of fear of loss along with the possibility of gain of positive health”
  • “Appeal to emotions since data alone will not be enough.”
  • Do not put adverse events at the center of  “demand creation efforts” but “be sure to contextualize them” and help audiences understand that “most will be rare and of limited duration.”
  • “Any media management and engagement strategy that is developed will need to include proactive, rolling media briefings, story generation, editorial feeds…and will also need to include 24/7 media monitoring and rebuttal/correction systems.”
  • Authorities should have “agreements in place” about “how and when misleading information and advocates of such information should be removed and flagged as being problematic on social media.”
  • Repeat “positive messaging that emphasizes the protective (individual, family, and community) benefits of the vaccine and the loss associated with not being vaccinated (death, poor health, loss of freedom and social solidarity, inability to travel” etc.)
  • “Partner” with the pharmaceutical industry, other for-profits, and NGOs to promote vaccines.
  • “Seek interventions” with key leaders in the anti-vaccination community and “seek to turn such informants into advocates for vaccination.”
  • “Continue to promote other protective behaviors such as handwashing and physical distancing.”
  • “Integrate financial and non-financial incentives… along with penalties for non-compliance by imposing restrictions on travel, education, or employment.”
  • “Governments will need to deliver and communicate what mix of incentives and penalty interventions will be used to promote demand.”

Behavior modification and operant conditioning techniques are a frequent theme of French’s writings; a 2014 paper he wrote for the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control on vaccine uptake said “behavioural interventions should seek to reward desired behaviours and when appropriate penalise inappropriate behaviour.”

A range of playbooks for public health agencies and “stakeholders” on strategies to make people take the shot follow on French’s instructions. The World Health Organization issued a “technical advisory” on the heels of French’s guidelines called Behavioral Considerations for Acceptance and Uptake of COVID-19 Vaccines in October, still two months before a shot was even available. Some of its advice is sounding very familiar now:

  • Leverage anticipated regret in communications.” For example, by “asking people how they would feel if they do not get vaccinated and end up contracting COVID-19 or transmitting it to loved ones.”
  • Emphasize the social benefits.” Tell people that “vaccination not only benefits the individual” but builds “herd” or “population immunity”
  • Putting emphasis on the economic benefits, such as being able to stay in the workforce and provide for one’s family, might also encourage vaccination”
  • “Manage expectations.” Since vaccine uptake may be “undermined by COVID-19 vaccines being not fully effective, meaning that people will have to continue to engage in preventive behaviour (e.g. maskwearing and physical distancing) even if and after they have been vaccinated.”
  • Emphasize danger of disease. “If people perceive that they are at low risk of contracting COVID-19, or that the consequences of becoming infected will not be severe, they will be less willing to get vaccinated.”
  • Downplay dangers of vaccination and adverse events. “Some people may try to compare the risk of getting infected with that of taking a new vaccine, and determine that between the two, the risk of COVID-19 is lower.” Adverse events are “often inevitable when large numbers of people get vaccinated in a short period of time.” Neutralize the blow by “communicating proactively about uncertainty” and risk of vaccine-associated disability and death.

‘Field Guide’

UNICEF and PGP’s Vaccine Misinformation Management Field Guide advises vaccine promoters to “consider putting vaccination in a ‘gain frame’. Show happy, healthy, productive people in graphics, and if you must show the act of vaccination try to avoid needles and tears.”

One of its tactics is to badger people to accept vaccination as a “social norm.” Explain that “the majority of people adopt certain behavior and that is what others expect you to do to achieve a common good.”

FHI360 published its own “quickstart guide” on “Demand Creation and Advocacy for COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Uptake” advises governments to “establish a demand creation and advocacy task force” – something Biden did in March, setting aside $1.5 for a media vaccine advertising blitz.

FHI 360 also advises breaking people into “audience segments” of “easy sells” who have “high trust in healthcare providers and do not question vaccines” to  “vaccine hesitant” who have “high concerns about safety and “low trust in institutions promoting vaccine.” Then, create “targeted messages,” making “talking point reference sheets for cultural and religious leaders.”

‘Carrot and stick’

It’s easy to find examples of French’s operant psychology marketing methods being played out in the real world pandemic theatre.

The mainstream media have evidently taken the point about “incentives and penalty interventions” on board and “herd immunity” is the new Holy Grail which all who are not reckless criminals should seek. “We’re struggling to get to herd immunity,” CNN’s Michael Smerconish said with the precise tone of fear and alarm that would elicit behavior modification. A full 26% of Americans said they would not take the vaccine, he said, but 44% of Republicans were resisting.

“Those folks jeopardize our ability to get to herd immunity faster,” Smerconish claimed in disgust. “If we don’t get vaccinated and periodically boosted we could prolong the pandemic and find ourselves continuing to fight this battle for years.” He quoted law professor Shanin Specter, who said, “Without a bigger carrot or a bigger stick many Americans will not get vaccinated and we will suffer more death and dislocation.”

The concept of “herd immunity” and how to get there is not settled science. The Great Barrington Declaration, signed by more than 43,000 medical practitioners and 14,000 public health scientists and doctors, proposes that allowing natural immunity to spread while shielding those most vulnerable to COVID infection would be less harmful than blanket lockdowns.

“As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all—including the vulnerable—falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity—i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable—and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity,” the declaration says.

Following infodemic guidelines, YouTube’s medical misinformation policyexpressly forbids any discussion of natural immunity in herd immunity on its platform.

Real world exercise

Emphasizing fear is a strategy employed frequently by experienced public health personnel, too. “In those communities where the uptake is less it will take a lot longer for the epidemic to end,” Eric Toner, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told Politico in an article about falling vaccine demand, for example. “There will be more sickness and more death in those communities.”

Former CDC director Tom Frieden employed an offshoot of the “social norm” tactic along with “emphasizing disease danger” in a recent tweet which painted unvaccinated people as “infected” spreaders of supposedly deadly variants.

Image

Research like a recent study from the Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve University which found that new coronavirus variants are actually weaker than the original viral strain from Wuhan are to be ignored or treated as “misinformation.”

Marketing schemes to recruit faith leaders have had success too, as vaccination drives have even moved inside mosques to convince skeptical Muslims to roll up their sleeves. And Pope Francis has enthusiastically embraced the infodemic behavior change mission and is hosting a global public health vaccine promotion conference this week.

*

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.

***

Proof of vaccination requirements for travel are rare, and limited to travel to certain destinations where the risk of contracting a disease and bringing it back to a population with nonexistent immunity against it is high

The U.S. government’s job is to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans. Allowing or encouraging businesses to create a two-tier society where unvaccinated people are barred from participating in civic society is unconstitutional. 

Proof of vaccination against COVID-19 will not ensure safety. It won’t even promote it, as the so-called vaccines are designed to merely reduce symptoms of the infection

Utilitarianism, which is now being increasingly promoted, is a discredited pseudo-ethic that has repeatedly been used to justify horrific human rights abuses. It is based on a mathematical equation that some individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good of the majority.

Utilitarianism appears to be at work already. The European Union’s vaccine injury reporting system had logged 330,218 adverse event reports, including 7,766 deaths, as of April 17, 2021, and the U.S. reporting system had logged 118,902 adverse event reports as of April 23, including 3,544 deaths and 12,618 serious injuries, yet all of these injuries and deaths are simply ignored and people are told to get the shot, no matter what

*

In an April 29, 2021, opinion piece published by Newsday,1 Arthur Caplan and Dorit Reiss, Ph.D., argue for the implementation of vaccine passports as a strategy to regain our freedom to travel and the “safe” reopening of schools and businesses.

Caplan is the director of medical ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Reiss is a law professor at UC Hastings College of the Law and a member2 of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices of Vaccines.

Caplan is also co-chair of the Vaccines Working Group on Ethics and Policy, a group formed specifically to address “key policy challenges associated with the testing and distribution of vaccines intended to prevent COVID-19 transmission in the United States,” and Reiss is a member of the board.3

Part of their argument is that vaccinations have “always” been “necessary for travel,” which is patently false. Proof of vaccination requirements are rare, and strictly limited to travel to certain destinations where the risk of contracting a disease and bringing it back to a population with nonexistent immunity against it is high. You’ve never had to show proof of vaccination when flying to Paris, France, for example.

Arguing for Unconstitutional Practices

Caplan and Reiss also argue that prohibiting businesses from requiring vaccine passports, which some state governors are now doing, is “unusual and irrational,” as private businesses have the right to make their business more attractive by increasing the safety for its staff and patrons.

The problem with that argument is that it is the government’s job to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans. Allowing or encouraging businesses to create a two-tier society where unvaccinated people are barred from participating in civic society is unconstitutional on its face.

What’s more, proof of vaccination against COVID-19 will not ensure safety. It won’t even remotely promote it, as the so-called vaccines are designed to merely reduce symptoms of the infection. They don’t make you immune. You can still contract the virus and spread it to others. The only one who might benefit from the jab is the one getting it.

Of course, Caplan and Reiss make no mention of this crucial point, but since the vaccinated person is the only one getting any protection, no one needs to know your vaccination status, as it doesn’t affect them either way. A COVID-19 vaccinated individual poses the same risk to the community as an unvaccinated one.

So, the only reason for a vaccine passport is a control-related one, and Reiss and Caplan are keeping busy, trying to convince you otherwise. In a February 2021 Barron’s article,4 they argued for letting employers mandate vaccines for their employees, using the same lame arguments.

What’s happening here is that the U.S. federal government recognizes that it cannot legally mandate vaccine passports. It would be unconstitutional, as it would create a two-tier society built on medical discrimination. So, government is depending on private businesses to push through this measure. Reiss and Caplan’s efforts are part of this strategic subversion of Constitutional rights.

Caplan and Reiss also paired up for an opinion piece published April 27, 2021, by The Hour,5 in which they sank to typical propagandist lows, bashing parents of vaccine damaged children who fought against the removal of religious exemption to vaccination in Connecticut.6

The Threat of Utilitarianism

Caplan’s and Reiss’ one-sided obsession with utilitarianism, where risks to the individual are ignored and the idea of self-determination and personal choice is ridiculed, is clearly spelled out in an article published in the January/June 2020 issue of the Journal of Law and the Biosciences:7

“There is a large literature about school mandates, and a somewhat more limited literature on adult mandates, but there is less principled discussion of when is it appropriate to mandate a specific vaccine. Field and Caplan suggested an ethical framework to consider when school mandates ought to apply …

Their framework explains that autonomy, beneficence, utilitarianism, justice, and non-maleficence are the values affected by immunization mandates. Applying the framework here provides important insights on the suitability of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate …

[U]tilitarianism — acting for the benefit of the greatest number for society as a whole — supports a COVID-19 mandate, as it supports other vaccine mandates … The current pandemic is causing harms in lives and suffering, and also economic harms as preventing loss of more life requires measures like sheltering at home, closing businesses, and the closing of public spaces. Preventing these staggering costs is a huge social benefit.

Once a vaccine is available, the justification for measures like shelter at home will decrease, but preventing harms will depend on vaccine use. A mandate will increase use, boost herd immunity and reduce costs. The only caveat is that the balance of costs and benefits depends on the safety of the vaccine.”

Utilitarianism is a discredited pseudo-ethic that has repeatedly been used to justify horrific human rights abuses. By now, we can accurately predict what the outcome will be if we allow it to be used to justify vaccine passports and mandatory COVID vaccinations.

In short, utilitarianism is based on a mathematical equation that some individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good of the majority. In other words, if some people are harmed by vaccines, it’s an acceptable loss because society as a whole may or will reap gains.

Caplan and Reiss express this as “acting for the benefit of the greatest number.” The flip-side is that a smaller number — it could be 49 out of 100 — may be harmed and that’s acceptable, because the people harmed is still a smaller number than the majority.

More Than 11,000 COVID Vaccine Deaths Logged

The latest data on COVID-19 vaccine side effects suggest governments are already operating under this horrific utilitarian ideology.

How else do you explain the fact that the European Union’s vaccine injury reporting system had logged 330,218 adverse event reports, including 7,766 deaths, as of April 17, 2021,8 and the U.S. reporting system had logged 118,902 adverse event reports as of April 23, including 3,544 deaths and 12,618 serious injuries,9 yet all of these injuries and deaths are simply ignored and the call for everyone to get their jab continues unabated — all while bashing vaccine hesitancy as a mental illness, intellectual deficit or act of domestic terrorism?!

In a utilitarian system, you cease to be an individual with rights to autonomous decision-making and become a tool of the government, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing here. Government has apparently decided that some people — quite a few people, apparently — are expendable, which is the exact converse of what they’re telling us publicly.

They say we all must get vaccinated to save lives, especially the elderly. Yet lives are being taken, and these are not people who already have one foot in the grave. While COVID-19 kills the elderly and the seriously ill, these gene therapy injections are stealing the lives of younger, healthy individuals who are in the prime of their lives. How can you even compare those two scenarios and come to the conclusion that mass vaccination is the greater good?

While utilitarianism was a popular ideology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it went out of fashion in the mid-20th century, after the Third Reich employed the utilitarian rationale as an excuse to demonize and eliminate minorities judged to be a threat to the health, security and well-being of the State.10 Its abhorrent and unethical nature was clearly recognized and clarified during the Nuremberg trials.

Although we may disagree about the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence used by doctors and governments to declare COVID-19 “vaccines” safe, at our peril do we fail to agree that, while government may have the power, it does not have the moral authority to dictate that individuals born with certain genes and biological susceptibilities give up their lives without their consent for what the ruling majority deems is the greater good.

Having everyone conform to a normal weight and not having insulin resistance issues would be for the greater good of society. Does that mean government should have the power to send everyone above a certain BMI to a forced internment camp where they are exercised and underfed until they no longer pose an increased health care cost risk?

We really ought to think long and hard before we jump on the utilitarian wagon and start pumping our fists in the air in endorsement of the “greater good” narrative.

Most people in the U.S. are engaging in lifestyle practices that put them at a seriously increased risk of being a financial burden on society and the health care system, so don’t fall for the baseless idea that unvaccinated people, specifically, will end up costing more because they’ll end up with more serious cases of COVID-19. There’s no data at all to back that up.

Conspiracies Blamed for Growing Sensibility

As more and more people are starting to realize the perilous road we’re on and where it’s taking us, the mainstream propagandists are turning up the heat, blaming vaccine hesitancy on one “conspiracy theory” after another. They simply refuse to admit that people can, and most want, to make their own decisions.

Rising anti-vaccination sentiment is being blamed on everything from Russian bots and trolls spreading misinformation online and making a tiny minority appear larger than what it actually is,11to rebranding “harmful anti-vaccine views” as a civil liberties issue or a part of some other conspiracy theory involving the drug industry or Bill Gates.12

The fact is, the vaccine mandate pushers have nothing but foul language and mockery at their disposal. They have no facts with which to prove that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, or that mass vaccination will save lives. They cannot disprove the financial incentives and ties that exist between Gates, the World Health Organization, vaccine makers and government.

Gates is one of the largest funders of the WHO, which has been responsible for the global response to the pandemic, while simultaneously being heavily invested in COVID-19 vaccines and funding censorship of vaccine information.13

The WHO is also promoting global censorship of vaccine information, in part through its “Stop the Spread” campaign14 aimed at stopping the spread of COVID-19 “misinformation,” and a coalition of groups is calling on the Biden Administration to put together a disinformation task force.15

Showing just how ludicrous this suggestion is, the task force would “explore ways to crack down on deliberate disinformation campaigns in ways that don’t unduly limit free expression.” In other words, they’re to figure out how to censor people without making it a clear breach of the First Amendment.

Well, we already know one way in which they’re doing that, and that is by calling on private companies like Twitter and Facebook to censor for them. It’s still a violation of the First Amendment, though; it’s just harder to see.

Vaccine mandate pushers also cannot disprove that the pandemic is being used to roll out the Great Reset and global “build back better” plans that will decimate the U.S. Constitution and rob the working class of its wealth and autonomy. In short, they have no counter-arguments. All they can do is paint people who question their flimsy utilitarian narrative as crackpots of one sort or another.

If the vaccines were truly fantastic, word of their miraculous nature would spread like wildfire, just as reports of horrendous vaccine side effects now are, and people would flock to get them even in the absence of advertising and celebrity promotion.

The fact that name-calling and smear tactics are employed en masse to paint dissenters as crackpots and terrorists rather than presenting actual data and evidence that supports their pro-vaccine stance is proof positive that there’s something strange afoot.

Utilitarian Extremism Is on the Rise

I’ve previously written about the sudden influence wielded by a group called Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a progressive cancel-culture leader with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that recently labeled people questioning the COVID-19 vaccine as a national security threat.

The CCDH has published two reports16,17 naming me as one of the top 12 individuals responsible for 65% of vaccine “disinformation” on social media, and in true utilitarian fashion, CCDH founder Imran Ahmed is calling on all platforms to silence me for the public good.

Ahmed has also published an article18 in the journal Nature Medicine, calling for the “dismantling” of the entire “anti-vaccine industry.” In it, he repeats the lie that he “attended and recorded a private, three-day meeting of the world’s most prominent anti-vaxxers,” when, in fact, what he’s referring to was a public online conference open to an international audience.

All attendants have access to the recordings as part of their attendance fee, so unless he illegally hacked his way into the conference, he didn’t have to record a thing. We gave it to him. When you lie about something that stupid, it really puts your credibility about larger issues in question.

The CCDH is partnered with Anti-Vax Watch, which held a demonstration outside the halls of Congress in this bizarre getup. While the CCDH claims to be fighting the good fight against dangerous crackpots and extremists, they work with people who look like they epitomize those terms.19

This is hardly the look of people standing on higher moral and ethical ground. This is pure theatre, which makes sense, seeing how they don’t have facts and data with which to make their point.

AntiVaxWatch

Gates-Funded Doctor Demands Terrorist Experts Attack Me

Dr. Peter Hotez, president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute,20 recently cited the CCDH in a Nature article in which he goes so far as to call for cyberwarfare experts to be enlisted in the war against vaccine safety advocates and people who are “vaccine hesitant.”

“Accurate, targeted counter-messaging from the global health community is important but insufficient, as is public pressure on social-media companies,” Hotez writes.21

“The United Nations and the highest levels of government must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.

Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures.

The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counteroffensive.”

This appears to be part of the campaign to pressure the White House administration into creating an information warfare task force, as mentioned earlier. Not surprisingly, the Sabin Vaccine Institute has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.22,23,24,25Most recently, funds from the Gates foundation were used to create a report called “Meeting the Challenge of Vaccine Hesitancy.”26,27

A Well-Informed Humanity United Is the Answer

Even while censorship and utilitarian-driven extremism heats up, we must never stop seeking out and sharing information that impacts our health and freedom. Informed consent demands transparency of the bad along with the good. Right now, all people are given free access to is the supposed benefit, while all potential harms are whitewashed and scrubbed from the internet.

Nothing good can come of this. As noted in Kennedy’s October 24, 2020, online speech,28 International Message of Hope for Humanity” — which kicked off a day of protest against the coup d’état by the technocratic elite — we must shed our imaginary fears, reject media fearmongering, insist on freedom of speech and engage in the democratic process.

“The only way we can win it is with democracy,” he said. “We need to fight to get our democracy back, to reclaim our democracy from these villains who are stealing it from us. Notice the people who are getting richest from this quarantine are the same people who are censoring criticism of the quarantine.”

The same is true for vaccines and vaccine passports. Kennedy also stressed another crucial point, namely the need to unify. We must put aside our quibbles over nonessential things like race, religion and political affiliations, and stay laser-focused on the real enemy.

“What the Big Tech villains … want us to do is fight with each other. They want Blacks fighting against Whites. They want republicans fighting against democrats. They want everybody polarized. They want everybody fragmented because they know that if we all get together, we’re going to start asking questions and those are questions they can’t answer …

Stop identifying yourself. The enemy is Big Tech, Big Data, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the medical cartel, the government totalitarian elements that are trying to oppress us, that are trying to rob us of our liberties, of our democracy, of our freedom of thought, of our freedom of expression, of our freedom of assembly and all of the freedoms that give dignity to humanity …

The free-flow of information, the cauldron of debate, is the only thing that allows governments to develop rational policies in which self-governance will actually work and triumph.

You are on the front lines of the most important battle in history — the battle to save democracy, freedom, human liberty and human dignity from this totalitarian cartel that is trying to rob us, simultaneously, in every nation in the world, of the rights that every human being is born with …

And I pledge to you: I will go down dying with my boots on, fighting side-by-side with all of you to make sure that we return these rights and preserve them for our children.”

I too will continue fighting for human rights, free speech and medical freedom. Without these, what are we? What is life reduced to? What’s the point of preventing a few COVID-19 cases and deaths if the entire global population — including the billions who are at no risk from this virus — must gamble their health in the process?

*

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 Newsday April 29, 2021

2 Voices for Vaccines Parent Group

3 Vaccine Working Group Members

4 Barrons February 12, 2021

5 The Hour April 27, 2021

6 Skeptical Raptor April 28, 2021

7 Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020 Jan-Jun; 7(1): lsaa025

8 The Defender April 29, 2021

9 The Defender April 30, 2021

10 Weindling P. Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism 1870-1945. Cambridge University Press 1989

11 Washington Post August 28, 2018 (Archive)

12 Independent October 22, 2020

13 The Defender May 19, 2020

14 WHO Stop the Spread

15 Axios April 29, 2021

16 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen

17 CCHD Disinformation Dozen: The Sequel

18 Nature March 15, 2021

19 Twitter Mercola March 25, 2021

20 WHO Peter Hotez

21 Nature April 27, 2021

22 PND July 1, 2011

23 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

24 Sabin Vaccine Institute February 11, 2019

25 The Courant May 13, 2007 (Archived)

26 Sabin Vaccine Institute June 2, 2020

27 Sabin Vaccine Institute May 28, 2020

28 Children’s Health Defense October 26, 2020

Featured image is from Mercola

Bravery and Risk in the Age of Truth

May 11th, 2021 by Julian Rose

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.

***

Rising-up almost perceptibly now, in an increasing number of individuals, is a powerful urge to give expression to truth at its profoundest level. This is the life-force itself, demanding action and urging all who feel it to step forward into the front lines of a great battle. The battle to overcome the purveyors of gross injustice and stand firm for the global manifestation of truth. 

Truth can seem illusive at such times as these, as that which is an expression of Supreme Consciousness does not show its radiant face to those who take no risks and show no bravery. However, each of us are sparks emanating from one great fire, and due to this, are blessed with powers capable of bringing about a total transformation – once we choose to take the risk of living for an ideal that radiates with light.

At a time when ‘the Lie’ has never been more dominant within the corridors of earthly power, it is up to us to unsheathe our swords of truth and cut a swathe of light through the dark backcloth of unprecedented deception. This truth-power brooks no equal – and simmers just under the surface with an increasing intent to explode volcanically outwards. It is, right now, weaving a strong and subtle web right under the noses of the insentient perpetrators of the great lie.

Truth can be discerned in many ways. On the subtle plain it is audible in the sounds of rustling leaves excited by the warming breezes of Spring. It is visible in the light that shines in the eyes of the free. It can be smelled in the salt of the sea, the richness of the soil and the perfume of the rose. It is tangible in the warm hands of an uncompromising and loving being.

This is the Age of Truth and nothing, but nothing, can prevent it manifesting itself. All that is needed from us is a little effort. A sincere attempt to locate the presence of this enigmatic flower, within ourselves. For that is where it resides, offering its irresistible perfume to all willing to give-in to the pull of its majestic presence.

Give-in to this pull – and immediately there arises a strong inner call to break the chains of illusion and death hanging over us, trying to pass themselves-off as ‘the reality of daily life’, when actually they are just ubiquitous manifestations of the Veil of Maya pushed into prominence by servants of a  grand falsification programme.

There is a deeper undercurrent of purpose about the awakening taking place at this time. A sense of surety that its momentum will ultimately sweep-aside and greatly outlive the grotesque life distortions presently playing-out their demonic control obsessions on the global stage.

‘The great lie’ is being busted open and all its distorted manifestations are becoming clear to see; but still, in spite of this, not everyone does. This is a choice that each individual makes: to see or not to see.

There is nobody who cannot exert their free will and make this choice. On making the decision ‘to see’, one has opened one’s account with the Divine. But unfortunately for some – who are accustomed to immediate rewards on the touch of a button – it is not an instant access account to the full wealth of conscious enlightenment. It is instead, more truly expressed in the words of Lao Tzu “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

This single step opens the initiate into the sanctuary of his/her unique truth. From here on one can discern the difference between what is supportive of a further flowering and what is blocking that flowering and keeping one in prison.

On recognising this, one’s entire life becomes directed to the demolition of the prison and the fertilising of the soil for a great flowering. The beauty of being committed to the flowering is that all those in love with the same cosmic melody are drawn together, thus forming an increasingly powerful force for the wider emancipation of all living beings.

This incorporates helping to free fellow human beings from the delusions of Maya and urging them to take action in hastening the uncompromising defeat and eradication of the anti-life forces. Those that are attempting to re-engineer and control every last channel of life on Earth. 

Being committed to defeating the forces of darkness means embracing the reality of danger and risk at every turn of the road. This is a battle royal, fought on two plains simultaneously: the one which houses our own inner “demons” and the one in which “the external forces” manifest their ambitions for totalitarian control over us.

This is the nature of the unavoidable confrontation facing each one of us as the heat is turned-up and the great mass of creation is forged down to its essence.

This is not a place for those who fear confrontation; yet inevitably, those coming face to face with the enemy within and without will find that the victory of truth over the lie can only be assured by raising the intensity of light that resides within, from a dimly flickering candle flame to a powerful ray of the rising sun.

To rise above the ubiquitous fear based pain body engulfing much of humanity today, requires a very special form of courage. On occasions it requires having what Carlos Castaneda’s shaman, Don Juan, describes as “guts of steel”.

How are yours?

‘The truth shall set you free’.

Yes, but freedom does not come unless invited, and the criteria for the invitation is burned onto a sheet of parchment in bold script “To be free is to carry the torch of truth.

To carry the torch of truth is to be responsible for supporting the health and welfare of Life on Earth.”

Our onward journey therefore translates into a collective effort to raise the bar of fearless action. To defeat the oppressors of the divine wellspring of existence and to redeem the sanctity of life.

Let us confront this unprecedented challenge with courage and bravely beating hearts, for this is our supreme test – and only in unity is our victory assured.

*

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. 

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bravery and Risk in the Age of Truth

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Some of my students (present and former) and colleagues in Japan have formed an International Corona Research Cohort. Our goal is to produce scholarship that critically examines certain aspects of the Covid-19 narrative. Over the past year, we have observed virtually identical patterns of public messaging to those appearing in the wake of 9/11 and the subsequent “regime-change wars” (Gabbard, 2020). We are pursuing the following hypotheses:

  1. Are mainstream (corporate) media primarily PR tools owned and/or used by transnational elites as described by Peter Phillips in his latest book Giants: The Global Power Elite(Seven Stories Press, 2018).
  2. How, through discourse, do agenda-setting media shape human perception and inculcate necessary forms of fear and hysteria in populations to produce unquestioning and reflexively obedient people? What discourse techniques prevail across cultures and national boundaries?

We have recently devised an instrument (in English and Japanese) to measure awareness, perception, and attitude toward the Covid-19 narrative and will use this in surveys to quantify the effectiveness of Government-Corporate PR producing the leading narratives and coercing people – absent informed consent – to join in the global experiment in mRNA therapies (aka vaccines). Since this is an international project, we seek to use the instrument in other languages.

Our project is inspired by the tremendous work of Reiner Fuellmich and the thousands of other attorneys who have joined him as well as hundreds of thousands of physicians and research scientists backing the lawsuit against the CDC, the WHO, and the Davos Group for crimes against humanity in Nuremberg, Germany.

If you wish to join our international effort in the study of these communications, please let me know so we can coordinate and support you appropriately.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on International Corona Research Cohort. The Lawsuit against the CDC, the WHO and the Davos Group
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One of the hallmarks of totalitarian systems is the criminalization of dissent. Not just the stigmatization of dissent or the demonization of dissent, but the formal criminalization of dissent, and any other type of opposition to the official ideology of the totalitarian system. Global capitalism has been inching its way toward this step for quite some time, and now, apparently, it is ready to take it.

Germany has been leading the way. For over a year, anyone questioning or protesting the “Covid emergency measures” or the official Covid-19 narrative has been demonized by the government and the media, and, sadly, but not completely unexpectedly, the majority of the German public. And now such dissent is officially “extremism.”

Yes, that’s right, in “New Normal” Germany, if you dissent from the official state ideology, you are now officially a dangerous “extremist.” The German Intelligence agency (the “BfV”) has even invented a new category of “extremists” in order to allow themselves to legally monitor anyone suspected of being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” like … you know, non-violently protesting, or speaking out against, or criticizing, or satirizing, the so-called “New Normal.”

Naturally, I’m a little worried, as I have engaged in most of these “extremist” activities. My thoughtcrimes are just sitting there on the Internet waiting to be scrutinized by the BfV. They’re probably Google-translating this column right now, compiling a list of all the people reading it, and their Facebook friends and Twitter followers, and professional associates, and family members, and anyone any of the aforementioned people have potentially met with, or casually mentioned, who might have engaged in similar thoughtcrimes.

You probably think I’m joking, don’t you? I’m not joking. Not even slightly. The Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution (“Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz”) is actively monitoring anyone questioning or challenging the official “New Normal” ideology … the “Covid Deniers,” the “conspiracy theorists,” the “anti-vaxxers,” the dreaded “Querdenkers” (i.e., people who “think outside the box”), and anyone else they feel like monitoring who has refused to join the Covidian Cult. We’re now official enemies of the state, no different than any other “terrorists” … or, OK, technically, a little different.

As The New York Times reported last week (German Intelligence Puts Coronavirus Deniers Under Surveillance), “the danger from coronavirus deniers and conspiracy theorists does not fit the mold posed by the usual politically driven groups, including those on the far left and right, or by Islamic extremists.” Still, according to the German Interior Ministry, we diabolical “Covid deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” and “anti-vaxxers” have “targeted the state itself, its leaders, businesses, the press, and globalism,” and have “attacked police officers” and “defied civil authorities.”

Moreover, back in August of 2020, in a dress rehearsal for the “Storming of the Capitol,” “Covid-denying” insurrectionists “scaled the steps of Parliament” (i.e., the Reichstag). Naturally, The Times neglects to mention that this so-called “Storming of the Reichstag” was performed by a small sub-group of protesters to whom the German authorities had granted a permit to assemble (apart from the main demonstration, which was massive and completely peaceful) on the steps of the Reichstag, which the German police had, for some reason, left totally unguarded. In light of the background of the person the German authorities issued this “Steps-of-the-Reichstag” protest permit to — a known former-NPD functionary, in other words, a neo-Nazi — well, the whole thing seemed a bit questionable to me … but what do I know? I’m just a “conspiracy theorist.”

According to Al Jazeera, the German Interior Ministry explained that these querdenking “extremists encourage supporters to ignore official orders and challenge the state monopoly on the use of force.” Seriously, can you imagine anything more dangerous? Mindlessly following orders and complying with the state’s monopoly on the use of force are the very cornerstones of modern democracy … or some sort of political system, anyway.

But, see, there I go, again “being anti-democratic” and “delegitimizing the state,” not to mention “relativizing the Holocaust” (also a criminal offense in Germany) by comparing one totalitarian system to another, as I have done repeatedly on social media, and in a column I published in November of 2020, when the parliament passed the “Infection Protection Act,” which bears no comparison whatsoever to the “Enabling Act of 1933.”

This isn’t just a German story, of course. As I reported in a column in February, The “New Normal” War on Domestic Terror is a global war, and it’s just getting started. According to a Department of Homeland SecurityNational Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin(and the “liberal” corporate-media propaganda machine), “democracy” remains under imminent threat from these “ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority” and other such “grievances fueled by false narratives” including “anger over Covid-19 restrictions.”

These Covid-denying “violent extremists” have apparently joined forces with the “white-supremacist, Russia-backed, Trump-loving “Putin-Nazis” that terrorized “democracy” for the past four years, and almost overthrew the US government by sauntering around inside the US Capitol Building without permission, scuffling with police, attacking furniture, and generally acting rude and unruly. No, they didn’t actually kill anyone, as the corporate media all reported they did, but trespassing in a government building and putting your feet up on politicians’ desks is pretty much exactly the same as “terrorism.”

Or whatever. It’s not like the truth actually matters, not when you are whipping up mass hysteria over imaginary “Russian assets,” “white-supremacist militias,” “Covid-denying extremists,” “anti-vax terrorists,” and “apocalyptic plagues.” When you’re rolling out a new official ideology — a pathologized-totalitarian ideology — and criminalizing all dissent, the point is not to appear to be factual. The point is just to terrorize the sh*t out of people.

As Hermann Goering famously explained regarding how to lead a country to war (and the principle holds true for any big transition, like the one we are experiencing currently):

“[T]he people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

Go back and read those quotes from the German Interior Ministry and the DHS again slowly. The message they are sending is unmistakeably clear. It might not seem all that new, but it is. Yes, they have been telling us “we are being attacked” and denouncing critics, protesters, and dissidents for twenty years (i.e., since the War on Terror was launched in 2001, and for the last four years in their War on Populism), but this is a whole new level of it … a fusion of official narratives and their respective official enemies into a singular, aggregate official narrative in which dissent will no longer be permitted.

Instead, it will be criminalized, or it will be pathologized.

Seriously, go back and read those quotes again. Global capitalist governments and their corporate media mouthpieces are telling us, in no uncertain terms, that “objection to their authority” will no longer be tolerated, nor will dissent from their official narratives. Such dissent will be deemed “dangerous” and above all “false.” It will not be engaged with or rationally debated. It will be erased from public view. There will be an inviolable, official “reality.” Any deviation from official “reality” or defiance of the “civil authorities” will be labelled “extremism,” and dealt with accordingly.

This is the essence of totalitarianism, the establishment of an inviolable official ideology and the criminalization of dissent. And that is what is happening, right now. A new official ideology is being established. Not a state ideology. A global ideology. The “New Normal” is that official ideology. Technically, it is an official post-ideology, an official “reality,” an axiomatic “fact,” which only “criminals” and “psychopaths” would deny.

I’ll be digging deeper into “New Normal” ideology and “pathologized totalitarianism” in my future columns, and … sorry, they probably won’t be very funny. For now I’ll leave you with two more quotes. The emphasis is mine, as ever.

Here’s California State Senator Richard Pan, author of an op-ed in the Washington Post: “Anti-vax extremism is akin to domestic terrorism,” quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

“These extremists have not yet been held accountable, so they continue to escalate violence against the body public … We must now summon the political will to demand that domestic terrorists face consequences for their words and actions. Our democracy and our lives depend on it … They’ve been building alliances with white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and [others] on the far right …”

And here’s Peter Hotez in Nature magazine:

“The United Nations and the highest levels of governments must take direct, even confrontational, approaches with Russia, and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States. Efforts must expand into the realm of cyber security, law enforcement, public education and international relations. A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril. It is becoming increasingly clear that advancing immunization requires a counter-offensive.”

We’ll be hearing a lot more rhetoric like this as this new, more totalitarian structure of global capitalism gradually develops … probably a good idea to listen carefully, and assume the New Normals mean exactly what they say.

*

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: 1918 flu pandemic (Source: Consent Factory Inc)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Criminalization of Dissent. “Covid Deniers”and “Anti-Vaxxers” under Surveillance
  • Tags: , ,

Halt COVID Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

May 10th, 2021 by Dr. Jennifer Margulis

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 public comment to the CDC, molecular biologist and toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, Ph.D., called to immediately halt Covid vaccine production and distribution. Citing fertility, blood-clotting concerns (coagulopathy), and immune escape, Dr. Lindsay explained to the committee the scientific evidence showing that the coronavirus vaccines are not safe.

On April 23, 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices held a meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. The focus of this ACIP meeting was blood clotting disorders following Covid vaccines. Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay spoke to the CDC during the time set aside for public comment.

The censorship on social media in particular and the internet in general is relentless. Here is a slightly edited, annotated censorship-proof transcript of Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay’s 3-minute comment.

You can listen to her testimony on YouTube below (for now, anyway. YouTube will likely censor it).

Molecular Biologist and Toxicologist Calls to Halt Covid Vaccine

Hi, my name is Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay. I hold a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas, and have over 30 years of scientific experience, primarily in toxicology and mechanistic biology.

In the mid-1990s, I aided the development of a temporary human contraceptive vaccine which ended up causing unintended autoimmune ovarian destruction and sterility in animal test models. Despite efforts against this and sequence analyses that did not predict this.

I strongly feel that all the gene therapy vaccines must be halted immediately due to safety concerns on several fronts.

Janci Chunn Lindsay: Covid vaccines could induce cross-reactive antibodies to syncytin, and impair fertility as well as pregnancy outcomes

First, there is a credible reason to believe that the Covid vaccines will cross-react with the syncytin and reproductive proteins in sperm, ova, and placenta, leading to impaired fertility and impaired reproductive and gestational outcomes. 

Respected virologist Dr. Bill Gallaher, Ph.D., made excellent arguments as to why you would expect cross reaction. Due to beta sheet conformation similarities between spike proteins and syncytin-1 and syncytin-2.

I have yet to see a single immunological study which disproves this. Despite the fact that it would literally take the manufacturers a single day to do these syncytin studies to ascertain this [once they had serum from vaccinated individuals]. It’s been over a year since the assertions were first made that this [the body attacking its own syncytin proteins due to similarity in spike protein structure] could occur.

Pregnancy losses reported to VAERS lead to demand to halt Covid vaccine

We have seen 100 pregnancy losses reported in VAERS as of April 9th. And there have [also] been reports of impaired spermatogenesis and placental findings from both the natural infection, vaccinated, and syncytin knockout animal models that have similar placental pathology, implicating a syncytin-mediated role in these outcomes.

Additionally, we have heard of multiple reports of menses irregularities in those vaccinated. These must be investigated.

We simply cannot put these [vaccines] in our children who are at .002% risk for Covid mortality, if infected, or any more of the child-bearing age population without thoroughly investigating this matter.

[If we do], we could potentially sterilize an entire generation. Speculation that this will not occur and a few anecdotal reports of pregnancies within the trial are not sufficient proof that this is not impacting on a population-wide scale.

Covid vaccine causes blood disorders

Secondly, all of the gene therapies [Covid vaccines] are causing coagulopathy. [Coagulopathy when the body’s blood clotting system is impaired.] This is not isolated to one manufacturer. And this is not isolated to one age group. 

As we are seeing coagulopathy deaths in healthy young adults with no secondary comorbidities.

There have been 795 reports related to blood clotting disorders as of April 9th in the VAERS reporting system, 338 of these being due to thrombocytopenia.

There are forward and backward mechanistic principles for why this is happening. The natural infection is known to cause coagulopathy due to the spike protein. All gene therapy vaccines direct the body to make the spike protein. Zhang et al in [a scientific paper published in the Journal of Hematology & Oncology] in September 2020 showed that if you infuse spike protein into mice that have humanized ACE-2 receptors on blood platelets that you also get disseminated thrombosis.

Spike protein incubated with human blood in vitro also caused blood clot development which was resistant to fibrinolysis. [Fibrinolysis is the body’s process of breaking down blood clots]. The spike protein is causing thrombocytic events, which cannot be resolved through natural means. And all vaccines must be halted in the hope that they can be reformulated to guard against this adverse effect. 

Third, there is strong evidence for immune escape—

At this point in her oral testimony, Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay was interrupted by a man’s voice: “Thank you for your comment, your time has expired.”

I reached out to Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay to find out what else she had wanted to share with ACIP, in addition to her concerns over fertility and blood-clotting disorders. She sent me back her third point, which she submitted as written testimony.

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

It is clear that we are seeing a temporal immune depression immediately following the inoculations [see World Meter Global Covid deaths counts following inoculation dates] and there are immunosuppressive regions on spike proteins, as well as Syn-2, that could be likely causing this, through a T-cell mediated mechanism. If we do not stop this vaccine campaign until these issues can be investigated, we may see a phenomenon such as we see in chickens with Marek’s disease.

We have enough evidence now to see a clear correlation with increased Covid deaths and the vaccine campaigns. This is not a coincidence. It is an unfortunate unintended effect of the vaccines. We simply must not turn a blind eye and pretend this is not occurring. We must halt all Covid vaccine administration immediately, before we create a true pandemic that we cannot reign in.

MIT scientist also concerned about blood-clotting, fertility issues

Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., an expert in protein synthesis, believes that Dr. Lindsay’s hypothesis is correct. “I absolutely share these concerns,” Dr. Seneff, who is a senior research scientist at MIT, wrote to me in a sobering email.

“The potential for blood clotting disorders and the potential for sterilization are only part of the story. There are other potential long-term effects of these vaccines as well, such as autoimmune disease and immune escape, whereby the vaccines administered to immune-compromised people accelerate the mutation rate of the virus so as to render both naturally acquired and vaccine-induced antibodies no longer effective.”

Like Dr. Lindsay, Dr. Seneff believes we need to immediately halt Covid vaccine campaigns. “This massive clinical trial on the general population could have devastating and irreversible effects on a huge number of people,” Seneff explains.

Despite these fertility and blood disorder concerns, the CDC panel voted last Friday to resume the use of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. They did, however, suggest an FDA warning label be added. Their argument against halting Covid vaccination? The CDC believes the benefits outweigh the risks.

*

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.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an investigative journalist, book author, and Fulbright awardee. She is the author of Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happier, Healthier Family, co-author (with Paul Thomas, M.D.) of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, and The Addiction Spectrum: A Compassionate, Holistic Approach to Recovery. Follow her on Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest.

Featured image is courtesy of Ian Hutchinson via jennifermargulis.net

The Ethnic Cleansing of Jerusalem

May 10th, 2021 by Donald Monaco

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Israeli occupation of Palestine has taken an ugly turn, as numerous Palestinian families are slated to be evicted from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah by fanatical Jewish settlers.

The outright theft of Palestinian homes and property by predatory Zionist vultures has provoked widespread protests and violence in the revered city.  Heavily armed Israeli police forces have intervened to protect the settlers.  Hundreds of Palestinians have been injured on the grounds of the nearby Al-Aqsa Mosque.  The necessity of defending Jerusalem and one of the holiest sites in Islam is a deeply held conviction for many of the world’s 1.9 billion Muslims.

By slowly encircling Al-Aqsa and allowing property expropriations in East Jerusalem, Israel is playing with fire.  It should be recalled that the notorious Arab murderer Ariel Sharon invaded Haram al Sharif surrounded by hundreds of armed police, igniting the second Palestinian Intifada on September 28, 2000.  The revolt became known as Al-Aqsa Intifada.

The legality of the evictions will be decided by Israel’s Supreme Court.  Palestinians have only a slim chance of prevailing in this venue.  Israel is legally structured as an apartheid state. Palestinian Arabs living within the pre-1967 borders of Israel may attain citizenship.  However, the crucial designation in the state of Israel is nationality.  Declaring itself to be a Jewish state, Israel gives legal and property rights to those who have Jewish nationality that are denied to those with Arab nationality.  Palestinians living in the post-1967 “Occupied Territories” of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip have no rights as an occupied people in the eyes of Israel’s leaders.  They are denationalized and have no citizenship or property rights.

Palestinians living under Israeli occupation do have rights under international law as articulated in the Hague Regulations of 1907 and Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.  These conventions prohibit the Zionist occupying power from forcefully displacing them and seizing their land.

But Israel is contemptuous of international law.  Successive Israeli regimes have continued to build Jewish settlements in territories occupied after 1967 in direct defiance of international conventions, arguing the confiscation of land is a “military necessity” needed for state security.

The families living in Sheikh Jarrah are refugees from the 1948 Nakba, or catastrophe, that saw 700,000 Palestinians driven from their land at the point of a gun.  The state of Israel officially denies the existence of “refugees” from the Arab/Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967, not to mention those who fled their homes as the result of massacres at villages such as Deir Yassin.

Deir Yassin was a peaceful village attacked by Zionist para-military terror groups on April 9, 1948.  The Irgun and Lehi groups murdered 107 unarmed men, women, and children, provoking a mass exodus of Palestinians living in nearby communities.

The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was deliberately planned and executed by David Ben Gurion and the Zionist leadership of the nascent state of Israel during its “War of Independence” in 1948.  This was evidenced by “Plan Dalet,” the Zionist strategy of de-Arabization of Palestinian towns, villages, and cities.

By denying refugee status, Israel disavows Palestinian demands for ‘right of return’ to their homes and/or ‘compensation’ for property and land that was stolen from them.

Information about Sheikh Jarrah is censored by the Western media.  Google, Facebook, and Instagram have deleted content of Palestinian activists who decried the evictions taking place in East Jerusalem.

Predictably, Western governments, led by the United States and countries in the European Union, are calling for restraint.  Such sentiments are echoed by UN representatives.  They are hollow.  No Western government will challenge Israel with more than tepid rhetorical admonitions.

The settler movement in Jerusalem and the West Bank of the Jordan River is a calculated attempt to render the “two-state” solution to the Palestinian problem obsolete by extending Jewish sovereignty to all but a group of isolated cantons governed by the corrupt Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas.

During his tenure as a cabinet member in the regime of Menachem Begin during the 1970s and Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006, Ariel Sharon pursued a deliberate policy of creating facts on the ground to foreclose possibility of a two-state solution by expanding settlements in the Occupied Territories.

The interpenetration of Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Israel and the Occupied Territories points to a “One-State Solution” to the conflict for many peace advocates.  Apartheid must yield to democracy.  Israel will never accept such a solution.

The Zionist project is a colonial undertaking.  At its core is the creation of an expansionist, exclusivist Jewish state. Expansionism can only be achieved by Judaization of Occupied Palestine.  This entails an unrelenting project of violence, subjugation, and ethnic cleansing.

The Zionist project is over 100 years old and predates the Balfour Declaration of 1917.  The British were the first benefactors of the Zionist movement.  The Americans are its second.  Without British and U.S. imperialism, Israel would not exist.  The defeat of Zionism rests upon the defeat of imperialism.  The struggle to free Palestine is intimately linked to the struggle against U.S. empire.

The clashes in Sheikh Jarrah have erupted after years of oppression and dispossession.  Should a third Palestinian Intifada burst forth, its success or failure will be determined by the level of support it receives from regional allies and the international solidarity movement.  Tear gas and rubber bullets being used to repress protesters in the streets of East Jerusalem bear the following trade mark: “Made in the USA.”  Ultimately, a central component of the struggle to free Palestine will be made in the USA.  Should that struggle fail, disaster awaits the peoples of the Middle East and beyond.

*

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

Donald Monaco is a political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York.  He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War.  He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective.  His recent book is titled, The Politics ofTerrorism, and is available at amazon.com.

Featured image is from Palestine Solidarity Campaign

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

According to all UK COVID vaccine adverse reaction reports 1,086 UK citizens have died following the two COVID vaccinations (Pfizer and Astra Zeneca) up to the reporting date of 29/4/21. COVID infections following the vaccination have risen to 973 for both vaccinations with 62 deaths – a death rate of 6.3% which is nearly twice the rate of deaths in general from COVID. Once again there have been big rises in Lymphadenopathy.

COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer analysis print

from 9/12/20 to 29/4/21

  • Lymphadenopathy – 4319
  • Myocardial infarction – 94 (deaths 17)
  • Eye problems – 2438
  • Death/sudden death – 136
  • COVID – 599 (deaths 33) 5.5%
  • Spontaneous abortion – 60
  • respiratory disorders – 6520 (deaths 34)
  • total deaths to 29/4 – 364

COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca analysis print

from 9/12/20 to 29/4/21

  • Lymphadenopathy – 3515
  • Eye problems – 8841
  • Diarrhoea – 6715
  • Death/sudden death – 247
  • COVID – 374 (deaths 29) 7.74%
  • respiratory disorders – 18,759
  • total deaths to 29/4 – 722 

Deaths by Vaccine

So far in the UK approximately 33m people have received at least one vaccination from either the AstraZeneca or the Pfizer “vaccine” (the latter is is fact a genetic treatment). There have been 1,086 deaths (see above). Therefore the chance of dying from the vaccine is 1 in 30,386. This compares very badly with the chance of those under 50 dying from COVID itself as this ONS data shows:

For a healthy child under ten, the chance of dying of Covid-19 is 1 in 4 million (or 1 in 1.3million for a child with co-morbidities). Which is why so many attack the plans to vaccinate children, see this.

For healthy ten-to-19-year-olds the chance of dying from Covid-19 is 1 in 2.5 million;

  • For 20-30 year-olds 1 in 576,000; 
  • 30-39-year-olds 1 in 164,000;
  • 40-49-year-olds 1 in 46,242

Government and Media Lies:

Despite the clear evidence from the above statistics the UK’s National Statistician in reply to an (April) question from Philip Davis MP asking “how many and what proportion of people have died within 28 days of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination, and whether those people will all be considered to have died as a result of that vaccination” replied with the at best disingenuous answer:

“Up to the end of February 2021, there were 0 deaths registered with the aligning ICD codes for this”

Clearly avoiding any mention of the 1086 deaths set out in Government statistics above.

The deliberate cover up of even official statistics about vaccines has been most blatantly demonstrated in the USA where Democrat Party Attorneys General from 12 States wrote to the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook asking them to censor any negative claims about vaccines. See this.

They claim that the (official and compulsory) VAERS reports of vaccine deaths, infections and injuries are “falsehoods” and “misleading” and they claim the right to know the truth! The fascist arrogance of these pseudo elites is quite breathtaking. They “know” the “truth” and the people are just imagining the problems! They just “imagine” the 2,400 vaccine deaths officially reported in the USA. (Dr Mike Yeadon reports that the US VAERS reporting system “is telling us that almost 99% of the deaths reported to VAERS after vaccination occurred after covid19 vaccination. The balancing 1% were for ALL THE OTHER VACCINES COMBINED.”

Or the 1086 reported vaccine deaths in the UK. The people are after all ignorant and stupid!

They also seek to hide the inconvenient truths that the “approved” vaccines are in fact not licensed at all and are only “approved for emergency use” until they have fulfilled their complete trial process – which will not be before 2023!

There has never been a coronavirus vaccine developed before and there has never been an mRNA vaccine administered before this year. By now most will be wary of the heading “Fact Check” since the writers will certainly have an agenda which makes their own “facts” in need of checking. This Reuters “fact check” is a complete lie. See this.

First they deny the vaccines are experimental (when the USA FDA has designated them “for emergency use only” and confirmed licensing process will not conclude until 2023) but then say that animal experiments are being done alongside human vaccinations! In other words what would normally be done before humans are exposed is being done in parallel! And the experiments on animals they refer to report purely resistance to the virus – not deaths of animals and other adverse effects!

This kind of half truth and manipulation is typical of most “Fact Check” reports.

Not long ago Boris Johnson declared:

“There is absolutely no question of people being asked to produce certification, or covid status report, when they go to the shops or to the pub garden, or to the hairdressers or whatever on Monday” [12th April 2021].

At the turn of the year, speaking to Sky News, Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove reassured everyone that vaccine passports will not be necessary to go to the pub.

‘A vaccine passport in order to go to the pub?’ asks Kay Burley.

‘No,’ says Gove.

And yet now the Government through a House of Commons Committee (above) is considering vaccine passports.

For months the Government and the BBC have been recording thousands of new COVID “Cases” which are not cases (in the sense used in the first wave) but infections and many of those are either without symptoms or false positives.

Equally false are the death statistics which show that a small fraction of reported COVID deaths were from COVID itself: (Both the US CDC and Italian researchers have shown that only 6% to 12% of “COVID deaths” have been unambiguously from COVID.

The “More Vaccinations for Variants” Fraud

No sooner have some 17m people in the UK received two vaccine shots than the Government and big Pharma are talking of an autumn “booster jab” to cater for “COVID variants”. But this seems to be an attempt to keep the panic going and provide more profitable work for vaccine companies.

As Dr Mike Yeadon the former Pfizer researcher and Vice President and founder of a successful Biotech company (which was sold to Novartis for $325m!) issued the following statement on the fraudulent claim that more vaccinations were needed to combat COVID “variants”

 I need to inform you that the variants narrative is ENTIRELY FRAUDULENT. While they exist they are all so similar to the original virus that it’s impossible that any of them ‘escape immunity’ or require ‘top-up’ vaccines’.

Specifically, no variant is more than 0.3% different from the original, so 99.7% identical. Both theory & practice shows no possibility that a variant so similar to the original virus will not be fully recognised as essentially the same.

If anyone is immune through vaccination or natural infection, their immune system WILL fully recognise ANY & ALL variants.

Those who were infected by SARS in 2003 & donated blood last year all retained cellular immunity to SARS AND had CROSS-IMMUNITY to SARS-COV-2. These viruses are 20% different (80% identical) and (even) this difference is FAR TOO SMALL to ‘escape immunity’.

Vaccine Passports and Other Restrictions Illegal

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee have called for evidence about vaccine passports. It is now too late to submit evidence online but you could write to the Secretary of that Committee at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA and of course your own MP – I strongly advise you to do so. These are the arguments against passports and any other method of coercion:

  • there is no informed consent before vaccination (deaths and adverse effects, contents of vaccines, their experimental nature etc are not communicated to the patient) – therefore the vaccines are illegal
  • many should not have it for medical reasons – allergies, pregnancy, planned pregnancy, frailty
  • these experimental vaccines offered are not licensed (only “approved for emergency use”) so they are against the Nuremburg code on experimental treatments and passports are a clear form of coercion
  • Over 1,000 deaths in the UK and over 5,000 deaths in UK EU USA after vaccination (not communicated to patients before vaccinations)
  • The 47 country Council of Europe says it is illegal to coerce or influence people to have vaccination which is what a passport would do. See this.

Point 7.3 of the resolution obliges all Member States to ensure that citizens are informed that Covid vaccinations are NOT (word written in capital letters) mandatory and that no one is politically, socially or otherwise pressured to be vaccinated.

*

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 Freenations.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine Passports Illegal, Infections and Deaths after Vaccines, Government and Media Lies, the “Booster” Myth
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Dan Ellsberg, the legendary whistleblower who has been arrested more than 75 times for protesting the U.S. warfare state, has not mellowed with age.

At an online conference hosted by the University of Massachusetts-Amherst honoring Ellsberg’s legacy on April 30th and May 1st, the 90-year-old legend blew the whistle yet again.

Truth, Dissent & the Legacy of Daniel Ellsberg: 50th Anniversary Conference Commemorating the Release of the Pentagon Papers, April 30 – May 1, 2021. [Source: umass.edu; Keynote address; Whistleblowers: Plenary Panel with Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, moderated by Amy Goodman]

He disclosed a secret government study, authored by Pentagon staffer Morton Halperin, which reveals that Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was ready to nuke Taiwan during the 1958 crisis over Quemoy and Matsu Islands during the height of the Cold War.

Ellsberg told Democracy Now host Amy Goodman that, in a meeting with the Joint Chiefs, Dulles conceived of a plan to use seven-kiloton weapons with the expectation that the Soviet Union, Communist China’s ally at the time, would hit Taiwan with nuclear weapons in response.

Dulles, Ellsberg said, was “willing to destroy Taiwan to save it since the entire U.S. world position depended on it,” adding that “the history of 1958 deserves to be read” but that “one-third of Halperin’s study”—which Ellsberg has in his safe—”remains classified.”

Ellsberg stated further that “what I have just said subjects me to the same charges as Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning whose material was only secret—this was top secret.”

“If they want to bring that up, I will be happy to discuss it in front of the Supreme Court and if I lose, and the First Amendment loses, then my old retirement plan of being in prison will come into effect.”

In 1971, Ellsberg had faced a 115-year jail term for leaking the Pentagon Papers, a classified war study which exposed years of government deception on Vietnam.

At the time, he worked for the Defense Department and RAND Corporation, the Air Force’s think tank, after serving in the U.S. Marines in the 1950s and from 1965-1967 as a State Department official in South Vietnam during which time he became disillusioned with the Vietnam War.

Ellsberg decided to leak the Pentagon Papers after hearing draft resister Randy Kehler speak movingly at a War Resister’s League conference and reading books on Gandhian non-violent civil disobedience.

A couple of men sitting on a bench Description automatically generated with low confidence

Dan Ellsberg and Randy Kehler seated on a bench together in 1971. [Source: ellsbergpapers.org]

In his interview with Goodman, Ellsberg said that the 1958 documents are relevant now because “the same discussions about Taiwan are going on today in the Pentagon” and there is “still talk about destroying it.”

Admiral Charles J. Richard, who currently heads the U.S. Strategic Command, called on the nation’s military and civilian leaders to seek new ways to face threats by Russia and China, including the “real possibility” of “nuclear conflict.”

According to Ellsberg, Richard sounds like he is “criminally insane.”

With a high risk of nuclear war, “people in government have to show the moral courage of Snowden, Manning and Daniel Hale [drone whistleblower].”

“Humankind,” Ellsberg said, “may not otherwise survive.”

From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate

In an article published in The Conversation on April 23rd, UMASS-Amherst historian Christian G. Appy, who helped convene the Ellsberg conference, detailed how President Richard Nixon’s (1969-1974) obsession with Ellsberg because of his leaking of the Pentagon Papers led directly to Watergate.

The Pentagon Papers covered the years 1945-1968, i.e., before Nixon became President; however, Nixon feared that Ellsberg would leak other information that could undercut some of his key policies and result in his impeachment.

The Nixon administration consequently indicted Ellsberg under the Espionage Act and Nixon established a special White House unit under Egil Krogh, Jr., known as the Plumbers, which broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office seeking incriminating information about him.

The burglary was a dress rehearsal for the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate Hotel, which led to Nixon’s likely impeachment and resignation.

Ellsberg meanwhile had his case dismissed because of the White House’s illegal actions.

A sketch of Daniel Ellsberg testifying in front of cameras and politicians.

Ellsberg’s trial. [Source: theconversation.com]

Ellsberg: “I Was a Danger to Nixon’s Vietnam Policy”

During his plenary address at the UMASS-Amherst conference, Ellsberg told moderator Charles Sennott, founder of the Ground Truth Project, a grassroots news organization, that Nixon burglarized his psychiatrist’s office because he thought the psychiatrist had documents exposing his secret plans to end the Vietnam War and wanted information he could use against Ellsberg for blackmail.

According to Ellsberg, Nixon’s plan centered on removing U.S. ground troops to undercut the anti-war movement, sustaining funding for the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN), expanding the air war and threatening North Vietnam with a nuclear attack—which Nixon thought would “force Ho Chi Minh [North Vietnam’s leader] to sue for peace as soon as they heard.”

Nixon had gotten the idea for threatening nuclear weapons while serving as Vice President under Dwight Eisenhower who had made successful nuclear threats in the Taiwan straits and in Korea.

According to Ellsberg, Nixon was committed to preserving U.S. proxy Nguyen Van Thieu’s leadership over South Vietnam for at least another eight years—even at a huge cost in lives.

Thieu was a major sticking point in the peace negotiations on which Nixon would not compromise.

The reason was that Thieu had played a major role in helping Nixon win the 1968 presidential election by helping him to sabotage peace talks with North Vietnam.

These talks had brought Vice President Hubert Humphrey (D) closer to Nixon in the polls prior to the election, but Humphrey’s rise stopped abruptly when the negotiations stalled.

Thieu later bragged: “I elected Nixon.”

Nixon had to keep Thieu in power so he would not release communications revealing Nixon’s sabotage of the peace talks—an act of treason, i.e., an impeachable offense.

According to Ellsberg, “Nixon actually did what Donald Trump was accused of doing—colluding with a foreign power to win an election.”

And this is why Nixon went after him—because he did not want his treason exposed.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Featured image: Daniel Ellsberg, co-defendant in the Pentagon Papers case, talks to the media outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles on April 28, 1973. [Source: nbcnews.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.

***

As more reports surface of breakthrough COVID cases, in and outside the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today said it will change how breakthrough cases are reported, effective May 14.

According to a statement on the CDC’s website, the agency said to help “maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance” it will stop reporting weekly COVID breakthrough infections unless they result in hospitalization or death.

The news followed another change, announced late last month, in how PCR tests should be administered to the fully vaccinated.

Both changes will result in lower overall numbers of reports of breakthrough cases in the U.S.

A breakthrough case is recorded if a person tests positive for SARS-Cov-2 two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (J&J) shot or completing the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer vaccination.

Why the changes matter

In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles — but only for those fully vaccinated individuals being tested for COVID.

In an RT-PCR test — the gold standard for detecting SARS-CoV-2 — RNA is extracted from the swab collected from the patient. It is then converted into DNA, which is then amplified.

CT, or cycle threshold, is a value that emerges during RT-PCR tests. A CT value refers to the number of cycles needed to amplify viral RNA to reach a detectable level.

According to the Indian Council of Medical Research, a patient is considered positive for COVID if the CT value is below 35. In other words, if the virus is detectable after 35 cycles or earlier, then the patient is considered positive.

Dr. Anthony Fauci recommends a CT value of 35. Globally, the accepted cut-off for CT value for COVID ranges between 35 and 40, depending on instructions from manufacturers of testing equipment.

“If the benchmark were to be lowered to 24 it would mean that CT values in the range 25-34 would not be considered positive,” according to the Indian Council of Medical Research, as reported by The Indian Express. “A benchmark of 35, therefore, means that more patients would be considered positive than we would get if the benchmark were 24.”

In other words, lowering CT threshold parameter may lead to missing infectious persons.

CDC won’t report new breakthrough numbers this week

Because the change in how the CDC will report breakthrough cases is still being implemented and won’t take effect until May 14, the CDC did not report new numbers this week.

According to the latest available numbers, as of April 26, the CDC reported 9,245 people had tested positive for COVID at least two weeks after getting their final COVID vaccination. About 9%, or 835, people required hospitalization and 132 died.

Of the hospitalized patients, 241 were said to be asymptomatic or having an illness not related to COVID, and 20 deaths were reported as asymptomatic or not related to the disease.

The latest numbers are from 46 U.S. states and territories. It’s not clear which four states didn’t submit breakthrough case figures to the CDC.

“These surveillance data are a snapshot and help identify patterns and look for signals among vaccine breakthrough cases,” the CDC said in an April 27 statement. “As CDC and state health departments shift to focus only on investigating vaccine breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death, those data will be regularly updated and posted every Friday.”

According to the CDC, actual vaccine breakthrough numbers are likely higher as the surveillance system is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments and may not be complete. In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to lack of testing. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness, CDC added.

The CDC said vaccines are still effective, noting the breakthrough cases represent a small percentage of those who have been vaccinated.

‘Most-vaccinated’ country returns to lockdowns, as breakthrough cases surge

The island of Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated more of its population against COVID than any other country in the world, has re-implemented lockdown measures similar to those imposed in 2020 as infections surge.

According to Bloomberg, 62.2% of the island’s adult population has received two doses of COVID vaccines. That compares with 55.9% for Israel, the second most vaccinated nation. Sinopharm and AstraZeneca’s Covishield are the two vaccines being administered in the Seychelles.

“Despite all the exceptional efforts we are making, the Covid-19 situation in our country is critical right now, with many daily cases reported last week,” Peggy Vidot, the nation’s health minister, said at a press conference Tuesday.

On a per capita basis, the Seychelles outbreak is worse than India’s raging surge. Peaking at an average of just more than 100 new cases a day is a big deal in a country with a population of fewer than 100,000 people, The Washington Post reported.

Of those cases, 84% are Seychellois and 16% are foreigners, Daniel Lucey, clinical professor of medicine at Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, said in a blog post. Just under two-thirds of those are either unvaccinated or have only had one dose, and the remainder have had two doses, Lucey added.

A comparison between Sinopharm, Covishield and unvaccinated infected persons could be done using genetic sequencing and data on the severity of their infections, Lucey said. “Given the widespread international use of these two vaccines there are global implications to what is happening now in the Seychelles.”

Officials at a press conference gave little detail on what could be behind the infection surge other than to say people were taking fewer precautions against the virus than before and the surge may be due to celebrations after Easter.

California experiencing thousands of breakthrough COVID infections

Between Jan. 1 and April 28, California public health officials recorded 3,084 breakthrough cases of COVID, The Sacramento Bee reported.

“As more time passes and more people are fully vaccinated, it is likely that additional post-vaccination cases will occur,” the California Department of Public Health said in a statement.

Post-vaccination cases are recorded if a person tests positive for SARS-Cov-2 two weeks after receiving J&J or completing the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer vaccination.

The state health department did not have information on hospitalizations and deaths attributed to breakthrough cases.

The Defender previously reported on breakthrough cases in Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California and Minnesota.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Natural News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Europe’s drug regulator says it’s evaluating an assortment of potential side effects following inoculation with leading COVID-19 vaccines, including heart inflammation, facial swelling and a rare nerve-degenerating disorder. Yet in most circumstances, it’s not clear whether the vaccines are to blame.  

In AstraZeneca’s case, the European Medicines Agency’s safety committee, known as PRAC for short, said it’s examining reports of Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS) among people who received the drugmaker’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to a report released on Friday. The agency is tracking the data for all coronavirus shots as part of its routine safety procedures.

GBS syndrome is a rare disorder that causes nerve inflammation and can result in pain, numbness, muscle weakness and difficulty walking. GBS was previously identified by regulators as a potential adverse side effect that required monitoring following AstraZeneca’s jab, the EMA said. The regulator asked AstraZeneca to provide more detailed data and an analysis of all reported GBS cases for its next safety report, which are required on a monthly basis.

Concerns of rare but serious blood clots among AstraZeneca vaccine recipients have beset Europe’s vaccine rollout for months. In early April, the EMA said the unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as very rare side effect for the company’s vaccine, marketed as Vaxzevria.

Additionally, the committee said Friday that it would update its warning for Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, which has also faced blood clotting issues. The warning will advise patients who have been diagnosed with thrombocytopenia, or low blood platelets, within three weeks of vaccination to be “actively investigated” for blood clot formations.

Despite close monitoring, the EMA committee said it hasn’t found similar blood clot cases among the mRNA shots from Pfizer and Moderna. However, those companies may have some of their own potential safety concerns that require additional observation, the committee said.

PRAC recommended adding a new side effect to Pfizer’s product information for people with dermal fillers, which are soft, gel-like substances injected under the skin. The committee now believes there’s “at least a reasonable possibility” the vaccine causes facial swelling in people with the fillers.

Additionally, the committee said it’s aware of cases of myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, as well as pericarditis, inflammation of the membrane around the heart, following vaccination with Pfizer’s shot, known as Comirnaty.

At the moment, regulators don’t see an indication that the vaccine caused these cases. As a precaution, the committee asked Pfizer to present additional data, including an analysis of the events according to age and gender, and will “consider if any other regulatory action is needed.” Since Moderna also uses mRNA technology for its vaccine, the committee asked the mRNA biotech to monitor for similar cases.

This isn’t the first time officials have probed the potential risk of heart inflammation following COVID-19 vaccination. Late last month, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said the agency hasn’t found a link between the shots and the myocarditis cases.

Those comments followed the news that the U.S. Department of Defense would investigate 14 cases of heart inflammation among people who were vaccinated through the military’s health services. Israel also said it would examine a small number of cases, Reuters reported.

“We have not seen a signal and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given,” Walensky said during a press briefing in April.

*

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 FiercePharma

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 local corporate media in Draper, Utah, is reporting that a 17-year-old student from Corner Canyon High School ended up in the ICU with blood clots in his brain just after receiving an experimental COVID injection.

The day after his COVID-19 vaccine shot, 17-year-old Everest Romney felt his neck swelling. In the coming days, he suffered from severe headaches.

His mother, who tells ABC4 the pediatrician initially dismissed the symptoms as a pulled neck muscle, says she was convinced it was something else.

“He could not move his neck without the assistance of his hands,” says mother Cherie Romney.

That was just a few days after the shot. Plus, now her son suffered from fevers and incessant headaches.

Romney says she knew she needed to keep advocating to doctors that something wasn’t right.

Finally, after more than a week of the symptoms, the Corner Canyon High School basketball player and his family had answers: two blood clots inside his brain, and one on the outside.

“The hardest thing was I let him get that shot. And he was healthy and well before,” says Romney.

“But you question it, you can’t help but question it when it all goes wrong,” she added. (Full article here.)

However, as with ALL stories of COVID “vaccine” injuries or deaths that make it into the corporate media, they continue to state that there is no link between the injuries and the injections.

In fact, the reporter in the video of this story tells us that they are not even going to name which “vaccine” he received, showing just how much control Big Pharma has on the media.

The media not only is protected under the First Amendment to state the facts and name the company who made this shot, but the job of the media is supposed to be to inform the public, which they are clearly not doing when they report a “vaccine” injury but refuse to name which one caused it.

Since the Johnson and Johnson shot has already been linked to “rare” blood clots, my guess is that this was one of the mRNA injections from either Pfizer or Moderna, and they just don’t want the bad publicity which would slow down their efforts to inject even more people.

Here is the video from ABC (if it disappears let us know).

Continuing to call these reactions “rare” is criminal, as more people have died following COVID injections now than recorded deaths following vaccines for the past 20 years.

How many more lives will be destroyed, like this 17-year-old healthy high school student who had his whole career and life still before him, just because Big Pharma wants to use the public as lab rats to fulfill their eugenic view of medicine and develop novel, new vaccines designed to reduce the world’s population and enslave everyone to the medical system?

*

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 Health Impact News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Healthy Utah High School Athlete Develops Blood Clots in His Brain Following COVID Injection
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The CDC released more data in their Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) today, and it included two new deaths of infants age 2 and age 1.

While none of the COVID injections have emergency use authorization for children under the age of 17 yet, there are ongoing trials with children being injected with the experimental shots as young as 6 months old.

One of the infants who died was apparently in a Pfizer trial, while the other one was apparently in a Moderna trial.

VAERS ID 1255745 involved a 2-year-old baby girl in Virginia who died 5 days after she was injected. The VAERS entry appears to be made by a family member who laments that the child’s death “was going to happen anyway,” apparently repeating what health officials were telling them, and that they would probably claim her death “had nothing to do with the shot.”

VAERS ID: 1255745 – Pfizer

Symptoms: Death, Product administered to patient of inappropriate age

SMQs:, Medication errors (narrow)

Write-up: she was going to die/dies after vaccine; 2-year-old patient; This is a spontaneous report from a non-contactable consumer via a Pfizer-sponsored program.

A 2-year-old female patient received bnt162b2 (PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE), second dose at the age of 2-years-old via an unspecified route of administration on 25Feb2021 (Batch/Lot number was not reported) as single dose for covid-19 immunisation.

The patient”s medical history and concomitant medications were not reported. It was reported that the 2-year-old dies after vaccine on 03Mar2021. Reported on VAERS.

Look for the researchers to exclude her from the study, probably claiming her death had nothing to do with the shot, she was going to die that day, five days after vaccination anyway.

That”s how they roll. The patient died on 03Mar2021. The outcome of the event was fatal. No follow-up attempts are possible. Information on lot/batch cannot be obtained. No further information is expected.; Reported Cause(s) of Death: she was going to die

VAERS ID 1261766 involved a year-old baby boy in Florida who suffered convulsions and seizures after the Moderna shot and died 2 days later.

VAERS ID: 1261766 – Moderna

Symptoms: Body temperature increased, Death, Seizure

SMQs:, Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (broad), Systemic lupus erythematosus (broad), Convulsions (narrow), Noninfectious encephalitis (broad), Noninfectious encephalopathy/delirium (broad), Noninfectious meningitis (broad), Generalised convulsive seizures following immunisation (narrow), Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome (broad), Hypoglycaemia (broad)

Write-up: increased body temperature, seizure, death

TV Doctor Puts 5-Year-Old and 7-Year-Old Children on TV After Participating in Duke Pfizer Trial for Children Age 5 to 11

Dr. Cameron Wolfe with his wife and two children. Image source.

I can’t even imagine what it takes to convince parents of young children to allow their children to be guinea pigs for a vaccine trial.

In what looks more like a publicity stunt to convince parents and children to sign up for the experimental COVID shots, Dr. Cameron Wolfe, an infectious disease specialist at Duke University who makes regular appearances on WRAL-TV talking about COVID, brought his two children on TV to show how they got the experimental shots and are now “feeling great and full of energy.”

A clinical trial at the Duke University Health System is currently studying its use on ages 5 to 11.

WRAL News spoke with two young boys who are excited to be part of that trial.

Their father is someone who has become familiar in the Triangle during the pandemic. Dr. Cameron Wolfe, infectious disease specialist at Duke, makes regular appearances on WRAL-TV talking about COVID.

He and his wife, who is also a doctor, hope sharing their story about their kids getting the vaccine will encourage other parents about the vaccine’s safety.

Wolfe tweeted photos of his boys getting their second doses of the Pfizer vaccine on Monday.

Drs. Sarah and Cameron Wolfe said they had no reservations about their 5-year-old Lachlan and 7-year-old Callum joining the Duke trial for kids ages 5 to 11.

“I think it was an easy choice to get the vaccine, and early,” said Sarah. “We were going to have peace of mind for caregivers, teachers, and the kids they interact with in school that we were adding safety.”

And the kids were eager to get the shots.

“I thought it would protect me. And also stop me from spreading it – protecting me, and protecting everyone else,” said Callum. “And the scientists would get to know if it works on kids also.”

After getting the vaccine, both kids seem to be feeling great – and full of energy.

When asked what he would tell other kids about the vaccine, 7-year-old Callum said, “Well, that you should do it. Because then you’ll be safe and you’ll be protecting everyone else around you.”

His father agrees with him, pointing out that if enough school children get vaccinated, the community can get closer to herd immunity level.

Unlike some of the adult trials where you might get placebo, everyone gets the real shot in this trial. Health officials are looking at dose level and how much to give.

As far as a timeline — Pfizer expects to have approval from the FDA for kids as young as 2 by this fall. (Full story.)

The corporate media, the government health agencies, and the pharmaceutical companies for many months now have been conditioning the public to always expect serious side-effects to these shots, and that when they become seriously ill after an injection, that this is “proof” that the shots work.

And this kind of propaganda works, if one just spends a few minutes on social media reading about people’s reactions.

So if this is the “logic” that convinces people to just accept side effects as “proof” the shots “are working,” what does it mean when there are no side effects (other than maybe injection site temporary pain) and are reported “to be feeling great – and full of energy”?

Was this just a publicity stunt to get more parents and children to sign up for the trials?

For the baby girl in Virginia and the baby boy in Florida who participated in these COVID “vaccine” trials and were added to VAERS, they are not “feeling great and full of energy.”

They’re dead.

They are now just a number, a statistic, to be added to the other 4000+ unprecedented deaths that have been recorded by the CDC following non-FDA approved COVID shots during the last 4 months.

And earlier this week it was announced that Pfizer has requested the “emergency use” authorization on their COVID shot to be fully approved by the FDA, which would open the door to making them mandatory.

*

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: Image Source

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. Peter McCullough is an outstanding scholar and medical doctor. 

Scientific information is being taken down by Facebook.

There is a total blackout on information to patients regarding treatment. 

Patients are led to believe that Covid cannot be treated. 

Medical doctors are prevented from treating.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Treatment of Covid-19: Dr. Peter McCullough’s Important Statement to the Texas Senate

George W. Bush’s Finest Piece of War

May 10th, 2021 by Nabil Salih

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.

***

George W. Bush is back. He is back, this time not to bomb countries and cause the death of thousands. This time the man is back as an artist who advocates for the rights of immigrants, and the US media is on heat.

Bush, the former US president, recently penned an Op-Ed for The Washington Post, and received a round of applause on ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’ when the eponymous host complimented him on his painting of American politician Madeleine Albright. He appears on TV to speak about his new book of oil paintings of America’s immigrants, ‘Out of Many, One’, he is not wearing handcuffs, and all rehabilitated. It is all normal.

What is also normal is how the starvation and deprivation of medication that caused the early death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children because of the severe UN sanctions on the country in the 1990s, have fallen into oblivion. To Albright, speaking in a 1996 TV interview, the political price was “worth it”, though she would later express regret for her wording.

Bush’s grinning face seems to be traveling at a smooth pace from one TV show to the next. Kimmel admired his guest’s reflexes when he dodged Muntadhar al-Zaidi’s shoe throw, and the two had a laugh about it. Of course, it slipped Kimmel’s mind to ask his guest about his time ordering cluster bombs be dropped on my family’s house in Baghdad to “liberate it”. It also slipped the host’s mind to ask why in the first place a man would want to throw a shoe at the former president.

For their part, the cheering crowd gave the impression that the next rich guy to oversee the annihilation of inferior beings overseas could as well re-emerge from the gutter and be celebrated as a cool, funny grandpa.

Bush’s blood-stained past tells us the man is dangerous. If Richard Nixon – in the words of the late Hunter S. Thompson – “could shake your hand and stab you in the back at the same time”, you might lose a finger or two if you extend your hand to shake Bush’s.

And with the way things are going, there’s a big chance he will get away with it – again.

George W. Bush is responsible for the destruction of an incalculable number of innocent Iraqi lives. Have the decency to remember his victims

It is well known that columnists in the US were at war with Iraq even before depleted uranium was generously distributed among its citizens in 2003, but the slick anchors and boring television hosts of today seem to be suffering from amnesia.

In an interview after a tour of Bush’s Texas ranch, CBS’s Norah O’Donnell told the former president that she thought the paintings in his new book were “beautiful”. And when she asked him about the 6 January storming of the Capitol, Bush said that it made him sick: “This sends a signal to the world, you know, like, we’re no different, and this book says we are different, much different”.

In the words of the great Iraqi poet Saadi Youssef:

But I am not an American

Is it enough that I am not American for the Phantom pilot to send me back to stone age?”[1]

The entire charade reeks with hypocrisy. Even when preaching on immigration reforms, Bush failed to hide his ‘us versus them’ complex.

But the American exceptionalism is not what bothers me the most.

That death in Iraq is eliminated from the conversation makes it clear that to ‘them Americans’, ‘us Iraqis’ are non-existent. We are not worthy of receiving justice or of anybody at least bothering to ask Bush about that long-forgotten ‘blunder’, as Iraqi scholar Sinan Antoon reminds us.

Meanwhile, war is ongoing in Iraq. Its signs are unmistakable; walls and road signs riddled with bullet holes, concrete barriers blocking main streets, dead youth staring from faded billboards and military choppers occupying the skies above.

In Baghdad, militiamen nurtured under the lawlessness birthed by the US invasion still fire rockets on the airport and the ‘Green Zone’. They still roam the streets, armed to the teeth, terrorizing the city’s traumatized residents who are left unprotected by empty promises from the Iraqi state.

While Iraq no longer receives aerial bombing from the West, death has become a permanent resident of Baghdad. The lethal failure of its subsequent ‘post-liberation’ rulers continues what George W. Bush started 18 years ago: non-stop civilian killings in Iraq.

The negligence behind the recent al-Amiriyah-like incineration of dozens of patients inside Ibn al-Khatib’s hospital is an example of the consequences of war faced by the people of Iraq since 2003.

George W. Bush is responsible for the destruction of an incalculable number of innocent Iraqi lives. Have the decency to remember his victims.

*

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] From Saadi Youssef’s poem, America America. Translated by the author of the piece.

Featured image is a U.S. Air Force photo by Carlos Cintron. Public Domain

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The recent announcement by the British government that it plans a 40 Percent Increase in the number of nuclear weapons it possesses highlights the escalation of the exceptionally dangerous and costly nuclear arms race.

After decades of progress in reducing nuclear arsenals through arms control and disarmament agreements, All The Nuclear Powers are once again busily upgrading their nuclear weapons capabilities. For several years, the U.S. Government has been engaged in a massive nuclear “modernization” program, designed to refurbish its production facilities, enhance existing weapons, and build new ones. The Russian government, too, is investing heavily in beefing up its nuclear forces, and in July 2020, President Vladimir Putin announced that the Russian navy would soon be armed with hypersonic nuclear weapons and underwater nuclear drones. Meanwhile, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea are expanding the size of their nuclear arsenals, while Israel is building a new, secret nuclear weapons facility and France is modernizing its ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and missile-carrying submarines.

This nuclear buildup coincides with the Scrapping Of Key Nuclear Arms Control And Disarmament Agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Open Skies Treaty.

Like arms races of the past, the reviving nuclear arms race places the world in immense danger, for when nations engage in military conflict, they are inclined to use the most powerful weapons they have available. How long will it be before a nuclear-armed, aggressive government—or merely one threatened with military defeat or humiliation—resorts to nuclear war?

In addition to creating an enormous danger, a nuclear arms race also comes with a huge financial price—in this case, in the trillions of dollars. Military analysts have estimated that the U.S. government’s nuclear “modernization” program alone will cost about $1.5 Trillion.

Of course, the nuclear arms control and disarmament process is not dead—at least not yet. One of U.S. President Joseph Biden’s first actions after taking office was to offer to Extend The U.S.-Russia New Start Treaty, which significantly limits the number of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons. And the Russian government quickly accepted. In addition, efforts are underway to Restore The Iran Nuclear Agreement. Most dramatically, the UN Treaty On The Prohibition Of Nuclear Weapons, which was adopted by 122 nations in 2017, secured sufficient ratifications to become International Law in January 2021. The provisions of this landmark agreement, if adhered to, would create a nuclear weapons-free world.

Even so, when it comes to freeing the world from the danger of nuclear destruction, the situation is not promising. None Of The Nuclear Powers has signed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. And without their participation, a nuclear-free world will remain an aspiration rather than a reality. In fact, The Most Powerful Nuclear Nations remain in a state of high tension with one another, which only enhances the possibility of nuclear war. Assessing the situation at the beginning of 2020 and 2021, a panel appointed by the editors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists placed the hands of their famous “Doomsday Clock” at 100 Seconds To Midnight, the most dangerous setting in its history.

As a result, a fateful choice lies before the nuclear powers. They can plunge ahead with their nuclear arms race and face the terrible consequences. Or they can take the path of sanity in the nuclear age and join other nations in building a nuclear weapons-free world.

*

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

Dr. Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting The Bomb (Stanford University Press).

 

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.

Revised, May 10, 2021

***

The Kent State community commemorated the 51st anniversary of the May 4, 1970, shootings outside Taylor Hall on Tuesday. It was a solemn gathering as many former students returned to visit the site of a tragedy where the Ohio National Guard opened fire on anti-Vietnam War protestors. The shootings resulted in the deaths of four students and nine others were wounded.

Fast-forward 51 years later and so much has changed on the Kent campus. However, the sadness brought on by the events of May 4th remains. And behind the tears, pain and uncertainty is a longing for answers. 

A Timeline of Events

On April 30, 1970, President Richard Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia, a country which remained neutral during the Vietnam War. The announcement was met with a surge in anti-war protests across the country including on college campuses like Kent State University.

Following President Nixon’s announcement, an anti-war rally was held on the Commons on Friday May 1. Protestors delivered anti-war speeches and one demonstrator even buried a copy of the Constitution to symbolize the Nixon Administration’s disregard for the historical document.

On Saturday May 2, the Ohio National Guard was ordered to duty at the university by Governor Rhodes following a request from Kent Mayor Satrom who feared that socalled radicals would destroy the city. Later that evening the ROTC building went up in flames and radical protestors were blamed for causing the fire. However, it is unknown to this day who the real perpetrators were.

By Sunday May 3, nearly 1,000 National Guard troops were present on the campus. Photographs of the university at the time resemble that of a war zone rather than an educational institution. In the morning, Governor Rhodes visited Kent State and held a press conference where he expressed disdain for the anti-war protestors. Due to the nature of the governor’s speech, it was then assumed that all protests and demonstrations were banned.

A Fateful Day

An anti-war protest was scheduled for noon on Monday May 4th near the victory bell. The protest was thought to be banned but students still gathered and exercised their right to assembly. The guardsmen ordered for the protestors to disperse but they refused and tensions began to escalate. This led to the guardsmen firing into the crowd of protestors killing four students and injuring nine others.

The four students who were killed:

  • Allison Krause, 19
  • Jeffrey Miller, 20
  • Sandra Scheuer, 20
  • William Schroeder, 19

The nine students who were injured:

  • Alan Canfora
  • John Cleary
  • Thomas Grace
  • Dean Kahler
  • Joseph Lewis Jr.
  • Donald Scott MacKenzie
  • James Russell
  • Robert Stamps
  • Douglas Wrentmore

A Hero Emerges

The shooting lasted for 13 seconds and was followed with a brief period of silence before many in the crowd began to scream and cry. A tragedy had just occurred and perhaps more violence was yet to come. However, one brave and courageous man stepped up to be the voice of reason.

Glenn Frank, a geology professor on campus, was a faculty peace marshal that weekend. Earlier that day he had jumped into an ambulance and requested the driver to take him to the scene. After helping to get the deceased and wounded students into the ambulances, a group of 1,000 students sat down in front of the guard.

“The General said, you have five minutes to move those students. Another group of guardsmen began to march towards the student gathering. Glenn ran up to Major Jones, who was in charge of the guardsmen and said, ‘my God, what are you doing?’ Jones responded, ‘I have my orders.’ ‘Over my dead body,’ said Glenn. Jones then threw down his baton, but the Guard stopped. After the General gave him five minutes to disperse, he then made his impassioned plea.” — Alan Frank

Professor Frank’s actions on May 4, 1970, are said to have saved hundreds of lives. In an emotional plea to the students and protestors, Glenn Frank said:

“I don’t care whether you’ve never listened to anyone before in your lives. I am begging you right now if you don’t disperse right now they’re going to move in and it can only be a slaughter. Would you please listen to me. Jesus Christ. I don’t want to be a part of this,”

KSU faculty member Glenn Frank talking to a crowd of people, blood in parking lot is visible in background

After hearing Glenn Frank’s plea, many students left the premise and no one else was killed by the National Guard that day. However, for Glenn Frank himself, he remained deeply troubled by the events that took place. While continuing to work as a geology professor at Kent State, Glenn spent the rest of his life searching for the truth by investigating what led up to the senseless killing of four college students.

A Search for Answers

It has been 51 years since the May 4, 1970, shootings and many questions remain unanswered. The public deserves clarity. A passage of time should not comfort those in positions of power who continue to suppress the truth.

Glenn Frank’s son, Alan Frank, who was present during the May 4, 1970 shootings, shares his experience. Alan, who has been an active member of the Kent State May 4th community, revisits the work of his father who has sought answers to our many unanswered questions surrounding the events on and leading up to that day.

*

Interview with Alan Frank 

The following is a transcript of an interview between independent journalist Taylor Hudak and Alan Frank, the son of Geology Professor Glenn Frank. The interview took place on May 4, 2021, at Kent State University.

A note from the author: Due to the passage of time and with many of the subjects deceased, I cannot independently verify all of the claims made during this interview. If you have additional information on the events leading up to and on May 4th 1970, please contact [email protected].

***

Taylor Hudak: First of all, Alan Frank, I want to thank you for doing this interview with me. And I know it’s been 51 years since the shooting on May 4, 1970. What does it feel like to be back here on this day?

Alan Frank: Oh, it’s something very personal to me because I just feel the need to come and pay my respects. I try to do it every May 4th when I’m in town for sure. And I’m probably going to run into some people that are very close to me that I’m looking forward to seeing.

TH: If you could just take me back to May 4th, 1970, on the Kent State campus. What was your experience?

AF: Let me go back a few days before that when Nixon announced the invasion of Cambodia. On Friday May 1st, there were a couple of rallies on campus, one where a guy buried a copy of the Constitution. That evening I was downtown. It was a beautiful, beautiful evening. People were getting kind of rowdy. And I saw a lot of people that I didn’t usually recognize. There were a lot of people that just normally didn’t come downtown like that. And there are some high school kids that were going around.

Eventually a police cruiser came through and some rocks and bottles were thrown at the police car. And eventually they put a bunch of trash out into the middle of the street on Water Street and set it on fire. And then apparently police had come in and told everybody that the bars were shut down. So part of the crowd moved up towards Main Street, broke windows and some other things.

Two friends and I eventually kicked out the bonfire that was in the street. And a lot of times you’ll see the caption there’s two or three guys by the fire and they say these are radicals that started the fire. Now, we were there kicking the fire out and hoping that the bikers didn’t beat us up.

So that evening, my father had been out of town with my my mother. And I told them that people were out, but I didn’t know if it was a riot. Everybody says it was a riot, but I didn’t experience a whole lot of that. The next day, on Saturday May 2nd, my father was contacted by Dr. Matson, who was in charge since Dr. White was off campus in Iowa at the time. He was asked to gather faculty marshals and they had a meeting at seven o’clock that evening.

At that time, for many weeks, a lot of people felt that the ROTC building was going to burn. So he was right by the ROTC building and a group of students were there throwing rocks and breaking windows. Eventually, they went to Tri Towers to get some more students to back them up. They came back and continued hurling more rocks and came down over the hill and tried to start the fire. And I just listened to a police report and it said the ROTC building is burning. And then about 48 minutes into it, it said the building looks like it’s going to go back up (in flames) again. So it took at least those 48 minutes on the tape that I had heard. There were lots of stories going around about what was going on that night (Saturday May 2nd). People saw other people with walkie talkies. A lot of them had billy clubs.

TH: These so-called radicals had walkie talkies?

AF: Right, right. Yeah. So anyhow, after a good hour to an hour and a half, they attempted to burn the ROTC building. Police were standing right by the heating plant, which was not far away from there but didn’t do anything. My dad was out there, got hit with rocks around his legs several times. My dad, Glenn Frank, was a faculty marshal. However, they were not to get into anything with any of the students and just tried to maintain order as much as possible. That was the day that he had gone out and purchased a bunch of cloth, robin’s egg blue cloth. And one of the reasons was that, and I’m sure you know this, everybody had red and blue and white bandanas. Nobody had a robin’s egg blue bandana. So he passed those out and so the faculty had those and the student marshals had white armbands. So eventually the protestors ran over to an athletic shed down near the tennis courts and set the tennis shed on fire. And apparently a tree started to burn, and they started a bucket brigade. Well, in that time, somebody had come in and finally torched the (ROTC) building. Nobody knows who.

TH: And it’s still unclear to this day?

AF: Yes, to this day. There’s 167 pages of the FBI report that are still redacted. I’ve got some pictures here, and I’ll show you. They name about 20 some people who are suspected to have participated in the burning of the ROTC building on May 2. However, almost half of them are redacted. And why on earth would they conceal the identities of the radicals who they suspected started the fire?

However, their names are redacted and when you look at their pictures, there’s black magic marker that’s just been drawn across their face so you can’t tell who it is. In some parts of the burn report, there are 25 pages at a time that are just totally deleted. You know, what’s with that?

FBI report

 

TH: Can you think of any reason why they would do that?

AF: I’m wondering, you know, if it was a false flag operation or something like that. I’m not saying the CIA did this, but the CIA had a program called Chaos. And the FBI also had a program called COINTELPRO. So both of them had counterintelligence programs. Every military intelligence group had people that would try to infiltrate the radical groups.

So you almost wonder whether more people were infiltrating these groups than were actually the radical students a part of these groups. But there’s no doubt that some of the students tried to participate. I talked to Tom Grace and I said, Tom, I never knew that the the FBI released the burn report saying the students did it. He said, well, no, we’re pretty sure that the students did it. And I kind of called B.S. on that because there were these other people on campus that nobody recognized. Tom Grace said some had disguises on. So it’s hard to say, you know. Until the FBI releases the burn report unredacted, we’re never going to know. And I wonder, is it for national security? Is it for the fact that they’re hiding undercover agents? I don’t know. But so many different intelligence agencies were around campus at that time.


Note: Federal Bureau of Investigation (Department of Justice) Form No. 4-694a (Rev. 12-4-86), “Explanation of Exemptions, Subsections of Title 5, United States Code, Section 552”. (FOIA)


TH: Right. And there’s been a long history of infiltration in different activist groups, and it’s something that still goes on today but it’s expanded with the internet.

AF: I talked to Alan Canfora for, I don’t know, probably since this started. He was one of the people that said he and others tried to start a fire for an hour and a half, and they couldn’t do it. And then soon as he and the others left and the police surrounded the building, it went up (in flames). And I also talked to a friend of mine who is a biology professor. His name was Denny Cooke. And I said, Denny, the Justice Department has two different quotes by you. And they say, check with Denny Cooke to see which one is correct.

In one statement, Denny said that he had seen a small fire going. In the other statement, he said that it was almost out. And when I asked Denny about it at the 25th anniversary, I was right over here in the Student Center. And he said to me, Alan, you are the first person to ask me this question in 25 years. He said, I put the fire out. We talked a little bit, and he said again, I put the fire out. And a third time to make sure I got it, he said, I put the fire out. And he said, I don’t know what happened to the mob when they left. But that’s what Denny had said to me.

TH: And again, what was Denny’s position or role at the university?

AF: He was a faculty marshal and a biology professor right over here. So there are so many questions. And it just bothers me that we see things that happen in the United States, such as the January 6th attack on the Capitol building. And people aren’t trusting the police. They’re not trusting the FBI. They’re not trusting anybody and part of that, I understand because it is hard to believe the truth when you’re either not lying or you’re trying to create a situation where then you can go in and either blame it on somebody else or be the hero that solves that problem. We can’t afford to do that. I mean, it’s obvious to me that this is a great country as far as our Constitution is concerned. There are some people that are really being inappropriate with what’s happening in this country.

TH: And who would that be?

AF: Well, focusing on May 4th, what bothers me the most right now is the FBI report.

I’m just concerned. I would love to see the unredacted FBI report.

TH: And specifically on what happened on the evening of May 2? The burning of the ROTC building?

AF: Yeah, yeah. Especially, on that evening. I had another friend, who was around that evening, who sat near the victory bell watching people come out of the crowd, run up, do something and run back. And he said they did it with military precision. And I said, man, could you write that down for me? And he said no. And I’m just wondering, is that because this is a very relatively conservative guy? But for some reason, he doesn’t want to be associated with what he saw.

TH: And he saw the fire go up?

AF: He saw the fire go up.

TH: And who is this person? Do they want to remain anonymous? AF: Yes.

TH: Ok, I understand.

AF: Yeah, and he said it was like military precision when they would come up and then go back and he saw, you know, five to 10 people doing this. And many of the reports say that there were probably only five to ten people that did it. But I think they were able to talk students into being a part of it and thereby, you know, taking their role. Yeah.

TH: Yeah, that’s entrapment. I know we are speculating here, but do you think that that’s a possibility?

AF: I think so. The FBI report is very difficult to read. The copies are bad. But when you read the report, you will notice it doesn’t have the right hand margin in some of the documents and you’ve got to figure out what the words are. But this is my fifth time going through it. The first time I probably spent two hundred hours trying to figure out some of the things in the documents. In my opinion, there should be no reason to include records of the murdered students in the report. However, they talk within the first couple sections about the four students who were killed. It mentions that Bill Schroeder was a ROTC student and that he was thinking about or he was having some dissonance regarding the Vietnam War and thought about going to Canada. Now, back then, that was pretty sacrilegious, you know.

TH: Right. That was a crime at the time.

AF: Yeah.

TH: So they put this in the report to perhaps make it look as if it was acceptable to shoot the students?

AF: Exactly. That’s my feeling now. TH: And that’s in the FBI report?

AF: It’s in the FBI report. And there were two FBI reports. Well, they’re very similar. One is like one out of eight and it’s about twelve hundred pages. The other is one out of twenty two. So they’re divided up like that. But why would it even mention details about the students if you didn’t want to kind of blame them? Like Sandy Scheuer. I mean, I don’t think she was in any radical group. She was on her way to class when she was murdered. And it said, in the report, she would hang out with some of the radicals like the long hairs and the beards and stuff like that. Why would they even put that crap in there, you know?

TH: So it included information that was unnecessary?

AF: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. They have a story about Allison Krause going into one dorm. It says that this R.A. saw her come in and she had a bottle and she had to use the bathroom. And the R.A. said, I’m pretty sure that she went in there to pee in the bottle to spray it on people. I mean, they are making this crap up, you know?

TH: They’re smearing the victims.

AF: Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. When they are mentioned like that, when in my opinion, there’s no need to have that information in the report, I just see it as an effort to skew the narrative in a certain direction. In another 50 years, nobody’s going to know this information. They’re going to see, oh, well, you know, they all deserved to be shot. It’s garbage. It’s really garbage. So there are times when I thought either the FBI report was written in a genius manner or it was just a total screw up just because of some of the information that’s in there. So just reading through it critically and considering what they have put in there, it makes me wonder. And I don’t think it’s going to be solved until everything is unredacted.

TH: Ok. Let’s shift our focus to what took place on and around May 4th. If you can please continue to share your experience.

AF: Ok, Sunday May 3, I was not on campus. My dad was with the faculty marshals though. And at that time, I was a jock on the swim team, and a lot of jocks and frat guys were against these radicals. So I was having lunch with a friend of mine in the Student Center. After lunch, I jokingly said to him, let’s go beat up some hippies. And I ran into him a couple years ago and he said, yeah, back then we never beat up anybody, you know, we just didn’t do it. And that’s what I was joking about it.

TH: So you were more conservative?

AF: Oh, yeah, I was. I was conservative.

TH: So you were not someone who was out there protesting?

AF: I went up there on May 4th, quote, to make sure that nobody hurt the Guard. I don’t know what I would have done. I don’t know if I could have done anything, but it was such a joke. And so we walked up and stood behind the couple hundred people that were down below by the victory bell. The Guard enforced Governor’s Rhodes decision that no rallies were to be allowed. After tensions escalated, the Guard shot off tear gas. I went into Johnson Hall because I had stayed there as a swimming recruit. And so I had a connection with Johnson Hall and came out after they had gone up over the hill. And then they walked down to the practice football field.

And it was such a circus, you know, nobody was close enough to them (the National Guard). All these guardsmen say, oh, yeah, we were getting pelted by rocks. And somebody said the sky was black with rocks. It’s bullshit. And it’s the lies that are put in that FBI report that really bothered me and the BCI report, the Bureau of Criminal Investigation report. There are just so many pieces of information that are in these reports that make one think that all of these guys got what they deserved. I read in James Michener’s book, “Kent State: What Happened and why,” that a very good former baseball player went down to the site of the shooting, placed himself where one of the students was and tried to hurl a rock toward where the Guard was. And he said, you’d have to be Joe DiMaggio to be able to to hit anybody. Even the General picked up a rock and threw it back at kids. General Canterbury talked later about how he and his friend, Sylvester Del Corso, did this. General Canterbury and Del Corso said, yeah, we had a fun time this weekend throwing rocks back at these demonstrators. It’s totally, totally inappropriate and totally unprofessional. But this guy, General Canterbury, kind of bragged that he messed with the students.

And the number of people that had been bayonetted is higher than I had realized. One black guy was in a car bringing his girlfriend back to campus, and the guardsmen went through an open window and bayoneted him. And another woman got hit in the buttocks because she was trying to get into the window of the library.

 

Letter from Civil Rights Divison Attorney John C. Hoyle concerning a guardsmen stabbing a girl with a bayonet. September 24, 1973.

So what the guard was doing was just totally inappropriate, which I didn’t realize at the time because it took years for this to come out. But back to Monday May 4, we get up on campus and we’re watching the circus back and forth. Now some people called it a tennis match because it was just so ridiculous. The guardsmen got down and they knelt and aimed their weapons especially towards Alan Canfora who had the black flag.

Alan Canfora waving the back flag before the National Guard on May 4, 1970. Taken by John Filo.

After about 10 minutes on the field, they started to walk back up. There’s a lot of people who were just observers on the Hill. Ten to 20 people, maybe, were throwing things. I don’t remember anybody getting hit at that time. However, as the guard is coming back up, the guardsmen report that they (the protestors) were within six inches of their bayonets and that they had to shoot in order to protect themselves. And the pictures didn’t come out initially so they had the ability to make up what was really going on.

TH: They initially said that protestors were six feet from their bayonets?

AF: Inches. Six inches from their bayonets.

TH: Well, that is definitely not corroborated by the photographic evidence.

AF: Right, exactly. So who in their right mind would even get near somebody with a bayonet? Come on. This buddy of mine from the swim team and I are walking up the hill probably 50 to 75 feet in front of the guard. We were some of the closest people there and there was no sense of danger. There were no rocks being thrown at that time that I saw, even though, people say, oh, I got hit in the stomach with a rock, I got hit in the testicles with a rock, etc.

But I felt absolutely no danger. I said to my buddy Al, shouldn’t we be walking faster? And he said, what are they going to do, shoot? And I thought, how could I be so stupid to even think that? I was embarrassed for about 15 seconds. And as we walked up, The Guard turned in unison and started firing. And we were like, whoa! And so we ran to Johnson Hall because that’s where I luckily had a connection.

Otherwise, I might have gone down near Taylor Hall where a few other people were. The photographs don’t show that at all. So we run from the top of the hill near the pagoda down into the bathroom. Meanwhile, the firing is still going on and it was like the longest 13 seconds of my life. And we’re in there (the bathroom) and we’re laughing and saying they’re shooting blanks, they’re trying to scare us, etc. The National Guard then went down the hill, and we came out the bathroom window. And I hear this guy screaming, “They killed them! They killed them!” And in my in my mind I’m thinking, what? No way. And so we came out and there’s a picture of me just kind of looking over the scene. And I walked down to where Jeffrey Miller was and Mary Ann Vecchio, the fourteen year old runaway, was by him.

John Filo/Getty Images

So I was right there when John Filo was taking these shots. And I was in shock because I could not make a connection that there was any reason for the Guard to fire at that time. Several of the guardsmen have said that it was not a shooting situation and they didn’t feel like they were in danger. While other guardsmen said that the protestors were so close to them that they were afraid their weapons would be taken off of them by the demonstrators. Well, between Johnson Hall and Taylor Hall there was an opening pathway. They could have gone down there if they wanted to. They said a surge came up with the rocks and there was yelling. But I don’t remember any of that. I remember the shooting, and it was so totally inappropriate.

TH: Initially, when you heard the gunshots, what was going through your head at the time?

AF: We thought they were shooting blanks in an attempt to scare people. But we ran into Johnson Hall and came back out, it was like, wait a second, what is happening? This is so inappropriate and so was what came after that. One guard captain said that he had walked over to Jeffrey Miller’s body and found a pistol on him, which is totally bullshit. The Guard eventually claimed that he said he turned it into the FBI about a month and a half to two months afterwards. The FBI looked at the pistol and noticed the initials on the pistol were SNY. And the man who turned in the pistol, his name was Snyder. And it was a drop pistol. It was a pistol that was, I think, an 1850 pin fire revolver, which they don’t make ammunition for anymore. Snyder had said he was in C company between Taylor and Prentice Hall. He said that he watched Jeff Miller running back and forth with a pistol saying, “kill, kill, kill.” I mean, come on. And then people really went nuts and they found out that he (Snyder) was lying to the grand jury and everybody else. Yet nothing was ever done. Nothing was ever done.

TH: And who is this Snyder? What is his full name?

AF: Captain Ron (nickname) “Cyanide” Snyder. That’s what his nickname was to his–

TH: And what was his role?

AF: He was one of the people who was apparently making decisions on what the Guard should be doing at that time. So you know, we’re friends on Facebook. We’ve talked, and I’ve asked him certain questions. But it just bothers me that he was caught lying at least a couple of times and nothing was ever done about it.

TH: So he lied that there was a gun found on Jeffrey Miller?

AF: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And the FBI said, you know, the initials SNY make us doubt that–

TH: So the initials on the gun were SNY?

AF: SNY. Snyder is his name. s-n-y-d-e-r.

TH: So we can’t be sure of this right now, but it seems as if that gun was his and he placed it there?

AF: Well, it probably wasn’t even there. I believe he had it at home. You know, he had said that he turned it into the FBI a month and a half or two months later when he said they were going to charge the Guardsman with something. And so he said, well, I’ve got the perfect solution, we’ve got this gun here. And it’s just to show that these so-called radical students had weapons and therefore, the Guard was justified. But this was not true.

 

Memorandum from Attorney John C. Hoyle concerning Capt. Snyder’s allegation that he took the gun off of the body of victim Jeffrey Miller. September 25, 1973.

TH: Oh that’s beyond corrupt.

AF: Oh yeah. Yeah. There are so many stories about just inappropriate things that the Guard did, and it just bothers me. It just bothers me terribly. And the FBI report continues to allow people to believe a certain narrative. On Saturday night, May 2, when the fire truck came to put out the fire, the people that were supposedly the radicals ran up and took the fire hoses slashed them with machetes and icepicks. My dad was given a part of the FBI report that wasn’t really the FBI report, but it was all the physical evidence, at the very end it says that these items were in Seabury Ford’s office. And this brings me to another point. Seabury Ford was the prosecuting attorney who had been with 107th Cavalry and came out with a story in October saying they should have shot them all. And he said he keeps a loaded .45 in his desk, but that’s a different story. And that’s when my father said, wait a second, you know, we’re under a gag order but this guy can say whatever he wants?


(Note from the author: The investigation and gag order is addressed later in the interview)


So my dad defied the judge to arrest him. He said, I defy Judge Jones to arrest me because my dad knew if he was arrested that they would also have to arrest Seabury Ford. And like I said, that’s another story. But anyways, somebody was given a three foot piece of fire hose, a .32 caliber pistol and a machete. And you wouldn’t give these items back to radical students. So who has them? And that was redacted at the very end of the report.

First and page of the report obtained by Glenn Frank that includes the evidence. The document shows weapons including a blue steel .32 caliber revolver, one section of a fire hose and one machete style knife was returned to individuals whose identities are redacted.

TH: So they gave these materials back to so-called radical students?

AF: Well, they gave it to somebody. I can’t say that it was radicals. Well, I’m sure it wasn’t radical students, because if there was any way to indicate that they deserved what they got by being in possession of these items, they would have made it public. But I think somebody in charge got these things as mementos. One thing Ron Snyder said to me was, I’m probably the only person that has a weapon that was up on campus that day. And I didn’t respond to that statement. But, yeah, he had brought several illegal weapons. He brought a .22 Beretta that he gave to Major Jones. In Michener’s book, Snyder was talking about Jeff Miller running back and forth and he said, I had just about decided to shoot him with my revolver. And my dad goes, wait a second, would a captain in the guard refer to their sidearm .45 as a revolver unless he had another illegal weapon? And so then Snyder and some of his guys walked over to Jeff Miller’s body.

Somebody tried to “toe” him over the Guard (use boot to toe him over) and people went nuts. I mean there was blood just flowing down the asphalt. According to Michener, Snyder had gone over to there to make sure he was dead. Now, my dad said if you weren’t part of the shooting, wouldn’t you go over there to make sure he was alive?

TH: That is a great question. It doesn’t add up. But I wanted to ask you about your dad, Glenn Frank. And his role in all of this? Because he had a significant role on May 4, 1970, and is credited with saving many, many lives.

AF: Absolutely. Absolutely. On that day, my dad came out of the Student Center and got in an ambulance. When he jumped into the ambulance, he just said, that’s it, take me up there. And it shows them going up near Taylor Hall in this ambulance. And at the time, I was wandering around in a daze, I’m sure. And once he got there, I walked up to him and he pointed his finger at me and he goes, “you get the hell out of here.”

TH: Your dad said this to you?

AF: My dad. Yeah.

TH: How did you feel at the moment?

AF: I knew I wasn’t going to get out of there because what I had just seen was murder. You know, there’s just absolutely no way.

TH: Were you there when your dad told the students to leave and that this wouldn’t end well?

AF: Yes. Yeah.

TH: Tell me about that moment.

AF: There were probably 1,000 students who were there including jocks and fraternity guys and other people who had showed up just because of what had happened. And so I sat down and many, many other people sat down. And my dad and I never talked about this, but I’ve always wondered what would I do if I thought my son might be in a situation where within five minutes he could be in a shooting situation. And just one bullet into a crowd would probably go through at least six, seven, eight people. So it would have been a slaughter. And my dad even mentioned that in his speech. But I was not going to move. I remember him coming back and forth between The Guard and the students and some of the other faculty.

And I thought, this guy is going to try to get me to move and I’m not moving. I made my decision. I just saw murders take place. And this was the only thing I felt that I could do to protest. But when he said what he said and then he ended with “Jesus Christ, I don’t want to be a part of this,” it was shocking. It was such an incredible moment. Jerry Lewis, a sociology professor, said it was like a prayer, an anguished plea. And people heard my dad’s words and we all just started to stand up and walk away.

And I saw Dad and he had his head down and he was kneeling on the ground. He was crying. And I thought somebody had hit him in the head with a rock. That’s all I could think of. And a friend and I walked him over to the tennis courts just to get away from The Guard. But yes, he saved hundreds of lives that day. No question. And I was one of them, you know, because I was not going to listen to him. I was not going to move.

TH: Your dad had dedicated so much of his life to investigating exactly what had happened on that day. Can you talk about why your dad was so passionate about getting to the truth?

AF: One of the things that my dad said was that he was so high on America. And he would do whatever it took to find it out what really happened. He was in the Marines, he was a scout leader and he was a Boy Scout. He was pretty conservative, which is where I’m sure I got my views from at the time. And the more that he looked into it (what happened on and around May 4, 1970, the more he said, “my country doesn’t do this, my country doesn’t do this.” I’m sure he felt that the country was constitutionally wonderful, and he just he could not believe that this happened.

TH: Do you think it changed his faith in the system and in the intelligence community?

AF: Yeah, yeah. He was able to contact people in the CIA. He got access to the quote secret police files. He had friends all over and they were pretty much conservative, law abiding people. He was in the Fraternal Order of the police. He had the ability to talk to anybody about anything and was able to add a different perspective. And he said, I’ve always felt that I need to know my perspective and I need to know the other perspective as well so I can to be able to to discuss a situation. But I don’t know if he ever had good access to the FBI report. But I came across a couple files within the last month or so that were just sitting up in my attic. And he had so many files on so many people. I mean, if he talked to somebody about Kent State, he would make a file. With regard to the gag order from October, when the prosecuting attorney said they should have shot all students, somebody started a petition drive to support my dad. And there were like 5-6,000 signatures in this one file. So there was so much support for him. But he was finally arrested, I think on the last day of probably spring quarter. And he announced it to his class that if somebody comes in everything’s fine.

TH: And what exactly was he arrested for?

AF: He was arrested for breaking the gag rule.


Note:

In the fall of 1970, A Ravenna Grand Jury assembled to investigate the Kent State shootings. The court implemented a gag order, which prevented anyone involved in the investigation from speaking on the case. Seabury Ford, a special prosecutor overseeing the case, violated the gag order by speaking to the press, where he is quoted in an article saying, “National Guardsmen should have shot all the trouble-makers.” After seeing such a comment by one of the prosecutors, Glenn Frank spoke out in response, and both Frank and Ford were charged with contempt of court. However, following Frank’s arrest, he received a significant amount of support from his students. You can view news coverage of the incident and the letters of support here.


TH: Ok, let’s talk about the aftermath here and the investigation. Your dad was he skeptical of the official narrative, right?

AF: Eventually, he was. I think initially he felt ok this is what it appears to be. He talked to certain professors that had maybe more of a radical viewpoint, and they gave him enough information that he started to question the official findings. And eventually he testified in front of the Scranton Commission. And the Scranton Commission essentially said that they felt that the guardsman had fabricated their side of the story. He felt that they got together and said that no this isn’t what happened. And the more information he was able to obtain, the more he questioned some of the things that people, not the government necessarily, but people were claiming. So it was just such a painful event. He and I never ever really talked about it.

TH: You never really talked about it?

AF: No. Oh, no, no. I mean, I remember one time one of the police officers had mentioned to him that he was on a hit list–


Caption: First and page of the report obtained by Glenn Frank that includes the evidence. The document shows weapons including a blue steel .32 caliber revolver, one section of a fire hose and one machete style knife was returned to individuals whose identities are redacted.


TH: So they gave these materials back to so-called radical students?

AF: Well, they gave it to somebody. I can’t say that it was radicals. Well, I’m sure it wasn’t radical students, because if there was any way to indicate that they deserved what they got by being in possession of these items, they would have made it public. But I think somebody in charge got these things as mementos. One thing Ron Snyder said to me was, I’m probably the only person that has a weapon that was up on campus that day. And I didn’t respond to that statement. But, yeah, he had brought several illegal weapons. He brought a .22 Beretta that he gave to Major Jones. In Michener’s book, Snyder was talking about Jeff Miller running back and forth and he said, I had just about decided to shoot him with my revolver. And my dad goes, wait a second, would a captain in the guard refer to their sidearm .45 as a revolver unless he had another illegal weapon? And so then Snyder and some of his guys walked over to Jeff Miller’s body.

Somebody tried to “toe” him over the Guard (use boot to toe him over) and people went nuts. I mean there was blood just flowing down the asphalt. According to Michener, Snyder had gone over to there to make sure he was dead. Now, my dad said if you weren’t part of the shooting, wouldn’t you go over there to make sure he was alive?

TH: That is a great question. It doesn’t add up. But I wanted to ask you about your dad, Glenn Frank. And his role in all of this? Because he had a significant role on May 4, 1970, and is credited with saving many, many lives.

AF: Absolutely. Absolutely. On that day, my dad came out of the Student Center and got in an ambulance. When he jumped into the ambulance, he just said, that’s it, take me up there. And it shows them going up near Taylor Hall in this ambulance. And at the time, I was wandering around in a daze, I’m sure. And once he got there, I walked up to him and he pointed his finger at me and he goes, “you get the hell out of here.”

TH: Your dad said this to you?

AF: My dad. Yeah.

TH: How did you feel at the moment?

AF: I knew I wasn’t going to get out of there because what I had just seen was murder. You know, there’s just absolutely no way.

TH: Were you there when your dad told the students to leave and that this wouldn’t end well?

AF: Yes. Yeah.

TH: Tell me about that moment.

AF: There were probably 1,000 students who were there including jocks and fraternity guys and other people who had showed up just because of what had happened. And so I sat down and many, many other people sat down. And my dad and I never talked about this, but I’ve always wondered what would I do if I thought my son might be in a situation where within five minutes he could be in a shooting situation. And just one bullet into a crowd would probably go through at least six, seven, eight people. So it would have been a slaughter. And my dad even mentioned that in his speech. But I was not going to move. I remember him coming back and forth between The Guard and the students and some of the other faculty. And I thought, this guy is going to try to get me to move and I’m not moving. I made my decision. I just saw murders take place. And this was the only thing I felt that I could do to protest. But when he said what he said and then he ended with “Jesus Christ, I don’t want to be a part of this,” it was shocking. It was such an incredible moment. Jerry Lewis, a sociology professor, said it was like a prayer, an anguished plea. And people heard my dad’s words and we all just started to stand up and walk away. And I saw Dad and he had his head down and he was kneeling on the ground. He was crying. And I thought somebody had hit him in the head with a rock. That’s all I could think of. And a friend and I walked him over to the tennis courts just to get away from The Guard. But yes, he saved hundreds of lives that day. No question. And I was one of them, you know, because I was not going to listen to him. I was not going to move.

TH: Your dad had dedicated so much of his life to investigating exactly what had happened on that day. Can you talk about why your dad was so passionate about getting to the truth?

AF: One of the things that my dad said was that he was so high on America. And he would do whatever it took to find it out what really happened. He was in the Marines, he was a scout leader and he was a Boy Scout. He was pretty conservative, which is where I’m sure I got my views from at the time. And the more that he looked into it (what happened on and around May 4, 1970, the more he said, “my country doesn’t do this, my country doesn’t do this.” I’m sure he felt that the country was constitutionally wonderful, and he just he could not believe that this happened.

TH: Do you think it changed his faith in the system and in the intelligence community?

AF: Yeah, yeah. He was able to contact people in the CIA. He got access to the quote secret police files. He had friends all over and they were pretty much conservative, law abiding people. He was in the Fraternal Order of the police. He had the ability to talk to anybody about anything and was able to add a different perspective. And he said, I’ve always felt that I need to know my perspective and I need to know the other perspective as well so I can to be able to to discuss a situation. But I don’t know if he ever had good access to the FBI report. But I came across a couple files within the last month or so that were just sitting up in my attic. And he had so many files on so many people. I mean, if he talked to somebody about Kent State, he would make a file. With regard to the gag order from October, when the prosecuting attorney said they should have shot all students, somebody started a petition drive to support my dad. And there were like 5-6,000 signatures in this one file. So there was so much support for him. But he was finally arrested, I think on the last day of probably spring quarter. And he announced it to his class that if somebody comes in everything’s fine.

TH: And what exactly was he arrested for?

AF: He was arrested for breaking the gag rule.


Note:

In the fall of 1970, A Ravenna Grand Jury assembled to investigate the Kent State shootings. The court implemented a gag order, which prevented anyone involved in the investigation from speaking on the case. Seabury Ford, a special prosecutor overseeing the case, violated the gag order by speaking to the press, where he is quoted in an article saying, “National Guardsmen should have shot all the trouble-makers.” After seeing such a comment by one of the prosecutors, Glenn Frank spoke out in response, and both Frank and Ford were charged with contempt of court. However, following Frank’s arrest, he received a significant amount of support from his students. You can view news coverage of the incident and the letters of support here.


TH: Ok, let’s talk about the aftermath here and the investigation. Your dad was he skeptical of the official narrative, right?

AF: Eventually, he was. I think initially he felt ok this is what it appears to be. He talked to certain professors that had maybe more of a radical viewpoint, and they gave him enough information that he started to question the official findings. And eventually he testified in front of the Scranton Commission. And the Scranton Commission essentially said that they felt that the guardsman had fabricated their side of the story. He felt that they got together and said that no this isn’t what happened. And the more information he was able to obtain, the more he questioned some of the things that people, not the government necessarily, but people were claiming. So it was just such a painful event. He and I never ever really talked about it.

TH: You never really talked about it?

AF: No. Oh, no, no. I mean, I remember one time one of the police officers had mentioned to him that he was on a hit list–

TH: Wait. What kind of hit list?

(See attached photo evidence for more details)

AF: A hit list, an assassination list. He was told by a person that he was on two assassination lists. President White was on two or three and he said he was only on one. And it was almost like this person was sharing this information with my dad and my dad’s thinking, why the hell would I be on any of them? You know? So anyhow, finally, my dad said to the guy, are you CIA? And the guy just kind of stopped. And he said, well, no, but we’ve had a long relationship.

TH: Well what does that mean?

AF: Exactly. Exactly!

TH: This man told your dad that he was was on an assassination list?

AF: Yes and so did one of the police chiefs as well as one of the people with the Mod Squad.

TH: And who is this person? Do you know?

AF: His name is Barclay McMillen. (McMillen was a professor at Kent State at the time) And he wrote some things about what was happening. I don’t know what his official position really was. But the CIA had another program way back when where they were recruiting or getting people from the CIA to be involved in university positions.

TH: So there was a CIA program to infiltrate the universities?

AF: Yeah, yeah. So it was not just the radical student organizations which they tried to infiltrate create problems when there were no problems. I shared this with Alan Canfora before he died and that this guy was a DEA agent.

 

 

Memorandum from Acting Administrator of the DEA John R. Bartels, Jr. to J. Stanely Pottinger the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division requesting information on DEA agents who were present on the Kent State campus on May 4, 1970. Ron Mohr is written on the document. October 9, 1973.

 

And you don’t know if these people are CIA or exactly what because the CIA has had the ability to put people in certain positions where you didn’t know that they were really CIA. I mean, I’ve heard that once a spook, always a spook. And so with this particular guy, in 1972, he went to the Vietnam vets–

TH: What is his name? Who is he? 

AF: His name is Ron Reinhold Mohr. And Reinhold Mohr told people at the VVAW, Vietnam Vets Against the War, that they should kill some pigs. And they said, really? He said he had an automatic AK-47 and a grenade launcher. And they said, oh, gosh, you know, why don’t you bring them over so we can take a look at them? In the meantime, they contacted the Kent Police, the city police, and they said we got this nut case that’s saying that we should kill pigs. And one of the people that he had talked about was a guy named Willie. Willie was a big, heavyset black guy who is the most wonderful person. I mean, if anybody ever hurt him, whether it was radicals or whatever, they would have been wiped out. The students would be angry because Willie was just a wonderful person.

So he (Mohr) suggested that Willie should have been killed. And so anyhow, they contacted the Kent City Police and they (VVAW) arranged for this guy to come over and show them the weapons. There was the AK-47, you know, an automatic weapon. And many times you’ve got a gas port and there was a little tiny hole drilled into the gas port. So on this weapon you had to continue to pull the trigger. You couldn’t just pull the trigger and then shoot automatically. And so what happened was the police came in, they busted the guy and took him down to the police station. And they get a call from the Kent State University police saying you just busted our number one undercover agent. 

TH: Is there any proof of documentation of this? 

(See attached documents) 

AF: I’ve got reports from a guy by the name of Mike White who writes about it. Another guy by the name of Alan Morris who was with the VVAW at that time. So a lot of people have talked about this. Then they eventually let him go since it was an automatic weapon and a grenade launcher despite that it was illegal.

I think they were made illegal in the 68′ if I’m not correct. But anyhow the ATF had to be called in, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms because this is illegal. And so they came in and they examined the weapons and they said, well, the AK-47 had a little hole drilled into the gas chamber and the VVAW said it would take one little tiny spot weld and it would be fully automatic because it’s the guts inside that make it an automatic, either semiautomatic or automatic.

So they said that it wasn’t really automatic and they said there were no gas containers for the grenade launcher or no grenades with the grenade launcher. You know, this is bullshit. Anyhow, Reinhold Mohr eventually got sacked at the university, sued later, got his position back, plus all of his back pay. He sued the university to get his job back in his back pay and eventually was successful in doing that. 

 

 

Article from The Daily Kent Stater, April 26, 1972

TH: Really?

AF: Yeah. So, you know, the people that are pulling the strings will do it for what they feel is appropriate. But Reinhold Mohr, I saw his name on something that said he was a DEA agent. There were three DEA agents on campus at that time. And there was also a document that my dad got from the police. It was a list called the Mod Squad. And there are 32 people, students, whatever, or police that were on the Mod Squad. They were undercover. And Reinhold Mohr was one of the people, an agent provocateur, getting this stuff out there. 

 

William Bess, with the Kent State University police, correspondence to KSU President Robert Winkler with a list of the Mod Squad members. The list includes Reinhold Mohr. November 15, 1973.

I’m reminded of my dad trying to talk to Bob White about this. Bob White was the president of the university and he and Bob had a great relationship. A little side story– many years before, Bob White had announced to the faculty that tuition was not going to go up a certain quarter. So my dad got into the class and announced to the students that tuition is not going to go up next quarter. Well, then all of a sudden, Bob White said tuition is going to go up. And my dad was furious and he called up Bob. And Bob said, Glenn, now I want you to just wait for a moment. Wait five minutes, and if you still feel the same way, call me back. So my dad watched the clock to the second to call him back and told him what he thought. And as a result, tuition didn’t go up that year. I mean, there weren’t that many professors on campus at that time and a lot of people knew everybody else. But he wanted Bob to tell him what happened on May 4th. He would ask Bob and say, just tell me.

And Bob said, I cannot. And this was many years later. This is probably close to 20 years later. Bob gave my dad a letter saying I cannot comment on something that’s still actionable. So somebody is telling him, you say this and you’re going to get in trouble. And eventually Bob sent him a little letter saying, Glenn, you’re a good guy, a good man, and I’m sorry that you’re so– I can’t remember the exact word that he (Bob) used. But essentially, it said, I want to tell you that from my better than average point of view, there were crazies on all sides. And he said that’s more than two or three. I can’t remember exactly what was in the letter.

But I think he died with information that we need to know about. And from Bob, we will never, never hear it. So I think it’s going to take either people that were actively involved in this stuff to come forward. I think that the people that were redacted in the FBI report should come forward, but most of them are probably dead. And many people had never seen so many of these quote radicals before on campus. 

TH: It’s quite telling the FBI would redact the names and black out the faces of some so-called radicals but not others. I mean that cannot be common practice? 

AF: Yeah. It’s crazy. Isn’t that crazy? 

TH: It is. I mean, I can’t verify this but it seems a likely explanation is that these people were cops or informants working for the police. But I want to shift the focus back to your dad and the work he was involved with after the shootings. What was it like to see him research and dedicate so much of his time to determining what happened on May 4th, 1970? And also, did his perspective on the United States change after all of this? 

AF: I saw what it was doing to him. I saw that he was just so focused on getting whatever information that he could. And I would ask my dad why he was doing this. But I didn’t have the knowledge that he had. Had I had this knowledge, I would have been going, wow, are you kidding me? You know, this is incredible. So hopefully he had access to certain parts of the FBI report. I really don’t know. He died in 93′ so 23 years afterwards. But he didn’t care where the truth took him, he just wanted the truth to come out. He talked to governors and he talked to anyone who could give him information. 

TH: Did the official reports or initial media coverage of the May 4th shootings coincide with what you experienced on that day? 

AF: No, no. Well, to say that the Guard felt that they had to fire to extricate themselves doesn’t match with my experience. No way. I was one of the closest people to them. I would guess 50 to 75 feet away because we were walking just in front of them. But Joe Lewis, a protestor, was giving them the finger. Larry Shafer is the only guardsmen who admitted to shooting someone, and he shot Joe Lewis. And he said that this guy (Lewis) was approaching him. He (Shafer) said he couldn’t see what was in his left hand and in his right hand he was giving him the bird. Reports are that he was anywhere between 60 and 71 feet away when Shafer fired. Apparently, he shot him twice, once in the leg and once in the groin. And the story that I had heard was that he (Shafer) bragged about it. And a couple of people fired their shotguns. James Russell was hit by a shotgun around 350 feet away. Another friend of mine said that he was up on the railing at Taylor Hall, and there are a lot of people at Taylor Hall, but they fired down into the parking lot. The closest person was Jeffrey Miller who was 270 feet away. Sandy and Bill were, I think, 390 feet away when they were killed. And Allison was 330 feet away. So there’s absolutely no way that these people were a danger to anybody. 

TH: Exactly. 

AF: It’s almost like people who are being bullied, and they finally have a chance to get back at the bully. I just feel that many of the guardsmen felt, fuck you, you know, we’re going to show you. 

TH: I can see that. So taking a step back a little bit and looking at the broader picture, what does it tell you about the United States’ military industrial complex? I mean, these were students who were protesting the Vietnam War, and they have a right to do that. And meanwhile, the intelligence community is, and still to this day, putting a lot of funding, time, money and energy into these different programs to infiltrate these activist groups. What does it tell you about the importance of the United States’ war efforts? 

AF: There’s a person that I contacted within the last year or two, his name is Christopher Pyle. He was either a major or a captain in charge of army intelligence. And they had over a thousand agents that would infiltrate these different groups. 

TH: At what time was this? 

AF: He finally came out with this in April of 1970, and said we got to stop this. So just just before the shootings. It’s Christopher Pyle. He’s a professor at Mount Holyoke. I contacted him about the possibility that it could have been Army intelligence that burned the ROTC building. He didn’t think so because essentially that would be a good skill to have. Even though around the United States, several ROTC buildings were burned and one was in Tuscaloosa, AL, and that guy was an FBI agent. Some people say there were no provocateurs. Sorry. Every military agency has provocateurs infiltrate groups except possibly the Coast Guard. I don’t know. I’ve never seen anything with the Coast Guard. But Army, Air-Force, Marines and Navy all had these programs. And the purpose was to infiltrate these groups. And how many of those people are the ones who might try to turn up the heat just a little bit like Reinhold Mohr? How many people before that? There are so many stories about Central Intelligence having agents who were following Mark Rudd from, I think, Mark is at Colombia? 

TH: And he was with Weather Underground at the time. 

AF: Yes. You know, my buddy who said he had seen these five or 10 people on Saturday night burn down the ROTC building, he purposely stayed away on Monday because he didn’t trust what could happen. And he was right. 

TH: Now, I want to shift focus back on your dad and the work that he’s done.What was his perspective on, say, the United States after this had happened as well as the military and the intelligence agencies? 

AF: You know, deep down, I believe he just felt that we still have the greatest country in the world, but the things that certain people were doing was just totally inappropriate. 

TH: It’s been 51 years since the shootings, how has this impacted the Kent State community and what has the community done to commemorate the lives lost? 

AF: I’m fairly certain that the community wanted to let it go. I mean, even weeks later, people were saying, oh, come on, this is old news. I never knew that the quote radicals on campus were were bad enough that they would go up to the store owners and threaten them with burning their shops if they didn’t put either peace signs or “get out of Vietnam” signs on their windows. So my dad was like, ok, yeah, I understand where they were coming from. But essentially they’re believing the big lie, you know, and it’s a big lie. And it’s just so unfortunate. And for me, in this day and age, I think it’s going to be so important to recognize the mistakes that we’ve made and decide that we can’t continue to do this or else we’re going to get more people breaking into The Capitol, etc. We can’t afford to continue the way we’re going. 

TH: Can you be a little more specific? 

AF: We can’t continue to have people create problems and then have those same people solve the problems that they created. So it bothers me. And I still believe this is one of the greatest countries, but we have screwed so many things up. It’s the individuals. It’s the individuals that think that they’re above the law and who are doing things that are just totally inappropriate. 

TH: You have been very involved in the Kent State May 4th community and keeping the memory going. How has that process been over the past 50 years? 

AF: Well, relating back to the town and gown relationships, it used to be terrible. It was terrible. And I see people that are trying to pull everyone together. I’ve also seen the people that still believe that they should have shot more students or all students on that day. But they may not know some of the things that actually happened to get us to that point. As I said, why would you even have something in an FBI report about people who were murdered that demonizes them? You’re going after the victim again. And I just want to be able to trust what people say initially. Maybe it’s my naiveté, but initially I want to believe what people are doing until I find out, wait a minute, yeah, that’s not true. But that’s not even close. 

TH: What has it been like organizing events with others who were also present on that day? Is there a group of people from your generation who are keeping this going? 

AF: Yeah, myself and three or four other people were trying to give support to the May 4th Task Force. And I used to tell Alan (Canfora) all the time, thank you for doing what you do because I wasn’t physically capable of doing it. I continue to have chronic pain. And there are times that I can’t do it, but there are times I can’t not do it. It’s too important. And I even talked to Seymour Hersh. He said to me, why are you looking into this? There were so many other things that were going on. Hersh also told me that Kent State offered him a lot of money to come and speak at the 50th anniversary. And I said, well, just come to my house and stay, you’ll have a much better time just hanging out than you will with the university people. He sees so many things and he has information about so many activities that he just felt it was just ill-trained guards. 

TH: Sy Hersh? Really? 

AF: Yeah. 

TH: When was this? When did you last speak with him?

AF: Oh, within I say, I was trying to think if it was before Covid. It was within the past few years or so. 

TH: We, of course, today still have many protests in the United States. But what are your thoughts on how protests and organizing today has changed compared to back in 1970. 

AF: I think one of the most important things is that everybody walks around with a camera, essentially. And they can film the actual things that are occurring, such as the George Floyd killing. Had we believed what was in the initial report that George Floyd had a medical emergency is nothing compared to the filming of the actual event. And yet we had a lot of people that were photographers taking pictures that day (May 4th 1970). A lot of the things that haven’t come out, as far as I’m aware, you know, there just thousands of pictures from that day.

I’m not sure about anybody else, but for me, I’m always aware that I never want to say something that I wouldn’t want the entire world to know about me. And with Derek Chauvin, I don’t know that he could have possibly thought the inappropriateness of his restraint with George Floyd would not be public. How was it that he didn’t think somebody’s going to come back and show this unless he just felt that, you know, police had immunity? 

TH: So lastly, is there anything else you want to add? Anything else you would like to say about your dad and his legacy? 

AF: Yeah. My dad would be the last person to ever think that he was a hero that day. But he was. He absolutely was. And some people have seen the 1981 docudrama of him, and the person who portrayed him is nothing at all like him. This guy was a homer milquetoast. And my dad would do whatever he needed to do. Like when we all sat down in front of the Guard and he basically said “if you’re going to shoot somebody, shoot me.” He ran up as Major Jones was coming down the hill with a whole line of guardsmen. And unfortunately, a friend that helped with this video that’s on the website absconded with this film. And in 25 years, I finally found out that he’s around this area. But essentially it shows my dad running up to Major Jones. And Major Jones said, I have my orders and my dad said over my dead body. And that’s when Jones threw his baton down and they stopped. And my dad meant it what he said. He absolutely meant it– if you’re going to kill somebody, kill me. 

TH: Very heroic.

AF: Yeah.

TH: Alan Frank, thank you for your time and for sharing your story with me today. 

**

The events of May 4, 1970, have left a generation with considerable pain, frustration and a yearning for answers. Professor Glenn Frank’s heroic actions saved hundreds of lives that day, positively changing the course of history. He further served the Kent State community with his 20 years of research into the events surrounding that devastating spring day. May the revisiting of his unparalleled work and research bring us closer to the truth. And in the words of the 1994 tribute to the award-winning professor, “Let his quest for the truth continue!”  

“I can’t understand this reluctance to tell the truth unless there is something to hide. If, on the other hand, the truth has been presented, why does the evidence seem to conflict with public perceptions?” — Glenn Frank

*

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.


Annex

Glenn Frank’s handwritten notes during his phone call with Police Officer Bob Winkler on September 22, 1989, from 9:30 to 12:00:

Glenn Frank’s handwritten notes during his phone call with KSU professor Barclay McMillen on Friday November 24, 1989 at 2pm (1 hour phone call):

Glenn Frank’s handwritten notes during a second phone call he received from professor Barclay McMillen on Saturday December 24, 1989, at 10am.

According to Glenn Frank’s written notes from his communications with Police Officer Bob Winkler and with Professor Barclay McMillen, both men corroborate the claim that a hit list in relation to the events of May 4, 1970, was created.

The hit list, according to Glenn’s notes, is said to include (himself) Glenn W. Frank and Kent State University President Robert White. While this cannot be proven at this point in time, if such claims were to be true, it suggests the creators of the hit list wanted to keep the truth of May 4th a secret from the public.

*

Memorandum from October 5, 1973. J. Stanley Pottinger Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division letter to Robert A. Murphy Chief of Criminal Section.

The letter states that Joseph Rhodes, the Governor of Ohio at the time, who ordered the National Guard to Kent State University on May 3, 1970, has been quoted in the past saying “that two guardsmen had gone to Kent State with the intent to shoot at students and that the FBI knew who they were.”

Intelligence Unit Report. The document includes additional information including “At 12:09 on Monday, May 3, 1971, one unidentified female receptionist at Beall-McDowell Hall, contacted this office. Just prior to the call she overheard NBC newsmen state that if trouble did not occur at Kent State University, they would have to create some.” The document was signed by Detective Charles H. Siemer.

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.

Taylor Hudak, MA, is an independent journalist covering human rights abuses in the West, the corruption of the intelligence community and whistleblowing. Taylor’s work can be found on acTVism Munich, YouTube and The Last American Vagabond.  

Covid-19: Fifteen Important Concepts

May 10th, 2021 by Dr. Meryl Nass

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

These are the facts concerning Covid-19 and the vaccine

1.  Covid-19 is a nasty disease when allowed to progress for more than a week, untreated, and develop into an autoimmune illness.

2.  It is highly contagious.

3.  In some parts of the country (not Maine) 80% herd immunity has already been reached, based on antibody levels.  Eventually we will reach this too, and then everyone will breathe a sigh of relief.

4.  It appears that the adenovirus vectored DNA vaccines are about to be scuttled, due to high rates of bleeding (3% in Norway) and clotting (rate uncertain). Platelet activation was a known complication of adenovirus vaccines since at least 2007.

5.  The mRNA vaccines were authorized by the FDA using poorly designed studies whose goal was to get them to market as quickly as possible.  They cause higher rates of short-term reactions than any other licensed US vaccines.  No one knows what kinds of long-term reactions they may cause, nor how often.

6.  They were tested to see if they prevented mild disease.  We still don’t know to what extent they prevent severe disease, nor to what extent they prevent asymptomatic spread.

7.  It is almost impossible to receive any type of compensation if you are injured by an Emergency Use Authorized product, including all Covid vaccines and some new Covid drugs, as everyone involved with them has been given a waiver of liability, so you cannot sue anyone. The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program was created as an alternative, but so far, this program has turned away over 90% of applicants.  There is a one-year statute of limitations.

 Now for the good news. Treatment

8. Most people with severe cases of Covid had low levels of Vitamin D, and multiple comorbidities.  Unless you work outside all day, everyone should be supplementing with this vitamin and should consider checking a blood level.

9.  Multiple old, licensed, generic medications work wonders against Covid. The best one is ivermectin, which has been shown to reduce both deaths and hospitalizations by 80% when used early. Had it been used routinely in the US, up to 400,000 of the 500,000 deaths might have been prevented. There are now 50 studies supporting its use.  All are positive.  And it’s very safe.

10.  Many other old drugs are also beneficial, and others are being tested and look very promising. It is remarkable what a wide range of repurposed drugs have activity against Covid, from antihistamines (H1 and H2 blockers), melatonin, Zinc, the chloroquine drugs, an antidepressant, an anti-estrogen, a gout drug and several more.

11.  The two most devastating complications of Covid are thrombosis and autoimmune cytokine storm.  A whole aspirin daily reduces thrombosis when Covid hits, and an inhaled or oral steroid reduces autoimmunity.  These are simple, safe measures.

12.  I have posted information about treatment on my blog, and have posted several other protocols from different groups of American doctors who treat Covid aggressively and early.  There are plenty of doctors who are able and willing to effectively treat Covid patients.

13.  Early treatment is key.  None of my patients have needed oxygen or hospitalization; none have died.  With early treatment you will almost always develop a robust immune response to all currently known Covid variants, which is something the vaccines are not able to provide.

14.  The most complete source of information on every common treatment for Covid is c19study.com, which updates constantly as studies are published.

15.  My colleagues said that dealing with Covid is a team sport.  Maybe.  But armed with knowledge, everyone can hit a home run when Covid comes calling.

16.  Dr. Peter McCullough, a distinguished cardiology professor at Baylor, has a 20 minute video on Covid that nobody should miss.  Watch below.

*

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid-19: Fifteen Important Concepts
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In an interview with Klartext podcast host, Uwe Alschner, frontline doctors Stephen Karanga and Dr. Wahome Ngare of the Catholic Doctors Association say early COVID treatment is highly effective and question whether vaccines—which they say are misnamed and should be called gene therapy—are necessary or safe.

They also say that the World Health Organization has a history of coming to Africa with questionable vaccines and explain why the WHO’s advisory telling patients testing positive for COVID to go home and take analgesics until they have problems breathing instead of immediately treating them with effective, re-purposed drugs, including hydroxychloroquine with zinc and Ivermectin, is wrong.

Watch the interview below.

*

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

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 light of the current COVID-related situation in India, Dr Anthony Fauci, the top US adviser on COVID, has called for India to implement a hard lockdown and for the mass roll-out of vaccines.

However, Fauci has no clue and no authority to lecture on what is good for India.

That is the view of journalist Ratna Chakraborty. Writing on the Empire Diaries website, she argues that the US is a rich nation, prints the world’s reserve currency, has robust financial coverage for the jobless and its population is spread out.

On the other hand, India is finance-strained, has a brittle economy that lives on the brink of disaster, does not have any financial coverage for the jobless, is densely populated and its people mostly live in congested clusters.

Given the government’s incompetence and the callousness demonstrated towards poorer sections of Indian society the first time around, Chakraborty says any new lockdown would again result in disaster. She adds that nothing has been learnt, with no attempt to upgrade the healthcare set-up nationwide.

It is worth recalling what renowned academic and activist Noam Chomsky said about India’s first lockdown.

During an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! back in May 2020, Chomsky said:

“… you can almost describe it as genocidal. Modi gave, I think, a four-hour warning before a total lockdown. That’s (affected) over a billion people. Some of them have nowhere to go.”

He added:

“People in the informal economy, which is a huge number of people, are just cast out. Go walk back to your village, which may be a thousand miles away. Die on the roadside. This is a huge catastrophe in the making…”

During the first lockdown in India, rural affairs commentator P Sainath painted a dreary picture of the impacts, not least the desperate plight of migrant workers, a shortage of cash to buy food and a potential shortage of food as farmers were unable to complete their harvests.

Sainath also reported the views of Dr. Sundararaman, a former executive director of the National Health Systems Resources Centre, who argued that there was a desperate need to:

“identify and act on the reverse migrations problem and the loss of livelihoods. Failing that, deaths from diseases that have long tormented mostly poor Indians could outstrip those brought about by the corona virus.”

Regardless of the destructive impact of the first lockdown in India and the questionable efficacy of lockdowns in terms of what they are supposed to achieve, another one would further push hundreds of millions towards poverty and hunger. It would merely fuel and accelerate the impoverishment caused by the first lockdown.

A new report prepared by the Centre for Sustainable Employment at Azim Premji University (APU) has highlighted how employment and income had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels even by late 2020.

The report, ‘State of Working India 2021 – One year of Covid-19’ highlights how almost half of formal salaried workers moved into the informal sector and that 230 million people fell below the national minimum wage poverty line.

Even before COVID, India was experiencing its longest economic slowdown since 1991 with weak employment generation, uneven development and a largely informal economy. A recent article by the Research Unit for Political Economy highlights the structural weaknesses of the economy and the often desperate plight of ordinary people.

The study also found that there was a loss in monthly earnings for all types of workers: 13% for casual workers, 18% for the self-employed, 17% for those with temporary salaries, 5% for the permanent salaried and 17% overall.

The poorest 25% of households borrowed 3.8 times their median income, as against 1.4 times for the top 25%. The study noted the implications for debt traps.

Six months later, it was also noted that food intake was still at lockdown levels for 20% of vulnerable households.

How bad is COVID?

Given this impact, before listening to prominent individuals with apparent conflicts of interest related to vaccine roll-outs (see the editorial in the British Medical Journal ‘Covid-19, Politicisation, Corruption, and Suppression of Science’), the current COVID-related situation in India must be contextualised. The sensationalism needs to be put to one side.

According to Yohan Tengra, a Mumbai-based political analyst and healthcare specialist, the true number of infection rates can only be known by testing symptomatic people who have tested positive with either a virus culture test or PCR test that uses 24 cycles or less.

The PCR test has been used as the gold standard for COVID cases around the world. But it has been sharply criticised for being inaccurate, inappropriate, for using cycles in excess of 40 (thereby inflating the numbers) and for producing ‘false positives’.

It seems that even the Swedish Ministry of Health now thinks that it is not fit for purpose:

“The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralised by the immune system and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious.”

We also need to be reminded what the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated about the PCR in December 2020. It is especially important to focus on PCR testing because these tests are the entire basis for restrictions and lockdowns (and vaccination); even when deaths were within normal annual ranges, ‘case’ levels were high and restrictions and ‘tiered lockdowns’ were still being imposed in places like the UK.

The following extract can be found on page 39 of the report from the CDC 2010-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

Perfectly healthy people are being tested and small often insignificant fragments of flu, common cold or some other virus can be detected. People are then labelled as a COVID ‘case’.

But that is not all. In their recent article ‘The Nuremberg Doctors Trial and Modern Medicine’s Panic Promotion of the FDA’s Experimental and Unapproved COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines’, Dr Gary G Kohls and Professor Michel Chossudovsky state that – with regard to the so-called ‘emergency use authorization’ (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines – it is now established and confirmed by the WHO (January 20, 2021) that the entire data base pertaining to tabulation of confirmed positive cases (RT-PCR test) (since early February 2020 in 193 member states of the UN) is invalid.

The two authors note that this flawed methodology cannot be used to confirm the existence of an emergency situation. EUA criterion is therefore not only invalid but illegal.

Furthermore, there is currently decent scientific evidence to indicate asymptomatic transmission may not be significant.

According to Tengra, the case numbers being reported in India are mainly asymptomatic cases. The directors of the All India Institute of Medical Science and the India Council of Medical Research both say that there are many more asymptomatic cases this time than in the so-called ‘first wave’.

As these ‘cases’ comprise most of India’s case numbers, we should therefore be questioning the data as well as the PCR tests being used to detect the virus.

Tengra says the case fatality rate for COVID-19 in India was over 3% last year but has now dropped to below 1.5%. The infection fatality rate is even lower, with serosurvey results showing them to be between 0.05% to 0.1%.

As has occurred in many other countries, Tengra notes the way that death certificate guidelines are structured in India makes it easy for someone to be labelled as a COVID death just based on a positive PCR test or general symptoms. It is therefore often difficult to say who has died from the virus and who has been misdiagnosed.

We should also bear in mind that respiratory diseases like TB and respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis leading to pneumonia are major killers in India. These conditions are severely aggravated by air pollution and often require oxygen which can be in short supply during air pollution crises in places like Delhi at this time of the year.

Therefore, the current harrowing scenes we see in the media might not necessarily be due to the lethality of the virus but by the numbers who are ending up in hospital.

Vaccines

If the pandemic narrative has been constructed on the house of (statistical) cards outlined thus far, then we should be questioning the need for a mass vaccination campaign, which could actually lead to aggravating the current situation.

This is not lost on Dr Geert Vanden Bossche, a virologist who has held positions at several vaccine companies, carrying out vaccine research and development. He has also been involved with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and has worked with the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI). Not an ‘anti-vaxxer’ in any sense of the term.

He offers insight into why it is quite possible that mass vaccine rollouts will actually lead to very disturbing levels of deaths directly related to COVID-19. Far from reducing the numbers and facilitating immunity, he anticipates ‘vaccine mitigated immune escape’.

Vanden Bossche warns that mass infection prevention and mass vaccination with Covid-19 vaccines in the midst of the pandemic can only breed highly infectious variants. He offers a truly worrying scenario. Of course, not everyone might agree with his analysis but it is certainly a cause for concern.

There is also the entire issue regarding the necessity, efficacy and safety of the vaccines now being rolled out. The group ‘Doctors for COVID Ethics’ has recently raised serious doubts in all of these areas (its concerns have been published on the UK-based OffGuardian website).

In finishing, there are two questions we should ask.

Can we have confidence in science and evidence-based health and social policy where COVID-19 is concerned? And can we just assume – as governments and the media imply we should – that Anthony Fauci and the pharmaceutical corporations have ordinary people’s interests at heart?

In response to the first question, not much. In response to the second, certain interests have been riding and fuelling a wave of sensationalism and duplicity throughout.

*

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.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge

Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth

May 10th, 2021 by Dr. Stephen Malthouse

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 Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth, which rebuts the recent unethical statement of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (Apr 30, 201), is now up on the internet. (posted on Global Research). We believe that this Declaration has global significance. 

In the Canadian province of Ontario, the regulatory medical College has publicly stated that doctors must now follow public health policy, even when it is harming patients, or face punishment. This issue is not only about the province of Ontario or even the physicians of Canada. It is an international concern regarding unethical overreach by authorities that affects the way doctors practice or fear to practice in all countries around the world. It does not allow us to put the welfare of our patients first.

The statement from the Ontario college essentially says “Do as you are told or you will be sanctioned as a doctor.”

In the current global environment of misinformation and coercion by powerful government and public health authorities, we cannot allow this statement to go unchallenged. If it can happen in Canada, it can happen in every country and already has in many.

We ask you, as our global medical brethren, to read our Declaration and sign it. When choosing who comes first — the patient or regulatory policy –, we are must stand shoulder-to-shoulder and united in our decision. It is the patient.

*

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  Inga – stock.adobe.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.

***

On the occasion of the 76th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany and the end of World War Two in Europe (Victory in Europe Day to much of the world), what since the 2014 coup in Ukraine has been celebrated as the Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation, President Volodymyr Zelensky visited a common gravesite where the remains of Ukrainian soldiers killed in that war are buried. He chose a war memorial in Lugansk – where his army is engaged in a seven-year war with the Lugansk People’s Republic.

His words spoke of peace; his appearance denoted something different. Accompanied by representatives of the European Union and the G7 (both groups have recently been subjected to fierce anti-Russian diatribes from NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, respectively), his address included this hardly opaque parallel:

“Today, like last year, I am in Luhansk region, in Milove district….Today, the Bell of Memory has appeared in this place. Each bell toll means that we will never forget what our ancestors did so that the next generations of Ukrainians could live freely on their land, in their state in peace and harmony.”

To drive the point home, he added the war against the Third Reich “was definitely not for…war to take our people’s lives 76 years later.” That is, eighty years later Nazi Germany 1941 = Russia 2021.

Regarding Russia, which he implied threatens Ukraine today as Germany did earlier, Zelensky also said that no nation has the right to “privatize victory in WWII.” What Russia celebrates as Victory Day for itself and all other former Soviet republics, Ukraine marks as the Day of Remembrance and Reconciliation exclusively for itself.

The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry also marked the day by commemorating the deaths of an estimated eight million Ukrainians.

Interfax-Ukraine‘s report of the Foreign Ministry statement (it’s not yet posted in English online) has the title “Ukraine today defends Europe, which emerged on ruins of World War II – Foreign Ministry.”

Part of the statement is paraphrased as “Despite the hope that war will never again come to the Ukrainian land, in 2014 Russia launched a military aggression against Ukraine and occupied part of the Ukrainian territory.”

Quoting directly, it shares this from the Foreign Ministry: “Today Ukraine defends not only itself, but the entire democratic Europe. The Europe that appeared on the ruins of World War II and is united by the main idea ‘Never Again.’” Lest the point be missed.

For those who have learned (or think they’ve learned) the history of the world’s deadliest war from viewing Steven Spielberg films or playing live-action video games, the last two words will clinch the deal.

Russia is the new Third Reich. Its president is the new Adolph Hitler. What Hillary Clinton said seven years ago in relation to Ukraine. The seeds of this revisionism were sown years ago. In one version, the one echoed today by the Ukrainian government, Ukraine was invaded by both Germany and Soviet Russia in the early 1940s, much as with Poland in 1939.

The dissemination of that claim aims to terrify citizens in the West with the dire prospect of Never Again becoming Once Again.

*

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

Canadians Sinking Under a Trillion Dollar Debt Tab

May 10th, 2021 by Franco Terrazzano

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

If you think the federal government’s so-called historic spending on a national child-care scheme is big, wait until you hear how much the government is spending to cover its debt interest costs.

In its 2021 budget, the Justin Trudeau government is promising to spend $30 billion over five years on a national child-care program. That’s a tonne of money considering we couldn’t afford it pre-pandemic.

But it’s still five times less than what the feds will have to pay in debt interest charges over that period, which will total $153 billion by 2026. That’s nearly $4,000 per Canadian. And instead of that money going towards health care or lower taxes, it’s going into the pockets of bond fund managers.

Assuming the feds can hold the line on budgeted spending – a generous assumption given the government’s track record – the deficit by the end of 2025 will still be $30 billion. The interest charges that year will be $39 billion. That means the borrowing to make up the budget gap couldn’t even cover the interest payments.

On top of this interest, taxpayers will have to eventually pay back the $1,000,000,000,000 – one trillion – debt tab.

It’s no wonder economists’ spidey senses are tingling from this debt-fueled spending spree.

The University of Calgary’s Jack Mintz noted that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland “is rolling the dice that never-ending deficits will be manageable.” Mintz added that “just a one-point increase in interest rates would then increase the annual deficit by close to $5 billion.”

In the few months since the fall economic statement was released, the private sector has revised its 10-year government bond rate forecast up about half a percentage point. What happens if low interest rates inch up?

Mintz isn’t the only expert raising concerns.

“Are we really going to make this assumption that interest rates are going to stay static for the next 10 or 20 years?” said David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Rosenberg Research, on BNN Bloomberg. “I just find so many people have short memories against what happened in the 1970s into the 1980s, and then all the tough choices and the hardship to get our fiscal situation back into some mode of stability.”

Former finance minister Paul Martin knows a thing or two about tough choices. After all, he cut government spending by about 10 per cent during his mission to erase the federal deficit in the 1990s. He also knows a thing or two about the dangers of debt binges.

“The debt and deficit are not inventions of ideology,” said Martin during his budget speech in 1995. “They are facts of arithmetic. The quicksand of compound interest is real.”

The provinces also learned their lesson the hard way.

“When [Ralph] Klein became premier, government debt daily snatched money away from patients and students due to escalating interest costs,” said government finance expert Mark Milke in his book Ralph vs. Rachel. “Between 1985 and 1993 in Alberta, the cost of interest on Alberta’s growing debt was $7.2 billion, equivalent to two full years of what the province spent on health care just a few years previous.”

Saskatchewan had to come to terms with its deficit addiction by enduring “a lot of pain,” according to former finance minister Janice MacKinnon who closed 52 hospitals across the prairie province.

“We left a fiscal situation in Saskatchewan until it was a crisis and so we had to make dramatic cuts to fundamental programs and raise taxes to get out of the situation,” said MacKinnon.

The moral of the story is that the best time to put out a fire is before it spreads. But by betting the house that interest rates will stay low forever and nearly doubling Canada’s debt in a few short years, Budget 2021 is adding fuel to the fire.

*

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.

Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

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.

***

Comrades, let it not be said the ministry of COVID compliance does not listen to the citizens.  After considering the bad optics of armbands, due to negative historic references, the government is allowing the private sector to create a modern method of compliance with vaccination protocols.

To enjoy your new freedom the COVID Ministry is working on QR Code wristbands to speed up the vaccination checkpoint scanning process.

The wristbands will be connected to a secure governmental database so you don’t have to worry about your travel habits being tracked, and the governmental contractors have promised they will not use the data to monitor citizens.  The government cares about you.

Your unique wristband may even come in a variety of colors so you can coordinate your outfits.

(CNN/Meredith) — New technology in the form of a wearable wristband could carry your COVID-19 vaccination card’s information and tell others around you that you’ve been fully vaccinated.

ImmunaBand is a blue silicone bracelet that has two purposes — first, it has a built-in QR code that carries your COVID-19 vaccination card’s information that can be used as a back-up for people who lose or misplace their CDC vaccination card. ImmunaBand’s second function is to show an outward display that a person has been fully vaccinated, thus making them safe to be near.

So how does it work? Wearers have to upload their vaccination cards for review before they can receive the band. The documentation is stored on a server compliant with medical privacy laws and the process is end-to-end encrypted, the company said in a news release.  The company makes two bands — one with just the QR code, and another with the QR code plus the wearer’s name and type of vaccine they received. The bands are both priced at $19.99. That code can be scanned with a smartphone to prove vaccination, the company said.  (read more)

Apparently a COVID vaccination card, a COVID vaccination passport, or a new COVID wristband are going to be needed as identification to enjoy the new freedom permitted by the state.  However, don’t even think about asking for election ID’s for voting…. because, well, that violates all kind of progressive needs.  Just sayin’.

*

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 Last Refuge

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.

***

76 years ago Germany surrendered to allied forces finally ending the ravages of the Second World War.

Today, as the world celebrates the anniversary of this victory, why not think very seriously about finally winning that war once and for all?

If you’re confused by this statement, then you might want to sit down and take a deep breath before reading on. Within the next 12 minutes, you will likely discover a disturbing fact which may frighten you a little bit: The allies never actually won World War II…

Now please don’t get me wrong. I am eternally thankful for the immortal souls who gave their lives to put down the fascist machine during those bleak years… but the fact is that a certain something wasn’t resolved on the 9th of May, 1945 which has a lot to do with the slow re-emergence of a new form of fascism during the second half of the 20th century and the renewed danger of a global bankers’ dictatorship which the world faces again today.

It is my contention that it is only when we find the courage to really look at this problem with sober eyes, that we will be able to truly honor our courageous forebears who devoted their lives to winning a peace for their children, grandchildren and humanity more broadly.

The Ugly Truth of WWII

I’ll stop beating around the Bush now and just say it: Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini were never “their own men”.

The machines they led were never fully under their sovereign control and the financing they used as fuel in their effort to dominate the world did not come from the Banks of Italy or Germany. The technologies they used in petrochemicals, rubber, and computing didn’t come from Germany or Italy, and the governing scientific ideology of eugenics that drove so many of the horrors of Germany’s racial purification practices never originated in the minds of German thinkers or from German institutions.

Were it not for a powerful network of financiers and industrialists of the 1920s-1940s with names such as Rockefeller, Warburg, Montague Norman, Osborn, Morgan, Harriman or Dulles, then it can safely be said that fascism would never have been possible as a “solution” to the economic woes of the post-WWI order. To prove this point, let us take the strange case of Prescott Bush as a useful entry point.

The patriarch of the same Bush dynasty that gave the world two disastrous American presidents (and nearly a third had Donald Trump not annihilated Jeb at the last minute in 2016) made a name for himself funding Nazism alongside his business partners Averell Harrimen and Averell’s younger brother E. Roland Harriman (the latter who was to recruit Prescott to Skull and Bones while both studying at Yale). Not only did Prescott, acting as director of Brown Brothers Harriman, provide valuable loans to keep the bankrupt Nazi party afloat during Hitler’s loss of support in 1932 when the German population voted into office the anti-Fascist General Kurt von Schleicher as Chancellor, but was even found guilty for “Trading with the enemy” as director of Union Banking Corporation in 1942!

That’s right! As demonstrated in the 1992 Unauthorized Biography of George Bush, eleven months after America entered WWII, the Federal Government naturally conducted an investigation of all Nazi banking operations in the USA and wondered why Prescott continued to direct a bank which was so deeply enmeshed with Fritz Thyssen’s Bank voor Handel en Scheepvart of the Netherlands.

Thyssen for those who are un-aware is the German industrial magnate famous for writing the book “I Paid Hitler”. The bank itself was tied to a German combine called Steel Works of the German Steel Trust which controlled 50.8% of Nazi Germany’s pig iron, 41.4% of its universal plate, 38.5% of its galvanized steel, 45.5% of its pipes and 35% of its explosives. Under Vesting Order 248, the U.S. federal government seized all of Prescott’s properties on October 22, 1942.

The U.S.-German Steel combine was only one small part of a broader operation as Rockefeller’s Standard Oil had created a new international cartel alongside IG Farben (the fourth largest company in the world) in 1929 under the Young Plan.

Owen Young was a JP Morgan asset who headed General Electric and instituted a German debt repayment plan in 1928 that gave rise to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and consolidated an international cartel of industrialists and financiers on behalf of the City of London and Wall Street. The largest of these cartels saw Henry Ford’s German operations merging with IG Farben, Dupont industries, Britain’s Shell and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil. The 1928 cartel agreement also made it possible for Standard Oil to pass off all patents and technologies for the creation of synthetic gasoline from coal to IG Farben thus allowing Germany to rise from producing merely 300 000 tons of natural petroleum in 1934 to an incredible 6.5 million tons (85% of its total) during WWII! Had this patent/technology transfer not taken place, it is a fact that the modern mechanized warfare that characterized WWII could never have occurred.

Two years before the Young Plan began, JP Morgan had already given a $100 million loan to Mussolini’s newly established fascist regime in Italy- with Democratic Party kingmaker Thomas Lamont playing the role of Prescott Bush in Wall Street’s Italian operation. It wasn’t only JP Morgan who loved Mussolini’s brand of corporate fascism, but Time Magazine’s Henry Luce unapologetically gushed over Il Duce putting Mussolini on the cover of Time eight times between 1923 and 1943 while relentlessly promoting fascism as the “economic miracle solution for America” (which he also did in his other two magazines Fortune and Life). Many desperate Americans, still traumatized from the long and painful depression begun in 1929, had increasingly embraced the poisonous idea that an American fascism would put food on the table and finally find help them find work.

A few words should be said of Brown Brothers Harriman.

Bush’s Nazi bank itself was the spawn of an earlier 1931 merger which took place between Montagu Norman’s family bank (Brown Brothers) and Harriman, Bush and Co. Montague Norman was the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, leader of the Anglo-German Fellowship Trust and controller of Germany’s Hjalmar Schacht (Reichsbank president from 1923-1930 and Minister of Economy from 1934-1937). Norman was also the primary controller of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) from its creation in 1930 throughout the entirety of WWII.

The Central Bank of Central Banks

Although the BIS was established under the Young Plan and nominally steered by Schacht as a mechanism for debt repayments from WWI, the Swiss-based “Central Bank of Central Banks” was the key mechanism for international financiers to fund the Nazi machine. The fact that the BIS was under the total control of Montagu Norman was revealed by Dutch Central Banker Johan Beyen who said “Norman’s prestige was overwhelming. As the apostle of central bank cooperation, he made the central banker into a kind of arch-priest of monetary religion. The BIS was, in fact, his creation.”

The founding members of the Board included the private central banks of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Belgium as well as a coterie of 3 private American banks (JP Morgan, First National of Chicago, and First National of New York). The three American banks merged after the war and are today known as Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase.

In its founding constitution, the BIS, its directors and staff were given immunity from all sovereign national laws and not even authorities in Switzerland were permitted to enter its premises.

This story was conveyed powerfully in the 2013 book Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World.

A Word on Eugenics

Nazi support in the build up to, and during WWII didn’t end with finance and industrial might, but extended to the governing scientific ideology of the third Reich: Eugenics (aka: the science of Social Darwinism as developed by Thomas Huxley’s X Club associate Herbert Spencer and Darwin’s cousin sir Francis Galton decades earlier).

In 1932, New York hosted the Third Eugenics Conference co-sponsored by William Draper Jr (JP Morgan banker, head of General Motors and leading figure of Dillon Read and co) and the Harriman family. This conference brought together leading eugenicists from around the world who came to study America’s successful application of eugenics laws which had begun in 1907 under the enthusiastic patronage of Theodore Roosevelt. Hiding behind the respectable veneer of “science” these high priests of science discussed the new age of “directed evolution of man” which would soon be made possible under a global scientific dictatorship.

Speaking at the conference, leading British Fascist Fairfield Osborn said that eugenics:

“aids and encourages the survival and multiplication of the fittest; indirectly, it would check and discourage the multiplication of the unfitted. As to the latter, in the United States alone, it is widely recognized that there are millions of people who are acting as dragnets or sheet anchors on the progress of the ship of state…While some highly competent people are unemployed, the mass of unemployment is among the less competent, who are first selected for suspension, while the few highly competent people are retained because they are still indispensable. In nature, these less-fitted individuals would gradually disappear, but in civilization, we are keeping them in the community in the hopes that in brighter days, they may all find employment. This is only another instance of humane civilization going directly against the order of nature and encouraging the survival of the un-fittest”.

The dark days of the great depression were good years for bigotry and ignorance as eugenics laws were applied to two Canadian provinces, and widely spread across Europe and America with 30 U.S. states applying eugenics laws to sterilize the unfit. Eugenics’ successful growth was due in large measure to the fierce financial support of the Rockefeller Foundation and the science magazine Nature which had been created in 1865 by T.H. Huxley’s X Club. The Rockefeller Foundation went onto fund German eugenics and most specifically the rising star of human improvement Joseph Mengele.

The Nazi Frankenstein Monster is Aborted

Describing his January 29, 1935 meeting with Hitler, Round Table controller Lord Lothian quoted the Fuhrer’s vision for Aryan co-direction of the New World Order saying:

“Germany, England, France, Italy, America and Scandinavia … should arrive at some agreement whereby they would prevent their nationals from assisting in the industrializing of countries such as China, and India. It is suicidal to promote the establishment in the agricultural countries of Asia of manufacturing industries”

While it is obvious that much more can be said on the topic, the Fascist machine didn’t fully behave the way the Dr. Frankensteins in London wished, as Hitler began to realize that his powerful military machine gave Germany the power to lead the New World Order rather than play second fiddle as mere enforcers on behalf of their Anglo masters in Britain. While many London and Wall Street oligarchs were willing to adapt to this new reality, a decision was made to abort the plan, and try to fight another day.

To do this a scandal was concocted to justify the abdication of pro-Nazi King Edward VIII in 1936 and an appeasing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was replaced with Winston Churchill in 1940. While Sir Winston was a life long racist, eugenicist and even Mussolini-admirer, he was first and foremost a devout British Imperialist and as such would fight tooth and nail to save the prestige of the Empire if it were threatened. Which he did.

The Fascists vs Franklin Roosevelt

Within America itself, the pro-fascist Wall Street establishment had been loosing a war that began the day anti-fascist President Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932. Not only had their attempted February 1933 assassination failed, their 1934 coup d’etat plans were also thwarted by a patriotic General named Smedley Darlington Butler. To make matters worse, their efforts to keep America out of the war in the hopes of co-leading the New World Order alongside Germany, France and Italy was also falling apart. A As I outlined in my recent article How to Crush a Bankers’ Dictatorship, between 1933-1939, FDR had imposed sweeping reforms on the banking sector, thwarted a major attempt to create a global Bankers’ dictatorship under the Bank of International Settlements, and mobilized a broad recovery under the New Deal.

By 1941, Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor polarized the American psyche so deeply that resisting America’s entry into WWII as Wall Street’s American Liberty League had been doing up until then, became political suicide. Wall Street’s corporatist organizations were called out by FDR during a powerful 1938 speech as the president reminded the Congress of the true nature of fascism:

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power… Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing. This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.”

While America’s entry into WWII proved a decisive factor in the destruction of the fascist machine, the dream shared by Franklin Roosevelt, Henry Wallace and many of FDR’s closest allies across America, Canada, Europe, China and Russia for a world governed by large-scale development, and win-win cooperation did not come to pass.

Even though FDR’s ally Harry Dexter White led in the fight to shut down the Bank of International Settlements during the July 1944 Bretton Woods conference, the passage of White’s resolutions to dissolve BIS and audit its books were never put into action. While White, who was to become the first head of the IMF, defended FDR’s program to create a new anti-imperial system of finance, Fabian Society leader, and devout eugenicist John Maynard Keynes defended the Bank and pushed instead to redefine the post-war system around a one world currency called the Bancor, controlled by the Bank of England and BIS.

The Fascist Resurgence in the Post-War World

By the end of 1945, the Truman Doctrine and Anglo-American “special relationship” replaced FDR’s anti-colonial vision, while an anti-communist witch hunt turned America into a fascist police state under FBI surveillance. Everyone friendly to Russia was targeted for destruction and the first to feel that targeting were FDR’s close allies Henry Wallace and Harry Dexter White whose 1948 death while campaigning for Wallace’s presidential bid put an end to anti-colonialists running the IMF.

In the decades after WWII, those same financiers who brought the world fascism went straight back to work infiltrating FDR’s Bretton Woods Institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, turning them from tools of development, into tools of enslavement. This process was fully exposed in the 2004 book Confessions of an Economic Hit man by John Perkins.

The European banking houses representing the old nobility of the empire continued through this reconquering of the west without punishment. By 1971, the man whom Perkins exposed as the chief economic hit man George Schultz, orchestrated the removal of the U.S. dollar from the Gold-reserve, fixed exchange rate system director of the Office of Management of Budget and in the same year, the Rothschild Inter-Alpha Group of banks was created to usher in a new age of globalization. This 1971 floating of the dollar ushered in a new paradigm of consumerism, post-industrialism, and de-regulation which transformed the once productive western nations into speculative “post-truth” basket cases convinced that casino principles, bubbles and windmills were substitutes for agro-industrial economic practices.

So here we are in 2020 celebrating victory over fascism.

The children and grandchildren of those heroes of 1945 now find themselves attached to the biggest financial collapse in history with $1.5 quadrillion of fictitious capital ripe to explode under a new global hyperinflation akin to that which destroyed Weimar in 1923, but this time global. The Bank of International Settlements that should have been dissolved in 1945 today controls the Financial Stability Board and thus regulates the world derivatives trade which has become the weapon of mass destruction that has been triggered to unleash more chaos upon the world than Hitler could have ever dreamed.

The saving grace today is that the anti-fascist spirit of Franklin Roosevelt is alive in the form of modern anti-imperialists Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and a growing array of nations united under the umbrella of the New Deal of the 21st Century which has come to be called the “Belt and Road Initiative”.

*

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

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author